MANAGEMENT OF ELECTRONIC WASTE IN THE UNITED STATES: 

APPROACH TWO 

Draft Final Report 

April 2007 

EPA530-R-07-004b
2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This Report is based on analyses prepared under contract for the Office of Solid Waste by 

Industrial Economics, Incorporated. The Office of Solid Waste would like to thank especially 

Jason Price and Cho-Yi Kwan for their assistance in developing the model upon which this 

report is based and in drafting the report. 
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1 – Introduction............................................................................................................ 4 

CHAPTER 2 – Summary of Methodology..................................................................................... 7 

Model Structure .......................................................................................................................... 7 

Data Inputs.................................................................................................................................. 9 

CHAPTER 3 – Summary of Data Inputs...................................................................................... 10 

Sales Data.................................................................................................................................. 10 

Mass Data.................................................................................................................................. 19 

Product Lifespan ....................................................................................................................... 21 

Initial Service Life ................................................................................................................ 21 

Initial Service Life Probability Distribution ......................................................................... 25 

Second Service Life Duration and Probability Distribution................................................. 28 

End-of-Life Management......................................................................................................... 30 

 End-of-Total-Life E-waste Management.................................................................................. 31 

End-of-First-Life E-waste Management................................................................................... 38 

CHAPTER 4 – Baseline E-waste Assessment Results................................................................. 42 

Retirement Estimates ................................................................................................................ 42 

Management of Retired Electronics.......................................................................................... 42 

Electronics Put Into Re-Use or Storage .................................................................................... 46 

Management of Electronics Reaching the End of Its First or Second Life .............................. 47 

APPENDIX A: Glossary of Terms............................................................................................... 53 

APPENDIX B: Estimating the Total Lifespan and Second Life of Electronic Devices ............. 55 

APPENDIX C: Estimating the Reuse and Storage of Electronic Devices ................................... 63 

APPENDIX D: Material Composition of Select Electronic Devices ........................................... 68 

APPENDIX E: Material Composition of Retired Electronics...................................................... 75 
4

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 

Although electronics represent less than two percent of the municipal solid waste stream, options 

have increased for reusing and recycling electronics in recent years. Over 800 communities have 

instituted electronics collection events to help manage obsolete electronics from households1. 

Many manufacturers of personal computers now offer take back programs on-line, at least seven 

states ban landfilling of certain electronics, and four states have programs that institute statewide recovery programs for used electronics. Many other states are looking to pass similar 

legislation this year, and many are interested in Federal action to harmonize electronics recovery 

laws. 

Recycling end-of-life (EOL) electronics, rather than disposing of them, makes use of valuable 

components and materials, thereby conserving natural resources and saving energy. EPA has 

been active in promoting the recycling and reuse of EOL electronics through various programs, 

including Plug-In To eCycling and the Federal Electronics Challenge. 

Policymakers at the Federal, state and local levels, as well as manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, 

non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and many others are interested in updated national 

estimates of how many TVs, PCs, cell phones and other common electronic products are in 

storage, recycled, or disposed. In 1999, the National Safety Council issued the first large-scale 

survey and analysis of electronic product recycling and reuse in the United States2

. However, 

since that time, consumption and disposal, as well as reuse and recycling of electronics in the US 

has continued to mount along with the need for updated data. 

The International Association of Electronics Recyclers publishes a comprehensive triennial 

report on the state of the electronics recycling industry in the US. This report surveys “all 

electronics” that are recycled by the electronics recycling industry. Its estimates of recycling 

include consumer electronics and electronic equipment from industry and manufacturers 

(including medical equipment, robotics systems, movie production equipment), and therefore do 

not highlight information specific to the products that are the subject of our analysis.

In response to stakeholder requests for detailed examination of the sales and management of the 

electronics most commonly addressed by community collection programs and state recycling 

legislation, EPA looked at this issue from two different points of view. EPA assembled two 

different data sets and used two different methodologies to estimate the amounts of commonly 

handled electronics that are stored, reused, recycled and disposed. Our results are detailed in two 

detailed reports, plus an Overview that summarizes both. 

 

1

 “817 cities and jurisdictions provide some type of electronics recycling services in the US.” Gracestone Inc. and E-Scrap News. “Public Sector 

Offering of E-Scrap Services: The Why and Why Not.” Presentation: E-Scrap Oct. 2006. 

2

 The NSC survey covered the years 1997 and 1998 and included the following electronic products: desktop computers, mainframe computers, 

workstation computers, portable computers, CRT monitors, computer peripherals, telecommunications equipment, and CRT TVs. 
5

Looking at both of the detailed reports together, it is evident that the results are quite similar. 

We believe that the dual approaches lend credibility to the range of results obtained and enable 

readers to view the results from several different and helpful angles. 

The two detailed reports comprise the entire analysis: 

o “Electronics Waste Management in the United States: Approach One.” This 

analysis relies primarily on market research data on sales of electronic products. It 

then applies these sales data to some of the most comprehensive collection 

information available to estimate product lifespans and the amounts of particular 

products that are ready for EOL management. From these EOL estimates, we 

subtract the estimated quantity recycled to yield the quantity disposed. This approach 

also provides information on the export of CRT monitors and TVs, as well as the 

amount of selected electronics cumulatively in storage. 

o “Electronics Waste Management in the United States: Approach Two.” Approach 

Two relies primarily on government statistics on sales of electronic products. It then 

uses the same lifespan data (with some modifications) as Approach One to estimate 

EOL quantities. From these EOL estimates, we subtract the quantity of selected 

electronics disposed to yield the quantity recycled. This approach also provides 

information on the composition of electronic products, as well as the number of select 

electronic devices entering storage/reuse annually. 

The report that follows is Electronics Waste Management in the United States: Approach Two.” 

Readers should consider that the information presented in both Approach One and Approach 

Two provides a “snapshot” of electronics waste generation and management in the United States 

in recent years. As products, usage patterns and EOL management options change over time, 

purchase, storage, and end-of-life disposition patterns will also change. 

The scope of this report includes the following electronic products: 

• Televisions, 

• Personal computers (desktops, laptops, and computer monitors), 

• Printers3

• Computer mice 

• Keyboards 

• Cell phones. 

 

3

 Approach One includes hard-copy peripherals, which is comprised of printers, scanners, and fax machines while Approach Two only includes 

printers. 
6

The purpose of this report is to present EPA’s baseline assessment, using the methodology 

outlined in this report, on e-waste generation and management in the U.S. We present this 

information in the following chapters: 

• Summary of Methodology. In this chapter, we describe the methodology that we 

developed for estimating the amount of e-waste generated in the U.S. each year and for 

assessing how this waste is managed. 

• Summary of Data Inputs. Following the discussion of our methodology, we summarize 

the main data sources and assumptions used to implement this methodology. 

• Baseline E-waste Assessment Results. In the final chapter of this document, we present 

and discuss the results of our analysis. 

Exhibit 1-1 summarizes the results of our analysis, averaged over the 2003-2005 period. As 

indicated by the exhibit, CRT televisions and monitors made up nearly two-thirds of the subset 

of e-waste analyzed in the report in the U.S. between 2003 and 2005. Thus, these electronic 

products will continue to be an important part of the U.S. e-waste stream for years to come 

despite the ongoing shift to flat-screen televisions and monitors. The results in Exhibit 1-1 also 

indicate that the vast majority of U.S. e-waste is deposited in landfills, while approximately 20 

percent is recycled. By comparison, EPA estimates that approximately 32 percent of the 

municipal solid waste generated in the U.S. in 2005 was recycled.4 We present a more detailed 

accounting of our results in Chapter 4 below. 

 

4

 Estimate includes composting. U.S. EPA, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2005 Facts and Figures, October 2006. 
7

EXHIBIT 1-1 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL E-WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT: 

2003-2005 (THOUSANDS OF TONS) 1 

PRODUCT MANAGEMENT METHOD 

RECYCLED2 LANDFILLED INCINERATED TOTAL 

Desktop Computers 65.7 180.9 5.1 251.7 

Laptop Computers 7.0 19.3 0.5 26.8 

CRT Monitors 97.5 291.6 8.3 397.4 

LCD Monitors 0.6 1.8 0.0 2.4 

Televisions 112.5 709.1 20.2 841.7 

CRT Televisions 98.5 620.7 17.7 736.9 

Projection TVs 14.0 88.3 2.5 104.8 

Cell Phones 1.9 7.9 0.2 10.0 

Printers 62.0 170.6 4.8 237.5 

Keyboards 14.1 38.6 1.1 53.8 

Computer Mice 0.9 2.4 0.1 3.4 

All Products 362.2 1422.1 40.4 1,824.8 

Notes: 

1. The results presented in this exhibit represent average annual tonnages for the 2003-

2005 period. 

2. As described in the main body of this report, the recycling estimates in this report 

include amounts exported; however, insufficient data are available to distinguish 

between recycled and exported waste. 

CHAPTER 2 – SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY 

To assess the baseline generation and management of electronic waste in the U.S, we developed 

a waste flow model that tracks e-waste generation and management over time for the electronic 

products listed in Chapter 1. Based on several data inputs, the model estimates the number and 

total mass of electronic products that enter the U.S. waste stream each year and apportions this 

waste across various management options (e.g., recycling, landfill disposal, and incineration). 

This chapter provides an overview of the methodology reflected in the model and summarizes 

the data inputs necessary to implement this methodology. 

MODEL STRUCTURE 

The waste flow model developed for this baseline assessment simulates the generation and 

management of electronic waste based on a series of sequential calculations, as outlined in 

Exhibit 2-1. First, based on sales (in units) and per unit mass information, the model calculates 
8

annual tonnages sold for each product. Following each cohort of products (e.g., laptop 

computers sold in 1995) through time, the model then allocates a portion of each cohort to 

storage/re-use when it reaches the end of its first life (i.e., when the original owner of a product 

stops using it), allowing some products to move on to a second life. The model simulates the 

EOL management of the remainder, allocating the waste to landfills, incinerators, or recycling. 

For products moving onto a second life5

 (i.e., products stored or re-used at the end of their first 

life), the model follows a similar procedure, allocating these items to each management option. 

For any given year, the waste flow model estimates total retirements (by management method) 

by summing devices reaching the end of their first life that year and devices reaching the end of 

their second life. 

EXHIBIT 2-1. WASTE FLOW MODEL DESIGN 

 

5

 A product’s second life could include multiple users and stages of use. 

Sales 

Mass 

Mass Sold

End of First Life

Length of First 

Life Span 

Second Life

Amount Landfilled/Recycled/

Incinerated 

After First Life 

End-of-Life Retirement

Length of Second

Life Span 

Total Retirement

% Landfilled 

% Recycled 

% Exported 

% Stored/Reused 

% Landfilled % Recycled % Exported 

% Incinerated 

% Incinerated 

Amount Landfilled/Recycled/

Incinerated 

at End-of-Life 
9

DATA INPUTS 

As suggested by the schematic presented in Exhibit 2-1, the waste flow model requires several 

data inputs to assess the generation and management of electronic waste in the United States for 

any given year. These inputs include: sales, product mass, the initial service life of each product, 

the second service life of each product, probability distributions for any first and second service 

lives expressed as a range, and EOL management allocation weights.6 We describe each of these 

inputs below: 

• Sales: A key input for the model is the annual sales (in units) for each electronics product. 

• Mass: To estimate the tonnage of electronic products sold and retired, the model requires 

per unit mass estimates for each product. Since products produced in more recent years 

may have a different per unit mass than products sold in earlier years, the model requires 

product-specific mass estimates by year (e.g., for desktop computers sold in 1998). 

• First Service Life: The first service life of a device is the length of time the electronic 

product is used by its original or initial owner. The model uses this information to estimate 

the volume of electronics reaching the end of their first life each year. To reflect the 

uncertainty associated with each product’s initial service life, the model allows users to 

enter this input as a range. For example, if desktops sold in 1990 have an average initial 

service life of two to four years, users can enter two years as the low end of the initial 

service life range and four years as the high end. 

• First Service Life Probability Distribution: For first service life estimates expressed as a 

range, the model requires users to specify a service life probability distribution. For 

example, if desktops sold in 1990 have an average initial lifespan of two to four years, 

model users can specify that 25 percent of desktops will be retired by their original users 

after two years of use, 50 percent in the third year, and the remaining 25 percent in the 

fourth year. 

• Second Service Life: Similar to the first service life, the model requires information on the 

duration of the second service life of each electronics product. We define second service 

life as the length of time over which a product is reused or kept in storage after its first life. 

• Second Service Life Probability Distribution: The model requires a probability 

distribution for each second service life estimate expressed as a range. 

• Management Allocation Weights: The model requires users to specify how devices at the 

end of their first life are allocated across the following management options: recycling, 

landfilling, incineration, and re-use/storage. Similarly, the model requires users to indicate 

how devices reaching the end of their second life are allocated across the following 

management options: landfilling, recycling, and incineration.7

 

6

 For any product, an allocation weight is the percentage of units at the end of their first or second life that the waste flow model apportions to a 

specific management method (e.g., incineration). 

7

 Re-use/storage is not a management option at the end of a product’s second service life. 
10

CHAPTER 3 – SUMMARY OF DATA INPUTS 

As explained in the previous chapter, the baseline e-waste assessment presented in this document 

is based on a data-intensive waste flow model that tracks e-waste generation and management 

over time. This chapter summarizes the various information sources and assumptions supporting 

the development of the model’s inputs, which include product sales, product mass, first service 

life durations and probability distributions, second service life durations and probability 

distributions, and management method allocation weights.8 

SALES DATA 

As part of our effort to estimate the total volume of e-waste generated in the U.S., we collected 

data on electronics sales (in units) from 1975 through 2004 based on publicly available data from 

sources such as INFORM and the U.S. Census Bureau, and on limited data made publicly 

available by the market research firms Gartner and DisplaySearch.9 Exhibit 3-1 summarizes the 

relevant data available from these sources. 

EXHIBIT 3-1. SOURCES OF ELECTRONICS SALES DATA 

SOURCE REPORT(S) AND DATA AVAILABLE 

U.S. Census 

Bureau 

• Current Industrial Report series, “Computers and Office and Accounting Machines”

(annually): Domestic shipments, imports, and exports (units) of desktops, laptops, monitors, 

keyboards and printers. 

• Current Industrial Report series “Consumer Electronics” (annually): Domestic shipments, 

imports, and exports (units) of CRT televisions and projection televisions. 

INFORM 

• Waste in the Wireless World: The Challenge of Cell Phones: Presents and cites Gartner data 

published in 2000 on U.S. cell phone sales (units) from 1995 through 2000, as well as forecasted 

sales for 2001 through 2004. 

Gartner • Periodic Press Releases: Aggregate PC shipments to U.S. retailers (in units) and global cell 

phone unit sales. 

DisplaySearch • Periodic Press Releases: Global (and, in some cases, North American) LCD monitor sales. 

 

8

 As part of EPA’s effort to characterize e-waste generated in the U.S., we also collected information on the material composition of electronic 

products. Appendix D summarizes the composition of televisions, desktops, laptops, monitors, cell phones, and computer peripherals. We were 

unable to locate information on the composition of printers, mouse devices, and projection televisions. We note that the material composition 

information available for these products does not in all cases account for 100 percent of the materials contained in these products. 

9

 Our sales estimates for some products do not go as far back as 1975. Some of the products included in this analysis were not yet on the market in 

1975 (e.g., cell phones), and for other products, the available data do not extend as far back as 1975. 
11

Exhibit 3-2 presents our estimates of electronics sales for the 1975-2004 period. These estimates 

suggest that sales of personal computers (laptops and desktops) have been growing steadily since 

1978, although desktop sales fell by nearly 14 percent during the economic slowdown of 2001. 

Our sales estimates also suggest that sales of CRT monitors have been declining since hitting a 

high of 40 million units in 1999, in all likelihood because of consumer substitution to LCD 

monitors. In contrast, as of 2004, sales of CRT televisions were increasing, which may reflect 

relatively high prices at the time for substitutes, such as LCD and plasma televisions. Our sales 

estimates also show that cell phone sales increased dramatically in the late 1990s. 

We discuss the available sales data for each product in further detail below. 

DESKTOP COMPUTERS 

To estimate 1978 through 2004 desktop sales (excluding “white boxes,” or computers manufactured 

by parties other than a branded manufacturer), we used the U.S. Census Bureau’s “Computers and 

Office and Accounting Machines” Current Industrial Report (CIR) series, which contains salesrelated data for brand name desktop computers. 10,11 The CIR series includes separate data for 

domestic shipments (i.e., domestic production), exports, and imports. Therefore, we estimate 

sales as the sum of domestic shipments and imports minus exports. For those years in which no 

CIR data were available, we generate sales estimates by interpolating between the years where 

data were available. 

Due to various limitations in the CIR data, we made several assumptions to ensure that our sales 

estimates are methodologically consistent over the entire 1978-2004 period. For example, 

between 1978 and 1989, the CIR series includes four categories of computers: general-purpose 

digital computers, general-purpose analog and hybrid computers, special-purpose digital 

computers, and special-purpose analog and hybrid computers. We use the CIR data for generalpurpose digital computers as a proxy for non-white-box desktop computer data for these years 

because later CIRs indicate that desktop computers are reflected only in the general-purpose 

digital computers category.12 In addition, from 1989 through 2004, the CIR series does not 

always provide the same level of product detail for imports and exports as it does for domestic 

shipments. As a result, to estimate sales for these years, we assume that the composition of 

desktop exports and imports reflects the composition of domestic shipments. For example, 

although the CIR series reports domestic shipments of desktop and laptop computers separately, 

it combines the two in the same category for imports and exports. Therefore, we assume that 

 

10 The domestic shipment data reported in the CIR for 1977 are drastically lower than subsequent years and appear to be inconsistent with the 

numbers reported for later years. As a result, we limit our estimates to desktops sold from no earlier than 1978. 

11 White boxes are customized, non-branded computers that retailers assemble themselves from individual computer components. 

12 Laptops may also be reflected in this category. However, because laptops were a relatively new technology in the late 1980s, we assume that a 

negligible number of laptops are reflected in the CIR general-purpose computers category. In addition, large-scale processing computers may also 

be reflected in the CIR general-purpose digital computer data between 1978 and 1991. To the extent that such units were sold during this period, 

we may overestimate non-white-box desktop sales for these years. 
12

desktops’ share of the combined desktop and laptop category for imports and exports is the same 

as its share of domestic shipments. 

WHITE BOX DESKTOP COMPUTERS 

We used data from the Census CIR series to estimate sales of non-white-box desktop computers 

and laptops. To estimate white box sales, we employed data on the number of computers in use 

and the number of non-white box units sold on an annual basis. 

To estimate white box sales for 1990 and earlier years, we used publicly available data reported 

by the market research firm eTForecasts on the number of computers in use in 1980, 1985, and 

1990, and our estimates of brand-name (i.e., non-white-box) desktop sales during this period. 

Assuming that computers sold in the 1980s had a lifespan of four years, we used our estimates of 

brand name computer sales to estimate the number of brand name desktops in use annually.13 

For example, we estimate brand-name computer use in 1990 as the sum of sales from 1987 

through 1990. We then estimate white box computer use for 1990 by calculating the difference 

between the total number of desktops in use, as reported by eTForecasts, and our estimate of the 

number of brand-name computers in use. Continuing with our 1990 example, the difference 

between our estimate for brand-name desktop use in 1990 and eTForecasts’ use estimate for all 

desktops represents the estimated use of white box computers in 1990. To estimate white box 

computer sales for 1990, we assume that the ratio of white box computer sales to total computer 

sales in 1990 is the same as the ratio of white box computer use to total computer use. We 

followed a similar procedure for 1985, using eTForecasts' estimate of computer use in 1985 and 

our estimates of 1982-1985 brand-name desktop sales. The results of our analysis suggest that a 

negligible number of white box units were sold in 1985 or earlier. To estimate white box sales 

for 1986 through 1989, we followed a two-step process. First, we estimated the white box 

market share for these years by assuming that the white boxes' share of the desktop market grew 

linearly between the market share we estimated for 1985 (0 percent) and 1990 (28.1 percent). 

We then applied these values to our estimates of brand-name desktop sales for these years to 

generate white box sales estimates.14

To estimate white box sales between 1997 and 2004, we used publicly available data from 

Gartner press releases on the size of the overall PC market (non-white-box desktops, laptops, 

white box systems, and in some cases servers) and the non-white-box desktop and laptop sales 

estimates were derived from the Census CIR data. Using these data, we estimate white box sales as 

follows: 

 

13 This four-year estimate represents the high end of our estimate of a computer's first life, as indicated in Exhibit 3-5 below. Because computers 

were not as widely used in the 1970s and 1980s as in the 1990s, we assume that the high end of the lifespan range is more appropriate for use in 

estimating pre-1990 white box sales. 

14 More specifically, if M equals the white boxes share of the desktop market and B equals the brand-name desktop sales, we estimated white box 

sales as M x B/(1-M). 
13

Ws = PCs – Ss – Ds – Ls 

 where, Ws=White box sales 

PCs= Total PC shipments (non-white-box desktop computers, servers, white box desktop 

computers, and laptops) 

Ss= Server shipments 

 Ds= Non-white-box desktop sales 

 Ls= Laptop sales 

Gartner’s press releases provide estimates of annual PC sales from 1997 through 2004 and 

annual server sales for 2000 through 2002. These data suggest that servers, on average, 

accounted for approximately 3.8 percent of the PC market between 2000 and 2002. To estimate 

server sales for other years, we assume that this percentage applies to any year for which the 

Gartner PC sales data include servers.15 Using these data in conjunction with our estimates of 

non-white-box desktop and laptop sales, we estimate that white boxes made up 36.6 percent of 

the PC market in 1997 and 22.6 percent of the market in 2004. 

For 1991 through 1996, we were unable to identify data on white box sales or the white box 

share of the desktop market. Therefore, to estimate white box sales for this period, we assumed 

the same interpolation approach outlined above for 1986 through 1989. 

LAPTOP COMPUTERS 

Similar to our analysis of desktop computer sales, we derive our estimates of domestic laptop 

sales from the U.S. Census Bureau’s “Computers and Office and Accounting Machines” CIR 

series. Inadequate data are available from the CIR series to estimate laptop sales prior to 1993; 

therefore, we do not present estimates of laptop sales for those years. For 1997-1998 and 2000-

2004, our basic approach for estimating domestic laptop sales is similar to our approach for 

desktops in that we estimate U.S. laptop sales as domestic shipments plus imports less exports.16 

To estimate laptop sales in 1999, we interpolate between the CIR data for 1998 and 2000.17 For 

1994 though 1996, the CIR series combines domestic laptop shipments with other devices with 

attached displays in a category called “Portable Computers.” Therefore, we do not use the CIR 

data to estimate laptop sales for these years. Publicly available data from Gartner, however, 

 

15 Gartner’s PC sales data reflect server sales for every year, except for 1997 and 1998. 

16 To estimate imports and exports of laptops for these years, we assume that the composition of computer exports and imports is the same as the 

composition of domestic shipments (i.e., if laptops represent 0.17 percent of total domestic computer shipments in 2004, then we assume laptops 

represent 0.17 percent of computer imports and exports in 2004). 

17 To estimate total laptop sales for 1999, we calculated the laptops’ share of the personal computer market in 1999 based on 1998 and 2000 data, 

and apply the percentage to the 1999 total computer sales. 
14

indicates that global laptop sales increased by 57.7 percent between 1995 and 1998.18 Based on 

this estimate and our CIR-derived estimate of U.S. laptop sales in 1998, we were able to estimate 

U.S. laptop sales in 1995. To estimate 1996 sales, we interpolated between our 1995 sales 

estimate and our CIR-based estimate for 1997, applying the same methodology used to estimate 

1999 sales. To estimate sales in 1994, we assumed that the CIR growth rate for “Portable 

Computer” sales (i.e., sales of laptops and other devices with attached displays combined) 

between 1994 and 1995 was the same as the growth rate in laptop sales. Based on this growth 

rate and our sales estimate for 1995, we projected backwards in time to estimate sales in 1994. 

CRT MONITORS 

To estimate annual sales of CRT-monitors, we relied on domestic shipment, import, and export 

data available from the U.S. Census Bureau’s CIR “Computer and Office and Accounting 

Equipment” series, and the information described above for desktop computer sales. More 

specifically, for 1989-2004, we used the CIR data to estimate CRT sales by estimating total 

shipments less exports plus imports.19,20 For 1978 through 1988, insufficient information is 

available to estimate CRT monitor sales. As a result, we assume that the growth rate in monitor 

sales for this period is the same as the growth rate in desktop sales. 

LCD MONITORS 

We estimate U.S. sales of LCD monitors based on data released by the market research firm 

DisplaySearch. Between 1998 and 2004, DisplaySearch issued quarterly press releases on the 

global LCD market that in many cases included estimates of North American LCD monitor 

sales. Based on these data, we developed a time series of North American LCD sales for the 

entire 1998-2004 period. Although the DisplaySearch press releases do not report North 

American LCD sales for each quarter of the 1998-2004 period, we generated sales estimates in 

such cases through interpolation of the DisplaySearch data for other quarters. To estimate U.S. 

LCD monitor sales from these North American sales estimates, we assume that the ratio of U.S. 

to North American LCD monitor sales is the same as the ratio of U.S. to North American GDP.21

 

18 Gartner, Inc. as cited in cnn.com, "Mobile workforce strains IT staff," January 18, 1999, 

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9901/18/roadwarriors.ent.idg/ 

19 For 1989 through 1991, the CIR series includes all monitors in a single category, “Monitor-like or graphic displays, excluding graphic terminals.” 

Because other monitor technologies were not highly developed in the early 1990s, we assume that all monitors reflected in the 1989 through 1991 

CIRs are CRT monitors. 

20 The CIR series distinguishes between CRT and other monitors from 1992 through 2004, but reports sufficient data to estimate sales only for 1992-

93 and 1997-2004. To estimate CRT monitor sales for 1994 through 1996, we interpolated from the 1993 and 1997 estimates we derived from the 

CIR data. In addition, the CIR series contains CRT monitor import and export data for 2003, but lacks complete information on shipments from 

domestic manufacturers for this year. To estimate 2003 sales, we used the CIR import and export data for 2003 and the average of the CIR 

domestic shipment estimates for 2002 and 2004. 

21 Consistent with DisplaySearch, we define North America as the U.S. and Canada for the purposes of this analysis. 
EXHIBIT 3-2. VOLUME OF ELECTRONICS SOLD: 1975-2004 (MILLIONS OF UNITS) 

YEAR 

TOTAL 

DESKTOPS 

NON-WHITE 

BOXES 

WHITEBOXES LAPTOPS CRT MONITORS LCD MONITORS TOTAL TVS CRT TVS PROJECTION TVS CELL PHONES PRINTERS KEY- BOARDS COMPUTER MICE 

1975 N.E. N.E. N.E. N.E. N.E. N.E. 11.5 11.5 N.E. N.E. N.E. N.E. N.E. 1976 N.E. N.E. N.E. N.E. N.E. N.E. 14.4 14.4 N.E. N.E. N.E. N.E. N.E. 1977 N.E. N.E. N.E. N.E. N.E. N.E. 14.7 14.7 N.E. N.E. N.E. N.E. N.E. 1978 0.7 0.7 N.E. N.E. 0.6 N.E. 17.4 17.4 N.E. N.E. 1.2 N.E. N.E. 1979 1.1 1.1 N.E. N.E. 0.9 N.E. 16.2 16.2 N.E. N.E. 1.7 N.E. N.E. 1980 1.5 1.5 N.E. N.E. 1.2 N.E. 16.8 16.8 N.E. N.E. 1.8 N.E. N.E. 1981 1.9 1.9 N.E. N.E. 1.5 N.E. 18.2 18.2 N.E. N.E. 2.8 N.E. N.E. 1982 3.5 3.5 N.E. N.E. 2.8 N.E. 17.4 17.4 N.E. N.E. 3.2 N.E. N.E. 1983 5.5 5.5 N.E. N.E. 4.4 N.E. 21.3 21.3 N.E. N.E. 4.7 N.E. N.E. 1984 8.2 8.2 N.E. N.E. 6.5 N.E. 24.2 24.2 N.E. N.E. 5.8 N.E. N.E. 1985 7.0 7.0 N.E. N.E. 5.6 N.E. 28.1 28.1 N.E. N.E. 4.6 N.E. N.E. 1986 7.8 7.4 0.4 N.E. 6.2 N.E. 27.7 27.7 N.E. N.E. 5.5 15.5 1.1 1987 9.8 8.7 1.1 N.E. 7.8 N.E. 27.7 27.7 N.E. N.E. 6.8 19.4 3.4 1988 10.4 8.7 1.8 N.E. 8.3 N.E. 22.9 22.4 0.6 N.E. 7.8 20.7 5.7 1989 11.8 9.2 2.7 N.E. 9.4 N.E. 25.6 24.9 0.7 N.E. 10.7 23.4 8.0 1990 14.4 10.4 4.1 N.E. 10.3 N.E. 23.2 22.5 0.7 N.E. 9.6 28.6 10.4 1991 16.7 11.8 4.9 N.E. 12.0 N.E. 21.4 20.6 0.7 N.E. 9.8 33.1 11.8 1992 18.0 12.5 5.5 N.E. 13.4 N.E. 28.1 27.3 0.8 N.E. 12.6 35.8 12.5 1993 19.4 13.3 6.2 N.E. 17.3 N.E. 27.9 27.1 0.9 N.E. 16.4 38.6 13.3 1994 20.9 14.0 6.9 1.4 20.3 N.E. 26.6 25.4 1.3 N.E. 22.4 41.4 14.0 1995 23.2 15.3 7.9 1.9 23.3 N.E. 25.3 23.6 1.7 14.5 28.5 47.6 15.3 1996 22.9 14.8 8.1 2.0 26.3 N.E. 31.1 28.7 2.4 16.6 34.5 53.8 14.8 1997 27.7 17.5 10.1 2.7 29.2 N.E. 34.1 31.4 2.7 22.2 26.2 55.6 17.5 1998 33.1 18.0 15.1 2.9 35.1 0.2 35.9 32.9 3.0 30.6 31.9 65.0 18.0 1999 37.8 27.7 10.1 5.3 40.0 0.8 37.6 34.7 2.9 49.3 43.4 63.7 27.7 2000 40.9 30.1 10.8 6.6 37.5 1.4 37.4 33.2 4.2 71.2 46.4 60.6 30.1 
16

YEAR 

TOTAL 

DESKTOPS 

NON-WHITE 

BOXES 

WHITEBOXES LAPTOPS CRT MONITORS LCD MONITORS TOTAL TVS CRT TVS PROJECTION TVS CELL PHONES PRINTERS KEY- BOARDS COMPUTER MICE 

2001 35.2 26.0 9.3 6.9 27.2 4.4 32.1 28.4 3.7 68.9 43.1 57.5 26.0 2002 40.8 29.4 11.4 8.6 24.3 10.6 38.3 33.4 4.9 74.4 43.4 54.4 29.4 2003 44.6 34.4 10.3 10.9 16.4 14.9 36.8 31.1 5.7 89.6 50.9 51.3 34.4 2004 47.5 36.8 10.7 12.4 15.9 21.1 46.9 38.4 8.6 116.2 63.6 47.2 36.8 Notes: 

1. N.E. denotes that sales were not estimated. 2. Totals may not match due to rounding. 
 

CRT-BASED AND PROJECTION TELEVISIONS 

To estimate annual sales of televisions between 1975 and 2004, we used shipment, import, and 

export data from the CIR “Consumer Electronics” series. The CIR series reports separate 

domestic shipment estimates for CRT-based televisions and projection televisions, but combines 

these categories in its reporting of television exports and imports. To address this issue, we 

assume that the composition of television exports and imports is the same as the composition of 

television shipments (e.g., if projection televisions represent 13 percent of shipments in 2002, we 

assume that projection televisions also represent 13 percent of projection television exports and 

imports in 2002). 

Due to limitations in the CIR television data, we made several assumptions in deriving our 

television sales estimates from these data. First, for 1975 through 1987, the CIR series reports 

only “Table and portable models,” and “Console and consolette models.” We assume that both of 

these categories represent CRT-based televisions. Second, for 1988 through 1990, the CIR series 

separates televisions into “Table and portable models,” “High definition television (HDTV),” 

and “Projection televisions.” To make our pre-1990 CRT television sales estimates consistent 

with our estimates for later years (i.e., post-1990), we consider all “Table and portable models” 

to be CRT-based televisions, all “Projection televisions” to be projection televisions, and we 

distribute high-definition televisions proportionately across the table and portable models and 

projection televisions (i.e., if table and portable models represent 97 percent of total table and 

portable models, and projection televisions in 1990, then we assume 97 percent of high definition 

televisions in 1990 are table and portable models). Lastly, we estimated 1994 sales by 

interpolating between our estimates for 1993 and 1995 because the CIR series does not contain 

sufficient data on 1994 sales.22

COMPUTER PERIPHERALS (PRINTERS, KEYBOARDS, AND MICE) 

The CIR “Computer and Office and Accounting Equipment” series contains limited sales-related 

data for a number of peripheral products, including printers, keyboards, and computer mice.23 

For printers, the CIR series presents no import/export data prior to 1978, and no domestic 

shipment data prior to 1976; therefore, we limit our analysis of printers to units sold no earlier 

than 1978. Due to limitations in the CIR printer data for the 1978-2004 period, we use several 

approaches to generate printer sales estimates for these years. For example, because the CIR 

series contains no import data for printers between 1978 and 1985, we used the ratio of printer 

imports to total domestic shipments of printers in 1986 and apply this ratio to the 1978-1985 CIR 

printer shipment data to estimate printer sales for these years. In addition, the CIR import and 

 

22 Although the CIR series contains shipment, import, and export figures for televisions in 1994, the import estimate for this year (1.9 million units) 

is significantly less than the 16.3 million units and 13.2 million units imported in 1993 and 1995 respectively. Because of the magnitude of this 

discrepancy, we suspect that the 1994 import estimate in the CIR series is incorrect. 

23 The Consumer Electronics Association also has printer sales estimates as far back as 1981. Because the CEA data are proprietary and cannot be 

released to the public by EPA, we do not use the CEA estimates in this analysis. 
18

export data for 1989 through 1991 combine printers and plotters into a single category. To 

estimate imports and exports of printers, excluding plotters, we multiply the CIR import and 

export estimates for printers/plotters by the ratio of domestic printer shipments to total domestic 

printer and plotter shipments. 

The CIR series provides very limited information on keyboard sales. Sufficient data to estimate 

keyboard sales are available from CIR only for the years 1994, 1996 through 1999, 2003, and 

2004. To estimate 1995 sales, we interpolate between our estimates for1994 and 1996. 

Similarly, we interpolate from 1999 and 2003 sales to estimate sales for 2000-2002. In the 

absence of better data for keyboard sales, we estimate pre-1994 keyboard sales by assuming that 

the growth rate for keyboard sales is the same as the growth rate for total desktop sales during 

this period. We expand our estimates only back to 1986 because estimates for earlier years are 

not necessary to generate complete keyboard retirement estimates for 2003 through 2005 (i.e., 

the years for which we assess e-waste generation and management in Chapter 4). 

The CIR series contains even less information for computer mice, reporting U.S. shipments only 

for 1997 and 1998. In the absence of better data for mouse sales, we use non-white-box desktop 

sales as a lower-bound proxy for mouse sales between 1990 and 2004.24 For computer mice 

sales prior to 1990, we do not use non-white-box computer sales as a proxy because many 

computers sold during this period were not equipped with a mouse. Instead, we assume that 

mice sales were approximately the same as Apple MacIntosh sales in the mid-1980s and grew 

steadily through the rest of the decade as other computer makers began releasing computers with 

graphical user interface (GUI) operating systems (e.g., AMIGA).25 Although we did not identify 

estimates of MacIntosh sales during the 1980s, an article published by Time magazine indicates 

that Apple had a 14.6 percent share of the U.S. personal computer market in 1986.26 Based on 

this information and our estimate of desktop sales in 1986, we estimate mouse sales of 1.1 

million units for 1986. To estimate 1987 to 1989 mouse sales, we interpolated between this 

estimate and our 1990 estimate. 

CELL PHONES 

The INFORM report “Waste in the Wireless World: The Challenge of Cell Phones” presents 

estimates of U.S. cell phone sales for 1995 through 1999 developed by Gartner. Unlike the data 

available from the Census Bureau’s CIR series, these data represent sales, rather than domestic 

 

24 The extent to which mouse sales exceed non-white-box sales is uncertain, but we believe non-white-box desktop sales represent a reasonable 

lower bound estimate because mice are packaged with most brand name computer systems. 

25 Our research suggests that the first commercially viable computer that required a mouse was the Apple MacIntosh released in the mid-1980s. 

(Sources: “OK, Mac, Make a Wish,” Newsweek, February 4, 2004, 143(6): 41; “Apple Turnover,” Time, October 2, 1995, 146(14): 56.); Mice did 

not become necessary on Microsoft-based systems until 1990 when Windows 3.0 was introduced, and companies began to adopt it as their main 

operating system. 

26 “If you can’t beat them...,” Time, August 18, 1997, 150(7): 35-7. 
19

shipments, exports, or imports. Therefore, we directly use the INFORM data for 1995-1999 cell 

phone sales. 

To estimate cell phone sales for 2000 through 2004, we rely on a series of press releases issued 

by Gartner between 2001 and 2005. One of these releases issued in March of 2001 indicates that 

Gartner projected 2001 North American cell phone sales of “90.1 million units, an 18 percent 

decline over 2000.”27 Based on this information, we estimated North American cell phone sales 

of 76.4 million units in 2000 (90.1 million/1.18= 76.4 million). To estimate U.S. sales in 2000, 

we assume that the ratio of U.S. to North American cell phone sales is the same as the ratio of 

U.S. to North American GDP. For 2001 through 2004, Gartner’s press releases report global cell 

phone sales, but provide no information on North America’s share of the global cell phone 

market. To estimate U.S. cell phone sales for these years, we assume that the growth rate of the 

U.S. cell phone market between 2000 and 2004 mirrored that of the global cell phone market, 

applying the global growth rate implied by the Gartner data to our estimate of U.S. cell phone 

sales in 2000. 

MASS DATA 

In addition to sales data, we collected information on the average mass of each of the electronic 

products included in this analysis. Together with the sales estimates presented above, this 

information allows the waste flow model to estimate the total mass of electronics sold by 

product. Exhibit 3-3 summarizes the product mass estimates we developed for the analysis. We 

derived these estimates based on data contained in publications from the Northeast Recycling 

Council (NERC), the National Safety Council (NSC), the Cascadia Consulting Group, PCWorld, 

EnviroSIS, RIS International, and ICF Consulting, as well as electronics collection data 

compiled by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FLDEP) as part of its 2004-

2005 electronics sorting study. 

 

27 Gartner, Inc. “Gartner Dataquest Says Worldwide Mobile Phone Sales to Surpass a Half Billion Units in 2001,” press release March 20, 2001. 
20

EXHIBIT 3-3. PRODUCT MASS ESTIMATES*

PRODUCT YEAR SOLD AVERAGE UNIT MASS (LBS.) 

1975-1989a 22.0 

Desktop Computers 1990-2005b

 26.8 

1990-2000c 12.1 

2001d 10.6 

2002 d 9.1 

2003-2004e 7.7 

Laptop Computers 

2005f

 6.1 

1975-1989a 29.8 

CRT Monitors 

1990-2005g

 34.3 

LCD Monitors 1990-2005h 12.7 

1975-1989a 3.0 

Keyboards 1990-2005i

 2.2 

Computer Mice 1975-2005j 0.3 

1975-1989a 18.0 

Desktop Computer Printers 1990-2005k

 18.7 

Projection Televisions 1975-2005l 149.1 

1975-1979a 55.9 

1980-1989 a CRT Televisions 59.6 

1990-2005a

 63.4 

1990-1993m 0.66 

1994-1996n 0.57 

1997-1999m 0.49 

Cell Phones 

2000-2005o

 0.30 
21

PRODUCT YEAR SOLD AVERAGE UNIT MASS (LBS.) 

Note:

*

 Although most of these sources provide estimates of the average mass of specific products, the source we used from the Florida

DEP presents the total number and mass of each device collected as part of its 2004-2005 electronics sorting study (e.g., 64 

laptops with a total mass of 911 pounds). Therefore, in those cases where we incorporate the Florida data into our average mass 

calculations, we use the average mass per unit of each collected device (i.e., total mass collected divided by total number 

collected). Florida DEP, Florida Electronic Product Brand Distribution Project, 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/electronics/pages/ FloridaElectronicProductBrandDistributionProject.htm. 

Sources: 

a. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FLDEP), Florida Electronic Product Brand Distribution Project, 2004-2005. 

(Data accessed on 19 December 2005.) 

b. Average of mass values presented in Minnesota Office of Env. Assistance, “Brand and vintage analysis research project: 2004,” 

Aug 2004; Cascadia Consulting Group, “E-Waste Generation in NW Washington,” 11/21/03; Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. 

(NERC), “Used Electronics Market Study Survey Analysis,” August 2003; NSC, “Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling 

Baseline Report,” May 1999; FLDEP data, as of 9/20/2005. 

c. Average of mass values presented in National Safety Council (NSC), op. cit.; FLDEP data, as of 9/20/2005. 

d. Interpolated from 2000 and 2003-2004 estimates. 

e. Average of mass values presented in Cascadia Consulting Group, op. cit.; Minnesota Office of Env. Assistance, op. cit.; NERC, 

op. cit.

f. “A Walk on the Wide Side,” PCWorld, May 2005. 

g. Average of mass values presented in Caplan, Richard A., “Expanding and Developing Markets for Used and End-of-Life 

Electronics,” Spring 2002; Cascadia Consulting Group, op. cit.; U.S. EPA, Desktop Computer Displays: A Life-Cycle Assessment, 

EPA-744-R-01-004a, December 2001; Franklin Associates, “Energy and Greenhouse Gas Factors for Personal Computers,” 2002; 

Minnesota Office of Env. Assistance, op. cit.; NERC, op. cit.; NSC, op. cit.; FLDEP data, as of 9/20/2005. 

h. Average of mass values presented in Cascadia Consulting Group, op. cit.; U.S. EPA, op. cit.; RIS International, Ltd., 

Information Technology (IT) and Telecommunications (Telecom) Waste in Canada - 2003 Update, October 16, 2003. 

i. Average of mass values presented in Minnesota Office of Env. Assistance, op. cit.; NERC, op. cit.; FLDEP data, as of 9/20/2005; 

PHA Consulting Associates, Electronic Waste Recovery Study, 1 October 2004. 

j. Average mass of the following five mouse devices, as indicated on manufacturer websites: Creative Labs Creative Mouse 

Classic, Creative Labs Creative Mouse Wireless Optical, Microsoft Wireless Optical Desktop Pro Mouse, Sony PCGAWMS5S VAIO 

Wireless Optical Mouse, and Sony Optical USB Mousespacer SMU-CL2/L. 

k. FLDEP data, as of 9/20/2005. 

l. Average mass of 25 projection televisions from electronics retailers and 12 projection televisions collected as part of the 

Florida Electronic Product Brand Distribution Project. 

m. Average of mass values presented in Environment Canada, IT and Telecom Waste in Canada, Enviros RIS, October 2000. 

n. Average of 1990-93 and 1997-99 estimates. 

 o. Average of mass values presented in Environment Canada, op. cit.; “The Ultimate Wireless Buyers Guide,” PC World, October 

 2000. 

PRODUCT LIFESPAN 

As indicated in Chapter 2, the waste flow model that we developed for this baseline assessment 

uses information on the lifespan of each product to estimate the volume of electronic products 

retired each year. This section summarizes our estimates of each product’s first life (i.e., the 

period of time that a product’s first owner uses the product) and second life (i.e., the period of 

time a product is reused or kept in storage after its first life, and prior to its EOL). 

INITIAL SERVICE LIFE 

To estimate the initial service life for each product included in this analysis, we consulted 

publications from INFORM, Business Week, PC World, the National Safety Council (NSC), and 
22

EPA. Although the NSC provides relevant information for desktop computers, laptops, CRT 

monitors, and CRT televisions, we relied on more recent data sources where possible. Exhibit 3-

4 presents our estimates of each product’s initial service life. We discuss our estimates for each 

product in further detail below. 

EXHIBIT 3-4. INITIAL SERVICE LIFE OF SELECT ELECTRONICS PRODUCTS 

PRODUCT 

DURATION OF INITIAL SERVICE LIFE 

(YEARS) 

1978-1998: 2 to 4 

Desktop Computersa

1999-2004: 3.3 to 4 

Laptop Computersb 2 to 3 

CRT Monitorsc 4 

LCD Monitorsd 3 to 8 

Keyboards Same as Desktop Computers 

Computer Micee 1 to 5 

Desktop Computer Printersf 3 to 6 

Projection Televisionsg 7 to 13 

CRT Televisionsg 7 to 13 

Cell Phonesh 1.5 to 2.5 

Sources: 

a. National Safety Council (NSC), Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report, May 1999; 

“Dell, the Conqueror,” BusinessWeek, 24 September 2001; Gartner Press Release, “Gartner Says 

Extending the Life Cycle of Desktop PCs Won’t Necessarily Save Money on Total Ownership,” 15 

September 2003. 

b. “The PC Replacement Decision,” Information Week, 20 June 2005; Texas Department of Information 

Resources, PC Life Cycles: Guidelines for Establishing Life Cycles for Personal Computers, January 2003. 

c. NSC, op. cit. 

d. “Shedding Some Light on LCDs,” PCWeek, 5 October 1998; “LCD Monitors: Light, Slight, and Stylish,” 

PCWorld, August 1999; “Is It Time to go LCD?,” Home Office Computing, November 2000. 

e. “Mouse Scurries Toward Future,” Dell “Browser” Magazine, Spring 2000, as cited by lightglove.com. 

f. U.S. EPA, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2001 Facts and Figures, October 2003; Cardwell, 

Annette, “The Paperless Office?” Ziff Davis Smart Business, 14 (Dec2001/Jan2002). 

g. U.S. EPA, op. cit.; Oregon Advisory Committee on Electronic Product Stewardship, Report to the 2005 

Oregon Legislature, January 2005. 

h. U.S. EPA, op. cit.; “When Phones Go Bad,” Washington Post, 10/31/2004; and “Handsets: Catching 

Customers with Color,” Wireless Week, 1/1/2003.
23

Desktop computers 

In its 1999 report, the NSC estimates that the initial service life of desktop computers (e.g., 386, 

486, Pentium I, and Pentium II) ranged from two to four years,28 and we used this estimate for 

all desktop computers sold between 1978 and 1998. However, a different estimate is provided 

on the initial service life of desktop computers sold between 1999 and 2005 based on three 

service life estimates generated by Gartner. A 2001 BusinessWeek article cites a Gartner study in 

which the lifespan of a corporate PC in 1999 was estimated to be 3.3 years.29 In addition, a 2003 

Gartner press release recommends a desktop life cycle of four years, while an article published in 

InformationWeek in 2005 references a Gartner study estimating that businesses replace desktop 

computers every 43 months (3.6 years).30,31 Because all three of these sources refer to 

replacement cycles for desktop computers’ original users, they are reasonable data sources to use 

in estimating the initial service life of a desktop computer. Based on these three studies, we 

assume that the initial service life of a desktop sold between 1999 and 2005 is between 3.3 and 

four years. 

Laptop Computers 

We estimate the duration of a laptop’s initial service life based on data from Gartner and the 

Texas Department of Information Resources.32 Based on a survey of large businesses 

conducted by Gartner, Information Week reports that mobile PCs are replaced every 36 months. 

Similarly, the Texas Department of Information Resources indicates that the industry standard 

for replacing a laptop computer is two to three years, citing a 2001 Gartner Research Note. 

Based on these data sources, we assume that the duration of a laptop’s initial service life is two 

to three years. 

CRT Monitors 

In its 1999 report on electronics recycling, the NSC estimated that the duration of a CRT 

monitor’s initial service life is four years.33 We use this estimate for all CRT monitors sold 

between 1978 and 2005. 

 

28 National Safety Council, Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report, May 1999. 

29 “Dell, the Conqueror,” BusinessWeek, September 24, 2001. 

30 “The PC Replacement Decision,” Information Week, June 20, 2005. 

31 Gartner Press Release, “Gartner Says Extending the Life Cycle of Desktop PCs Won’t Necessarily Save Money on Total Ownership,” September 15, 

2003. 

32 Information Week, Ibid.; Texas Department of Information Resources, PC Life Cycles: Guidelines for Establishing Life Cycles for Personal 

Computers, January 2003. 

33 National Safety Council, op. cit. 
24

LCD Monitors 

Our survey of the relevant literature revealed three sources containing information on the 

average service life of an LCD monitor.34,35 These sources present service life estimates between 

three and eight years. Two of the three lifespan estimates reflected in this range are based on the 

expected useful life of an LCD display. In the absence of data describing how long the first user 

of an LCD monitor keeps the display, we assume that the first user of an LCD monitor keeps it 

for its entire useful life.36 Therefore, we assume that the initial service life of all LCD monitors 

sold between 1990 and 2005 is three to eight years. 

Keyboards 

We located no service life information for keyboards. Absent such information, we assume that 

the initial service life of a keyboard is the same as that of a desktop computer, with which it is 

likely sold. 

Computer Mice 

The only source we identified with information on the service life of a computer mouse was an 

article published in a 2000 issue of Dell Browser Magazine.37 This article indicates that the 

typical computer mouse has a useful life of one to five years, but provided no explanation as to 

how this estimate was developed. Because we located no additional sources with service life 

estimates for mice, we use this one-to-five year range as our estimate for the length of a mouse’s 

first life. 

Desktop Computer Printers 

We identified two sources of information on the service life of a computer printer. EPA’s report 

on municipal solid waste (MSW) generation and management in 2001 states that a printer’s total 

life expectancy (i.e., including both primary and secondary (or reuse) life) is approximately three 

to five years.38 We assume that the low end of this range represents the length of a printer’s 

initial service life. In addition, an article published in Ziff Davis Smart Business in 2001 states 

that the average lifespans of inkjet and laser printers are three years and six years, respectively, 

 

34 The LCD monitors that we refer to include stand-alone monitors, but not laptop computer screens. 

35 The three articles that mention LCD monitor lifespan are: “Shedding Some Light on LCDs,” PCWeek, 10/5/1998; “LCD Monitors: Light, Slight, and 

Stylish,” PCWorld, August 1999; “Is It Time to go LCD?,” Home Office Computing, November 2000. PCWeek (1998) provides a LCD lifespan of 5 to 

8 years. PCWorld (1999) and Home Office Computing (2000) report service lives of 3 to 6 years and 6 years, respectively. 

36 Because we assume that the first owner of an LCD monitor keeps it for its entire useful life, we also assume that all LCD monitors not retired 

after their first life spend their second life in storage. 

37 “Mouse Scurries Toward Future,” Dell “Browser” Magazine, Spring 2000, as cited by lightglove.com.

38 U. S. EPA, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2001 Facts and Figures, October 2003. 
25

according to information released by Gartner and Hewlett-Packard.39 Based on these data 

points, we assume that the initial service life of a printer is between three and six years. 

Cell Phones 

We identified three data sources with information on the service life of a cell phone.40 EPA’s 

2001 MSW report states that the life expectancy of a wireless telephone is between two and four 

years, including primary and secondary use. We assume that the low end of this range reflects 

the duration of a cell phone’s first life. A 2004 Washington Post article cites research from the 

Yankee Group indicating that the average life cycle of a phone was 25 months in 2001, but that 

by 2004, this average had fallen to 19.4 months. Although this study suggests that the average 

first life of a cell phone has fallen in recent years, Nokia has estimated that, on average, cell 

phones are replaced every 2.5 years.41 Based on these data sources, we estimate an initial 

lifespan range between 1.5 and 2.5 years. 

Televisions 

The research revealed two sources of service life data for televisions.42 EPA’s report on MSW 

generation and management in 2001 states that a television’s life (primary and secondary lives 

combined) ranges from 13 to 15 years for direct view color TVs, projection TVs, and LCD color 

TVs. We assume the low end of this range represents the initial service life of a television. In 

addition, the Oregon Advisory Committee on Electronic Product Stewardship (2005) estimated 

that the lifespan of a television is seven years. Our own experience suggests that most 

televisions are functional for much longer than seven years; therefore, we assume that this 

estimate reflects the length of a television’s initial service life. Based on these two sources, we 

estimate that the duration of a television’s initial service life is seven to thirteen years. In the 

absence of data distinguishing between CRT and projection models, we assume that this 

represents the initial service life range for both CRT and projection televisions. 

INITIAL SERVICE LIFE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION 

As indicated in Chapter 2, the waste flow model requires information on the distribution of the 

initial service life expressed as a range. In such cases, we assume a discrete approximation to a 

triangular distribution (i.e., a bell-shaped distribution) for initial service life ranges spanning 

more than two years. For an initial service lifespanning two years, we assume a uniform 

 

39 Cardwell, Annette, “The Paperless Office?” Ziff Davis Smart Business, 14 (Dec2001/Jan2002). 

40 The three studies are U. S. EPA, op. cit.; “When Phones Go Bad,” Washington Post, 10/31/2004; and “Handsets: Catching Customers with Color,” 

Wireless Week, 1/1/2003. 

41 Wireless Week, op. cit. 

42 U. S. EPA, op. cit.; Oregon Advisory Committee on Electronic Product Stewardship, Report to the 2005 Oregon Legislature, January 2005.
26

probability distribution (i.e., 50 percent each year). Exhibit 3-5 summarizes the probability 

distributions used in the model for this baseline assessment for each product’s initial service 

life.43 

 

43 For products with an initial service life not expressed as integers, we developed service life probability distributions such that the expected value 

for each product’s initial service life equals the average of the high- and low-ends of its service life range. For example, the initial service life for 

desktops sold in 1999 is 3.3 to 4.0 years. Therefore, we assume that 35 percent of desktop computers will be retired after three years and that 

the remaining 65 percent will be retired after four years. Based on these probability values, the expected value of the initial service life of a 

computer sold in 1999 is 3.65 years (0.35 x 3 + 0.65 x 4 = 1.05 + 2.6 = 3.65 years). 
EXHIBIT 3-5. INITIAL SERVICE LIFE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION 

YEARS IN 

CIRCULATION 

DESKTOP COMPUTERS/ 

KEYBOARDSb

LAPTOP 

COMPUTERS 

CRT 

MONITORS 

LCD 

MONITORS 

CRT TVS PROJECTION 

TVS 

PRINTERS MICE CELL 

PHONES 

YEAR SOLD 1978-1998 1999-2004 1990-2004 1990-2004 1990-2004 1975-2004 1975-2004 1978-2004 1989-2004 1990-2004 

1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5% 25% 2 25% -- 50% -- -- -- -- -- 20% 50% 3 50% 35% 50% -- 5% -- -- 10% 50% 25% 4 25% 65% -- 100% 15% -- -- 40% 20% -- 5 -- -- -- -- 30% -- -- 40% 5% -- 6 -- -- -- -- 30% -- -- 10% -- -- 7 -- -- -- -- 15% 5% 5% -- -- -- 8 -- -- -- -- 5% 10% 10% -- -- -- 9 -- -- -- -- -- 20% 20% -- -- -- 

10 -- -- -- -- -- 30% 30% -- -- -- 11 -- -- -- -- -- 20% 20% -- -- -- 12 -- -- -- -- -- 10% 10% -- -- -- 13 -- -- -- -- -- 5% 5% -- -- -- 

Expected 

Service Life:a 3.00 years 3.65 years 2.50 years 4.00 years 5.50 years 10.00 years 10.00 years 3.00 years 3.00 years 2.00 years 

Notes: 

a. For products with an initial service life not expressed as integers, we developed service life probability distributions such that the expected value for each 

product’s initial service life equals the average of the high- and low-ends of its service life range. For example, the initial service life for desktops sold in 1999 is 3.3 

to 4.0 years. Therefore, we assume that 35 percent of desktop computers will be retired after three years and that the remaining 65 percent will be retired after 

four years. Based on these probability values, the expected value of the initial service life of a computer sold in 1999 is 3.65 years (0.35 x 3 + 0.65 x 4 = 1.05 + 2.6 = 

3.65 years). 

b. We do not present a separate first lifespan distribution for keyboards because we assume that the initial service life of a keyboard is the same as that of a desktop 

computer. Therefore, the initial service life probability distribution for a keyboard will be the same as that of a desktop computer. 
 

SECOND SERVICE LIFE DURATION AND PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION 

To capture the storage and reuse of electronic products, the waste flow model simulates waste 

management decisions for such products at two points in time: the end of a product’s first life 

(i.e., the period of time during which its original owner uses it on a regular basis) and the end of 

its second life (i.e., the period of time between the end of its first life and the end of its total life). 

Our approach for estimating the probability that a device will reach a second life is presented 

below. To determine the duration of each product’s second life, data was used on the age of 

electronics collected for recycling as part of the Florida Electronic Product Brand Distribution 

Project (the Florida Project) during the 12-month period beginning in April 2004. Based on 

these data, a distribution was developed of the length of time each product remains in circulation 

before it is disposed of or recycled. Adjusting these distributions based on the procedure 

outlined in Appendix B, a distribution was developed for the second life of each product 

included in the analysis, as shown in Exhibit 3-6. 

Because the Florida data do not include information for computer mice and cell phones, the 

second lifespan distributions was used for keyboards as a proxy for computer mice and of 

laptops as a proxy for cell phones. In addition, as the results in Exhibit 3-6 suggest, we do not 

estimate a distribution for the second life of projection televisions. The Florida collection data 

and our estimate of a projection television’s first life suggest that almost no projection televisions 

go into storage or are re-used. Therefore, all projection televisions are assumed to be recycled or 

disposed of at the end of their first life. Exhibit 3-7 combines the first life information in Exhibit 

3-4 and the second lifespan ranges included in Exhibit 3-6. 
EXHIBIT 3-6. DISTRIBUTION OF THE SECOND LIFESPAN OF SELECT ELECTRONICS PRODUCTS 1

YEARS IN 

CIRCULATION 

AFTER FIRST LIFE

DESKTOP 

COMPUTERS 

LAPTOP 

COMPUTERS

CRT 

MONITORS

LCD 

MONITORS CRT TVS 

PROJECTION 

TVS PRINTERS KEYBOARDS 

COMPUTER

MICE2

CELL 

PHONES3

1 0.5% 9.8% 3.7% 16.7% 9.2% 0.0% 5.0% 38.9% 38.9% 9.8% 2 1.3% 9.2% 5.4% 16.7% 6.8% 0.0% 6.8% 16.5% 16.5% 9.2% 3 2.0% 22.1% 7.4% 16.7% 9.4% 0.0% 8.0% 4.1% 4.1% 22.1% 4 3.4% 18.4% 9.3% 16.7% 7.3% 0.0% 6.4% 0.0% 0.0% 18.4% 5 4.8% 40.5% 7.1% 16.7% 9.0% 0.0% 8.6% 2.5% 2.5% 40.5% 6 2.2% 0.0% 8.0% 16.7% 6.7% 0.0% 13.3% 2.8% 2.8% 0.0% 7 3.3% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 6.8% 0.0% 7.7% 3.2% 3.2% 0.0% 8 6.6% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 10.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9 2.8% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 9.3% 11.5% 11.5% 0.0% 

10 5.3% 0.0% 4.9% 0.0% 5.7% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11 4.0% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 6.4% 0.0% 4.5% 14.6% 14.6% 0.0% 12 5.8% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 4.6% 0.0% 3.8% 6.0% 6.0% 0.0% 13 4.2% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14 7.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15 4.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16 2.1% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17 4.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18 6.6% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19 2.9% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20 9.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21 9.6% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22 5.5% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 23 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0.0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Notes: 

The distributions presented in this exhibit apply only to products not disposed of after their first life. We use the distribution of the duration of a keyboard’s second life as a proxy for mice. 

We use the distribution of the duration of a laptop computer’s second life as a proxy for cell phones. 
 

EXHIBIT 3-7. PRODUCT LIFESPANS USED IN WASTE FLOW MODEL 

PRODUCT LENGTH OF FIRST LIFE 

LENGTH OF 

SECOND LIFE 

LENGTH OF TOTAL LIFE 

Desktop Computers 1978-1998: 2 to 4 years 

1999-2005: 3 to 4 years Up to 23 years 1978-1998: 2 to 27 years 1999-2005: 3 to 27 years 

Laptop Computers 2 to 3 years Up to 5 years 2 to 8 years 

CRT Monitors 4 years Up to 22 years 4 to 26 years 

LCD Monitors 3 to 8 years Up to 6 years 3 to 14 years 

CRT Televisions 7 to 13 years Up to 19 years 7 to 32 years 

Projection 

Televisions 7 to 13 years 0 years* 7 to 13 years 

Desktop Computer 

Printers 3 to 6 years Up to 18 years 3 to 24 years 

Keyboards 1978-1998: 2 to 4 years 

1999-2005: 3 to 4 years Up to 12 years 2 to 16 years 

Computer Mice 1 to 5 years Up to 12 years 1 to 17 years 

Cell Phones 1 to 3 years Up to 5 years 1 to 8 years 

Note: 

* Products disposed of after their first life have a second life of zero years. 

END-OF-LIFE MANAGEMENT 

Based on the sales, mass and lifespan data presented above, we estimate the quantity of e-waste 

generated in the U.S. each year. To inform EPA program and policy development, it is equally 

important to characterize how this waste is managed at the end of its life. The management 

options for e-waste include the following:44 

Landfilling: Electronic waste may be placed in a landfill for final disposal. 

Incineration: Electronic waste may be burned at an incineration or waste-to-energy 

facility. 

Recycling: Electronic products may be recovered for the purpose of dismantling, parts and/or 

materials recovery, and/or resale (resale that occurs by a recycler and not by the user of the 

product). 

 

44 Open burning is another potential waste management option for electronic waste, but we Open burning may occur in relatively low population 

density areas of the United States; open burning of waste is usually banned in high population density areas. We assume that the quantity of 

electronic waste managed through open burning is minimal. (Outside the United States, open burning of electronic waste may occur.) 
31

Exportation: Transport of electronic products outside U.S. borders for re-use, refurbishing, 

recycling or disposal.

Re-use/Storage: When a product reaches the end of its first life, it is not necessarily 

disposed or recycled at that time. The product’s original owner may donate or sell the 

product or keep the product in storage, even though he or she no longer uses it.45

All five of these management methods apply to devices at the end of their first life (i.e., after its 

first owner no longer uses it on a regular basis). When devices reach the end of their second (and 

final) life, only the first four of these methods apply. 

 

The waste flow model that was developed for this baseline assessment allocates e-waste to the 

various management options outlined above based on information from several waste 

characterization studies and e-waste management surveys. In this section, we describe the 

approach for using these data to distribute the e-waste generation estimates across the various 

management options outlined above. 

END-OF-TOTAL-LIFE E-WASTE MANAGEMENT 

In this section, we describe the approach for apportioning electronic products reaching the end of 

their total life (i.e., electronic products at the end of their second life and devices at the end of 

their first life that are not re-used or placed in storage) to the various management methods 

identified above. For each device, we estimate a series of allocation weights--one for each 

management method--that indicate how the retirement of a given product is distributed across the 

various management methods. For example, the desktop computer allocation weight for 

landfilling is 71.8 percent, which indicates that we allocate 71.8 percent of retired desktops to 

landfilling. 

As indicated above, the allocation weights presented in this section correspond to the 

management of electronic products at the end of their total life. Although it is also important to 

develop allocation weights for such products at the end of their first service life, we begin with 

the allocation weights specific to electronic products at the end of their total life because our endof-first-life allocation weights are based on the allocation weights presented in this section. 

To estimate the allocation weights for each electronic product, we rely heavily on the results of 

five state-specific waste characterization studies that included detailed information on e-waste 

discards.46 Based on the per capita e-waste discard rates derived from these studies, the 

 

45 A second or third user could store the product as well. 

46 These studies are as follows: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2002 Oregon Solid Waste Characterization and Composition, April 20, 

2004; Cascadia Consulting Group, Statewide Waste Characterization Study, prepared for California Integrated Waste Management Board, 

December 2004; Cascadia Consulting Group, Wisconsin Statewide Waste Characterization Study, prepared for the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources, May 2003; Georgia Department of Community Affairs, Georgia Statewide Waste Characterization Study, June 22, 2005; and 
32

electronics retirement estimates generated by the waste flow model, and information from other 

sources, we estimate device-specific allocation weights for each end-of-life management option. 

The calculations we performed to generate these estimates are as follows: 

1. Adjust the waste characterization results to account for interstate import and export of 

electronic waste. The results of most of the waste characterization studies that were 

identified reflect movement of electronic wastes between states (interstate import and export; 

as distinguished from import and export to and from abroad). Each state’s exports are 

excluded from its results, but its imports are included. Therefore, per capita e-waste discard 

rates from these studies may not be representative of the e-waste discard rate for the entire 

U.S. (i.e., if a state is a major net importer of e-waste, its per capita discard rate would not 

accurately reflect the volume of e-waste discarded per capita in the U.S.). To address this 

issue, the results of these studies were adjusted to include each state’s exports of e-waste to 

other states and exclude its e-waste imports from other states.47

2. Remove electronic products not included in our analysis from the waste characterization 

results. The waste characterization studies that were identified provide discard estimates for 

a limited number of broad product categories. Many of these categories contain devices not 

included in our analysis (e.g., the computer-related electronics category in one of these 

studies includes modems and fax machines). To adjust the waste characterization results to 

reflect only those computer devices included in our analysis, we assumed that the 

composition of each state’s electronic waste is consistent with the composition of the 

electronic waste collected for recycling through the Florida Project.48 Unlike the state waste 

characterization studies, the Florida Project compiled product-specific data on the mass of 

the electronic products collected. Therefore, if scanners represent 5 percent of the total mass 

of computer products collected through the Florida Project, we subtract five percent of the 

total computer product mass estimated in the state waste characterization studies. Based on 

these adjustments, the volume of e-waste discards were estimated for three categories of 

products: computer equipment (i.e., desktop computers, laptop computers, printers, 

keyboards, and mice), CRT monitors, and CRT televisions.49,50

 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, Statewide MSW Composition Study, March 2000. The 

California, Oregon, and Minnesota studies are based on a representative sample of disposal facilities in each state, while the Georgia and 

Wisconsin studies are based on a sample of the largest landfills in each of these two states. Therefore, the results of the California, Oregon, and 

Minnesota studies may more accurately reflect the composition of waste collected for landfilling or incineration. 

47 We obtained interstate export and import data from James E. McCarthy and Anne L. Hardenbergh, Congressional Research Service, Interstate 

Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2002 Update, November 26, 2002. 

48 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Brand Distribution Project, 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/electronics/pages/FloridaElectronicProductBrandDistributionProject.htm. 

49 Some of the waste characterization studies include CRT monitors as a separate category, while others include a category for monitors in general. 

Because the waste flow model estimates that the mass of LCD monitors retired in recent years has been less than 1.3 percent of the total mass of 

retired monitors, we assume that all of the monitors reflected in the waste characterization studies are CRT monitors. 

50 Some of the waste characterization studies include a general television category, while others include a category specific to CRT televisions. To 

estimate CRT discards from the studies that do not distinguish between CRT TVs and non-CRT TVs, we multiplied the general television discard 

estimates by the ratio of CRT retirements to total TV retirements (by weight), as estimated by the waste flow model. 
33

3. Estimate the e-waste discards per capita for each electronic product category. Based on the 

e-waste discard estimates generated in step 2 and the population data from the Census Bureau 

for the five states that conducted waste characterization studies , state-specific estimates were 

generated for the e-waste discards per capita for each of the three product categories listed 

above, as presented in Exhibit 3-8. 

EXHIBIT 3-8. ELECTRONIC WASTE DISCARDS PER CAPITA PER YEAR BY STATE 

STATE 

COMPUTER EQUIPMENTa

(TONS DISPOSED OF PER 

CAPITA) 

CRT MONITORS 

(TONS DISPOSED 

OF PER CAPITA) 

CRT TELEVISIONS 

 (TONS DISPOSED OF PER 

CAPITA) 

Minnesota 2.271 x 10-3 2.839 x 10-4 2.585 x 10-4

Wisconsin 4.983 x 10-4 1.859 x 10-3 4.028 x 10-3

Oregon 1.565 x 10-3 1.187 x 10-3 2.135 x 10-3

California 2.765 x 10-3 2.401 x 10-3 4.108 x 10-3

Georgia 4.122 x 10-4 4.716 x 10-4 3.417 x 10-4

Weighted Averageb 1.396 x 10-3 1.036 x 10-3 Low End: 1.820 x 10-3 

High End: 3.204 x 10-3

Notes: 

a. Computer equipment includes desktop computers, laptop computers, desktop computer 

printers, keyboards, and computer mice. 

b. Calculations to estimate the weighted averages exclude the highest and lowest values in each 

column. For CRT televisions, two weighted averages were estimated because of uncertainty in 

the television disposal data. The lower of the weighted averages for televisions is based on data 

for Wisconsin, Oregon, and Georgia, while the higher estimate is based on data for California, 

Oregon, and Georgia. 

4. Estimate the population-weighted e-waste discards per capita. Using the state-specific per 

capita e-waste discard estimates generated in step 3 and the Census Bureau’s population 

estimates for each state, population-weighted e-waste discards per capita were calculated. 

Because we do not know whether the five states listed in Exhibit 3-8 are representative of the 

entire U.S. with respect to e-waste disposal, the states with the highest and lowest discards 

per capita were excluded from our weighted average calculations.51 For example, California 

and Georgia were excluded from our calculations for the weighted average of computer 

equipment discards per capita. Exhibit 3-8 presents weighted average discards per capita for 

each of the product categories defined above. 

 

51 For CRT televisions, discards per capita are slightly higher in Wisconsin than in California. If we exclude Wisconsin from our analysis, our 

population-weighted estimate of television discards per capita implies that total television discards are greater than the television retirement 

estimates generated by the waste flow model. However, if we exclude California instead of Wisconsin, the resulting estimate of television 

discards per capita yields total discard estimates significantly less than the retirements estimated by the model. To address this inconsistency, 

parallel analyses were conducted of television discards per capita–one excluding the Wisconsin data and one excluding the California data. We 

combine the results of these two analyses to estimate allocation weights for televisions. 
34

5. Estimate the Discard Rate for Retired Electronic Products. Multiplying the populationweighted annual discards per capita estimates generated in step 4 by the U.S. population, 

total discards were estimated for each product category for 2003 and 2004.52 For example, 

based on the annual estimate of computer equipment discards per capita presented in Exhibit 

3-8, we estimate that 406,100 tons of computer equipment were discarded in 2003 and 

410,100 tons in 2004, or 816,200 tons for both years combined as indicated in Exhibit 3-9. 

After estimating the 2003 and 2004 (combined) discards for each product category, these 

estimates were divided by the 2003 and 2004 retirement estimates generated by the waste 

flow model, which yields discard rates for each product category (i.e., the percent of retired 

electronics that are either landfilled or incinerated), as shown in Exhibit 3-9. Continuing 

with our example for computer equipment, the waste flow model estimates that 

approximately 1.1 million tons of computer equipment were retired in 2003 and 2004. 

Dividing the 816,200 tons in computer equipment discards in 2003 and 2004 by this value, 

we estimate that approximately 73.9 percent of retired computer equipment is discarded (i.e., 

deposited in a landfill or incinerated) rather than recycled. Because discards include waste 

that is either landfilled or incinerated, the discard rates presented in Exhibit 3-9 represent the 

sum of our end-of-total-life allocation weights for landfilling and incineration. 

 

52 We chose to estimate discards for these two years because the waste flow model’s retirement estimates for these two years are more reliable 

than for earlier years (i.e., we lack sufficient sales data to generate complete e-waste retirement estimates for earlier years). We obtained this 

information for Oregon, California, Wisconsin, and Georgia: Georgia Department of Community Affairs, Georgia Solid Waste Management Report 

2004; Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, “2003/2004 Disposal Status, State of Oregon: Oregon DEQ 2004 Solid Waste Report to the 

Legislature,” 2004; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, A Study of the Future of Solid Waste Management: A Report to the Wisconsin 

Legislature, January 2001; Enviros, Recycling Achievement in North America, 2000. We were not able to obtain comparable data for Minnesota. 

U.S. Population data is from: Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States and States, and for Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to 

July 1, 2004 (NST-EST2004-01) Source: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau. Release Date: December 22, 2004. We excluded the data for 

Puerto Rico from the analysis. 
35

EXHIBIT 3-9. ESTIMATION OF DISCARD RATE FOR RETIRED ELECTRONICSa 

DEVICE CATEGORY 

TOTAL DISCARDS 

2003 AND 2004 

(THOUSANDS OF 

TONS) 

TOTAL RETIREMENT 

2003 AND 2004 

(THOUSANDS OF 

TONS) 

ESTIMATED DISCARD RATE 

Computer Equipmentb 816.2 1,104.6 73.9% 

CRT Monitors 605.5 802.5 75.5% 

CRT Televisionsc Low End: 1,063.4 

High End: 1,872.4 1,451.4 

Low End: 73.3% 

High End: 100% 

(assumed discard rate: 86.6%) 

Notes: 

a. Although this exhibit presents estimated discard rates for 2003 and 2004, these estimates are based on 

estimates for the years 1999 through 2004. 

b. Computer equipment includes desktop computers, laptop computers, printers, keyboards, and mice. 

c. For CRT televisions, two estimates were presented for total discards and the discard rate to reflect 

uncertainty in the television discard data. The lower of total discards and the discount rate is based on 

data for Wisconsin, Oregon, and Georgia, while the higher estimates are based on data for California, 

Oregon, and Georgia. For the purposes of our analysis, we use the average of the two discard rates (86.6 

percent). 

d. The high end CRT television discard estimate exceeds the retirement estimate, and thus subtracting 

the discards from the retirement would result in a negative number. See the discussion in the text. 

6. Estimate the End-of-Total-Life Allocation Weights for Landfilling and Incineration. To 

divide discarded e-waste between landfilling and incineration, estimates of the percentage of 

municipal solid waste landfilled and the percent incinerated for four of the five states with 

waste characterization data were obtained.53 Applying these percentages to the e-waste 

disposal estimates for these states, derived from the states’ waste characterization studies, the 

volume of electronic waste incinerated and landfilled in each state were estimated. Summing 

these results across all four states, we estimate that approximately 97.2 percent of discarded 

(i.e., not recycled) electronic waste is landfilled, while the remaining 2.8 percent is 

incinerated. Multiplying these values by the discard rates in Exhibit 3-9, we estimate the 

landfilling and incineration allocation weights presented in Exhibit 3-10 for computer 

equipment, CRT monitors, and CRT televisions. 

 

53 We obtained this information for Oregon, California, Wisconsin, and Georgia: Georgia Department of Community Affairs, Georgia Solid Waste 

Management Report 2004; Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, “2003/2004 Disposal Status, State of Oregon: Oregon DEQ 2004 Solid 

Waste Report to the Legislature,” 2004; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, A Study of the Future of Solid Waste Management: A Report 

to the Wisconsin Legislature, January 2001; Enviros, Recycling Achievement in North America, 2000. We were not able to obtain comparable 

data for Minnesota. 
36

7. Estimate the End-of-Total-Life Allocation Weights for Recycling. Any electronic waste 

that is not landfilled or incinerated at the end of its total life is likely recycled (either in the 

US or by export to another country for reuse, refurbishment or recycling, which may include 

some disposal of residuals). Therefore, the end-of-total-life recycling allocation weights for 

each device were estimated as follows. 

 R / EP = 1 – LP – IP 

 

where, R/EP = The end-of-total-life recycling/export allocation weight for product P; 

LP = The landfill allocation weight for product P, and 

 

IP = The incineration allocation weight for product P. 

Following this methodology, we estimate the recycling allocation weights presented in Exhibit 3-

10. Although estimating the volume of electronic waste recycled in the US separately from the 

amount exported would be useful for policy planning and program development purposes, we 

were unable to identify adequate data to estimate the two separately. Therefore, we combine all 

waste not discarded (i.e., landfilled or incinerated) into a single recycling category (which 

necessarily includes some export which we have not quantified in this analysis). 

EXHIBIT 3-10. END-OF-TOTAL-LIFE ALLOCATION WEIGHTS FOR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT, 

MONITORS, AND CRT TELEVISIONS

PRODUCT CATEGORY 

LANDFILL 

ALLOCATION WEIGHT 

INCINERATION 

ALLOCATION WEIGHT 

RECYCLING 

ALLOCATION WEIGHT 

Computer Equipment 71.8% 2.0% 26.1% 

CRT Monitors 73.4% 2.1% 24.5% 

CRT Televisions 84.2% 2.4% 13.4% 

As indicated above, the computer equipment product category listed in Exhibits 3-8 through 3-10 

includes desktop computers, laptop computers, printers, keyboards, and mice. Therefore, the 

computer equipment allocation weights presented in Exhibit 3-10 were applied to all five of 

these products. In addition, because the waste characterization studies identified do not contain 

information on LCD monitors or projection televisions, the allocation weights for CRT monitors 

were used as a proxy for LCD monitors and the allocation weights of CRT televisions as a proxy 

for projection televisions. Exhibit 3-11 presents the estimated allocation weights for each 

product. These results suggest that consumers and businesses are more likely to recycle their 

computers, monitors, and peripheral equipment than their televisions. Consequently, we 
37

estimate that the landfill and incineration rate for televisions is higher than it is for computers 

and related products. 

The waste characterization studies that were used to estimate allocation weights for computer 

equipment, monitors, and televisions do not contain detailed data on discards of cell phones. 

Therefore, to estimate the allocation weights for cell phones presented in Exhibit 3-11, the results 

of the Consumer Electronics Association’s (CEA’s) household e-waste management survey and 

data from INFORM’s Calling All Cell Phones report published in 2004 were used.54 The results 

of these two sources, however, reflect the high level of uncertainty on the percentage of cell 

phones that are recycled. Based on the INFORM report and our cell phone retirement estimates, 

the recycling rate for cell phones is relatively low (approximately 2.3 percent in 2002). The 

results of the CEA survey, on the other hand, indicate that the recycling rate may be much higher 

(26 percent). As a result, to estimate a recycling rate for inclusion in the waste flow model, we 

calculated the recycling rate in 2004 inferred by the INFORM- and CEA-derived recycling rates 

for 2002 and 2005, assuming that the recycling rate grew at a constant rate between these two 

years.55 

Based on this approach, a cell phone recycling rate of 19.2 percent was estimated, as indicated in 

Exhibit 3-11. We assume that the remaining 80.8 percent of cell phones are discarded. As 

indicated above, we estimate that 97.2 percent of discarded electronic waste is landfilled, while 

the remaining 2.8 percent is incinerated. Applying these values to our estimate of the 

percentage of cell phones discarded, 78.5 percent of cell phones are estimated to be landfilled 

and 2.2 percent are incinerated. 

 

54 Consumer Electronics Association, Consumer Electronics Reuse and Recycling, October 2005, and Eric Most, Calling All Cell Phones, INFORM 

Report, 2004. 

55 We use the recycling rate for 2004 inferred by the INFORM and CEA estimates because this is the second of the three years for which we present 

model results in Chapter 4. 
38

EXHIBIT 3-11. PRODUCT-SPECIFIC END-OF-TOTAL LIFE ALLOCATION WEIGHTS FOR THE 

MANAGEMENT OF ELECTRONIC WASTE 

PRODUCT 

LANDFILL 

ALLOCATION WEIGHT

(% OF DISPOSED 

PRODUCTS) 

INCINERATION 

ALLOCATION WEIGHT 

(% OF DISPOSED 

PRODUCTS) 

RECYCLING 

ALLOCATION WEIGHT

(% OF DISPOSED 

PRODUCTS) 

Desktop Computers 71.8% 2.0% 26.1% 

Laptop Computers 71.8% 2.0% 26.1% 

CRT Monitors 73.4% 2.1% 24.5% 

LCD Monitors 73.4% 2.1% 24.5% 

CRT Televisions 84.2% 2.4% 13.4% 

Projection Televisions 84.2% 2.4% 13.4% 

Cell Phones 78.5% 2.2% 19.2% 

Printers 71.8% 2.0% 26.1% 

Keyboards 71.8% 2.0% 26.1% 

Computer Mice 71.8% 2.0% 26.1% 

END-OF-FIRST-LIFE E-WASTE MANAGEMENT 

The allocation weights presented in Exhibits 3-10 and 3-11 reflect how electronic waste is 

managed at the end of its second life (i.e., after it will no longer be re-used or held in storage). 

Therefore, these allocation weights do not apply to products at the end of their first life because 

such products may be placed in storage or re-used. To generate allocation weights specific to 

each product’s first life, we followed the two-step process outlined below: 

1. Estimate the percentage of devices that are stored or re-used. Based on the results of the ewaste management surveys summarized in Exhibit 3-12, allocation weights that indicate the 

extent to which devices reaching the end of their first life are re-used or placed in storage 

were estimated.56 For example, the allocation weight of 70.1 percent for desktop computers 

 

56 Although the e-waste management surveys include a great deal information with respect to household and private sector management of 

electronic waste, we do not use these results to estimate the volume of electronic waste landfilled, incinerated, recycled, or exported. Many 

households and businesses know whether they send their waste to recycling companies, but they are unlikely to know how much of their 

electronic waste is actually recycled, as recycling companies do not necessarily recycle every item they receive. The decision of whether to 

recycle an electronic product is based largely on the potential profit to be earned from recycling it. If a product does not contain enough 

valuable material for a recycling facility to cover the cost of recycling it, the facility will most likely discard it, in which case it is landfilled, 

incinerated, or exported. Because of the uncertainty associated with these decisions, we do not use the results of the e-waste management 

surveys to estimate the volume of electronic waste associated with each end-of-life management option. (End-of-life management options include 

options for the final disposition of a product, including landfilling, incineration, recycling, and exporting. Storage and re-use are not end-of-life 

management options.) 
39

indicates that 70.1 percent of them are assumed to be placed in storage or re-used at the end 

of their first life.57 

EXHIBIT 3-12. E-WASTE MANAGEMENT SURVEY DATA 

SURVEY DESCRIPTION 

Consumer Electronics 

Association Re-use and 

Recycling Surveya

In September 2005, the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) 

conducted a nationwide household survey in which respondents 

were asked to indicate the number of televisions VCRs, cell phones, 

desktop computers, laptop computers, and monitors they had 

thrown away, recycled, sold, or given away in the past 12 months. 

MetaFacts, Inc. 

Technology User Profile 

Surveyb

For its 2004 Technology User Profile, MetaFacts surveyed 7,527 

households and 2,500 workplaces, asking respondents to specify 

how they managed computers they had replaced during the 

previous year. 

IBM Survey of Senior IT 

Executives at U.S. 

Companiesc

IBM surveyed 176 senior-level IT executives at companies with more 

than 5,000 computers to determine which e-waste management 

methods were most prevalent among larger businesses 

Massachusetts 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection (DEP) 

Household Surveyd

In 1999, the Massachusetts DEP surveyed 450 Massachusetts 

residents asking them to indicate how they managed televisions 

that stopped working and computers that they no longer used. 

California Integrated 

Waste Management 

Board E-waste Diversion 

Studye

In 2001, the California Integrated Waste Management Board 

surveyed 1,003 California households asking them to specify how 

they managed the televisions and computer monitors they had most 

recently stopped using. 

Sources: 

a. Consumer Electronics Association, Consumer Electronics Reuse and Recycling, October 2005. 

b. Metafacts Inc., Technology User Profile 2004 as cited in Karl Schoenberger, “Many Old Computers Put 

to Use Again, Study Finds,” San Jose Mercury News, April 27, 2005. 

c. IBM Global Financing, survey of senior IT executives, cited in John G. Spooner, “Weighing the results 

of PC recycling,” CNET News.com, April 16, 2004. 

d. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Massachusetts DEP Electronic Equipment and 

Household Chemicals Disposal Research, July 1999. 

e. California Integrated Waste Management Board, Selected E-waste Diversion in California: A Baseline 

Study, November 2001. 

2. Estimate the proportion of devices that are not stored/re-used at the end of their first life. 

The proportion of devices that are not stored/re-used at the end of their first life is 

represented by the expression (1 - REFL,P) below. The proportion not stored/re-used is the 

proportion of devices to which we need to apply an allocation weight for incineration, 

landfilling, and recycling. 

 

57 Appendix C provides a more detailed description of our approach for estimating the storage/re-use allocation weight for devices reaching the end 

of their first life. 
40

3. Estimate the allocation weights for incineration, landfilling, and recycling. To estimate 

end-of-first-life allocation weights for incineration, landfilling, and recycling, the allocation 

weights presented in Exhibit 3-11 were multiplied by the percentage of products that are not 

stored or re-used following the end of their first life (i.e., for those products for which the end 

of their first life is also the end of their total life—the estimate obtained in step 2). The 

following equation illustrates this approach for incineration: 

 

IEFL,P = (1 - REFL,P) x IEOL,P 

where IEFL,P = The end-of-first-life allocation weight for the incineration of product P; 

 REFL,P = The end-of-first-life allocation weight for the storage/re-use of product P. 

IEOL,P = The end-of-total-life allocation weight for the incineration of product P. 

Based on this approach, we estimate the end-of-first-life allocation weights presented in Exhibit 

3-13. 

As indicated by the allocation weights presented in Exhibit 3-13, at least half of all products, 

except for projection televisions, were estimated to be stored or re-used after they reach the end 

of their first life. In addition, the results in Exhibit 3-13 suggest that CRT televisions are less 

likely to be recycled at the end of their first life as compared to CRT monitors. 
EXHIBIT 3-13. END-OF-FIRST-LIFE MANAGEMENT ALLOCATION WEIGHTS 

PRODUCT 

STORAGE/RE-USE 

ALLOCATION WEIGHT 

(% OF PRODUCTS AT THE 

END OF THEIR FIRST LIFE) 

LANDFILL 

ALLOCATION WEIGHT 

(% OF PRODUCTS AT THE 

END OF THEIR FIRST LIFE) 

INCINERATION 

ALLOCATION WEIGHT 

(% OF PRODUCTS AT THE 

END OF THEIR FIRST LIFE) 

RECYCLING ALLOCATION 

WEIGHT 

(% OF PRODUCTS AT THE 

END OF THEIR FIRST LIFE) 

TOTAL 

Desktop Computers 70.1% 21.5% 0.6% 7.8% 100% Laptop Computers 70.1% 21.5% 0.6% 7.8% 100% CRT Monitors 64.7% 25.9% 0.7% 8.7% 100% LCD Monitors 64.7% 25.9% 0.7% 8.7% 100% CRT Televisions 65.1% 29.4% 0.8% 4.7% 100% Projection Televisions 0.0% 84.2% 2.4% 13.4% 100% Cell Phones 52.9% 37.0% 1.1% 9.1% 100% Printers 70.1% 21.5% 0.6% 7.8% 100% Keyboards 70.1% 21.5% 0.6% 7.8% 100% Computer Mice 70.1% 21.5% 0.6% 7.8% 100% Note: The allocation weights presented in this exhibit reflect the portion of each product that the waste flow model allocates to each management method at the end of 

the product’s first life (i.e., when its original owner stops using it on a regular basis). 
 

CHAPTER 4 – BASELINE E-WASTE ASSESSMENT RESULTS 

This chapter presents the results of our baseline e-waste assessment, based on the data and 

methods described in the previous chapters. We first present retirement estimates that reflect 

electronic products reaching the end of their total life (i.e., devices at the end of their second life 

and products disposed of at the end of their first life). We then present product-specific 

estimates of the volume of electronic waste landfilled, incinerated, or recycled.58 

RETIREMENT ESTIMATES 

Exhibit 4-1 summarizes the product retirement estimates for 2003 through 2005. As retirement 

estimates, these results reflect electronic products that are disposed of, but not products that are 

put into storage or re-use, since stored and re-used products have not yet reached their 

retirement. The results in Exhibit 4-1 suggest that retired tonnages are highest for CRT 

televisions and CRT monitors, with the tonnage of CRT televisions retired each year higher than 

the tonnage retired for any other product. Exhibit 4-1 also suggests that retirement volumes (in 

tons and units) for CRT monitors are declining, while retirement volumes (by tons and units) for 

LCD monitors appear to be increasing. This shift reflects the decline in CRT monitor sales in 

recent years as more consumers switch from CRT to LCD monitors. In addition, Exhibit 4-1 

reveals that the most significant electronic products in terms of the number of units retired are 

keyboards and cell phones. However, the tonnages retired for these devices are fairly low due to 

their low per unit mass relative to other such devices. 

MANAGEMENT OF RETIRED ELECTRONICS 

Based on the management allocation weights discussed in the previous chapter, we estimate 

retirement by management method for each product included in the analysis. Exhibits 4-2 

through 4-4 summarize our estimates. Key results included in these exhibits are as follows: 

• Exhibit 4-2 and 4-4 suggests that, on average, 75 percent of all electronic products retired (by 

number of units) are landfilled each year, while approximately 23 percent are recycled and the 

remaining 2 percent incinerated. 

• Exhibit 4-3 and 4-4 suggests that, on average, 78 percent of all electronic products retired (by 

number of tons) are landfilled each year, while approximately 20 percent are recycled and the 

remaining 2 percent incinerated. 

 

58 As indicated in the previous chapter, adequate data were not available to estimate e-waste exports. However, because our estimates of the 

landfill and incineration rates are based on product discard data, we assume that electronic waste exported is reflected in our estimates of total 

e-waste recycled. 
43

EXHIBIT 4-1. AGGREGATE E-WASTE RETIREMENT ESTIMATES BY YEAR A,B 

PRODUCT 2003 2004c 2005c TOTALd

UNITS TONS UNITS TONS UNITS TONS UNITS TONS 

Desktop Computers 18.5 242.1 19.4 253.6 19.8 259.5 57.6 755.2 

Laptop Computers 4.0 23.3 4.8 26.4 6.1 30.8 15.0 80.5 

CRT Monitors 24.5 418.6 22.5 383.9 22.8 389.8 69.8 1,192.3 

LCD Monitors 0.1 0.6 0.3 1.8 0.8 4.9 1.1 7.3 

Televisions 24.4 795.4 25.2 837.8 26.3 891.9 75.9 2,525.1 

CRT Televisionsc 23.3 716.1 23.8 735.4 24.5 759.1 71.6 2,210.6 

Projection 

Televisions 1.1 79.3 1.4 102.4 1.8 132.8 4.2 314.5 

Cell Phones 49.0 8.6 57.0 9.8 70.6 11.7 176.6 30.1 

Printers 22.3 207.7 25.8 241.0 28.2 263.8 76.3 712.5 

Keyboardsc 43.6 48.5 50.0 55.5 52.2 57.5 145.7 161.5 

Computer Micec 20.8 3.1 22.7 3.4 24.2 3.6 67.7 10.1 

All Products 207.1 1,747.8 227.8 1,813.1 251.0 1,913.6 685.9 5,474.5 

Notes: 

a. Units are in millions and tons are in thousands. Totals may not match due to rounding. 

b. Because products in storage or re-use have not yet reached their final retirement, units put into storage or 

retirement are not reflected in this exhibit. 

c. Due to the long total service lives of desktop computers, CRT monitors, and CRT televisions, the amounts shown 

here provide incomplete estimates of aggregate e-waste volumes for these products. Based on the sales information 

used in the model, the earliest years for which complete estimates could be generated for desktop computers, CRT 

monitors, and CRT televisions are 2005, 2004, and 2007, respectively. 

d. Totals may not be the sum of the individual years shown due to rounding. 

• At least 60 percent of the total tonnage landfilled each year represents the disposal of CRT 

televisions and monitors. 

• Although keyboards and cell phones account for more than 40 percent of the total units landfilled 

each year, they make up only 3 to 4 percent of the total tonnage landfilled. 

• More than 60 percent of the total tonnage incinerated is CRT television and monitor waste. 

Desktops and CRT monitors account for more than 40 percent of the tonnage of e-waste recycled 

each year
EXHIBIT 4-2. AGGREGATE E-WASTE RETIREMENT ESTIMATES BY MANAGEMENT METHOD (IN MILLIONS OF UNITS)** 

PRODUCT RECYCLED LANDFILLED INCINERATED TOTAL 

2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 

Desktop Computers 4.8 5.1 5.2 13.3 13.9 14.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 18.5 19.4 19.8 Laptop Computers 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.9 3.5 4.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.0 4.8 6.1 CRT Monitors 6.0 5.5 5.6 18.0 16.5 16.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 24.5 22.5 22.8 LCD Monitors 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.8 Televisions 3.3 3.4 3.5 20.5 21.2 22.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 24.4 25.2 26.3 

CRT Televisions* 3.1 3.2 3.3 19.6 20.1 20.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 23.3 23.8 24.5 Projection TVs 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.4 1.8 

Cell Phones 9.4 11.0 13.6 38.5 44.8 55.4 1.1 1.3 1.6 49.0 57.0 70.6 Printers 5.8 6.7 7.4 16.0 18.5 20.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 22.3 25.8 28.2 Keyboards* 11.4 13.1 13.6 31.3 35.9 37.5 0.9 1.0 1.1 43.6 50.0 52.2 Computer Mice* 5.4 5.9 6.3 14.9 16.3 17.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 20.8 22.7 24.2 All Products 47.2 52.0 57.0 155.5 170.9 188.7 4.4 4.9 5.4 207.1 227.8 251.0 Note: * Due to the long total service lives of CRT televisions, keyboards, and mice, the amounts shown here provide incomplete estimates of aggregate e-waste volumes for these 

products. Based on the sales information used in the model, the earliest years for which complete estimates could be generated for CRT televisions, keyboards, and mice are 

2004, 2005, and 2004, respectively. ** Total may not sum due to rounding. 
45

EXHIBIT 4-3. AGGREGATE E-WASTE RETIREMENT ESTIMATES BY MANAGEMENT METHOD (IN THOUSANDS OF TONS) 

PRODUCT RECYCLED LANDFILLED INCINERATED TOTAL 

2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 

Desktop Computers 63.2 66.2 67.8 173.9 182.2 186.5 4.9 5.2 5.3 242.1 253.6 259.5 Laptop Computers 6.1 6.9 8.0 16.8 19.0 22.1 0.5 0.5 0.6 23.3 26.4 30.8 CRT Monitors 102.7 94.2 95.7 307.1 281.7 286.0 8.7 8.0 8.1 418.6 383.9 389.8 LCD Monitors 0.1 0.4 1.2 0.4 1.3 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.8 4.9 Televisions 106.3 112.0 119.3 670.0 705.8 751.4 19.1 20.1 21.4 795.4 837.8 891.9 

CRT Televisions* 95.7 98.3 101.5 603.2 619.5 639.5 17.2 17.6 18.2 716.1 735.4 759.1 Projection TVs 10.6 13.7 17.8 66.8 86.3 111.9 1.9 2.5 3.2 79.3 102.4 132.8 

Cell Phones 1.7 1.9 2.2 6.8 7.7 9.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 8.6 9.8 11.7 Printers 54.2 62.9 68.9 149.2 173.1 189.5 4.2 4.9 5.4 207.7 241.0 263.8 Keyboards* 12.7 14.5 15.0 34.8 39.8 41.3 1.0 1.1 1.2 48.5 55.5 57.5 Computer Mice* 0.8 0.9 0.9 2.2 2.5 2.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.1 3.4 3.6 All Products 347.8 359.9 379.0 1,361.2 1,413.0 1,492.2 38.7 40.2 42.4 1,747.8 1,813.1 1,913.6 Note: * Due to the long total service lives of CRT televisions, keyboards, and mice, the amounts shown here provide incomplete estimates of aggregate e-waste volumes for these 

products. Based on the sales information used in the model, the earliest years for which complete estimates could be generated for CRT televisions, keyboards, and mice are 

2004, 2005, and 2004, respectively. ** Total may not sum due to rounding. 
 

EXHIBIT 4-4. RETIREMENT MANAGEMENT METHOD FOR SELECT ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS: 2003-

2005* 

PRODUCT RECYCLED LANDFILLED INCINERATED TOTAL 

Desktop Computers 26% 72% 2% 100% 

Laptop Computers 26% 72% 2% 100% 

CRT Monitors 25% 73% 2% 100% 

LCD Monitors 25% 73% 2% 100% 

CRT Televisions 13% 84% 2% 100% 

Projection Televisions 13% 84% 2% 100% 

Cell Phones 19% 79% 2% 100% 

Printers 26% 72% 2% 100% 

Keyboards 26% 72% 2% 100% 

Computer Mice 26% 72% 2% 100% 

All Products (units): 23% 75% 2% 100% 

All Products (tons): 20% 78% 2% 100% 

Note: 

* The percentages are the same for total volumes based on units or tons, except for All Products, 

which are shown separately for units and tons. 

ELECTRONICS PUT INTO RE-USE OR STORAGE 

As indicated above, the retirement estimates presented in Exhibits 4-2 through 4-4 do not include 

products put into storage or re-use. Nevertheless, the waste flow model tracks the storage and reuse of electronics to estimate the volume (in units) and tonnage of electronics retired each year, 

as retired electronics include units that leave storage or re-use. Exhibit 4-5 presents the waste 

flow model’s estimates for the quantity of electronics put into storage or re-use for the years 

2003 through 2005. The results in this exhibit reflect a number of trends in the electronics 

industry. First, consistent with the retirement estimates presented above, the results in Exhibit 4-

5 suggest that the number of CRT monitors put into storage or re-use each year is declining, 

while the number of LCD monitors put into storage or re-use is increasing. This trend is 

consistent with the ongoing shift in sales from CRT to LCD monitor technology.59 Similarly, the 

storage and re-use of desktop computers appears to be leveling off or falling, while laptop 

computers in storage/re-use is on the rise, which reflects laptops’ growing share of the personal 

computer market. The waste flow model estimates that no projection televisions are put into 

storage or re-use because the data identified on the lifespan of projection televisions suggests that 

they are disposed of at the end of their first (and only) life. 

 

59 Because of this shift, the tonnage of electronic products in re-use or storage between 2003 and 2005 fell, while the number of products (units) in 

re-use or storage increased. 
47

EXHIBIT 4-5. ELECTRONICS PUT INTO STORAGE OR RE-USE: 2003-2005 

(MILLIONS OF UNITS AND THOUSANDS OF TONS) 

PRODUCT 2003 2004 2005 

UNITS TONS UNITS TONS UNITS TONS

Desktop Computers 27.2 365.0 27.2 365.1 26.0 349.0 

Laptop Computers 4.7 26.9 5.5 26.6 6.8 28.4 

CRT Monitors 24.3 416.5 17.6 302.3 15.7 269.4 

LCD Monitors 0.2 1.0 0.5 2.9 1.2 7.7 

Televisions 16.7 529.0 16.9 535.4 17.4 552.1 

CRT Televisions 16.7 529.0 16.9 535.4 17.4 552.1 

Projection TVs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Cell Phones 37.5 5.6 40.6 6.1 48.9 7.3 

Printers 26.2 244.7 30.4 284.4 31.2 291.5 

Keyboards 43.8 48.2 41.7 45.8 39.5 43.4 

Computer Mice 19.7 3.0 19.6 2.9 21.1 3.2 

All Products 200.3 1,639.8 200.0 1,571.7 207.9 1,552.0 

MANAGEMENT OF ELECTRONICS REACHING THE END OF ITS FIRST OR SECOND LIFE 

The retirement estimates presented in Exhibits 4-2 through 4-4 combined with the storage/re-use 

estimates in Exhibit 4-5 represent the universe of electronics products reaching the end of either 

their first or second lives between 2003 and 2005. Exhibits 4-6 through 4-9 summarize the 

management of these products. The results in Exhibits 4-6 through 4-9 suggest that most 

electronics reaching the end of their first or second life are either put into storage/re-use or are 

deposited in a landfill. This is consistent with the allocation weights in Exhibits 3-11 and 3-13, 

which indicate that most electronic products are put into storage or re-use at the end of their first 

life and landfilled at the end of their second life.60

 

60 The allocation weights in Exhibits 3-11 and 3-13 are different than the percentages in Exhibits 4-9 because Exhibits 3-11 and 3-13 apply 

exclusively to electronic products at the end of their second life and first life, respectively, while Exhibit 4-9 combines these two classes of 

products. 
EXHIBIT 4-6. SUMMARY OF ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS REACHING THE END OF THEIR FIRST OR SECOND LIVES – 2003 

(MILLIONS OF UNITS ANDTHOUSANDS OF TONS) 

PRODUCT PUT INTO STORAGE/RE-USE RECYCLED LANDFILLED INCINERATED 

TOTAL DISPOSED OR 

PUT INTO 

STORAGE/RE-USE 

UNITS TONS UNITS TONS UNITS TONS UNITS TONS UNITS TONS 

Desktop Computers 27.2 365.0 4.8 63.2 13.3 173.9 0.4 4.9 45.7 607.1 Laptop Computers 4.7 26.9 1.0 6.1 2.9 16.8 0.1 0.5 8.7 50.2 CRT Monitors 24.3 416.5 6.0 102.7 18.0 307.1 0.5 8.7 48.8 835.1 LCD Monitors 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.6 CRT Televisions* 16.7 529.0 3.1 95.7 19.6 603.2 0.6 17.2 40.0 1,245.1 Projection Televisions 0.0 0.0 0.1 10.6 0.9 66.8 0.0 1.9 1.1 79.3 Cell Phones 37.5 5.6 9.4 1.7 38.5 6.8 1.1 0.2 86.5 14.2 Printers 26.2 244.7 5.8 54.2 16.0 149.2 0.5 4.2 48.4 452.3 Keyboards* 43.8 48.2 11.4 12.7 31.3 34.8 0.9 1.0 87.4 96.7 Computer Mice* 19.7 3.0 5.4 0.8 14.9 2.2 0.4 0.1 40.5 6.1 All Products 200.3 1,639.8 47.2 347.8 155.5 1,361.2 4.4 38.7 407.4 3,387.6 Note: * Due to the long total service lives of CRT televisions, keyboards, and mice, the amounts shown here provide incomplete estimates of aggregate e-waste 

volumes for these products. Based on the sales information used in the model, the earliest years for which complete estimates could be generated for CRT 

televisions, keyboards, and mice are 2004, 2005, and 2004, respectively. 
49

EXHIBIT 4-7. SUMMARY OF ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS REACHING THE END OF THEIR FIRST OR SECOND LIVES – 2004 

(MILLIONS OF UNITS ANDTHOUSANDS OF TONS) 

PRODUCT 

PUT INTO STORAGE/REUSE RECYCLED LANDFILLED INCINERATED TOTAL DISPOSED OR PUT INTO STORAGE/RE-USE 

UNITS TONS UNITS TONS UNITS TONS UNITS TONS UNITS TONS 

Desktop Computers 27.2 365.1 5.1 66.2 13.9 182.2 0.4 5.2 46.6 618.8 Laptop Computers 5.5 26.6 1.3 6.9 3.5 19.0 0.1 0.5 10.3 53.0 CRT Monitors 17.6 302.3 5.5 94.2 16.5 281.7 0.5 8.0 40.1 686.2 LCD Monitors 0.5 2.9 0.1 0.4 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 4.8 CRT Televisions* 16.9 535.4 3.2 98.3 20.1 619.5 0.6 17.6 40.7 1,270.8 Projection Televisions 0.0 0.0 0.2 13.7 1.2 86.3 0.0 2.5 1.4 102.4 Cell Phones 40.6 6.1 11.0 1.9 44.8 7.7 1.3 0.2 97.7 15.9 Printers 30.4 284.4 6.7 62.9 18.5 173.1 0.5 4.9 56.2 525.3 Keyboards* 41.7 45.8 13.1 14.5 35.9 39.8 1.0 1.1 91.7 101.3 Computer Mice* 19.6 2.9 5.9 0.9 16.3 2.5 0.5 0.1 42.3 6.3 All Products 200.0 1,571.7 52.0 359.9 170.9 1,413.0 4.9 40.2 427.8 3,384.9 Note: * Due to the long total service lives of CRT televisions, keyboards, and mice, the amounts shown here provide incomplete estimates of aggregate e-waste 

volumes for these products. Based on the sales information used in the model, the earliest years for which complete estimates could be generated for CRT 

televisions, keyboards, and mice are 2004, 2005, and 2004, respectively. 
50

EXHIBIT 4-8. SUMMARY OF ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS REACHING THE END OF THEIR FIRST OR SECOND LIVES – 2005 

(MILLIONS OF UNITS AND THOUSANDS OF TONS) 

PRODUCT PUT INTO STORAGE/RE-USE RECYCLED LANDFILLED INCINERATED 

TOTAL DISPOSED OR PUT 

INTO STORAGE/RE-USE 

UNITS TONS UNITS TONS UNITS TONS UNITS TONS UNITS TONS 

Desktop Computers 26.0 349.0 5.2 67.8 14.2 186.5 0.4 5.3 45.8 608.5 Laptop Computers 6.8 28.4 1.6 8.0 4.4 22.1 0.1 0.6 13.0 59.3 CRT Monitors 15.7 269.4 5.6 95.7 16.7 286.0 0.5 8.1 38.5 659.2 LCD Monitors 1.2 7.7 0.2 1.2 0.6 3.6 0.0 0.1 2.0 12.6 CRT Televisions* 17.4 552.1 3.3 101.5 20.6 639.5 0.6 18.2 41.9 1,311.2 Projection Televisions 0.0 0.0 0.2 17.8 1.5 111.9 0.0 3.2 1.8 132.8 Cell Phones 48.9 7.3 13.6 2.2 55.4 9.2 1.6 0.3 119.5 19.0 Printers 31.2 291.5 7.4 68.9 20.3 189.5 0.6 5.4 59.4 555.3 Keyboards* 39.5 43.4 13.6 15.0 37.5 41.3 1.1 1.2 91.7 100.9 Computer Mice* 21.1 3.2 6.3 0.9 17.4 2.6 0.5 0.1 45.3 6.8 All Products 207.9 1,552.0 57.0 379.0 188.7 1,492.2 5.4 42.4 458.9 3,465.6 Note: * Due to the long total service lives of CRT televisions, keyboards, and mice, the amounts shown here provide incomplete estimates of aggregate e-waste 

volumes for these products. Based on the sales information used in the model, the earliest years for which complete estimates could be generated for CRT 

televisions, keyboards, and mice are 2004, 2005, and 2004, respectively. 
51

EXHIBIT 4-9. MANAGEMENT OF ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS REACHING THE END OF THEIR FIRST OR SECOND LIVES 

2003 - 2005* 

PRODUCT PUT INTO STORAGE/RE-USE RECYCLED LANDFILLED INCINERATED 

TOTAL DISPOSED 

OR PUT INTO 

STORAGE/RE-USE 

2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 

2003, 2004, AND 

2005 

Desktop Computers 60.1% 59.0% 57.3% 10.4% 10.7% 11.1% 28.6% 29.5% 30.6% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 100.0% Laptop Computers 53.5% 50.2% 48.0% 12.1% 13.0% 13.6% 33.4% 35.8% 37.4% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 100.0% CRT Monitors 49.9% 44.1% 40.9% 12.3% 13.7% 14.5% 36.8% 41.0% 43.4% 1.0% 1.2% 1.2% 100.0% LCD Monitors 62.7% 61.8% 61.1% 9.2% 9.4% 9.5% 27.4% 28.0% 28.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 100.0% CRT Televisions 42.5% 42.1% 42.1% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 48.4% 48.7% 48.8% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 100.0% Projection Televisions 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 84.2% 84.2% 84.2% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 100.0% Cell Phones 39.5% 38.4% 38.6% 11.6% 11.8% 11.8% 47.5% 48.4% 48.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 100.0% Printers 54.1% 54.1% 52.5% 12.0% 12.0% 12.4% 33.0% 33.0% 34.1% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 100.0% Keyboards 49.9% 45.3% 43.1% 13.1% 14.3% 14.9% 36.0% 39.3% 40.9% 1.0% 1.1% 1.2% 100.0% Computer Mice 48.7% 46.3% 46.5% 13.4% 14.0% 14.0% 36.9% 38.6% 38.4% 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 100.0% All Products 48.4% 46.4% 44.8% 10.3% 10.6% 10.9% 40.2% 41.7% 43.1% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 100.0% Note: * Percent of e-waste tonnage associated with each method. 
 

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

The purpose of this report is to establish a set of baseline data, using the methodology outlined in 

this report, regarding the management of EOL electronic products. These data can be referenced 

in the future to characterize changes and trends with respect to the generation and handling of 

electronic products. 

The results should provide interested parties with useful information for developing choices on 

how to manage electronic products at the end of their useful lives. For example, Exhibit 4-1 

indicates that, of the products studied, CRT monitors and televisions make up more than half of 

the electronic waste generated in recent years. Although sales of these products are falling as 

consumers convert to newer technologies, the results of our analysis suggest that they will 

continue to make up a significant portion of the electronic waste stream for years to come, 

particularly if households continue to keep their televisions for as long as they have in the past. 

Even as new technologies, such as plasma televisions and LCD monitors increase in sales, there 

will still be millions of CRTs that will be disposed of during the next several years. 

The existing information indicates that, generally speaking, U.S. landfills are the primary 

repository of discarded electronic products, with recycling facilities playing a secondary role. 

This finding raises important questions about resource conservation, since such electronics 

deposited in landfills represent lost energy and material resources. 

Material composition of electronic devices is important to examine. Information on material 

composition is important to identify products with recycling potential. For example, although 

cell phones make up a small fraction of the e-waste deposited in landfills each year, the 

information in Appendix E suggests that they may contribute a larger proportion of silver to U.S. 

landfills than other devices included in this study.61 Silver and other valuable materials found in 

electronic products represent important resources to recover from electronic waste. 

 

61 Exhibit E presents the material composition of retired electronic products by management method and by product for the following devices: 

desktop computers, laptop computers, CRT monitors, LCD monitors, CRT televisions, cell phones, and keyboards. Material composition data were 

not available for projection televisions, printers, and mouse devices. 
53

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

Allocation Weight: For a given quantity of devices, the percentage of those devices at the end of 

their first or second life that the waste flow model allocates to a specific management method 

(e.g., incineration). 

Age Distribution: A distribution describing the various ages at which a particular product is 

made available for end-of -life management and the frequency at which products are made 

available for such management at a given age. The age of a product is based on the number of 

years between its original sale and the end of its life. 

Cohort: A group of products that are sold by the original manufacturer or retailer in the same 

year. 

Discard: Disposal of waste through landfilling or incineration.

Discard Rate: The rate at which waste is landfilled or incinerated (i.e., the percent of waste 

incinerated or landfilled). 

Disposal: Management of a product at the end of its useful life through landfilling or 

incineration. 

End-of-First-Life Management: The method used to manage a product when it reaches the end 

of its first life. Management options for the end of a product’s first life include landfilling, 

incineration, recycling (including export), reuse, and storage. 

End-of-Total-Life Management: The method used to manage a product when it reaches the end 

of its total life. Management options for the end of a product’s total life include landfilling, 

incineration, recycling (including export) (end-of-total-life is the sum of products reaching endof-first-life and the end-of-second-life). 

Export/exportation: Transport of devices outside U.S. borders for re-use, refurbishing, 

recycling or disposal.

First Life: The length of time a product is used by its original or initial owner. 

Gross State Product (GSP): The value of goods and services produced by the labor and 

property located in a state. 

Incineration: Electronic waste may be burned at an incineration or waste-to-energy 

facility. 
54

Initial Retirement: The point in time at which the original or initial owner of a product stops 

using it. 

Initial Service Life: See First Life. 

Landfilling: Electronic waste may be deposited in a landfill for final disposal. 

Lifespan Distribution: Probabilities assigned across a range of years indicating the likelihood of 

a product reaching the end of its lifespan in any given year. 

Recycling: Electronic products may be recovered for the purpose of dismantling, parts and/or 

materials recovery, and/or resale (resale that occurs by a recycler and not by the user of the 

product). 

Retirement: Retirement is when a product reaches the end of its life. 

Reuse: Occurs when the first user gives up a product by informal sale or donation (other than 

making it available for end of life management) and a subsequent user uses the product for its 

intended purpose. 

Second Life: The length of time over which a product is reused or kept in storage after its first 

life. See First Life and Initial Retirement. 

Storage: Holding or storing a product for a temporary period by the first owner of the product or 

any other owner, at the end of which it is reused, resold, recycled, or disposed. 

Total Life or Total Lifespan: The period of time between when a product is initially purchased 

and when it reaches the end of its life. The length of time for a product’s total lifespan is the sum 

of its first life and its second life. See End-of-Life Management, 

First Life, and Second Life. 

Total Service Life: See Total Life. 

White boxes: computers that are distributed without a well-recognized brand name. 
55

APPENDIX B: ESTIMATING THE TOTAL LIFESPAN 

AND SECOND LIFE OF ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS 

As described in the main body of this report, the amount of electronic waste generated in the 

U.S. each year was estimated based on the annual sales of individual electronic products and the 

typical lifespan of them (i.e., the amount of time that elapses from their initial purchase to final 

disposition/recycling). To estimate the total lifespan of each product included in our baseline 

assessment, data was used on the age of the electronic products collected for recycling as part of 

the Florida Electronic Product Brand Distribution Project (the Florida Project) during the 12-

month period beginning in April 2004. Based on these data, a distribution was developed of the 

length of time each product remains in circulation before it is recycled or disposed. Exhibit B-1 

summarizes these data for several of the electronic products collected as part of the Florida 

Project. Although the data presented in this exhibit represent the age distribution of electronic 

products collected through the Florida Project, they do not represent the distribution of each 

product’s lifespan. For example, although 7.1 percent of the CRT televisions collected were 15 

years old, this does not imply that 7.1 percent of televisions remain in circulation for 15 years 

after they are sold. The number of 15-year-old televisions included in the Florida data reflects 

the amount of time that a television remains in circulation and the number of televisions sold 15 

years ago. Therefore, if no televisions had been sold 15 years prior to the Florida collection, the 

Florida data would include no 15-year-old televisions, even though a certain (non-zero) 

percentage of televisions are retired when they reach this age. 

As the example above illustrates, the age data presented in Exhibit B-1 reflects both the amount 

of time a product remains in use (or in storage) and the product’s annual sales prior to the Florida 

collection. Therefore, because sales of each product vary from year to year, the age distributions 

in Exhibit B-1 do not accurately represent the distribution of each product’s lifespan. To address 

this issue, we standardized the Florida collection data to account for differences in electronic 

product sales from year to year based on the following procedure: 
56

EXHIBIT B-1: AGE DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS 

COLLECTED FOR RECYCLING IN FLORIDA 

AGE 

(YEARS)

DESKTOP 

COMPUTERS

LAPTOP 

COMPUTERS

CRT 

MONITORS 

LCD 

MONITORS CRT TVS

PROJECTION

TVS PRINTERS

COMPUTER 

KEYBOARDS

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 

1 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 

2 0.4% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 

3 1.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 2.4% 4.9% 

4 1.7% 20.0% 4.4% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 12.2% 43.9% 

5 4.6% 15.0% 8.1% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 7.5% 19.5% 

6 6.0% 20.0% 10.3% 33.3% 3.8% 14.3% 7.2% 4.9% 

7 8.5% 15.0% 11.6% 0.0% 3.8% 14.3% 7.9% 0.0% 

8 10.0% 25.0% 13.0% 0.0% 4.0% 42.9% 12.3% 2.4% 

9 4.6% 0.0% 8.8% 0.0% 4.1% 14.3% 8.1% 2.4% 

10 6.1% 0.0% 8.6% 33.3% 5.7% 14.3% 8.5% 2.4% 

11 11.3% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 8.2% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 

12 4.4% 0.0% 6.9% 33.3% 6.0% 0.0% 4.2% 7.3% 

13 7.7% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 

14 4.9% 5.0% 2.6% 0.0% 5.2% 0.0% 3.8% 7.3% 

15 5.9% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 3.2% 2.4% 

16 3.7% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 

17 5.8% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 

18 2.8% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 

19 1.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 

20 2.5% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.3% 2.4% 

21 2.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 

22 0.7% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

23 1.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 

24 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

25 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

26 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

27 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

28 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

29 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 

30 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

31 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

32 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

33 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

34 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Source: Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Brand Distribution Project, 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/electronics/pages/FloridaElectronicProductBrandDistributionProje

ct.htm.
57

1. First, Florida sales of each product were estimated based on the assumption that Florida’s share 

of the national electronics sales is proportional to its share of U.S. economic output, as indicated 

by its gross state product.62 Equation B-1 summarizes this calculation. 

(B-1) 

where, FP,Y = Florida sales of product P in year Y; 

 NP,Y = National sales of product P in year Y; 

 GSPF,Y = Florida’s gross state product in year Y, and 

 GSPS,Y = The gross state product of State S in year Y. 

For example, as shown in Exhibit B-2, Florida generated 4.8 percent of the U.S. economic output 

in 2000, and U.S. sales of computer keyboards were approximately 60.6 million units that year. 

Therefore, based on Equation B-1, 2.9 million computer keyboards were estimated to be sold in 

Florida in 2000. 

2. Based on the Florida sales estimates generated in step 1 and the 2004 collection data from the 

Florida Project, the percentage of each cohort (e.g., electronics sold in 1992) collected in 2004 

was estimated. For example, as indicated in Exhibit B-2, 18 keyboards sold in 2000 were 

collected through the Florida Project in 2004; these keyboards represent 0.0006 percent of the 

keyboards sold in Florida in 2000.63 

3. Using the percentage values calculated in step 2, the number of electronic units was estimated for 

each cohort that would have been collected through the Florida Project if annual electronic sales 

had been constant over time. For example, if annual keyboard sales had been constant at 

1,000,000 units per year between 1989 and 2004, approximately 6 keyboards sold in 2000 would 

have been collected in 2004 as part of the Florida Project, as shown in Exhibit B-2. 

4. After performing the calculations outlined in step 3, it is possible to estimate an age distribution 

for electronic products that would have been collected if sales were constant over time. For 

example, as indicated in Exhibit B-2, keyboards sold in 2000 would represent the keyboards 

collected in 2004 if keyboard sales were the same each year. As indicated above, the age 

 

62 Gross state product (GSP) as defined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis is “the value added in production by the labor and property located in a 

state.” U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/definitions/nextpage.cfm?key=Gross%20state%20product%20(GSP). 

63 This step in our calculations relies on the availability of sales data for the cohorts of each product reflected in the Florida collection data. In 

most cases, we were able to obtain these sales data. In the few cases where we were unable to obtain sales estimates, we exclude the 

corresponding collection data from our analysis. For example, the Florida data indicate that one of the 20 laptops collected through the Florida 

Project was sold in 1990. Because we lack laptop sales data for 1990, we do not include the collection data for 1990 vintage laptops in our 

analysis. Overall, such exclusions do not significantly affect our lifespan estimates because we exclude very few collected items from our analysis 

(i.e., one of 20 laptops included in the Florida data, four of 1,912 desktops, one of 4,517 CRT monitors, and one of 1,028 printers). 

F N

GSP

GSP

PY PY

F Y

S Y

S

, ,

,

,

=

⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟

⎟

⎟ =

∑

1

50
58

approximately 37 percent of the keyboards collected in 2004 if keyboard sales were the same 

each year. As indicated above, the age distribution of products collected for recycling reflects 

the lifespan of the collected products only if sales do not vary over time. Because we held 

annual sales constant to generate the keyboard age distribution presented in Exhibit B-2, this 

distribution represents the lifespan distribution of keyboards collected for recycling through the 

Florida Project. 

Exhibit B-3 presents the lifespan distributions developed, applying the method outlined above to 

each product included in our analysis. The results presented in Exhibit B-3 suggest that 

televisions have the longest lifespan of the products included in our analysis, while laptop 

computers have the shortest. 
EXHIBIT B-2: ESTIMATION OF KEYBOARD LIFESPAN DISTRIBUTION 

VINATAGE AGE 

U.S. KEYBOARD 

SALES (1000S 

OF UNITS)1

FLORIDA SHARE 

OF U.S. 

ECONOMIC 

ACTIVITY2

FLORIDA 

KEYBOARD SALES 

(1000S OF UNITS)

KEYBOARDS 

COLLECTED IN 

2004 FLORIDA 

STUDY3

PERCENT OF COHORT 

COLLECTED BY FLORIDA 

PROJECT IN 2004 

SIMULATED NUMBER OF 

KEYBOARDS COLLECTED IN 

2004, BY COHORT, 

ASSUMING 1 MILLION 

KEYBOARDS SOLD PER YEAR

AGE AND 

LIFESPAN 

DISTRIBUTION

1989 15 23,434 4.5% 1,058.7 1 0.00009% 0.9 5.7% 1990 14 28,603 4.5% 1,296.8 3 0.00023% 2.3 14.0% 1991 13 33,099 4.6% 1,513.6 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 1992 12 35,784 4.6% 1,644.8 3 0.00018% 1.8 11.0% 1993 11 38,563 4.7% 1,805.0 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 1994 10 41,442 4.7% 1,944.1 1 0.00005% 0.5 3.1% 1995 9 47,599 4.7% 2,240.9 1 0.00004% 0.4 2.7% 1996 8 53,756 4.7% 2,547.2 1 0.00004% 0.4 2.4% 1997 7 55,605 4.8% 2,642.2 0 0.00000% 0.0 0.0% 1998 6 64,957 4.8% 3,115.0 2 0.00006% 0.6 3.9% 1999 5 63,675 4.8% 3,062.1 8 0.00026% 2.6 15.8% 2000 4 60,571 4.8% 2,920.9 18 0.00062% 6.2 37.2% 2001 3 57,468 4.9% 2,838.8 2 0.00007% 0.7 4.3% 2002 2 54,364 5.0% 2,727.2 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 2003 1 51,260 5.1% 2,598.3 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 2004 0 47,209 5.1% 2,409.2 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 

TOTAL - 757,388 - 36,364.7 414 - 16.6 100.0% 

Notes: 

Derived from U.S. Census Bureau, Current Industrial Report series, “Computers and Office and Accounting Machines,” 1989 through 2004. 

Based on gross state product data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, www.bea.gov.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Electronic Product Brand Distribution Project, Collection data for 2004-2005. 

The annual values do not sum to 41 because the Florida collection data include one keyboard sold in 1984 that is not included in our calculations. We 

exclude this keyboard from our analysis because we were unable to obtain keyboard sales values for 1984. 
 

EXHIBIT B-3: LIFESPAN DISTRIBUTION OF SELECT ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS 

LIFESPAN

(YEARS) 

DESKTOP 

COMPUTERS 

LAPTOP 

COMPUTERS 

CRT 

MONITORS

LCD 

MONITORS CRT TVS

PROJECTION

TVS PRINTERS KEYBOARDS MICE1

CELL 

PHONES2

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

1 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

2 0.1% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

3 0.3% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 1.1% 4.3% 4.3% 0.0% 

4 0.5% 9.8% 2.1% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 5.1% 37.2% 37.2% 9.8% 

5 1.3% 9.2% 3.6% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 3.4% 15.8% 15.8% 9.2% 

6 2.0% 22.1% 5.2% 14.3% 2.6% 9.7% 4.5% 3.9% 3.9% 22.1% 

7 3.4% 18.4% 7.1% 14.3% 2.8% 10.8% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.4% 

8 4.8% 40.5% 8.9% 14.3% 3.2% 37.2% 7.1% 2.4% 2.4% 40.5% 

9 2.2% 0.0% 6.8% 14.3% 4.0% 18.2% 5.7% 2.7% 2.7% 0.0% 

10 3.3% 0.0% 7.7% 14.3% 5.2% 24.1% 7.6% 3.1% 3.1% 0.0% 

11 6.5% 0.0% 9.5% 14.3% 7.0% 0.0% 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

12 2.8% 0.0% 9.5% 14.3% 5.2% 0.0% 6.8% 11.0% 11.0% 0.0% 

13 5.3% 0.0% 8.7% 0.0% 7.2% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

14 3.9% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 8.3% 14.0% 14.0% 0.0% 

15 5.8% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 6.3% 5.7% 5.7% 0.0% 

16 4.2% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 5.1% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

17 7.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 5.2% 0.0% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

18 4.4% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

19 2.1% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

20 3.9% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 4.4% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

21 6.5% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 4.9% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

22 2.8% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

23 9.5% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

24 9.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

25 5.5% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

26 2.1% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

27 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

28 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

29 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Notes: 

We use the lifespan distribution for keyboards as a proxy for mice. 

We use the lifespan distribution for laptop computers as a proxy for cell phones. 

Although Exhibit B-3 presents lifespan information for mice and cell phones, the Florida data do 

not include these two products. Therefore, the keyboard lifespan distribution was used as a 

proxy for mice and the laptop distribution was used for cell phones. We believe that keyboards 

are a reasonable proxy for mice because both are relatively inexpensive input devices necessary 

to use a computer. Although laptops differ from cell phones in several important ways, we 
61

believe they represent the best proxy for cell phones among the various products included in our 

analysis because both are portable technologies that have advanced significantly during the past 

ten years. In addition, because only three LCD monitors are reflected in the Florida data, the 

methodology outlined above is not applied to estimate their lifespan. Instead, LCD monitors 

were assumed to have a uniform lifespan distribution, with the low end of the distribution 

representing the age of the youngest LCD monitor included in the Florida data and the high end 

reflecting the oldest. 

DURATION OF SECOND LIFE 

The distributions in Exhibit B-3 represent the total lifespan of each product. As outlined in the 

methodology chapter in the main body of this report, however, the management decisions for 

individual products were simulated at two points in time: the end of their first life (i.e., the point 

in time when the original owner of a product stops using it) and the end of their second life (i.e., 

the period of time over which a product is reused or in storage after its first life). To develop a 

distribution of the second life of each product included in Exhibit B-3, the steps outlined above 

were followed for each product’s total life, but we limited the analysis to that data collected that 

corresponded to the second life of each product. For example, the main body of this report 

indicates that a keyboard’s first life lasts for approximately three years. Therefore, to estimate a 

lifespan distribution for the second life of a computer keyboard, the steps outlined above were 

followed, but we did not use the data collected for keyboards three years old and younger at the 

time of their collection. 

Applying this approach to each product, lifespan distributions were generated for the second 

lives of the products included in our analysis, as presented in Exhibit B-4. The distributions 

presented in this exhibit suggest that desktop computers have the longest second life among the 

products included in our analysis, while keyboards and mice have the shortest. 

Similar to the total lifespan distributions presented in Exhibit B-3, the second lifespan 

distributions of keyboards was used as a proxy for mice and laptops was used as a proxy for cell 

phones. In addition, as the results in Exhibit B-4 suggest, a distribution for the second life of 

projection televisions was not estimated. The Florida collection data and our estimate of a 

projection television’s first life suggest that almost no projection televisions go into storage or 

are re-used. Therefore, all projection televisions were assumed to be disposed of or recycled at 

the end of their first life. 
EXHIBIT B-4: DISTRIBUTION OF THE SECOND LIFESPAN OF SELECT ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS 

YEARS IN 

CIRCULATION 

AFTER FIRST LIFE 

DESKTOP 

COMPUTERS 

LAPTOP 

COMPUTERS CRT MONITORS

LCD 

MONITORS CRT TVS 

PROJECTION 

TVS PRINTERS KEYBOARDS MICE1 CELL PHONES2

1 0.5% 9.8% 3.7% 16.7% 9.2% 0.0% 5.0% 38.9% 38.9% 9.8% 2 1.3% 9.2% 5.4% 16.7% 6.8% 0.0% 6.8% 16.5% 16.5% 9.2% 3 2.0% 22.1% 7.4% 16.7% 9.4% 0.0% 8.0% 4.1% 4.1% 22.1% 4 3.4% 18.4% 9.3% 16.7% 7.3% 0.0% 6.4% 0.0% 0.0% 18.4% 5 4.8% 40.5% 7.1% 16.7% 9.0% 0.0% 8.6% 2.5% 2.5% 40.5% 6 2.2% 0.0% 8.0% 16.7% 6.7% 0.0% 13.3% 2.8% 2.8% 0.0% 7 3.3% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 6.8% 0.0% 7.7% 3.2% 3.2% 0.0% 8 6.6% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 10.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9 2.8% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 9.3% 11.5% 11.5% 0.0% 

10 5.3% 0.0% 4.9% 0.0% 5.7% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11 4.0% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 6.4% 0.0% 4.5% 14.6% 14.6% 0.0% 12 5.8% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 4.6% 0.0% 3.8% 6.0% 6.0% 0.0% 13 4.2% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14 7.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15 4.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16 2.1% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17 4.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18 6.6% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19 2.9% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20 9.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21 9.6% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22 5.5% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 23 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Notes: 

We use the distribution of the duration of a keyboard’s second life as a proxy for mice. 

We use the distribution of the duration of a laptop computer’s second life as a proxy for cell phones.
 

APPENDIX C: ESTIMATING THE REUSE AND STORAGE OF ELECTRONIC 

PRODUCTS 

As part of our assessment of the baseline generation and management of electronic waste, the 

number of products that are reused or placed in storage was estimated after their first life (i.e., 

the number of products that move on to a second life after their original owners stop using them). 

To estimate the percentage of electronic products (by product) that are reused or stored, data was 

used from surveys conducted by the Consumer Electronics Association, MetaFacts, IBM, the 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and the California Integrated Waste 

Management Board.64 In the following sections, we summarize how we used these data for each 

product included in our baseline assessment. 

STORAGE AND RE-USE OF COMPUTERS AND COMPUTER PERIPHERALS 

To estimate the storage/re-use rate for computers (desktops and laptops), separate storage/re-use 

rates were estimated for computers used by households and computers used by businesses. The 

weighted average of these two values was then estimated and combined to a single storage/re-use 

rate for all computers. This rate was applied to both desktop and laptop computers, as well as to 

the peripheral devices included in the baseline assessment (i.e., printers, keyboards, and mouse 

devices). 

Based on data from surveys conducted by MetaFacts and the Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection, a household storage/re-use rate of 82.7 percent was estimated.65 This 

value represents the mean of the storage/re-use rates implied by these two studies, both of which 

asked respondents about their management of computers that they replaced or that they no longer 

used. 

To estimate the storage/re-use rate for workplace computers, publicly available results were used 

from an IBM survey of 176 IT executives. This survey asked executives to list the various ways 

in which their companies disposed of their computers, but it did not ask about the extent to which 

companies relied on each method or whether companies stored old computers before disposing 

of them. Therefore, the results of this survey at best provide a rough approximation of the 

storage/re-use rate for workplace computers. The results of the survey are presented in Exhibit 

C-1. 

 

64 Consumer Electronics Association, Consumer Electronics Reuse and Recycling, October 2005; Metafacts Inc., Technology User Profile 2004 as 

cited in Karl Schoenberger, “Many Old Computers Put to Use Again, Study Finds,” San Jose Mercury News. April 27, 2005; IBM Global Financing, 

survey of senior IT executives, cited in John G. Spooner, “Weighing the results of PC recycling,” CNET News.com, April 16, 2004; Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection, Massachusetts DEP Electronic Equipment and Household Chemicals Disposal Research, July 1999; and 

California Integrated Waste Management Board, Selected E-waste Diversion in California: A Baseline Study, November 2001. 

65 In developing this estimate, we assume that computers repaired or sold by households are re-used. 
64

EXHIBIT C-1: IBM IT EXECUTIVE SURVEY RESULTS 

MANAGEMENT OPTION 

PERCENT OF COMPANIES THAT USE 

MANAGEMENT PRACTICE FOR AT LEAST 

SOME OF THEIR UNWANTED COMPUTERS1

SURVEY RESULTS 

SCALED TO 100 

PERCENT TOTAL2

Use Outside Disposal 

Company 50.0% 44.2% 

Donate 40.0% 35.4% 

Discard On Site 23.0% 20.4% 

TOTAL 113% 100% 

Notes: 

Column does not total to 100 percent because the survey asked respondents to 

list all of the management practices they use. Therefore, respondents were able to list 

multiple management methods. 

This column represents the previous column scaled to add up to 100 percent. 

Source: IBM Global Financing, survey of senior IT executives, cited in John G. Spooner, 

“Weighing the results of PC recycling,” CNET News.com, April 16, 2004. 

To estimate the storage/re-use rate for workplace computers based on the IBM data, the IBM 

survey results were assumed to represent the proportional relationship between the number of 

workplace computers managed by disposal companies, donated to charity, and discarded on site 

(e.g., depositing them in on-site trash containers).66 Based on this assumption, approximately 44 

percent of workplace computers were estimated to be managed by an outside disposal company, 

while 35 percent were donated to charity. Due to resource constraints, we were unable to 

identify any studies of the electronics disposal industry indicating how many computers are resold by disposal companies on an annual basis. An article published by the Kansas City Star in 

May of 2000, however, suggests that these companies re-sell approximately 50 percent of the 

electronic products they collect.67 Based on this percentage, approximately 22 percent of 

workplace computers (i.e., half of 44 percent) were estimated to be managed by disposal 

companies and subsequently re-sold. Adding this to the 35 percent of workplace computers 

donated to charity, a storage/re-use rate of 58 percent was estimated for workplace computers.68

To estimate the storage/re-use rate for all computers, the weighted average of the household and 

workplace storage/re-use rates presented above was estimated, using the number of computers in 

 

66 Mathematically, this entails scaling the survey results to sum to 100 percent. 

67 Bergstrom, Bill. “New breed of recyclers handles castoff computers,” Kansas City Star, May 9, 2000. In this article, Neil Peters-Michaud, chief 

executive of Cascade Asset Management, is quoted as saying that the company re-sells 50 percent of the electronics it collects by weight. 

68 This estimate is rounded from 57.5 percent. 
65

residential and commercial buildings in 1999 as weights.69 According to the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA), approximately 58 million computers were in commercial buildings in 

1999.70 Based on EIA and Census data for 1997 and 2001 respectively, approximately 57.6 

million computers were estimated to be in U.S. households as of 1999.71 Therefore, calculating 

the weighted average of the household and workplace storage/re-use rates presented above, the 

overall storage/re-use rate for computers (desktops and laptops) was estimated to be 70.1 

percent, as indicated in Exhibit C-2. Because we identified no survey data specific to the storage 

or re-use of computer peripherals, the computer storage/re-use rate was applied to printers,

keyboards, and mice, as well. 

EXHIBIT C-2: STORAGE/RE-USE RATE OF SELECT ELECTRONICS PRODUCTS 

PRODUCT STORAGE/RE-USE RATE 

Desktop Computers 70.1% 

Laptop (Portable) Computers 70.1% 

CRT Monitors 64.7% 

LCD Monitors 64.7% 

CRT Televisions 65.1% 

Projection Televisions 0.0% 

Desktop Computer Printers 52.9% 

Keyboards 70.1% 

Computer Mice 70.1% 

Cell Phones 70.1% 

Note: 

We apply these percentages only to products at the end of their first life. By 

definition, products at the end of their total life are disposed of rather than 

stored or re-used. 

 

69 We use estimates for 1999 because this is the most recent year for which data were available for both households and commercial buildings. 

70 U.S. DOE, EIA, "Computers and Photocopiers in Commercial Buildings," 

 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/pc_copier/pccopier99.html, accessed November 10, 2005. 

71 EIA estimates that approximately 43 million computers were in U.S. households in 1997 (U.S. DOE, EIA, "U.S. Households Usage of Appliances in 

1997" http://eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs97/appusage.html, accessed November 10, 2005). In addition, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 

approximately 45.8 million U.S. households had one computer in 2001 and that approximately 15.7 million households had more than one 

computer (U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, September 2001). Assuming that all households with more than one computer had two 

computers, we estimate that approximately 77.1 million computers were in U.S. households in 2001. Assuming a constant growth rate between 

1997 and 2001, we estimate that approximately 57.6 million computers were in U.S. households in 1999. 
66

STORAGE AND RE-USE OF COMPUTER MONITORS 

The estimate of the storage/re-use rate for household computer monitors is based on the results 

of the California Integrated Waste Management Board’s e-waste diversion survey.72 Based on 

the results of the California survey, a household storage/re-use rate of 72 percent was estimated. 

None of the information sources identified contained data specific to the storage or re-use of 

computer monitors in workplaces. Therefore, the storage/re-use rate estimated for workplace 

computers (57.6 percent) was used as a proxy for the storage and re-use of monitors in the 

workplace. Similarly, the proportional relationship between the number of monitors in 

households and the number of monitors in commercial buildings was assumed to be the same as 

the corresponding relationship for computers. Calculating the weighted average of the 

household and workplace storage/re-use rates, the overall storage/re-use rate for monitors was 

estimated to be 64.7 percent 

STORAGE AND RE-USE OF TELEVISIONS 

To estimate the storage/re-use rate for CRT televisions, household storage/re-use was assumed to 

be representative of all storage and re-use of televisions. Several of the surveys identified 

contain questions about televisions, but only the California Integrated Waste Management Board 

e-waste diversion survey included questions that capture both the storage and re-use of 

televisions.73 According to the results of this survey, 65.1 percent of respondents gave away, 

stored, sold, or traded in televisions that they stopped using. Therefore, the storage/re-use rate 

for CRT televisions was assumed to be 65.1 percent, as indicated in Exhibit C-2. 

Although projection televisions and CRT televisions are similar in several ways, the results of 

the California survey were not used to estimate the storage/re-use rate for projection televisions. 

As indicated in the main body of this report, no projection televisions were assumed to be reused or put into storage at the end of their first life. 

STORAGE AND RE-USE OF CELL PHONES 

The only data source identified with information related to the storage and re-use of cell phones 

is the Consumer Electronics Association’s (CEA’s) re-use and recycling survey. Based on the 

results of this survey, consumers donate or sell approximately 52.9 percent of their unwanted cell 

phones. Because the CEA survey asks respondents about cell phones they removed from their 

homes rather than cell phones they no longer use, the results of the survey do not reflect the 

 

72 The California Integrated Waste Management Board’s survey asks respondents about monitors in general with no specific mention of CRT or LCD 

monitors. Therefore, we assume that the results of the survey apply to both technologies. 

73 The Massachusetts DEP survey asked individuals what they did with their broken televisions; however, because several of the respondents had 

their televisions repaired, the survey includes several televisions that are not at the end of their total life. Therefore, we do not use the results 

of the survey in our analysis. 
67

storage of cell phones. Absent data from other sources, the CEA results were used as a proxy for 

cell phone storage and re-use. 
68

APPENDIX D: MATERIAL COMPOSITION OF 

SELECT ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS 

As indicated in the main body of this report, information on the material composition of several 

electronic products was collected to inform our baseline assessment of the generation and 

management of electronic waste in the U.S.74 Exhibits D-1 through D-7 summarize this 

information. As these exhibits indicate, we were able to obtain detailed constituent data for 

desktop and laptop computers, CRT monitors, flat-panel LCD monitors, CRT televisions, and 

cell phones. We also obtained composition data for keyboards, although these data are not as 

detailed as the information we have compiled for other products.75 We were unable to locate 

information on the composition of printers, mice, and projection televisions. 

The constituent estimates presented in Exhibits D-1 through D-7 indicate that most of the 

electronic products included in our analysis include lead. Lead is most highly concentrated in 

CRT products, but it is also found in desktop and laptop computers, LCD monitors, and cell 

phones. The constituent data included in Exhibits D-1 through D-7 also show that a number of 

valuable metals are included in most electronic products. For example, CRT monitors, desktops, 

and cell phones all contain silver, while desktops and CRT monitors both contain gold. 

 

74 The data sources from which we obtained these data include Bhuie, A. K., et al., "Environmental and Economic Trade-Offs in Consumer 

Electronic Products Recycling," Proceedings of IEEE 2004 conference on electronic waste; California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 

Hazardous Materials Laboratory, Determination of regulated elements in discarded laptop computers, LCD monitors, Plasma TVs and LCD TVs,

SB20 Report, December 2004; Five Winds International, Toxic and Hazardous Materials in Electronics, October 2001; Microelectronics and 

Computer Technology Corporation, Electronic Industry Environmental Roadmap, 1996, as cited in Silicon Valley Toxic Coalition (SVTC), Poison PCs 

and Toxic TVs, February 2004; Matsuto, T, et al., "Material and heavy metal balance in a recycling facility for home electrical appliances," Waste 

Management, 24, (2004); RIS International, Ltd., Baseline Study of End-of-Life Electrical and Electronic Equipment in Canada, June 2003; U.S. 

EPA, Desktop Computer Displays: A Life-Cycle Assessment, December 2001; and Williams, Eric. “Environmental Impacts in the Production of 

Personal Computers,” Computers and the Environment, edited by Ruediger Kuehr and Eric Williams, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003. 

75 Lee, C. H., et al., "An overview of recycling and treatment of scrap computers," Journal of Hazardous Materials B114 (2004) 93-100. 
69

EXHIBIT D-1: MATERIAL COMPOSITION OF A DESKTOP COMPUTER 

MATERIAL AMOUNT CONTAINED IN A DESKTOP (GRAMS) 

Metals 7,254 - 7,524 

 Steel1 6,050 

 Copper1 670 

 Aluminum1 440 

 Tin1 47 

 Lead1 27 

 Silver1 1.4 

 Gold1 0.36 

 Nickel1 18 

 Germanium2 < 45 

 Gallium2 < 45 

 Indium2 < 45 

 Europium2 < 45 

 Ruthenium2 < 45 

 Bismuth2 < 45 

Non-metallic Elements 0.44 - 45.44 

 Selenium2 0.44 

 Arsenic2 < 45 

Plastics1 650 

Epoxy Resin1 1,040 

Sources: 

1. Williams, Eric. “Environmental Impacts in the Production of Personal 

Computers,” Computers and the Environment, edited by Ruediger Kuehr and Eric 

Williams, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003. 

2. Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation, Electronic Industry 

Environmental Roadmap, 1996, as cited in Silicon Valley Toxic Coalition (SVTC), 

Poison PCs and Toxic TVs, February 2004. This study combines desktops and CRT 

monitors into one product category but provides some composition information 

specific to desktops. 
70

EXHIBIT D-2: MATERIAL COMPOSITION OF A CRT MONITOR 

PRODUCT 

AVERAGE AMOUNT CONTAINED IN A 

CRT MONITOR 

RANGE OF MASS VALUES 

IDENTIFIED IN THE LITERATURE 

GRAMS*

PERCENT OF TOTAL 

MASS GRAMS*

PERCENT OF TOTAL 

MASS 

Metals 5,683-5,818 36.5%-37.4% 4,788-7,145 30.8%-45.9% 

 Steel1 3,322 21.4% 2,850-3,794 18.3%-24.4% 

 Copper2 952 6.1% 705-1,198 4.5%-7.7% 

 Aluminum3 242 1.6% 199-717 1.3%-4.6% 

 Lead1 464 3.0% 331-597 2.1%-3.8% 

 Ferrite4 483 3.1% 

 Tin4 20 0.13% 

 Silver4 1.25 0.01% 

 Gold4 0.31 0.002% 

 Nickel5 199 1.28% 

 Barium6 < 45 <0.29% 

 Vanadium6 < 45 <0.29% 

 Yttrium6 < 45 <0.29% 

Only one value identified. 

Glass7 6,845 44.0% 5,982-6,865 38.5%-44.1% 

Plastics8 2,481 16.0% 2,235-3,555 14.4%-22.9% 

Epoxy Resin4 141 0.91% Only one value identified. 

Note: *

 The composition estimates presented in grams are scaled from the sources we consulted to be 

consistent with an average CRT monitor mass of 34.3 pounds, which is consistent with the 

estimate for the 1990-2005 period presented in Exhibit 3-3. 

Sources: 

1. Based on average of percent of total mass from Williams, Eric. “Environmental Impacts in the 

Production of Personal Computers,” Computers and the Environment, edited by Ruediger Kuehr 

and Eric Williams, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003 and U.S. EPA, Desktop Computer Displays: 

A Life-Cycle Assessment, December 2001. 

2. Based on average of percent of total mass from Williams (2003) and Menad, N. “Cathode ray 

tube recycling,” Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, Vol. 26, 1999. 

3. Average value based on percent of total mass as derived from Williams (2003). Low-end and 

high-end estimates based on U.S. EPA (2001) and Menad (1999), respectively. 

4. Based on percent of total mass as derived from Williams (2003). 

5. Based on percent of total mass as presented in U.S. EPA (2001). 

6. Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation, Electronic Industry Environmental 

Roadmap, 1996, as cited in Silicon Valley Toxic Coalition (SVTC), Poison PCs and Toxic TVs, 

February 2004. This study combines desktops and CRT monitors into one product category but 

provides some composition information specific to CRT monitors. 

7. Average value based on percent of total mass as presented in U.S. EPA (2001). Low-end and 

high-end estimates based on Menad (1999) and Williams (2003), respectively. 

8. Average value based on percent of total mass as derived from Menad (1999). Low -end and 

high-end estimates based on U.S. EPA (2001) and Williams (2003), respectively. 
71

EXHIBIT D-3: PRIMARY MATERIAL INPUTS FOR A 15-INCH LCD MONITOR 

MATERIAL 

AMOUNT CONTAINED 

(GRAMS) 

PERCENT OF TOTAL 

MASS 

Metals 2,702 47.15% 

 Steel 2,530 44.12% 

 Aluminum (heat sink) 130 2.34% 

 Solder (60% tin, 40% lead) 40 0.66% 

 Transition metals, other (Mo, Ti, W) 1.9 0.03% 

 Mercury 0.00399 0.0001% 

Plastics 1,780 30.98% 

Glass 590 10.31% 

Miscellaneous Compounds 11 0.17% 

 Polyvinyl alcohol 10 0.15% 

 Indium tin oxide (ITO) (electrode) 0.5 0.01% 

 Polyimide alignment layer 0.5 0.01% 

Other 44.2 0.72% 

 Color filter pigment 40 0.65% 

 Liquid crystals 2.3 0.04% 

 Backlight lamp (CCFL) 1.9 0.03% 

Source: 

EPA, "Desktop Computer Displays: A Life-Cycle Assessment," EPA-744-R-01-004a, December 

2001. 
72

EXHIBIT D-4: MATERIAL COMPOSITION OF A CELL PHONE 

MATERIAL 

AMOUNT CONTAINED 

(GRAMS)*

PERCENT OF TOTAL 

MASS 

Metals 58 43.8% 

 Lead 1 0.9% 

 Aluminum 12 9% 

 Iron 11 8% 

 Tin 1 1% 

 Copper 26 19% 

 Nickel 1 1% 

 Zinc 4 3% 

 Silver 1 0.9% 

 Mercury 1 1% 

Plastics 63 46% 

Silica 5 4% 

Note: * Assuming a cell phone average weight of 136 g, consistent with the average mass of a cell 

phone during the 2000-2005 period, as presented in Exhibit 3-3. 

Source: 

Bhuie, A. K., et al., “Environmental and Economic Trade-Offs in Consumer Electronic Products 

Recycling: A case study of cell phones and computers,” IEEE, 2004, 75. 

EXHIBIT D-5: COMPONENTS IN A TYPICAL PC KEYBOARD 

COMPONENT MATERIAL 

AMOUNT CONTAINED 

(GRAMS) 

PERCENT OF TOTAL 

MASS 

Shell Plastic 348 37.91% 

 Top plate Plastic 118 12.85% 

 Bottom plate Plastic 230 25.06% 

IC Board IC, resin, copper, iron 384 41.83% 

Button Plastic 116 12.63% 

Wire Copper, plastic 70 7.63% 

Total 918 100.00% 

Source: 

Lee, C. H., et al., "An overview of recycling and treatment of scrap computers," Journal of 

Hazardous Materials B114 (2004) 93-100. 
73

EXHIBIT D-6: MATERIALS IN A CRT TELEVISION 

MATERIAL 

AMOUNT CONTAINED 

(GRAMS)*

PERCENT OF TOTAL 

MASS 

Metals 4,107-4,262 14.3%-14.8% 

 Steel/Iron1 2,088 7.3% 

 Lead1,2 1,291-1,347 4.5%-4.7% 

 Copper1,2 606-705 2.1%-2.5% 

 Aluminum1 67 0.23% 

 Zinc2 8.6 0.03% 

 Tin2 31.6 0.11% 

 Cadmium2 0.2 0.001% 

 Chromium2 0.03 0.0001% 

 Antimony2 14.4 0.05% 

Glass1 15,760 54.8% 

Plastic1 8,755 30.4% 

Note: *

 We scale the mass values presented in the sources listed below to be consistent with our 

estimate of the average mass of a CRT TV during the 1990-2005 period as reported in Exhibit 3-3 

(28.8 kg or 63.4 pounds). 

Sources: 

1. RIS International, Ltd., Baseline Study of End-of-Life Electrical and Electronic Equipment in 

Canada, June 2003, Table 4.2. This table presents the composition of a 42.7-kg 28-inch CRT 

TV. 

2. Matsuto, T., et al., “Material and heavy metal balance in a recycling facility for home 

electrical appliances,” Waste Management 24 (2004), 434. This study presents grams of 

material (e.g., cadmium) per kg of CRT TV mass. 
74

EXHIBIT D-7: MATERIALS IN A LAPTOP LCD PANEL AND PC BOARD 

MATERIAL GRAMS PER KG OF PRODUCT1 GRAMS PER LAPTOP, ASSUMING 

A LAPTOP MASS OF 3.5 KG 

Antimony 0.22 0.77 

Arsenic 0.003 0.01 

Barium 0.70 2.45 

Chromium 0.02 0.07 

Copper 38.7 135.45 

Lead 1.5 5.25 

Mercury2 - 0.00012 - 0.0005 

Molybdenum 0.01 0.04 

Nickel 1.03 3.61 

Silver 0.07 0.25 

Zinc 0.001 0.004 

Notes: 

1. Except for mercury, these values represent the average composition of four laptops analyzed 

in California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Materials Laboratory, 

Determination of regulated elements in discarded laptop computers, LCD monitors, Plasma TVs 

and LCD TVs, SB20 Report, December 2004. 

2. Based on various sources cited in Five Winds International, Toxic and Hazardous Materials in 

Electronics, October 2001. 
 

APPENDIX E: MATERIAL COMPOSITION OF RETIRED ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS 

This appendix presents estimates of the total quantity (i.e., mass) of individual constituents 

included in the electronic waste stream in 2003, 2004, and 2005, by management method. These 

estimates were developed by multiplying the product retirement estimates generated by the waste 

flow model described in the main body of this report by the per unit constituent information 

presented in Appendix D. The results are presented both in aggregate and for individual 

products. It is important to note, however, that the aggregate estimates only reflect constituents 

included in those products for which we were able to identify material composition information 

(i.e., desktops, laptops, CRT monitors, LCD monitors, CRT televisions, cell phones, and 

keyboards). Constituents included in other products (e.g., mice) are not reflected in the results 

presented in this appendix. 
EXHIBIT E-1: MATERIAL COMPOSITION OF AGGREGATE E-WASTE VOLUME FOR ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS BY MANAGEMENT 

METHOD (IN POUNDS)* 

LANDFILLED RECYCLED INCINERATED 

MATERIAL 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 

Aluminum 26,431,609 26,498,975 27,413,819 8,608,041 8,620,096 8,894,458 751,906 753,822 779,847 Antimony 610,576 627,803 649,233 98,382 101,312 104,998 17,369 17,859 18,469 Arsenic 1,287,810 1,349,293 1,380,765 467,980 490,322 501,759 36,635 38,384 39,279 Backlight lamp (CCFL) 256 800 2,152 86 268 720 7 23 61 Barium 1,804,774 1,660,163 1,689,663 604,378 556,094 566,090 51,341 47,227 48,066 Bismuth 1,287,709 1,349,179 1,380,633 467,943 490,281 501,711 36,632 38,380 39,275 Cadmium 12,064 12,389 12,790 1,914 1,966 2,029 343 352 364 Chromium 1,877 1,997 2,164 435 472 525 53 57 62 Color filter pigment 5,543 17,331 46,630 1,854 5,797 15,598 158 493 1,326 Copper 88,258,064 87,330,456 90,066,155 25,004,088 24,562,575 25,284,892 2,510,697 2,484,310 2,562,133 Epoxy Resin 35,349,969 36,307,212 37,112,743 12,684,407 13,045,649 13,336,101 1,005,609 1,032,840 1,055,755 Europium 1,287,709 1,349,179 1,380,633 467,943 490,281 501,711 36,632 38,380 39,275 Ferrite 19,041,421 17,462,811 17,730,607 6,369,382 5,841,335 5,930,913 541,676 496,769 504,387 Gallium 1,287,709 1,349,179 1,380,633 467,943 490,281 501,711 36,632 38,380 39,275 Germanium 1,287,709 1,349,179 1,380,633 467,943 490,281 501,711 36,632 38,380 39,275 Glass 931,457,141 927,062,970 953,283,703 195,320,967 190,716,659 195,626,819 26,497,375 26,372,373 27,118,281 Gold 22,586 22,060 22,484 7,853 7,691 7,840 643 628 640 Indium 1,287,709 1,349,179 1,380,633 467,943 490,281 501,711 36,632 38,380 39,275 Indium tin oxide (ITO) 85 267 717 29 89 240 2 8 20 Iron 1,082,829 1,228,467 1,469,765 265,136 300,796 359,879 30,803 34,946 41,811 Lead 74,866,062 74,894,463 77,052,109 15,297,215 15,043,390 15,439,439 2,129,732 2,130,540 2,191,919 Liquid crystals 341 1,067 2,870 114 357 960 10 30 82 Mercury 135,357 153,564 183,732 33,143 37,602 44,989 3,851 4,368 5,227 Molybdenum 335 379 443 122 138 161 10 11 13 Nickel 8,547,251 7,942,740 8,102,602 2,862,813 2,659,812 2,711,134 243,146 225,949 230,497 Plastics 525,330,685 534,412,179 552,676,242 112,229,943 113,625,481 117,524,174 14,944,203 15,202,546 15,722,108 Polyimide alignment layer 85 267 717 29 89 240 2 8 20 
77

LANDFILLED RECYCLED INCINERATED 

MATERIAL 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 

Polyvinyl alcohol 1,279 4,000 10,761 428 1,338 3,599 36 114 306 Ruthenium 1,287,709 1,349,179 1,380,633 467,943 490,281 501,711 36,632 38,380 39,275 Selenium 12,591 13,192 13,500 4,575 4,794 4,906 358 375 384 Silica 541,414 614,233 734,882 132,568 150,398 179,940 15,402 17,473 20,905 Silver 225,652 239,163 268,596 65,786 68,900 76,353 6,419 6,804 7,641 Solder (60% tin; 40% lead) 5,629 17,598 47,347 1,883 5,886 15,838 160 501 1,347 Steel 304,948,841 303,115,768 311,181,864 107,007,493 106,633,087 109,453,378 8,674,950 8,622,804 8,852,262 Steel/Iron 88,066,758 90,441,248 93,365,913 13,972,230 14,348,954 14,812,967 2,505,255 2,572,803 2,656,002 Tin 3,605,839 3,657,826 3,776,140 999,526 1,010,847 1,040,919 102,576 104,055 107,421 Transition Metals, other (Mo, Ti, W) 256 800 2,152 86 268 720 7 23 61 Vanadium 1,781,294 1,633,618 1,658,670 595,845 546,447 554,827 50,673 46,472 47,185 Yttrium 1,781,294 1,633,618 1,658,670 595,845 546,447 554,827 50,673 46,472 47,185 Zinc 768,013 832,389 934,902 156,858 171,781 195,846 21,848 23,679 26,595 Total 2,123,711,840 2,127,286,180 2,190,839,299 506,199,091 502,048,822 516,258,342 60,413,719 60,515,399 62,323,309 * Based on available material composition information for desktops, laptops, CRT monitors, LCD monitors, CRT televisions, cell phones, and keyboards. 
78

EXHIBIT E-2: MATERIAL COMPOSITION OF AGGREGATE E-WASTE VOLUME FOR DESKTOPS BY MANAGEMENT METHOD 

 (IN POUNDS) 

LANDFILLED RECYCLED INCINERATED 

MATERIAL 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 

Aluminum 12,590,934 13,191,975 13,499,518 4,575,444 4,793,857 4,905,616 358,177 375,275 384,024 Arsenic 1,287,709 1,349,179 1,380,633 467,943 490,281 501,711 36,632 38,380 39,275 Bismuth 1,287,709 1,349,179 1,380,633 467,943 490,281 501,711 36,632 38,380 39,275 Copper 19,172,559 20,087,780 20,556,084 6,967,153 7,299,737 7,469,915 545,406 571,442 584,764 Epoxy Resin 29,760,390 31,181,032 31,907,952 10,814,685 11,330,934 11,595,091 846,601 887,014 907,693 Europium 1,287,709 1,349,179 1,380,633 467,943 490,281 501,711 36,632 38,380 39,275 Gallium 1,287,709 1,349,179 1,380,633 467,943 490,281 501,711 36,632 38,380 39,275 Germanium 1,287,709 1,349,179 1,380,633 467,943 490,281 501,711 36,632 38,380 39,275 Gold 10,302 10,793 11,045 3,744 3,922 4,014 293 307 314 Indium 1,287,709 1,349,179 1,380,633 467,943 490,281 501,711 36,632 38,380 39,275 Lead 772,626 809,508 828,380 280,766 294,168 301,026 21,979 23,028 23,565 Nickel 515,084 539,672 552,253 187,177 196,112 200,684 14,653 15,352 15,710 Plastics 18,600,244 19,488,145 19,942,470 6,759,178 7,081,834 7,246,932 529,125 554,384 567,308 Ruthenium 1,287,709 1,349,179 1,380,633 467,943 490,281 501,711 36,632 38,380 39,275 Selenium 12,591 13,192 13,500 4,575 4,794 4,906 358 375 384 Silver 40,062 41,974 42,953 14,558 15,253 15,609 1,140 1,194 1,222 Steel 173,125,347 181,389,655 185,618,374 62,912,349 65,915,531 67,452,214 4,924,937 5,160,033 5,280,329 Tin 1,344,941 1,409,143 1,441,994 488,741 512,071 524,009 38,260 40,086 41,021 Total 264,959,044 277,607,123 284,078,950 96,283,970 100,880,180 103,231,989 7,537,351 7,897,154 8,081,259 
79

EXHIBIT E-3: MATERIAL COMPOSITION OF AGGREGATE E-WASTE VOLUME FOR LAPTOPS BY MANAGEMENT METHOD 

 (IN POUNDS) 

LANDFILLED RECYCLED INCINERATED 

MATERIAL 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 

Antimony 7,380 8,343 9,741 2,682 3,032 3,540 210 237 277 Arsenic 101 114 133 37 41 48 3 3 4 Barium 23,480 26,545 30,993 8,533 9,646 11,263 668 755 882 Chromium 671 758 886 244 276 322 19 22 25 Copper 1,298,123 1,467,575 1,713,462 471,728 533,305 622,658 36,928 41,748 48,743 Lead 50,315 56,883 66,413 18,284 20,671 24,134 1,431 1,618 1,889 Mercury 3 3 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 Molybdenum 335 379 443 122 138 161 10 11 13 Nickel 34,550 39,059 45,604 12,555 14,194 16,572 983 1,111 1,297 Silver 2,348 2,655 3,099 853 965 1,126 67 76 88 Zinc 34 38 44 12 14 16 1 1 1 Total 1,417,339 1,602,352 1,870,821 515,050 582,282 679,841 40,319 45,582 53,220 
80

EXHIBIT E-4: MATERIAL COMPOSITION OF AGGREGATE E-WASTE VOLUME FOR CRT MONITORS BY MANAGEMENT METHOD 

(IN POUNDS) 

LANDFILLED RECYCLED INCINERATED 

MATERIAL 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 

Aluminum 9,827,830 9,013,064 9,151,281 3,287,423 3,014,882 3,061,116 279,575 256,397 260,329 Barium 1,781,294 1,633,618 1,658,670 595,845 546,447 554,827 50,673 46,472 47,185 Copper 37,468,603 34,362,305 34,889,260 12,533,300 11,494,239 11,670,507 1,065,878 977,512 992,503 Epoxy Resin 5,589,578 5,126,180 5,204,791 1,869,722 1,714,714 1,741,010 159,008 145,826 148,062 Ferrite 19,041,421 17,462,811 17,730,607 6,369,382 5,841,335 5,930,913 541,676 496,769 504,387 Glass 270,265,331 247,859,250 251,660,235 90,404,133 82,909,268 84,180,703 7,688,300 7,050,909 7,159,037 Gold 12,285 11,266 11,439 4,109 3,769 3,826 349 320 325 Lead 18,427,182 16,899,494 17,158,652 6,163,918 5,652,905 5,739,593 524,202 480,744 488,116 Nickel 7,862,264 7,210,451 7,321,025 2,629,938 2,411,906 2,448,893 223,660 205,117 208,263 Plastics 98,278,302 90,130,636 91,512,813 32,874,230 30,148,825 30,611,165 2,795,745 2,563,967 2,603,286 Silver 61,424 56,332 57,196 20,546 18,843 19,132 1,747 1,602 1,627 Steel 131,447,229 120,549,726 122,398,387 43,969,283 40,324,053 40,942,433 3,739,310 3,429,306 3,481,895 Tin 798,511 732,311 743,542 267,103 244,959 248,716 22,715 20,832 21,152 Vanadium 1,781,294 1,633,618 1,658,670 595,845 546,447 554,827 50,673 46,472 47,185 Yttrium 1,781,294 1,633,618 1,658,670 595,845 546,447 554,827 50,673 46,472 47,185 Total 604,423,843 554,314,680 562,815,237 202,180,626 185,419,040 188,262,489 17,194,184 15,768,717 16,010,534 
81

EXHIBIT E-5: MATERIAL COMPOSITION OF AGGREGATE E-WASTE VOLUME FOR LCD MONITORS BY MANAGEMENT METHOD 

(IN POUNDS) 

LANDFILLED RECYCLED INCINERATED 

MATERIAL 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 

Aluminum 19,956 62,392 167,868 6,675 20,870 56,152 568 1,775 4,775 Backlight lamp (CCFL) 256 800 2,152 86 268 720 7 23 61 Color filter pigment 5,543 17,331 46,630 1,854 5,797 15,598 158 493 1,326 Glass 87,926 274,899 739,624 29,411 91,954 247,405 2,501 7,820 21,040 Indium tin oxide (ITO) 85 267 717 29 89 240 2 8 20 Liquid crystals 341 1,067 2,870 114 357 960 10 30 82 Mercury 1 3 7 0 1 2 0 0 0 Plastics 264,204 826,031 2,222,459 88,377 276,308 743,416 7,516 23,498 63,223 Polyimide alignment layer 85 267 717 29 89 240 2 8 20 Polyvinyl alcohol 1,279 4,000 10,761 428 1,338 3,599 36 114 306 Solder (60% tin; 40% lead) 5,629 17,598 47,347 1,883 5,886 15,838 160 501 1,347 Steel 376,265 1,176,387 3,165,103 125,861 393,503 1,058,731 10,704 33,465 90,038 Transition Metals, other (Mo, Ti, W) 256 800 2,152 86 268 720 7 23 61 Total 761,826 2,381,840 6,408,409 254,832 796,729 2,143,622 21,672 67,757 182,301 
82

EXHIBIT E-6: MATERIAL COMPOSITION OF AGGREGATE E-WASTE VOLUME FOR CRT TELEVISIONS BY MANAGEMENT METHOD 

(IN POUNDS) 

LANDFILLED RECYCLED INCINERATED 

MATERIAL 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 

Aluminum 2,774,706 2,849,519 2,941,666 440,221 452,090 466,710 78,933 81,061 83,682 Antimony 603,197 619,461 639,493 95,700 98,281 101,459 17,159 17,622 18,192 Cadmium 12,064 12,389 12,790 1,914 1,966 2,029 343 352 364 Chromium 1,206 1,239 1,279 191 197 203 34 35 36 Copper 27,747,061 28,495,188 29,416,658 4,402,209 4,520,903 4,667,099 789,327 810,609 836,822 Glass 661,103,884 678,928,821 700,883,844 104,887,422 107,715,437 111,198,711 18,806,574 19,313,644 19,938,204 Lead 55,494,122 56,990,375 58,833,315 8,804,419 9,041,807 9,334,198 1,578,654 1,621,218 1,673,645 Plastic 366,743,761 376,632,047 388,811,475 58,185,723 59,754,549 61,686,876 10,432,844 10,714,138 11,060,609 Steel/Iron 88,066,758 90,441,248 93,365,913 13,972,230 14,348,954 14,812,967 2,505,255 2,572,803 2,656,002 Tin 1,327,033 1,362,813 1,406,884 210,540 216,217 223,209 37,750 38,768 40,022 Zinc 361,918 371,676 383,696 57,420 58,968 60,875 10,296 10,573 10,915 Total 1,204,235,711 1,236,704,776 1,276,697,012 191,057,990 196,209,369 202,554,337 34,257,170 35,180,825 36,318,493 
83

EXHIBIT E-7: MATERIAL COMPOSITION OF AGGREGATE E-WASTE VOLUME FOR CELL PHONES BY MANAGEMENT METHOD 

(IN POUNDS) 

LANDFILLED RECYCLED INCINERATED 

MATERIAL 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 

Aluminum 1,218,182 1,382,025 1,653,485 298,278 338,396 404,864 34,654 39,315 47,037 Copper 2,571,718 2,917,609 3,490,691 629,698 714,391 854,713 73,158 82,998 99,300 Iron 1,082,829 1,228,467 1,469,765 265,136 300,796 359,879 30,803 34,946 41,811 Lead 121,818 138,203 165,349 29,828 33,840 40,486 3,465 3,931 4,704 Mercury 135,354 153,558 183,721 33,142 37,600 44,985 3,850 4,368 5,226 Nickel 135,354 153,558 183,721 33,142 37,600 44,985 3,850 4,368 5,226 Plastics 6,226,266 7,063,684 8,451,147 1,524,532 1,729,578 2,069,305 177,120 200,942 240,412 Silica 541,414 614,233 734,882 132,568 150,398 179,940 15,402 17,473 20,905 Silver 121,818 138,203 165,349 29,828 33,840 40,486 3,465 3,931 4,704 Tin 135,354 153,558 183,721 33,142 37,600 44,985 3,850 4,368 5,226 Zinc 406,061 460,675 551,162 99,426 112,799 134,955 11,551 13,105 15,679 Total 12,696,168 14,403,773 17,232,991 3,108,720 3,526,836 4,219,584 361,171 409,747 490,231 
84

EXHIBIT E-8: MATERIAL COMPOSITION OF AGGREGATE E-WASTE VOLUME FOR KEYBOARDS BY MANAGEMENT METHOD 

(IN POUNDS) 

LANDFILLED RECYCLED INCINERATED 

MATERIAL 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 

Copper/plastic (Wire) 5,316,831 6,079,790 6,300,846 1,932,093 2,209,346 2,289,676 151,249 172,953 179,242 IC/resin/copper/iron (IC Board) 29,148,499 33,331,273 34,543,170 10,592,328 12,112,315 12,552,708 829,194 948,182 982,657 Plastic (Button) 8,800,993 10,063,925 10,429,841 3,198,210 3,657,149 3,790,120 250,364 286,291 296,700 Plastic (Shell) 26,416,916 30,207,711 31,306,038 9,599,693 10,977,238 11,376,361 751,488 859,326 890,570 Total 69,683,239 79,682,699 82,579,894 25,322,325 28,956,047 30,008,864 1,982,295 2,266,752 2,349,169