ELECTRONICS WASTE MANAGEMENT 

IN THE UNITED STATES 

APPROACH 1 

April, 2007 

Draft Final 

EPA530-R-07-004a 

Office of Solid Waste 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, DC 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

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

Eastern Research Group, Inc of Lexington, MA. The Office of Solid Waste would like to 

thank especially Lynn Knight and Shelly Schneider for their assistance in developing the 

model upon which this report is based and in drafting the report. This Office would also 

like to thank Robin Ingenthron of American Retroworks Inc., Good Point Recycling and 

the World Reuse, Repair and Recycling Association for his assistance on the end markets 

discussion. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Objectives and Scope........................................................................................... 2 

1.2 Overview of Methodology................................................................................... 3 

1.3 Organization of the Report................................................................................... 5 

2.0 Data and Assumptions in the Model ................................................................ 7

2.1 Historical Sales Data: Televisions, Cell Phones, and Personal Computer 

Products................................................................................................................ 7 

2.2 Assumptions Regarding the Life Span of Electronic Products.......................... 10 

2.3 Average Weight Data: Televisions and Computer Equipment.......................... 17 

3.0 Model Results................................................................................................... 21

3.1 The Quantity of EOL Electronics Generated for Management Each Year ....... 21 

3.2 Estimating the Quantity of EOL Products Generated That Are Recycled Versus 

Disposed............................................................................................................. 23 

3.3 Estimating the Quantity in Storage.................................................................... 26 

4.0 Quantity Available for Recycling Based on Observed Collection Rates .... 29

5.0 Examining End Markets of Material Collected Through Electronics 

Collection Programs in the U.S....................................................................... 31

6.0 Summary and Conclusion ............................................................................... 33

APPENDIX A AGE DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS BASED ON 

ANALYSES OF DATA FROM THE FLORIDA STATE DEPARTMENT 

OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.............................................. A-1 

APPENDIX B ESTIMATING THE QUANTITY OF EOL ELECTRONIC 

PRODUCTS DISPOSED: ANALYSIS OF WASTE SORT 

 STUDIES ................................................................................................... B-1

APPENDIX C AVERAGE COLLECTION RATES FROM EXISTING ELECTRONICS 

 COLLECTION PROGRAMS ................................................................. C-1
1.0 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 state-wide 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. 

 1
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 life spans 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 

One.” 

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. 

1.1 Objectives and Scope 

In pursuing activities related to EOL electronics, information regarding the amount of 

material potentially in need of EOL management needs to be up-dated periodically. This 

report presents a compilation and assessment of data to establish a baseline of knowledge 

that can be built upon as the nation moves forward in managing electronics. The scope of 

products covered in this report includes: 

• Personal computers (PCs), including desktops, portables, and computer monitors 

• Televisions 

 2
• Hard copy computer peripherals, including printers, scanners, and fax machines 

• Computer mice and keyboards 

• Cell phones 

These products were chosen because they make up the majority of the electronic products 

collected and have been the focus of electronics recycling initiatives at the federal, state, 

and local level. This analysis includes products from all sectors of the economy (i.e., 

residential, commercial, and institutional). 

The objectives of this study are to: 

• Estimate the number and weight of products that will become obsolete and need 

EOL management annually. 

• Estimate what portion of EOL electronic products are recycled versus disposed. 

• Estimate how much material that is ready for EOL management may be in 

storage. 

• Examine the collection rates experienced by existing electronics recycling 

programs as an indicator of the amount of material that is, on a practical basis, 

available for recycling. 

• Examine the current situation regarding the end markets for TV and CRT 

monitors collected for recycling. 

It has been several years since a national study of electronics waste generation was 

undertaken. The EPA cosponsored a study published by the National Safety Council in 

1999 (“Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report”), which was the 

first large-scale survey and analysis of EOL electronic product recycling and reuse in the 

United States. The results of this study will update the available information on this topic 

and provide a basis for supporting strategic and policy decisions aimed at providing 

national, regional, or local solutions to a prominent issue. 

1.2 Overview of Methodology 

The estimates developed in this report are based on several sources of data. Sales data 

are based primarily on industry data on product sales. In addition, this report relies on 

data from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and other state data, as 

well as data bases developed by EPA for the publication of the report Municipal Solid 

Waste in the United States: 2003 Facts and Figures.

The pattern of product use forms the methodological framework used in this study. This 

pattern begins at the point the product is purchased and ends with its final disposition. 

Figure 1.1 depicts the framework used in this analysis. As shown in the figure, the first 

phase of a product’s life begins with the purchaser or “first user” of the product. After the 

first use is Phase 2, in which the product may be given or sold to someone else for reuse, 

be stored (e.g., in a closet or basement) for a period of time, or undergo some 

combination of reuse and storage. Phase 2 may include the transfer of the product from 

one person to another, either as a gift or a sale, but only if this transfer is from individual 

 3
to individual as opposed to involving a third party, such as an electronics recycler, 

broker, or donation organization. Phase 3 is the point at which the last user is ready to 

remove the product from a private home or business. This change can result from the 

desire to replace or otherwise stop using the product or the desire to remove the product 

from storage. It is at this point that we state that the product is ready for EOL 

management and it is transferred to a third party, such as a recycler or donation 

organization, or it is disposed. Once the product is in the hands of a recycler, the product 

may be sold for reuse “as is” or after some refurbishment. The resale may occur 

domestically or by firms outside the United States. Electronic devices that are not 

candidates for resale are dismantled or shredded, and the resulting material is separated 

into secondary material streams and recovered. Recovered materials from the recycling 

process are used to make new products, and the residuals of the processing stage are 

disposed of in a landfill or incinerator. Material recovery may occur domestically or 

abroad. 

This report quantifies the number and weight of products that correspond to each phase of 

the products lifecycle as illustrated in Figure 1.1. For Phase 1, we assembled product 

sales data, as well as data on the average weight of products by year. We then developed 

assumptions regarding how long Phases 1 and 2 would last. Since the life spans of 

different types of products vary, unique life span assumptions were made for each type of 

product. For example, televisions are typically kept longer than computers. Combining 

the product sales and weight data, and applying the life span assumptions, we used a 

spreadsheet model to predict the number and corresponding weight of material that would 

become ready for EOL management each year. The model considered product sales from 

1980 through 2004, and predicted the annual quantity needing EOL management through 

2006. 

 4
Having estimated the annual quantities of EOL products needing management, we 

examined how much material has been recycled in recent years by the electronics 

recycling industry. We then calculated the amount potentially being disposed of by 

finding the difference between what is generated for management and what is collected 

for recycling on an annual basis. More detail on data and the assumptions used is 

provided in Section 2.0. The organization of the report is described below. 

1.3 Organization of the Report 

Section 2.0 provides a description of the data and assumptions used to develop estimates 

of the number of products ready for EOL management annually. We quantified the 

number of products sold historically by collecting data on product sales. (See Section 2.1 

for more detail.) We then developed assumptions regarding the time for which the 

product is used before it reaches EOL management. (Section 2.2 describes this 

methodology.) The methodology used to estimate average product weights is described in 

Section 2.3. 

Section 3.1 presents the results of the modeling conducted and estimates when and what 

volume of products are ready for EOL management on an annual basis (estimates for 

1999 through 2006 are presented). The estimates regarding the portion that is collected 

for recycling and disposal are described in Section 3.2. Estimates of the number and 

weight of products that might be in storage at a given point in time are presented in 

Section 3.3. 

 5
In theory, all of the material that is in storage is ready for EOL management. In practice, 

however, product users are ready for EOL management at different times. Some may 

choose to hold onto products that have some perceived value to them. The distinction 

between theoretical and practical EOL management is discussed in Section 4.0. Section 

5.0 presents an analysis of the EOL management of CRTs to assess what portion 

collected in the United States is managed domestically versus abroad. Finally, Section 6.0 

summarizes the results and conclusions reached. 

 6
2.0 Data and Assumptions in the Model 

2.1 Historic Sales Data: Televisions, Cell Phones, and Personal Computer Products 

The sales of televisions, cell phones, and personal computer products form the basis for 

estimating the number and weight of products within the scope of this report requiring 

EOL management at some point in the future. Historic sales data from industry sources 

was the primary source (supplemented where necessary by government statistics from the 

U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. International Trade Commission). The following is a 

discussion of data sources for each product type. 

The market research firm, IDC, provided sales data on desktop and portable computers, 

as well as hard copy peripherals. Hard copy peripherals include printers, multi-function 

printers, faxes, and other devices. The availability of industry data was important, 

especially for computer product sales. The sales estimates of personal computers based 

solely on the Census and Trade Commission data would not have accounted for the sale 

of “white box” products—generic computers with no brand names, manufactured by 

vendors that purchase components. It is widely accepted that white box sales account for 

a substantial portion of total U.S. consumption. In a 2004 press release, IDC stated that 

the white box market share in the personal computer sector is about 28 to 30 percent in 

the United States.3

 In addition, Census and trade data were not available for faxes and 

some other hard copy peripheral devices. 

Sales of personal computer monitors, mouse devices, and keyboards were derived by 

analyzing Federal government statistics. In this latter case, we developed sales estimates 

by calculating what is referred to in this study as “apparent consumption,” which 

represents products sold in the United States for use in the United States. Apparent 

consumption was estimated using the following formula: 

Apparent consumption = U.S. shipments - domestic exports + imports for consumption 

The U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Industrial Reports (CIRs) show U.S. shipments, as 

well as domestic exports and imports for consumption. However, the export and import 

data are shown as combined categories, which would not allow us to develop totals by 

product type. Therefore, to better account for the export and imports of single user 

computers, we used the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) interactive 

database.4 The government statistics used in this analysis are shown in Table 2.1. 

 

3

 Halperin, David, Mac News World. The Secret Market Contender: White-Box PCs. Technology Special 

Report. May 1, 2004. www.TechNewsWorld.com. 

4

 The source cited by the Census Bureau for exports was the Harmonized Systembased Schedule B; for 

imports the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) was cited. The USITC data are also based on the HTS. 

 7
Table 2.1 

Federal Government Statistics Used for Historical U.S. Sales Baseline 

Document Reference Data Type 

(units) 

Current 

Industrial 

Reports 

U.S. Census 

Bureau 

U.S. shipments 

of household 

television 

receivers 

MA36M and 

MA334M 

Current 

Industrial 

Reports 

U.S. Census 

Bureau 

U.S. shipments 

of single-user 

computers and 

office equipment 

MA35R and 

MA334R 

USITC 

Interactive 

Tariff and Trade 

Dataweb 

U.S. 

International 

Trade 

Commission 

Domestic exports 

and imports for 

consumption (all 

products) 

* CIR reports withheld facsimile shipment data to avoid disclosing 

data for individual companies. 

Television sales data were supplied by the Consumer Electronics Association. Cell 

phone sales data were based on a combination of Consumer Electronics Association data 

on consumer sales and total cell phone sales as reported by Inform.5 

TV and cell phone sales are shown in Table 2.2. Table 2.3 shows the U.S. sales data for 

computer-related equipment by product type and year. 

 

5

 Inform, Inc., Waste in a Wireless World: The Challenge of Cell Phones, 2001. In this report, Inform 

published total cell phone sales figures for 1995 through 2004. Sales prior to 1995 were interpolated based 

on the annual growth rate in prior years as exhibited by the CEA data. 

 8
Table 2.2 

Year

Color CRT 

<19"

Color CRT 

>19"

Flat Panel 

TVs

Color 

Projection Monochrome Total TVs

Cell 

Phones

1980 5.4 5.4 6.7 17.6

1981 5.6 5.6 5.7 16.8

1982 5.7 5.7 5.7 17.1

1983 7.0 7.0 5.7 19.7

1984 8.0 8.0 0.2 5.1 21.3 0.04

1985 8.4 8.4 0.3 3.7 20.8 0.11

1986 9.1 9.1 0.3 4.0 22.5 0.40

1987 9.7 9.7 0.3 3.5 23.2 0.80

1988 10.1 10.1 0.3 2.6 23.1 1.3

1989 10.9 10.9 0.3 1.7 23.6 2.1

1990 10.4 10.4 0.4 1.4 22.6 2.6

1991 9.4 10.7 0.4 0.8 21.3 3.4

1992 9.7 12.3 0.4 0.6 23.0 5.4

1993 10.6 14.0 0.5 0.6 25.6 7.9

1994 11.7 15.0 0.6 0.5 27.9 12.4

1995 10.8 14.6 0.8 0.5 26.7 14.5

1996 10.1 14.5 0.9 0.4 25.9 16.6

1997 9.6 14.0 0.9 0.4 24.9 22.2

1998 10.3 15.1 1.1 0.3 26.8 30.6

1999 11.2 16.4 0.002 1.3 0.3 29.3 49.3

2000 12.2 17.1 0.008 1.7 0.3 31.3 72.9

2001 9.8 16.4 0.1 2.0 0.3 28.4 100.1

2002 11.7 17.0 0.2 2.5 0.2 31.6 122.3

2003 8.3 17.6 1.0 2.7 0.2 29.7 140.0

2004 6.9 17.8 2.7 3.5 0.2 31.2 151.9

Historic Sales Data - Television and Cell Phone Products

(Million units)

Source: Data for TVs were obtained from Consumer Electronics Association Market Research, 2005 and 2006. Data for cell 

phones was based on CEA data and sales data reported by Inform, Inc. (See text, footnote 5). 

 9
Table 2.3 

(Million units)

Year

1980 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0

1981 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

1982 3.0 1.6 3.0 3.0 3.0

1983 5.5 2.9 5.5 5.5 5.5

1984 6.7 3.5 6.7 6.7 6.7

1985 5.8 3.0 5.8 5.8 5.8

1986 6.9 3.6 6.9 6.9 6.9

1987 8.2 4.3 8.2 8.2 8.2

1988 8.7 4.6 8.7 8.7 8.7

1989 8.9 4.7 8.9 17.5 8.4 1.1

1990 9.5 5.0 9.5 21.7 9.4 0.9

1991 9.5 5.0 14.3 27.0 10.5 1.5

1992 9.9 1.9 6.2 20.9 37.6 13.4 1.7

1993 13.0 2.5 8.2 31.3 36.1 17.3 1.8

1994 15.3 3.2 9.7 39.7 41.4 18.1 2.8

1995 19.1 3.6 11.9 19.1 47.6 22.2 3.0

1996 22.4 4.9 14.9 22.4 53.8 23.1 2.3

1997 26.8 6.0 16.2 24.9 55.6 26.6 1.2

1998 32.5 6.4 22.5 27.9 65.0 32.6 1.8

1999 39.5 7.9 27.5 39.5 63.7 36.9 11.2

2000 40.8 9.6 28.7 56.2 51.7 37.5 12.8

2001 35.1 9.6 26.8 53.0 43.8 27.2 14.0

2002 35.1 10.9 28.7 57.5 48.6 23.3 23.5

2003 37.0 13.8 30.7 37.0 51.3 15.8 34.3

2004 39.4 16.6 32.2 39.4 47.2 15.9 44.2

Keyboards PC CRTs PC Flat Panel

Historic Sales Data - Computer-Related Products

Desktops Portables

Hard Copy 

Peripherals Mice

Note: Hard copy peripherals (HCPs) include printers, multifunction printers, digital copiers, and faxes. 

Source: Data for desktops and portable PCs, as well as hard copy peripherals (HCPs) were obtained from IDC WW Quarterly PC 

Tracker in October 2005. Data for HCPs were estimated for 1980-1996 based on the ratio of HCPs to PCs. Data for flat panel 

and CRT PC monitors, mice, and keyboards were based on ERG analysis of US Census data on shipments and Trade 

Commission data on imports and exports. Data prior to 1990 for mice and 1988 for CRT monitors and keyboards were 

estimated assuming one mouse, keyboard, or monitor per desktop PC. 

 10
2.2 Assumptions Regarding the Life Span of Electronic Products 

The life span—the time between the initial purchase of a product and the time it is ready 

for EOL management—is one of the most critical assumptions in this type of 

methodology. The total life span of any particular product will encompass several stages 

of use. The “first use” is the time period that the product was considered functional to the 

first purchaser. When the product ceases to be functional to the first user, the product 

may be put in storage, discarded or recycled. If it is in working order, however, it will 

most likely be reused by someone else. This is referred to as the “second use” stage. 

There are many combinations of use, reuse, and storage underlying the second use stage 

before the last user is ready for EOL management of the product. 

 Life Span of Televisions and Computer Products 

In the past, researchers have modeled the flow of products from purchase to EOL 

management by assuming a time period for each use stage (i.e., number of years for first 

use, second use, etc.). However, if the ultimate goal is to model when products are ready 

for EOL management, the pattern of use prior to EOL management is somewhat 

immaterial. For example, one product could be used initially for 3 years, reused for 2, and 

then put in a closet for 5, while a second product might be used initially for 5 years and 

reused for another 5 years. However, both products enter the EOL management stream 

after 10 years. Because our objective was to model when products will enter the EOL 

management stream, we examined the age distribution of the products being collected by 

electronics collection programs and used that as a proxy for both the first and second use 

stage that occurs prior to the EOL management stage. By using this approach, we 

assumed that the time and effort for any type of EOL management, either recycling or 

disposal, are roughly the same—that is, a comparable action is required to remove an 

unwanted product from a home or office whether it is recycled or disposed. We 

acknowledge that this may not be true in all cases, but in the absence of better data, we 

considered this a reasonable assumption. 

The State of Florida has been providing grants to its counties for electronic collection 

programs since 2002. In 2004, the Florida DEP conducted a study in which the 

individual units in the loads from electronics collection programs were sorted and the 

product type, brand, weight, and age were recorded. These loads represent collections 

from residential and small business sources that are generally served by county recycling 

or thrift store donation services. The Florida counties did not charge a fee for recycling 

services, so fees were not an influence in people’s decisions to participate in the 

collection program. 

At the time of this analysis, the data set from this project had information on 20,619 units 

collected in a 12-month period beginning April 2004. It contained the date of 

manufacture of each product if those data were easily identified. We analyzed these data 

to investigate the age distribution of each type of product collected. Out of 20,619 

products collected, the vintage of 12,801 (62 percent) units was recorded. We calculated 

the age of the products by subtracting the date of collection from the date of manufacture. 

 11
Although we cannot represent with certainty that the Florida results are representative of 

the nation as a whole, it is the largest available data set that accounts for the age of the 

electronic products collected. The State of Minnesota also conducted a study of age, 

brand, and weight of about 1,000 electronic products collected at one 3-day collection 

event in September 2004. Statistical tests that were conducted (the Kolmogrov-Smirnov 

two-sample test) showed that the age distribution of the laptops and desktop computers 

collected in these two locations were not significantly different. This result does not 

allow us to conclude that the Florida data are representative of the nation, but at least we 

know that two states in different parts of the country did not exhibit significant 

differences in this regard. 

Table 2.4 presents the general statistics for each product type from the Florida 

brand/vintage sort project at the time of the data analysis. The age distribution of selected 

product types is depicted graphically in Appendix A. These data give us insight into how 

long consumers and small businesses hold on to products before they bring them to 

available collection sites for EOL management. As already stated, this is a multiple-phase 

life span, which could include first use, second use, and storage. The Florida data show 

that the large majority of computer products that enter EOL management are over 5 years 

old and the average first use of computers is often cited as about 4 years.6

 Noting that the 

oldest TVs, desktop computers, and CRT monitors are around 30 years old, it is obvious 

that reuse/storage periods range widely from what might be considered short to very long 

term. 

To develop the assumptions on the life span of products to use in the modeling effort, we 

examined the distributions and decided on an approach that would best represent the data 

for each individual product type. For most products, the life span assumptions are based 

on the medians of each of the quartiles. (For example, the “youngest” 25 percent of 

desktop computers are used for the length of time represented by the median of the 1st

quartile; the next-youngest 25 percent are assumed to be used for the length of time 

represented by the median of the 2nd quartile; etc.) Thus, for most electronic products, 

there are four life span assumptions, one for each 25 percent of products sold in any 

given year. 

For hard copy peripherals, we conducted statistical tests to determine whether or not the 

individual age distributions for printers, fax machines, multifunction devices, and 

scanners were similar. Using the Kruskal-Wallis Test, we found that there was no 

statistically significant difference in the age distribution among the four product types. 

Therefore, we combined the data for all hard copy peripherals and used the median of the 

four quartiles to represent the life spans of all these products. 

For some products, such as laptop computers, keyboards, and LCD monitors, we took a 

different approach to best represent the data because there were relatively few 

 

6

 Matthew, H. Scott, Deanna H. Matthews. 2003. “Information Technology Products and the 

Environment.” In: Kuehr, R. and Williams, E., Eds. 2003. Computers and the Environment. Dordrecht, The 

Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 41–72. 

 12
observations in these data sets. In these cases, we used the mean or mode, or chose 

specific quartiles to represent the distribution. Table 2.5 lists the life span assumptions 

and basis for each product type. 

We recognize that the Florida data represent product usage patterns today, and that 5 or 

10 years ago, people may have used products for longer or shorter periods of time. Usage 

patterns could have varied in the past based on changes in purchasing behaviors or 

changes in technology that may have influenced purchasing behavior. Due to data 

limitations, we assumed that usage patterns were not significantly different in the past. 

Differences in Life Span Between the Residential and Commercial Sectors 

The Florida electronics collections data represents computer and TV products mainly 

from the residential sector. We assumed that the life spans exhibited for TVs in this data 

set were also appropriate for the commercial and institutional sectors. In other words, for 

each type of television technology (e.g., flat panel, projection, etc.), we assumed there is 

not a significant difference in patterns of use or upgrade cycles between residential and 

commercial TV users.7 

For computers, however, we do believe there is a difference in usage patterns between 

sectors. We, therefore, developed separate lifespan assumptions for products used in the 

commercial/institutional sector. Due to data limitations on usage patterns in the nonresidential sector, we relied on industry expert opinion. We assumed that 40 percent of 

businesses remove and manage their computers after 3 years (the midpoint between a 2 to 

4 year replacement cycle), while 60 percent are on a 5-year cycle (the midpoint between a 

3 to 7 year replacement cycle).8,9

 The 40 percent assumption is based on IAER reporting 

that about a third of the output of recycling operations is equipment for reuse.10 In other 

words, 33 percent is suitable for resale “as is” or with some refurbishment. One would 

expect computer products to meet the criteria for resale “as is” only if they are relatively 

new, such as under 3 years old. A small portion of equipment collected by recyclers is 

from the residential sector, which tends to be older and unsuitable for reuse. To account 

for this, using professional judgment, we adjusted the 33 percent to 40 percent to account 

for the fact that the percentage suitable for reuse for just commercial equipment would 

likely be higher than the percentage for all sectors. 

 The share of computer product sales that are residential versus commercial is based on 

an analysis of IDC PC sales data for both sectors. An average of 48 percent residential 

and 52 percent commercial based on data from 1992 to 2004 was assumed. This 

assumption most likely overestimates the residential share of computer products in the 

 

7

 Based on a phone conversation with Shawn DuBravac of the Consumer Electronics Association, 

September 11, 2006. 

8

 Lynch, Jim. 2004. “Islands in the Wastestream: Baseline Study of Noncommercial Computer Reuse in the 

United States,” CompuMentor, Fall 2004. 

9

 Based on a phone conversation with John Powers of the International Association of Electronics 

Recyclers, June 2, 2006. 

10 International Association of Electronics Recyclers, IAER Electronics Recycling Industry Report, 2006. 

 13
 14

early years of PC use, however, due to lack of additional data, we assumed a constant 

rate. 
15

Table 2.4. Florida Electronics Sort Project: Age Distribution By Product Type 

Observations Observations Percentile (%) 

With Data Missing Data 

Product Type (Number) (Number) 25th 50th 75th 100th Mean Mode 

Desktop 1,912 2,222 8 12 16 27 12.2 8 Laptop 20 44 5 6 8 14 6.5 8 Keyboard 41 1,844 4 5 8 20 6.7 4 

Monitor (CRT) 4,515 897 7 9 12 30 9.3 8 

Monitor (LCD) 3 1 6 10 12 12 9.3 N/A Multifunction device 30 46 7 9 11 17 9.5 11 

Printer 1,032 1,286 6 9 11 29 8.8 4 

Fax 52 168 7 9 12.5 18 9.8 9 Scanner 23 204 5 7 12 14 8.3 7 

TV <19' 1,914 355 11 15 20 34 15.1 12 

TV >19' 3,196 691 10 13 18 33 13.5 12 

TV - console 56 55 9 11.5 17 27 12.7 8 

TV - projection 7 5 7 8 9 10 8.0 8 

Total 12,801 7,818 

Source: Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Database accessed 8/22/05. www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/electronics/pages/FloridaElectronicProductBrandDistributionProject.htm 
Table 2.5 

Life Span Assumptions By Product Type-Residential Sector 

(Number of Years Before Collection) 

Product Type Assumption Basis 

PCs—desktop 25%—7 years Median of each quartile 

25%—10 years 

25%—14 years 

25%—18 years 

PCs—portable 20%—4 years 

15%—5 years 

20%—6 years 

45%—7 years 

1st through 4th quartiles 

PC Monitors—CRT 25%—5 years Median of each quartile 

25%—8 years 

25%—10 years 

25%—13 years 

PC Monitors—flat panel 100%—9 years Mean of all observations 

PC Hard copy peripherals 25%—4 years Median of each quartile 

25%—7 years 

25%—10 years 

25%—14 years 

PC Keyboards 100%—5 years Median of all observations 

TVs—CRT <19” 25%—8 years Median of each quartile 

25%—13 years 

25%—17 years 

25%—23 years 

TVs—CRT >19” 25%—7 years Median of each quartile 

25%—12 years 

25%—15 years 

25%—20 years 

TVs—Projection 100%—8 years Mean of all observations 

TVs—Flat Panel 100%—9 years No data-Assumed the same 

as PC flat panel monitors 

Note: Assumptions were based on statistical analyses of data from the Florida DEP. 

 Life Span of Cell Phones 

 Unfortunately, we do not have access to any data on the age distribution of cell 

phones when they are collected for recycling. Here again, we relied on industry expert 

opinion. We assumed that 65 percent of cell phones were 2 years old based on industry 

reports that about that percentage of cell phones collected were suitable for resale “as is” 

 16
11 or after refurbishment. We also assumed that the remaining 35 percent of phones 

collected were 5 years old and were only suitable for materials recovery.12 Due to lack of 

data, we did not assume any difference in cell phone use patterns between the residential 

and commercial sectors. 

2.3 Average Weight Data: Televisions and Computer Equipment 

The average weight of products is an important input to this methodology for modeling 

the use stages of electronic products. We developed product weight estimates for each 

product type, for each year covered in the analysis. Within some product types, such as 

TVs, weights vary depending on the size and type of screen. Product weights also can 

vary over time as technology, style, and features change. 

To develop estimates of average product weights, we reviewed two data sets. The first 

data set was developed from electronics collection data obtained from the Florida DEP 

(described in Section 2.2 above). At the time of this analysis, the Florida data set had 

weight and year of manufacture data for 12,801 units. The average weights were 

calculated for each product and each year of manufacture. Again, we cannot represent 

with certainty that the Florida results are representative of the nation as a whole, but it is 

a large, available data set with product weight and age information. 

In addition, we used the data set on product weights developed over past years for the 

EPA municipal solid waste (MSW) characterization report series.13 These data were 

gathered from Consumer Reports Annual and Monthly Buying Guides from 1984 

through 1999. For the most recent years studied (2000 to 2004), data on product weights 

were collected from product specification listed by large consumer electronic retailers. 

Table 2.6 identifies which data set was used for each product type in this analysis. 

 

11 Based on a phone conversation between Jennifer Chambers, Recellular, Inc. and Lynn Knight, ERG July, 

2006. 

12 See footnote 10. 

13 U.S. EPA. Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2003 Facts and Figures and previous years’ 

editions of the same report. www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm. 

 17
Table 2.6 

Data Source, by Product Type 

Product Source of Product Weight Data 

TVs 

<19 inch Florida DEP collection study 

>19 inch Florida DEP collection study 

Projection Consumer product publications 

and retailer product specifications 

Flat screen Consumer product publications 

and retailer product specifications 

Computers 

Desktop Florida DEP collection study 

Laptop Consumer product publications 

and retailer product specifications 

Monitors 

CRT Consumer product publications 

and retailer product specifications 

Flat panel Florida DEP collection study and 

ERG in-house data 

Keyboards Florida DEP collection study 

Mouse devices Consumer product publications 

and retailer product specifications 

Printers and other 

hard copy devices 

Florida DEP collection study and 

consumer product publications and 

retailer product specifications 

Cell Phones Retailer product specifications 

The average weights for televisions and cell phones, and computer products are shown in 

Tables 2.7 and 2.8, respectively. 

 18
Table 2.7 

Year

Color CRT

(<19 

inches)

Color CRT

(>19 

inches) Flat Panel Projection Monochrome

Cell 

Phones

1980 42.0 73.0 42.0

1981 42.0 73.0 42.0

1982 42.0 73.0 42.0

1983 42.0 73.0 42.0

1984 42.0 73.0 219.0 42.0 3.5

1985 40.6 72.6 221.0 40.6 3.5

1986 41.1 73.0 223.0 41.1 3.5

1987 40.8 73.0 225.0 40.8 3.5

1988 41.2 72.9 227.0 41.2 3.5

1989 41.0 71.7 229.0 41.0 3.5

1990 40.5 74.8 231.0 40.5 3.5

1991 41.1 73.9 233.0 41.1 3.5

1992 40.9 73.5 235.0 40.9 0.5

1993 40.7 75.4 237.0 40.7 0.5

1994 41.1 73.3 239.0 41.1 0.5

1995 40.9 73.5 241.0 40.9 0.5

1996 41.3 72.8 243.0 41.3 0.5

1997 40.7 73.8 245.0 40.7 0.5

1998 41.6 74.1 247.0 41.6 0.5

1999 41.2 73.0 29.0 249.0 41.2 0.5

2000 39.8 74.5 29.0 251.0 39.8 0.4

2001 41.1 72.2 29.0 251.0 41.1 0.4

2002 40.4 72.8 29.0 223.3 40.4 0.3

2003 41.0 73.0 29.0 195.7 41.0 0.3

2004 41.0 73.0 29.0 168.0 41.0 0.3

Average Weight of Television and Cell Phone Units (pounds)

 19
Table 2.8 

Year

Desktop 

Computers

Portable 

Computers

CRT 

Monitors

Flat Panel 

Monitors Keyboards

Mouse 

Devices

Hard Copy 

Peripherals

1980 22.0 24.50 2.9 0.2 18.00

1981 22.0 24.50 2.9 0.2 18.00

1982 22.0 24.50 2.9 0.2 18.00

1983 22.0 24.50 2.9 0.2 18.00

1984 22.0 24.50 2.9 0.2 18.00

1985 22.0 24.50 2.9 0.2 18.00

1986 22.0 24.50 2.9 0.2 18.00

1987 22.0 24.50 2.9 0.2 18.00

1988 22.0 24.50 2.9 0.2 18.00

1989 21.9 24.50 24.6 2.9 0.2 17.86

1990 21.8 24.63 24.6 2.9 0.2 19.62

1991 21.8 24.75 24.6 2.9 0.2 18.36

1992 22.2 9.0 24.88 24.6 2.9 0.2 17.43

1993 21.9 8.7 25.00 24.6 2.9 0.2 17.76

1994 21.7 8.5 28.86 24.6 2.9 0.2 17.81

1995 23.0 8.2 32.71 24.6 2.9 0.2 16.83

1996 22.1 7.9 36.57 24.6 2.9 0.2 15.37

1997 22.6 7.7 40.43 24.6 2.9 0.2 16.74

1998 22.7 7.4 44.29 24.6 2.9 0.2 16.27

1999 22.0 7.1 48.14 24.6 2.9 0.2 16.40

2000 22.1 7.1 52.00 24.6 2.9 0.2 18.46

2001 22.0 7.0 51.62 24.6 2.9 0.2 16.93

2002 24.1 6.8 51.25 24.6 2.9 0.2 16.42

2003 22.0 6.6 50.87 24.6 2.9 0.2 16.59

2004 22.0 6.4 50.50 24.6 2.9 0.2 17.40

Average Weight of Personal Computer-Related Units (pounds)

Note: Average weight for hard copy peripherals is based on a weighted average of printers and 

scanners each year.

 20
 21

3.0 Model Results 

3.1 The Quantity of EOL Electronics Generated for Management Each Year 

This section presents estimates of the quantity of EOL electronic products generated for 

management each year. As described earlier, we developed the estimates by starting with 

product sales data and assuming specific life spans for each product type to represent the 

time between product purchase and the need for EOL management. These estimates 

would correspond to Phase 3 in Figure 1.1. As explained earlier, ready for EOL 

management means that the product has gone through a first use and possibly a second 

use stage (which could include reuse and storage) and the last user is ready to give the 

product to a recycler or dispose of it. The quantities of products generated for EOL 

management each year are presented for personal computer products, televisions, and cell 

phones in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. 

According to the estimates presented in Table 3.1, 28.4 million desktop computers, 22.9 

million hard copy peripherals, and 9.0 million portable computers were ready for EOL 

management in 2005. Almost half of the weight (47 percent) of computer-related 

equipment generated in 2005 was from CRT computer monitors. About 23 percent of the 

weight was attributed to desktops and 14 percent was from hard copy devices. Portable 

computers accounted for 2 percent of the weight of EOL products generated that year. 

 

As shown in Table 3.2, in 2005, 24 million TVs were ready for EOL management. TVs 

with CRTs accounted for the majority of the TV units as many of the newer projection 

and flat panel units had not yet reached EOL. Over time, the proportion of computerrelated products reaching the EOL stage has increased dramatically relative to TVs. For 

example, in 1999, the weight of EOL TVs was very close to the weight of all EOL 

computer equipment generated that year. In 2005, however, TVs account for only a little 

over half (55 percent) of the weight of computer equipment. It is estimated that 116 

million cell phones will be ready for EOL management in 2005 as well. 
22

Year

19992002001200220032002005200

Sourc

ady for EOL Management, By Year

Hard Copy Devices

Units(mill)

Mice/Keyboards

Units(mill) Tons(000)

Table 3.1 

er Products Re

12.6 138.3 3.2 13.5 9.2 77.6 81.2 64.1 15.7 238.3 1.8 21.7 

0 15.4 174.3 3.9 16.0 10.9 91.8 66.7 70.9 18.9 314.8 1.9 23.4 

18.4 204.4 4.8 19.0 13.6 110.7 76.2 80.2 21.1 386.6 1.9 23.21.9 244.8 5.8 22.0 16.2 134.7 80.5 83.1 23.9 480.7 3.6 44.2 24.7 275.0 6.9 25.4 19.6 166.7 92.8 97.0 27.7 597.8 4.6 56.4 

4 26.6 293.6 7.8 28.2 21.3 181.7 103.2 96.3 27.8 627.8 7.8 96.2 

28.4 322.6 9.0 31.8 22.9 198.3 107.9 80.6 28.5 673.1 10.0 122

6 28.3 311.6 10.2 35.2 24.0 199.1 96.8 68.8 23.8 550.3 12.1 148

e: ERG estimates based on modeling results.

Units(mill) Tons(000) Tons(000) Tons(000)

Portables

Units(mill)

Desktops 

Tons(000) Units(mill) 

CRT Monitors

Units(mill) Tons(

Flat Panel Monito

Estimated Annual Personal Comput

Table 3.2 

Year

1999 6.1 125.0 7.5 274.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 44.3 2.6 54.2 16.5 

2000 6.6 135.8 9.5 350.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 47.5 2.5 51.4 19.0 2001 7.2 148.3 10.1 369.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 55.1 2.0 42.5 19.8 2002 7.7 158.4 10.1 371.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 76.0 1.5 30.0 19.9 2003 9.0 183.6 10.6 386.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 98.8 3.1 65.0 23.5 2004 8.7 179.1 11.3 412.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 107.8 2.6 54.0 23.5 2005 8.8 180.3 12.0 445.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 112.3 2.3 48.4 24.0 2006 9.7 200.0 12.8 470.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 133.6 2.1 43.2 25.7 

Source: ERG estimates based on modeling results.

Units(mill) Tons(000) Units(mill)

Monochrome Total TVs

Tons(000) Tons(000)

Flat Panel

Tons(00

Projection 

786.0734.1753.6846.8

Color CRT <19" Color CRT >19"

615.1635.8497.7585.0

Estimated Annual Television and Cell Phone Products Ready for EOL Management

Units(mill) Units(mill) Tons(000) Units(mill) Units(mill) Tons(000)
The share of computer products sold to the commercial versus the residential sector is 

based on recent sales data and is assumed constant for all the study years. This 

assumption could have the effect of overestimating the residential computer share in 

earlier years when household penetration of personal computers was lower than it is 

today. Therefore, the life spans could be too long for the portion of residential products 

in the 1980’s that may have actually been in the commercial sector. 

To test the sensitivity of this assumption, we ran a scenario in which we assumed that 25 

percent of desktop computer sales were attributable to the residential sector from 1980 

thru 1985, 40 percent from 1986 thru 1990, and 48 percent (the constant rate assumed in 

the original analysis) from 1991 thru 2004. Testing this scenario, the resulting estimates 

of units ready for EOL management in 2005 were less than 1 percent lower than the 

original estimates. In 2000, the sensitivity test resulted in about a 3 percent lower 

estimate. Therefore, we do not believe our lack of data regarding the split between 

computer product sales in the residential versus the commercial sector in previous years 

has a significant effect on the estimates of EOL products ready for management in recent 

years. 

3.2 Estimating the Quantity of EOL Products Generated That Are Recycled Versus 

Disposed 

The modeling effort resulted in estimates of the quantity of products that are generated 

annually for EOL management. EOL management consists of recycling or disposal. 

This corresponds to the two options in Phase 3 of Figure 1.1: “Dispose” or “Bring to 

Recycling Collection.” We estimated the amount of EOL electronics recycled by 

gathering data from the recycling industry. Disposal was estimated as the difference 

between what was generated for EOL management and what was recycled. The 

following sections discuss the details of this part of the analysis. 

Estimating the Portion of EOL Electronics Recycled 

Recycling of consumer electronics includes the recovery of products by municipal and 

other collection programs for materials separation and recovery, as well as reuse in both 

domestic and foreign end markets. It also includes businesses and institutions contracting 

directly with electronic recyclers for recycling services of their EOL equipment. 

Donation organizations also collect EOL electronic equipment for reuse or recycling. In 

this report, we do not distinguish between a for-profit electronics recycler and a donation 

organization that collects EOL equipment. The term “reuse” in the EOL management 

stage refers to products entering the recycling materials management system that are in 

working order and can be resold “as is” or refurbished for resale by electronics recyclers 

and dismantlers. The reuse of consumer electronics before they enter the management 

system (i.e., products that pass between individual users) is assumed to occur prior to 

EOL management. 

 23
14 The recycling estimates for 1999 through 2004 were developed previously for EPA.

They were based on extrapolations of recovery and market share data from a few 

electronics recyclers. The amount recycled in 2005 was projected based on the same 

recovery rate exhibited in 2004. Estimated quantities of EOL consumer electronics 

recycled from 1999 through 2005 are shown in Table 3.3 below. 

As a check on the 2005 recycling estimate, we turned to industry data. In its 2006 

Industry Report, the IAER estimated that the electronics recycling industry processed an 

annual total volume of 1.4 million tons of electronic equipment in 2005.15 This estimate 

was based on a survey of over 500 electronics recyclers, OEMs and non-profit 

organizations. However, it included a much broader scope of products, as well as several 

source sectors that were not included in this analysis. For example, the IAER estimate 

would include servers, main frames, copiers, DVDs, VCRs, etc. It also includes 

equipment collected from industrial, medical, and other sectors that are not addressed in 

this study. To compare the IAER estimates with our estimate, we did the following 

analysis. The IAER reported that 74 percent of the equipment processed was computer 

and consumer equipment. Further, they reported that 39 percent of equipment was from 

the residential, commercial, manufacturing, industrial, or institutional sectors. If we 

assume that the proportion of equipment types collected is equal in each of the source 

sectors, we could estimate that roughly 404,000 tons of EOL consumer and computer 

equipment from the residential and commercial/institutional sectors was processed by 

recyclers in 2005. Our adjusted IAER estimate of 404,000 is higher than our estimate of 

345,000 tons for 2005. However, given that the IAER data reflects certain types of 

consumer and computer equipment that we were not addressed in this report (e.g., VCRs, 

DVDs, servers, main frames, copiers), and further, we cannot relate the product types 

within each source/sector category, our estimate does not appear to be significantly 

different. In any case, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to test the effect of a possible 

underestimate of the amount recycled in Section 6 below. 

Estimating the Portion of EOL Electronics Disposed 

To estimate the portion of the estimated EOL electronics generated every year that is 

disposed, we subtracted the amount estimated to be recycled from the estimated amount 

generated for EOL management. Table 3.3 includes the disposal estimates for 1999 

through 2005. 

 

14 U.S. EPA. Municipal Solid Waste In The United States: 2003 Facts and Figures and previous years’ 

editions and updates of the same report. 

15 International Association of Electronics Recyclers, IAER Electronics Recycling Industry Report, 2006.

 24
Table 3.3 

Year Tons(000) Tons (%) Units(mill)* Tons(000) Tons (%)

1999 159.0 1,054.2 23.7 157.0 15% 135.4 897.2 85%

2000 161.7 1,279.5 24.0 190.0 15% 137.7 1,089.5 85%

2001 193.7 1,443.1 28.2 210.0 15% 165.5 1,233.1 85%

2002 227.0 1,648.8 34.4 250.0 15% 192.6 1,398.8 85%

2003 275.6 1,959.8 40.8 290.0 15% 234.8 1,669.8 85%

2004 314.8 2,085.0 48.3 320.0 15% 266.5 1,765.0 85%

2005 347.1 2,223.3 53.9 345.0 16% 293.2 1,878.3 84%

 *Number of units estimated based on the units/ton factor exhibited by EOL products.

Distribution of EOL Products By Management Method

Units(mill) Tons(000) Units(mill)*

Total EOL Products Total Recycled Total Disposed

According to this analysis, about 15 percent, by weight, of the EOL electronics generated 

in the study years were collected for recycling. During the time period examined, even 

though the amount of material being recycled has increased, the amount of EOL products 

generated has kept pace such that the percentage of material being recycled has remained 

relatively constant. 

The majority of EOL material that is not being recycled is probably mostly going into 

landfills. According to EPA data, only about 14 percent of all MSW goes to the waste-toenergy process.16 Within that 14 percent, furthermore, it is possible that computer 

monitors or televisions with CRTs are not being combusted, but rather are being removed 

on the tipping floor and sent to landfills (unless there is a ban on CRT disposal in 

landfills). Waste-to-energy operators would be inclined to remove these items because 

the glass is not combustible and because of concerns about the resulting lead in the ash 

from the CRT glass. Non-CRT computer equipment may not be removed because it 

contains plastic, which is combustible. Without further research, we cannot predict how 

EOL electronic products disposed of in communities with waste-to-energy are actually 

managed, but based on national averages, we can say that no more than 14 percent that is 

disposed of is combusted, which we believe is a very conservative scenario, and at least 

86 percent goes to a landfill. 

In order to check the accuracy of the disposal estimate, we explored a second way to 

estimate the quantity of EOL electronics disposed. We reviewed and analyzed seven 

waste sort/sampling studies, all of which delineated consumer electronics as a separate 

category. This methodology resulted in an average number of pounds of consumer 

electronics disposed per person. By applying the pounds per person result to the U.S. 

population we estimated that 1.4 million tons of waste electronics was disposed of in 

2003. This is within a reasonable range of the estimate of 1.7 million tons we derived 

from the model results. The details of this methodology (based on the waste sort 

analysis) are described in Appendix B. 

 

16 U.S. EPA. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2003 Facts and Figures. 2005. 

 25
Limitations of the Analysis 

Our estimates of the amount of EOL material generated annually and the proportion that 

is subsequently managed through recycling versus disposal rely heavily on many 

assumptions and analyses as discussed in Section 2. Some assumptions regarding the 

estimates of the amount of material generated annually for EOL management have the 

following limitations: 

• The age distribution of the electronic products collected for recycling in Florida is 

assumed to be representative of the age distribution of products collected for EOL 

management nationally. This assumption may misrepresent product usage 

patterns, which could have the effect of over- or under-estimating the volume of 

products ready for EOL management in any given year. 

• The age distribution of electronic products exhibited in Florida collections in 

recent years represents a product usage pattern that is held constant in all years of 

the analysis. This assumption could have overestimated product life span in 

specific years past when, for example, significant changes in product 

technologies, such as computer processor improvements, temporarily spurred a 

faster product replacement rate. This limitation would have the most effect on 

computer products. 

• The share of computer products sold to the commercial versus the residential 

sector is based on recent sales data and is assumed constant for all the study years. 

This limitation could have overestimated the residential computer share in earlier 

years, which might have increased the product life spans assumed for a portion of 

the products. 

As already discussed in Section 3.1, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to explore the 

potential effect of the last limitation and concluded that the lack of data regarding the 

split between computer product sales in the residential versus the commercial sector in 

previous years did not have a significant effect on the estimates of EOL products ready 

for management in recent years. 

3.3 Estimating the Quantity in Storage 

We have presented estimates of the number of products ready for EOL management on 

an annual basis. During the time period prior to EOL management, however, they may 

have been used, reused and/or stored for a period of time. Therefore, in 2005 for 

example, our model predicts that 37 million personal computers will be ready for EOL 

management; however, there are units that are not being actively used anymore and are 

being stored because their owners are not ready to bring them for EOL management. To 

try to gain an understanding of the possible number of units being stored in this manner, 

we calculated the total number of units sold from 1980 through 2004, and then removed 

those units that we estimate have already been brought for EOL management. Further, we 

 26
17 removed those products that are likely to still be in their first or second use stage. The 

remaining amount is what might be in storage. 

Table 3.6 presents estimates of the number of units in each use stage in 2005. We 

estimate that, of the products considered in this study that were sold between 1980 and 

2004, approximately 180 million units could be in storage as of 2005. Televisions 

account for the largest portion of units being stored, while desktop PCs account for the 

next largest portion. Overall, 9 percent of the products sold in this time period are in 

storage, while almost half are still in use and 42 percent have already been collected for 

EOL management (i.e., have already been recycled or disposed). At the time of this 

study, we did not have enough information to make similar estimates for cell phones. 

Table 3.6 

Product Type Number % of Total Number % of Total Number % of Total Number % of Total

Desktop PCs 188.1 42.6% 43.3 9.8% 210.0 47.6% 441 100.0%

PC monitors 250.4 46.1% 28.0 5.1% 265.3 48.8% 543.7 100.0%

Portable PCs 36.4 37.6% 1.4 1.4% 59.0 60.9% 96.9 100.0%

Hard copy peripherals 137.1 45.1% 13.8 4.6% 152.9 50.3% 303.8 100.0%

Televisions 229.7 37.5% 93.9 15.3% 288.3 47.1% 611.9 100.0%

Total 841.8 42.1% 180.3 9.0% 975.7 48.8% 1997.8 100.0%

Source: ERG estimates based on model results.

Estimated Number of Units in Various Stages of Use as of 2005 (million units)

Total Sold 

Collected for EOL Management In Storage Still in Use 1980-2004 

For the residential sector, we examined the use stages in a little more detail by trying to 

separate the first use from the reuse stage for computer equipment. Estimates of the 

number of units in the first use and reuse stage in 2005 were based on the assumption that 

computer equipment is used for 4 years initially and reused for an additional 3 years.18, 19

Figures 3.1 through 3.4 illustrate the results for 2005 based on these assumptions. Of the 

computer-related products sold between 1980 and 2004, 37 percent were in their first-use 

stage and 22 percent were in the reuse stage in 2005. 

When considering the amount of material possibly being stored, one has to keep in mind 

that different product owners will choose to keep items for different periods of time. 

Therefore, even if there were a convenient, free outlet for EOL management of this 

material, many people would not necessarily change their pattern and the products 

lifecycle. The next section examines the question of how residential product owners are 

likely to make use of electronics recycling opportunities. 

 

17 Assumptions regarding the number of years products are probably still in their first or second use was 

based on Consumer Electronics Association survey data on perceived life expectancy of electronic 

products: 11 years for a color TV; 6 years for a notebook PC; seven years for a desktop PC and PC 

monitor. Assumed the same 7 years as desktop PC for hard copy devices. Presentation at 2005 E-Scrap 

North American Electronics Recycling Conference: “From Here to There: Facts on Product Life Cycles 

and Recycling.” By Shawn G. DuBravac, Consumer Electronics Association. 18 Matthews, H. Scott and Deanna H. Matthews. 2003. “Information Technology Products and the 

Environment.” In: Kuehr, R. and Williams, E., Eds. 2003. Computers and the Environment. Dordrecht, 

The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 17-39. 

19 International Association of Electronics Recyclers, IAER Electronics Recycling Industry Report, 2006. 

 27
Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 

Stages of Use in 2005 Households: Hard 

Copy Peripherals

Managed

32%

Storage

9%

1st Use

40%

Reuse

19%

Stages of Use in 2005 Households: 

Desktop PCs

Managed

21%

Storage

20%

1st Use

33%

Reuse

26%

 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 

Stages of Use in 2005 Households: Portable 

PCs

Managed

31%

Storage

3%

1st Use

53%

Reuse

13%

Stages of Use in 2005 Households: PC 

Monitors 

Managed

32%

Storage

11% 1st Use

36%

Reuse

21%

 28
4.0 Quantity Available for Recycling Based on Observed Collection Rates 

Recovery rates experienced by existing state and local electronics collection programs 

allow us to begin to understand how residents respond to available recycling 

opportunities. This is important when municipalities or other entities are planning to 

establish electronics recycling opportunities to a given population. We examined 

recovery rate information on a per capita basis from a handful of programs to get a sense 

of the quantities of material that might be anticipated. 

Each of the recycling programs selected for this analysis met the following criteria: 

• The program served a discrete and quantifiable population. Examples include 

state programs available to all state residents, collections run out of county or 

municipal waste management facilities, and curbside collections within a specific 

city or county. 

• The program involved regular daily, weekly, or monthly collection—not a onetime or annual collection event. 

We obtained data from: 

• Hennepin County, Minnesota 

• Waukesha County, Wisconsin 

• Alberta, Canada 

• State of Massachusetts 

• Citrus County, Florida 

• Broward County, Florida 

• Charlotte County, Florida 

• Lee County, Florida 

• Miami-Dade County, Florida 

• Polk County, Florida 

• Sarasota County, Florida 

We found that overall results can vary widely from one program to the next. The variance 

in recovery rates experienced by these programs can reflect a number of factors, such as 

the program type (drop-off, special event, curbside pickup, etc.), accessibility and 

frequency of collection, whether or not there is a recycling fee, extent and effectiveness 

of public outreach and education, availability of alternative disposal options, and 

characteristics of the target population (e.g., attitudes toward recycling). The programs in 

this analysis represent somewhat of a cross-section of electronics recycling programs not 

only in terms of scale (state, county, and municipal programs), but also in terms of 

program type and maturity. 

Also, the results from Massachusetts should be viewed with the perspective that there is a 

statewide ban on the disposal of CRTs. 

 29
The per capita recovery rates exhibited by the specific programs we examined varied 

widely. Table 4.1 summarizes the range of results for 2004, broken down by product 

type. Without further analysis, it is difficult to say what one might expect as far as a per 

capita recovery rate from residential programs on a national basis. Combining the product 

types shown in the table, a range of about 1 to 3 pounds per capita has been experienced. 

The midpoint of that range is 2 pounds per capita. Using this recovery rate as a basis and 

extrapolating to the entire U.S. population, we could estimate that if all residents had 

access to electronics recycling programs, 294,000 tons of material could have been 

collected in 2004 from the residential population. 

The recovery rates in both Hennepin County, as well as Massachusetts were on the high 

end of the range. The recovery rate of 3 pounds per capita experienced in Hennepin 

County is a good indicator of the quantity of material available from a residential 

population when there is a well-established, well-publicized program. In Massachusetts, 

there is a state-wide ban on CRT disposal and the recovery rates for just CRTs was about 

3 pounds per person as compared to 2.6 pounds per person for just CRTs in Hennepin 

County in 2004. From this limited analysis, it may be that jurisdictions with disposal 

bans on some or all EOL electronic products can experience a somewhat higher recovery 

rate. 

 

Table 4.1 

Range of Per Capita Per Year Recovery Rates Among Selected Programs, 2004 

Recovery Range (Pounds per Capita per 

Product Type Year) 

Minimum Maximum 

Monitors 0.23 0.60 

CPUs 0.13 0.35 

TVs 0.4 1.99 

Printers 0.07 0.17 

20 Laptops 0.002 0.007 

Total 0.83 3.12 

 

20 Only Waukesha County, Alberta, and Hennepin County reported laptops as a distinct category in 2004. 

 30
5.0 Examining the End Markets of Products Collected Through Electronics 

Collection Programs in the United States 

The purpose of this section is to examine the end markets, both domestic and abroad, of 

EOL electronic products that are collected for recycling in the U.S. by electronics 

recyclers or donation organizations. This is a difficult task since data on the end markets 

of these materials is not publicly available. In order to arrive at a rough estimate, we 

relied on an industry expert to develop a best estimate for CRT-containing devices.21

These estimates were derived based on industry data and specific knowledge of the 

domestic and export end markets for EOL electronics. Only CRT-containing devices—

televisions and computer monitors—were considered because there are reasonably 

feasible means of tracing these material flows. This section presents estimates of the 

quantity of collected CRT-containing devices that are sent to domestic and foreign end 

markets. 

Table 5.1 presents estimates of the quantity of CRT-containing products collected by 

U.S. recyclers going to the various end markets. These estimates were developed by an 

industry expert who researched the U.S. resale outlets typically used by recyclers, as well 

as interviewed individuals from firms conducting CRT refurbishing, glass processing, 

and lead smelting. Data on glass-to-glass recycling were obtained via EPA’s Office of 

Solid Waste research. 22 

Table 5.1 

End Markets for EOL TVs and CRT Monitors Collected for Recycling in the U.S. in 2005 

% of 

End Market Tons/Year Total 

Resale “as is” or after some repair/upgrade in the U.S. 3,000 2% 

Resale “as is” or after some repair/upgrade abroad 3,500 2% 

Refurbishing or remanufacturing into specialty monitors in the U.S. 2,500 1% 

Refurbishing or remanufacturing into new TVs or specialty monitors 

abroad* 107,500 61% 

CRT glass-to-glass factories in the U.S. 4,000 2% 

CRT glass-to-glass factories abroad 24,000 14% 

CRT glass to smelters in North America for lead recovery ** 10,000 6% 

Plastic, metal, and other material recovery from demanufacturing*** 20,500 12% 

Total 175,000 100% 

Source: World Reuse, Repair and Recycling Association, 2005. Figures for CRT glass-to-glass factories are based on EPA research. 

*Industry experts interviewed by Robin Ingenthron report that about 30% of material destined for remanufacturing abroad is not 

technically suitable for remanufacturing and has to be recycled or disposed. The recycling or disposal of unsuitable units occurs 

abroad. 

**Includes units shipped to one smelter in each of the U.S. and Canada. 

***End markets for these materials are both domestic and abroad.

 

21 Robin Ingenthron of the World Reuse, Repair and Recycling Association developed these estimates after 

gathering knowledge from Association members, industry contacts, and published data sources. 

22 Research conducted by Bob Tonetti, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, 2006. 

 31
In total, about 175 thousand tons of CRT-containing products coming from U.S. 

electronics recyclers in 2005 was accounted for in this analysis. The estimates presented 

in Table 5.1 show that the largest portion of this material (about 61 percent) was sent to 

markets abroad for the purpose of refurbishing or remanufacturing CRTs into new 

televisions or specialty monitors. The next largest portion (about 14 percent) was CRT 

glass sold to markets abroad for glass-to-glass processing, while lead recovery in North 

America accounts for about 6 percent of the material. Resale for reuse in the U.S. and 

abroad, as well as remanufacturing in the U.S. are other relatively small end markets. 

There may be additional end markets that were not identified or quantified in these 

estimates, however, it is believed that the major end markets were covered and therefore 

these estimates should assist us in understanding where used and EOL CRT devices and 

components are going after they are collected and processed by U.S. electronics 

recyclers. The estimates in the table were not intended to be comprehensive estimates of 

the actual tonnage of EOL CRT-containing products collected and managed. They were 

developed to explore the distribution of these EOL products among the major end 

markets. 

Further, these estimates reflect the state of the recycling industry in 2005. Changing 

industry trends have had a significant impact on these estimates since then and will 

continue to alter the distribution in the near future. For example, the domestic market for 

CRT glass has changed since U.S. CRT glass-to-glass factories have closed. Further into 

the future, as more flat panel monitors and TVs replace CRT-containing products, end 

markets will shift again when these products are ready for EOL management. 

 32
6.0 Summary and Conclusion

The purpose of this report is to establish a baseline 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 EOL electronic products. 

The baseline data addresses televisions, cell phones, personal computers (including 

desktops, laptops, monitors, keyboards, and mice), and hard copy devices (e.g., printers, 

scanners, faxes) sold between 1980 and 2004. This timeframe is probably adequate to 

account for all but a very small portion of the quantity of computer products used in the 

United States. It does not, however, account for televisions sold before 1980 that might 

still be in storage, which is probably a relatively small quantity at this point. 

Annual Quantity of Obsolete Electronic Products Generated for EOL 

Management 

As described in Section 3.1, the analysis presents the quantity of EOL electronic products 

generated for management annually. Table 6.1 presents these estimates for the period of 

1999 through 2006. The table also puts the totals in terms of pounds per capita based on 

U.S. Census population estimates.23 According to the modeling results, 2.2 million tons 

of EOL TVs, cell phones, and personal computer products were ready for EOL 

management in 2005. This is equivalent to about 15 pounds per capita. 

Table 6.1 

Year

Units(mill) Units(mill) Units(mill) Units(mill) Lbs/Cap

1999 16.5 497.7 123.7 553.5 18.8 3.0 159.0 1,054.2 7.7

2000 19.0 585.0 117.8 691.1 25.0 3.4 161.7 1,279.5 9.1

2001 19.8 615.1 136.0 824.5 37.9 3.4 193.7 1,443.1 10.1

2002 19.9 635.8 151.9 1,009.5 55.2 3.5 227.0 1,648.8 11.5

2003 23.5 734.1 176.3 1,218.2 75.8 7.5 275.6 1,959.8 13.5

2004 23.5 753.6 194.6 1,323.8 96.8 7.5 314.8 2,085.0 14.2

2005 24.0 786.0 206.6 1,429.1 116.5 8.2 347.1 2,223.3 14.9

2006 25.7 846.8 195.2 1,313.4 133.8 10.4 354.6 2,170.6 14.5

Source: ERG estimates based on modeling results.

Tons(000) Tons(000) Tons(000)

TVs Computer Products Cell Phones

Tons(000)

Estimated Annual Products Ready for EOL Management

Total

Annual Quantity of Electronic Products Ready for EOL Management That Is 

Recycled 

Section 3.2 presents estimates of the quantity of EOL electronic products collected that is 

recycled in the United States. These estimates are duplicated in Table 6.2. As shown in 

the table, an estimated 345,000 tons of EOL TVs, cell phones, and personal computer 

products were available for recycling in 2005. This is equivalent to about 2.2 pounds per 

capita, which accounts for about 15 percent of the 15 pounds per capita estimated to be 

 

23 U.S. Census figures for beyond 2006 were interpolated based on Census projections for 2005 and 2010. 

 33
ready for EOL management in 2005. If the recovery rate for recycling in 2005 were 

increased from 15 to 35 percent, 5.2 pounds per capita would be recycled, increasing the 

total weight of EOL electronics recycled to 778,000 tons. 

Table 6.2

Year

Units(mill) Units(mill) Units(mill) Units(mill) Lbs/Cap

1999 2.5 74.1 18.4 82.4 2.8 0.008 23.7 157.0 1.2

2000 2.8 86.9 17.5 102.6 3.7 0.010 24.0 190.0 1.4

2001 2.9 89.5 19.8 120.0 5.5 0.013 28.2 210.0 1.5

2002 3.0 96.4 23.0 153.1 8.4 0.018 34.4 250.0 1.7

2003 3.5 108.6 26.1 180.3 11.2 0.043 40.8 290.0 2.0

2004 3.6 115.7 29.9 203.2 14.8 0.054 48.3 320.0 2.2

2005 3.7 122.0 32.1 221.8 18.1 0.067 53.9 345.0 2.3

Source: ERG estimates based on modeling results.

Total

Estimated Annual Products Collected for Recycling

Tons(000) Tons(000) Tons(000)

TVs Computer Products Cell Phones

Tons(000)

According to our estimates, for the study period 1999 to 2005, about 15 percent of the 

electronic products ready for EOL management are recycled and the remainder is 

disposed. The fact that the percent recycled has remained constant over this period 

should not lead the reader to conclude that electronics recycling rates have remained 

constant. The opposite is true. In 1999, 157,000 tons of EOL electronic products within 

the scope of this study were recycled as compared to 345,000 tons in 2005. However, at 

the same time, the products generated annually for EOL management has been 

increasing. As shown in Table 6.2, the per capita recovery rates have exhibited steady 

increases, from an estimated 1.2 to 2.3 pounds per capita in 1999 to 2005. 

An important factor in this analysis is the estimate of the quantity of EOL electronic 

products recycled annually. The scope of this study did not allow for an in-depth analysis 

of this factor. However, given that this estimate directly affects the proportion of EOL 

products that are recycled versus disposed, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to test the 

effect on the results by assuming that our estimate of the amount recycled was 

underestimated by 20 percent. When assuming that 412,000 tons of EOL electronic 

products were recycled in 2005 (a 20 percent increase over 345,000 tons), the estimated 

portion of the total EOL products generated for management that are recycled increases 

from 15 to 19 percent and the portion that is disposed of decreases from 85 to 81 percent. 

Based on our analysis and industry estimates of electronic products recycled (See Section 

3.2.), we believe that 15 to 20 percent is a reasonable range to represent the portion of 

electronic products generated for EOL management that are recycled. 

Electronic Products in Storage and Other Stages of the Lifecycle 

In Section 3.3 (Table 3.6), we estimated that in 2005, about 180 million units of EOL 

electronic products could be in storage. This represents the quantity of material that may 

be in home closets, attics, or basements. Televisions comprise about one-half and desktop 

computers about one-quarter of the stored products in that timeframe. 

 34
According to our modeling results, of all the electronic products sold (excluding cell 

phones) from 1980 to 2004, by 2005 almost half are still in use either by the first or 

subsequent users. (See Figure 6.1.) Of the remainder, about 42 percent would have 

already been managed via recycling or disposal, and about 9 percent are likely to be 

ready for management, but still are in storage. 

For computer products, we estimated the number of products that might be in their “first 

use” and “second use” or reuse stage. According to our modeling results, in 2005, of the 

computer-related products sold from 1980 through 2004, 37 percent are in their “first 

use” stage (i.e., the first owner is still using) and 22 percent are being reused (second 

owner is using). Intuitively, we believe that the reuse of electronic products is high, since 

these products are relatively expensive, and even though product turnover rates may be 

short compared to other products, there is still substantial intrinsic value to the product. 

In fact, according to Consumer Electronics Association survey data, consumer-toconsumer reuse of electronic products through donations, give-away, or sales ranges from 

65 percent of consumers for televisions to 83 percent of consumers for laptops.24

Quantity of EOL Electronic Products Collected by Existing Collection Programs 

In Section 4.0, we examined a number of mostly residential electronics collection 

programs. The programs studied were not a statistical sample; rather, they were selected 

based on the suitability and availability of the data. In this review of program data, we 

found that, for municipal electronics collection programs the mid-range of 2 pounds per 

capita (based on a range of 0.8 to 3.1 pounds per capita) of EOL TVs and personal 

computer equipment was recovered for recycling. (See Table 4.1.) This wide range is 

indicative of the maturity and type of program, as well as the extent of outreach and the 

characteristics of the population; they all play an important role in determining the 

recovery rates. When there is a disposal ban, higher recovery rates may be experienced. 

Electronic Products Collected for Recycling, Managed Domestically Versus Abroad 

In Section 5, we developed estimates regarding where and how CRTs from computer 

monitors and TVs were being handled after collection by electronics recyclers in the U.S. 

 

24 DuBravac, Shawn G., From Here to There: Facts on Product Life Cycles and Recycling, Consumer 

Electronics Association. 2005. 

 35
25 Of the CRT devices collected in the U.S. by recyclers, more than 80 percent is sent to 

end markets abroad for resale, refurbishment, remanufacturing, or materials recovery. 

Most of the used and EOL electronic products containing CRTs (about 60 percent) are 

sent to end markets in Asia, South America, and elsewhere, where CRTs that are in 

working order are refurbished or remanufactured into new TVs or specialty equipment 

(e.g., monitors for medical or other technical applications). However, the end market 

distribution is changing rapidly as glass factories close and the increasing popularity of 

flat panel displays changes the nature of the EOL stream from TVs and computer 

monitors. 

The handling of CPUs, laptops, and hard copy peripherals in the U.S. versus abroad was 

not examined in this analysis. These products at EOL have different technical and 

economic characteristics and therefore, the resale and recycling end markets are not at all 

similar. Non-CRT-containing products may be addressed in a subsequent analysis. 

 

25 The “more than 80%” estimate is derived by adding the following categories from Table 4: 1) Resale 

“as is” or repair abroad; 2) Remanufacturing abroad; and 3) CRT glass abroad. These three categories 

yield about 77%. We also assume that a portion of two other categories in Table 4 should also be included, 

bringing the total up to at least 80%: 1) CRT glass to lead smelters in North America; and 2) Plastic, metal, 

etc. from demanufacturing. 

 36
APPENDIX A 

AGE DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS 

BASED ON ANALYSES OF DATA FROM 

THE FLORIDA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
P

e

r

c

e

n

t

0. 0

2. 5

5. 0

7. 5

10. 0

12. 5

15. 0

17. 5

20. 0

age

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27

 A-1
P

e

r

c

e

n

t

0. 0

2. 5

5. 0

7. 5

10. 0

12. 5

15. 0

17. 5

20. 0

age

1. 2 4. 8 8. 4 12. 0 15. 6 19. 2 22. 8 26. 4 30. 0

 A-2
P

e

r

c

e

n

t

0

10

20

30

40

50

age

3. 75 6. 25 8. 75 11. 25 13. 75

 A-3
P

e

r

c

e

n

t

0

5

10

15

20

25

AGE

4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

 A-4
P

e

r

c

e

n

t

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

age

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33

 A-5
P

e

r

c

e

n

t

0. 0

2. 5

5. 0

7. 5

10. 0

12. 5

15. 0

17. 5

20. 0

22. 5

age

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

A-6
APPENDIX B 

ESTIMATING THE QUANTITY OF EOL ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS DISPOSED: 

ANALYSIS OF WASTE SORT STUDIES

 
Waste sort studies characterize the waste streams sampled from both residential and 

commercial disposal loads. These characterizations describe the volume of different 

categories of materials disposed as a percentage of the solid waste disposed. These 

figures can be used to estimate the pounds per person per year for each category. The 

major material categories examined in the waste sorts are paper, plastic, metal, and glass, 

etc.; each major category is further divided into specific products. 

Although all the waste sort studies included a category for consumer electronics, the 

contents of this category—i.e., its subdivision into individual product types, such as 

televisions, monitors, and computers—varied from study to study. The annual data from 

the waste sorts also varied, by the year the data were collected, but each sort presented 

numbers that represented a full 1-year period. Six of the studies were statewide (covering 

California, Georgia, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) and one was local 

(covering Seattle).26

Data from each study were analyzed in detail to make sure that the waste categories 

matched each other as closely as possible. For example, major categories such as 

construction and demolition debris, ash, sewage sludge, and other special wastes that 

were included in some, but not all of the waste sort studies were removed. The yard waste 

category was also removed, due to regional differences associated with this type of waste. 

The percentages of the remaining categories were then adjusted to reflect the adjusted 

composition. 

A second series of adjustments were made to the broad waste categories to make the 

studies more comparable. For example, if there were insufficient data in the waste sort 

studies to match the specific items included in these broad categories between studies, 

these categories were removed and replaced with national average data to fill in the data 

gaps. An example of when such adjustment might be made is in the category of “durable 

goods.” Durable goods include such items as appliances, tires, carpet, and furniture and 

furnishings. In some of the studies, these items were specifically cited, while in others, 

they were included in other broad categories, such as “other metals,” “other plastics,” and 

“wood and wood products.” Another example is that some broad categories may also 

have included non-MSW products such as lumber, windows, doors, fixtures, tubing, and 

 

26 California Integrated Waste Management Board. Contractor’s Report to the Board: Statewide Waste 

Characterization Study. Publication Number 340-04-005. December 2004. 

Department of Community Affairs. Georgia Statewide Waste Characterization Study. June 22, 2005. 

Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board et al. Statewide MSW Composition Study: A Study of 

Discards in the State of Minnesota. March 2000. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality et al. 2002 Oregon Solid Waste Characterization and 

Composition. 2004. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection et al. Final Report: Statewide Waste Composition 

Study. 2003. 

Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc., et al. Wisconsin Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Final Report. 

May 2003. 

Seattle Public Utilities. 2002 Residential Waste Stream Composition Study. August 2003. 2004 Commercial 

and Self-Haul Waste Streams Composition Study. September 2005. 

B-1 
wiring from home or commercial renovation projects; also, automobile parts are 

commonly included. Adjustments were made to correct inconsistencies between studies. 

Table B.1 shows the results of the waste sort analysis on a pounds per person per year 

basis. Detailed data from the waste sorts were segregated to the extent possible to reflect 

the consumer electronics that are the focus of this study. There is some uncertainty due to 

the lack of information in the individual studies as to whether scanners and facsimile 

machines are included in all of the factors shown. 

The average of the waste sort studies, on a per person per year basis, is shown in the 

following table. Although seven waste sort studies were analyzed, only six were judged 

to have sufficient information to allow for the separation of the specific consumer 

electronic product categories. 

Table B.1 

Discards of Electronic Products, in Average Pounds per Capita 

California Georgia Minnesota Wisconsin Oregon Seattle

Consumer Electronic Discards (lbs/cap/yr) (lbs/cap/yr)(lbs/cap/yr) (lbs/cap/yr) (lbs/cap/yr) (lbs/cap/yr)(lbs/cap/yr)

Computer-related electronics 3.6 6.9 2.0 2.5 1.0 4.9 4.2

CRTs (monitors and televisions) 5.8 13.0 0.9 1.2 12.6 6.6 0.7

Total 9.4 19.8 2.9 3.7 13.6 11.6 4.8

Data year 2002 2003/2004 1998 2001 2002 2002

Average of 

Waste 

Sorts

Source: ERG estimates based on analysis of six waste sort studies. See footnote #26. 

Applying the resulting average factor of 9.4 pounds per person per year to the U.S. 

resident population, results in the discard estimates for the EOL electronic products 

presented in Table B.2. 

Table B.2 

Estimated Discards of EOL Electronics Based on Waste Sort Averages

Year U.S. Population Estimated Discards 

(millions) (Million Tons per 

Year) 

1999 272.7 1.28 

2000 281.4 1.32 

2001 284.8 1.34 

2002 288.0 1.35 

2003 290.8 1.37 

Comparing the results for 2003, both methods of estimating the amount disposed are 

reasonably close. The estimate in Table 3.3, which was based on the modeling results of 

EOL electronic products ready for EOL management less the amount recycled, yielded 

B-2
1.7 million tons, whereas the estimate developed based on the average results from six 

waste sort studies estimated 1.4 million tons. 

B-3
APPENDIX C 

AVERAGE COLLECTION RATES FROM EXISTING ELECTRONICS COLLECTION 

PROGRAMS

 
Recovery rates experienced by existing state and local electronics collection programs 

allow us to begin to understand how residents respond to recycling opportunities when 

they are available. This is important when municipalities or other entities are planning to 

establish electronics recycling opportunities to a given population. We examined 

recovery rate information on a per capita basis from a number of programs to get a sense 

of the quantities of material that might be anticipated. 

Each of the recycling programs selected for this analysis met the following criteria: 

• The program served a discrete and quantifiable population. Examples include 

state programs available to all state residents, collections run out of county or 

municipal waste management facilities, and curbside collections within a specific 

city or county. 

• The program involved regular daily, weekly, or monthly collection—not a onetime or annual collection event. 

Hennepin County, Minnesota, which includes Minneapolis and several surrounding 

communities, has one of the longest-running electronic waste recovery programs in the 

nation. As of 2004, the county collected 54 percent of its e-waste at two drop-off centers, 

29 percent through curbside pickup in the city of Minneapolis, and the remainder through 

various hazardous waste collection events.27 Figure C.1 shows annual per capita recovery 

by product type from 1992 to 2004, based on data provided by the Minnesota Office of 

Environmental Assistance. (These data were originally collected in units; they were 

converted to pounds based on a standard set of mass factors that were used for all 

program data presented in this section.)28 Per capita recovery was calculated using 

county-wide population figures from the U.S. Census. Annual population figures between 

1990 and 2000 were estimated by linear regression between the 1990 and 2000 Census 

totals. Post-2000 population estimates were based on a linear regression between the 

2000 Census total and the 2003 Census estimate. 

Waukesha County, Wisconsin, is located just west of Milwaukee. The county collects 

EOL computer products, but not TVs, at several drop-off locations, each open at least one 

day per week to all county residents. Businesses recycle computers through a separate 

program, although some businesses could have dropped electronics off at the residential 

collection sites. Recovery data were provided by the Waukesha County Recycling and 

Solid Waste Office, with units converted to pounds using our standard conversion factors. 

Figure C.2 shows the per capita recovery data, which were calculated using the countywide population from the 2000 Census. 

 

27 www.electronicsrecycling.com/NCER/UserDocuments/121541970Hennepin_Brand_Tally.pdf 28 Standard factors assumed for all per capita calculations were: CPUs, 23 pounds; monitors, 30 pounds; 

Printers/peripherals, 21 pounds; laptops, 9 pounds; and TVs, 63 pounds. 

 C-1 
Figure C.1. Per Capita Electronics Recovery in Hennepin County, MN, 1992–2004 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

19921993

19941995

19961997

1998199920002001200220032004

year

pounds per capita .

Printers

TVs

CPUs

Monitors

Notes: The program began in fall 1992. Minneapolis curbside electronics recycling began in 1997. 

The program began tracking laptops as a separate category in 2003. Per capita laptop recovery in 

2003 and 2004 was 0.002 pounds and 0.005 pounds, respectively. 

Source: Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, September 2005.

Figure C.2. Per Capita Recovery of Computer Products Only in Waukesha County, 

WI, 2000–2004 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

year

pounds per capita .

Printers

CPUs

Monitors

Notes: The program began in 2000 with two drop-off locations. A third drop-off location was added 

in 2001; unlike the other two, it was open daily. A fourth drop-off site was added in May 2002. 

Source: Waukesha County Recycling and Solid Waste Office, September 2005.

C-2
The Canadian province of Alberta started an e-waste collection program in October 2004, 

with collection locations throughout the province. Recycling is free to all residents, and is 

funded by an Advance Recovery Fee (ARF) levied on certain electronic goods at the 

point of sale. The Alberta Recycling Management Authority provided unit recovery data 

through May 2005 by product type. Table C.1 presents the recovery data in annual 

pounds per capita, with the original 8 months of data multiplied by 1.5 (for an annual 

estimate). Pounds per capita were calculated using the standard set of product mass 

factors and the provincial population figure from Canada’s 2001 Census. Note that, in 

other programs that have been in operation several years, the recovery rate is usually low 

in the first year and increases substantially in subsequent years. 

Table C.1 

Per Capita Electronics Recovery in Alberta 

Product Pounds per Capita 

Monitors 0.43 

CPUs 0.29 

TVs 0.40 

Printers 0.17 

Laptops 0.004 

TOTAL 1.30 

Notes: Annual recovery rate is based on prorated data from October 2004 through May 2005. The province-wide 

program began in October 2004. As of May 2005, more than 100 collection sites and e-roundups had been established. 

Source: Alberta Recycling Management Authority, September 2005.

Citrus County, Florida, is a rural county located north of Tampa along the Gulf Coast. 

The county operates an e-waste drop-off site at the county landfill. Businesses must pay a 

per-item fee, while recycling for residents is free.29 Product recovery data for 2002 were 

available from the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI), which 

maintained a database of e-waste recovery data for a short period of time. The 2002 

figures represent a 9-month pilot, but were extrapolated to annual rates for comparison. 

Data for 2003 and fiscal year 2005 for Citrus County were obtained from the Florida 

DEP. Table C.2 shows Citrus County’s e-waste recovery in pounds per capita, calculated 

using standard mass factors and the county’s 2004 population estimate (U.S. Census). 

Table C.2 

Per Capita Electronics Recovery in Citrus County, FL, 2002–2005 

Pounds per Capita (Annual Rate) Product 2002 2003 Oct 2004–Sep 2005 

Monitors 0.43 0.20 0.32 

CPUs 0.19 0.06 0.13 

TVs 0.72 1.65 1.93 30 Printers 0.08 0.10 

TOTAL 1.33 1.99 2.48 

Notes: The program began as a pilot in 2002 with a monthly drop-off. After the pilot stage, the program was expanded 

to a daily drop-off. 

Source: NEPSI On-Line Data Base, 2003. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. September 2005.

 

29 www.bocc.citrus.fl.us/swm/electronics_recycling_tipping.htm 30 In 2002, Citrus County reported printers as part of “peripheral devices,” not as a separate category. 

C-3
Several other counties in Florida have operated pilot or permanent e-waste collection 

programs. Product recovery data from these counties were available from the NEPSI 

database. Programs with regular collection and at least 8 months of data (mostly from 

2002) include: 

• Broward County (1 weekly drop-off location; pilot program) 

• Charlotte County (1 daily drop-off location; pilot program) 

• Lee County (1 weekly drop-off location; permanent) 

• Miami-Dade County (1 daily drop-off location; permanent) 

• Polk County (1 daily drop-off location; permanent) 

• Sarasota County (daily curbside pickup and 1 daily drop-off location; pilot 

program) 

Table C.3 shows the per capita recovery from these counties, by product type. Unit totals 

from the NEPSI database were converted to pounds using the standard conversion factors 

and compared with county populations from the 2000 Census. 

Table C.3 

Per Capita Electronics Recovery in Several Florida Counties 

Pounds per Capita, by County 

Product Broward Charlotte Lee MiamiDade 

Polk Sarasota 

Monitors 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.13 

CPUs 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.05 

TVs 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.13 0.27 0.24 

31 Printers 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03 

32 Laptops 0.0002 0.0006 

TOTAL 0.18 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.32 0.45 

Source: NEPSI On-Line Data Base, 2003. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. September 

2005. 

Another state with extensive e-recycling infrastructure is Massachusetts. Since the early 

1990s, the state Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) has provided grants 

to help municipalities establish CRT collection programs.33 In April 2000, the state 

banned CRTs from all solid waste disposal facilities, and since then, CRT collection 

programs have gradually expanded to cover a large percentage of the state’s 6.4 million 

residents. Programs are operated by individual municipalities, and range from curbside 

pickups to daily drop-off locations, special collection events, collaborations with 

charities, or a combination of methods. Some programs charge a per-unit fee. 

Each municipality reports annual collection totals to MA DEP. Reporting methods vary, 

with some programs reporting recovery in pounds as measured by their vendor, others 

reporting pounds calculated from the number of units recovered, and the rest reporting 

 

31 Charlotte County reported totals for peripheral devices, but did not break these down by type of device. 

32 Many programs did not report laptops as a separate category. 

33 www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/reduce/crtqanda.htm 

C-4
unit totals, which MA DEP converts to pounds using a set of mass factors. These data 

only include products with CRTs and are generally not broken down by product type, so 

we were unable to determine what portion was monitors as opposed to TVs. Figure C.3 

shows the per capita recovery of total CRTs from 2000 to 2004, based on data provided 

by MA DEP. Each year’s per capita figure reflects the population served by the CRT 

recycling programs reporting data to MA DEP for that year (municipal population figures 

provided by MA DEP). This denominator increased overall from 2000 to 2004, as more 

and more communities established recycling programs. 

Figure C.3. Per Capita CRT Recovery in Massachusetts, 2000–2004 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

year

pounds per capita 

Notes: Data covers only computer monitors and televisions with a CRT. 

Source: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, September 2005. 

 Table C.4 summarizes the results from the individual programs examined. 

Table C.4 

Range of Per Capita Recovery Rates Among Selected Programs, 2004 

Recovery Range (Pounds per Capita) Product Type Minimum Maximum 

Monitors 0.23 0.60 

CPUs 0.13 0.35 

TVs 0.4 1.99 

Printers 0.07 0.17 

34 Laptops 0.002 0.007 

Total 0.83 3.12 

It was not in the scope of this study to delve more deeply into what factors most affect 

collection rates. We did, however, briefly analyze the data from Massachusetts to see if 

there was a statistically significant difference in the per capita recovery rates of different 

types of programs (e.g., drop-off, curbside pickup, special event). 

 

34 Only Waukesha County, Alberta, and Hennepin County reported laptops as a distinct category in 2004. 

C-5
As stated earlier, Massachusetts has had a ban on CRT disposal since 2000. Each town 

chooses what type, if any, of collection program it will offer residents. The state 

maintains a database of what is collected by the towns that access the statewide recycling 

contracts to support their programs. We analyzed the effect of program type on the 

pounds product per capita recovered. We used a nonparametric one-way anova procedure 

for a simple standard analysis of variance test on the raw data. The multiple sample 

Kruskal-Wallis test was used to detect a significant difference in the distributions of the 

program type variable. The analysis showed that program type is, in fact, statistically 

significant in determining the pounds per capita recovery rate. 

Table C.5 presents the analysis of the variance for the recovery rate variable. As shown in 

the table, drop-off programs in Massachusetts collected the most material on a pounds per 

capita basis. Massachusetts state recycling officials informed us that many of the curbside 

pickup programs require residents to make an appointment for a pickup and in some 

cases there is a monthly limit constraining the number of pickups that can be scheduled. 

This factor could partially explain why the curbside programs had a lower recovery rate 

than the drop-off programs. Of the three main types of programs (curbside, drop-off, and 

special event), special events had the lowest recovery rates. The data for the combination 

programs are difficult to interpret because we have no information regarding the 

predominant method of collection in these communities. 

 

Table C.5 

Analysis of Variance for the Pounds per Capita Variable 

Classified by Program Type 

Mean Pounds per 

Program Type Number in Sample Capita 

Drop-off 524 2.82 

Curbside pickup 71 1.95 

Special event 67 1.18 

Drop-off/special event 25 1.36 

Drop-off/curbside 60 1.30 

Curbside/special event 7 1.15 

Charity/curbside 5 0.55 

Drop-off/curbside/special event 9 0.61 

C-6