Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0013-0006
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2002-04-04T05:00Z

ANALYSIS
OF
FIVE
COMMUNITY
CONSUMER/
RESIDENTIAL
COLLECTIONS
OF
END­
OF­
LIFE
ELECTRONIC
AND
ELECTRICAL
EQUIPMENT
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Analysis
of
Five
Consumer/
Community
Residential
Collections
of
End­
of­
life
Electronic
and
Electrical
Equipment
was
prepared
for
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
by
Ecobalance,
Inc.,
Bethesda,
MD.
Ecobalance
is
an
international
environmental
consulting
firm
that
specializes
in
Life
Cycle
Management.

This
report
was
drafted
by
Ecobalance,
Inc.
and
written
by
Brian
Glazebrook
with
the
assistance
of
Remi
Coulon.

This
project
was
managed
by
Christine
Beling,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Region
I
(EPA
–
New
England)
and
directed
by
a
workgroup
formed
under
EPA's
Common
Sense
Initiative
which
included:
Thomas
Bartel,
Unisys
Corporation;
Tony
Hainault,
Minnesota
Office
of
Environmental
Assistance;
Patricia
Dillon,
Tufts
University
–
The
Gordon
Institute;
David
Isaacs,
Electronic
Industries
Alliance;
Rick
Reibstein,
Massachusetts
OTA;
John
Alter,
U.
S.
EPA;
Mike
Winka,
New
Jersey
Department
of
Environmental
Protection;
Gregory
Cobbs,
Rutgers
University.

This
report
was
peer
reviewed
by
several
members
of
the
workgroup
as
well
as
Mark
Mahoney,
EPA
–
New
England;
Cheryl
Lofrano­
Zaske,
Hennepin
County
Department
of
Public
Works;
Joe
Carpenter,
New
Jersey
Department
of
Environmental
Protection;
Frank
Peluso,
New
Jersey
Department
of
Environmental
Protection.

Please
note
that
while
the
above
individuals
contributed
to
and
reviewed
the
report,
they
do
not
necessarily
endorse
all
of
its
analysis
or
conclusions.
CONTENTS
1.
Executive
Summary
_______________________________________________________
1
2.
Introduction
_____________________________________________________________
6
2.1
Project
Background
/
the
Common
Sense
Initiative
........................................................
6
2.2
Project
Scope..............................................................................................................
6
3.
Summary
of
Collection
Programs_____________________________________________
7
3.1
Binghamton,
New
York/
Somerville,
Massachusetts
.......................................................
8
3.2
San
Jose,
California
....................................................................................................
13
3.3
Hennepin
County,
Minnesota.......................................................................................
17
3.4
Union
County,
New
Jersey
.........................................................................................
22
3.5
Naperville
and
Wheaton,
Illinois...................................................................................
27
3.6
Summary
Data
for
the
Pilot
Projects............................................................................
31
4.
Economic
Analysis
of
Pilot
Projects
__________________________________________
37
4.1
Net
Economics...........................................................................................................
37
4.2
Cost
Analysis
.............................................................................................................
38
4.2.1
Demanufacturing
Versus
Disposal
38
4.2.2
CRT
Recycling
40
4.3
Revenue
Analysis.......................................................................................................
41
4.3.1
Resale
41
4.3.2
Offsetting
Costs
42
4.4
Equipment
Collection
..................................................................................................
43
4.4.1
Collection
Efficiency
44
4.4.2
Equipment
Collected
per
Resident
46
5.
Beyond
the
Example
Collection
Programs
_____________________________________
47
5.1
Identifying
the
Different
Stakeholders..........................................................................
47
5.2
The
Demanufacturer
..................................................................................................
48
5.2.1
Role
48
5.2.2
Demanufacturing
Costs
49
5.2.3
Revenue
49
5.3
The
Collection
Agency
...............................................................................................
55
5.3.1
Role
56
5.3.2
Costs
–
Influence
of
Collection
Method
58
5.3.3
Minimizing
Costs
63
5.3.4
Revenue
64
5.3.5
Avoided
Costs
64
5.3.6
The
Collection
Agency
and
Demanufacturing
66
5.3.7
Retailers
67
5.4
The
Participant...........................................................................................................
68
5.5
Other
Stakeholders.....................................................................................................
69
5.5.1
Government
69
5.5.2
Private
Industry
67
6.
Conclusions
____________________________________________________________
71
6.1
Data
Gaps
and
Future
Research..................................................................................
71
6.2
Conclusions................................................................................................................
72
7
Appendix
A:
US
EPA
CRT
Recommendation___________________________________
76
8
Appendix
B:
The
San
Francisco
Area
Collection
Program
________________________
82
9
Appendix
C:
Calculating
Net
Cost
___________________________________________
86
10
Appendix
D:
Bibliography________________________________________________
87
TABLES
Table
1:
Available
Cost
and
Revenue
Data
...........................................................................................
1
Table
2:
Collection
Program
Summary
Table
.........................................................................................
2
Table
3:
Summary
of
Advantages
and
Barriers
to
Collection
Models.......................................................
4
Table
4:
Collection
Models
Used
by
Collection
Program.........................................................................
7
Table
5:
Binghamton/
Somerville
Demographics
.....................................................................................
8
Table
6:
Promotional
Expenses
for
Binghamton
and
Somerville
Pilots......................................................
9
Table
7:
Participation
Rates
for
Binghamton
and
Somerville
Pilots
..........................................................
9
Table
8:
Items
Collected
During
Binghamton
and
Somerville
Pilots
.......................................................
10
Table
9:
Pounds
of
Equipment
Collected
During
Binghamton
and
Somerville
Events
..............................
10
Table
10:
Binghamton
and
Somerville
Transportation
Costs
..................................................................
10
Table
11:
Binghamton
and
Somerville
Demanfacturing
Costs................................................................
11
Table
12:
Binghamton
and
Somerville
Gross
Revenues.........................................................................
11
Table
13:
Binghamton/
Somerville
Net
Costs
........................................................................................
12
Table
14:
Pallets
Collected
During
San
Jose
Pilot.................................................................................
14
Table
15:
Items
Collected
During
San
Jose
Pilot
..................................................................................
14
Table
16:
Distribution
of
Commodities
by
Weight
and
Value
.................................................................
15
Table
17:
Items
Collected
During
Hennepin
County
Program
...............................................................
18
Table
18:
Hennepin
County
Net
Cost..................................................................................................
20
Table
19:
Union
County
Demographics
...............................................................................................
22
Table
20:
Items
Collected
During
Union
County
Pilot...........................................................................
24
Table
21:
Union
County
Transportation
Distances
and
Costs
................................................................
24
Table
22:
Demanufacturing
Charges
per
Item
Collected.......................................................................
25
Table
23:
Union
County
Net
Cost
.......................................................................................................
26
Table
24:
Naperville/
Wheaton
Demographics
......................................................................................
27
Table
25:
Items
Collected
During
Naperville/
Wheaton
Pilots
................................................................
28
Table
26:
Naperville/
Wheaton
Net
Cost
..............................................................................................
30
Table
27:
Available
Cost
and
Revenue
Data........................................................................................
31
Table
28:
Binghamton/
Somerville
and
San
Jose
Summary
Cost
Data.....................................................
32
Table
29:
Union
County
Summary
Cost
Data
......................................................................................
33
Table
30:
Union
County
Summary
Cost
Data
(cont.)............................................................................
34
Table
31:
Hennepin
County
Summary
Cost
Data
.................................................................................
35
Table
32:
Naperville/
Wheaton
Summary
Cost
Data
.............................................................................
36
Table
33:
Resale
Revenue
Per
Pound
Collected
..................................................................................
41
Table
34:
Items
Targeted
by
Collection
Program
.................................................................................
43
Table
35:
Potential
Revenue
for
Extracted
Materials............................................................................
52
Table
36:
Circuit
Board
Metal
Content................................................................................................
52
Table
37:
Motivation
Behind
Collection
Programs:
Summary
Table
.......................................................
56
Table
38:
Summary
of
Advantages
and
Barriers
to
Collection
Models
...................................................
62
Table
39:
Changes
in
Metal
Concentration
for
Union
County
Incinerator
Ash........................................
65
Table
40:
Provisions
Applicable
To
Crt
Glass­
To­
Glass
Regulated
Entities
............................................
78
Table
41:
San
Francisco/
Hayward/
Oakland
Demographics...................................................................
82
Table
42:
Collection
Program
Participation
Rates.................................................................................
83
Table
43:
Items
Collected
During
Oakland
Collection
Pilot
...................................................................
83
FIGURES
Figure
1:
Location
Map
for
Collection
Programs
....................................................................................
7
Figure
2:
Economic
Interaction
Between
Stakeholders
.........................................................................
37
Figure
3:
Disposal
vs.
Recycling
Cost
Comparison:
One­
day
Drop­
off
Collection
Events........................
39
Figure
4:
Disposal
vs.
Recycling
Cost
Comparison:
Other
Collection
Models
.........................................
39
Figure
5:
Items
Containing
CRTs
as
a
Percentage
of
Total
Equipment
Collected
...................................
40
Figure
6:
Reaching
the
Break­
Even
Point
for
Collection
Models
...........................................................
43
Figure
7:
Percentage­
by­
Type
of
Number
of
Items
Collected...............................................................
44
Figure
8:
Collection
Efficiency
of
Collection
Models.............................................................................
45
Figure
9:
Pounds
of
End­
of­
life
Electronic
and
Electrical
Waste
Collected
Per
Resident.........................
46
Figure
10:
Economic
Interaction
Between
Stakeholders
.......................................................................
47
Figure
11:
Cost
and
Revenue
Streams
for
the
Demanufacturer.............................................................
48
Figure
12:
Cost
and
Revenue
Streams
for
the
Collection
Agency..........................................................
56
Figure
13:
Cost
and
Revenue
Streams
for
the
Participant
.....................................................................
68
page
1
1.
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
The
goal
of
this
study
was
to
produce
a
written
report
that
aggregates
and
analyzes
existing
data
from
five
Electronic
Product
Recovery
and
Recycling
(EPR2)
programs
in
order
to:

·
Identify
a
common
format
for
data
collection
for
materials
and
cost;

·
Evaluate
and
aggregate
existing
collection
and
demanufacturing
materials
and
cost
data
sets;

·
Identify
common
opportunities
and
barriers
for
different
collection
and
transportation
models;

·
Define
the
advantages
and
disadvantages
of
different
collection
and
transportation
models;

·
Identify
commodities
that
are
most
viable
economically
(positive
revenue)
for
collection
and
demanufacturing;

·
Identify
successful
motivators
and
strategies
for
marketing
collection
events;

·
Identify
key
issues
and
motivators
for
various
groups
that
have
or
may
participate
in
electronic
equipment
collection
including
consumers,
local
government
officials,
small
businesses,
recyclers,
demanufacturers,
shippers,
etc.;

·
Identify
data
gaps
and
infrastructure
needs
to
increase
residential
participation;
and
·
Analyze
what
motivates
the
public
to
participate
in
collection
events
The
collection
programs
that
were
studied
consisted
of
two
Common
Sense
Initiative
(CSI)
sponsored
programs
(San
Jose,
CA
and
Somerville,
MA/
Binghamton,
NY),
as
well
as
programs
in
Union
County,
NJ;
Hennepin
County,
MN;
and
Naperville/
Wheaton,
IL.
These
collection
programs
represented
a
range
of
different
collection
models
–
from
one­
day
collection
events
to
permanent
collection
depots
–
and
subsequently
a
range
of
costs
and
revenues.

The
costs
and
revenues
for
each
of
these
collection
programs
were
gathered
in
order
to
calculate
the
net
costs.
The
following
table
indicates
the
available
data.
Since
only
two
of
the
programs
included
the
upfront
promotional
costs,
which
were
quite
high,
these
costs
were
not
included
in
the
calculation.
On
the
revenue
end,
all
of
the
programs
had
some
revenue
from
scrap,
but
only
Somerville,
Union
County,
and
San
Jose
received
revenue
from
the
resale
of
equipment.

Table
1:
Available
Cost
and
Revenue
Data
Collection
Agency
Publicity
Operating
Transport
Demanufacturing
Disposal
Binghamton/
Somerville
X
X
X
Naperville/
Wheaton
X
X
X
Union
County
X
X
X
X
X
Hennepin
County
X
X
X
X
San
Jose
X
X
X
The
costs
and
volumes
associated
with
these
programs
are
outlined
in
the
following
table.
The
table
shows
that
the
cost
per
pound
of
material
collected
varies
from
less
than
$0.10
per
pound
to
$0.50
per
page
2
pound.
The
range
of
values
reflects
not
only
the
different
collection
and
management
models,
but
also
the
different
sets
of
data
that
were
available
for
each
program.

Table
2:
Collection
Program
Summary
Table
Program
Period
Net
Cost*
Pounds
Collected
Cost
Per
Pound
Somerville
Fall
1996
$3,299
7,448
$0.44
Spring
1997
$1,091
13,723
$0.08
Binghamton
Fall
1996
$444
2,372
$0.19
Spring
1997
$1,863
9,031
$0.21
San
Jose
Oct.
1997
$4,373
61,600
$0.29
Union
Co.
$5,858
42,886
$0.14
Cranford
$13
120
$0.10
Westfield
$234
2,240
$0.10
Clark
$2,003
10,640
$0.19
Kenilworth
$1,075
6,680
$0.16
Linden
$15,155
87,060
$0.17
New
Providence
$767
5,180
$0.15
Rahway
$8,843
26,560
$0.33
Summit
Oct.
96
to
Mar.
98
$11,957
51,500
$0.23
Hennepin
Co.
Average
1995­
1997
$278,000
552,000
$0.50
Naperville
Fall
1996
$8,000
24,267
$0.33
Fall
1997
$8,000
60,000
$0.13
Wheaton
Spring
1998
$8,000
22,414
$0.36
*
See
Appendix
C
for
an
explanation
of
how
this
value
was
calculated.

While
these
differences
in
net
costs
among
programs
would
seem
to
imply
that
some
programs
were
more
successful
than
others,
the
differences
in
how
the
data
was
collected
and
provided
for
each
programs
makes
such
a
cursory
assessment
impossible.
However,
while
making
a
comparison
between
these
programs
is
not
possible
based
on
a
comparison
of
the
net
costs,
it
was
still
possible
to
use
this
cost
data
to
make
some
limited
assessment
of
the
economics
and
dynamics
of
these
collection
programs:

Ø
The
net
costs
of
the
programs
were
driven
by
the
demanufacturing
costs;
the
operational
costs
for
many
of
the
case
studies
were
either
not
accounted
for
or
very
small.
However,
since
a
number
of
these
collection
programs
were
pilots,
this
may
not
be
the
case
for
programs
operating
over
longer
periods.

Ø
In
terms
of
pounds
of
material
collected
per
resident,
the
curbside
collection
programs
appeared
to
be
more
efficient
than
the
other
collection
models,
while
the
one­
day
collection
events
appeared
to
the
least
efficient.
More
and
better
collection
data
is
necessary
to
confirm
this.

Ø
In
contrast
to
the
previous
point,
the
number
of
items
collected
per
dollar
of
collection
program
cost
was
higher
for
the
curbside
events
than
the
other
collection
models.
This
was
evidently
due
to
the
high
transportation
costs
associated
with
collection.
For
the
one­
day
collection
events,
the
cost
per
item
collected
was
lower
than
the
other
collection
models.
However,
the
one­
day
collection
events
that
were
studied
did
not
incur
any
operating
costs,
which
would
likely
narrow
the
differences
between
the
two
collection
models.
page
3
Ø
A
weighted
average
of
all
of
the
collection
programs
indicates
that
over
75%
of
the
equipment
that
was
collected
fell
into
five
categories:
36%
of
the
items
were
televisions,
16%
consisted
of
audio
and
stereo
equipment,
11%
were
monitors,
8%
were
computers
and
CPUs,
and
6%
were
VCRs.
The
remaining
equipment
consisted
of
keyboards
(5%),
printers
(4%),
telephones
(3%),
peripherals
(1%),
microwaves
(1%),
and
miscellaneous
other
equipment
(9%).

Ø
The
residential
EEE
waste
collected
by
these
programs
was
generally
outdated
and
in
poor
condition.
Consequently,
the
material
was
expensive
to
manage
and
little
valuable
scrap
was
extracted
from
this
equipment.
Of
the
equipment
that
was
collected,
computers
and
CPUs
provided
most
of
material
that
generated
revenue
for
the
programs.

Ø
Items
that
contained
CRTs
(e.
g.,
televisions
and
monitors)
predominated
in
the
five
collection
programs.
Since
the
cost
to
manage
these
materials
is
quite
high,
the
large
number
of
CRTs
had
a
substantial
impact
on
the
net
cost
values.

Ø
Promotion
and
planning
of
the
events
were
essential
to
the
effectiveness
of
the
collection
programs.
This
was
made
evident
by
the
lack
of
turnout
for
the
first
week
of
the
San
Jose
pilot,
for
which
there
was
little
prior
publicity.
Additionally,
the
first
Binghamton
collection
event
was
affected
by
a
number
of
factors,
including
a
local
football
game
that
was
being
held
at
the
same
time.

Ø
The
public
is
interested
in
EPR2
programs.
This
is
evident
from
the
fact
that
the
amount
of
equipment
that
was
collected
increased
over
time
for
all
the
programs
that
had
more
than
one
collection.
In
addition,
the
CSI­
sponsored
events
(Somerville,
Binghamton­
One
day
drop
off
model
and
San
Jose­
retail
collection
model)
will
be
continuing
due
to
the
positive
public
reception
in
their
communities.

In
addition
to
the
specific
conclusions
from
the
analysis
of
these
collection
models,
some
general
comments
may
be
drawn
on
the
basis
of
the
assembled
information
provided
by
these
case
studies.
Since
these
general
comments
are
based
on
qualitative
information,
additional
data
and
research
into
these
areas
would
be
beneficial.

Ø
Most
demanufacturers
focus
exclusively
on
commercial
EEE
waste.
According
to
the
Hennepin
County
program
coordinators,
the
low
quality
of
the
residential
equipment
keeps
many
demanufacturers
from
getting
involved
in
a
residential
collection
program.
A
collection
program
for
both
residential
and
small
business
waste
may
generate
more
interest
from
demanufacturers
simply
because
the
quality
of
EEE
waste
may
be
better.

Ø
Total
transportation,
demanufacturing,
and
disposal
costs
may
overwhelm
all
other
program
costs.
These
costs
relate
to
the
variety
of
material
collected,
local
labor
market,
the
distance
required
to
transport
materials
to
a
demanufacturing
facility,
the
distance
to
end
markets
and
the
disposal
costs
of
unmarketable
materials.

Ø
The
loading
of
heavy
metals
in
the
municipal
solid
waste
stream
was
a
fundamental
driver
for
the
two
collection
programs
(Union
County
and
Hennepin
County)
where
most
of
the
residential
solid
waste
stream
is
incinerated.
Both
counties
believe
that
removal
of
EEE
waste
from
the
waste
stream
may
play
an
important
role
in
reducing
the
heavy
metal
burdens
in
the
fly
and
bottom
ash,
which
can
result
in
an
indirect
economic
benefit
for
the
community
by
lowering
ash
disposal
fees.
page
4
Ø
The
ultimate
disposition
of
demanufactured
materials
should
be
evaluated
to
determine
if
these
venues
(e.
g.,
glass
to
glass
recycling,
smelting,
overseas
disposition
for
CRTs)
meet
the
objectives
of
the
program.

Ø
The
advantages
and
barriers
to
different
collection
models
are
such
that
determining
the
best
collection
method
depends
on
the
motivations
of
the
collection
agency.
The
following
table
summarizes
these
factors
for
the
different
collection
models.
The
definition
of
each
model
is
provided
in
Section
5.3.2.4
of
the
report.

Table
3:
Summary
of
Advantages
and
Barriers
to
Collection
Models
Collection
Model
Barriers
Advantages
Drop­
off
Events
·
Ineffective
or
insufficient
publicity
can
result
in
low
participation
·
Conflicts
with
other
events
may
affect
participation
·
Resident's
unfamiliarity
with
drop­
off
events
can
affect
participation
·
Low
up­
front
costs
·
Short
time­
frame
but
high
collection
amount
Regional
Approach
·
Potential
unequal
distribution
of
costs
among
communities
·
Economies
of
scale
over
single
community
drop­
off
event
model
·
Planning
of
the
events
is
shared
·
Larger
base
of
residents
to
participate
Permanent
Collection
Depot
·
Not
effective
for
every
community
size
·
Need
for
staff
may
increase
operational
costs
·
Year­
round
collection
of
equipment
·
Convenient
for
most
residents
·
Economies
of
scale
are
possible
Curbside
Collection
·
Potential
of
theft
of
equipment
for
parts,
and
then
abandonment
·
Operational
costs
can
be
higher
than
other
models
·
Easy
for
residents
used
to
curbside
collection
·
Residents
without
transportation
can
more
easily
participate
Point
of
Purchase
(Retail)
Collection
·
Retailer's
active
participation
is
essential
·
Retailer
may
not
be
able
to
collect
the
data
on
participation
·
Logistical
issues
·
Low
up­
front
and
operational
costs
for
the
collection
agency
·
Promotion
of
the
program
by
retailers
ensures
high
visibility
Combined/
Coordinated
Collection
Methods
·
The
economies
of
scale
are
uncertain.
·
Requires
large
population
to
be
viable
·
The
gaps
created
by
one
model
can
be
filled
by
another
model
·
Year­
round
collection
·
Good
if
inhabitants
are
spread
over
a
large
area
Ø
The
experiences
from
other
recycling
programs
indicate
that
these
EEE
residential
waste
collection
programs
are
in
their
infancy
and
have
the
potential
to
evolve
and
eventually
become
more
cost
effective.
As
these
programs
expand
and
markets
for
the
recovered
materials
grow,
the
net
cost
per
pound
collected
can
be
expected
to
decrease.
The
potential
economies
of
scale
from
the
expansion
of
these
programs
and
the
creation
of
demanufacturing
businesses
will
also
help
to
reduce
costs.
However,
based
on
the
quality
and
varied
nature
of
the
collected
materials,
it
seems
likely
that
the
costs
of
these
programs
will
remain
relatively
high
compared
to
other
traditional
solid
waste
disposal
methods.
page
5
Overall,
these
case
studies
provided
insight
into
the
costs
associated
with
the
operation
of
an
EEE
waste
collection
program.
Additional
research
into
the
effects
of
economies
of
scale
and
the
development
of
secondary
markets
would
be
useful
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
how
the
economics
of
these
programs
will
change
over
time.
page
6
2.
INTRODUCTION
2.1
PROJECT
BACKGROUND
/
THE
COMMON
SENSE
INITIATIVE
The
Common
Sense
Initiative
(CSI)
is
an
innovative
approach
to
environmental
protection
and
pollution
prevention
developed
by
the
U.
S.
EPA.
The
Common
Sense
Initiative
addresses
environmental
management
by
industrial
sector
rather
than
environmental
media
(air,
water,
land).
EPA
selected
six
industries
to
serve
as
CSI
pilots:
automobile
manufacturing,
computers
and
electronics,
iron
and
steel,
metal
finishing,
petroleum
refining,
and
printing.
Six
sector
subcommittees,
each
consisting
of
representatives
from
industry,
environmental
justice
organizations,
labor
organizations,
environmental
organizations,
the
U.
S.
EPA,
and
state
and
local
governments
address
environmental
issues
facing
these
industries.

The
Common
Sense
Initiative
(CSI)
Computers
and
Electronics
Sector
has
been
discussing,
researching,
and
evaluating
pilots
focusing
on
consumer
and
community
Electronic
Product
Recovery
and
Recycling
(EPR2)
collections
of
End­
of­
Life
Electronics
and
Electrical
(EEE)
waste
from
the
municipal
solid
waste
stream.
To
date,
CSI
has
supported
several
efforts
to
collect
and
analyze
data
on
EEE
waste
recovery
and
processing,
including
the
Somerville/
Binghamton
pilot
and
the
San
Jose
pilot.
1
The
collection
pilots
test
various
collection
models:
residential
collection;
ongoing
drop­
off
at
retail
establishments;
one­
day
drop­
off
programs
versus
curbside
collection;
and
small
business
programs.
The
three
collection
pilots
were
independently
sponsored
and
implemented,
with
CSI
providing
support
for
data
collection
and
analysis.
CSI
was
also
instrumental
in
the
Electronic
Product
Recovery
and
Recycling
(EPR2)
roundtable,
which
works
on
end­
of­
life
issues
for
electronics.

2.2
PROJECT
SCOPE
The
goal
of
the
project
was
to
produce
a
written
report
that
aggregates
and
analyzes
existing
data
from
the
CSI­
sponsored
pilots
as
well
as
from
other
EEE
waste
collection
programs
in
Union
County,
Hennepin
County,
and
Naperville/
Wheaton
into
a
summary
report.
No
new
collection
data
was
generated
for
this
report,
which:

·
Identifies
a
common
format
for
data
collection
for
materials
and
cost;

·
Evaluates
and
aggregates
existing
collection
and
demanufacturing
materials,
and
cost
data
sets;

·
Identifies
common
opportunities
and
barriers
across
different
collection
and
transportation
models;

·
Defines
the
advantages
and
disadvantages
of
different
collection
and
transportation
models;

·
Identifies
commodities
that
are
most
viable
economically
(positive
revenue)
for
collection
and
demanufacturing;

·
Identifies
successful
motivators
and
strategies
for
marketing
collection
events;

·
Identifies
key
issues
and
motivators
for
various
groups
that
have
or
may
participate
in
electronic
equipment
collection
including
consumers,
local
government
officials,
small
businesses,
recyclers,
demanufacturers,
shippers,
etc.;

·
Identifies
data
gaps
and
infrastructure
needs
to
increase
residential
participation;
and
·
Analyzes
what
motivates
the
public
to
participate
in
collection
events.

1
A
collection
pilot
in
the
San
Francisco
area
was
also
sponsored
by
CSI,
and
summary
information
is
provided
in
Section
8.
page
7
3.
SUMMARY
OF
COLLECTION
PROGRAMS
The
collection
programs
included
in
this
report
represent
different
geographic
locations,
collection
methods,
and
data
sets
(see
the
map
and
table
below).
Since
some
of
the
programs
were
pilots,
much
of
the
data
regarding
operational
and
other
costs
were
not
available.
Therefore,
the
differences
in
the
amount
of
data
available
for
each
program
make
direct
comparisons
between
the
programs
difficult.
The
following
summaries
include
discussions
of
the
design
of
the
collection
program,
the
participation
rate,
estimated
cost
and
revenue,
and
any
important
comments
relative
to
the
program's
operation.

Table
4:
Collection
Models
Used
by
Collection
Program
Collection
Agency
Drop­
off
Event
Permanent
Depot
Curbside
Point­
ofPurchase
(Retail)
Binghamton/
Somerville
¨
Naperville/
Wheaton
¨
Union
County
¨
Cranford
¨
Westfield
¨
Clark
¨
Kenilworth
¨
Linden
¨
Rahway
¨
Westfield
¨
Summit
¨
¨
Hennepin
County
¨
¨
¨
San
Jose
¨
Hennepin
County
Naperville
Wheaton
Binghamton
Somerville
Union
County
San
Jose
Figure
1:
Location
Map
for
Collection
Programs
page
8
3.1
BINGHAMTON,
NEW
YORK/
SOMERVILLE,
MASSACHUSETTS
Collection
Method:
One­
day
drop­
off
events
Number
of
Collections:
Two
events
in
each
city
Collection
Dates:
Fall
1996,
Spring
1997
Demanufacturer:
Envirocycle,
Inc.

Motivation
Behind
Collection:

Under
the
Common
Sense
Initiative,
the
U.
S.
EPA
sponsored
a
pilot
residential
EEE
waste
recycling
and
demanufacturing
program
in
Binghamton,
NY
and
Somerville,
MA.
The
goals
of
the
project
were
to:

§
Characterize
the
types
and
volumes
of
EEE
waste
in
the
municipal
solid
waste
stream;

§
Assess
the
viability
of
collecting,
demanufacturing,
and
recycling
these
materials;
and
§
Gauge
the
consumers'
willingness
to
offset
the
cost
of
such
a
program
2
Binghamton
was
initially
chosen
to
participate
in
the
project
because
of
its
existing
relationship
with
the
demanufacturer
(Envirocycle,
Inc.)
and
its
proximity
to
their
demanufacturing
plant
in
Hallstead,
PA.
Somerville
was
included
as
the
second
community
for
the
pilot
study
because
of
its
demographic
similarity
to
Binghamton,
and
its
existing
recycling
program
and
its
household
hazardous
waste
(HHW)
drop­
off
program.

Demographics:

Although
Binghamton
has
historically
been
a
blue­
collar
community,
its
population
of
white­
collar
workers
is
growing.
It
is
the
largest
community
in
Broome
County,
which
is
located
near
the
northeast
corner
of
Pennsylvania.
Somerville
has
a
mixture
of
blue­
and
white­
collar
workers,
although
the
whitecollar
population
has
been
rising
due
to
a
shrinking
manufacturing
sector.
It
is
located
just
outside
of
Boston.
The
following
demographics
are
available
for
the
two
communities:
3
Table
5:
Binghamton/
Somerville
Demographics
Municipality
Population
Households
Median
Income
Binghamton
53,000
25,000
$29,169
Somerville
72,280
30,000
$44,866
Event
Promotion:

The
participation
rate
for
recycling
programs
in
the
two
communities
is
about
48%
in
Binghamton
and
15%
in
Somerville
4
,
which
reflects
the
general
public's
awareness
and
interest
in
recycling.
A
number
of
2
Unless
noted,
all
information
was
gathered
from
Residential
Collection
of
Household
End­
of­
Life
Electrical
and
Electronic
Equipment:
Pilot
Collection
Project,
Common
Sense
Initiative
–
Computer
and
Electronics
Sector,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
I,
EPA­
901­
R­
98­
002,
February
1998.
3
Census
of
Population
and
Housing,
1990.
Bureau
of
the
Census,
Washington:
The
Bureau,
1992.
4
Participation
rates
for
HHW
collection
programs
generally
range
from
one
to
three
percent,
and
can
be
as
high
as
10
percent.
Household
Hazardous
Waste
Mangement:
A
Manual
for
One­
Day
Community
Collection
Programs.
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
EPA­
530­
R­
92­
026.
Washington.
August
1993.
page
9
methods
were
used
to
promote
the
specific
EEE
waste
collection
event.
An
informational
flyer
was
sent
to
every
household
in
both
cities
and
also
was
made
available
to
residents
in
retail
stores
and
public
buildings.
The
flyer
outlined
the
collection
program,
listed
the
items
that
would
be
accepted
by
the
municipality,
and
gave
directions
to
the
collection
site.
In
addition,
members
of
the
local
chambers
of
commerce
who
had
an
interest
in
electronic
and
electrical
appliances
(i.
e.,
repair
shops,
electronics
retailers)
were
contacted
and
notified
of
the
program.
The
events
also
were
promoted
on
the
community
calendar
listings
on
local
radio
and
TV
stations,
and
in
press
releases.
Finally,
a
press
conference,
attended
by
local
government
officials,
was
organized
in
both
cities
to
promote
the
events.
These
promotional
events
required
expenditures
for
the
printing
of
the
direct
mailing,
the
labels
for
the
mailing,
and
the
postage.
The
costs
of
each
of
these
expenses
are
listed
below.

Table
6:
Promotional
Expenses
for
Binghamton
and
Somerville
Pilots
Municipality
Direct
Mail
Costs
Printing
Costs
Labels
Postage
(both
locations)
Binghamton
$1,380
$4,387
$1,242
Somerville
$1,439
$4,359
$384
$9,707
Resident
Participation:

Both
communities
saw
an
increase
in
participation
during
the
second
event:
about
a
30%
increase
for
Somerville
and
a
170%
increase
for
Binghamton
in
the
number
of
cars
that
dropped
off
equipment.
The
following
table
indicates
the
number
of
households
that
participated
in
the
events,
and
the
percentage
of
total
households
that
this
number
represents
(participation
rate).
These
numbers
do
not
reflect
the
participation
of
the
residents
of
Broome
County,
who
were
also
allowed
to
participate
in
the
Binghamton
events.

Table
7:
Participation
Rates
for
Binghamton
and
Somerville
Pilots
No.
of
Households
Participation
Rate
Municipality
1996
1997
1996
1997
Net
Increase
Binghamton
47
128
0.2%
0.5%
172%
Somerville
193
250
0.6%
0.8%
30%

Considering
the
rather
high
participation
rate
for
general
recycling
programs
in
Binghamton,
the
participation
numbers
for
their
first
event
is
interesting.
This
modest
turnout
is
believed
to
be
due
to
circumstances
that
were
beyond
the
control
of
the
organizers,
notably
the
poor
weather
(snow),
construction
outside
the
drop­
off
facility,
and
the
high
school
football
championship
being
held
that
day.
The
attendance
may
have
also
been
affected
by
the
implementation
of
a
user
fee.
All
of
these
deterrents
were
not
in
evidence
during
the
second
collection
event.
Since
only
10
of
the
128
cars
that
dropped
off
equipment
in
the
second
event
had
participated
in
the
first
event,
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
these
elements
did
have
some
impact
on
participation.

Collection:

The
pilot
was
modeled
after
a
typical
one­
day
collection
event
for
household
hazardous
waste
held
on
a
Saturday
morning/
afternoon.
Both
communities
have
experience
in
managing
a
recycling
program
and
a
HHW
drop­
off
program.
page
10
The
collection
took
place
at
existing
municipal
facilities
–
in
Somerville
at
the
public
works
facility,
and
in
Binghamton
at
the
Broome
County
Transit
Garage,
so
there
was
no
property
cost
associated
with
the
collection.
Additionally,
the
volunteer
workers
minimized
any
labor
costs
associated
with
collection.

No
limitations
were
applied
to
the
types
of
EEE
waste
that
would
be
accepted.
One
of
the
goals
of
the
program
was
to
determine
the
types
of
equipment
that
could
be
collected
during
a
municipal
collection
program,
and
the
demanufacturer
agreed
to
accept
anything
that
came
in.
This
equipment
consisted
of
the
following.

Table
8:
Items
Collected
During
Binghamton
and
Somerville
Pilots
Computers
Monitors
Keyboards
Printers
TVs
VCRs
Microwaves
Stereos
Binghamton
Fall
1996
7
8
7
2
23
4
3
30
Spring
1997
19
33
26
9
52
23
12
111
Somerville
Fall
1996
21
17
18
12
54
27
12
134
Spring
1997
72
52
44
40
61
46
12
96
In
addition,
the
collection
events
also
took
in
a
number
of
telephones,
household
electrical
appliances,
and
air
conditioners.
The
following
table
shows
the
total
weight
of
equipment
that
was
collected
for
each
collection
event.

Table
9:
Pounds
of
Equipment
Collected
During
Binghamton
and
Somerville
Events
Fall
1996
Spring
1997
Binghamton
2,372
lbs
9,031
lbs
Somerville
7,448
lbs
13,729
lbs
During
the
collection
events,
participants
were
surveyed
to
determine
their
willingness
to
pay
for
the
ability
to
drop­
off
EEE
waste.
They
were
given
a
range
of
values
to
choose
from:
$1
to
$5;
$5
to
$10;
and
over
$10.
A
majority
of
the
respondents
(>
80%
in
both
communities)
indicated
they
would
pay
between
a
$1
and
$5
fee
for
the
drop­
off
program.
In
fact,
during
the
first
Binghamton
event,
a
$2
user
fee
was
charged
of
those
people
dropping
off
equipment.
The
fee
was
abandoned
during
the
second
event,
in
part
because
the
city
believed
that
it
contributed
to
the
low
turnout
in
the
first
event.

Transportation:

All
transportation
costs
associated
with
a
drop­
off
event
are
those
for
transporting
EEE
waste
to
the
demanufacturer.
Due
to
the
distance
between
Somerville
and
the
Envirocycle
facility
(312
miles),
transportation
costs
for
the
Somerville
pilot
were
more
than
6
times
those
for
the
Binghamton
pilot.

Table
10:
Binghamton
and
Somerville
Transportation
Costs
Municipality
Transport
Costs
per
53'
Truckload
Binghamton
$96
page
11
Somerville
$646
Demanufacturing:

Envirocycle,
a
large
firm
with
experience
in
EEE
waste
recycling,
was
the
contractor
for
the
demanufacturing.
They
provided
in­
kind
services
for
the
pilot
project,
including
free
transport
to
and
from
the
collection
site,
and
free
demanufacturing
of
the
material.
Even
though
the
municipalities
were
not
charged
for
the
demanufacturing,
Envirocycle
provided
data
on
their
total
costs
to
assist
with
the
analysis
of
the
project.
These
costs
are
based
on
a
labor
rate
of
$26.50
per
hour,
which
include
all
of
their
overhead
and
wages:

Table
11:
Binghamton
and
Somerville
Demanfacturing
Costs
Fall
1996
Spring
1997
Municipality
Hours
Total
Cost
Hours
Total
Cost
Binghamton
31.5
$835
111
$2,942
Somerville
118.3
$3,135
85
$2,253
Revenue:

The
resale
of
electronics
and
electrical
appliances
occurred
only
during
the
second
Somerville
collection
event,
where
Envirocycle
collected
about
$962
from
the
sale
of
working
equipment.
All
the
rest
of
the
equipment
was
disassembled
and
the
valuable
material
sold
for
scrap,
except
for
the
wood
which
was
landfilled.
The
revenue
from
scrap
per
event
can
be
broken
down
as
shown.

Table
12:
Binghamton
and
Somerville
Gross
Revenues
Municipality
Fall
1996
Spring
1997
Binghamton
$487
$1,175
Somerville
$481
$845
Envirocycle's
total
yield
from
the
sale
of
scrap
from
the
four
events
came
to
$2,889
most
of
which
derived
from
the
sale
of
metal,
plastic
and
CRTs.
The
materials
that
were
extracted
for
revenue
include
the
following.

·
Metal
26%
·
Radiators
4%
·
Fans
1%

·
Scrap
Plastic
13%
·
Motors
4%
·
Yokes
1%

·
CRTs
12%
·
Wire
3%
·
Disc
Drives
1%

·
Carcass
12%
·
Copper
2%
·
Refine
Boards
1%

·
Clean
Plastic
8%
·
Aluminum
1%
·
Capacitors
<1%

The
percentages
represent
the
weight
percentage
of
material
extracted
for
the
total
of
all
four
collection
events.
Data
on
which
materials
contributed
most
to
the
net
revenue
is
not
available.

Net
Cost:
page
12
The
costs
for
the
four
collection
events
are
derived
from
the
costs
of
promotion
and
the
demanufacturing
costs.
The
net
costs,
taking
into
consideration
the
revenue,
are
as
shown.

Table
13:
Binghamton/
Somerville
Net
Costs
Municipality
Fall
1996
Spring
1997
Binghamton
$444
$1,863
Somerville
$3,299
$1,091
For
Binghamton,
these
costs
translate
to
$0.19/
pound
collected
for
the
first
event
and
$0.21/
pound
collected
for
the
second
event.
For
Somerville,
the
costs
equate
to
$0.44/
pound
collected
for
the
first
event
and
$0.08/
pound
collected
for
the
second
event.
These
values
do
not
include
the
promotional
costs,
which
would
substantially
increase
the
cost
per
pound
collected.

Project
Comments:

The
participating
municipalities
considered
both
collection
programs
to
be
successful
because
the
participation
rates
increased
from
one
collection
event
to
the
next
while
the
cost
per
pound
collected
decreased.
The
positive
public
attitude
toward
these
collections
has
motivated
both
communities
to
continue
the
collection
programs.
Somerville
had
an
additional
collection
event
in
the
spring
of
1998
and
Binghamton
is
planning
another
event
for
1999.

A
number
of
conclusions
came
from
these
two
pilot
events:

·
The
demanufacturing
rate
(lbs
of
equipment
dismantled
per
hour)
increased
between
the
first
and
second
collection
events.
According
to
Envirocycle,
this
was
largely
due
to
increased
efficiency
on
the
part
of
their
staff
members.
For
the
Somerville
collection
pilot,
the
increased
demanufacturing
rate
was
also
influenced
by
a
growth
in
the
amount
of
computer
equipment
that
was
collected,
since
computer
equipment
is
generally
easier
to
dismantle
than
some
of
the
older
EEE
waste
that
was
collected.

·
The
timing
of
the
event
is
key
to
guaranteeing
adequate
participation.
The
low
turnout
at
the
first
Binghamton
event
was
due
in
part
to
adverse
weather
conditions
and
a
local
high
school
football
game
that
was
going
on
at
the
same
time.

·
The
transport
distance
to
the
demanufacturer
had
a
noticeable
impact
on
the
net
costs
of
the
program,
thus
indicating
that
the
presence
of
a
local
demanufacturer
can
be
important.

·
The
implementation
of
a
user
fee
during
the
first
Binghamton
event
may
have
affected
the
public
turnout;
however,
other
mitigating
factors
make
it
difficult
to
confirm
this
assumption.
In
fact
when
surveyed,
residents
of
both
Binghamton
and
Somerville
indicated
their
willingness
to
subsidize
the
collection
program
with
a
minimal
user
fee.
page
13
3.2.
SAN
JOSE,
CALIFORNIA
Collection
Method:
Point
of
Purchase
(Retail)
Dropoff
Number
of
Collections:
Three
participating
retailers
Collection
Dates:
The
period
from
October
1
to
November
2,
1997
Demanufacturer:
Berman's
Diversified
Industries
Motivation
Behind
Collection:

A
Common
Sense
Initiative
sponsored
data
collection
for
a
computer­
equipment
collection
program
conducted
in
San
Jose,
CA,
in
October
of
1997.
The
goals
of
this
pilot
project
were
to:

§
Determine
the
feasibility
of
a
point
of
purchase
(consumer
retail
store)
collection
scheme
for
EOL
computer
equipment;

§
Identify
potential
barriers,
regulatory
and
other,
which
might
inhibit
a
collection/
recycling
program
of
this
nature;
and
§
Determine
the
economics
of
collecting
consumer
equipment
via
this
approach
5
.

Demographics:

San
Jose
is
located
in
Santa
Clara
County,
about
56
miles
south
of
San
Francisco.
The
population
of
Santa
Clara
County
is
over
1.6
million
(1995);
San
Jose
covers
174
square
miles,
with
an
estimated
(1994)
population
of
over
873,000
residents.
San
Jose
is
described
as
the
capital
of
Silicon
Valley,
making
it
a
good
focus
community
for
the
pilot
study.
The
community
is
a
mix
of
white­
collar
and
bluecollar
residents;
the
median
household
income
is
approximately
$50,000.

Event
Promotion:

Extensive
publicity
was
planned
for
the
pilot
program,
including:
countywide
mailing
of
a
missing
children/
computer
collection
"marriage
card";
billboard
messages;
public
service
announcements;
press
releases;
and
electronic
equipment
retail
store
flyers,
posters
and
advertisements.
Much
of
this
publicity
never
took
place
because
of
timing
and
scheduling
conflicts.
The
only
publicity
that
actually
occurred
before
the
event
was
a
bulletin
published
on
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Recycling
Hotline
(1800
Cleanup)
website,
which
was
just
coming
on­
line
at
the
time.
This
lack
of
advance
publicity
appeared
to
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
program
since
no
equipment
was
collected
during
the
first
week
of
the
pilot.

To
remedy
this
lack
of
participation,
EPA
held
a
press
event
on
October
9
to
promote
the
collection
program;
television
and
newspaper
coverage
of
the
event
helped
increase
the
pilot's
visibility.
This
event
was
followed
by
distribution
of
flyers
promoting
the
drop­
off
program
with
the
San
Jose
City
employees'
paychecks.
An
email
notice
was
also
distributed
to
Santa
Clara
County
employees.

5
All
information
was
gathered
from
San
Jose
Computer
Collection
and
Recycling
Pilot:
Draft,
Common
Sense
Initiative
–
Computer
and
Electronics
Sector,
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
IX,
February
1998,
pp.
1.
page
14
The
participating
stores
also
ran
some
publicity
for
the
event.
One
of
the
stores
ran
a
newspaper
advertisement
for
the
event;
the
other
two
stores
publicized
the
pilot
via
ads
stuffed
in
customers'
bags.

Resident
Participation:

Residents
and
small
businesses
dropped
off
equipment
at
the
three
participating
stores;
however,
no
data
was
collected
on
the
participation
of
the
two
consumer
groups.
A
one­
page
questionnaire
was
developed
for
the
collection
program
to
determine
the
demographics
of
the
participants.
However,
no
statistical
data
on
participation
is
available
since
not
all
of
the
participating
stores
decided
to
use
the
questionnaire
and
not
all
of
the
participants
chose
to
fill
it
out.

Resident
participation
seemed
to
be
affected
by
the
aggressiveness
of
the
participating
stores.
Only
one
store
actively
promoted
the
pilot
program,
making
the
drop
off
of
equipment
easy
for
consumers.
This
store
also
collected
most
of
the
equipment
during
the
pilot
program.

Collection:

The
program
consisted
of
a
5­
week
drop­
off
program
that
was
organized
with
the
participation
of
three
local
electronic
and
computer
retailers
distributed
throughout
the
city.
The
stores
were
charged
with
collecting
the
equipment,
surveying
the
residents
to
determine
a
participation
rate,
and
stockpiling
the
equipment
until
the
demanufacturer
came
to
collect
it
each
week
The
retailers
themselves
covered
the
operational
costs.
These
costs
included
the
labor
for
collecting
the
equipment
from
residents'
cars,
the
construction
of
displays,
and
any
storage
space
allocated
to
the
EEE
waste.
No
information
on
each
individual
store's
cost
for
the
program
is
available.
No
fees
were
charged
by
the
stores
to
the
municipality
or
of
the
participants
to
cover
their
costs.

The
items
collected
were
limited
to
computer­
related
EEE
waste
–
e.
g.,
monitors,
keyboards,
printers,
and
computers.
The
number
of
items
collected
was
tallied
in
terms
of
the
number
of
pallets
collected
per
store.
Each
pallet
consisted
of
an
estimated
64
cubic
feet
of
equipment,
leading
to
a
total
of
4,220
cubic
feet
of
equipment
collected
during
the
pilot.
The
following
table
shows
the
number
of
pallets
that
were
collected
per
store,
per
week.

Table
14:
Pallets
Collected
During
San
Jose
Pilot
Week
2
Week
3
Week
4
Week
5
Store
1
4
2
2
4
Store
2
1
1
1
3
Store
3
13
10
11
14
Totals
18
13
14
21
In
all,
61,600
lbs
of
equipment
was
collected
over
the
five­
week
program.
The
equipment
collected
consisted
of
the
following
items:

Table
15:
Items
Collected
During
San
Jose
Pilot
Computers
Monitors
Keyboards
Printers
Peripherals
Laptops
Misc.
Parts
page
15
Total
All
Stores
972
937
341
413
66
27
63
More
detail
on
the
number
of
items
collected
per
store
is
not
available.

Transportation:

The
transportation
distance
to
the
manufacturer
depended
on
the
location
of
the
store.
Stores
1
and
2
were
about
15
miles
from
the
demanufacturer,
whereas
Store
3
was
only
10
miles
away.
The
equipment
was
picked
up
from
the
stores
once
a
week
over
the
five­
week
period,
although
Store
3
required
two
additional
pickups
per
week.
A
total
of
20
trips
were
made
over
the
duration
of
the
project.

The
total
cost
of
transport
for
the
pilot
collection
project
amounted
to
$480.
Transportation
was
calculated
to
include
the
costs
of
standard
loading
and
unloading
time.
The
large
loads
and
small
entryways
for
the
participating
stores
were
determined
to
require
excessive
labor,
the
cost
of
which
was
estimated
to
have
the
potential
to
increase
total
transportation
costs
by
up
to
60%.

Demanufacturing:

Berman's
Diversified
Industries,
a
San
Jose­
based
recovery/
resale/
recycle
service
provider,
conducted
the
demanufacturing.
The
firm
dismantled
all
of
the
computer
equipment
that
had
no
resale
value.
Overall
costs
for
sorting
and
dismantling
was
given
as
$7,500.

Monitors
predominated
in
terms
of
the
weight
of
material
collected
­
30,000
lbs
or
49%
of
the
total
weight
collected.
Berman's
did
not
itself
demanufacture
the
monitors,
but
rather
shipped
them
overseas
for
demanufacturing.
The
monitors
were
exported
at
a
net
cost
of
$0.05
per
pound,
which
yielded
a
total
cost
of
approximately
$1,500
for
the
30,000
lbs
of
monitors.
This
gave
a
total
demanufacturing
cost
for
the
pilot
program
of
around
$9,000.

It
is
interesting
to
note
that
the
cost
of
demanufacturing
CRTs
overseas
is
estimated
to
be
only
1/
10
th
of
the
equivalent
costs
in
the
San
Jose
area.
Had
the
CRTs
been
demanufactured
in
the
area,
the
cost
would
have
increased
tenfold,
to
around
$15,000.
This
would
have
led
to
a
total
cost
of
$23,000
for
the
demanufacturing
component
of
the
program.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
numbers
for
demanufacturing
CRTs
around
San
Jose
are
based
on
Berman's
estimates
of
local
costs,
and
are
not
necessarily
equivalent
to
demanufacturing
costs
elsewhere
in
the
United
States.

Revenue:

Resale
of
working
equipment
accounted
for
40%
of
the
total
revenue,
most
of
which
came
from
the
sale
of
black
and
white
monitors.
These
black
and
white
monitors
represented
only
10%
of
all
the
monitors
that
were
collected.
No
working
computers
were
successfully
sold
because
of
the
age
of
the
equipment.

The
remainder
of
the
revenue
came
from
the
extracted
scrap.
The
breakdown
of
material
recovered
from
the
collected
equipment
is
as
follows,
shown
as
percent
composition
by
weight
and
by
revenue
yield
for
the
entire
collection
period.

Printed
circuit
boards
and
high­
grade
breakage
(hard
drives,
motors
and
mixed
metal
parts)
comprised
the
majority
of
the
revenue
from
scrap,
which
was
supplemented
by
the
sale
of
mixed
page
16
Table
16:
Distribution
of
Commodities
by
Weight
and
Value
Commodity
Weight
Revenue
CRTs
49%
Steel
20%
Scrap
Plastic
13%
High
Grade
"Breakage"
10%
48%
Mixed
Metals
3%
6%
Plastic
3%
Circuit
Boards
3%
42%
Wire
1%
4%

metals
and
wire.
Aside
from
CRTs,
most
of
the
material
recovered
from
the
disassembled
equipment
was
steel
and
plastic;
this
material
produced
no
revenue
since
it
had
little
market
value.
The
total
revenue
for
the
five­
week
pilot
totaled
$5,120.

Net
Cost:

The
net
cost
of
the
five­
week
pilot
project
was
$4,373.
This
is
equivalent
to
a
cost
of
$0.07
per
pound
of
material
collected.
The
management
of
the
CRTs
had
a
large
impact
on
the
net
cost
of
the
program.
As
explained
previously,
the
shipment
of
the
CRTs
overseas
resulted
in
costs
that
were
substantially
lower
than
they
would
have
been
had
the
demanufacturing
occurred
in
the
San
Jose
area.
In
a
scenario
where
the
monitors
are
recycled
locally,
the
net
cost
would
be
more
than
four
times
greater-$
17,990.
This
is
equivalent
to
a
cost
of
$0.29
per
pound
of
material
collected.
Note
that
the
retailers'
costs
were
not
included
but
were
donated
as
in­
kind
services.

Project
Comments:

The
extensive
publicity
that
resulted
from
the
EPA
press
conference
appears
to
have
affected
participation
since
the
collection
went
from
zero
pallets
of
equipment
the
first
week
to
18
pallets
the
second
week.
Despite
the
perception
of
some
of
the
participants
that
the
stores
were
profiting
from
the
collection
program,
the
program
coordinators
indicated
that
the
overall
attitude
of
the
participants
seemed
to
be
positive.
This
perceived
positive
attitude
has
motivated
one
of
the
participating
chains
to
continue
the
program
at
a
number
of
its
other
stores.

During
the
pilot
program,
some
barriers
to
EOL
computer
equipment
collection
were
identified:

·
The
slow
start
in
promotion
of
the
event
led
the
consultant
assessing
the
project
to
conclude
that
"marketing
efforts
should
be
established
at
least
six
months
in
advance
and
should
be
monitored
regularly
before
and
throughout
the
collection
event."
This
conclusion
is
based
on
the
fact
that
the
program
relied
on
volunteer
groups
to
promote
the
program,
many
of
whom
in
the
end
did
not
provide
the
promised
service.

·
In
California,
special
approvals
and
permits
must
be
granted
before
CRT
glass
can
be
handled
or
shipped.
Special
permits
are
also
required
for
CRT
glass
recyclers,
which
has
the
effect
of
limiting
the
number
of
firms
that
recover
this
material.
The
end
result
is
a
high
cost
for
demanufacturing
of
CRTs.
Considering
that
almost
half
of
the
equipment
(by
weight)
consisted
of
computer
monitors,
these
monitors
were
shipped
overseas
to
avoid
excess
costs.

·
Contrary
to
the
results
from
the
Binghamton/
Somerville
pilot,
a
survey
designed
for
this
program
indicated
that
most
participants
(over
60%)
would
not
pay
a
fee
to
drop
off
electronics.
page
17
3.3
HENNEPIN
COUNTY,
MINNESOTA
Collection
Method:
Permanent
Drop­
off
One­
day
Drop­
off
Events
Mobile
Collection
Events
Curbside
Collection
Retail
Collection
6
Number
of
Collections:
Permanent
facilities
and
drop­
off
events
(ongoing)

Collection
Dates:
1997
Demanufacturer:
Hennepin
County
Motivation
Behind
Collection:

Hennepin
County,
MN,
began
recycling
EEE
waste
in
1992,
with
the
goal
of
eliminating
the
metal
content,
specifically
mercury,
lead,
and
cadmium,
from
the
county's
municipal
solid
waste
(MSW)
stream.
Most
of
this
waste
is
managed
as
waste­
to­
energy
or
refuse­
derived
fuel.
The
county
uses
both
front­
end
removal
of
materials
and
back­
end
facility
control
equipment
to
manage
heavy
metals
in
MSW.

The
residents
had
an
accepting
attitude
toward
environmental
programs
before
the
EEE
waste
recovery
program
began
since
Hennepin
County
was
already
managing
a
number
of
other
similar
programs,
e.
g.,
collection
and
recycling
of
used
tires
and
HHW.
7
Demographics:

Hennepin
County,
which
consists
of
some
45
communities,
is
located
in
the
eastern
portion
of
Minnesota.
The
median
household
income
for
the
entire
county
is
$35,659.
The
county
(population:
over
1
million)
includes
metropolitan
Minneapolis,
consists
of
around
439,000
households.
One­
third
of
the
county's
population
resides
in
Minneapolis.
8
Event
Promotion:

Since
Hennepin
County
manages
a
number
of
different
recycling
programs,
publicity
for
EEE
waste
collection
is
covered
by
newspaper
advertisements
and
flyers
that
are
produced
for
the
collection
of
all
"problem
materials"
(i.
e.,
HHW,
tires,
batteries,
and
EEE
waste).
9
Some
advertisements
highlight
the
EEE
waste
collection
component
of
the
program.
Brochures
and
radio
advertisements
are
used
as
well.

6
A
regional
retail
collection
pilot
that
focused
on
the
collection
of
CRTs
was
held
in
the
summer
of
1998.
Data
on
this
collection
was
not
available
at
the
time
of
publication.
7
The
budget
for
the
EOL
electronics
collection
program
in
Hennepin
County
is
1/
10
th
of
the
budget
for
the
HHW
collection
program.
8
Census
of
Population
and
Housing
9
Unless
noted,
all
information
was
gathered
from
personal
communication
with
Cheryl
Lofrano­
Zaske,
Principal
Planning
Analyst/
Problem
Materials
Program,
Hennepin
County
Environmental
Management
Division,
April
13,
1998.
page
18
The
county
sponsors
most
of
the
publicity,
although
the
cities
may
advertise
to
their
residents
as
well.
There
is
also
word­
of­
mouth
publicity
for
the
program.

Resident
Participation:

The
equipment
is
collected
with
other
HHW
and
problem
materials
and
is
not
recorded
separately.
For
this
reason,
no
data
is
available
as
to
resident
participation
in
the
EEE
waste
collection
program.
The
county
estimates
that
participation
in
the
HHW
program
may
be
around
15%.

Collection:

The
county
operates
two
drop­
off
sites:
one
at
Brooklyn
Park
in
the
north
and
the
other
in
Bloomington
in
the
south.
While
residents
are
invited
to
drop­
off
materials
year­
round
at
the
permanent
facilities,
collection
events
are
also
held
throughout
the
county.
EEE
waste
is
also
collected
through
city
cleanup
days,
and
facility
and
curbside
collection
in
the
city
of
Minneapolis
(initiated
in
November
1997).
Participation
in
the
collection
program
is
limited
to
households
and
residents.

Hennepin
County
has
permanent
facilities
that
accept
HHW,
recyclables,
brush,
auto
waste,
white
goods,
and
EEE
waste.
Fees
are
charged
for
the
white
goods
($
10
to
$30)
and
tires
($
1),
but
not
for
EEE
waste.
One
site
also
takes
in
MSW
from
county
residents
for
a
fee.
The
cost
of
all
facility
operations
that
can
be
allocated
to
the
collection
of
EEE
waste
has
not
been
determined.

For
mobile
events,
the
county
covers
all
of
the
setup,
organizational,
and
transportation
costs.
For
city
events,
the
county
covers
the
labor
to
collect
and
transport
the
equipment.

In
its
promotion
of
the
EEE
waste
collection
program,
the
County
indicates
what
types
of
materials
will
be
accepted.
The
program
targets
materials
with
CRTs,
but
also
is
used
to
manage
the
inflow
of
camcorders,
stereos,
radios,
computers,
tape
players,
VCRs,
and
telephones.
Rechargeable
and
cordless
appliances
that
contain
batteries
are
also
accepted
and
disassembled
by
PPL
(the
county's
contractor),
and
then
disposed
of
via
the
battery
recycling
program.

The
bulk
of
the
material
collected
in
1997
came
from
the
permanent
facility
(62%),
with
about
26%
from
the
city/
county
collection
events,
and
12%
from
the
curbside
collection
in
Minneapolis.
Since
the
curbside
program
has
been
going
on
for
only
a
few
months,
and
participation
has
been
higher
than
expected,
it
is
expected
that
the
curbside
collection
percentage
will
increase
in
the
coming
year.

The
following
table
lists
the
number
of
items
and
tons
collected
for
the
years
1995
to
1997.
The
county
collects
a
wide
range
of
equipment;
the
miscellaneous/
other
category
encompasses
equipment
such
as
answering
machines,
typewriters,
and
dust
busters.
The
county
estimates
that
approximately
800
tons
of
material
will
be
collected
in
1998.

Table
17:
Items
Collected
During
Hennepin
County
Program
Computer
/
CPUs
Monitors
Keyboards
Printers
TVs
VCRs
Audio
/
Stereo
Telephone
Copiers
Misc.
Other
Tons
1997
1,331
1,734
899
554
7,376
1,184
2,813
514
4
1,686
366
1996
661
1,156
517
261
5,115
617
1,898
357
43
1,249
262
1995
67
673
254
189
4,428
407
1,932
340
81
1,388
200
Transportation:
page
19
Hennepin
County
generally
covers
the
transfer
of
the
collected
equipment
to
the
demanufacturer.
The
county
pays
PPL
to
staff
and
transport
the
equipment
from
most
city
events.

Demanufacturing:

The
county
contracts
with
a
local
train­
to­
work
not­
for­
profit
organization
(PPL)
to
provide
labor
and
space
for
the
disassembly
of
the
collected
material.
The
county
is
responsible
for
management
of
the
disassembled
components
from
the
demanufacturing
process.
PPL's
fee
accounts
for
the
bulk
of
the
county's
demanufacturing
costs
for
the
program.

The
main
motivation
behind
the
initiation
of
the
EEE
collection
program
was
the
elimination
of
heavy
metals
from
the
waste
stream,
which
led
to
the
choice
of
target
materials
–
CRTs,
CPUs,
PWBs,
batteries,
mercury
relays,
and
PCBs.
Plastics
and
wood
are
managed
by
the
county's
Solid
Waste
Management
System.
All
of
the
extracted
scrap
metals
are
recycled.

The
demanufacturing
process
is
labor
intensive
and
the
yield
can
be
affected
by
the
lower
productivity
of
workers
who
are
new
to
the
program.
Yield
can
also
be
affected
by
the
quality
of
the
material
that
is
taken
in
since
most
is
old
and
of
little
value
(old
TVs,
electronics).
Virtually
all
circuit
boards
collected
are
low­
grade.
Furthermore,
there
are
costs
associated
with
management
and
disposal
of
the
heterogeneous
materials
stream.

The
county
has
estimated
that
the
cost
of
demanufacturing
approaches
about
$20
per
item
collected.
That
includes
any
overhead,
transportation,
labor,
and
hazardous/
non­
hazardous
material
disposal
associated
with
collection
and
disassembly.
This
cost
is
paid
directly
from
the
county's
solid
waste
management
fees.

Revenue:

No
revenue
is
received
from
resale
of
working
electronics
and
electrical
equipment
–
any
material
that
is
in
working
condition
is
offered
to
residents
free
of
charge
at
the
collection
facilities.
In
1997,
roughly
350
units
(of
the
18,100
units
collected)
were
placed
on
a
re­
use
shelf
and
taken
by
residents.
The
county
estimates
that
the
average
age
of
materials
is
over
20
years
old
and
thus
there
is
little
reuse
opportunity.

Minimal
revenue
comes
from
the
sale
of
the
scrap
material
that
is
extracted
(copper
wire
and
other
metals)
–
around
$25,000
in
1997.
For
1996,
the
revenue
was
a
bit
less
at
$20,000
while
for
1995
the
amount
was
even
smaller,
around
$10,000.
The
revenue
per
commodity
ranges
from
between
$0.01
and
$0.50
per
pound.
The
county
has
found
that
the
market
for
most
of
the
commodities
that
are
extracted
is
not
strong
enough
to
generate
sufficient
income
from
the
material
collected.

The
county
pays
about
$10
per
CRT
(at
an
average
weight
of
30
pounds)
to
dispose
of
them
via
a
secondary
lead
smelter.
Over
50%
of
the
units
collected
contain
a
CRT.
There
are
also
costs
associated
with
disposal
of
other
materials
including
plastics,
wood,
and
other
waste
(PCBs,
mercury
switches,
and
batteries).
The
overall
program
operates
as
a
cost
center.

Net
Cost:
page
20
The
gross
cost
for
the
EEE
waste
collection
program
in
1997
was
$350,000.
For
the
previous
two
years,
the
costs
were
very
similar:
$350,000
in
1996
and
$190,000
in
1995.
Based
on
these
costs,
the
following
table
outlines
the
net
cost
and
net
cost
per
pound
of
equipment
collected
for
all
three
years.

Table
18:
Hennepin
County
Net
Cost
Hennepin
County
Year
Net
Cost
Net
Cost
per
Pound
of
Material
Collected
1997
$325,000
$0.48
1996
$320,000
$0.67
1995
$180,000
$0.48
This
is
estimated,
since
not
all
of
the
material
that
is
collected
in
a
year
is
demanufactured
and/
or
disposed
of
in
that
same
year.
Over
90%
of
this
cost
is
attributed
to
demanufacturing
–
labor
and
transportation
to
PPL's
facilities,
labor
for
demanufacturing,
and
the
transportation
of
CRTs
to
the
secondary
smelter
and
disposal.

Project
Comments:

According
to
Hennepin
County,
the
collection
program
has
been
effective
in
reducing
the
equipment
containing
heavy
metal
that
enters
the
municipal
solid
waste
stream.
Since
the
inflow
of
equipment
has
increased
annually,
the
community
attitude
toward
recycling
seems
to
be
positive.
However,
there
are
a
couple
of
concerns
that
affect
the
program's
operation:

·
In
the
development
of
Hennepin
County's
program,
the
decision
was
made
to
collect
only
material
from
the
residential
sources
through
the
collection
program,
targeting
electronics
containing
a
CRT.
Within
the
state
of
Minnesota,
CRTs
have
been
identified
as
the
number
one
remaining
source
of
lead
in
MSW
and
there
is
an
existing
infrastructure
to
handle
electronics,
i.
e.,
computers,
generated
from
commercial
sources.
In
developing
the
infrastructure
for
demanufacturing
and
the
end
markets
for
the
recovered
materials,
both
economic
and
environmental
considerations
are
evaluated.
Material
is
managed
in
accordance
with
the
state's
waste
management
hierarchy
as
listed
in
Minnesota
Statute
115A.
02:
reduction
and
reuse,
recycling,
resources
recovery,
and
landfilling.
The
county
also
verifies
and
reviews
end
sites
for
final
management
·
The
design
of
the
demanufacturing
scheme
means
that
the
operation
of
the
program
is
greatly
influenced
by
disruptions
in
the
outflow
of
demanufactured
material.
The
demanufacturer
has
limited
storage
capacity
for
the
collected
materials,
so
a
shutdown
at
the
secondary
lead
smelter
or
any
other
end
market
for
materials
may
lead
to
additional
storage
and
handling
costs.

·
In
1997,
9,000
CRTs
were
collected.
It
cost
the
county
about
$10
to
dispose
of
each
CRT;
almost
one
third
of
the
County's
budget
is
allocated
to
CRT
disposal.
The
county
has
evaluated
CRT
disposal
options
including
glass­
to­
glass
recycling,
primary
smelting,
and
overseas
export.
They
page
21
determined
that
secondary
lead
smelting
recovers
most
of
the
lead
from
the
CRTs
(estimated
by
the
smelter
at
over
99%)
and
is
the
most
cost­
effective
option
for
a
mid­
western
operation
at
this
time.
page
22
3.4
UNION
COUNTY,
NEW
JERSEY
Collection
Method:
Curbside
Permanent
Drop­
off
One­
day
Drop­
off
Events
Number
of
Collections:
Seven
Countywide
Events
and
ongoing
city
programs
Collection
Dates:
October
1996
to
September
1997
(ongoing)

Demanufacturer:
Electronics
Processing
Associates,
Inc.

Motivation
Behind
Collection:

In
May
of
1995,
the
Union
County
Utilities
Authority
(UCUA)
and
the
New
Jersey
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(NJDEP)
began
planning
the
implementation
of
an
EEE
waste
collection
program.
The
move
was
intended
specifically
to
reduce
the
flows
of
lead,
cadmium,
mercury,
and
other
heavy
metals
entering
the
Union
County
Resource
Recovery
Facility
(UCRRF),
therefore
improving
the
quality
of
its
air
emissions
and
ash
residue.
10
Union
County
began
by
signing
an
agreement
with
Electronics
Processing
Associates,
Inc.
(EPA,
Inc.)
of
Lowell,
MA,
to
demanufacture
the
collected
equipment.
One
requirement
of
the
contract
was
that
EPA,
Inc.
set
up
a
facility
in
Union
County.
11
In
October
1996,
NJDEP
issued
a
Research
Development
and
Demonstration
approval
to
EPA,
Inc.
to
operate
their
facility
under
a
Universal
Waste
Exemption.

Demographics:

Union
County
has
a
population
of
around
500,000,
with
an
estimated
180,000
households.
The
median
family
income
is
approximately
$49,000.
Each
participating
municipality
in
the
county
was
invited
to
develop
its
own
collection
standards,
based
on
its
labor,
transportation,
and
storage
capacities,
as
well
as
its
experience
with
waste
collection.
Six
communities
signed
contracts
with
the
county
to
participate
and
develop
a
collection
system.
Four
other
communities
also
signed
contracts
to
participate
in
regional
collection
programs,
two
of
which
have
since
held
collection
events:

Table
19:
Union
County
Demographics
Municipality
Population
Households
Median
Income
Cranford
22,633
8,407
$60,659
Westfield
28,870
10,588
$77,022
Scotch
Plains
21,160
8,407
$64,920
Mountainside
6,657
2,454
$80,639
Clark
14,629
5,638
$54,521
Kenilworth
7,574
2,449
$45,774
Linden
36,701
11,877
$42,634
New
Providence
11,399
4,312
$70,618
10
Unless
noted,
all
Union
County
information
was
gathered
from
the
Union
County
Demanufacturing
Program
Semi
Annual
Report,
Union
County
Utilities
Authority,
October
1,
1997­
March
31,
1998.
11
EPA,
Inc.
has
consolidated
its
activities
in
New
Hampshire.
Union
County
is
currently
collecting
proposals
to
manage
the
demanufacturing
locally.
page
23
Rahway
25,327
9,844
$46,962
Summit
19,757
5,997
$83,876
Event
Promotion:

The
program
was
initially
promoted
via
flyers
distributed
to
120,000
households
in
the
county.
Countywide
events
were
also
promoted
through
newspaper
advertisements
in
the
five
county
newspapers.
A
presentation
was
made
to
the
Rutgers
University
Demanufacturing
Partnership
Program
and
the
Rutgers
University
Eco­
Policy
Center
Solid
Waste
Workshop
for
Mercer
County
to
promote
the
program.
The
flyers
cost
$0.105
a
piece,
plus
an
additional
$2,000
for
printing
costs,
resulting
in
a
net
cost
of
$14,600.
Most
of
these
flyers
(and
their
cost)
went
toward
the
countywide
events.
The
additional
newspaper
advertisements
cost
around
$1,800
per
event
(with
four
events),
for
a
total
cost
of
$7,200.
The
estimated
net
cost
for
publicity
was
$21,800.

Resident
Participation:

The
participation
rate
for
all
programs
was
estimated
to
be
about
5%
of
the
County's
households.
12
No
specific
information
is
available
about
the
participation
of
specific
municipal
programs,
or
the
County
programs
versus
the
municipal
programs.

Collection:

Due
to
variances
in
municipal
resources
and
experience,
each
municipality
developed
its
own
collection
scheme.
The
municipalities
followed
the
curbside
recycling
program
experience
in
NJ,
by
piggybacking
on
the
current
infrastructure
for
bottle
and
can
recycling
in
the
state.
The
county
found
it
necessary
to
also
provide
countywide
collection
for
residents
and
businesses
that
were
interested
in
participating
only
if
no
personal
transportation
or
processing
costs
were
incurred.
As
of
the
end
March
31,
1998,
the
county
has
held
seven
such
events.

The
agreement
between
Union
County
and
the
demanufacturer
provides
that
participating
municipalities
receive
free
processing
of
their
EEE
waste,
and
are
paid
$50
per
ton
for
their
collection.
Residents,
government
agencies,
schools,
and
small
businesses
were
invited
to
participate.
Large
businesses
can
participate
by
working
directly
with
EPA,
Inc.

Among
the
ten
municipalities
participating
in
the
program,
Clark,
Kenilworth,
and
Summit
have
permanent
collection
depots
where
residents
can
drop
off
materials.
The
collected
material
is
delivered
to
EPA,
Inc.
once
a
month.
Summit
supplements
this
facility
with
a
curbside
collection
program
that
is
tied
in
with
its
bulk
waste
(by
appointment)
collection.
Linden
and
Rahway
also
operate
curbside
collection
programs.
Rahway's
curbside
program
operates
as
part
of
its
bulky
item
and
recyclable
collection
scheme,
and
the
costs
for
the
EEE
waste
collection
cannot
be
disassociated
from
the
other
program
costs.

Four
other
communities
(Westfield,
Scotch
Plains,
Mountainside,
and
Cranford)
agreed
to
participate
in
the
program
under
a
"regional
approach."
(They
alternately
host
a
quarterly
collection
event
solely
for
their
residents,
with
labor
and
transport
covered
by
the
host
municipality.)
Through
March
31,
1998,
one
regional
collection
event
has
been
held
in
Cranford
and
another
was
held
in
Westfield.

12
Personal
communication
with
the
New
Jersey
Department
of
Environmental
Protection.
page
24
Union
County
focuses
on
collecting
items
that
were
determined
to
have
some
environmental
impact,
namely
monitors,
TVs,
computers,
VCRs,
keyboards,
telephones,
copiers,
audio/
stereo
equipment,
printers,
peripherals,
and
microwaves.
The
following
table
lists
the
items
collected
in
each
location:

Table
20:
Items
Collected
During
Union
County
Pilot
Computers
Monitors
Keyboards
Telephones
TVs
VCRs
Microwaves
Audio/
Stereo
County
258
273
268
136
157
103
38
261
Cranford
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
Westfield
24
20
19
1
4
0
1
2
Clark
22
149
22
18
67
16
21
41
Kenilworth
7
48
0
8
55
12
9
36
Linden
138
176
48
67
931
97
145
429
New
Providence
3
10
0
2
44
0
4
6
Rahway
33
44
27
76
198
17
24
81
Summit
243
317
115
68
462
39
46
224
Totals
730
1,039
501
376
1,918
284
288
1,080
Transportation:

In
the
following
table,
the
transportation
costs
given
for
the
curbside
programs
include
the
cost
of
collecting
the
material
and
delivering
it
to
EPA,
Inc.
The
two
regional
collection
events
in
Cranford
and
Westfield
generated
no
information
on
transportation
costs.

Table
21:
Union
County
Transportation
Distances
and
Costs
Program
Trips
Made
Transport
Costs
Clark
6
$389
New
Providence
1
$360
Kenilworth
3
$233
Linden
15
$4,620
Rahway
62
$6,200
Summit
40
$5,622
Union
County
7
$1,437
Transportation
costs
for
Rahway
and
Linden,
which
have
curbside
collection
programs,
is
high
relative
to
the
other
municipalities.
This
is
due
to
the
frequency
of
equipment
collection
and
the
additional
need
to
transport
the
equipment
to
EPA,
Inc.

Demanufacturing:

Demanufacturing
is
managed
by
EPA,
Inc.,
which
opened
a
new
location
in
Union
County
after
winning
a
competitive
bid
between
eight
demanufacturing
companies
in
the
US.
After
selecting
EPA,
Inc.,
the
page
25
county
completed
an
environmental
survey
of
six
original
equipment
manufacturers
(OEMs)
and
a
number
of
demanufacturers
to
rank
the
importance
and
relevance
of
eliminating
EEE
waste
from
the
waste
stream.
Of
"high"
environmental
benefit
were
monitors
and
TVs
(due
to
the
CRT).
Of
medium
impact
were
computers
(CPUs),
VCRs,
keyboards,
telephones,
copiers,
audio/
stereo
equipment,
and
microwaves.
Of
"low"
'
benefit
were
printers
and
peripherals.
The
focus
of
the
collection
was
to
remove
most
of
these
high­
impact
items
from
the
waste
stream.

EPA,
Inc.
charged
a
set
cost
per
type
of
equipment
collected.
The
price
per
unit
reflects
the
demanufacturing
and
disposal
costs.
The
charges
are
provided
in
the
following
table.

Table
22:
Demanufacturing
Charges
per
Item
Collected
Price
Per
Unit
Computers/
CPUs
$1.00
Monitors
$5.75
Large
TVs
$9.50
Small
TVs
$7.00
Printers
$2.00
VCRs
$2.00
Keyboards
$0.75
Telephones
$2.00
Peripherals
$0.75
Copiers
$5.00
Audio/
Stereo
$2.50
Microwaves
$2.00
While
they
generate
revenue
from
most
of
the
material
that
they
extract,
EPA,
Inc.
must
pay
about
$0.10
per
pound
for
disassembly
of
the
CRTs..
With
28,000
lbs
collected
every
4
months,
it
costs
the
company
$8,400
for
one
year
of
CRT
disposal.
In
addition,
the
cost
of
disposing
of
the
solid
waste
that
was
generated
came
to
about
$200
per
week,
for
a
total
cost
of
over
$10,000
per
year.
This
disposal
cost
was
not
included
in
the
cost
data;
however,
since
it
was
not
possible
to
determine
what
percent
of
this
waste
was
derived
from
the
residential
demanufacturing
program.

Revenue:

Many
of
the
items
collected
in
Union
County
are
technologically
obsolete
or
broken
beyond
repair,
so
EPA,
Inc.
is
only
able
to
sell
about
$40
worth
of
equipment
(VCRs,
TVs,
consumer
electronics)
a
week,
providing
roughly
$2,000
per
year
in
revenue
from
the
resale
of
used
electronics
and
electrical
equipment.
This
does
not,
however,
include
any
resale
value
from
working
computers
(about
1%
of
input),
since
they
are
shipped
to
EPA's
other
facilities.
Data
on
the
income
from
this
equipment
is
not
available.

The
bulk
of
the
income
comes
from
the
sale
of
recovered
scrap.
Scrap
metal,
wire,
and
components
yield
EPA
around
$0.06
per
pound
of
scrap
sold.
The
outflow
of
scrap
is
estimated
to
be
about
7,000
lbs
per
month,
resulting
in
about
$5,000
per
year
in
revenue.
Additionally,
circuit
boards
net
about
page
26
$0.85
per
pound,
so
with
about
1
pound
of
circuit
board
per
computer,
the
annual
revenue
from
this
source
equals
about
$458.
The
net
revenue
from
all
sources
comes
to
around
$3,358
for
the
first
year
of
the
program.

Net
Cost:

The
net
cost
for
each
program
is
outlined
in
the
table
below.
The
initial
infrastructure
costs
of
the
program
make
the
net
cost
for
the
time
period
look
higher
than
they
currently
are
because
initial
costs
flatten
out
as
the
program
matures
and
the
tonnage
of
collected
material
increases.

Table
23:
Union
County
Net
Cost
Municipality
Net
Cost
Net
Cost
per
Pound
Collected
Clark
$2,003
$0.19
Cranford
$13
$0.10
Westfield
$234
$0.10
Kenilworth
$1,075
$0.16
Linden
$15,155
$0.17
New
Providence
$767
$0.15
Rahway
$8,843
$0.33
Summit
$11,957
$0.23
UCUA
Countywide
$5,858
$0.14
Project
Comments:

The
Union
County
program
was
funded
via
a
grant
from
the
NJDEP
and
a
$120,000
grant,
over
two
years,
from
U.
S.
EPA
Region
II.
Participation
appears
to
be
consistent,
and
the
attitude
of
the
public
is
generally
positive.

A
tracking
system
to
determine
the
source
of
incoming
material
has
not
been
fully
coordinated,
since
loads
arrived
infrequently
and
in
low
volumes
at
the
beginning
of
the
program.
For
the
first
few
months,
there
was
not
enough
volume
to
justify
tracking
and
billing
on
a
monthly
basis.

After
18
months,
testing
of
the
incinerator
stack
and
ash
has
indicated
that
the
EEE
program
has
been
effective
in
diverting
materials
containing
heavy
metals
from
the
MSW
waste
stream
since
concentration
levels
are
lower
than
the
baseline
values.
This
conclusion
is
supported
by
the
information
provided
in
Table
39,
which
shows
the
calculated
concentration
of
heavy
metals
in
MSW,
based
on
metals
in
the
ash
residue
and
air
emissions.
However,
the
specific
contribution
of
the
demanufacturing
program
to
these
reductions
has
not
been
calculated.
page
27
3.5
NAPERVILLE
AND
WHEATON,
ILLINOIS
Collection
Method:
One­
day
Drop­
off
Event
Number
of
Collections:
Three
events
Collection
Dates:
October
1996,
1997
(Naperville),
and
April
1998
(Wheaton)

Demanufacturer:
The
Electronic
Recovery
Specialist,
Inc.

Motivation
Behind
Collection:

Naperville
and
Wheaton
organized
their
EEE
waste
collection
events
with
the
cooperation
of
a
local
demanufacturer,
The
Electronic
Recovery
Specialist,
Inc.
(ERS).
The
goals
of
these
events
were
to:

§
Reduce
the
amount
of
material
that
the
municipality
sends
to
the
landfill;

§
Safely
dispose
of
the
potentially
hazardous
materials;
and
§
Promote
the
collection
of
EEE
waste
on
a
municipal
level
13
The
demanufacturer
got
involved
with
the
intention
of
increasing
interest
in
residential
collection
events,
which
would
ultimately
result
in
a
greater
volume
of
EEE
waste
for
them
to
demanufacture.
With
the
completion
of
their
first
event
in
October
1996,
Naperville
followed
with
another
event
in
October
1997.
Wheaton
then
followed
suit
by
working
with
ERS
to
conduct
a
drop­
off
collection
event
in
April
1998.

Demographics:

Naperville,
IL,
is
a
western
suburb
of
Chicago
and
one
of
the
fastest
growing
cities
in
the
state.
The
town
is
largely
white
collar.
The
neighboring
suburb
of
Wheaton
is
similar
in
profile
to
Naperville.
Both
towns
are
active
in
waste
management,
with
collection
programs
for
HHW,
tires,
books,
and
recyclable
materials.
In
fact,
Naperville
was
the
first
city
in
Illinois
to
implement
a
HHW
collection
scheme.

Table
24:
Naperville/
Wheaton
Demographics
Municipality
Population
Households
Median
Income
Naperville
85,000
32,000
$60,000
Wheaton
50,000
18,000
$52,000
Event
Promotion:

Promotion
in
Naperville
began
six
weeks
before
the
first
event
and
consisted
of
the
placement
of
door
hangers
by
meter
readers
at
all
single­
family
homes
in
the
city.
The
door
hangers
outlined
the
date,
time,
and
location
of
the
program
as
well
as
what
items
would
be
accepted.
Since
ERS
cannot
demanufacture
equipment
that
is
110V
or
220V,
people
were
asked
not
to
bring
household
electrical
equipment
and
appliances.
This
was
combined
with
publicity
in
the
local
Chamber
of
Commerce
newsletter
a
couple
of
13
Unless
noted,
all
Naperville
background
information
was
gathered
via
personal
communication
with
Marta
Keane,
the
City
of
Naperville
and
all
Wheaton
background
information
was
gathered
via
personal
communication
with
Kay
McKeen,
DuPage
County,
Illinois.
page
28
weeks
before
the
event.
The
city
produced
the
door
hangers
in­
house
at
"no
net
cost"
to
the
municipality.

The
second
Naperville
event
was
publicized
using
notices
and
flyers
sent
to
every
library,
chamber
of
commerce,
municipality,
township
office,
and
park
district
within
the
county.
There
was
also
good
coverage
by
some
of
the
local
papers
promoting
the
event.
The
city
also
sent
flyers
home
with
school
children
that
attended
the
public
and
private
schools
serving
the
Naperville
area.
These
flyers
were
also
produced
in­
house.

For
the
Wheaton
event,
publicity
consisted
of
an
advertisement
in
the
city
newsletter
during
the
months
of
March
and
April.
Notices
were
also
sent
to
the
local
churches,
where
they
were
placed
on
church
bulletin
boards.
Additionally,
there
was
comprehensive
newspaper
coverage
of
the
event,
resulting
from
the
strong
competition
between
newspapers
in
the
community.
All
of
this
publicity
came
at
no
net
cost
to
the
municipality.

Resident
Participation:

Over
250
households
(measured
by
the
number
of
cars)
dropped
off
material
during
the
first
event,
185
of
which
were
from
Naperville.
For
the
second
event,
there
were
670
cars
measured,
but
the
household
participation
is
uncertain
since
there
were
a
number
of
businesses,
schools,
and
organizations
that
dropped
off
equipment
as
well.
Overall,
the
total
number
of
cars
increased
by
almost
170%
from
the
first
to
the
second
event.

At
the
Wheaton
event,
906
cars
were
counted
but
the
city
estimated
the
actual
participation
to
be
more
than
1000
households
since
a
number
of
residents
parked
on
the
streets,
or
delivered
their
EEE
waste
on
foot.
The
high
attendance
is
due
in
part
to
the
fact
that
the
event
combined
EEE
waste
collection
with
a
book
and
tire
collection.

Collection:

All
three
events
were
Saturday
drop­
off
collections
held
on
municipal
property.
Volunteers
handled
some
of
the
greeting
and
unloading
of
the
incoming
cars,
although
a
large
number
of
ERS
employees
were
present
to
sort,
unload,
and
stack
the
material.

The
events
targeted
electronic
equipment
–
e.
g.,
computers,
TVs,
VCRs,
microwaves,
and
stereos
–
since
the
demanufacturer
did
not
have
the
ability
to
work
with
electrical
equipment
(110
or
220
V
items).
The
items
listed
in
the
table
were
collected
at
the
events,
1996
and
1997
held
in
Naperville,
and
1998
in
Wheaton:
14
Table
25:
Items
Collected
During
Napervill/
Wheaton
Pilots
Computers
Monitors
Keyboards
Printers
TVs
VCRs
Microwaves
Stereos
Naperville
1996
367
152
160
113
111
54
28
286
1997
305
290
65
130
292
236
40
120
Wheaton
14
Naperville
data
provided
in
City
of
Naperville
Memorandum
dated
October
10,
1996
and
Memorandum
dated
November
21,
1997.
Wheaton
data
provided
via
personal
communication
with
Bob
Bell,
The
Electronic
Recovery
Specialist,
Inc.
page
29
1998
99
226
0
102
102
109
33
115
Telephones,
copiers,
and
miscellaneous
other
items
were
also
collected.

In
terms
of
weight,
24,267
lbs
were
collected
in
Naperville
in
1996,
around
60,000
lbs
in
Naperville
in
1997,
and
22,414
lbs
in
Wheaton
in
1998.

Although
the
demanufacturer,
ERS
did
not
charge
the
municipalities
for
their
labor,
the
company's
cost
per
event
was
given
at
around
$8,000.
A
portion
of
these
costs
derive
from
the
labor
for
the
event
(e.
g.,
sorting,
stacking
of
the
equipment)
and
the
rental
of
the
truck.

Transportation:

The
total
transportation
distance
from
Naperville/
Wheaton
to
the
ERS
facility
in
Niles,
IL,
is
about
30
miles.
Because
both
a
53­
ft
and
a
23­
ft
truck
were
being
used
to
transport
the
equipment,
multiple
trips
were
required
at
each
event.
The
cost
of
these
trips
makes
up
the
portion
of
the
$8,000
event
cost
not
due
to
labor.
After
the
Wheaton
event,
Tire
Grinders
Transporters,
Inc.,
a
company
that
was
participating
in
Wheaton's
tire
collection
program,
voluntarily
hauled
one­
half
of
a
53­
ft
truck's
worth
of
material
to
ERS.
Their
transportation
costs
are
not
included
in
the
estimate.

Demanufacturing:
15
ERS
explained
what
they
could
and
could
not
take
to
the
volunteers
and
participants,
in
order
to
limit
the
collection
of
useless
material.
They
do
not
have
the
capacity
to
demanufacture
many
electrical
appliances
(i.
e.,
those
that
run
on
110
to
220V).
)
Most
of
the
electrical
equipment
that
was
collected
was
thrown
away
during
the
event.

The
equipment
was
broken
down
into
wiring,
circuit
boards,
and
high­
grade
breakage.
The
monitors
and
televisions
were
disassembled
and
the
CRTs
recycled.
The
process
used
to
disassemble
and
recycle
the
CRTs
was
considered
proprietary.
It
is
unclear
what
type
of
recycling
occurred
and
if
it
was
domestic
or
international.
The
demanufacturer
did
not
provide
the
exact
type
and
percentage
yield
of
commodities
from
these
events.

Revenue:

No
exact
data
was
provided
on
the
revenue
from
any
of
the
demanufacturing;
however,
ERS
estimated
that
their
total
income
from
the
material
comes
to
around
$6,000
per
event.
ERS
indicated,
however,
that
for
each
event
an
additional
$6,000
was
spent
in
disposing
of
unusable
material.
This
disposal
cost
includes
the
extra
cost
of
the
sorting,
storage,
and
shipment
of
broken
electronics
to
re­
training
programs
throughout
the
U.
S.
and
to
overseas
markets.

Net
Cost:

The
demanufacturer
carried
the
net
cost
for
all
of
the
events,
which
they
estimated
to
be
around
$8,000
per
event.
The
net
cost
per
pound
decreased
more
than
60%
between
the
two
Naperville
events.

15
Demanufacturing,
revenue
and
cost
data
gathered
via
personal
communication
with
Bob
Bell,
The
Electronic
Recovery
Specialist
Inc.
page
30
Table
26:
Naperville/
Wheaton
Net
Cost
Municipality
Net
Cost
Net
Cost
per
Pound
Collected
Naperville
1996
$8,000
$0.33
Naperville
1997
$8,000
$0.13
Wheaton
1998
$8,000
$0.36
Project
Comments:

According
to
the
municipalities,
the
collection
programs
were
successful
because
they
had
a
large
turnout
for
each
event.
The
coordinator
in
Naperville
indicated
that
despite
the
high
yields
for
the
two
events,
only
a
periodic
collection
would
be
the
most
cost­
effective
choice
for
her
community.
In
her
opinion,
additional
collection
events
would
probably
not
lead
to
substantially
greater
amounts
of
equipment
collected.

The
demanufacturer
explained
that
these
events
could
have
broken
even
with
better
collection
support
during
the
events.
ERS
employees
covered
most
of
the
labor
for
sorting
and
loading,
a
cost
that
could
have
been
offset
by
more
coordinated
volunteer
help.
All
the
same,
they
have
been
working
with
other
municipalities
to
continue
expansion
of
these
collection
events
in
the
area.

ERS
also
noted
that
an
essential
element
in
coordinating
the
event
is
the
existence
of
an
"exit
plan,"
meaning
a
client
for
the
demanufactured
material
or
equipment.
This
was
especially
relevant
to
ERS
since
they
had
limited
storage
space,
and
ended
up
shipping
some
of
the
collected
material
to
re­
training
programs.
page
31
3.6
SUMMARYDATAFOR
THE
PILOT
PROJECTS
The
range
of
data
gathered
from
these
five
collection
programs
makes
it
impossible
to
develop
a
linear
relationship
between
collection
method,
costs,
and
equipment
yield.
This
is
due
to
the
different
collection
models
used
in
the
programs,
the
variety
of
the
equipment
collected,
the
management
of
the
equipment
that
was
collected,
and
the
ultimate
disposal
of
the
equipment.
The
following
table
shows
what
cost
data
was
available
for
each
collection
program.

Table
27:
Available
Cost
and
Revenue
Data
Collection
Agency
Publicity
Operating
Transport
Demanufacturing
Disposal
Binghamton/
Somerville
X
X
X
Naperville/
Wheaton
X
X
X
Union
County
X
X
X
X
X
Hennepin
County
X
X
X
X
San
Jose
X
X
X
The
summary
tables
in
this
section
provide
data
for
all
available
data
sets
(aside
from
upfront
costs),
with
the
caveat
that
the
values
are
not
directly
comparable.

Some
data
regarding
the
cost
of
pre­
program
publicity
was
available.
However,
this
information
was
only
available
for
Union
County
and
Binghamton/
Somerville.
The
impact
of
the
large
up­
front
outlay
for
publicity
was
enough
that
including
these
values
in
the
summary
table
would
skew
the
values
for
these
two
programs.
Therefore
the
available
data
on
upfront
costs
was
not
taken
into
account.

It
should
also
be
noted
that
the
cost
associated
with
the
Hennepin
County
program
is
an
aggregate
of
all
costs
paid
by
the
county
–
labor
for
some
collection,
demanufacturing,
staff
salaries,
transport,
disposal,
supplies,
overhead,
etc.
Due
to
the
design
of
the
program
and
the
selection
of
vendors,
many
of
the
costs
could
not
be
divided
into
specific
categories
such
as
collection
type
or
total
transportation
cost.

Finally,
for
curbside
collection
programs
that
coincide
with
other
collection
programs
(bulk
items,
HHW,
appliances),
no
attempt
was
made
to
allocate
costs
to
the
EEE
waste
collection.
The
costs
that
are
presented
include
some
of
the
costs
associated
with
the
collection
of
both
the
EEE
waste
and
other
items.
However,
these
costs
are
assumed
to
be
small
in
comparison
to
the
cost
of
transporting
the
EEE
waste
to
the
demanufacturer.
page
32
Table
28:
Binghamton/
Somerville
and
San
Jose
Summary
Cost
Data
Binghamton
/
Somerville
San
Jose
Location
Somerville
Somerville
Binghamton
Binghamton
San
Jose
Event
Date
Fall
1996
Spring
1997
Fall
1996
Spring
1997
October
1997
total
revenue
$481
$1,807
$487
$1,175
$5,100
total
cost
a
$3,781
$2,898
$931
$3,038
$23,110
net
income
(cost)
($
3,299)
($
1,091)
($
444)
($
1,863)
($
18,010)

total
inflow
(lbs)
7,448
13,723
2,372
9,031
61,600
total
cost/
lb
$0.51
$0.21
$0.39
$0.34
$0.38
revenue/
lb
$0.06
$0.13
$0.21
$0.13
$0.08
Note:
Total
cost
per
pound
is
equal
to
the
total
cost
divided
by
the
pounds
collected,
not
the
net
cost
divided
by
the
pounds
collected.

a:
Binghamton
and
Somerville
total
cost
values
consist
only
of
the
cost
of
transporting
the
EEE
waste
to
the
demanufacturer
and
the
cost
of
the
demanufacturing
labor.
The
San
Jose
costs
include
the
cost
of
transporting
the
EEE
waste
to
the
demanufacturer,
the
cost
of
the
demanufacturing,
and
the
disposal
costs
associated
with
disposing
the
CRTs.
page
33
Table
29:
Union
County
Summary
Cost
Data
Union
County
Location
Union
Co.
Cranford
Westfield
Clark
Kenilworth
Event
Date
October
1,
1996
to
March
31,
1998
total
revenue
$456
$2
$34
$77
$46
total
cost
b
$6,314
$15
$268
$2,080
$1,122
net
income
(cost)
($
5,858)
($
13)
($
234)
($
2,003)
($
1,075)

total
inflow
(lbs)
42,886
120
2,240
10,640
6,680
total
cost/
lb
$0.15
$0.13
$0.12
$0.20
$0.17
revenue/
lb
$0.01
$0.02
$0.02
$0.01
$0.01
Note:
Total
cost
per
pound
is
equal
to
the
total
cost
divided
by
the
pounds
collected,
not
the
net
cost
divided
by
the
pounds
collected.

b:
The
Union
County
total
cost
values
include
the
cost
of
transportation
to
the
demanufacturer
and
the
cost
of
demanufacturing
the
EEE
waste
and
disposing
of
the
unsold
scrap
and
CRTs.
page
34
Table
30:
Union
County
Summary
Cost
Data
(cont.)

Union
County
(cont.)

Location
Linden
New
Providence
Rahway
Summit
Event
Date
October
1,
1996
to
March
31,
1998
total
revenue
$592
$34
$184
$454
total
cost
b
$15,747
$801
$9,027
$12,412
net
income
(cost)
($
15,155)
($
767)
($
8,843)
($
11,957)

total
inflow
(lbs)
87,060
5,180
26,560
51,500
total
cost/
lb
$0.18
$0.15
$0.34
$0.24
revenue/
lb
$0.01
$0.01
$0.01
$0.01
Note:
Total
cost
per
pound
is
equal
to
the
total
cost
divided
by
the
pounds
collected,
not
the
net
cost
divided
by
the
pounds
collected.

b:
The
Union
County
total
cost
values
include
the
cost
of
transportation
to
the
demanufacturer
and
the
cost
of
demanufacturing
the
EEE
waste
and
disposing
of
the
unsold
scrap
and
CRTs.
The
curbside
collection
program
in
Linden
also
includes
some
small
operating
expenses,
which
could
not
be
separated
from
the
transportation
costs.
page
35
Table
31:
Hennepin
County
Summary
Cost
Data
Hennepin
County
Location
Hennepin
Co.

Event
Date
1995
1996
1997
total
revenue
$10,000
$20,000
$25,000
total
cost
c
$190,000
$350,000
$350,000
net
income
(cost)
($
180,000)
($
330,000)
($
325,000)

total
inflow
(lbs)
400,000
524,000
732,000
total
cost/
lb
$0.48
$0.67
$0.48
revenue/
lb
$0.03
$0.04
$0.03
Note:
Total
cost
per
pound
is
equal
to
the
total
cost
divided
by
the
pounds
collected,
not
the
net
cost
divided
by
the
pounds
collected.

c:
The
Hennepin
County
total
cost
values
include
the
operating
costs,
costs
of
transportation
to
the
demanufacturer,
demanufacturing
costs,
and
disposal
costs
for
the
unsold
scrap
and
CRTs.
page
36
Table
32:
Naperville/
Wheaton
Summary
Cost
Data
Naperville/
Wheaton
Location
Naperville
Naperville
Wheaton
Event
Date
Fall
1996
Fall
1997
Spring
1998
total
revenue
$6,000
$6,000
$6,000
total
cost
d
$14,000
$14,000
$14,000
net
income
(cost)
($
8,000)
($
8,000)
($
8,000)

total
inflow
(lbs)
24,267
60,000
22,414
total
cost/
lb
$0.58
$0.23
$0.62
revenue/
lb
$0.25
$0.10
$0.27
Note:
Total
cost
per
pound
is
equal
to
the
total
cost
divided
by
the
pounds
collected,
not
the
net
cost
divided
by
the
pounds
collected.

d:
The
Naperville
and
Wheaton
total
cost
values
include
the
costs
of
transportation
to
the
demanufacturer,
demanufacturing
costs,
and
disposal
costs
for
the
unsold
scrap.
page
37
4.
ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS
OF
PILOT
PROJECTS
This
section
provides
a
more
detailed
analysis
of
the
collection
programs,
which
covers
the
following
items:

·
Net
economics;

·
Analysis
of
cost;

·
Analysis
of
revenue;
and
·
Collection
efficiency.

4.1
NET
ECONOMICS
The
net
economics
of
an
EEE
waste
collection
program
is
defined
by
the
sum
of
the
revenue
and
costs
associated
with
the
program.
The
experience
shown
by
the
previous
five
collection
examples
is
that
collection
programs
generally
run
at
a
net
cost.
Note
that
this
is
a
purely
economic
statement.
Some
of
the
programs
and
pilots
have
other
objectives
that
have
not
been
translated
into
cost.

In
looking
at
the
net
economics,
it
is
helpful
to
understand
what
costs
and
revenue
sources
are
contributing
to
this
value.
The
following
graphic
indicates
the
economic
interactions
between
the
important
stakeholders
in
these
collection
programs.

Transport
Costs
User
Fees
Disposal
Costs
Participant
Up
Front
Costs
Operational
Costs
Revenue
from
Demanufacturing
Collection
Agency
Demanufacturing
Fee
Demanufacturer
Demanfacturing
Costs
Figure
2:
Economic
Interaction
Between
Stakeholders
Each
of
these
stakeholders
has
its
own
specific
cost
and
revenue
structure,
and
not
every
one
will
bear
the
same
economic
burden.
However,
it
is
important
to
note
that
the
net
cost
of
the
five
collection
models
for
this
report
includes
the
sum
of
all
of
the
available
cost
and
revenue
data;
not
all
of
the
following
cost
and
revenue
data
was
available
for
every
program:

Cost
=
demanufacturing
+
transport
+
operating
+
publicity
+
disposal
costs
Revenue
=
revenue
from
scrap
+
revenue
from
resale
+
revenue
from
fees
or
services
While
the
data
that
was
gathered
for
these
programs
was
useful
in
determining
the
total
cost
of
a
program,
it
is
not
as
helpful
in
assessing
the
economic
role
that
each
individual
stakeholder
has
in
the
total
economics.
Each
stakeholder's
economic
role
is
expanded
upon
in
the
discussion
in
Section
5.
page
38
4.2
COST
ANALYSIS
Looking
at
the
program
summary
tables
in
Section
3
indicates
that
even
for
similar
collection
models
and
geographic
locations,
costs
were
not
consistent
or
predictable.
Specifically,
this
irregularity
is
due
to
differences
in
data
collection
methods.
The
short­
term
nature
of
many
of
these
pilot
programs
resulted
in
services
provided
"in­
kind"
or
"in­
house."
The
end
result
is
that
the
demanufacturing
costs
had
the
most
significant
impact
on
the
apparent
cost
of
the
programs.
In
fact,
almost
all
of
the
available
cost
data
is
related
to
demanufacturing.

4.2.1
Demanufacturing
Versus
Disposal
The
two
charts
below
indicate
the
net
cost
per
pound
recycled
for
each
of
these
programs
in
comparison
to
the
average
disposal
fees
per
pound
(either
for
landfilling
or
incineration).
The
charts
show
how
widely
the
costs
for
recycling
vary,
both
between
and
within
communities.
This
is
likely
due
to
both
the
limited
amounts
of
data
that
are
available
for
each
model,
and
the
fact
that,
with
the
exception
of
Hennepin
County,
none
of
the
programs
have
been
running
a
long
time.

The
charts
are
organized
by
collection
model,
with
the
first
chart
presenting
one­
day
drop­
off
events
and
the
second
chart
presenting
the
other
collection
methods.
Each
data
set
has
two
separate
columns
–
the
net
cost
per
pound
for
recycling
and
the
disposal
costs
per
pound.
The
recycling
cost
column
incorporates
the
cost
data
for
demanufacturing
the
collected
equipment
and
disposal
of
any
scrap
that
was
not
sold,
and
any
income
from
scrap
and
resale.
Hennepin
County
is
not
included
in
the
graphs
so
as
not
be
misleading,
since
their
demanufacturing
costs
cannot
be
dissociated
from
their
collection
and
transport
cost.
The
disposal
costs
column
represents
the
tipping
fees
or
incinerator
fees
for
each
locality.
Collection
and
transport
were
not
included
since
collection
costs
for
MSW
were
not
available.

In
examining
these
charts,
it
is
obvious
that
the
recycling
programs
are
more
costly
than
disposal
of
the
material
via
incineration
or
landfilling,
and
this
difference
appears
to
be
independent
of
the
type
of
collection
program.
It
should
be
noted
that
these
charts
do
not
incorporate
any
non­
quantified
costs,
such
as
the
costs
associated
with
disposing
of
incinerator
ash
containing
heavy
metals,
which
may
increase
the
disposal
cost
per
pound.
page
39
Disposal
vs.
Recycling
Cost
Comparison:
One­
day
Drop­
off
Collection
Events
$0.00
$0.05
$0.10
$0.15
$0.20
$0.25
$0.30
$0.35
$0.40
Somerville,
Fall
1996
Somerville,
Spring
1997
Binghamton,
Fall
1996
Binghamton,
Spring
1997
Naperville,
Fall
1996
Naperville,
Fall
1997
Wheaton,
Spring
1998
Union
Co.
Cranford
Westfield
$/
lb
collected
Net
recycling
cost/
lb
(Demanufacturing
+
Disposal
­
Revenue)

Disposal
cost/
lb
(Incineration
or
Tipping
Fee)

Figure
3:
Disposal
vs.
Recycling
Cost
Comparison:
One­
day
Drop­
off
Collection
Events
Disposal
vs.
Recycling
Cost
Comparison:
Other
Collection
Models
$0.00
$0.05
$0.10
$0.15
$0.20
$0.25
$0.30
$0.35
$0.40
San
Jose
Clark
Kenilworth
Linden
New
Providence
Rahway
Summit
$/
lb
collected
Net
recycling
cost/
lb
(Demanufacturing
+
Disposal
­
Revenue)

Disposal
cost/
lb
(Incineration
or
Tipping
Fee)

Retail
Collection
Permanent
Collection
Depot
Curbside
Collections
Curbside/
Permanent
Collection
Figure
4:
Disposal
vs.
Recycling
Cost
Comparison:
Other
Collection
Models
page
40
4.2.2
CRT
Recycling
The
commodity
that
predominated
in
most
of
the
five
collection
programs
is
the
CRT
(see
the
following
chart).
Televisions,
monitors,
and
some
other
electronic
equipment
(e.
g.,
oscilloscopes)
all
contain
CRTs.
It
is
obvious
then
that
a
demanufacturing
program
can
be
greatly
affected
by
what
is
done
with
this
material.
There
are
a
number
of
options
that
were
used
by
these
five
collection
programs
–
domestic
glass
recycling,
smelting,
and
export
–
that
have
varying
costs.

Items
Containing
CRTs
as
a
Percentage
of
Total
Equipment
Collected
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%

Somerville
Binghampton
Union
County
Events
Clark
Kenilworth
Linden
Rahway
Summit
Hennepin
County
San
Jose
Naperville
Wheaton
Figure
5:
Items
Containing
CRTs
as
a
Percentage
of
Total
Equipment
Collected
One
optimum
demanufacturing
option,
at
least
in
terms
of
the
net
economics,
may
be
the
recycling
of
the
CRT
into
glass.
Demanufacturers
who
recycled
CRTs
received
some
revenue
for
the
glass
that
they
generated.
However,
it
is
difficult
to
determine
just
how
much
revenue
they
received
per
CRT
since
glass
recyclers
consider
their
process
to
be
proprietary.
The
complexity
of
this
option
is
also
technically
related
to
the
multiple
formulations
of
CRT
glass
(over
200
chemical
formulations),
and
the
demand
by
manufacturers
for
product
specifications
of
the
secondary
material.
In
addition,
federal
and
state
regulations
regarding
CRTs
are
complex,
which
may
also
increase
the
cost
of
the
recycling
process
and
ultimately
limits
the
number
of
companies
that
can
do
the
recycling.
For
the
collection
agency,
the
lack
of
a
local
demanufacturer
to
provide
this
service
could
result
in
high
transportation
costs
that
outweigh
the
revenue
generated
from
the
recycled
material.

Smelters
were
also
used
as
a
disposal
option
for
the
CRTs.
A
smelter
uses
the
silica
in
the
CRT
glass
as
flux
in
its
operations
and
recovers
some
of
the
lead.
Most
smelters
are
located
in
remote
locations,
which
can
make
transportation
costs
high
relative
to
the
value
of
the
material.
Further,
since
secondary
smelters
have
moderate
feedstock
needs,
the
outflow
of
CRTs
from
the
collection
program
sent
to
a
smelter
can
become
dependent
on
the
smelter's
demand.
Such
is
the
situation
for
Hennepin
County,
page
41
where
the
demanufacturing
program
is
affected
when
the
smelter
shuts
down
(the
county
is
affected
by
the
shutdown
of
any
end
market,
not
just
the
smelter).
The
county
then
has
to
store
the
CRTs
it
collects.

A
third
option
for
CRT
disposal
is
export
to
developing
nations.
The
cost
for
demanufacturing
may
be
much
lower
in
other
countries
than
it
is
in
the
United
States
­
as
much
as
ten
times
lower,
as
indicated
in
the
San
Jose
study.
There
is
an
open
debate
as
to
what
actually
constitutes
demanufacturing
and/
or
disposal
in
an
overseas
market.
While
this
overseas
disposal
option
does
reduce
the
costs
to
a
demanufacturer,
there
are
issues
to
consider
before
exporting
the
material.
Worker
health
and
safety
laws,
and
hazardous
waste
disposal
laws
overseas
may
be
less
stringent
than
in
the
U.
S.
and
may
contribute
to
cost
savings
when
CRTs
are
shipped
abroad
for
management,
disposal,
or
recycling.
The
demanufacturing
of
CRTs
therefore
may
lead
to
health
problems
for
overseas
workers.
16
Because
of
the
hazardous
nature
of
some
of
the
materials
in
CRT
glass
(lead
and
cadmium)
and
the
less
stringent
environmental
standards
in
developing
countries,
the
shipment
of
these
materials
overseas
may
in
fact
just
be
a
displacement
of
pollution.

The
disposal
of
CRTs
is
consistently
a
cost
for
the
collection
agency.
While
a
demanufacturer
may
generate
some
revenue
from
the
sale
of
the
CRT
glass
that
they
generate,
the
revenue
does
not
fully
offset
costs
that
the
demanufacturer
will
transfer
to
the
collection
agency
for
the
transport
and
disposal
of
the
material.

4.3
REVENUE
ANALYSIS
The
revenue
for
these
programs
was
derived
either
from
resale
of
the
collected
material
or
sale
of
the
demanufactured
scrap.
Most
of
the
programs
received
a
notable
amount
of
revenue;
however,
the
amounts
were
not
sufficient
to
offset
the
collection
agency's
costs
for
collection
and
demanufacturing.
The
following
section
analyzes
in
more
detail
some
of
the
revenue
streams
from
these
programs.

4.3.1
Resale
The
following
table
lists
the
collection
programs
that
received
revenue
from
the
resale
of
equipment.
Revenue/
pound
collected
is
the
economic
yield
of
resold
equipment
per
pound
of
equipment
that
was
collected.
The
cost/
pound
collected
is
the
gross
cost
of
collection/
demanufacturing
per
pound
of
equipment
that
was
collected.

Table
33:
Resale
Revenue
Per
Pound
Collected
Collection
Agency
Resale
Revenue
Total
Pounds
Collected
Resale/
Pound
Collected
Cost/
Pound
Collected
San
Jose
$1,940
61,600
$0.03
$0.38
Somerville
(1997)
$962
13,723
$0.07
$0.21
Union
Co.
Total
$3,120
232,866
$0.01
$0.21
Note:
Values
for
Union
Co.
Total
are
for
all
of
the
collection
programs
over
the
collection
period
of
18
months.
The
cost/
pound
collected
for
San
Jose
is
for
the
scenario
in
which
CRTs
are
exported
for
demanufacturing.

As
is
evident
from
this
table,
the
resale
revenue
per
pound
is
only
a
fraction
of
the
cost
per
pound.
Additionally,
there
does
not
appear
to
be
any
linear
correlation
between
the
amount
of
equipment
collected
and
revenue
from
resale,
which
leads
to
the
conclusion
that
a
large
amount
of
equipment
16
The
San
Jose
Computer
Collection
and
Recycling
Pilot,
pp
9.
page
42
collected
does
not
necessarily
translate
into
a
large
amount
of
revenue
from
resale.
This
is
likely
because
the
quality
of
equipment
that
is
collected
varies
depending
on
the
specific
community,
its
locations,
and
time.

4.3.2
Offsetting
Costs
For
these
collection
programs,
revenue
was
not
sufficient
to
offset
all
of
the
costs
associated
with
the
program's
organization
and
operation.
Most
of
this
revenue
is
dependent
on
factors
that
are
beyond
the
direct
control
of
the
collection
agency,
such
as
the
market
price
for
the
extracted
materials,
the
quality
of
the
extracted
material,
and
the
presence
of
demanufacturing
firms.
Considering
this,
in
order
to
reduce
the
net
cost
of
collection,
collection
agencies
would
do
best
to
either
focus
on
reducing
program
costs,
work
with
a
demanufacturer
to
develop
a
revenue
share
on
any
resale
of
collected
equipment,
or
assess
the
community's
willingness
to
pay.
However,
it
is
helpful
to
understand
how
far
these
collection
programs
are
from
a
"break­
even
point",
i.
e.,
the
point
where
the
revenue
per
pound
is
equal
to
the
cost
per
pound.
Also
note
that
because
of
the
disparity
in
the
data
between
pilots
not
all
costs
are
included
and
may
cause
the
break­
even
point
to
increase.

To
illustrate
this,
the
cost
per
pound
collected
was
divided
by
the
revenue
per
pound
collected
(see
Section
3.6
for
these
numbers)
to
calculate
the
ratio
of
cost
to
revenue.
This
ratio
is
essentially
equal
to
how
many
times
larger
the
cost
is
than
the
revenue,
e.
g.,
a
ratio
of
2
means
that
the
cost
per
pound
collected
is
twice
the
revenue
per
pound
collected.
Therefore,
this
ratio
gives
an
idea
as
to
how
much
the
revenue
per
pound
would
have
to
increase
to
be
equal
to
the
cost
per
pound.
These
ratios
are
shown
for
all
five
of
the
collection
programs
in
the
following
chart.

Since
the
revenue
received
from
demanufactured
materials
is
linearly
dependent
on
the
market
price
of
the
material,
these
ratios
can
be
interpreted
as
how
much
the
market
price
would
have
to
increase
for
the
revenue
per
pound
to
equal
the
cost
per
pound.
This
assumes
that
only
the
market
values
received
for
the
demanufactured
materials
change
and
not
the
type
and
weight
of
materials
collected
or
the
cost
for
the
collection
program.

This
chart
illustrates
that
most
of
the
one­
day
drop­
off
events
have
costs
that
are
around
twice
the
revenues.
As
the
markets
for
some
of
the
extracted
materials
develop,
these
programs
have
the
potential
to
break
even,
assuming
that
their
costs
per
pound
stay
at
least
the
same,
and
they
collect
equipment
that
contain
material
with
some
market
value.
The
other
collection
models
have
higher
break­
even
costs,
which
is
due
both
to
their
higher
costs
and
lower
revenues.
17
The
very
high
breakeven
point
for
the
Rahway
curbside
collections
is
mainly
due
to
the
transportation
costs
associated
with
the
frequent
number
of
collections.
Since
this
break­
even
point
is
skewed
due
to
the
organization
of
this
particular
collection
model,
it
should
not
be
seen
as
representative
of
the
typical
curbside
collection
program.

17
It
should
be
noted
that
the
revenue
numbers
for
the
Union
County
events
are
based
on
average
data
provided
by
the
demanufacturer
and
the
actual
revenue
values
may
be
somewhat
greater
than
those
that
are
included
in
the
analysis.
page
43
Reaching
the
Break­
Even
Point
Ratio
of
Cost
per
Pound
Collected
to
Revenue
per
Pound
Collected
7.9
1.6
1.9
2.6
2.3
2.3
2.3
11.6
6.2
7.9
4.5
24.3
22.7
22.8
23.8
46.2
22.4
19.0
17.5
14.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Somerville,
Fall
1996
Somerville,
Spring
1997
Binghamton,
Fall
1996
Binghamton,
Spring
1997
Naperville,
Fall
1996
Naperville,
Fall
1997
Wheaton,
Spring
1998
Union
Co.
Cranford
Westfield
San
Jose
Clark
Kenilworth
Linden
New
Providence
Rahway
Summit
Hennepin
Co.
1995
Hennepin
Co.
1996
Hennepin
Co.
1997
ratio
of
cost/
lb
/

to
revenue/
lb
Figure
6:
Reaching
the
Break­
Even
Point
for
Collection
Models
4.4
EQUIPMENT
COLLECTION
Despite
the
differences
in
motivations
behind
the
individual
collection
programs,
the
items
that
each
program
targeted
were
mostly
similar.
The
following
table
outlines
the
items
that
were
requested
by
each
of
the
collection
programs
(some
of
the
programs
received
items
that
they
did
not
target),
which
shows
these
similarities.
The
San
Jose
pilot
is
obviously
different
since
the
goal
was
to
collect
only
computer­
related
equipment.
Hennepin
County
also
collects
microwaves,
but
under
its
appliance
collection
program.

Table
34:
Items
Targeted
by
Collection
Program
Somerville/
Binghamton
Naperville/
Wheaton
Union
County
Hennepin
County
San
Jose
Computer
Monitors
X
X
X
X
X
Computers
X
X
X
X
X
Televisions
X
X
X
X
Stereo
equipment
X
X
X
X
Speakers
X
X
X
X
VCRs
X
X
X
X
Microwaves
X
X
X
Fax
Machines
X
X
X
X
Printers
X
X
X
X
Telephones
X
X
X
page
44
The
following
chart
gives
some
indication
of
the
average
composition
of
a
collection
event
in
terms
of
the
percentage
of
total
items
collected.
The
average
was
calculated
to
give
more
weight
to
the
collections
with
the
greatest
yield.
The
chart
gives
a
rough
approximation
of
what
a
collection
program
can
expect
to
collect,
even
though
it
does
not
take
into
account
the
impacts
that
a
particular
collection
model
or
geographic
area
may
have
on
the
type
of
equipment
collected.
The
chart
does
indicate
that
TVs
and
monitors
made
up
almost
50%
of
the
items
collected,
which
as
was
mentioned
above
can
substantially
affect
the
cost
of
the
EEE
waste
collection
program.
The
substantial
percentage
of
equipment
that
fits
into
the
Misc.
Other
category
shows
that
the
range
of
what
is
collected
is
generally
not
limited
to
the
equipment
that
is
targeted.

Percentage
by
Type
of
Number
of
Items
Collected:
Weighted
Average
of
All
Collection
Events
Computers/
CPUs
8%

Monitors
11%

Keyboards
5%

Printers
4%
Audio/
Stereo
16%

TVs
36%
Telephones
3%
Misc.
Other
9%
Peripherals
1%

Microwaves
1%

VCRs
6%

Figure
7:
Percentage­
by­
Type
of
Number
of
Items
Collected
4.4.1
Collection
Efficiency
While
there
were
similarities
among
the
collection
models
in
terms
of
what
equipment
was
collected,
they
were
quite
different
in
terms
of
how
economically
this
equipment
was
collected.
One
of
the
ways
to
assess
these
differences
is
to
calculate
the
collection
efficiency
of
a
program,
which
is
the
number
of
items
that
are
collected
per
dollar
spent
on
the
collection.
The
larger
this
value
is,
the
more
cost
effective
the
collection
model.

The
following
chart
shows
the
collection
efficiency
values
for
all
of
the
programs.
The
Cranford,
Westfield,
Somerville
(1997),
and
Union
County
programs
stand
out
because
they
appear
to
have
very
high
collection
efficiencies
compared
to
the
other
collection
programs.
All
four
of
these
data
sets
come
from
programs
that
are
organized
as
one­
day
drop­
off
events.
Although
these
four
examples
would
seem
to
indicate
that
drop­
off
events
are
the
most
efficient
collection
models,
the
low
values
for
some
of
page
45
the
other
drop­
off
events
contradict
this
conclusion.
This
variation
within
collection
models
is
likely
due
to
the
fact
that
the
cost
values
that
were
used
to
calculate
the
collection
efficiency
include
demanufacturing
costs.
Therefore,
items
that
are
more
costly
to
demanufacture
(e.
g.,
CRTs)
can
increase
the
cost
of
the
program.
In
addition,
since
advertising
factors
and
weather
affect
program
turnout,
this
can
affect
the
number
of
items
collected,
without
directly
affecting
the
program
cost.
Transportation
costs,
which
depend
on
the
distance
to
the
demanufacturer,
are
also
a
factor
that
has
less
to
do
with
the
collection
model
than
with
the
location
of
the
municipality.
Therefore,
without
a
more
detailed
data
set
for
each
collection
program,
the
impact
that
a
particular
collection
model
has
on
the
collection
efficiency
is
unclear.

Collection
Efficiency
(#
of
items
collected
/$
of
program
cost)

0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
Naperville
1996
Naperville
1997
Wheaton
1998
Somerville
1996
Somerville
1997
Binghampton
1996
Binghampton
1997
Union
Co.
Cranford
Westfield
San
Jose
Clark
Kenilworth
Linden
Summit
New
Providence
Rahway
Hennepin
Co.
1995
Hennepin
Co.
1996
Hennepin
Co.
1997
Items
collected
/

per
$
of
cost
Figure
8:
Collection
Efficiency
of
Collection
Models
page
46
4.4.2
Equipment
Collected
per
Resident
Examining
the
weight
of
equipment
that
is
collected
per
resident
can
also
be
used
to
assess
the
efficiency
of
the
collection
model.
The
following
chart
shows
these
values
as
they
were
calculated
for
all
collection
programs
using
summary
data.
That
is,
the
pounds
of
equipment
collected
per
resident
for
Somerville
represents
the
total
weight
of
equipment
over
both
collection
events.
The
chart
indicates
that
the
Linden,
Summit,
and
Rahway
programs
collected
the
most
per
resident,
whereas
most
of
the
one­
day
collection
events
(Cranford,
Union
County,
Somerville…)
collected
the
least.
This
appears
to
indicate
that
the
curbside
collection
programs
are
more
efficient
in
collecting
material
than
the
other
collection
models.
While
this
conclusion
seems
intuitively
correct,
some
factors
independent
of
the
collection
model,
such
as
the
difference
in
the
kinds
of
material
collected
per
event
(e.
g.,
TVs
or
microwaves),
may
skew
these
values.

Pounds
of
EEE
Waste
Collected
Per
Resident
0.88
0.45
0.73
2.61
0.01
1.05
0.08
2.37
0.44
0.11
0.15
0.49
0.09
0.07
0.71
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Kenilworth
New
Providence
Clark
Summit
Cranford
Rahway
Westfield
Linden
Wheaton
Binghamton
Avg.

Somerville
Avg.

Naperville
Avg.
Union
Co.

San
Jose
Hennepin
County
(1997)
lbs
collected/
resident
Figure
9:
Pounds
of
End­
of­
life
Electronic
and
Electrical
Waste
Collected
Per
Resident
page
47
5.
BEYOND
THE
EXAMPLE
COLLECTION
PROGRAMS
In
Section
4,
the
focus
of
the
analysis
was
on
the
total
economics
of
the
five
example
collection
programs.
However,
each
stakeholder
involved
in
the
development
and
implementation
of
such
a
program
had
its
own
unique
cost
and
revenue
streams.
Therefore,
the
examination
of
the
total
cost
does
not
help
to
identify
what
specific
costs
an
individual
stakeholder
is
incurring.
This
section
uses
the
examples
presented
in
Section
3
to
identify
these
stakeholders
and
outline
their
individual
economic
roles
in
the
collection
process,
with
the
intention
of
highlighting
the
difference
between
their
roles.
The
section
is
organized
into
the
following
sections:

5.1
Identifying
the
Different
Stakeholders
5.2
The
Demanufacturer
5.3
The
Collection
Agency
5.4
The
Participant
5.5
Other
Stakeholders
Throughout
this
section,
text
boxes
outlining
the
experiences
of
HHW
collection
programs
and
European
EEE
waste
collection
programs
are
included
to
supplement
the
information
provided
by
the
case
studies.

5.1
IDENTIFYING
THE
DIFFERENT
STAKEHOLDERS
The
following
graphic,
repeated
from
section
4.1,
illustrates
the
economic
interactions
among
the
program
participants,
the
collection
agency
and
the
demanufacturer,
as
if
a
separate
actor
fulfilled
each
role.
In
this
broader
discussion,
the
term
"collection
agency"
is
used
to
encompass
municipal
and
county
government
or
retail
establishments,
as
well
as
other
bodies
that
would
possibly
coordinate
an
EEE
waste
collection
program.
Although
this
relationship
is
somewhat
simplistic,
since
the
case
studies
have
indicated
that
not
all
of
these
costs
are
relevant
to
all
collection
models,
it
does
indicate
that
not
every
stakeholder
has
the
same
economic
concerns.

Transport
Costs
User
Fees
Disposal
Costs
Participant
Up
Front
Costs
Operational
Costs
Revenue
from
Demanufacturing
Collection
Agency
Demanufacturing
Fee
Demanufacturer
Demanfacturing
Costs
Figure
10:
Economic
Interaction
Between
Stakeholders
In
determining
the
economics
of
a
collection
model,
these
three
actors
have
the
most
direct
influence.
Other
actors
can
also
affect
the
economics
of
an
EEE
waste
collection
model
as
well,
but
not
always
to
the
same
degree:
page
48
·
For
a
point­
of­
purchase
collection
model,
such
as
in
San
Jose,
the
retailers
were
the
collection
agent
and
subsequently
incurred
many
of
the
costs
related
to
the
collection
operation.

·
State
or
national
governments
play
a
role
when
implementing
regulations
that
either
directly
promote
EEE
waste
recycling
or
indirectly
promote
it
through
landfill
bans.

·
Private
industry/
OEMs
(aside
from
demanufacturers
and
retailers)
can
also
play
a
role
at
either
end
of
the
collection
model
by
affecting
the
market
value
of
extracted
materials
or
by
modifying
the
design
of
the
electronic
or
electrical
equipment
that
they
produce.
OEMs
have
assisted
in
developing
the
demanufacturing
industry
to
manage
off­
specification
and
return
equipment.

The
roles
and
impact
of
each
of
these
actors/
stakeholders
are
developed
in
more
detail
in
the
following
sections.

5.2
THE
DEMANUFACTURER
5.2.1
Role
The
role
of
the
demanufacturer
is
to
take
in
the
collected
equipment
and
to
either
resell
this
equipment,
sell
the
material
extracted
from
it,
or
pay
for
disposal.
The
discussion
in
this
section
focuses
on
the
economics
of
a
demanufacturer
that
is
separate
from
the
collection
agency.
While
the
analysis
of
costs
and
revenue
are
also
relevant
to
a
demanufacturing
program
run
by
the
collection
agency,
the
focus
is
on
the
economic
drivers
specific
to
the
demanufacturing.

The
following
graphic
illustrates
the
revenue
and
cost
flows
associated
with
demanufacturing.
The
arrow
out
of
the
box
labeled
"Demanufacturer"
indicates
the
costs
to
the
demanufacturer,
which
consist
of
labor,
disposal,
storage,
and
permitting.
Setup
costs
such
as
property,
equipment
or
permitting
are
not
included.
The
arrows
pointing
inward
toward
the
box
indicate
the
revenues
that
the
demanufacturer
receives.
At
"steady
state"
(i.
e.,
over
the
long
term)
the
sum
of
these
revenues
will
at
least
offset
the
cost
of
the
demanufacturing.
This
is
because
the
demanufacturer
will
likely
adjust
its
fees
to
offset
costs
that
are
not
offset
by
the
demanufacturing
revenue.
These
dynamics
are
discussed
in
more
detail
below.

*
Demanufacturing
Labor
*
Storage
*
Permits
Transport
Costs
Disposal
Costs
Up
Front
CostsOperational
Costs
User
Fees
Participant
Revenue
from
Demanufacturing
Collection
Agency
Demanufacturing
Fees
Demanufacturer
Demanfacturing
Costs
Figure
11:
Cost
and
Revenue
Streams
for
the
Demanufacturer
Although
the
main
motivation
driving
private
demanufacturing
is
revenue
(and
profit),
some
other
shortterm
drivers
may
exist.
Demanufacturers
were
willing
to
participate
in
a
residential
collection
pilot
to
evaluate
entering
into
this
type
of
business
arrangement.
Additionally,
they
may
decide
to
participate
for
page
49
the
sake
of
their
public
image.
Of
course,
the
program
must
provide
at
least
the
promise
of
stability
and
sufficient
quantities
of
equipment
for
a
demanufacturer
to
absorb
the
potential
losses.

5.2.2
Demanufacturing
Costs
The
experiences
from
the
collection
pilots
indicate
that
the
demanufacturing
program
has
the
greatest
overall
impact
on
the
net
economics
of
a
collection
program.
However,
since
few
of
the
other
costs
associated
with
the
collection
programs
were
available
for
these
case
studies,
the
real
costs
of
demanufacturing
relative
to,
for
example,
program
operation
is
not
clear.

The
high
cost
of
demanufacturing
is
likely
due
to
the
labor­
intensive
nature
of
the
process.
All
of
the
programs
examined
for
this
report
used
manual
labor
for
most
of
their
disassembly
processes.
This
manual
focus
leads
to
a
threshold
of
efficiency
for
disassembly.
Since
the
effect
of
technology
advances
on
the
ability
of
a
worker
to
take
apart
a
TV
or
stereo
is
unknown,
once
all
employees
reach
their
maximum
productivity,
it
can
be
assumed
that
the
demanufacturer
will
have
reached
a
maximum
output
of
demanufactured
material.
At
this
point,
the
cost
per
pound
demanufactured
is
at
its
lowest.
Therefore,
any
increase
in
the
inflow
of
EEE
waste
would
require
a
concurrent
increase
in
the
size
of
the
labor
force,
if
the
rate
of
outflow
is
to
be
maintained.
While
this
will
result
in
an
incremental
cost
due
to
the
increased
labor,
there
will
also
be
an
increase
in
profit
due
to
this
increase
in
inflow.

There
are
other
costs
beyond
the
actual
costs
of
demanufacturing
labor,
such
as
those
for
storage
of
equipment
overflow.
The
demanufacturer
may
need
to
store
some
of
the
equipment
it
collects,
since
at
least
in
the
case
of
one­
day
drop­
off
collection
events
the
demanufacturing
rate
is
unlikely
to
be
able
to
match
the
speed
of
equipment
inflow.
The
impact
and
size
of
this
cost
is
unknown,
since
it
is
highly
dependent
on
the
demanufacturer's
capacity
as
well
as
the
yield
from
the
collection
program.
One
demanufacturer,
ERS,
Inc.,
mentioned
that
storage
costs
for
the
drop­
off
events
that
it
participated
in
had
a
substantial
impact
on
the
net
cost,
since
the
inflow
of
equipment
it
received
was
much
greater
than
anticipated.

One
other
cost
of
relevance
to
demanufacturing
is
the
cost
of
material
disposal.
It
is
obviously
in
the
best
interest
of
the
demanufacturer
to
sell
as
much
of
the
material
that
it
extracts
from
the
used
equipment.
It
must
dispose
of
all
of
the
material
that
it
cannot
sell.
The
amount
of
waste
that
is
produced
depends
on
the
amount
of
valueless
material
that
is
accepted
from
the
collection
program.
The
cost
for
this
disposal
varies
since
it
depends
on
market
prices
for
materials,
the
quality
of
the
residential
equipment
that
is
collected,
and
the
local
disposal
costs.
Disposal
costs
may
include
those
for
refuse
(plastics
and
wood)
and
waste
materials
(PCBs,
batteries,
low­
grade
circuit
boards,
CRTs,
mercury
switches).

The
NJDEP
is
going
to
undertake
research,
with
funding
from
the
U.
S.
EPA,
to
expand
markets
for
plastics
derived
from
EEE
waste
collection.
This
research
will
require
the
assistance
and
participation
of
OEMs
and
plastic
resin
manufacturers,
and
may
help
determine
ways
to
improve
the
current
market
for
secondary
materials.

5.2.3
Revenue
For
the
demanufacturer,
revenue
is
the
main
business
driver.
Revenue
can
come
from
three
sources:
the
resale
of
refurbished
or
working
equipment,
the
sale
of
recovered
scrap,
and
the
assessment
of
a
demanufacturing
fee.
The
income
from
each
of
these
sources
depends
on
a
number
of
variables:
the
market
value
of
equipment/
commodities,
the
efficiency
of
the
demanufacturing
program,
the
quality
of
the
page
50
equipment
that
is
collected
(as
well
as
its
source-commercial
versus
residential),
end­
of­
life
management
concerns,
and
relationship
with
the
collection
agency.

5.2.3.1
Resale
The
evidence
from
the
collection
programs
is
that
most
of
the
equipment
collected
is
either
nonfunctional
or
outdated;
refurbishment
(i.
e.,
repair)
is
generally
not
cost­
effective.
18
However,
for
items
that
are
working
and
have
some
economic
value,
resale
can
yield
more
revenue
from
an
item
than
demanufacturing.
The
number
of
items
that
are
available
for
resale
is
dependent
on
the
age
and
type
of
the
equipment
that
is
collected.
While
there
was
no
data
on
the
average
age
of
the
items
collected,
anecdotal
evidence
suggests
that
much
of
it
is
relatively
old
and
outdated
(e.
g.,
286
series
computers,
console
televisions,
analog
radios).
Hennepin
County
estimates
that
the
collected
TVs
are
between
20
and
25
years
old;
the
computers
are
10
to
15
years
old.

The
data
from
the
pilot
programs
indicates
that
there
is
no
linear
correlation
between
the
amount
of
equipment
collected
and
revenue
from
resale,
which
leads
to
the
conclusion
that
a
large
amount
of
equipment
collected
does
not
necessarily
translate
into
a
large
amount
of
revenue
from
resale.
It
is
more
related
to
the
type
of
equipment
that
is
collected.

While
reuse
of
equipment
can
be
a
preferable
waste
management
strategy,
there
is
a
potential
cost
that
should
be
taken
into
consideration
before
equipment
is
resold.
One
demanufacturer
commented
about
18
The
cost
of
parts
and
labor
to
repair
a
286
computer,
for
example,
generally
exceeds
the
value
of
the
repaired
machine
on
the
open
market.
No
data
was
available
on
the
costs
or
effectiveness
of
this
option.
REFURBISHMENT
/
REUSE
IN
EUROPE
The
refurbishment
of
EEE
waste
is
a
well­
established
practice
in
Europe,
but
it
is
often
done
by
OEMs
and
involves
primarily
the
collection
of
commercial
waste.
One
OEM
has
processed
over
20,000
tons
in
a
four­
year
period.
The
large
scale
of
this
operation
is
the
key
to
its
viability
(and
represents
the
problem
for
U.
S.
demanufacturers).
The
OEM
handles
distribution,
repair,
and
spare
parts,
and
assesses
all
of
the
incoming
equipment
in
the
following
fashion:

1.
Systems
and
equipment
that
have
value
on
the
open
market
are
refurbished
as
required
and
then
sold.
The
company
finds
that
there
is
still
demand
for
second­
hand
systems
from
companies
that
cannot
afford
new
equipment.
2.
Spare
parts/
assemblies
from
equipment
that
are
not
suitable
for
resale
are
removed
and
tested.
Tested
items
are
used
by
the
OEM's
repair
service.
3.
Components
are
removed
and
sold
to
traders.

The
remaining
materials
from
dismantling
operations
are
sent
to
specialized
recycling
vendors.
The
OEM
considers,
however,
that
the
amount
of
equipment
recycled
may
increase
over
time,
since
items
are
becoming
technologically
out­
ofdate
more
quickly,
making
much
of
the
collected
equipment
unusable.

A
study
in
the
Netherlands
has
shown
that
demanufacturing
of
EEE
waste
may
be
a
better
environmental
option
than
either
reuse
in
the
Netherlands
or
export
to
other
countries.
One
of
the
reasons
cited
for
this
conclusion
is
that
older
electronic
and
electrical
equipment
is
much
less
energy
efficient
than
current
equipment.

SOURCE:
Recovery
of
Waste
from
Electrical
and
Electronic
Equipment:
Economic
and
Environmental
Impacts,
A
report
produced
for
the
European
Commission
DGXI,
AEA
Technology,
AEAT/
2004
Issue
1,
July
1997
page
51
the
problem
of
liability
attached
to
the
sale
of
working
equipment
received
from
a
collection
program.
19
If
an
item
is
sold
and
subsequently
found
to
be
defective,
or
if
it
injures
the
purchaser
in
some
way,
the
costs
of
litigation
would
likely
exceed
the
revenue
derived
from
the
initial
sale.
There
are
also
potential
liability
concerns
about
data
that
may
be
left
on
an
old
computer
system.
This
is
an
issue
that
should
be
anticipated,
since
the
potential
cost
of
the
liability
may
not
be
worth
the
moderate
revenue
that
is
collected.

While
the
revenue
that
comes
from
the
resale
of
EEE
waste
has
the
potential
to
be
substantial,
this
was
not
the
widespread
fact
in
the
pilots
and
programs
examined
in
Section
3.
There
does
not
appear
to
be
a
positive
correlation
between
the
amount
of
equipment
collected
and
the
amount
of
revenue
derived
from
resale.
Therefore,
it
is
not
likely
that
this
source
of
income
will
offset
the
costs
of
the
demanufacturing
programs.
Resale
revenue
per
pound
collected
is
generally
a
fraction
of
the
cost
for
collection
and
demanufacturing
and
disposal.

5.2.3.2
Sale
of
Scrap
Material
The
sale
of
scrap
is
the
demanufacturer's
bread
and
butter.
The
revenue
from
the
commodities
that
make
up
EEE
waste
is
dependent
on
two
factors:

Revenue
per
commodity
=
commodity
yield
X
commodity
market
price
While
this
is
a
simplistic
relationship,
the
collection
program
can
directly
affect
only
one
of
its
components
­
the
commodity
yield.
The
market
price
of
the
commodity
is
generally
a
result
of
elements
outside
the
demanufacturer's
control
(in
the
short
term),
such
as
the
price
of
virgin
material
or
the
demand
for
demanufactured
material.
However,
understanding
the
variables
that
affect
the
yield
of
a
commodity
is
useful
in
determining
what
items
to
target
for
collection.

Commodity
Market
Price
The
following
table
20
shows
the
ranges
in
revenue
that
can
be
collected
for
the
commodity
materials
coming
from
EEE
waste.
The
values
are
based
on
the
value
paid
to
one
demanufacturer
(Envirocycle,
Inc.)
for
separated
equipment
at
their
loading
dock
at
one
point
in
time.
The
ranges
indicate
the
possible
value
depending
on
market
conditions
and
quality
of
the
material.

In
general,
the
higher
values
come
from
commercial
EEE
waste;
most
residential
equipment
that
is
collected
will
yield
at
most
the
lower
of
these
values.
In
some
cases,
the
poor
quality
of
the
residential
equipment
will
yield
no
revenue
or
will
even
represent
a
cost.
These
values
are
presented
merely
to
illustrate
the
potential
range
in
value
for
these
extracted
commodities:

19
Personal
communication
with
The
Electronic
Resource
Specialists,
Inc.,
June
9,
1998.
The
demanufacturer
also
indicated
concern
about
the
chance
that
once
the
resold
item
does
finally
stop
working,
it
will
get
thrown
away
rather
than
recycled,
especially
if
the
electronics
collection
is
a
periodic
event.
This
would
defeat
the
purpose
of
the
collection
program.
20
CSI
Pilot
Collection
Project.
February
1998,
pp
46.
page
52
Table
35:
Potential
Revenue
for
Extracted
Materials
Commodity
Potential
Revenue
Range
(per
lb
of
material)*
Clean
Plastic
$0.05
to
$0.30
Printed
Circuit
Boards
$0.50
to
$1.30
Fans
$0.07
to
$0.10
Disc
Drives
$0.15
to
$0.25
Phone
Plastic
$0.05
to
$0.20
Cast
Aluminum
$0.20
to
$0.28
CRTs
$0.056
Metal
$0.01
to
$0.025
Carcass
$0.01
to
$0.05
Scrap
Plastic
$0.00
to
$0.01
Transistors
$0.01
to
$0.05
Wire
$0.15
to
$0.18
Aluminum
$0.35
to
$0.40
Yokes
$0.15
to
$0.19
Motors
$0.03
to
$0.05
Capacitors
$0.02
to
$0.05
Copper
$0.55
to
$0.66
Radiators
$0.15
Power
Supply
$0.06
*Prices
are
derived
from
off
spec/
commercial
materials
and
not
residential
materials.

Essentially,
the
commodities
with
the
highest
value
for
the
demanufacturer
are
those
that
have
high
precious
metal
content
in
their
circuitry.
Such
is
the
case
for
a
printed
circuit
board,
which
contains
copper,
gold,
and
silver,
among
other
metals.
The
following
table
shows
the
average
constitution
of
both
a
low
grade
21
and
high­
grade
22
printed
circuit
board.
Note
that
the
low­
grade
circuit
board
reflects
that
quality
of
the
material
from
residential
collections
(Section
3).
The
high­
grade
boards
come
from
equipment
that
is
generally
collected
from
commercial
entities.

Table
36:
Circuit
Board
Metal
Content
Metal
Low
Grade
Circuit
Board
High
Grade
Circuit
Board
Copper
16
to
18%
16
to
21%
Gold
<0.5
ounce/
ton
2.5
to
46.5
ounces/
ton
Silver
<5
ounce/
ton
41.8
to
57.3
ounces/
ton
Tin
Not
analyzed
2.5
to
46.5
ounces/
ton
Iron
Not
analyzed
0
to
9%
Nickel
Not
analyzed
1%
Lead
Not
analyzed
0.7%

21
Data
is
provided
by
Cheryl
Lofrano­
Zaske,
Principal
Planning
Analyst,
Problem
Materials
Program,
Department
of
Public
Works,
Hennepin
County
Minnesota.
22
Mining
discarded
electronics.
H.
Veldhuizen
and
B.
Sippel.
Industry
and
Environment.
Volume
17,
No.
3.
JulySeptember
1994,
pp
9.
page
53
Arsenic
Not
analyzed
0.02
to
0.03%
Cadmium
Not
analyzed
Less
than
0.01%

Other
materials
not
found
on
circuit
boards,
such
as
copper
wire
or
aluminum
parts,
also
yield
high
revenues
per
pound.
Under
current
market
conditions,
metals
and
electrical
parts
yield
the
best
revenue
from
scrap.
Based
on
this
information,
a
demanufacturer
needs
to
collect
computers
(containing
metal
parts,
circuit
boards,
chips,
and
electrical
parts)
to
gain
the
maximum
revenue
from
demanufactured
equipment.

All
of
the
collection
programs
that
were
profiled
focused
on
collecting
this
type
of
equipment.

Commodity
Yield
The
amount
of
the
commodity
that
is
extracted
is
also
affected
by
the
type
and
volume
of
the
inflow
of
equipment,
so
the
greater
the
participation,
the
greater
the
inflow,
and
the
greater
the
volume
of
extracted
material
(assuming
that
demanufacturing
efficiency
stays
constant).
Therefore,
one
way
for
a
demanufacturer
to
increase
its
profit
is
to
work
with
the
collection
agency
to
promote
the
collection
of
equipment
that
is
economically
valuable
from
a
commodity
standpoint–
computers
and
other
commercial
grade
electronics.

The
quality
of
the
items
that
are
collected
greatly
affects
what
commodities
are
extracted.
A
computer
in
bad
condition
will
yield
less
revenue
for
its
components
than
a
similar
computer
in
very
good
condition.
A
hypothesis
that
came
from
the
Binghamton/
Somerville
report
was
that,
as
most
of
the
older
equipment
is
collected
and
leaves
the
residents'
households,
the
collection
events
would
start
to
take
in
newer
equipment.
This
assumption
has
merit
considering
the
inexpensive
and
disposable
nature
of
most
of
today's
technology.
Continuing
the
assumption,
this
would
mean
that
as
time
goes
by,
more
high­
grade
material
would
be
available
for
potential
reuse,
leading
to
higher
revenues.
While
the
validity
of
this
scenario
is
unknown,
there
are
some
points
that
contradict
this:

·
There
seems
to
be
a
lag
time
associated
with
the
disposal
of
equipment.
It
is
IMPROVING
DEMANUFACTURING
Recent
studies
in
Japan
have
examined
the
amount
of
work
required
to
disassemble
electronic
products.
The
results
show
that
most
of
the
improvement
burden
is
on
the
OEM.
For
example,
for
PCs,
the
time
required
can
be
lowered
by
reducing
the
number
of
inter­
connections,
and
by
making
fastenings,
particularly
screws,
more
easily
accessible.
Of
course,
the
impact
of
these
modifications
will
only
have
a
long­
term
impact
since
these
case
studies
have
indicated
that
most
electronic
or
electrical
equipment
is
discarded
when
it
is
very
old.

Also
in
Japan,
steps
have
been
taken
to
automate
demanufacturing.
In
March
of
1996
Sony
constructed
a
pilot
plant
for
the
automated
dismantling
of
TV
sets.
The
$4
million
plant
was
designed
to
handle
around
100,000
TVs
(from
between
12
and
29
inches
in
size)
a
year.
The
size
of
the
TV
is
determined
using
a
video
camera,
and
a
circular
saw
makes
cuts
in
the
front
and
sides
of
the
cabinet.
The
CRT
is
then
dismantled
using
automated
procedures.
While
no
exact
data
is
available
on
the
cost
of
this
system,
the
evidence
suggests
that
the
expense
of
the
process
outweighs
its
value.

SOURCE:
Recovery
of
Waste
from
Electrical
and
Electronic
Equipment:
Economic
and
Environmental
Impacts,
A
report
produced
for
the
European
Commission
DGXI,
AEA
Technology,
AEAT/
2004
Issue
1,
July
1997.
page
54
logical
to
assume
that
if
residents
are
now
turning
in
286
series
computers
or
analog
stereo
equipment
(items
that
are
at
least
10
years
old)
the
lag
in
the
disposal
of
today's
Pentiums
or
digital
VCRs
would
at
least
parallel
this.

·
In
response
to
the
concerns
of
consumers,
OEMs
are
evaluating
making
computers
that
are
easier
to
upgrade,
which
could
minimize
the
need
to
buy
a
new
computer
(and
dispose
of
the
older
one).

·
Much
of
today's
equipment
is
made
with
fewer
precious
metal
components
as
companies
try
to
reduce
their
production
costs.
This
will
lead
to
a
smaller
amount
of
valuable
scrap
material
once
the
item
is
recycled.

The
amount
of
revenue
generated
from
the
sale
of
commodities
is
dependent
on
the
yield
of
revenue
per
commodity.
To
maximize
this
yield,
the
quality
of
the
collected
material
must
be
high,
the
demanufacturing
process
must
be
at
its
optimum
level,
and
the
materials
collected
must
contain
commodities
that
have
high
market
values.
A
collection
agency
can
only
directly
affect
the
latter,
and
ELECTRONICS
RECYCLING
IN
EUROPE
AND
JAPAN
Before
the
1990s
in
Europe,
the
main
items
that
were
dismantled
were
mainframe
computers
for
which
the
primary
environmental
concerns
were
relays
and
switches
containing
mercury.
Items
currently
being
disposed
of
contain
lower
concentrations
of
precious
metals,
but
higher
concentrations
of
other
elements
of
concern,
notably
leaded
glass
from
CRTs.
This
has
lead
to
a
change
in
the
demanufacturing
scheme:
whereas
originally
demanufacturers
paid
companies
for
old
mainframes,
now
companies
must
pay
the
demanufacturers
to
take
the
equipment.

The
general
practice
in
Europe
is
to
first
remove
any
hazardous
components
from
the
discarded
equipment,
such
as
batteries,
mercury
switches,
and
capacitors
containing
PCBs.
Most
items
are
then
dismantled
into
components,
one
exception
being
products
such
as
hi­
fi
equipment,
which
demanufacturers
consider
not
economical
for
dismantling.
These
products
are
usually
shredded,
with
metal
and
plastics
then
recovered
from
the
shredded
product.

The
equipment
is
dismantled
into
four
main
components:
metal,
plastics,
CRTs,
and
printed
circuit
boards.
Some
components
are
recovered
for
reuse.
Hazardous
components
are
sent
to
treatment
facilities.
Metal
is
sent
to
metal
processors
for
recovery.

Circuit
boards
are
generally
sent
to
a
copper
refiner,
who
is
able
to
deal
with
brominated
flameretardants
in
the
circuit
boards.
The
price
paid
to
the
smelter
per
board
depends
on
their
copper
and
precious
metal
contents.
Shredding
before
smelting
enables
recovery
of
the
steel
and
aluminum
in
the
boards,
but
also
distributes
the
precious
metals
between
the
two
streams.

A
technique
being
developed
in
Japan
by
NEC
would
first
heat
the
circuit
board
to
a
temperature
at
which
the
solder
melts,
after
which
the
components
would
be
mechanically
removed.
The
circuit
board
is
then
shredded
and
separated
into
glass
fiber
and
copper.
Whether
this
method
is
economically
viable
is
not
yet
known.

SOURCE:
Recovery
of
Waste
from
Electrical
and
Electronic
Equipment:
Economic
and
Environmental
Impacts,
A
report
produced
for
the
European
Commission
DGXI,
AEA
Technology,
AEAT/
2004
Issue
1,
July
1997.
page
55
should
focus
its
efforts
on
promoting
the
collection
of
economically
valuable
items
while
also
evaluating
relevant
environmental
impacts.

5.2.3.3
Demanufacturing
Fee
A
demanufacturing
fee
is
charged
of
the
collection
agency
running
the
program
in
order
to
cover
the
demanufacturer's
disassembly
costs.
None
of
the
collection
pilots
indicated
that
the
participating
demanufacturer
charged
a
fee
to
cover
the
costs
of
its
services.
This
is
due
to
the
fact
that
most
of
the
programs
were
pilots,
in
which
the
demanufacturer
provided
in­
kind
services.
In
Hennepin
County,
no
demanufacturing
fee
was
charged
because
the
county
is
the
demanufacturer.
However,
it
seems
logical
that
a
demanufacturer
would
assess
a
fee
over
the
long
term
since
in­
kind
services
are
not
economically
feasible
for
a
demanufacturer.
This
fee
would
be
a
function
of
the
amount
of
equipment
taken
in
and
the
estimated
revenue
share
and
associated
costs
that
could
be
obtained
from
that
equipment.
It
is
possible
that,
as
the
yield
from
the
collected
equipment
increases
and
the
demanufacturer
begins
to
offset
its
costs,
this
fee
could
decrease
over
time.

5.3
THE
COLLECTION
AGENCY
Costs
related
to
the
setup,
operation,
and
maintenance
of
an
EEE
waste
collection
program
can
vary,
depending
on
the
type
of
collection
model
that
is
in
place.
Most
of
these
varying
costs
are
directly
incurred
by
the
collection
agency.
For
the
collection
agency,
the
program
cost
and
demanufacturing
fee
appear
to
be
the
elements
most
affecting
the
net
economics
of
their
program.
A
user
fee
for
service
can
also
be
evaluated
on
a
site­
specific
basis.

In
the
following
figure,
the
arrows
leading
out
of
the
box
labeled
"Collection
Agency"
indicate
the
types
of
costs
that
a
collection
agency
can
incur
from
the
organization
and
operation
of
an
EEE
waste
collection
program.
The
degree
to
which
each
of
these
individual
costs
affects
the
total
cost
for
the
program
depends
on
the
type
of
collection
model.
The
costs
range
from
short­
term
(up­
front
costs)
to
long­
term
(operational
costs),
and
can
be
highly
variable.
Unlike
the
demanufacturer,
the
collection
agency
does
not
have
many
options
available
to
offset
these
costs,
except
possibly
from
the
implementation
of
a
user
fee
(the
arrow
leading
into
the
box).
All
of
these
issues
will
be
discussed
in
the
following
sections.
page
56
Transport
Costs
Up
Front
Costs
Operational
Costs
*
Collection
Labor
*
Collection
Transport
*
Promotion
*
Equipment
Maintenance
*
Storage
*
Program
Staff
*
Property
Acquisition
*
Facility
Construction/
Acquisition
*
Collection
Equipment
*
Program
Promotion
*
Transport
to
the
Demanufacturer
User
Fees
Participant
Revenue
from
Demanufacturing
Collection
Agency
Demanufacturing
Fees
Demanufacturer
Disposal
Costs
Demanfacturing
Costs
Figure
12:
Cost
and
Revenue
Streams
for
the
Collection
Agency
5.3.1
Role
The
collection
agency
plays
the
central
role
in
the
design
of
a
collection
program
since
it
organizes
the
program
around
its
own
needs
and
motivations.
Prior
to
beginning
the
design
and
implementation
of
a
program,
the
collection
agency
determines
its
overall
goal.
Determining
the
goal
requires
formulating
not
only
the
motivation
(the
`why')
behind
the
collection
program
but
also
the
`what
to
collect'
and
"how
much
to
collect."
The
following
table
recaps
what
was
covered
in
Section
3,
and
also
outlines
some
of
the
motivations
behind
setting
up
a
collection
program.

Table
37:
Motivation
Behind
Collection
Programs:
Summary
Table
Motivation
for
the
Program
Program
1.
Feasibility
of
a
program
(CSI
sponsored),
resource
conservation,
Source
Reduction
Binghamton/
Somerville;
San
Jose
2.
Source
reduction,
removal
of
heavy
metals
from
MSW
stream
going
to
incinerator,
resource
conservation
Hennepin
County;
Union
County
3.
General
community
interest
in
recycling
Hennepin
County;
Naperville;
Somerville
(post­
pilot),
Binghamton
(post­
pilot),
San
Jose
(post­
pilot)

4.
Reduction
in
landfilled
material,
resource
conservation
Naperville/
Wheaton
5.
Interest
from
/
involvement
with
a
demanufacturer
Naperville/
Wheaton
Not
all
of
these
motivations
are
relevant
to
all
collection
agencies;
e.
g.,
the
removal
of
heavy
metals
from
incinerator
emissions
and
ash
is
of
less
concern
to
a
community
that
landfills
all
of
its
waste.
page
57
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
all
three
of
the
CSI­
sponsored
events
will
be
continuing.
Since
the
impetus
behind
the
continuation
is
public
interest,
it
is
possible
that,
over
time,
the
net
cost
per
pound
collected
will
decrease
for
each
of
these
programs.

While
there
are
various
motivations
behind
the
creation
of
a
program,
there
are
essentially
only
three
drivers
behind
"what
to
collect":
the
economic
value
of
equipment,
the
environmental
impact/
toxicity
of
equipment,
and
the
volume
of
equipment.
Economic
value
drives
the
collection
program
only
if
the
collection
agency
is
the
demanufacturer
or
if
the
demanufacturer's
participation
is
dependent
on
the
value
received
from
the
items
collected.
A
discussion
of
items
to
collect
for
economic
reasons
is
covered
in
Section
5.2.3.2.

For
the
programs
concerned
about
the
potential
environmental
burdens
of
EEE
waste,
the
Union
County
and
Hennepin
County
programs
indicated
that
the
items
to
target
are
those
that
contain
metals
such
as
cadmium,
mercury,
and
lead.
More
specifically,
these
programs
focused
on:

·
TVs
·
Monitors
·
computers
·
VCRs
·
keyboards
·
copiers
·
microwaves
·
audio/
stereo
equipment
·
telephones
Finally,
if
the
motivation
is
to
reduce
the
amount
of
material
that
is
landfilled,
large
volumes
of
equipment,
such
as
TVs,
monitors,
computers,
and
microwaves,
should
be
targeted.
Of
course,
to
reduce
the
volume
as
much
as
possible,
all
available
EEE
waste
should
be
collected.

The
final
element
for
a
collection
agency
to
consider,
or
"how
much
to
collect,"
should
be
based
both
on
how
much
the
demanufacturer
can
accept,
and
what
equipment
exists
within
the
community.
As
was
outlined
earlier,
once
the
efficiency
threshold
of
a
demanufacturer
is
reached,
additional
inflows
of
equipment
require
additional
manpower.
If
collecting
as
much
equipment
as
possible
is
the
goal,
the
collection
agency
will
need
to
consider
the
storage
requirements
for
excess
equipment.
This
is
the
case
in
Hennepin
County,
where,
if
the
secondary
smelter
or
any
other
end
market
shuts
down,
it
must
store
the
collected
equipment
until
the
demand
for
equipment
resumes.
MOTIVATIONS
FOR
COLLECTION:
HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
For
Household
Hazardous
Waste
(HHW)
collection
programs,
one
of
the
greatest
benefits
may
be
the
fact
that
consumers
are
educated
on
HHW
issues.
According
to
a
spokesperson
for
a
hazardous
waste
handling
firm,
GSX
Chemical
Services,
Inc
"it
is
difficult
to
change
peoples'
behavior
through
public
service
announcements
or
pamphlets,
…collection
programs
are
attractive,
and
receive
a
lot
of
media
attention".

This
implies
that
collection
programs
have
an
inherent
value
in
that
they
change
people's
behavior.
The
implementation
of
a
collection
program
for
EEE
waste
not
only
reduces
the
electronics
in
the
MSW
flow,
but
it
also
makes
people
aware
of
the
importance
of
the
issue
and
the
benefits
of
recycling
in
general.

SOURCE:
The
Costs
and
Benefits
of
Household
Hazardous
Waste
Collection
Programs,
Paddock,
T.,
Academy
of
Natural
Sciences,
October
1989.
page
58
One
important
tool
for
determining
"what"
and
"how
much"
to
collect
is
a
survey
of
the
participating
community.
For
example,
if
the
participating
community
consists
of
predominately
low­
income
residents,
implementing
a
collection
program
that
selectively
targets
computers
will
not
likely
return
the
greatest
yield.
Therefore,
it
is
useful
to
determine
what
equipment
exists
in
the
community,
and
what
volume
is
available.
Unfortunately,
the
programs
that
were
examined
did
not
give
much
insight
into
the
role
of
demographics
in
determining
participation
rates
and
the
volume
of
equipment
collected.
All
the
same,
it
is
suggested
that
the
demographics
of
the
community,
as
well
as
the
existing
solid
waste
infrastructure,
be
taken
into
account
before
the
planning
of
a
collection
program.

5.3.2
Costs
–
Influence
of
Collection
Method
The
costs
related
to
the
method
of
collection
are
of
interest
to
collection
agencies
considering
an
EEE
waste
collection
program.
These
costs
can
be
broken
down
into
three
categories:
up­
front,
operational,
and
transport
costs.
Each
of
these
categories
is
defined
below.

5.3.2.1
Up­
front
Costs
The
up­
front,
or
setup,
costs
are
the
expenditures
needed
before
the
operation
of
a
collection
program.
These
costs
can
potentially
include:

§
Promotion
of
the
event
and
public
education
on
the
program;
§
Staff;
§
Equipment
acquisition;
§
Building
construction;
and
§
Land
acquisition.

These
are
one­
time
outlays
needed
to
cover
the
necessary
infrastructure
and
setup
for
a
program.
Over
time,
these
outlays
are
minimal
in
comparison
to
the
operational
costs.
These
costs
are
not
all
necessary;
among
the
five
EEE
waste
collection
programs
that
were
examined,
only
promotional
costs
were
accounted
for.
In
fact,
the
last
three
elements,
equipment
acquisition,
building
construction,
and
land
acquisition
are
not
likely
to
be
costs
that
a
collection
agency
will
incur
since
no
community
would
build
an
EEE
waste
collection
program
from
scratch.
They
are
included
merely
to
give
an
idea
of
some
of
the
potential
costs.

5.3.2.2
Operational
Costs
These
costs
cover
the
expenses
of
collecting,
sorting,
and
storing
the
equipment,
but
exclude
demanufacturing.
They
include:

§
Collection
labor;
§
Collection
transportation;
§
Additional
publicity;
§
Storage;
§
Equipment
maintenance;
and
§
Waste
management.

The
operating
expenses
for
a
collection
program
are
driven
by
the
price
of
labor.
The
more
manpower
hours
required
collecting
equipment,
the
greater
the
program
cost.
These
labor
costs
can
be
reduced
through
the
use
of
volunteer
labor
to
cover
traffic
direction,
vehicle
unloading,
equipment
sorting,
and
the
like.
Additional
publicity
costs
will
undoubtedly
be
necessary
throughout
the
life
of
the
collection
program.
Operational
costs
relating
to
transportation,
storage,
and
maintenance
are
dependent
on
the
choice
of
collection
model.
The
more
action
that
is
required
by
a
collection
agency
to
collect
equipment,
the
higher
these
operational
costs
can
be.
page
59
One
consideration
that
a
collection
agency
should
keep
in
mind
is
the
potential
to
collect
equipment
that
may
need
special
management.
Such
is
that
case
in
Hennepin
County
where
equipment
containing
PCBs,
older
batteries
and
mercury
switches
frequently
are
collected.
The
waste
management
costs,
depending
on
regulations
governing
the
material,
can
potentially
be
high.

5.3.2.3
Transportation
Costs
Transportation
costs
relate
to
the
expense
of
transporting
equipment
to
demanufacturing
facilities.
The
experience
pulled
from
these
examples
is
that
the
distance
that
items
are
transported
is
highly
variable,
and
is
dependent
on
the
demanufacturing
scheme.
Considering
that
the
number
of
demanufacturers
in
a
community
may
be
very
small,
the
transportation
portion
of
the
costs
can
have
significant
impacts
on
the
net
cost.
While
the
collection
agency
cannot
generally
control
the
transportation
distance,
they
can
control
the
size
of
the
load,
which
can
have
an
effect
on
the
transportation
costs
per
pound.

5.3.2.4
Different
Collection
Models
The
following
sections
examine
the
relationship
between
different
collection
models
and
the
cost
categories
that
were
outlined
above.
The
collection
models
each
have
a
range
of
up­
front,
operational
and
transportation
costs
that
depend
on
the
specific
structures
of
the
programs.
That
is
to
say
that
not
every
drop­
off
event
is
going
to
be
the
same.
The
discussion
also
presents
a
number
of
the
perceived
advantages
and
barriers
to
the
implementation
of
each
particular
model
¨
Drop­
off
Events
A
drop­
off
event
is
a
one­
day
event
that
is
usually
held
over
a
weekend
to
maximize
resident
participation.
The
event
generally
is
organized
using
existing
municipal
facilities
(e.
g.,
a
parking
lot,
waste
collection
facility)
and
the
up­
front
costs
can
be
negligible.
Publicity
for
the
event
is
paramount
since
participation
seems
to
require
substantial
advance
warning
of
the
event.
The
expense
of
this
publicity
depends
on
the
size
of
the
community,
as
well
as
the
opportunities
for
free
publicity.
Volunteer
participation
during
the
event-for
sorting,
unloading,
and
stacking
­
can
make
operational
costs
minimal.
Without
volunteer
help,
the
operating
cost
depends
on
the
local
labor
rate
and
the
turnout
for
the
event.
The
transportation
costs
can
vary
greatly
(see
the
transportation
cost
difference
between
Somerville
and
Binghamton)
depending
on
the
location
of
a
suitable
demanufacturer.

Barriers
to
the
effectiveness
of
this
model:

·
Since
the
event
is
held
on
one
day,
ineffective
or
insufficient
publicity
can
result
in
lower
participation
than
is
expected
and
desired.

·
The
timing
of
the
event
is
essential
to
avoid
creating
conflicts
with
other
events
that
might
have
a
large
attendance.

·
Participation
could
be
low
if
citizens
are
not
used
to
participating
in
drop­
off
events
for
other
recyclables.

·
Work
tasks
for
volunteers
must
be
restricted
to
reduce
potential
liabilities
(i.
e.,
volunteers
do
not
do
any
heavy
lifting).

Advantages
of
this
model:

·
The
up­
front
costs
for
this
event
can
be
low.

·
The
amount
of
material
collected
can
be
high,
for
a
short
amount
of
time.

¨
Regional
Approach
page
60
Using
the
regional
approach,
multiple
communities
host
coordinated
events
on
a
rotating
basis.
This
is
essentially
the
same
as
a
drop­
off
event.
The
costs
are
similar
to
those
for
a
drop­
off
event,
except
that
the
participating
collection
agencies
share
the
costs.

Barriers
to
the
effectiveness
of
this
model:

·
The
distribution
of
costs
related
to
participation
can
be
unequal
since
not
all
communities
may
contribute
the
same
amount
of
items
to
the
collection.

·
Rotating
the
location
of
the
event
may
reduce
participation
if
residents
do
not
want
to
drive
too
far
to
drop
off
their
EEE
waste.

·
Work
tasks
for
volunteers
must
be
restricted
to
reduce
potential
liabilities
(i.
e.,
volunteers
do
not
do
any
heavy
lifting).

Advantages
of
this
model:

·
There
are
economies
of
scale
for
the
regional
approach
compared
to
the
drop­
off
event
model,
since
the
cost
per
pound
collected
is
split
among
the
participating
communities
in
the
regional
approach.

·
Planning
of
the
events
is
less
complicated
if
the
responsibility
is
shared.

·
There
is
a
larger
base
of
residents
from
which
EEE
waste
can
be
collected.

¨
Permanent
Collection
Depot
A
permanent
collection
depot
is
essentially
a
year­
round
collection
event.
The
up­
front
costs
could
be
high
for
this
model
if
the
depot
is
developed
solely
for
EEE
waste.
However,
this
is
not
likely
to
be
the
case
since
acquiring
land,
constructing
a
storage
facility,
and
hiring
staff
are
too
costly
for
the
small
yield
that
would
come
from
EEE
waste
collection.
Normally
the
program
would
co­
locate
with
a
collection
site
for
other
items
(glass,
HHW,
MSW),
which
would
result
in
negligible
up­
front
costs.
The
same
principle
would
apply
to
operational
costs.
There
are
no
costs
for
collection,
but
other
operational
costs,
such
as
sorting
of
the
materials
and
utilities
would
be
split
among
the
multiple
materials.
The
transportation
costs,
of
course,
depend
on
the
location
of
the
demanufacturer
relative
to
the
collection
site.

Barriers
to
the
effectiveness
of
this
model:

·
The
size
of
the
community
may
not
warrant
the
extra
expense
of
year­
round
collection.

·
The
collection
of
data
relative
to
the
demographics
of
the
participants
and
the
type
of
equipment
that
is
dropped
off
may
require
staff,
which
would
increase
operational
costs.

Advantages
of
this
model:

·
Equipment
can
be
collected
year
round,
which
could
produce
higher
annual
yields
than
would
occur
during
periodic
events;
however,
there
was
insufficient
data
to
understand
how
much
the
yield
would
be
affected.
THE
BENEFITS
OF
PERMANENT
FACILITIES:
HHW
COLLECTION
EXPERIENCES
Some
communities
in
the
United
States
are
moving
away
from
typical
one­
day
collections
for
HHW
and
moving
toward
permanent
centers
that
can
accept
the
collected
material.
Experience
from
HHW
programs
indicates
that
permanent
programs
are
more
efficient
because
a
person
with
waste
can
get
rid
of
it
properly
when
they
have
it,
instead
of
having
to
wait
until
the
next
collection
day.
Permanent
centers
may
also
be
cheaper
in
the
long
run
because
liaisons
can
be
established
for
the
reuse
and
recycling
of
wastes
such
as
paint
and
used
oil.
The
experience
from
HHW
collection
may
help
guide
the
development
of
programs
for
EEE
waste
collection.
SOURCE:
Proceedings
of
the
Fifth
National
Conference
on
Household
Hazardous
Waste
Management,
Dana
Duxbury
&
Associates,
Andover,
MA,
November,
1990.
page
61
·
The
collection
model
is
more
convenient
for
residents,
who
can
drop
off
material
when
they
prefer
to
do
so.

·
Economies
of
scale
are
possible
since
costs
are
reduced
as
the
amount
of
equipment
collected
increases
over
time.

¨
Curbside
Collection
The
curbside
collection
model
consists
of
the
collection
of
EEE
waste
either
on
a
periodic
basis
or
by
request.
Beginning
a
curbside
collection
model
from
scratch
would
result
in
substantial
up­
front
costs;
however,
the
presence
in
the
community
of
a
curbside
program
for
MSW
or
other
recyclables
would
allow
for
an
allocation
of
these
up­
front
costs
among
the
various
programs.
Publicity
costs
could
be
low
as
well
since
the
presence
of
an
existing
program
would
indicate
that
the
residents
were
aware
of
a
collection
program.
Considering
the
small
percentage
of
residential
solid
waste
that
consists
of
EEE
waste,
construction
of
a
curbside
collection
program
solely
for
these
items
would
not
make
sense.

Coexistence
of
the
EEE
waste
collection
with
an
existing
curbside
collection
program
could
also
substantially
reduce
the
operational
costs,
assuming
that
EEE
waste
collection
occurs
at
the
same
time
as
the
collection
of
other
items.
Transportation
costs,
as
with
the
other
collection
models,
vary
depending
on
the
location
of
the
demanufacturing
facility.

Barriers
to
the
effectiveness
of
this
model:

·
Equipment
sitting
on
the
curb
could
potentially
be
stolen
for
parts,
with
any
remaining
material
being
thrown
away.
This
would
certainly
affect
yield
from
the
demanufacturing.

·
Even
if
the
operation
of
the
collection
program
coincides
with
the
collection
of
other
material,
operational
costs
can
be
much
higher
than
for
other
collection
models.

Advantages
of
this
model:

·
Curbside
pickup
minimizes
the
"hassle"
for
residents,
especially
if
they
are
used
to
curbside
collection
for
other
recyclables.

·
Residents
without
transportation
can
more
easily
participate
in
the
collection
program.

¨
Point­
of­
Purchase
(Retail)
Collection
The
point­
of­
purchase
collection
model
implies
that
a
retailer
covers
the
costs
for
the
collection
and
storage
of
EEE
waste.
Therefore,
the
only
up­
front
costs
for
the
collection
agency
consist
of
those
for
event
publicity.
Operational
costs
are
minimal
for
a
collection
agency
since
a
retailer's
employees
handle
the
operation.
The
transportation
costs
can
vary,
depending
on
the
location
of
the
retailer
relative
to
the
demanufacturer.
This
cost
could
increase
if
the
retailer
is
not
be
able
to
set
aside
adequate
storage
space
for
the
collected
material
and
more
frequent
collections
are
required.

Barriers
to
the
effectiveness
of
this
model:

·
The
active
participation
of
the
retailer
is
essential
to
ensure
good
resident
participation.

·
Collection
of
data
on
participation
is
dependent
on
the
retailer,
who
may
not
be
able
to
collect
the
information.

·
Logistical
issues
(storage
space,
collection
from
participants,
etc.)
can
complicate
the
implementation.

Advantages
of
this
model:

·
The
collection
agency
has
low
up­
front
and
operational
costs.

·
There
is
the
potential
for
a
high
yield,
as
was
indicated
by
from
the
results
of
the
San
Jose
pilot.

·
The
promotion
of
the
program
by
retailers
ensures
high
visibility.
page
62
¨
Combined/
Coordinated
Collection
Methods:
This
model
is
a
combination
of
the
various
other
collection
models:
drop­
off
events,
curbside
collection,
permanent
drop­
off
collection,
and
point­
of­
purchase
drop­
off.
The
costs
of
such
a
program
is
really
just
the
sum
of
the
costs
of
the
individual
models,
so
the
net
cost
for
the
combined
collection
model
should
be
higher
than
for
a
singular
method.
This
approach
is
good
when
maximum
coverage
is
desired
and
there
is
a
suitable
population
to
support
the
mix
of
models,
such
as
in
Hennepin
County.

Barriers
to
the
effectiveness
of
this
model:

·
The
economies
of
scale
are
uncertain.

·
The
large
scale
of
this
model
requires
a
large
population
to
be
viable.

Advantages
of
this
model:

·
The
gaps
created
by
one
collection
model
can
be
filled
by
another
model–
i.
e.,
residents
who
are
far
from
a
drop­
off
facility
can
participate
in
a
local
drop­
off
event.

·
The
regime
allows
for
year­
round
collection
of
EEE
waste.

·
The
combination
may
be
good
for
a
collection
agency
that
has
inhabitants
spread
over
a
large
area.

Taking
into
consideration
the
analysis
presented
above
on
categories
of
cost,
it
is
difficult
to
determine
the
most
economical
collection
model.
In
fact,
the
choice
of
a
model
really
hinges
upon
the
goals
of
the
program,
the
existing
infrastructure
for
collection,
and
the
demanufacturing
capacity,
rather
than
which
model
costs
the
least
to
run.

The
following
is
a
table
summarizing
the
barriers
and
advantages
of
each
collection
model,
as
presented
above.

Table
38:
Summary
of
Advantages
and
Barriers
to
Collection
Models
Collection
Model
Barriers
Advantages
Drop­
off
Events
·
Ineffective
or
insufficient
publicity
can
result
in
low
participation.
·
Conflicts
with
other
events
may
affect
participation.
·
Residents
unfamiliarity
with
drop­
off
events
can
affect
participation.
·
Low
up­
front
costs.
·
Short
timeframe
but
high
collection
amount.

Regional
Approach
·
Potential
unequal
distribution
of
costs
among
communities.
·
Economies
of
scale
over
single
community
drop­
off
event
model.
·
Planning
of
the
events
is
shared.
·
Larger
base
of
residents
to
participate.

Permanent
Collection
Depot
·
Not
effective
for
every
community
size.
·
Need
for
staff
may
increase
operational
costs.
·
Year­
round
collection
of
equipment.
·
Convenient
for
most
residents.
·
Economies
of
scale
are
possible.

Curbside
Collection
·
Potential
of
theft
of
equipment
for
parts,
and
then
abandonment.
·
Minimal
hassle
for
residents.
accustomed
to
curbside
collection.
page
63
·
Operational
costs
can
be
higher
than
other
models.
·
Residents
without
transportation
can
more
easily
participate.

Point
of
Purchase
(Retail)
Collection
·
Retailers
active
participation
is
essential.
·
Retailer
may
not
be
able
to
collect
the
data
on
participation.
·
Logistical
issues.
·
Low
up­
front
and
operational
costs
for
the
collection
agency.
·
Promotion
of
the
program
by
retailers
ensures
high
`visibility.
'

Combined/
Coordinated
Collection
Methods
·
The
economies
of
scale
are
uncertain.
·
Requires
large
population
to
be
viable.
·
The
gaps
created
by
one
model
can
be
filled
by
another
model.
·
Year­
round
collection
is
possible.
·
Good
if
inhabitants
are
spread
over
a
large
area.

5.3.3
Minimizing
Costs
The
collection
agency
has
some
opportunities
to
minimize
the
cost
of
the
collection
that
are
not
directly
dependent
on
the
collection
model.
The
following
points
are
relevant
to
nearly
all
collection
models.

Use
of
Volunteers:

Using
volunteers
to
assist
with
collection
labor
can
be
cost
effective
in
that
it
reduces
operational
costs
and
allows
more
of
the
budget
to
be
used
for
publicizing
the
program.
The
key
to
the
effective
use
of
volunteers
is
to
clearly
train
them
on
their
duties.
This
is
especially
true
for
volunteers
who
are
charged
with
sorting
equipment.
Ineffective
sorting
could
increase
the
cost
of
demanufacturing
since
the
sorting
would
have
to
be
done
at
the
demanufacturing
facility,
which
is
not
efficient.
On
the
downside,
liability
issues
related
to
the
use
of
volunteers
must
be
examined.

Assistance
with
Publicity:

The
promotion
of
a
collection
event
or
program
is
essential
to
getting
the
maximum
yield
of
EEE
waste.
The
community
newsletter,
local
chamber
of
commerce
publications,
and
newspapers
can
be
sources
of
free
publicity.
This
will
not
only
reduce
the
up­
front
costs
but
also
promote
the
program
to
a
wide
audience.
As
an
example,
the
news
conference
put
on
by
the
OFFSETTING
COSTS:
HHW
COLLECTION
EXPERIENCES
Some
communities
have
imposed
user
fees
to
create
a
fund
for
the
management
of
HHW.
However,
these
fees
can
be
a
deterrent
to
participation
since
residents
in
many
states
can
legally
throw
HHW
in
the
trash.
In
Anchorage,
Alaska,
for
example,
when
the
modest
drop­
off
fee
for
HHW
is
waived
during
the
month
of
May,
the
participation
among
residents
jumps
dramatically.

Rather
than
implement
user
fees,
some
states
have
instituted
specific
taxes
for
HHW
programs.
In
New
Hampshire,
a
tax
on
hazardous
waste
generators
funds
matching
grants
to
communities
for
HHW
collection.
Retailers
in
Iowa
selling
products
covered
under
a
state
shelf
labeling
law
pay
a
$25
registration
fee
that
covers
HHW
program
costs.

Since
it
is
legal
to
dispose
of
EEE
waste
in
many
states,
the
implementation
of
a
user
fee
may
lead
to
experiences
similar
to
those
for
HHW
collections.
The
experiences
from
HHW
management
programs
should
be
considered
when
cost
reduction
options
are
examined.

SOURCE:
Household
Hazardous
Waste
Mangement:
A
Manual
for
One­
Day
Community
Collection
Programs.
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response,
US
page
64
U.
S.
EPA
during
the
San
Jose
pilot
received
a
large
amount
of
free
coverage
from
local
papers
and
television
stations,
which
sparked
a
surge
in
resident
participation.

Piggybacking
on
Existing
Recycling
Program:

The
existing
waste
collection
infrastructure
can
make
the
setup
costs
of
a
curbside
or
permanent
EEE
waste
collection
program
negligible.
Operational
costs
can
also
be
shared
among
the
various
collection
programs,
making
the
long­
term
collection
of
EEE
waste
more
feasible.
In
a
number
of
communities
in
Union
County,
the
curbside
collection
program
is
held
in
conjunction
with
the
curbside
collection
of
bulk
items,
which
leads
to
lower
collection
costs
than
would
occur
if
the
collection
were
solely
for
EEE
waste.
In
addition,
piggybacking
on
programs
that
residents
are
already
familiar
with
can
help
to
boost
the
participation
rate
for
the
program.

Formulating
a
Relationship
with
a
Demanufacturer:

Most
demanufacturers,
at
least
over
the
long­
term
operation
of
a
program,
will
charge
a
fee
for
demanufacturing
services.
However,
if
a
demanufacturer
becomes
an
integral
part
of
the
design
of
a
collection
program,
it
may
be
possible
to
convince
that
company
to
reduce
or
split
any
fee
that
they
would
charge.
A
demanufacturer
would
benefit
from
this
through
the
ready
access
to
a
constant
flow
of
equipment
and
the
promotion
of
residential
collection
programs.
The
more
collection
programs
that
come
into
existence
over
the
long
run,
the
greater
the
potential
economies
of
scale
for
a
demanufacturer.

5.3.4
Revenue
Unless
a
collection
agency
has
direct
control
over
the
demanufacturing
scheme,
they
generally
have
little
ability
to
generate
revenue
from
a
collection
program.
One
exception
is
through
the
implementation
of
user
fees.
User
fees
refer
to
charging
the
participant
a
set
fee
per
pound
or
per
item
of
equipment
that
is
dropped
off.
The
effectiveness
of
such
a
tool
is
highly
dependent
on
the
population's
desire
to
recycle.
User
fees
in
a
community
with
low
interest
in
recycling
may
have
a
deleterious
effect
on
the
overall
participation
rate.

For
example,
the
Binghamton
pilot
implemented
user
fees
($
2
per
vehicle)
during
their
first
collection
event,
for
which
turnout
was
noticeably
low
–
only
47
households
out
of
25,000.
The
user
fee
was
abandoned
during
the
second
event,
and
turnout
improved
substantially
–
128
households,
of
which
only
10
had
participated
in
the
first
event.
However,
whether
this
user
fee
was
a
disincentive
to
participation
or
not
is
unclear
since
there
were
other
mitigating
factors
(the
climate,
construction,
etc.)
that
affected
the
first
event
and
not
the
second
event.
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
a
high
percentage
of
program
participants
surveyed
in
Binghamton
and
Somerville
(over
80%
in
each
community)
indicated
their
willingness
to
pay
between
$1
and
$5
to
dispose
of
their
EEE
waste.

There
are
some
issues
to
consider
before
implementing
a
user
fee,
particularly
what
alternative
residents
might
have
to
paying
the
fee.
Anecdotal
data
from
the
collection
programs
highlighted
in
Section
3
indicates
that
much
of
the
EEE
waste
is
either
stored
in
the
home
because
of
some
presumed
economic
value
(e.
g.,
an
old
computer)
or
is
disposed
of
via
the
residential
solid
waste
stream.
These
choices
are
relatively
easy
for
a
resident
to
make,
especially
for
someone
who
is
not
overly
concerned
about
recycling.
Paying
a
fee
for
disposal
can
be
seen
as
a
more
difficult
choice
to
make.
23
5.3.5
Avoided
Costs
23
A
number
of
municipalities
charge
fees
for
tire
or
appliance
disposal,
which
may
be
more
viable
because
unwanted
appliances
and
car
tires
take
up
large
amounts
of
space
and
disposing
of
them
in
the
trash
is
normally
not
an
option.
page
65
Up
to
this
point,
the
discussion
of
costs
and
revenue
has
focused
on
costs
that
were
incurred
either
by
the
collection
agency
or
the
demanufacturer.
There
are,
however,
additional
costs
that
are
not
easily
quantifiable.
These
are
termed
the
avoided
costs.
Avoided
costs
are
defined
as
the
reduction
in
costs
of
one
MSW
activity
or
path
that
results
from
use
of
a
different
MSW
activity
or
path.
Typically,
avoided
cost
implies
the
reduction
in
the
costs
of
collecting,
transferring,
transporting,
and
landfilling
MSW
that
results
from
source
reduction,
recycling,
composting,
or
waste­
to­
energy.
The
value
of
the
avoided
costs
is
dependent
on
whether
the
focus
is
on
(1)
specific
MSW
activities
or
paths,
(2)
the
total
costs
of
the
entire
system,
(3)
near­
term
marginal
changes,
or
(4)
longer­
term
major
changes
in
the
MSW
program.
24
If
the
focus
of
an
assessment
of
avoided
costs
is
merely
a
comparison
of
specific
waste
management
activities,
in
this
case
EEE
waste
recycling
and
landfilling,
then
it
is
incorrect
to
assume
that
the
cost
per
pound
of
the
recycling
should
be
subtracted
from
the
avoided
cost
of
landfilling
to
calculate
a
`net
cost'
of
recycling.
That
is,
if
the
net
cost
for
recycling
is
$100
per
ton
and
the
net
cost
of
disposal
is
$90
per
ton,
then
it
is
incorrect
to
say
that
the
net
cost
of
recycling
is
$10
per
ton,
taking
into
account
the
avoided
cost
of
$90
per
ton.
The
full
costs
per
ton
of
recycling
are
not
affected
by
any
resulting
avoided
cost
of
landfilling.
From
this
point
of
view,
avoided
costs
for
these
programs
cannot
realistically
be
calculated.

However,
if
avoided
costs
are
looked
at
on
a
larger
scale,
lower
landfilling
costs
could
occur
as
a
result
of
the
diversion
of
waste
via
an
EEE
waste
collection
program
over
a
period
of
time.
Over
the
long
term,
the
recycling
of
EEE
waste
will
reduce
the
collection
agency's
total
outlay
for
landfilling.
The
reduction
in
total
landfilling
or
incineration
fees
can
be
quantified;
this
value
is
the
avoided
cost.
These
avoided
costs
should
not
be
considered
as
revenue,
however,
since
they
do
not
necessarily
reduce
the
total
costs
of
MSW
management
or
the
fees
and
taxes
that
residents
must
pay
for
solid
waste
management.

Even
though
the
avoided
costs
for
an
EEE
waste
collection
program
should
not
be
viewed
in
terms
of
the
waste
management
costs
that
are
offset,
they
are
a
good
measure
of
the
added
value
of
a
collection
program.
For
the
programs
examined
in
Section
3,
the
avoided
costs
were
associated
with
landfilling,
whose
cost
per
pound
is
small
relative
to
that
for
collection
and
demanufacturing.
However
for
the
counties
that
use
incineration,
the
avoided
costs
not
only
relate
to
the
disposal
of
the
ashes,
but
also
to
the
avoided
pollution.

Both
Union
County
and
Hennepin
County
initiated
their
EEE
waste
collection
program
based
on
their
desire
to
reduce
and
eventually
eliminate
the
environmental
impacts
of
heavy
metals
in
their
incinerator
ash.
These
programs
seem
to
have
had
an
effect,
based
on
the
data
in
the
following
table,
which
shows
the
calculated
concentration
of
heavy
metals
in
MSW,
based
on
metals
in
the
ash
residue
and
air
emissions.
However,
the
specific
contribution
of
the
demanufacturing
program
to
these
reductions
has
not
been
calculated.

Table
39:
Changes
in
Metal
Concentration
for
Union
County
Incinerator
Ash
Period
Cd
(mg/
kg)
Pb
(mg/
kg)
Hg
(mg/
kg)

Baseline
Feb
94
to
Nov
96
6.49
210.1
2.46
24
Full
Cost
Accounting
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Management:
A
Handbook.
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
Washington,
DC.
September
1997.
EPA
530­
R95
041.
pp.
52­
55.
page
66
Since
Debut
of
Collections
Dec
96
to
Aug
97
5.43
141.27
2.15
Apr
97
to
Feb
98
3.75
117.41
2.22
Disposal
of
incinerator
ash
is
controlled
via
Toxic
Characteristic
Leaching
Procedure
analysis
that
is
used
to
determine
whether
or
not
a
material
is
hazardous.
The
tipping
fee
for
incinerator
ash
is
dependent
on
this
determination.
Disposal
of
ash
is
typically
more
expensive
than
disposal
in
a
solid
waste
landfill
and
the
avoided
costs
will
reflect
this.
Removing
toxic
constituents
(e.
g.,
EEE
waste
containing
lead
or
cadmium)
from
the
MSW
stream
may
reduce
the
toxicity
of
the
ash,
and
subsequently
lead
to
lower
management
and
disposal
costs.

5.3.6
The
Collection
Agency
and
Demanufacturing
Just
as
there
are
drivers
for
a
collection
agency
to
develop
an
EEE
waste
collection
program,
there
also
are
drivers
that
determine
how
the
collected
equipment
should
be
demanufactured.
a
collection
agency
may
take
two
approaches.
The
first
is
a
private
sector
approach,
which
was
the
approach
used
in
four
of
the
case
studies.
The
second
is
a
public
sector
approach
whose
drivers
are
not
solely
economic.
Both
of
these
approaches
are
outlined
below.

Private
Sector:

The
pilots
have
a
unique
relationship
with
the
demanufacturer
providing
in­
kind
services
or
being
subsidized
by
grant
funding.
More
typically,
a
collection
agency
would
enter
a
contractual
relationship
with
a
local
demanufacturer.
Ideally
this
relationship
would
allow
the
collection
agency
to
transfer
the
collected
equipment
for
free
or
even
receive
a
portion
of
the
revenue
yield.
However,
it
is
more
likely
that
there
will
be
a
fee
based
upon
the
volume
or
weight
of
equipment
that
is
accepted.
In
this
situation,
the
net
costs
for
the
collection
agency
would
depend
on
those
costs
that
are
associated
with
the
collection
of
the
items.
It
is
not
known
what
a
demanufacturer
would
actually
charge
a
collection
agency
for
accepting
EEE
waste
since
not
enough
data
was
available.

Public
Sector/
Non­
profit:

This
approach
is
the
development
of
a
public
sector
program
to
cover
the
demanufacturing
of
equipment.
This
could
entail,
for
instance,
the
creation
of
a
job­
training
program
for
lower­
income
residents
or
outsourcing
of
work
to
an
association
for
the
handicapped.
Creating
jobs
and
promoting
job
training
are
clear
advantages
to
this
approach.
Another
benefit
is
that
any
revenue
from
the
demanufactured
material
can
go
toward
offsetting
the
program
costs.
Additionally,
it
is
possible
that
funding
from
social
programs
could
offset
some
of
the
cost
of
this
labor.

The
difficulty
with
this
method
for
most
collection
agencies
is
that
they
will
bear
all
of
the
costs
that
were
originally
covered
by
the
demanufacturer.
As
was
pointed
out
earlier,
demanufacturing
costs
are
a
substantial
portion
of
the
net
costs
for
collection
programs.
The
additional
financial
burden
might
be
too
large
for
most
small­
and
medium­
sized
collection
programs.

The
following
factors
also
influence
the
development
of
an
EEE
waste
collection
program:

Government
Regulations
Regarding
CRTs:

The
designation
of
some
CRTs
as
hazardous
waste
by
the
federal
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act,
may
limit
the
viability
of
an
EEE
waste
collection
program
since
items
containing
CRTs
seem
to
make
up
a
large
portion
of
the
total
number
of
items
collected.
These
regulations
can
affect
the
implementation
of
a
program
since
permit
requirements
for
the
handling
of
hazardous
waste
restrict
the
page
67
number
of
firms
that
can
recycle
CRTs.
This
leads
to
higher
overall
demanufacturing
costs
because
of
high
transportation
and
permitting
costs
if
a
remote
demanufacturer
is
used.
In
the
absence
of
an
available
demanufacturer
to
handle
CRTs,
the
material
will
need
to
be
disposed
of
by
other
means.

While
this
is
the
current
situation
for
CRTs,
some
changes
are
occurring
that
may
remove
this
barrier.
In
early
1999,
the
U.
S.
EPA
expects
to
propose
a
rule
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
that
may
streamline
the
requirements
for
managing
CRTs
while
retaining
controls
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
rule
will
also
specify
that
once
the
CRT
glass
is
processed
such
as
to
be
usable
as
a
raw
material
in
CRT
glass
manufacturing,
it
is
not
subject
to
hazardous
waste
regulations
(Appendix
A).
In
addition,
states
have
adopted
their
own
policies
and
regulations
for
CRT
management.

Limited
Market
for
Demanufactured
Material:

The
quality
and
type
of
the
equipment
gathered
in
residential
collections
may
also
limit
the
market
for
recovered
material.
Currently,
many
local
demanufacturers
do
not
want
to
manage
TVs.
A
large
amount
of
the
material
that
is
recovered
is
plastic,
which
at
the
moment
has
little
economic
value
compared
to
most
of
the
other
materials
that
are
extracted.
Additionally,
few
OEMs
are
willing
to
accept
recycled
material
for
use
in
their
production
processes.
This
is
mainly
due
to
incompatibility
between
different
types
of
plastics,
technical
difficulties
in
sorting
plastics,
and
problems
with
matching
the
colors
of
recycled
and
virgin
material.
In
addition,
some
materials
are
a
cost
to
market,
including
CRTs
and
lowgrade
boards,
as
well
as
the
plastics.

5.3.7
Retailers
Retailers
are
crucial
in
the
implementation
of
a
point­
of­
purchase
collection
program,
which,
as
presented
in
the
case
study,
is
really
a
partnership
between
retailers
and
government
agencies.
In
this
type
of
collection
model,
the
retailer
acts
as
the
collection
agency.
The
retailer
absorbs
many
of
the
operational
costs
associated
with
the
collection
program,
such
as
labor
for
sorting
and
storage
costs.
This
shift
allows
the
cooperating
government
agencies
to
focus
on
increasing
participation
to
generate
greater
yields.
Full
cooperation
is
essential
between
the
retailer
and
the
interested
government
agencies
to
forge
a
public/
private
partnership.

For
the
retailer,
there
are
number
of
benefits
to
participating
in
the
collection
program,
namely:

·
An
inflow
of
potential
customers
who
are
disposing
of
used
equipment;.

·
A
source
of
spare
parts
for
equipment
repair;

·
Positive
public
relations
–
a
"green"
image;
and
·
Free
publicity
for
the
store
via
the
collection
agency's
promotion
of
the
event.

The
benefits
retailers
receive
from
this
cooperation
obviously
depend
on
the
participation
rate
for
the
program.
Therefore
full
coordination
with
the
collection
agency
is
in
the
retailer's
best
interest.
In
San
Jose,
the
extensive
publicity
from
the
press
conference
had
a
marked
effect
on
participation,
which
reflects
an
overall
positive
local
attitude
towards
EEE
waste
collection
in
the
area.
The
positive
attitude
of
the
public
has
motivated
one
the
participating
chains
(Fry's
Electronics)
to
continue
the
program
at
a
number
of
its
other
stores.
page
68
5.4
THE
PARTICIPANT
Transport
Costs
User
Fees
Disposal
Costs
Participant
Up
Front
Costs
Operational
Costs
Revenue
from
Demanufacturing
Collection
Agency
Demanufacturing
Fees
Demanufacturer
Demanfacturing
Costs
Figure
13:
Cost
and
Revenue
Streams
for
the
Participant
Participants
are
essential
to
a
collection
program
since
strong
resident
turnout
is
vital
for
a
program
to
generate
sufficient
amounts
of
equipment.
A
participant's
involvement
usually
comes
without
any
cost
burden,
aside
from
the
situation
where
there
is
a
user
fee
for
the
drop
off
of
equipment
(see
discussion
in
Section
5.3.4).
However,
a
free
recycling
program
is
not
in
and
of
itself
a
motivator
for
participation.
Resident
participation
depends
on
more
qualitative
elements
such
as
a
predisposition
toward
recycling
or
adequate
publicity
for
the
program.

Some
elements
that
may
motivate
a
resident
to
participate
may
include:

·
Easy
access
to
events
or
drop­
off
facilities;

·
Timing
of
the
event
to
avoid
poor
weather
or
conflicting
events
(to
the
degree
possible);

·
Coordination
of
the
event
with
other
collection
programs
such
as
for
tires,
books,
or
bulky
items;
and
·
Incentives,
such
as
discount
coupons
for
the
purchase
of
new
electronics
or
electrical
equipment
made
available
when
equipment
is
dropped
off.

The
most
important
driver
for
participation
is
the
promotion
of
the
collection
program;
awareness
is
fundamental
to
a
program's
effectiveness.
The
programs
that
were
profiled
in
Section
3
used
a
variety
of
methods
to
ensure
that
there
was
sufficient
public
knowledge
of
the
event.
These
methods
included
(not
an
exhaustive
list):

·
Door
hangers;

·
Flyers
sent
to
area
schools;

·
Articles
promoting
the
program
in
local
community
newsletters;

·
Newspaper
coverage;
and
·
Flyers
added
to
government
employees'
paychecks.

One
of
the
methods
that
seemed
to
have
the
most
impact
on
participation
was
the
staging
of
a
press
conference
in
San
Jose,
which
resulted
in
both
television
and
newspaper
coverage
of
the
pilot.
This
allowed
the
program
to
reach
a
wide
range
of
potential
participants.
The
free
press
from
this
event
provided
a
real
boost
to
the
collection
event,
which
up
to
that
point
had
collected
no
equipment.
Whether
any
collection
agency
can
duplicate
the
effectiveness
of
such
an
event
is
uncertain,
however,
since
there
were
a
number
of
dignitaries
present
at
the
San
Jose
publicity
event
that
helped
boost
the
coverage
of
the
event.
page
69
According
to
a
number
of
the
collection
program
coordinators,
one
of
the
keys
to
effective
publicity
for
a
collection
event
is
planning.
This
is
certainly
the
case
for
drop­
off
events
when
a
specific
date
has
set
aside
for
the
collection.
The
experience
of
the
San
Jose
pilot
is
that
the
lack
of
adequate
publicity
before
the
beginning
of
the
event
led
to
the
zero
yield
during
the
first
week.

5.5
OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS
The
previous
sections
outlined
the
roles
that
the
collection
agency,
demanufacturer,
and
participant
play
in
the
development
of
an
EEE
waste
collection
program.
Beyond
these
three
essential
stakeholders
are
some
other
actors
who
can
have
an
effect
on
the
design
and
function
of
an
EEE
waste
collection
program.

5.5.1
Government
In
the
context
of
this
analysis,
the
federal
government
sponsored
the
discussion
of
EEE
waste
management
programs
under
the
Common
Sense
Initiative­
Computer
and
Electronics
Sector.
However,
no
formal
policy
recommendation
has
been
made
at
this
time.
In
addition,
a
number
of
states
are
currently
considering
banning
the
landfilling
of
EEE
waste
or
CRTs.
Such
a
regulation
would
lead
to
the
need
for
alternative
waste
management
practices
for
such
materials.
This
may
actually
force
many
communities
to
quickly
implement
programs
that
end
up
being
costly
to
them
in
the
short­
term.
The
advantage
may
be
that
over
time,
an
increase
in
the
number
of
collection
programs
will
lead
to
economies
of
scale
as
more
demanufacturing
firms
are
created
to
meet
the
demand
for
labor.

5.5.2
Private
Industry
For
the
Union
County
program,
Sharp
Electronics,
Lucent
Technologies,
Panasonic,
and
the
Electronic
Industries
Alliance
all
provided
in­
kind
support
for
the
design
and
implementation
of
the
pilots.
However,
aside
from
this
program,
private
industry
25
did
not
play
a
direct
role
in
the
development
of
the
EEE
waste
collection
programs.
Rather
its
influence
has
been
on
the
upstream
and
downstream
ends
of
the
collection
model,
i.
e.,
during
the
manufacturing
of
equipment,
through
the
purchasing
of
recycled
material,
or
in
developing
the
demanufacturing
sector
to
manage
off­
specification
or
return
products.
However,
the
Union
County
experience
indicates
that
private
industry
will
work
directly
with
a
collection
agency
to
assist
with
the
design
and
implementation
of
a
collection
program.
Private
industry
could
also
become
the
collection
agency
via
equipment
take­
back
schemes,
although
the
economics
of
this
collection
model
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
study.

Private
industry's
indirect
impacts
are
examined
below.

Upstream
Impacts:

25
Private
industry
is
includes
Original
Equipment
Manufacturers
(OEMs),
their
suppliers
and
primary
materials
manufacturers.
page
70
Changes
in
both
consumer
demand
and
technology
can
affect
the
lifespan
of
consumer
equipment.
While
some
of
the
EEE
waste
collected
was
mechanically
sound,
the
technology
was
obsolete
or
undesirable,
making
reuse
at
end­
of­
life
less
viable
than
demanufacturing
or
disposal.
Considering
this,
private
industry
has
the
greatest
potential
to
make
an
impact
on
the
end­
of­
life
of
this
kind
of
waste
by
affecting
the
disassembly
of
the
equipment.
A
modification
in
manufacturing
methods,
such
as
minimizing
the
number
of
fasteners
in
an
item,
could
lead
to
a
reduction
in
the
amount
of
time
required
to
demanufacture
equipment.
This
reduction
in
time
would
eventually
result
in
a
decrease
in
the
cost
of
demanufacturing.

Another
production
change
that
would
assist
the
recycling
of
EEE
waste
would
be
the
use
of
fewer
heavy
metal
components
in
equipment.
This
could
also
have
the
effect
of
reducing
many
of
the
environmental
concerns
about
landfilling
or
incinerating
EEE
waste.
Realistically,
however,
OEMs
and
their
suppliers
face
some
limitations
in
how
their
equipment
and
components
are
designed.
These
upstream
changes
would
not
have
an
immediate
impact;
current
changes
in
manufacturing
will
not
affect
collections
for
a
number
of
years
because
of
the
time
lag
between
equipment
purchase
and
disposal.
Over
the
long­
term,
however,
the
impact
on
the
net
costs
of
such
a
collection
program
would
be
favorable.

Downstream
Impacts:

The
most
direct
effect
that
private
industry
(predominantly
parts
suppliers
and
primary
material
producers)
has
on
an
EEE
waste
collection
program
is
through
the
purchase
of
recycled
material
and
parts.
The
market
for
some
of
the
materials
that
are
extracted
from
electronics
is
governed
by
demand
from
companies
that
produce
the
parts
or
the
materials
used
in
electronics
or
electrical
equipment.
Demand,
however,
is
affected
by
concerns
about
the
quality
and
quantity
of
the
extracted
material.
In
fact,
it
has
become
a
Catch­
22
since
the
insufficient
supply
of
a
recycled
material
leads
to
low
demand
by
private
industry,
which
in
turn
leads
to
fewer
demanufacturers
and
less
output
of
material.
For
private
industry
to
assist
in
the
expansion
of
EEE
waste
collection
programs,
demand
for
the
recycled
material
needs
to
be
increased.
With
the
expansion
of
EEE
waste
collection
programs,
the
supply
of
useful
material
will
at
least
be
guaranteed.
EEE
WASTE
COLLECTION
AND
PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY
IN
EUROPE
Currently
in
the
European
Union
there
are
discussions
as
to
what
role
OEMs
should
play
in
the
collection
of
EEE
waste.
Debates
on
a
new
directive
on
waste
electrical
and
electronic
equipment
initially
focused
on
placing
most
of
the
financial
burdens
of
collection
and
demanufacturing
on
equipment
producers.
However,
current
plans
have
changed
to
place
the
burden
of
residential
EEE
waste
collection
on
municipalities,
while
OEMs
would
still
be
obligated
to
accept
the
collected
equipment.

Although
this
directive
has
not
yet
been
finalized,
the
current
debate
indicates
that
the
approach
to
EEE
waste
collection
in
Europe
is
to
incorporate
OEMs
into
the
process,
which
will
distribute
the
costs
of
the
collection
program.

SOURCE:
Product
Stewardship
Advisor,
Cutter
Information
Corp.,
September
4,
1998.
page
71
6.
CONCLUSION
The
focus
of
this
report
is
to
examine
different
collection
programs
and
develop
some
general
conclusions
about
the
dynamics
of
an
EEE
waste
collection
program.
All
five
of
the
case
studies
provided
a
large
amount
of
information
on
demanufacturing
costs,
publicity,
the
volume
of
materials
collected,
etc.,
and
although
no
clear
picture
was
formed
as
to
the
best
collection
method,
some
general
conclusions
were
reached.
The
precision
of
these
conclusions,
however,
is
limited
by
the
data
that
was
available.
The
following
sections
cover
data
gaps,
future
areas
of
research,
and
the
general
conclusions.

6.1
DATA
GAPS
AND
FUTURE
RESEARCH
One
reason
that
a
more
in­
depth
assessment
of
these
collection
programs
was
not
possible
is
that
the
data
that
was
gathered
for
the
study
was
not
uniform.
As
was
mentioned
at
the
beginning
of
Section
4,
the
net
cost
for
these
programs
was
calculated
using
both
demanufacturing
and
collection
program
costs.
The
advantage
of
this
approach
is
that
it
gives
a
better
picture
of
the
true
cost
of
managing
such
a
program.
The
disadvantage
is
that
costs
that
are
specific
to
the
collection
agency
or
the
demanufacturer
are
hidden
in
this
net
cost
value.
Therefore,
it
was
difficult
to
break
out
what
specific
costs
were
the
drivers
for
the
program.

To
provide
for
a
more
concise
analysis
in
the
future,
the
data
gaps
should
be
filled
in.
This
would
require
more
specific
data
from
the
collection
agency
on
the
following
costs:

·
Up­
front
costs
–
·
Publicity
·
Staff;

·
Operational
costs
–
·
Staff
time
allocated
to
the
program
·
Costs
of
publicity
for
a
program,
including
work
that
is
completed
in­
house
·
Maintenance
costs
for
facilities;

·
Transportation
to
the
demanufacturer;

·
Fees
paid
to
the
demanufacturer
(aside
from
transportation
costs);
and
·
Ultimate
disposal
practices
including
CRT
export
for
demanufacture
and
disposal.

This
additional
data
would
provide
the
collection
agency
with
a
clearer
assessment
of
the
real
costs
associated
with
the
implementation
of
a
collection
program.
This
detailed
information
would
also
allow
a
collection
agency
to
track
the
progress
of
its
collection
program.

The
limitations
on
data
also
prevented
an
analysis
of
the
effects
that
economies
of
scale
can
have
on
a
program.
With
the
existence
of
economies
of
scale,
the
expansion
of
a
local
collection
program
either
in
participation,
frequency
of
events,
or
volume
collected
would
result
in
a
reduction
in
the
net
cost
per
pound
collected.
While
this
seems
intuitively
correct,
there
was
not
enough
long­
term
data
available
to
confirm
that
greater
size
leads
to
lower
expenses.
Data
on
changes
in
the
program
costs
during
the
growth
of
a
program
would
also
be
needed
to
accurately
determine
the
effect
of
program
size.
Determining
the
effects
of
economies
of
scale
would
be
important
in
helping
to
define
the
appropriate
size
of
a
collection
program
for
a
community.

Aside
from
the
evident
data
gaps,
there
were
a
couple
of
areas
of
research,
outside
the
scope
of
this
report,
that
would
provide
information
useful
in
the
implementation
of
a
residential
EEE
waste
collection
program.
page
72
One
area
is
an
analysis
of
the
potential
markets
for
many
of
the
materials
that
are
extracted
from
EEE
waste.
This
would
certainly
be
useful
in
the
case
of
plastics,
since
a
lot
of
the
engineered
plastics
that
are
generated
from
EEE
waste
have
no
value
in
the
marketplace.
An
analysis
of
potential
markets
for
these
secondary
materials
would
allow
a
collection
agency
to
determine
whether
the
revenue
from
the
extracted
material
may
offset
more
of
the
program
costs.

Parallel
to
this
would
be
analysis
of
the
equipment
that
was
collected,
and
cost
and
revenue
associated
with
each
type
of
equipment.
The
results
could
be
useful
in
structuring
a
collection
program.
Unfortunately,
much
of
the
data
necessary
for
such
a
study
was
unavailable
for
this
report.

An
assessment
of
the
environmental
impact
of
EEE
waste
was
also
beyond
the
scope
of
this
study,
but
could
be
useful
in
calculating
the
avoided
or
added
costs
associated
with
a
collection
program.
It
could
also
indicate
what
equipment
a
program
should
target.
Considering
that
all
of
the
collection
programs
operated
at
a
net
cost,
more
data
on
avoided
costs
could
provide
more
complete
information
on
the
relative
costs
or
benefits
of
initiating
a
collection
program.
An
environmental
life
cycle
assessment
could
also
be
useful
in
presenting
the
environmental
trade­
offs
that
exist
for
different
EEE
waste
management
options.

Finally,
an
investigation
into
the
value
of
the
regulation
of
demanufacturers
could
be
another
subject
for
future
research.
Representatives
from
both
Hennepin
County
and
the
New
Jersey
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
have
indicated
that
demanufacturers
may
be
tempted
to
accept
EEE
waste
and
store
it
in
warehouses,
without
having
legitimate
markets
for
the
extracted
materials.
While
there
was
no
indication
from
the
five
case
studies
that
this
could
be
the
case,
the
potential
exists
if
EEE
waste
collection
becomes
a
mandate
in
some
areas.

6.2
CONCLUSIONS
While
these
differences
in
net
costs
among
programs
would
seem
to
imply
that
some
programs
were
more
successful
than
others,
differences
in
how
the
data
was
collected
and
provided
for
each
programs
makes
such
a
judgment
difficult.
However,
while
making
a
comparison
between
these
programs
is
not
possible
based
a
comparison
of
the
net
costs,
it
was
still
possible
to
use
this
data
to
make
a
limited
assessment
of
the
economics
and
dynamics
of
these
collection
programs:

Ø
The
net
costs
of
the
programs
were
driven
by
the
demanufacturing
costs;
the
operational
costs
for
many
of
the
case
studies
were
either
not
accounted
for
or
very
small.
However,
since
a
number
of
these
collection
programs
were
pilots,
this
may
not
be
the
case
for
programs
operating
over
longer
periods.

Ø
In
terms
of
pounds
of
material
collected
per
resident,
the
curbside
collection
programs
appeared
to
be
more
efficient
than
the
other
collection
models,
while
the
one­
day
collection
events
appeared
to
the
least
efficient.
More
and
better
collection
data
is
necessary
to
confirm
this.

Ø
In
contrast
to
the
previous
point,
the
number
of
items
collected
per
dollar
of
collection
program
cost
was
higher
for
the
curbside
events
than
for
the
other
collection
models.
This
was
evidently
due
to
the
high
transportation
costs
associated
with
collection.
For
the
one­
day
collection
events,
the
cost
per
item
collected
was
lower
than
the
other
collection
models.
However,
the
one­
day
collection
events
that
were
studied
did
not
incur
any
operating
costs,
which
would
likely
narrow
the
differences
between
the
two
collection
models.

Ø
A
weighted
average
of
all
of
the
collection
programs
indicates
that
over
75%
of
the
equipment
that
was
collected
fell
into
five
categories:
36%
of
the
items
were
televisions,
16%
consisted
of
audio
page
73
and
stereo
equipment,
11%
were
monitors,
8%
were
computers
and
CPUs,
and
6%
were
VCRs.
The
remaining
equipment
consisted
of
keyboards
(5%),
printers
(4%),
telephones
(3%),
peripherals
(1%),
microwaves
(1%),
and
miscellaneous
other
equipment
(9%).

Ø
The
residential
EEE
waste
collected
by
these
programs
was
generally
outdated
and
in
poor
condition.
Consequently,
the
material
was
expensive
to
manage
and
little
valuable
scrap
was
extracted
from
this
equipment.
Of
the
equipment
that
was
collected,
computers
and
CPUs
provided
most
of
material
that
generated
revenue
for
the
programs.

Ø
Items
that
contained
CRTs
(e.
g.,
televisions
and
monitors)
predominated
in
the
five
collection
programs.
Since
the
cost
to
manage
these
materials
is
quite
high,
the
large
number
of
CRTs
had
a
substantial
impact
on
the
net
cost
values.

Ø
Promotion
and
planning
of
the
events
was
essential
to
the
effectiveness
of
the
collection
programs.
This
was
made
evident
by
the
lack
of
turnout
for
the
first
week
of
the
San
Jose
pilot,
for
which
there
was
little
prior
publicity.
Additionally,
the
first
Binghamton
collection
event
was
affected
by
a
number
of
factors,
including
a
local
football
game
that
was
being
held
at
the
same
time.

Ø
There
is
apparent
public
interest
in
EEE
waste
collection
programs.
This
is
evident
from
the
fact
that
the
amount
of
equipment
that
was
collected
increased
over
time
for
all
the
programs
that
had
more
than
one
collection.
In
addition,
the
CSI­
sponsored
events
(Somerville,
Binghamton-one
day
drop
off
model
and
San
Jose-retail
collection
model)
will
be
continuing
due
to
the
positive
public
reception
in
their
communities.

In
addition
to
the
specific
conclusions
from
the
analysis
of
these
collection
models,
more
general
points
were
drawn
from
the
information
provided
by
these
case
studies.
Since
these
general
comments
are
based
on
qualitative
information,
additional
research
on
these
points
would
be
beneficial.

Ø
Most
demanufacturers
focus
exclusively
on
commercial
EEE
waste.
According
to
Hennepin
County,
the
low
quality
of
the
residential
equipment
inhibits
many
demanufacturers
from
getting
involved
in
a
residential
collection
program.
A
collection
program
that
takes
in
both
residential
and
small
business
waste
may
generate
more
interest
from
demanufacturers,
simply
because
the
quality
of
EEE
waste
may
be
better.

Ø
Total
transportation,
demanufacturing,
and
disposal
costs
may
overwhelm
all
other
program
costs.
These
costs
relate
to
the
variety
of
material
collected,
local
labor
market,
the
distance
required
to
transport
materials
to
a
demanufacturing
facility,
the
distance
to
end
markets,
and
the
disposal
costs
of
unmarketable
materials.

Ø
The
loading
of
heavy
metals
in
the
Municipal
Solid
Waste
stream
was
a
fundamental
driver
for
the
two
collection
programs
(Union
County
and
Hennepin
County)
where
most
of
the
residential
solid
waste
stream
is
incinerated.
The
counties
advocate
that
the
removal
of
EEE
waste
from
the
waste
stream
may
play
an
important
role
in
reducing
the
heavy
metal
burdens
in
the
fly
and
bottom
ash,
which
can
result
in
an
indirect
economic
benefit
for
the
community
by
lowering
ash
disposal
fees.

Ø
The
ultimate
disposition
of
demanufactured
materials
should
be
evaluated
to
determine
if
these
venues
(e.
g.,
glass­
to­
glass
recycling,
smelting,
overseas
disposition
for
CRTs)
are
in
accordance
with
the
objectives
of
the
program.

Ø
The
advantages
and
barriers
to
different
collection
models
are
such
that
determining
the
best
collection
method
is
dependent
on
the
motivations
of
the
collection
agency.
page
74
To
put
the
current
situation
for
these
collection
programs
in
perspective,
it
is
useful
to
examine
the
experiences
of
other
recycling
programs.
The
proliferation
of
recycling
programs
in
the
1980s
resulted
in
a
supply­
driven
market
since
the
infrastructure
required
to
accept
recycled
materials
was
still
in
development.
26
As
a
result,
the
net
cost
for
many
of
these
programs
remained
high
since
there
was
little
revenue
derived
from
the
recycled
materials.
In
the
beginning,
collection
of
recyclables
tended
to
run
ahead
of
capacity,
with
materials
being
made
available
to
the
recycling
marketplace
independent
of
the
demand
for
the
materials
that
were
recovered.
This
mirrors
the
situation
for
EEE
residential
waste
recycling
today.

Today
the
issue
of
markets
is
still
a
critical
issue.
Public
interest
in
recycling
and
private
sector
demand
for
products
with
recycled
content
have
driven
an
increased
industrial
recycling
capacity.
While
the
capacity
now
exists,
further
market
development
still
is
needed
to
assure
market
stability
and
accessibility.

For
the
collection
agency
involved
in
recycling,
it
is
important
to
understand
that
commodity­
like
marketplaces
can
be
very
volatile,
sometimes
demanding
more
scrap,
sometimes
demanding
less
scrap.
Movements
are
traditionally
difficult
to
predict.
This
volatility
is
driven
by
a
number
of
factors.
For
ferrous
and
non­
ferrous
scrap
metals,
the
price
is
generally
related
to
the
value
of
the
virgin
raw
materials.
For
paper,
plastic,
and
glass
from
MSW,
the
relationship
is
less
direct,
since
it
is
dependent
somewhat
on
the
quality
of
the
material.
During
the
recovery
of
typical
recyclables,
some
contamination
is
evident.
Consequently,
the
recyclables
may
not
be
of
as
high
a
quality
as
the
market
demands.

The
experiences
collected
from
appliance
or
white
goods
recycling
programs
have
some
relevance
to
EEE
waste
collection.
With
space
at
a
premium
in
the
early
1990s,
at
least
16
states
banned
the
disposal
of
white
goods
in
landfills.
This
led
to
a
jump
in
the
recycling
rate,
which
went
from
20%
in
1988
to
75%
in
1995.
27
A
similar
growth
in
the
recovery
rate
for
EEE
waste
would
not
be
surprising.

Like
EEE
waste,
white
goods
have
a
high
initial
cost,
and
because
of
their
perceived
value,
many
people
simply
kept
their
old
appliances
rather
than
disposing
of
them.
This
is
apparent
when
you
consider
that
the
typical
age
at
disposal
is
from
10
to
20
years.
Many
municipalities
rely
on
curbside
collection,
either
through
appointment
or
on
designated
days,
as
a
means
of
collecting
this
material.
However,
according
to
a
representative
of
the
Appliance
Recycling
Centers
of
America,
one­
day
collection
events
remain
a
popular
method
of
collecting
old
units
from
the
public.

For
appliance
recycling,
not
including
the
use
of
an
auto
shredder,
labor
costs
account
for
84%
to
86%
of
the
total
operation
costs.
The
labor
costs
are
insensitive
to
volume,
and
increasing
throughput
has
a
relatively
minor
impact
on
the
total
cost
per
unit.
This
coincides
with
the
current
situation
for
EEE
waste
demanufacturing
since
it
is
also
very
labor
intensive.
The
difference
between
the
two
types
of
demanufacturing
is
the
materials
that
are
recovered.
Appliances
contain
a
lot
of
ferrous
metals,
but
little
else
of
economic
value.
Electronics
include
a
number
of
precious
metals
that
makes
their
disassembly
more
cost
affective,
especially
if
markets
develop
over
time.

Experiences
with
other
types
of
recycling
programs
indicate
that
EEE
residential
waste
collection
programs
are
in
their
infancy,
and
have
the
potential
to
evolve
and
eventually
become
more
cost
effective.
It
could
be
expected
that
as
these
programs
expand,
and
markets
for
the
recovered
materials
grow,
the
net
cost
per
pound
collected
should
decrease.
The
potential
economies
of
scale
from
the
26
The
Role
of
Recycling
in
Integrated
Solid
Waste
Management
to
the
Year
2000.
Keep
America
Beautiful,
Inc.
Stamford,
CT.
1994.
pp.
5­
1
to
5­
6.
27
Handling
Difficult
Materials.
Waste
Age.
Randy
Woods.
May
1994.
pp.
71­
73.
page
75
expansion
of
these
programs
and
the
creation
of
demanufacturing
businesses
will
also
help
to
reduce
costs.
However,
considering
the
quality
and
varied
nature
of
the
collected
materials,
it
seems
likely
that
the
costs
of
these
programs
will
remain
high
relative
to
other
traditional
solid
waste
disposal
methods.
page
76
7
APPENDIX
A:
US
EPA
CRT
RECOMMENDATION
COMMON
SENSE
INITIATIVE
(CSI)
COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION
ON
CATHODE
RAY
TUBE
(CRT)
GLASS­
TO­
GLASS
RECYCLING
Based
on
in­
depth
work
conducted
by
the
CSI
Computers
and
Electronics
Sector
Subcommittee,
the
CSI
Council
has
determined
that
properly
conducted
Cathode
Ray
Tube
(CRT)
glass­
to­
glass
recycling
is
a
cleaner,
cheaper,
smarter
approach
to
waste
CRT
management
that
should
be
increased.
To
facilitate
accomplishing
that
goal,
the
CSI
Council
recommends
that
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency:

1.
Revise
the
applicable
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
hazardous
waste
management
regulations
to
facilitate
CRT
glass­
to­
glass
recycling
as
outlined
in
Attachment
1.
The
revised
CRT
glass­
to­
glass
recycling
regulations
should
be
clear
and
simple
to
understand.
The
Council
asks
that,
as
appropriate,
EPA
discuss
with
members
of
the
Computers
and
Electronics
Sector
Subcommittee
any
new
issues
that
arise
during
rule
development
and
implementation.

2.
Complete
and
implement
this
CRT
rulemaking
as
soon
as
possible,
and
in
the
intervening
period,
take
appropriate
steps
to
realize
the
environmental
benefits
of
CRT
glass­
to­
glass
recycling.

Finally,
the
CSI
Council
recognizes
that
there
may
be
CRT
glass
recycling
methods
or
end
uses
other
than
CRT
manufacturing
that
are
also
cleaner,
cheaper,
and
smarter
approaches
to
waste
CRT
management.
On
the
other
hand,
some
recycling
methods
or
end
uses
may
pose
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
Computers
and
Electronics
Subcommittee
will
be
working
to
determine
which
recycling
methods
and
end
uses
are
preferable
and
to
propose
appropriate
standards
for
such
methods,
but
the
Council
is
aware
that
the
future
of
the
Common
Sense
Initiative
is
undefined
at
this
time.
Thus,
the
Council
asks
that
EPA
consider
any
additional
work
completed
by
the
Sector,
and
if
appropriate,
design
the
CRT
glass­
to­
glass
rule
so
that
other
legitimate
recycling
methods
or
end
uses
may
be
added
in
the
future,
including
standards
tailored
to
the
risks
and
benefits
of
the
recycling
method
or
end
use.
The
Council
takes
no
position
on
the
question
of
whether
states
should
be
allowed
to
add
additional
recycling
methods
or
end
uses
without
a
prior
determination
by
EPA.

ATTACHMENT
1:
COMMON
SENSE
INITIATIVE
COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION
CATHODE
RAY
TUBE
(CRT)
GLASS­
TO­
GLASS
RECYCLING
1.
Add
to
the
Resource
Conservation
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
hazardous
waste
management
regulations
new
standards
specific
to
CRT
glass­
to­
glass
recycling
which
will
apply
in
place
of
the
standard
RCRA
hazardous
waste
requirements.
These
new
standards
are
to
be
structured
in
a
manner
similar
to
the
Universal
Waste
rule
(40
CFR
Part
273).
The
regulation
will
include
an
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
clarifying
that
processed
CRT
glass28
that
is
to
be
reused
in
CRT
glass
manufacturing
is
not
a
solid
waste
subject
to
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
regulations
(including
the
new
CRT
standards
described
here).
The
Council
recommends
that
EPA
promulgate
this
exclusion
because
the
processed
CRT
glass
is
sufficiently
commodity­
like
based
on
the
following
factors:
1)
the
degree
of
processing
the
material
has
undergone
is
such
that
it
requires
little,
if
any,
further
processing,
2)
the
material
has
economic
value,
3)
the
material
is
like
an
analogous
raw
material,
and
4)
there
is
a
guaranteed
end
market
for
the
material.
Based
on
the
information
28
Processed
CRT
glass
is
glass
that
has
been
separated
from
non­
glass
components
(e.
g.,
TV/
monitor
plastic
and
metal
components,
implosion
band,
shadow
mask,
deflection
yoke,
electron
gun,
inner
shield)
and
which
has
been
cleaned
to
remove
coatings
(e.
g.,
day,
phosphors).
page
77
currently
available
to
it,
the
Council
also
believes
that
the
material
is
handled
to
minimize
loss,
but
requests
that
EPA
conduct
whatever
investigation
EPA
determines
is
appropriate
to
reach
a
final
conclusion
regarding
this
factor.

2.
The
new
CRT
glass­
to­
glass
recycling
standards
will
explain
that
they
apply
only
to
materials
that
are
currently
regulated
hazardous
waste.
However,
the
standards
will
explain
that
the
goal
is
that
the
standards
be
simple
enough
that
one
infrastructure
develops
for
voluntarily
managing
all
CRT
materials
in
the
same
system.

3.
The
new
CRT
glass­
to­
glass
recycling
standards
will
define
the
following
three
categories
of
regulated
entities:

Collectors
:
Persons
who
collect/
store
whole
TVS/
monitors.
Within
this
category,
some
requirements
will
apply
only
to
large
collectors
(those
who
store
40
tons
or
more
(~
4,000
units)
onsite
for
longer
than
7
consecutive
days).

Processors
:
Persons
who:
-
intentionally
break
CRTs;
-
manage
intentionally
broken
CRT
glass
or
cullet;
or
-
clean
coatings
(e.
g.,
dag,
phosphors)
from
CRT
glass.

Transporters:
Persons
who
transport
TVS/
monitors,
whole
CRTs,
broken
CRT
glass,
or
cullet.

Entities
involved
in
refurbishment
and
disassembly
of
products
containing
CRTs
(not
to
include
taking
apart
the
CRT
29
)
are
not
subject
to
this
standard
or
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
regulations
(40
CFR
Parts
260
through
270)
(on
the
basis
of
the
CRT
itself)
until
it
is
determined
that
these
materials
are
not
repairable
or
reusable.
EPA
will
consider
what
safeguards
are
necessary,
if
any,
to
address
environmental
concerns
associated
with
accumulation
of
large
volumes
of
CRTs.

4.
The
new
CRT
glass­
to­
glass
recycling
standards
will
include
the
provisions
illustrated
in
the
following
Table
and
detailed
in
Annex
1.

29
EPA
will
consider
other
refurbishing
activities
that
should
be
addressed
in
the
same
manner.
page
78
Table
40:
Provisions
Applicable
To
CRT
Glass­
To­
Glass
Regulated
Entities
REGULATED
ENTITY
PROVISION
Collector
Processor
Transporter
1.
Notification
large
collectors
only
X
2.
Marking
(on­
site
and
for
transport)
X
X
3.
Storage
Limit
X
X
X
4.
Shipping
CRT
Glass
Materials
large
collectors
only:
shipments
out
X
5.
General
Performance
Standard
X
X
X
6.
Prevent
Releases
of
Glass
Particulate
X
7.
General
Good
Management
X
X
X
8.
Minimize
Breakage
X
X
9.
No
Cross
Contamination
X
10.
Manage
Residues
Appropriately
X
11.
Environmental
Justice
Provision
X
12.
Package
for
Transport
X
X
13.
Exports
X
X
page
79
ANNEX
1:
CRT
GLASS­
TO­
GLASS
RECYCLING
PROVISIONS
1.
Notification:
One­
time
notice
to
the
agency
implementing
the
hazardous
waste
regulations
(EPA
or
the
state)
of
company
name,
location,
activities,
etc.

2.
Marking:
Materials
must
be
marked
in
accordance
with
either
(1)
or
(2)
below.

(1)
CSI/
CRT
approach:

(a)
Whole
TVS/
monitors
visible
when
looking
at
primary
packaging
(container
or
vehicle
body):
no
marking
required.

(b)
TVs/
monitors,
bare
CRTs,
and
glass
in
packages
(i.
e.,
containers
or
vehicle
bodies)
or
storage
areas:
mark
container
or
storage
area
with
the
following
words:
"Cathode
ray
tubes
(CRT)
or
CRT
glass
to
be
used
in
CRT
glass
manufacturing.
Contains
lead.
Do
not
mix
with
other
glass
or
materials."

(2)
Universal
Waste
approach
for
materials
in
transportation:
If
the
state
in
which
the
shipment
originated
has
Universal
Waste
marking
standards
(i.
e.,
labeling
with
text)
for
the
material:
mark
(label)
the
material
as
required
under
the
originating
state's
Universal
Waste
program.

3.
Storage
Limit:
Collectors
­­
1
year
+
as
described
in
40
CFR
273.15.
Processors
­­
1+
year
as
described
in
40
CFR
261.1(
c)(
8).
Transporters
­­
10
days
as
described
in
40
CFR
273.53.

4.
Shipping
CRT
Materials:
Maintain
records
for
3
years.
No
specified
form
for
records.

Small
and
large
collectors
­­
may
send
shipments
only
to
other
collectors
or
to
processors
in
CRT
system.
Large
collectors
­­
for
each
outgoing
shipment,
keep
records
of
quantity,
date,
name
and
address
of
person
shipped
to,
and
an
acknowledgment
of
receipt
from
the
recipient.
Processors
­­
1)
all
TC
hazardous
glass
that
is
technically
and
economically
usable
in
CRT
glass
manufacturing
must
be
sent
to
a
CRT
glass
manufacturer
for
use
in
CRT
glass
manufacturing.
2)
for
each
incoming
and
outgoing
shipment,
keep
records
of
quantity,
date,
name,
and
address
of
person
shipped
to,
and
an
acknowledgment
of
receipt
from
the
recipient.
3)
Annually,
prepare
a
certified
statement
stating
that
all
TC
hazardous
glass
that
is
technically
and
economically
usable
in
CRT
glass
manufacturing
was
sent
to
a
CRT
glass
manufacturer
for
use
in
CRT
glass
manufacturing.

5.
General
Performance
Standard:
Manage
and/
or
transport
CRT
materials
in
a
way
that
prevents
releases
to
the
environment
of
glass
pieces,
glass
particulate,
other
components,
and
materials
used
in
processing
(e.
g.,
cleaning
or
sorting
media).
Immediately
contain
any
releases
to
the
environment
and
manage
contained
material
under
applicable
waste
management
requirements.

6.
Prevent
Releases
of
Glass
Particulate:
For
any
storage
or
management
activities
involving
breaking
glass
or
managing
broken
glass,
install
and
maintain
systems
sufficient
to
minimize
releases
of
glass
and
glass
particulate
via
wind
dispersal,
runoff,
and
direct
releases
to
soil.
(Examples
of
wind
dispersal
control
systems
may
include:
a
good
condition
building;
closed
containers;
closed
tanks;
keeping
materials
stored
or
managed
outdoors
covered,
or
wet,
as
appropriate.
Examples
of
systems
for
preventing
releases
to
soil
directly
may
include:
an
impervious
floor
or
pad;
a
good
condition
building.
Examples
of
systems
for
preventing
releases
via
runoff
may
include:
a
good
condition
building;
implementing
an
approved
storm­
water
management
plan;
adequate
run­
off
controls.)
page
80
7.
General
Good
Management:
­­
Collectors,
Processors,
Transporters
­­
no
disposal
on­
site
­­
Collectors
and
Transporters
­­
no
dilution,
no
treatment
(dismantling,
intentional
breakage,
processing)
­­
Processors
­­
no
combustion
or
treatment
activities
using
temperatures
high
enough
to
volatilize
lead
from
CRT
glass,
no
storage
or
processing
in
surface
impoundments
8.
Minimize
breakage:
Collectors
­­
manage
to
minimize
breakage
of
TVS/
monitors.
Transporters

transport
to
minimize
breakage
of
TVS/
monitors,
CRTs,
glass
pieces.

9.
No
Cross­
Contamination:
Do
not
mix
TC
hazardous
CRT
glass
with
other
glass
that
is
not
going
to
CRT
glass
manufacturing.
Blending
of
glass
that
is
going
to
glass
manufacturing
is
allowed.

10.
Manage
Residues
Appropriately:
Manage
any
components
removed
during
dismantling,
any
residues
separated
from
glass
(e.
g.,
coatings),
and
residues
from
processing
glass
(e.
g.,
blast
media,
cleaning
media,
dust,
floor
sweepings,
glass
fines)
under
applicable
waste
management
requirements
(hazardous
waste,
solid
waste).

11.
Environmental
Justice:
For
new
processors
­­
implement
a
procedure
for
advising
the
local
community
of
the
nature
of
the
activities
to
be
conducted,
including
the
limited
potential
for
resident
and
worker
exposure
to
lead
or
chemical
coatings.
This
procedure
should
include
notice
to
the
community,
and
a
public
meeting
if
requested
by
the
community.
A
local,
state,
or
federal
governmental
authority
must
approve
the
text
of
the
notice
and
the
notice
procedure,
and
must
conduct
the
meeting,
if
any.
If
preexisting
state
or
local
siting/
zoning
or
other
procedures
meeting
these
standards
are
followed,
no
additional
action
is
necessary.

12.
Package
for
Transport:
Materials
must
be
packaged
in
accordance
with
either
(1)
or
(2)
below.

(1)
CSI/
CRT
approach:

(a)
Package
TVs,
monitors,
or
whole
CRTs
in
a
way
that
minimizes
breakage
during
normal
shipping
conditions.
The
packaging
must
minimize
releases
to
the
environment
if
unintentional
breakage
does
occur.
For
example,
if
TVs
and
monitors
are
shrink
wrapped
onto
pallets
in
such
way
that
broken
pieces
of
glass
might
not
be
contained,
the
packed
pallets
should
be
placed
in
an
outside
package
(e.
g.,
a
box
or
vehicle
body)
that
will
minimize
releases.

(b)
Package
broken
CRTs,
CRT
glass
pieces,
or
CRT
glass
cullet
in
siftproof
packaging
(i.
e.,
a
container
or
vehicle)
that
is
constructed,
filled,
and
closed
so
that:
(I)
There
will
be
no
identifiable
releases
of
CRT
glass
to
the
environment,
and
(II)
The
effectiveness
of
the
package
will
not
be
reduced
during
normal
shipping
conditions.
For
example,
packages
should
be
resistant
to
puncture
by
glass
pieces.

(2)
Universal
Waste
approach
for
materials
in
transportation:
If
the
state
in
which
the
shipment
originated
has
Universal
Waste
packaging
standards
for
the
material:
package
the
material
as
required
under
the
originating
state's
Universal
Waste
program.

13.
Exports:
For
shipments
of
materials
that
are
hazardous
waste,
other
than
processed
CRT
glass
(without
coatings)
­­
comply
with
40
CFR
262
Subparts
E
or
H
(export
notice
and
consent
procedures
for
non­
OECD
and
OECD
countries),
revised
to
specifically
identify
the
recipient
as
a
page
81
CRT
glass
manufacturer,
or
a
collector/
processor
shipping
to
a
CRT
glass
manufacturer
(also
identify
the
manufacturer).
page
82
8
APPENDIX
B:
THE
SAN
FRANCISCO
AREA
COLLECTION
PROGRAM
Collection
data
for
the
San
Francisco
Area
collection
program
was
not
available
in
time
for
this
report.
However,
a
summary
of
the
program's
structure
and
the
general
summary
data
that
was
available
is
presented
below.

Collection
Method:
Drop­
off
event
and
curbside
collection
Number
of
Collections:
10
days
(Oakland
and
San
Francisco),
1
day
Hayward
Collection
Dates:
March
28,
1998
and
May
11­
22,
1998
Demanufacturer:
East
Bay
Conservation
Corps
(EBCC)
in
Oakland
Motivation
Behind
Collection:

Materials
for
the
Future
Foundation,
a
San
Francisco
area
NGO,
initiated
three
collection
programs
in
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Area
with
the
help
of
local
community­
based
organizations
and
businesses.
The
collection
program
consisted
of
a
drop­
off
event
in
the
City
of
Hayward,
a
Residential
Super
Recycling
Day
in
San
Francisco,
curbside
collection
in
San
Francisco,
and
curbside
collection
paired
with
bulky
waste
pickup
in
Oakland.
At
the
time
of
publication,
detailed
information
was
only
available
for
the
Oakland
collection
pilot.

The
motivation
behind
all
of
the
collection
pilots
was
to
document
the
flow
of
electronic
and
electrical
products
into
the
residential
waste
stream
and
to
determine
if
the
recovered
EEE
waste
could
be
recycled
in
a
cost­
effective
manner.
In
addition,
the
collection
program
in
Oakland
was
designed
to
determine:

·
Whether
a
youth
employment
training
organization
(East
Bay
Conservation
Corps)
can
recycle
materials
for
the
Oakland
Bulky
Waste
Collection
Program;
and
·
Whether
Oakland
residents
would
participate
in
a
curbside
EEE
waste
collection
program.

Demographics:

The
end­
of­
life
electronic
and
electrical
waste
was
collected
in
three
communities.
The
area
is
a
mixture
of
blue­
collar
and
white­
collar
workers.
The
Oakland
collection
program
was
organized
so
that
the
collection
would
cover
a
diverse
range
of
household
income
and
property
values.

Table
41:
San
Francisco/
Hayward/
Oakland
Demographics
Municipality
Population
Households
Median
Income
San
Francisco
723,959
305,984
$40,561
Hayward
111,498
40,246
$40,246
Oakland
372,242
144,766
$37,000
Event
Promotion:
page
83
The
Oakland
Collection
program
was
advertised
using
fliers
for
the
Bulky
Waste
Pick­
up
sent
to
Oakland
neighborhoods
approximately
three
weeks
prior
to
the
collection
program.
A
special
insert
that
outlined
the
EEE
waste
collection
component
was
included
within
the
flyer.

Informal
interviews
with
residents
during
the
collection
programs
indicated
that
the
residents
were
aware
of
the
EEE
waste
collection
program.
However,
many
appeared
not
to
have
separated
the
EEE
waste
from
the
other
bulky
waste,
as
was
requested
in
the
flyer.

Resident
Participation:

The
following
table
outlines
the
data
that
was
collected
on
the
participation
of
residents
in
the
various
collection
pilots.

Table
42:
Collection
Program
Participation
Rates
Municipality
No.
of
Households
Participation
Rate
San
Francisco
13,392
4.4%

Hayward
222
0.6%

Oakland
3,692
2.6%

Collection:

The
collection
of
EEE
waste
in
Oakland
coincided
with
the
collection
of
residential
bulky
waste.
Residents
of
Oakland
can
participate
in
an
annual
Bulky
Waste
Pick­
up
day
during
which
Waste
Management,
Inc.
(the
city
contractor)
collects
white
goods,
tires,
furniture,
and
yard
trimmings.
The
program
collects
from
approximately
300
households
a
day.
The
bulky
waste
collection
is
timed
to
correspond
with
residential
garbage
collection.
Two
trucks
are
allocated
to
the
collection
of
white
goods
and
tires,
and
the
rest
of
the
collected
material
is
picked
up
by
a
garbage
truck
carrying
a
hopper.

Materials
for
the
Future
Foundation
worked
with
the
Oakland
Recycling/
Solid
Waste
staff
to
coordinate
the
collection
of
the
EEE
waste.
The
collection
program
occurred
over
a
period
of
10
days.
To
accommodate
the
extra
collection,
a
driver
was
added.
The
cost
of
the
additional
driver
for
the
collection
was
given
as
$4,300
for
the
10­
day
project.
The
EEE
waste
was
collected
from
the
curbside,
and
placed
in
Gaylords
aboard
a
flat
bed
truck.
When
the
collection
truck
was
full,
the
material
was
transported
to
the
EBCC
location
for
demanufacturing.
The
following
table
outlines
the
equipment
that
was
collected:

Table
43:
Items
Collected
During
Oakland
Collection
Pilot
Computer
s
Vacuum
s
Heaters
Fans
TVs
VCR
s
Microwav
es
Stereo
s
Oakland
55
93
23
31
198
20
54
117
In
addition,
the
collection
events
also
took
in
a
number
of
toasters,
carpet
cleaners,
answering
machines,
and
other
equipment.
In
total,
15,623
pounds
of
equipment
was
collected
during
the
10­
day
program.

Transportation:
page
84
The
transportation
of
the
collected
equipment
occurred
whenever
the
truck
was
full
and
generally
took
15
to
25
minutes,
depending
on
the
location
of
the
Bulky
Waste
collection
in
relation
to
EBCC
(demanufacturing
contractor).
No
data
was
available
on
the
costs
associated
with
the
transportation.

Demanufacturing:

The
East
Bay
Conservation
Corps
(EBCC),
a
youth
employment
training
organization,
was
the
demanufacturer.
The
collected
EEE
waste
was
off­
loaded
at
the
EBCC
facility,
where
the
employees
labeled
and
itemized
the
equipment.
The
employees
had
not
been
specifically
trained
to
demanufacture
EEE
waste,
and
the
volume
of
TVs
and
microwaves
proved
to
be
a
challenge
to
disassemble.

The
program
required
a
total
of
4
workers
and
a
supervisor
working
40
hours
per
week
for
two
weeks
to
demanufacture
the
collected
equipment.
The
off­
loading
of
equipment
took
time
away
from
the
dismantling,
at
least
an
hour
per
shipment.
The
itemizing
of
the
equipment
also
took
some
time.
Since
the
contract
was
for
a
limited
duration,
not
all
of
the
equipment
was
disassembled.
No
data
was
available
on
the
cost
of
the
demanufacturing
of
the
collected
equipment.

Revenue:

The
EBCC
initially
anticipated
that
the
circuit
boards
and
other
computer
components
might
generate
some
revenue.
However,
since
not
enough
time
was
available
for
them
to
disassemble
the
equipment,
most
of
the
material
that
was
recycled
consisted
of
scrap
metal
from
vacuum
cleaners,
heaters,
and
small
appliances.

Some
of
the
plastics
were
sent
to
a
company,
MBA
Polymers
for
recovery.
Most
of
material
that
MBA
Polymers
was
able
to
recover
consisted
of
plastic
from
TV
housings.
No
data
was
available
on
any
revenue
from
the
recovered
materials.

Net
Cost:

Since
the
only
data
available
consisted
of
the
additional
cost
of
collection
for
the
Oakland
pilot
($
4,300),
net
cost
was
not
calculated
for
this
collection
pilot.

Project
Comments:

The
summary
reports
for
all
three
collection
pilots
are
not
yet
published,
so
data
was
not
available
for
a
more
detailed
analysis.
According
to
the
draft
report
on
the
Oakland
collection
program,
there
were
a
number
of
barriers
and
opportunities
that
came
out
of
this
collection
program:

·
The
residents
did
not
sort
their
material
as
requested
in
the
flyers
that
were
sent
out,
and
subsequently
the
collection
process
took
longer.
The
Waste
Management,
Inc.
supervisor
in
charge
of
the
Bulky
Waste
collection
indicated
that
the
drivers
should
not
separate
out
the
EEE
waste.

·
The
demanufacturer
was
not
prepared
to
demanufacture
all
of
the
equipment
in
the
time
period
of
the
contract.
A
number
of
TVs
were
left
on
the
curbside
because
of
lack
of
space
in
the
EPCC
facility.
In
addition,
off­
loading
and
itemization
of
the
equipment
took
time
away
from
the
actual
demanufacturing.
The
EPCC
employees'
inexperience
with
disassembly
may
have
contributed
to
the
partial
demanufacturing
of
much
of
the
equipment.
page
85
·
MBA
Polymers,
the
company
that
accepted
much
of
the
plastic
from
EPCC's
operations,
indicated
that
the
recovery
of
plastic
from
residential
EEE
waste
was
feasible.
The
television
and
computer
housing
appeared
to
be
the
best
candidates
for
recovery.
MBA
stressed
that
a
sufficient
volume
of
material
would
be
necessary
to
sustain
such
an
operation,
and
that
a
proper
level
of
dismantling
would
be
required
to
make
plastic
recovery
possible.
page
86
9
APPENDIX
C:
CALCULATING
NET
COST
The
cost
and
revenue
values
for
each
of
the
five
collection
programs
were
calculated
using
data
provided
by
the
respective
program
organizers.
No
additional
data
was
collected
for
this
report.
The
total
costs
and
revenue
were
calculated
according
to
the
way
in
which
the
data
was
provided
by
the
participating
collection
agency:

Per
Event
Somerville;
Binghamton;
Wheaton;
Naperville
Per
Period
San
Jose
(5
week
period);
Union
County
Municipalities
(6
month
periods)

Per
Year
Hennepin
County
For
calculation
of
the
net
cost,
the
following
two
equations
were
used:

Total
Cost
=
CT
+
CD
+
CU
+
CO
where
CT
=
costs
associated
with
the
transport
to
the
demanufacturer
CD
=
costs
from
the
demanufacturing
of
the
equipment
CU
=
upfront
costs
(publicity
etc.)

CO
=
operating
costs.

Total
Revenue
=
RR
+
RS
where
RR
=
revenue
from
resale
RS
=
revenue
from
scrap.

Only
those
costs
and
revenues
for
which
data
was
available
were
used
in
the
equations;
that
is,
if
no
upfront
costs
were
available
(CU
),
the
value
was
assumed
to
be
zero.

The
net
cost
per
program
is
essentially
the
difference
between
these
two
values:

Net
Cost
=
Total
Cost
–
Total
Revenue
The
net
cost
per
pound
collected
was
calculated
as
the
net
cost
divided
by
the
number
of
pounds
of
material
collected
for
the
program.

The
total
cost
per
pound
collected
was
calculated
as
the
total
cost
divided
by
the
number
of
pounds
of
material
collected
for
the
program.
page
87
10
APPENDIX
D:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Residential
Collection
of
Household
End­
of­
Life
Electrical
and
Electronic
Equipment:
Pilot
Collection
Project
(EPA­
901­
R­
98­
002),
prepared
by
Northeast
Resource
Recovery
Association
for
the
Common
Sense
Initiative
–
Computer
and
Electronics
Sector,
Region
I,
Boston,
MA,
February
1998.

2.
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
San
Jose
Computer
Collection
and
Recycling
Pilot:
Draft,
prepared
by
Vista
Environmental
for
the
Common
Sense
Initiative
–
Computer
and
Electronics
Sector,
Region
IX,
San
Francisco,
CA,
February
1998.

3.
Union
County
Utilities
Authority,
Union
County
Demanufacturing
Program
­
Semi­
Annual
Report,
Union
County,
NJ,
October
1,
1997­
March
31,
1998.

4.
Bureau
of
the
Census,
Census
of
Population
and
Housing,
1990,
Washington,
DC,
1992.

5.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Household
Hazardous
Waste
Management:
A
Manual
for
One­
Day
Community
Collection
Programs
(EPA­
530­
R­
92­
026),
prepared
by
the
Waste
Watch
Center
for
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response,
Washington,
DC,
August
1993.

6.
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Full
Cost
Accounting
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Management:
A
Handbook
(EPA
530­
R­
95­
041),
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response,
Washington,
DC,
September
1997.

7.
European
Commission,
Recovery
of
Waste
from
Electrical
and
Electronic
Equipment:
Economic
and
Environmental
Impacts
(AEAT/
2004
Issue
1),
prepared
by
AEA
Technology
for
the
European
Commission
DGXI,
Oxfordshire,
UK,
July
1997.

8.
Keep
America
Beautiful,
Inc.,
The
Role
of
Recycling
in
Integrated
Solid
Waste
Management
to
the
Year
2000,
prepared
by
Franklin
Associates,
Stamford,
CT,
1994.

9.
Dana
Duxbury
&
Associates,
Proceedings
of
the
Fifth
National
Conference
on
Household
Hazardous
Waste
Management,
Andover,
MA,
November,
1990.

10.
H.
Veldhuizen
and
B.
Sippel,
"Mining
discarded
electronics",
Industry
and
Environment,
Volume
17,
No.
3,
United
Nations
Environment
Program,
July­
September
1994.

11.
R.
Woods,
"Handling
Difficult
Materials",
Waste
Age.
May
1994.

12.
Cutter
Information
Corp.,
"Europe
Moves
Toward
Integrated
Product
Policy",
Product
Stewardship
Advisor,
September
4,
1998.

13.
T.
Paddock,
"The
Costs
and
Benefits
of
Household
Hazardous
Waste
Collection
Programs",
Academy
of
Natural
Sciences,
October
1989.