LED BY: Jason Linnell, National Center for Electronics Recycling Jennifer Nash, Product Stewardship Institute

E-SCRAP 2009 • TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22 • 1pm–4pm

PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR ELECTRONICS RECYCLING PROGRAMSHow Can We Measure Effectiveness?

ABOUT US

National Center for Electronics Recycling A 501(c)(3) non-profit organization formed in 2005 Dedicated to the development and enhancement of a national

infrastructure for the recycling of used electronics in the U.S. The NCER is ready to assist in the implementation of recycling

programs across the country and believes that national and regional approaches offer the best way forward.

Product Stewardship Institute National non-profit membership-based organization located in

Boston, Massachusetts Works with state and local government agencies to partner with

manufacturers, retailers, environmental groups, federal agencies, and other key stakeholders to reduce the health and environmental impacts of consumer products.

Encourages product design changes and reductions in waste management costs for local governments.

WORKSHOP GOALS

Dialogue on effective performance measures

Develop a plan to incorporate them into data and analysis

Agenda Overview Overview presentations/questions Current metrics for electronics recycling Stakeholder panel Discussion

Percentage of Population Covered by E-waste Law

% Covered, 49.5%

% Not Covered,

50.5%

States With E-Waste Laws

NYC

Rhode Island

States With Producer Responsibility Laws

States With ARF (Consumer Fees) Laws

States With Landfill Disposal Fee

States With Disposal Ban/No E-Waste Law

CURRENT METRICS

California is the best program in the nation!

OR….

California Maine Maryland Minnesota* Washington**

Oregon** 0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

216,000,000

5,200,000 8,100,000

27,500,00037,500,000

19,100,000

Most Recent Collection Volumes

* Program Year 2** annualized projection

CURRENT METRICS

California is (barely) the best program in the nation!

BUT…

California Maine Maryland Minnesota* Washington** Oregon**0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5.88

4.01

1.45

5.365.73

5.03

Pounds Per Capita

CURRENT METRICS

Major Differences: Patchwork of Products and Entities!

10 different sets of product lists 8 Sets of “covered entities”

All 6 cover monitors, TVs, laptops + allow households

Non-Scientific Adjustments to normalize (cumulative) +/– 10% desktops +/– 5% small peripherals/printers/VCRs/DVDs etc. And beyond household e-waste (choose 1):

• +/– 35% for covering all entities (including business)• +/– 15% for covering small businesses, school districts, local

governments • +/– 10% for covering all small business/non-profits only

 

CURRENT METRICS

Minnesota is the best program in the nation!

California          Maine         Maryland         Minnesota        Washington         Oregon         0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

3.824.01

1.31

4.564.3

4.02

Adjusted, Non-Scientific Per Capita Results

CURRENT METRICS

How Can & ShouldWe Measure

Performance??

Performance Metrics OverviewJennifer Nash, PSI

Effective Metrics Types of Performance Metrics Use of Performance Metrics in other

Stewardship Programs

WHY MEASURE PERFORMANCE?

Motivate performance improvement Facilitate comparison and learning Demonstrate commitment to program

outcomes Satisfy regulatory requirements

11

WHY MEASURE PERFORMANCE?

Motivate performance improvement Facilitate comparison and learning Demonstrate commitment to program

outcomes Satisfy regulatory requirements

12

13

CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND PERFORMANCE

METRICS Relevant: Measure progress toward stated

goals High Quality: Underlying data are credible

and reliable Easy to Use: No huge investment of time

and resources required Transparent & Accessible: Data and

assumptions are available for public analysis and debate

Widely Accepted: Enable comparison among programs

Adaptable: Can be updated as more is learned

14

RECOMMENDED PERFORMANCE METRICS

Measure manufacturers’/retailers’/governments’ investment in program capacity Convenience

# of collection sites, proximity of collection sites to target population

Awareness $ spent on advertising Public understanding of how to

participate and why they should

RECOMMENDED PERFORMANCE METRICS

Measure program results Amount collected relative to baseline Amount collected per capita Amount collected compared to amount available

for collection (collection rate) Amount recycled compared to amount collected

(recovery rate) Amount recycled compared to amount available

for collection (recycling rate) Impacts of collection/recycling program on

sustainability

LOCATION OF MEDICAL SHARPS COLLECTION POINTS IN MA, 2008

16

PERFORMANCE CATEGORY:

CONVENIENCE

PERFORMANCE CATEGORY: COLLECTIONS RELATIVE TO BASE YEAR

RBRC RECYCLING PERFORMANCE (MILLIONS OF POUNDS COLLECTED), 1996-2008

17

 

18

PERFORMANCE CATEGORY: COLLECTIONS PER CAPITA

StateTRC Mercury Thermostat

Collections (2007) Per Capita ReturnMaine 4656 0.3534

Minnesota 10795 0.2077Washington 3398 0.0525

Pennsylvania 6175 0.0497Connecticut 839 0.0240California 5750 0.0157New York 2396 0.0124Colorado 490 0.0101Arkansas 122 0.0043Georgia 44 0.0005

PERFORMANCE CATEGORY:

COLLECTION RATE

Refers to: Amount Collected/Amount Available for Collection

Measures program effectiveness in capturing products that can harm environment and health

Metric of greatest relevance for many products Denominators (and numerators) are often

contested as in these examples: Mercury thermostats Batteries Fluorescent lamps

MERCURY THERMOSTATS : APPROACHES TO CALCULATING NUMBER

AVAILABLE FOR COLLECTION

Manufacturers advocate measuring collections relative to base year and note steady growth in units collected

Many states contend that mercury thermostats collected represent just ~5% of what is available for collection

Collection rate methodology (the # of mercury thermostats available for collection) is now the focal point of policy debate Basis for ME estimate is # of buildings in state Basis of PSI estimate is # of thermostats sold for

replacement Basis of manufacturers’ estimate for CA is web-

based survey of residents

BATTERIES: APPROACHES TO CALCULATING

NUMBER AVAILABLE FOR COLLECTION

Soon-to-be-released Environment Canada performance metric compares units and weights of batteries collected to amounts available for collection based on historic sales data Sophisticated assumptions about battery life spans and

consumer hoarding behavior Finds collection rate for Canada of 2% for primary batteries,

6% for rechargeables (2005) EC battery performance metric compares weights of batteries

collected to previous years’ battery sales Finds collection rate of 54% in Belgium, 34% in France, 1%

in Italy (2007) RBRCC proposes comparing amount collected to amount

present in landfills RBRC commissioned PSI to identify “best practice” metrics

worldwide

FLUORESCENT LAMPS: APPROACHES TO CALCULATING

NUMBER AVAILABLE FOR COLLECTION

From MA to CA, metric of choice compares units collected to amounts available for collection based on historic sales data Life spans range from 5 to 15 years depending on

lamp type, assumptions chosen Debate now focuses on reliability of

manufacturers’ sales data Number of lamps collected may be more difficult

to estimate than number available for collection Collection rates range from 2% (ALMR 2004,

residential lamps only nationwide) to 44% (NEMA 2008, commercial & residential lamps in MA)

PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES: POST-COLLECTION MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY

Post-collection management includes recovery and recycling rates

Hot topic for EU product stewardship debates EC requires recovery rate of 75% for NiCd batteries,

65% for lead acid batteries, and 50% for all other batteries

Methods for calculating these rates being developed now

Sustainability metrics address lifecycle economic, environmental, and social costs and benefits of product stewardship options Fertile ground for future investigations

23

CONCLUSIONS

Performance measurement motivates program improvements and enables comparison and competition

Harmonized metrics are a cornerstone of understanding program effectiveness

Program capacity (convenience and awareness) and program results (amount collected compared to some reference point) are critical to robust performance assessment But the value of multiple metrics should not

distract from the importance of measuring collection and recycling rates

24

CONCLUSIONS

Performance indicators need not be “perfect” if assumptions are explicit and broadly accepted

“Collections-to-sales” is emerging as a metric of choice for calculating collection rates for many products Requires assumptions about product lifespan and consumer

hoarding behavior EC approaches emphasize simplicity, while emerging

Canadian approaches emphasize accuracy EC has proposed revising its WEEE targets from 4 kg per capita to 65%

of average weight of WEEE placed on market in previous 2 years Recycling and recovery rates are “next frontier” of performance

measurement Metrics should be adaptable as experience evolves and

conditions change

CURRENT METRICS

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

STATE LAWS AND COLLECTION RATE

Minnesota: 60 then 80% of current VDD sales weight – mandatory Amount available? Wider range CEDs collected

Indiana – 60% sales weight, mandatory year 3

Michigan – non-binding 60% VDD sales current year

New York City - % of avg weight sold over last 3 years

Challenges: Data from manufacturers/retailers/market

research Units/weight of sales Do current sales reflect amount available?

STATE LAWS AND PER CAPITA

COLLECTION

Illinois: Baseline 2.5/capita, adjusts by increments annually based on actual TV manufacturer lbs based on market weight %, IT manufacturer

lbs based on return %

Oregon: Per capita by DEQ annually, adjusted by DEQ (3.3. lbs capita 2009) Each manufacturer assigned lbs by return share

New Jersey – IT manufacturers receive “return share in weight” based on estimates first year (likely per capita)

Rhode Island: RIRRC sets per capita total, return/market share by weight assignments from there, adjusted RIRRC/DEM annually (5 lbs/capita 2009)

STATE LAWS AND ABSOLUTE COLLECTION

AND OTHER

Washington: “retroactive” collection goal set, only relative % of each manufacturer (combined in plan) by return share beforehand

Hawaii: TV manufacturers collect “market share”, IT manufacturers results report (“shame factor”)

New Jersey: TV manufacturers collect “market share”

No Collection (Absolute/rate/per capita): CA, CT, ME, MD, (MI), MO, NC, OK, TX, VA

What if the minimum becomes the maximum?

ASSESSING THE STATES

Commonalities: Emphasis on collection or convenience, rare to

have both Goals for internal system, not normalized for

comparison with others Mainly rely on manufacturer to report, who turns

to recycler Reporting differences: who, what, and when Are these the right metrics?

What will we do with the data? Reuse and Recovery usually missing

STATE LAWS ANDCONVENIENCE

Strict Convenience: OR/WA: each plan 1 site per county* + 1 site per city

over 10,000 NJ: DEPT must ensure 1 per county NYC: “direct collection” for devices 15 lbs and up

Loose convenience MO, TX, WV, VA, OK

No Convenience, but rural incentives MN (1.5 lbs per 1), IL, (IN)

No convenience, but reliance on locals ME, CT, NC

No commons standards to judge for state managers How does mailback fit in?

CURRENT METRICS

Manufacturer Program Metrics Typically a subset of corporate sustainability

metrics Influenced and tracked by NGOs Example metrics (U.S. only)

Amounts collected and recycled Collection convenience Percentage of historic sales Various program commitments

A moving target….rapid evolution underway! Computer manufacturers were first movers on

metrics

CURRENT METRICS

Computer Example A: Dell In 2007 Dell agreed to measure and report the rate

of equipment returned to computer equipment sales seven years ago. “Using this metric, Dell took back in 2006 over 12

percent of the electronic equipment that they had originally sold approximately seven years ago.” (2007 Sustainability report, p. 66)

“We set, met and, in fiscal year 2009, exceeded our goal to recover 275 million pounds of materials through our takeback programs.” (CR Summary Report 2009, p. 21)

CURRENT METRICS

Computer Example B: Apple “We use a simple measurement

proposed by Dell that assumes a seven year product lifetime…”

2008, Apple recycled 30.5 million pounds of electronic waste worldwide recycling rate >38%

http://www.apple.com/environment/recycling/

CURRENT METRICS

Computer Example B: Apple (cont)

CURRENT METRICS

Computer Example C: HP 2010 environmental goal:

Recycle 2 billion pounds (900,000 tonnes) of electronic products and supplies by the end of 2010 (since 1987)

Reuse 450 million pounds (200,000 tonnes) of electronic products by the end of 2010 (since 2003)

Progress: 1,435 million pounds (650,000 tonnes) have been recycled and more than 275 million pounds (125,000 tonnes) have been reused. In total, more than 1.71 billion pounds have been recovered.

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/environment/commitment/goals.html

CURRENT METRICS

TV Example A: Sony First mover as TV manufacturer to

initiate national voluntary program with goals in 2007

A pound for a pound as U.S. metric “The long-term goal is to recycle one

pound of old consumer electronics equipment for every pound of new Sony product sold.” (CSR 2008)

CURRENT METRICS

TV Example A: Sony (cont) As easy to recycle as to purchase

“Sony and WM Recycle America are also working towards the goal of having enough drop-off locations in all 50 states so there is a recycling center within 20 miles of 95 percent of the U.S. population.” (program kick-off press release August 16, 2007)

CURRENT METRICS

TV Example B: Samsung Samsung Recycling Direct (SRD)

program rolled out in fall 2008 Public collection locations in all 50 states

2008 Total: 2.1 million lbs. 2009 through August 1: 7.8 million

lbs. 2009 including pounds collected

collectively in state programs: 9.2 million lbs.

http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/citizenship/usactivities_environment_samsungrecyclingdirect.html

CURRENT METRICS

TV Example C: Panasonic Created MRM with Sharp and Toshiba: “Established a

company to manage the recycling of waste electronic devices and started operations in Minnesota” (Panasonic 2008 Environmental Data Book)

Beginning January 15, 2009 the MRM Recycling network will provide recycling opportunities at 280 locations with at least one recycling center located in each state, making it one of the most comprehensive national recycling networks. MRM will continue to expand its program and expects to have established at least 800 drop-off locations by 2011. (http://www.mrmrecycling.com/news.htm)

CURRENT METRICS

Measuring Across Manufacturers No real standard metrics have evolved

Dell/Apple calculation of recycling % of sales 7 years previous is closest to a common metric

Competition across manufacturers to differentiate brand

Value of common program metrics may become more clear to manufacturers over time

BREAKBREAK

PANEL

Panel Members Garth Hickle, Minnesota Pollution Control

Agency Carole Cifrino, Maine Dept. of

Environmental Protection Mike Watson, Dell Lorraine Kerwood, NextStep Recycling

OPEN FORUM

What Are The Desired Metrics for Electronics Recycling Programs?

What are the best metrics? Other Metrics – What is feasible and what would

they tell us? What are the key challenges in harmonizing

performance metrics?  Is it necessary to harmonize all program elements

at once, or can metrics be harmonized as a first step?

Plan for follow-up action on performance measures