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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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.

<IP_ADDRESS> 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.

<IP_ADDRESS> 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%