StEP Initiative - MIT-NCER Used Electronics Flows Report (Final)

QuantitativeCharacterizationofDomesticandTransboundaryFlowsofUsedElectronicsAnalysisofGeneration,Collection,andExportintheUnitedStates

November2013

HuaboDuan,T.ReedMiller,JeremyGregory,RandolphKirchain

JasonLinnell

Undertheumbrellaof:Withfinancialsupportfrom:

Materials Systems Laboratory

1

The vision of the StEP Initiative

“To be agents and stewards of change, uniquely leading global

thinking, knowledge, awareness and innovation in the

management and development of environmentally, economically

and ethically sound e-waste resource recovery, re-use and

prevention.”

Formoredetails:www.step‐initiative.org

Disclaimer

ThedesignationsemployedandthepresentationofthematerialinthispublicationdonotimplytheexpressionofanyopinionwhatsoeveronthepartoftheUnitedNationsUniversityandtheUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyconcerningthelegalstatusofanycountry,territory,cityorareaorofitsauthorities,orconcerningdelimitationofitsfrontiersorboundaries.

Moreover,theviewsexpresseddonotnecessarilyrepresentthedecisionorthestatedpolicyoftheUnitedNationsUniversity,UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyandSolvingtheE‐wasteProblem(StEP)Initiativeanditsmembersnordoescitingoftradenamesorcommercialprocessesconstituteendorsement.

2

TableofContents

Definitions.....................................................................................................................................................8 ExecutiveSummary...............................................................................................................................10 1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................14 1.1 Background.................................................................................................................................14 1.2 ScopeoftheStudy....................................................................................................................15 1.3 OverviewofMethodology.....................................................................................................15 1.3.1 Generationandcollection............................................................................................16 1.3.2 Export....................................................................................................................................17

2 Results.................................................................................................................................................20 2.1 GenerationandCollectionResults....................................................................................20 2.1.1 TVs..........................................................................................................................................20 2.1.2 MobilePhones...................................................................................................................24 2.1.3 Computers...........................................................................................................................26 2.1.4 Monitors...............................................................................................................................29

2.2 ExportResults............................................................................................................................32 2.2.1 TVs..........................................................................................................................................32 2.2.2 MobilePhones...................................................................................................................34 2.2.3 Computers...........................................................................................................................36 2.2.4 Monitors...............................................................................................................................39

3 ComparisonandSummaryoftheFlowsforAllExaminedProducts.......................42 3.1 Generation,CollectionandExportComparison..........................................................42 3.2 ExportSummary.......................................................................................................................44 3.2.1 PotentialofRe‐exportofExportedUsedLaptops.............................................47 3.2.2 ComparisonwithOtherStudy....................................................................................48

4 ConclusionsandRecommendations......................................................................................49 4.1 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................49 4.2 Recommendations....................................................................................................................50

5 References.........................................................................................................................................51 6 Appendices........................................................................................................................................55 6.1 GenerationandCollection....................................................................................................56 6.1.1 MethodologyOverview.................................................................................................56 6.1.1.2.1 Literature‐based.......................................................................................................59 6.1.2 DataandIntermediateResults...................................................................................75

6.2 Export............................................................................................................................................96 6.2.1 MethodologyOverview.................................................................................................96 6.2.2 DataandIntermediateResults.................................................................................119

3

ListofTables

Table1:ScopeofProductsinStudy,ExportApproach,andDistinctionofGenerationandCollectionbyOwnerTypes.................................................................................................................................15

Table2:GenerationandCollectionofUsedTVsin2010(Thousandunits)..................................22

Table3:GenerationandCollectionofUsedMobilePhonesin2010(Thousandunits)...........25

Table4:GenerationandCollectionofUsedComputersin2010(Thousandunits)...................28

Table5:GenerationandCollectionofUsedMonitorsin2010(Thousandunit).........................31

Table6:Potentialofre‐exportfrom2010toptendestinationcountriesQuantitiesoflaptopsinthousands.UsedexportsfromUSbasedonUSExportNVEM......................................47

Table7:ComparisonbetweenLiterature‐basedMethodandSurvey‐basedMethodforGenerationandCollection...................................................................................................................................59

Table8:Equationsusedtocalculatemeanpathlengthandmeanpathprobability.................62

Table9:DesignationofFailure,Generation,andCollectionbyDiscardType..............................66

Table10:Business/Public2010ComputerandMonitorScaleFactors..........................................74

Table11:SalesDataSourcesforTVs..............................................................................................................75

Table12:LifespanDataSources.......................................................................................................................77

Table13:ModeledLifespanStageLengths(Years).................................................................................78

Table14:ProbabilityofPathsLeadingtoGeneration(CRTTVs)......................................................79

Table15:MeanProbabilitiesandMeanTotalLifespansof6PathstoGeneration...................80

Table16:StatewideUsedElectronicsCollection(lbs)forThoseStateswithStatisticsin2010.........................................................................................................................................................................................81

Table17:StatewideUsedElectronicsDisposalRate,PercentageofMSWDisposalWeight..82

Table18:2010TVsCollectionApproachesEvaluation..........................................................................83

Table19:2010TVsCollectionRates..............................................................................................................84

Table20:SalesDataSourcesforMobilephone.........................................................................................88

Table21:LifespanDataSources.......................................................................................................................89

Table22:ModeledLifespanStageLengths(Years)................................................................................90

Table23:ProbabilityofPathsLeadingtoGeneration.............................................................................91

Table24:MeanProbabilitiesandMeanTotalLifespansof6PathstoGeneration....................91

Table25:2010MobilePhoneCollectionRates..........................................................................................92

4

Table26:SalesDataSourcesforComputersandMonitors..................................................................93

Table27:MeanWeibullDistributionParametersforLengthofPeriodofOwnershipλ.........94

Table28:UnitWeight(kg)DataforComputersandMonitorsfromModelParameters.........96

Table29:Matrixofquantitativeapproachesbyeffortrequiredandinformationqualityyielded.Approachimplementedinthisstudyisinbold........................................................................97

Table30:ComparisonbetweenHSOTDMThresholdsandUSITCLowestX%UnitValues($/unit)......................................................................................................................................................................100

Table31:AttributesofUSExportTradeDatasets..................................................................................102

Table32:DatasetsUtilizedforUSExportsCalculations.Somedatasetsdonotreportquantityorweight.................................................................................................................................................102

Table33:ExportTradeDataSymbolsandTerms..................................................................................103

Table34:TVExportTradeCodesUsedinthisStudy............................................................................104

Table35:MobilePhoneExportTradeCodeusedinthisstudy........................................................104

Table36:ComputerExportTradeCodesUsedinthisStudy.............................................................105

Table37:ExampleApproximatePort‐LevelCalculationsforLaptopexport(FromtheUStoArgentina)(ResultsShaded)............................................................................................................................107

Table38:StatisticsonWorldwideCRTTVsSuppliersBasedonAlibabaB2BPlatform........117

Table39:SummaryandComparisonoftheThresholdsforAllElectronics(unitvalue:$/unit)........................................................................................................................................................................120

Table40:AuctionSalePricesforUsedElectronicsfromVariousSources(unitvalue:$/unit).......................................................................................................................................................................................122

5

ListofFigures

Figure1:LifeCycleFlowChartofElectronicProducts...........................................................................16Figure2:Illustrationofexportquantityandunitvalueofdisaggregatedtradedataforagivenworldregion..................................................................................................................................................17Figure3:IllustrationofexportquantityandunitvalueofdisaggregatedtradedatawithUsed‐NewthresholddifferentiatingunderlyingUsedandNewdistributionsforagivenworldregion..............................................................................................................................................................18Figure4:ExampleofChinaExportNVEMhistogramwith$5exportunitvaluefor2010exportoflaptopsfromChinatoLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean(LAC)byvessel..................18Figure5:IllustrationofsumofUsedandNewexportquantitiesfromdisaggregatedtradedatawithUsed‐NewthresholddifferentiatingunderlyingUsedandNewdistributionsforagivenworldregion..................................................................................................................................................19Figure6:SalesofNewTVsandComparisonofGenerationEstimatesofUsedTVs..................20Figure7:GenerationandCollectionofUsedTVsin2010andComparisonwithOtherEstimates.....................................................................................................................................................................21Figure8:QuantityandWeightestimatesofGenerationandCollectionofUsedTVsin2010aComparisonwithEPAEstimates:.................................................................................................................23Figure9:SalesofNewMobilePhoneandComparisonofGenerationEstimatesofUsedMobilePhone.............................................................................................................................................................24Figure10:GenerationandCollectionofUsedMobilePhoneandComparisonwithEPAEstimatesin2010....................................................................................................................................................25Figure11:ResidentialSales,Generation,andCollectionEstimatesofUsedComputers.....26Figure12:GenerationandCollectionofUsedComputersandComparisonwithEPAEstimatesin2010....................................................................................................................................................27Figure13:ResidentialSales,Generation,andCollectionofEstimatesoftheUsedMonitors29Figure14:GenerationandCollectionofUsedMonitorsandComparisonwithEPAEstimatesin2010.........................................................................................................................................................................30Figure15:ExportFlowsofUsedTVsin2010:byTransportMode,DestinationRegion,andIncomeGroupClassificationoftheDestinationRegion.........................................................................32Figure16:FlowsofUsedTVsintheUSin2010........................................................................................33Figure17:ExportofUsedMobilePhonesfromtheUSin2010UsingtheThreeThresholdMethods.......................................................................................................................................................................34Figure18:ExportofUsedMobilePhonein2010:byRegionsandIncomeGroupandModeofTransport....................................................................................................................................................................35Figure19:FlowsofUsedMobilePhonesintheUSin2010..................................................................36Figure20:ExportofUsedComputersfromtheUSin2010UsingtheThreeThresholdMethods.......................................................................................................................................................................36Figure21:ExportofUsedComputersin2010:byRegions,IncomeGroupsandModeofTransport....................................................................................................................................................................37

6

Figure22:FlowsofUsedComputersintheUSin2010.........................................................................38Figure23:ExportofUsedFlatPanelMonitorsfromtheUSin2010UsingtheThreeThresholdMethods.................................................................................................................................................39Figure24:ExportFlowofUsedMonitorsin2010:byRegions,IncomeGroupsandModeofTransport....................................................................................................................................................................40Figure25:FlowsofUsedMonitorsintheUSin2010.............................................................................41Figure26:FlowsofUsedElectronicsintheUSin2010.........................................................................42Figure27:WeightofusedproductscollectedintheUSin2010andthefractionofthosecollectedproductsthatweresubsequentlyexported.............................................................................43Figure28:WeightfractionsofUsedElectronicsintheUSin2010...................................................43Figure29:TheFractionofAllUSExportsofElectronicsProductsfromtheUSin2010ThatAreUsedandNew...................................................................................................................................................44Figure30:QuantityFractionsofUSExportFlowsin2010fortheFourUsedElectronicsTypesBrokenDownbyTransportMode,DestinationRegions,andIncomeGroupsClassificationoftheDestinationRegions......................................................................................................45Figure31:Top15ExportDestinationsforEachProductTypein2010.........................................46Figure32:Laptoptradebetweenthetoptendestinationcountriesin2010...............................47Figure33:ComparisonbetweenthisstudyandUSITCreport............................................................48Figure34:Illustrationthatexportedwholeunitsofusedelectronicsareasubsetofcollectedwholeunits,whichareasubsetofgeneratedwholeunits.[Letters]andcolorsrefertoFigure1(repeatedbelowforconvenience)...............................................................................................................56Figure35:Probabilitytreediagramofinformalpathsleadingtogeneration.LettersandcolorsrefertolifespanstagesinFigure1.TheprobabilitiesofapathtoalifespanstagearerepresentedbyP(lifespanstage),oritscomplementP(lifespanstage’).Someprobabilitiesareconditionalonpreviouspathways,P(lifespanstage|previouslifespanstage)...................60Figure36:ProbabilityTreeDiagramofInformalandFormalPathsLeadingtoGeneration.61Figure37:Probabilitytreediagramofpathsdirectlyaftergeneration.LettersandcolorsrefertolifespanstagesinFigure1.TheprobabilitiesofapathtoalifespanstagearerepresentedbyP(lifespanstage),oritscomplementP(lifespanstage’).........................................63Figure38:Respondents’internalprecisionofestimatingproductageandtimeathome.Zerorepresentshighprecision.........................................................................................................................67Figure39:Kaplan‐MeierSurvivalCurveforlaptops...............................................................................68Figure40:Stata®Weibullregressionanalysisforlaptops..................................................................69Figure41:GraphofWeibullregressionmodelforlaptops...................................................................69Figure42:ComparisonbetweenK‐McurvesandOLSfitlaptopWeibullregressioncurvesformean,andlowandhighboundsof95%confidenceinterval.......................................................70Figure43:Distributionoflaptoplengthofperiodofownership ....................................................70Figure44:Distributionsoflaptoplengthofperiodofownershipλallowingvariation(randomsample).....................................................................................................................................................71

7

Figure45:Histogramandfittedlognormaldistributionsoflengthoftimealaptopiswithanowneruntilinformalreuseδ..............................................................................................................................72Figure46:EstimatedUSresidentialusedlaptopcollectionratesacrossseveralsurveys......73Figure47:CRTTVsSalesEstimatesforVariousDataSources,ModelParameters...................76Figure48:FlatPanelTVsSalesEstimatesforVariousDataSources,ModelParameters.......76Figure49:TVsinUSHomes................................................................................................................................85Figure50:ComparisonoftheGeneratedUsedTVswithVariousModels.....................................85Figure51:ContributiontoVarianceofGenerationandCollectionEstimatesofUsedCRTTVsin2010.........................................................................................................................................................................87Figure52:MobilePhoneSalesEstimatesforVariousDataSources.................................................88Figure53:MobilephoneSalesEstimatesforModelParameters.......................................................89Figure54:ContributiontoVarianceofGenerationandCollectionEstimatesofUsedMobilePhonesin2010.........................................................................................................................................................93Figure55:DistributionofLengthsofPeriodofOwnershipforeachproduct.Meanparameterspresented.Duringsimulation,distributionparametersvary....................................94Figure56:EstimatedUSresidentialusedelectronicscollectionratesacrossseveralsurveys.........................................................................................................................................................................................95Figure57:UnitWeightforComputersforModelParameters............................................................96Figure58:UnitWeightforMonitorsforModelParameters................................................................96Figure59:Differentiationofused(secondhand)andnewexportsusingexportunitvalue(unitprice).ExampleofTVsetsexportedfromJapantoChinain2001........................................98Figure60:ExampleofChinaExportNVEMhistogramwith$5exportunitvaluefor2010exportoflaptopsfromChinatoLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean(LAC)byvessel................109Figure61:InitialResidualCRTandCRTGlassShippingDestinations(fractionsofweight).......................................................................................................................................................................................117Figure62:PriceGapbetweentheUsedandNewLaptopsFoundfromAmazon(Aug.2012).......................................................................................................................................................................................121Figure63:Buy‐backPriceswithExcellentCosmeticConditionandnoHardwareFailure(surveyin2011,responses367).Theerrorbarsrepresentonestandarddeviationfromthemean............................................................................................................................................................................122

8

DefinitionsTerm Definition

UsedElectronics Referstoelectronicsattheendofusebytheirowner.Maybereusedbyafriend,familymember,ordirectresaletoanotherpersonbeforegeneration(collectionordisposal).

GeneratedUsedElectronics

Referstousedelectronicscomingdirectlyoutofuse(retired)orpost‐usestoragedestinedforcollectionordisposal(landfillorincineration).

CollectedUsedElectronics

Referstousedelectronicscollectedbyafirmororganization.Maybedestinedforrefurbishmentorrepairormaybeobsolete,broken,orirreparableelectronicdevicesdestinedforrecyclingviadismantlingorshredding.

ExportedUsedElectronics

Collectedusedelectronicsthathavebeenexportedaswholeunits.

WholeUnitsofUsedElectronics

Referstointactusedelectronicsthatmayormaynotbeworking.Thisexcludesdisassembledproductsthatmaybeexportedasseveraldifferentcommoditymaterialorproductstreams.InthecaseofCRTs,theterm“wholeunits”isextendedtoincludeintactCRTtubes,butnotCRTglasscullet.ThisisdonebecausetheCRTtubecanfunctionasawholeunitwiththesimpleadditionofanewplasticcase.

TVs Televisions,includingCRTandFlatPanelTVs,includingRear‐projectiontelevision(RPTV).

MobilePhones Includingfeaturephonesandsmartphones,forthepurposesofbusiness,publicandprivateuse.Oldermobilephonesformotorvehiclesareexcluded.

DesktopComputers

Desktopcomputer,serverandotherprocessunit.Associatedmonitorsareconsideredseparately.

LaptopComputers Portablepersonalcomputer,excludingtablets.CRTMonitors CathodeRayTubeMonitors,worksinconjunctionwithcomputers.FlatPanelMonitors

Non‐CRTmonitorsincludingLiquid‐CrystalDisplay(LCD)andLight‐EmittingDiode(LED)display.Thesemonitorsaremainlyforcomputers,videomonitorsforsurveillanceareverysimilarandthusincluded.

HSOTDM HybridSalesObsolescence‐TradeDataMethod,whichiscreatedinthisstudyResidential ResidentialinoppositetotheBusinessandpublic,intheformofprivateand

familyBusiness/Public Commercial,institutionandeducationsectorsNVEM Neighborhoodvalley‐emphasismethod(NVEM),analgorithmemployedto

determinetheused‐newthresholdvalue(Seesection5.2.1inappendix).NA NorthAmerica(UnitedNationregions‐basedclassification)LAC LatinAmericaandCaribbean(UnitedNationregions‐basedclassification)LI Lowincome(WordBankIncomegroup‐basedclassification)LMI Lowmiddleincome(WordBankIncomegroup‐basedclassification)

9

Term Definition

UMI Uppermiddle(WordBankIncomegroup‐basedclassification)HI Highincome(WordBankIncomegroup‐basedclassification)HI‐OECD HighincomeofOrganisationforEconomicCo‐operationandDevelopment

(OECD)countries(WordBankIncomegroup‐basedclassification)

Note:Incomegroup:Economiesaredividedaccordingto2012grossnationalincome(GNI)percapita,calculatedusingtheWorldBankAtlasmethod.Thegroupsare:lowincome,$1,035orless;lowermiddleincome,$1,036‐$4,085;uppermiddleincome,$4,086‐$12,615;andhighincome,$12,616ormore.

10

ExecutiveSummary

Despitegrowinginterestandconcernsurroundingtransboundarymovementsofusedelectronicsaroundtheworld,thereisadearthofdataontheirmovements.Althoughamultitudeofdifferentdatasourcesexist,coherentsetsofinformationonusedelectronicsandtheirmovementarelackingbecauseofinherentchallengesinobtainingsuchinformation.Thesechallengesincludelimitedmechanismsfordatacollection,undifferentiatedtradecodes,lackofconsistentdefinitionsforcategorizingandlabelingusedelectronicsaswellastheircomponents,minimalregulatoryoversight,andlimitedagreementonthedefinitionsofenduses(i.e.,reusevs.recycling).Inspiteofthesechallenges,acharacterizationofthesources,destinations,andquantitiesofusedelectronicsflowswouldinformstrategicdecision‐makingofnumerousstakeholders.

Thefirststepofthisresearcheffortinvolvedexaminingavailablemethodologiestocalculatequantitiesofusedelectronicsgenerated(comingdirectlyoutofuseorpost‐usestoragedestinedforcollectionordisposal),collected(forrecyclingversusdisposal),andexported(aswholeunitstodevelopedordevelopingcountries),andassessingtheeffortrequiredandthequalityofinformationforeachapproach.Afewofthemostpromisingapproacheswereevaluatedinmoredetailanddemonstratedusinglaptopsasacasestudy.Thisstudybuildsoffoftheoutcomesofthepreviousworkanddetailstheresultsfromamorecomprehensiveefforttocalculategenerationandcollectionquantitiesforwholeunits(i.e.,notdisassembledproductormaterialstreams)ofusedelectronicsintheUnitedStates,alongwithtransboundaryflowsfromtheUnitedStatesforarangeofproductsincluding:TVs,mobilephones,computersandmonitors.Theyearofanalysisis2010.

Ahybridapproachofseveralmethodsisusedforcalculatingthequantitiesofgenerated,collected,andexportedwholeunits.Thesalesobsolescencemethodisusedtostochastically(i.e.,includinguncertainty)estimatethegenerationofusedelectronics.Collectionratesaremodeledandappliedtothegenerationresults;thecollectionresultsserveasupperboundsonexportestimates.Exportquantitiesarecalculatedusingatradedataapproach.Theadvantageofthismethodisthattradedataforalltypesofelectronicproductsiswidelyavailable(includingextensivehistoricaldata),updatedrelativelyfrequently,andprovidesinsightintothedestinationsofproducts.Thedisadvantageisthattherearenotradecodesforusedproductsandexportersmaynotbereportingshipmentsofusedproductsproperly.Ananalyticalapproachisusedheretodifferentiateusedproductsfromnewonesinthetradedata,buttheextentofmisclassificationbyexportersisunknown.Thus,itisnotcurrentlypossibletosayhowmucherrorexistsintheexportestimatesasaresultofmisclassification.Still,itissafetoassumethattheestimatesofexportquantitiesarelowerboundsofactualexportquantitiesduetothislikelymisclassificationerror.

FigureES1showsthatapproximately258.2millionunitsofusedelectronics(computers,monitors,TVsandmobilephones)weregeneratedin2010andofwhich171.4millionwerecollected,whichis66.4%ofthegeneratedestimateonaverage.FigureES1alsoshowsthat14.4millionusedelectronicproductswereexported,or8.5%ofthecollectedestimateonaverage.Uncertaintyparametersweremodeled;theerrorbarsfor

11

generationandcollectionrepresent90%confidenceinterval,andtheerrorbarsforexportrepresenttheminimumandmaximum..Whenaccountingforproductweight,approximately1.6milliontonsofusedelectronicsweregeneratedandofwhich0.9millionwerecollected,and0.027milliontonswereexportedtotheworld(includingthedevelopedanddevelopingcountries),oronly3.1%ofthecollectedestimate.

FigureES1:FlowsofUsedElectronicsintheUSin2010byQuantity(a)andNormalizedDestinationsofUsedElectronicsExportsin2010byDestinationRegion(b)andIncomeGroups

Theresultsallshowthatmobilephonesaccountforthelargestquantityofusedelectronicsflows,butTVsaretheheaviestflowofgeneratedandcollectedusedelectronics,whilemonitorsarethemostmassiveexports.

12

Anadvantageofthetradedataapproachisthatittracksthedestinationsofshippedproducts.However,thedestinationinthetradedatamaybeaninitialstoppingpoint,andtheproductsmaythenbereexportedtoafinaldestination;reexportsandfinaldestinationsarenotalwaysreportedintradedata.Thus,thelistingofadestinationregioninthisreportisanindicationofatleastthisinitialstop,butisnotdefinitivelythefinaldestination.However,ifitisastoppingpointbeforereexport,thefinaldestinationislikelyinthesameregion.

Thisstudydepictsthedestinationregionsandtheeconomicclassificationsoftheregionsforallproducts.Basically,bulkyelectronics,especiallyTVsandmonitors,weremorelikelytobeexportedoverlandorbyseatodestinationssuchasMexico,Venezuela,ParaguayandChina.ThemajordestinationsformobilephoneswereAsia(HongKong,HKSAR)andLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean(ParaguayandGuatemala,Panama,PeruandColombia).Bycontrast,AsiancountriesandregionswhichserveaskeytransitportsforinternationaldistributioninAsiaandAfrica,includingHongKong(HKSAR,China),UnitedArabEmirates(UAE)andLebanon,weremorelikelytoreceiveusedcomputers(especiallylaptops)andthereforemaybere‐exportingtosurroundingcountries.ItisinterestingtonotethatAfricamakesupaverysmallfractionofthetotalusedelectronicsexporteddirectlyfromtheUS.Around80%ofusedelectronics,includingTVs,monitorsandmobilephoneshavebeenexportedtocountrieswithuppermiddle,lowmiddle,andlowincomeeconomies.However,themajorityoftheuppermiddleeconomies,likeHonkKongandUAE,arelikelyre‐exporthubsforfurtherdistributiontoneighboringlowincomeeconomies.

ThisanalysisprovidesinsightsonthequantitiesofusedelectronicsgeneratedandcollectedintheUnitedStates,andexportedfromtheUnitedStates.Tosummarize,thekeyfindingsfromthisreportinclude:

Themethodologyusedtomakethecalculationsiscomprehensivefromgenerationofusedelectronicsatend‐of‐lifeallthewaytoexporttoaforeigndestination.Inaddition,themethodaccountsforuncertaintyingenerationandcollection.

Thescopeofproductsincludesinformationtechnology(computersandmonitors),telecommunication(mobilephones),andconsumerelectronicsproducts(TVs).

Approximately258.2millionunitsor1.6milliontonsofusedelectronicsweregeneratedintheUSin2010.

Oftheamountgenerated,66%wascollectedforreuseorrecyclingonaunitbasis,or56%onaweightbasis.

Oftheamountcollected,8.5%wereexportedonaunitbasis,or3.1%onaweightbasis.

Mobilephonesdominategeneration,collection,andexportonaunitbasis,butTVsandmonitorsdominateonaweightbasis.

LatinAmericaandtheCaribbeanisacommondestinationforproducts,alongwithNorthAmerica.Asiarepresentsthenextlargestdestination.Africaistheleastcommondestination.

13

Whilethereissignificantrigorbehindthecalculations,gapsinavailabledatameanthattheexportquantitiesrepresentalowerbound.Thisisduetoalackofexplicitdataonusedwholeunittradeflows,whichnecessitatesseveralkeyassumptionsinthemethodology.Therefore,itisimportantthatotherapproachesbeusedtoestimateexportflowsandcomparedwiththequantitiescalculatedinthisreport.Thiswouldprovideinsightintothemagnitudeoftheerrorderivedfromthedatagaps.

Thereareseveralrecommendationsthatarisefromthiswork.

Thecreationoftradecodesforusedproductswouldenableexplicittrackingofthoseproducts.

Investigationsshouldbeconductedintothespecifictradecodesusedbyexportersforusedelectronicsthatarewholeunits.

Allowingmoreopenaccesstoshipmentleveltradedatawouldenablemoreaccurateanalysesofexportflows.

Increasedreportingofre‐exportdestinationswouldimprovetheaccuracyoffinaldestinationsfortradeflows.

Flowsshouldbeanalyzedacrossmultipleyearsinordertodiscerntrends. Otherapproachesshouldbeusedtoestimateexportflowsofusedelectronics

inordertounderstandtheimpactofthelimitationsinallapproachesontheestimationofquantities.

14

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Therehasbeensignificantinterestbyavarietyofstakeholdersinthequantitiesofusedelectronicproductsgenerated,collectedandexported.ThefederalgovernmentintheUShastakenaparticularinterestinunderstandingtheseissues.In2011anInteragencyTaskForceonElectronicsStewardshipco‐chairedbytheCouncilonEnvironmentalQuality(CEQ),theEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA),andtheGeneralServicesAdministration(GSA)releasedTheNationalStrategyforElectronicsStewardshiptospecifyfederalactionsforensuringelectronicstewardshipintheUnitedStates(US)1.Recommendationsfocusonincentivizingdesignofgreenerelectronics,ensuringthefederalgovernmentleadsbyexampleinacquiring,managing,reusingandrecyclingitselectronics,increasingdomesticrecyclingefforts,andreducingharmfromUSexportsofusedelectronicsandimprovingsafehandlingofusedelectronicstodevelopingcountries.Furthermore,inJanuaryof2012theUnitedStatesTradeRepresentative(USTR)requestedthattheUnitedStatesInternationalTradeCommission(USITC)conductaninvestigationandprepareareportthatdescribesUSexportsofusedelectronicproducts2.Otherstudieshaveestimatedthequantityofusedelectronicsgeneratedandcollectedofattheworldwide,regional,orcountrylevel3‐7,includingtheUS8,9.RecentworkhassoughttoquantifyflowsofusedcomputersandmonitorsexportedfromNorthAmerica10‐12.Theseeffortsarehamperedbyalackofcomprehensivedataonkeytopicssuchasproductsalesandlifetimes,collectionamounts,andnodefinitionofusedproductsintraderecords.

Despitetheworkthathasbeendoneinthisfield,numerousquestionsremainregardingthequantitiesoftransboundaryflowswithintheUSandtoothercountriesandtheuncertaintyinthoseestimates.Anearlierstudy13bytheauthorsexaminedavailablemethodologiestocalculatequantitiesofusedelectronicsgeneratedandcollectedandcharacterizetransboundaryflows,andassessedtheeffortrequiredandthequalityofinformationforeachapproach.ThisreportdetailstheresultsfromasecondphaseofthiseffortinwhichtransboundaryflowsfortheUnitedStatesarequantifiedusingthemostpromisingapproachesfromthepreviousstudyforarangeofproductsincluding:

TVs(CRTandFlatPanel) MobilePhones Computers(LaptopsandDesktops) Monitors(CRTandFlatPanel)

TheanalysesofdesktopsandmonitorsweresupportedbyaseparateprojectinitiatedandfundedbytheCommissiononEnvironmentalCooperation(CEC)ofNorthAmerica,buttheapproachisidenticaltotheoneusedforotherproductsinthisstudy.TheauthorsgratefullyacknowledgeCEC’swillingnesstoincluderesultsfromitsstudyhere.

15

1.2 ScopeoftheStudy

Thescopeofthisstudyisdefinedinthetablebelow,includingthedetailedclassificationofthefocalelectronicsandthedistinctionofgenerationandcollectionbyownertypesforthegenerationandcollectionanalysisI;exportswereanalyzedforallproductswithownertypescombined.Theexportmethodsusedomesticexporttradedata,whichtheoreticallycapturestheexportsofgoodsproducedintheUSorwereusedintheUS.SinceCRTTVsandCRTMonitorsarenolongerproducedintheUS,allexportswereassumedtobeused.Forallotherproducts,used‐newthresholdsbasedonexportunitvalueswereusedtodistinguishusedexports.

Table1:ScopeofProductsinStudy,ExportApproach,andDistinctionofGenerationandCollectionbyOwnerTypes

ProductCategory

SpecificProduct DistinctionofGenerationandCollectionbyOwnerTypes

ExportApproach

CRTTV(andParts)

CRTTV,ColorCRTTV,Monochrome

OwnerTypesCombinedExportsassumedtobeusedduetonon‐existentnewdomesticproduction

CRTTube,ColorCRTTube,MonochromeCRTTube,OtherCRTGlassEnvelopes

FlatPanelTV FlatPanelTVs OwnerTypesCombined ThresholdApproachMobilePhone MobilePhone Residential,Business/Public ThresholdApproach

Computer

Laptop

Residential,Business/PublicThresholdApproach(exceptDesktopswithCRTs)

DesktopDesktop:ServerDesktop:Other

CRTMonitor

WithDesktop

Residential,Business/PublicExportsassumedtobeusedduetonon‐existentnewdomesticproduction

WithOtherPCMonitorVideoMonitor

FlatPanelMonitor

PCMonitor Residential,Business/PublicThresholdApproach

VideoMonitor Business/PublicOnly

1.3 OverviewofMethodology

DetailsofthemethodologyareintheAppendix.AflowchartofthelifecycleofelectronicsisshowninFigure1asaguideforkeydefinitionsinthisreport.Theterm“generation”referstoelectronicscomingdirectlyoutofuse(retired)orpost‐usestoragedestinedforcollectionordisposal.Thus,“generation”isconsistentwiththeterm“ready

IThegenerationandcollectionquantitiesofserversandotherkindsofprocessingunitswerenotestimatedseparatefromdesktopsduetheunavailabilityofsalesdata.

16

forend‐of‐life[EOL]management”9,14.Onegenerationpathwayforitemsisdisposal(F),includinglandfillsandincinerators.Anothergenerationpathwayalreadymentionediscollectionforprocessinginaworking(H)oranobsolete(G)state.Anassumptionismadethataftertwotermsofuse,itemsareobsolete.Theusedelectronicsprocessor,havingcollectedtheusedelectronicwholeunit,optseithertoprepareitforreusebyanewuserintheUS(C),recoverpartsandmaterialsfromtheitem(I)andtransfersthemtodownstreamvendors(someofwhichmaybeinforeigncountries),orexporttheusedelectronicproductasawholeunit(J).Thefocusofthisstudyisonusedelectronicproductsthatarewholeunits.“WholeUnits”referstointactmonitors,computers,mobilephones,etc.thatmayormaynothavebeenrefurbished.Thus,thisexcludesdisassembledproductsthatmaybeexportedasseveraldifferentcommoditymaterialorproductstreams.

Figure1:LifeCycleFlowChartofElectronicProducts

1.3.1 Generationandcollection

Asalesobsolescenceapproachisusedtocalculategenerationandcollectionquantitiesofusedelectronics.Unlikepreviousstudies,thisstudyincludesuncertaintyininputquantitiesandthenpropagatesthatuncertaintyintooutputsusingMonteCarlosimulations.Generationandcollectionquantitiesaremodeledseparatelyandthencombinedforthefollowingownertypes:residentialandbusiness/public.Thisisdonebecausetheseownertypeshavedifferentconsumption,use,andendofusedispositionhabits.

17

Thebasicapproachforquantifyinggenerationandcollectionincludesthefollowingsteps:

1. Determinethesalesofaproductinaregionoveratimeperiod.2. Determinethetypicaldistributionoflifespansfortheproductoveratime

periodusingtwomethods:literature‐basedandsurvey‐based.3. Calculatehowmanyproductsarepredictedtobegeneratedinagivenyear

usingthesalesandlifespaninformation.4. Calculatehowmanyofthegeneratedproductsarepredictedtobecollected

inagivenyearbyapplyingcollectionrates.5. Calculatetheweightofgeneratedandcollectedproductsbymultiplyingunit

weightsbythequantities.Distributionofunitweightsofproductsarefoundfromempiricalcollectiondataforagivenyear.Theapplicationoftheunitweightdistributiontoyearsotherthanwhentheempiricaldatawascollectedintroducessomeuncertaintyduetochangesinproductsizeandweightovertime.

1.3.2 Export

Theoverallapproachistoutilizedetailed,disaggregatedtradedatatodistinguishthequantityofusedelectronicsexports.Thestepsareillustratedbelowand,thealgorithmandnumericalexampleareshowninsection5.21inAppendix.

1. Collectandpreparedisaggregated,detailedexporttradedata.

Figure2:Illustrationofexportquantityandunitvalueofdisaggregatedtradedataforagivenworldregion

2. Estimateused‐newthresholdunitvaluethresholdsfordifferentworldregions

byusingNeighborhoodValley‐Emphasismethod(NVEM,seesection5.2.1inappendix),seeFigure3.NVEMfindstheoptimalthresholdwhichsimultaneouslymaximizesthevariancebetweenthemodes(here,usedandnew)andminimizestheprobabilityoftheunitvaluebinatandaroundtheoptimalthreshold.AnexampleofthethresholdrangefoundbyNVEMinChinaExportNVEMisshown

18

inFigure4,withapproximatedistributionssuperimposedonthehistogram.ExportPub.Methodtakesadvantageofpublishedreferencevaluesforusedgoods,andappliesthesamethresholdtoallworldregions.

Figure3:IllustrationofexportquantityandunitvalueofdisaggregatedtradedatawithUsed‐NewthresholddifferentiatingunderlyingUsedandNewdistributionsforagivenworldregion

Figure4:ExampleofUSExportNVEMhistogramwiththresholdrange.2010exportoflaptopsfromUStoUpperMiddleIncomecountriesinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean.UsedandNewestimatedmodelsuperimposed.

19

3. SumthequantityofgoodsdomesticallyexportedfromtheUStopartnercountrieswithaunitvaluebelowtheused‐newthreshold.

Figure5:IllustrationofsumofUsedandNewexportquantitiesfromdisaggregatedtradedatawithUsed‐NewthresholddifferentiatingunderlyingUsedandNewdistributionsforagivenworldregion

4. Optional:Estimatethere‐exportpotentialofdomesticexportsbyinvestigatingthetoptradepartner’sre‐exportactivity.

20

2 Results

2.1 GenerationandCollectionResults

2.1.1 TVs

2.1.1.1 GenerationFigure6showssalesofnewproductsputonthemarketincomparisonwiththis

study’sestimationofhistoricalgeneration,foundwitha10,000trialMonteCarlosimulationinMicrosoftExcelusingOracleCrystalBall.Theuncertaintyinthegeneratedquantityestimatesiscausedbythevariationinsalesquantities(+/‐10%)anduncertaintyinthelifespanandgenerationpaths.Theerrorbarsforthegenerationestimatesinthisstudyrepresenta90%confidenceinterval.WhilethesalesofCRTTVshavedeclinedrapidlysince2002,thegenerationisstillatahighvolumeduringthepastfewyears.Thatisbecausethegenerationisalwaysalagofthesalesdataduetothelonguselifetimeandstorage.Forexample,thegenerationofusedTVsintheyear2010ismostlyfromsalesintheyeararound2000.However,generationstartedtodecreaseafter2008.WiththewidespreadsubstitutionofCRTTVswithFlatPanelTVsintheUS,thegenerationofFlatPanelTVswillcontinuetogrowinthenearterm.

Figure6:SalesofNewTVsandComparisonofGenerationEstimatesofUsedTVs

21

2.1.1.2 CollectionandComparisonFigure7showsthisstudy’sestimateofgenerationandcollectionincomparison

withEPAestimates(EPAa,2008report8).TwomethodshavebeenusedtoestimatethecollectionofTVsinthisstudy,Literature‐basedA,Literature‐basedB,andSurvey‐based(seeAppendix6.1.1fordetails).Whiletheresidentialandbusiness/publicsectorswereseparatelysurveyedintheirsurvey,thegenerationandcollectionamountsfromthebusiness/publicsectorwereonly5%and7%oftheresidential,respectively.Thecollectionratescalculatedinthisstudyusingthreemethodsareallaround55%inyear2010,whichismuchhigherthantheEPAestimate,whichwasaround17%II.Asareminder,thecollectionrateusedinthisstudyismodeledbasedonsurveysfromtheyear2010.However,thecollectionratefromEPAestimateisprojectedbasedondatafromstateandlocalelectronicscollectionprogramsthatwascollectedin2004.

Note:EPAa,20088wascitedbecauseEPAb2011reportdidnotdifferentiatethetypeofTVs.Theerrorbarsinthisstudyrepresent90%confidenceinterval.

Figure7:GenerationandCollectionofUsedTVsin2010andComparisonwithOtherEstimates

IIUSEPA,ElectronicswastemanagementintheUnitedStates(approach1).US.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(USEPA).Washington,DC,US,2008:“CollectionrateinEPAreportisprojectedbasedonexistingstateandlocalelectronicscollectionprogramwhichhavebeendonein2004.”

22

Table2presentstheestimatesofthequantityofTVsgeneratedandcollectedintheyear2010.Thecollectionrateusedtoestimatethecollectionisbasedonusingsurveydata.

Table2:GenerationandCollectionofUsedTVsin2010(Thousandunits)

Generation/Collection TypeofTV

MeanLow High

Qty %

GenerationCRTTVs 25,141 18,488 29,069

FlatPanelTVs 7,999 1,146 20,827Total 33,141 23,493 46,614

CollectionCRTTVs 12,317 49% 8,772 14,745

FlatPanelTVs 4,414 55% 528 9,843Total 16,879 51% 10,813 22,281

Note:Literature–basedmethod,andthelowandhighinthisstudyrepresent90%confidenceinterval.

Figure8presentscomparisonsoftheseresultsbothinquantityandweightwithEPAestimations(both2008and2011reports,thelatterisanupdatedversionof2008).WhiletheestimateofgenerationofCRTTVsiscomparabletoEPAresults,theestimateofgenerationofFlatPanelTVsislargerthantheEPAresults.ThedifferenceisbecauseashorterproductlifespanisassumedinthisstudythanintheEPAreport.EPAestimatesdifferentiatebetweenCRTandFlatPanelTVs,butusestaticaccountingforshiftingtrendsinlifespans.Furthermore,their“Totallife”figuresrefertolifespanstagesuntilgeneration.Inthisstudy,lifespanstageassumptionshavebeendisaggregatedbyTVtype,ownertype,anddistinguishbetweenfirstuse,reuse,andstoragebasedtheextensiveliteraturedataandsurveydatabyKahhatandWilliamsin2008(seesection5.1.2inAppendix).Wehavedonesimilarassumptionsandparametersmodelingforotherelectronicsinthisstudy.

23

Note:EPAa,20088;EPAb,20119.Theerrorbarsinthisstudyrepresent90%confidenceinterval.

Figure8:QuantityandWeightestimatesofGenerationandCollectionofUsedTVsin2010aComparisonwithEPAEstimates:

24

2.1.2 MobilePhones

2.1.2.1 GenerationFigure9showssalesofnewmobilephone(includingfeaturephonesand

smartphones)putonthemarketincomparisonwiththisstudy’sestimateofthehistoricgeneration.Theresultshowsthatthegenerationiscontinuallyincreasingandtherewere177million(coefficientofvariation=14%)usedmobilephonesgeneratedin2010.Becausethelifespan(3‐5years)ofmobilephonesisshorterthanotherelectronics,thegenerationfollowsthetrendofthehistoricalsalesdatawithashortertimelag.Onlytheliterature‐basedmethodisappliedtothemobilephonebecausethereisnosurveydataavailable.

Note:Theerrorbarsforthegenerationestimatesinthisstudyrepresent90%confidenceinterval;Uncertaintywasassumedforthesalesdatawhenmodeling(COV=10%).

Figure9:SalesofNewMobilePhoneandComparisonofGenerationEstimatesofUsedMobilePhone

2.1.2.2 CollectionandComparisonFigure10presentsthisstudy’sestimateofgenerationandcollectionincomparison

withEPAestimates(both20088and20119);onlythisstudydifferentiatestheownertypeofmobilephones.Theresidentialsectordominatesthegeneratedandcollectedmobilephones,whichaccountsforaround70%ofthetotal.Duetothefactthatthecollectionrateusedinthisstudyis60%(average)inyear2010,thecollectionvolumeofusedmobilephoneisgreaterthanthatintheEPAreport8.

25

Note:Theerrorbarsinthisstudyrepresent90%confidenceinterval.

Figure10:GenerationandCollectionofUsedMobilePhoneandComparisonwithEPAEstimatesin2010

Table3presentsestimatesofthequantityofmobilephonesgeneratedandcollectedintheyear2010.Thelowandhighinthisstudyrepresent90%confidenceinterval.

Table3:GenerationandCollectionofUsedMobilePhonesin2010(Thousandunits)

Sectors

Generation Collection

Mean Low HighMean

Low HighQty %

Business/Public 54,883 48,069 63,765 48,016 87% 37,797 59,537

Residential 121,174 69,470 147,793 71,468 59% 40,742 87,610

Total 176,057 121,782 204,853 119,484 68% 87,451 140,180

26

2.1.3 Computers


study’sestimateofhistoricalgenerationandcollection.Collectionestimateswerebasedonsurveydata.Althoughthesalesofdesktopshavedeclinedsince2000,generationhasbeenkeptatahighvolumeduringthepastfewyearsbecauseofthelagcausedbylonguselifetime(orreuse)andstorage.However,thereissomeevidencethatgenerationhasstartedtodeclineafter2011.Bycontrast,generationoflaptophasbeenincreasingrapidlyduetotheirpopularity.Onlytheliterature‐basedmethodisappliedtothecomputersandmonitorbecausethesurveydataisinsufficient.


Figure11:ResidentialSales,Generation,andCollectionEstimatesofUsedComputers.

27

2.1.3.2 CollectionandComparisonFigure12showsthisstudy’sestimateofgenerationandcollectionincomparison

withEPAestimates(EPAa,20088).Notethatuncertaintyinthecollectedquantityestimatesmayactuallybealowerboundduetouncertaintyinthecollectionrates.


Figure12:GenerationandCollectionofUsedComputersandComparisonwithEPAEstimatesin2010

Whilethegenerationestimateofdesktopsintheyear2010iscomparable,thegenerationoflaptopsinthisstudyisalmosthalftheEPAestimate.Thesalesdatashouldbesimilarduetotheuseofasimilarsource.However,thedifferenceiscausedbythelifespanassumptions(seetheexplanationinsection2.1.1.2).Sincethecollectionrateusedinthisstudyisabove70%inyear2010,thecollectionvolumeofusedcomputersisgreaterthanthatintheEPAreport8,whichassumeda23%collectionrate.

28

Table4presentsthequantitiesofcomputersgeneratedandcollectedinyear2010bothbytypeandsector.

Table4:GenerationandCollectionofUsedComputersin2010(Thousandunits)

SectorsandTypesGeneration Collection

Mean Low HighMean

Low HighQty %

Desktop

Business/Public 8,219 7,501 8,938 6,473 79% 4,698 8,404

Residential 14,385 12,823 16,049 10,181 71% 8,322 12,249

Total 22,604 20,773 24,481 16,654 74% 13,821 19,584

Laptop

Business/Public 3,570 3,258 3,883 2,790 78% 2,005 3,645

Residential 3,728 2,203 5,627 2,727 73% 1,575 4,243

Total 7,298 5,731 9,233 5,517 76% 4,013 7,252

TotalComputers

Business/Public 11,789 10,759 12,821 9,263 79% 6,703 12,049

Residential 18,113 15,673 20,843 12,908 71% 10,346 15,817

Total 29,902 27,145 32,878 22,171 74% 18,237 26,301

Note:Thelowandhighinthisstudyrepresent90%confidenceinterval.

29

2.1.4 Monitors


study’sestimateofhistoricalgenerationandcollection.


Figure13:ResidentialSales,Generation,andCollectionofEstimatesoftheUsedMonitors

TheinflectionpointofthesalescurveforCRTmonitorsstartedaround2000.Accordingly,generationkeptincreasingbefore2010andthendecreasingafterthat,likethesametrendassalesdata.Before2007,therewasfastsalesgrowthofFlatPanelmonitorsbecauseoftheirincreasingpopularity.Giventheaveragelifespanisaround10years,thegenerationofFlatPanelmonitorshasbeenrapidlyincreasinginrecentyears.

2.1.4.2 CollectionandComparisonFigure14showsthisstudy’sestimateofgenerationandcollectionquantitiesin

comparisonwithEPAestimates(EPAa,20088)intheyear2010.Notethatuncertaintyinthecollectedquantityestimatesmayactuallybealowerboundduetouncertaintyinthecollectionrates.

30


Figure14:GenerationandCollectionofUsedMonitorsandComparisonwithEPAEstimatesin2010

WhilethequantityestimateofgenerationofCRTmonitorsinthisstudyiscomparabletotheEPAestimate,theweightissmallerthantheEPAestimate.Thisisbecausetheassumptionofunitweightdataisdifferent.Theunitweightdataforcomputersandmonitorsinthisstudyarebasedonsurveys(samplingdatain2010)ofusedelectronicsbyOregonandWashingtonI,withthesurveysamplesof3286and4191forcrossingbrandsofmonitorsbyOregonandWashington,1774and2655fordesktop,352and270forlaptop,respectively.Bycontrast,theEPAuseddatafromtheFlorida

INCERBrandDataManagementSystem,samplingsharefromcomputerandmonitors(weight)‐OregonandWashingtonSamplingData:http://www.electronicsrecycling.org/BDMS/AlphaList.aspx?sort=All

31

DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(DEP)todevelopweightestimatesfordesktopCPUs,hard‐copydevices,PCFlatPanels,andCRTTVspriorto2008.

However,thegenerationestimateofFlatPanelmonitorsinthisstudyisalmosthalfoftheEPAestimate.Again,thesalesdatashouldbesimilarduetotheuseofasimilarsource.Thedifferenceiscausedbythelifespanassumptions.

Duetothefactthatthecollectionrateusedinthisstudyisabove70%(average)intheyear2010,thecollectionvolumeofusedcomputersisgreaterthanthatintheEPAreport8,whichassumeda23%collectionrate.Table5presentsthequantityofmonitorsgeneratedandcollectedinyear2010bothbytypeandbysector.MoreCRTmonitorsaregeneratedandcollectedthanFlatPanelmonitors.

Table5:GenerationandCollectionofUsedMonitorsin2010(Thousandunit)

SectorsandTypesGeneration Collection

Mean Low HighMean

Low HighQty %

CRT

Business/Public

3,264 2,979 3,550 2,896 89% 2,454 3,369

Residential 7,485 4,631 11,188 5,122 68% 3,081 7,864

Total 10,750 7,872 14,446 8,018 75% 5,897 10,782

FlatPanel

Business/Public

3,968 3,622 4,316 2,730 69% 1,554 4,009

Residential 2,953 1,690 4,596 2,020 68% 1,115 3,224

Total 6,921 5,571 8,602 4,750 69% 3,101 6,536

Total

Business/Public

7,232 6,601 7,865 5,626 78% 4,035 7,359

Residential 10,439 7,007 14,615 7,142 68% 4,629 10,397

Total 17,671 14,171 21,910 12,768 72% 9,523 16,421

Note:Thelowandhighinthisstudyrepresent90%confidenceinterval.

32

2.2 ExportResults

2.2.1 TVs

Figure 15 shows the export flow of CRT TVs and Flat Panel TVs in terms oftransportation mode, destination region, and income groups classification of thedestinationregion.TheexportquantityoftheCRTTVsvialandisgreaterthanviaairandvessel,whichwereshippedtoneighboringregions,suchasNorthAmerica(NA)andLatinAmericaandCaribbean(LAC).ExportsofCRTTVsaremuchgreater thanFlatPanelTVs.ForCRTTVs, the fractionof exports toNA is thehighest (44%), followedbyLACwithafractionof39%andAsiaby10%.Ifgroupedbytheincome,themajordestinationsaretouppermiddleincomecountries(72%).

Figure15:ExportFlowsofUsedTVsin2010:byTransportMode,DestinationRegion,andIncomeGroupClassificationoftheDestinationRegion.

33

Figure 16 compares the estimates and associated uncertainty for generated,collected, and exported used TVs. Considering the uncertainty in these estimates, thefractionsofusedCRTTVsandFlatPanelTVscollectedforprocessingthataresubsequentlyexportedare2.4%and0.2%onaveragerespectively.Asareminder,theexportquantitiespresentedhereonlyrepresentthetradeofwholeunits.Ofcourse,disassembledpartsandmaterialsmayalsobeexportedusingdifferenttradecodes(e.g.,circuitboardsorplastics),orusedwholeunitsmaybemisclassifiedandshippedusingothertradecodes.Thesewouldnotbeincludedinthefiguresreportedhere.

Note:Asareminder,inlightoftheassumptionthatthereisnoCRTTVsmanufacturingindustryintheUS,domesticexportofCRTTVs,TubesandTubesglasswereallassumedastheused.ExportresultforFlatPanelTVsisbasedonThresholdChinaExportNVEMbecausetheUSExportNVEMisnotapplicableduetotheinsufficientdata.Theerrorbarsforgenerationandcollectionrepresent90%confidenceinterval,andrepresenttheminimumandmaximumforexport.

Figure16:FlowsofUsedTVsintheUSin2010

34

2.2.2 MobilePhones

Threeused‐newthresholdshavebeenappliedtomobilephonestodistinguishusedmobilephonesfromnewbasedonUSdomestictradedata.ThethreethresholdsaredescribedintheAppendix6.2.1.Asareminder,thethresholdsarecalculatedusingUSdomesticexportdatainUSExportNVEM,ChineseexportdatainChinaExportNVEMasacomparisonII,andsalesvalueestimatesinExportPub.Method.Figure17presentsthemobilephoneexportscalculatedusingthethreethresholdmethods.Thereisahighexportrateofusedmobilephones,whichaccountforaround90%ofthetotalexports(usedandnew)basedonthresholdUSExportNVEM.ThequantityofusedmobilephonesidentifiedbyExportPub.Methodisshownwithsignificantuncertainty,whichisduetothebroadrangeofthethresholdvalues.

Note:Theerrorbarsrepresenttheminimumandmaximum.

Figure17:ExportofUsedMobilePhonesfromtheUSin2010UsingtheThreeThresholdMethods

Figure 18 depicts the quantities of exported mobile phones broken down bytransport mode, destination region, and income group classification of the destinationregion. With regards to the destination regions, the fraction of exports to LAC are thehighest,71%onaverage,followedbyAsiawithaaverageof21%.Thereisasmallexportfraction toAfrica, less than1%.This finding is comparable to those in the reportby theElectronicsTakeBackCoalitionIII:“AlthoughthereissomemarketforusedcellphonesintheUS(suchasdomesticabuseprograms),theprincipalmarketsforusedandrefurbishedcell phones are in Latin America and South America”. In addition, while the mobile

IIThekeyassumptionsforthismethodare:themajorityofexportedelectronicgoodsarenew,sinceChinamanufacturesthemajorityoftheworld’selectronics,includingcomputersandmobilephones;goodsexporteddirectlytodestinationnationshavethesameunitvaluedistributionasthoseexportedthroughtransithubssuchasHongKongSAR;thresholdvaluesforcountriesinthesameworldregionwiththesameeconomicclassificationarethesame;andthethresholdvalueofelectronicsoriginating/manufacturedinChinaissimilartothatofgoodsoriginatingfromothercountries(i.e.U.S.).

IIIElectronicsTakeBackCoalition.ElectronicWaste(E‐waste)RecyclingFacts(2008).http://www.electronicstakeback.com/resources/facts‐and‐figures/

35

communication standardusedby a country is a significant remarketing constraint, TimeDivisionMultipleAccess(TDMA)andCodeDivisionMultipleAccess(CDMA)prevailintheAmericas. Nevertheless, all interviewed industry experts say that demand for secondaryhandsets outstrips supply for all major standards IV. As for the income groupsclassifications,themajordestinationsareuppermiddleincome(40%),lowmiddleincome(27%)andhighincome(22%).Finally,inthemodeoftransport,thefractionsofairexportsare 73%, 19% for vessel exports and 8% for land exports. The large fraction of airtransportreaffirmsthedecisionnottousetheBillofLadingdataapproachtorepresentallexportsbecauseitexcludesairexportdata,andthereforeasignificantportionofexports.

Note:AverageresultsarebasedonthresholdUSExportNVEM.NA=NorthAmerica;LAC=LatinAmerica&Carribean;HI=HighIncome.UMI=UpperMiddleIncome;LMI=LowMiddleIncome;LI=LowIncome.

Figure18:ExportofUsedMobilePhonein2010:byRegionsandIncomeGroupandModeofTransport

Figure 19 compares the estimates and associated uncertainty for generated,collected and exported used mobile phones. Considering the uncertainty in theseestimates, the fraction of used mobile phones collected for processing that aresubsequentlyexportedisaround10%onaverage.

IVRolandGeyer&VeredDoctoriBlass(2010).Theeconomicsofcellphonereuseandrecycling.Int.J.Adv.Manuf.Technol.47:515–525

36

Note:ExportresultsarebasedonthresholdUSExportNVEM.Theerrorbarsforgenerationandcollectionestimatesrepresent90%confidenceinterval,andrepresenttheminimumandmaximumforexport.

Figure19:FlowsofUsedMobilePhonesintheUSin2010.

2.2.3 Computers

Thethreeused‐newthresholdsmethodshavealsobeenappliedtocomputers(whicharedividedintotwotypes:laptopsanddesktops(includingserversandotherprocessunit))todeterminequantitiesofusedcomputersexported,andtheresultsforthisanalysisarepresentedinFigure20.Laptopshavesignificantlyhigherexportquantitiesthanthedesktops,whichispartlybecauselaptopshavehighervalueforfurtherreuseorrecyclingandcanbeeasilyshippedduetotheweightandvolumeadvantageascomparedtodesktops.TheuncertaintyinthequantityestimatesusingExportPub.Methodishigherthantheothertwomethodsduetothebroadrangeofpricesfoundforusedproducts.


Figure20:ExportofUsedComputersfromtheUSin2010UsingtheThreeThresholdMethods

Figure21showstheexport flowsofcomputerproductsdividedby transportationmode,destinationregions,and incomegroupclassificationof thedestinationregions.Airtransportwas themost commonmode,and themost commondestinationswereEurope

37

(32%ofallusedcomputerexports),Asia(31%),andNorthAmerica(21%).Whendividingbyincomegroupsclassifications,boththeuppermiddleincomesandhighOECDwerethemajordestinations,accountingfor75%ofthetotal.

Note:AverageresultsarebasedonthresholdUSExportNVEM.NA=NorthAmerica;LAC=LatinAmerica&Carribean;HI=HighIncome.UMI=UpperMiddleIncome;LMI=LowMiddleIncome;LI=LowIncome.

Figure21:ExportofUsedComputersin2010:byRegions,IncomeGroupsandModeofTransport

38

Note:TheexportnumberisbasedonthresholdUSExportNVEM,andthedesktopchartincludesthedesktop,server,andotherdesktopcategories.Theerrorbarsforgenerationandcollectionrepresent90%confidenceinterval,andrepresenttheminimumandmaximumforexport.

Figure22:FlowsofUsedComputersintheUSin2010

39

2.2.4 Monitors

ForCRTmonitors,allexportslistedinthetradedataareasassumedtobeusedbecausetheseproductsarenolongermanufacturedintheUSandthevalueoftheproductsinthetradedataaretoolowtobenewproducts.Thus,thethreeused‐newthresholdshaveonlybeenappliedtoFlatPanelmonitors.Figure23presentstheresultsoftheanalysisofexportsusingthethreethresholdmethods.ThequantityofusedFlatPanelmonitorsidentifiedbyExportPub.MethodhassignificantuncertaintybecauseofthebroadrangeoftheusedFlatPanelprices.


Figure23:ExportofUsedFlatPanelMonitorsfromtheUSin2010UsingtheThreeThresholdMethods

Figure24showstheexportflowofCRTmonitorsandFlatPanelmonitorsintermsof transportation mode, destination regions, and income groups classification of thedestinationregion.ThereweremoreexportsofFlatPanelmonitors thanCRTmonitor interms of quantity, and the exports of PC monitors were greater than those of videomonitors.WhilemoreexportsofFlatPanelmonitorswereshippedviavesselthanlandorair,exportsofCRTmonitorsweresurprisinglyhighestbyair.Neighboringcountrieswerethemajor destinations for the two types of monitors. For CRTmonitors, NA ranks first(34%), followed by LAC (28%), and Asia (23%). When divided by income groupsclassifications, the upper middle incomes dominate the major destinations for CRTs,accounting for 48%of shipments, followedbyHI‐OECDwith a fractionof 31%. For LCDmonitors,LACranks firstasadestinationregion(51%), followedbyNA(38%),andAsia(8%). When divided by income groups classifications, the upper middle incomes alsodominatethemajordestinations forLCDs,accounting for79%ofshipments, followedbylowmiddleincomeswithafractionof10%.

40

Note:AverageresultsforFlatPanelmonitorsarebasedonthresholdUSExportNVEM.NA=NorthAmerica;LAC=LatinAmerica&Carribean;HI=HighIncome.UMI=UpperMiddleIncome;LMI=LowMiddleIncome;LI=LowIncome.

Figure24:ExportFlowofUsedMonitorsin2010:byRegions,IncomeGroupsandModeofTransport

Figure 25 compares the estimates and associated uncertainty for generated,collected,andexportedusedmonitors.Consideringtheuncertaintyintheseestimates,thefractions of used CRT and Flat Panel monitors collected for processing that aresubsequentlyexportedare3.4%and12.2%(onaverage),respectively.

41

Note:TheexportofCRTsincludesCRTmonitors,videomonitors,andmonitorswithdesktops;allexportswereassumedused.TheexportsofFlatPanelsarebasedonthresholdUSExportNVEM.TheFlatPanelcategoryincludesdesktopmonitorsandvideomonitors.Theerrorbarsforgenerationandcollectionrepresent90%confidenceinterval,andrepresenttheminimumandmaximumforexport.

Figure25:FlowsofUsedMonitorsintheUSin2010

42

3 ComparisonandSummaryoftheFlowsforAllExaminedProducts

3.1 Generation,CollectionandExportComparison

Figure26depictsgeneration,collection,andexportquantitiesandweightforallusedelectronicproducts.Thetotalcollectionamountofallelectronicsaccountsformorethan60%ofthegeneration,andtheexportofwholeunitsaccountsfor8%ofthecollectionquantityandonly3%weight,respectively.Figure27showsthecollectionweightandthefractionoftheweightofthecollectedproductsthatwereexported.Figure28showstheweightbreakdownbyproductofgeneration,collection,andexportamounts.Theseresultsshowthatmobilephonesdominatethegenerated,collectedandexportedusedelectronicsbyquantity,andTVsdominatethegeneratedandcollectedusedelectronicsifmeasuredbyweight.However,monitorsdominatethetypesofusedelectronicsforexport.

Note:ExportresultsarebasedonthresholdUSExportNVEM,ifapplied.Theerrorbarsforgenerationandcollectionrepresent90%confidenceinterval,andrepresenttheminimumandmaximumfromthemeanforexport.

Figure26:FlowsofUsedElectronicsintheUSin2010

43

Note:Exportresults(average)arebasedonthresholdUSExportNVEMifathresholdisapplied.

Figure27:WeightofusedproductscollectedintheUSin2010andthefractionofthosecollectedproductsthatweresubsequentlyexported.

Figure28:WeightfractionsofUsedElectronicsintheUSin2010

44

3.2 ExportSummary

Figure29showsthefractionsofallUSexportsforeachproducttypethatareusedversusnew.Thereissignificantvariationacrosstheproducttypes,withexportsofCRTdisplaysbeingexclusivelyusedandexportsofFlatPaneldisplaysandcomputingequipmentbeingprimarilynew.Mobilephonesaresomewhereinbetween.

Note:NormalizedresultsarebasedonthresholdUSExportNVEMifathresholdisapplied.

Figure29:TheFractionofAllUSExportsofElectronicsProductsfromtheUSin2010ThatAreUsedandNew.

Figure30comparestheexportofusedelectronicsbytransportationmode,destinationregions,andincomegroupsclassificationofthedestinationregions.Theheavyelectronics,e.g.,TVsandmonitors,aremorelikelytobeshippedbylandandvesseltoneighboringregions(NAandLAC).ThemajordestinationsformobilephonewereLACandAsiancountries.EuropeancountriesandAsiancountriesweremorelikelytoreceiveusedcomputers.Africaistheleastcommondestination,whichissimilartowhatisfoundintheEUcountrystudies,mainlytheDutchFutureFlowsreport15.

45

Note:NormalizedresultsarebasedonthresholdUSExportNVEM.

Figure30:QuantityFractionsofUSExportFlowsin2010fortheFourUsedElectronicsTypesBrokenDownbyTransportMode,DestinationRegions,andIncomeGroupsClassificationoftheDestinationRegions.

Figure31comparesthetop15exportdestinationsforthefourtypesofusedelectronics.UsedTVsandmonitorshavemainlybeenexportedtoMexico,becausetheworldhasfewCRTprocessingfacilities;mostareinMexicoandIndia.Forexample,thesurveysconductedbyUSITC10revealedthattheCRTglassattheCaliResources/TDMfacilityinMexico,whereglassisseparatedandcleaned,hasbeenshippedtoSamtel/VideoconinIndiafortheproductionofnewCRTglass.Themajordestinationsfor

46

computerswereAsiancountries,includingHongKong,UnitedArabEmirates(UAE)andLebanon.BothHongKongandmanyLACcountriesweremostlikelytoreceiveusedmobilephones.Asareminder,thesecountriesshouldnotbeviewedasthefinaldestinationcountriesbecausetheymayactuallyrepresentastoppingpointforproductsbeforetheyarere‐exportedtoanothercountryintheregion.

Inthenextsection,HongKong,UAEandLebanonhavebeenshowntore‐exportasignificantfractionoflaptops,thoughthedatacannotdistinguishbetweenre‐exportsofusedandnewlaptops.Thetradedatadoesnotidentifywhetherproductswillbere‐exported,soitcanonlybeguessedbasedonthedestination(e.g.,somecountriesaremorelikelytobere‐exportlocationsthanothers).

Note:NormalizedresultsarebasedonthethresholdUSExportNVEM ifthresholdsareapplied

Figure31:Top15ExportDestinationsforEachProductTypein2010.

47

3.2.1 PotentialofRe‐exportofExportedUsedLaptops

Publicallyavailabletradedataisreportedastransactionsbetweenanexporterandanimporter.Howeverduetore‐exports,sometimestheimportcountryisnotthefinaldestination.Togetasenseofthefinaldestinationofusedlaptops,theprobabilityofre‐exportuponimportofusedandnewlaptopsinthetoptendestinationcountrieswasestimated,asshowninTable6.Theratioofre‐exportstoimportsservesasthatestimatewherethedatawasavailable,andisotherwiseconsideredtobelessthanorequaltotheratioofgeneralexportstoimports.ConsideringthatdomesticexportsfromtheUSarenotlikelytobere‐exportedbacktotheUS,allexportfigurespresentedexcludetheUS.Overall,atmost80%ofexportsfromtheUStothesecountrieswouldnotbere‐exported.

Table6:Potentialofre‐exportfrom2010toptendestinationcountriesQuantitiesoflaptopsinthousands.UsedexportsfromUSbasedonUSExportNVEM.

Country UsedExportsfromUS

ImportsfromWorld

ExportstoWorld,exceptUS

Exports/Imports

Re‐ExportstoWorld,exceptUS

MaximumRe‐Exports/Imports

Lebanon 114.1 75.7 31.8 42.0% ≤42.0%Argentina 71.2 1,537.3 2.3 0.1% ≤0.1%HongKong 67.3 5,257.7 2,508.9 47.7% 2,508.7 47.7%Canada 60.7 5,436.9 148.2 2.7% 78.7 1.4%UnitedArabEmirates(2008) 59.5 674.6 229.1 34.0% 229.1 34.0%

Chile 57.4 1,280.0 23.6 1.8% ≤1.8%Bolivia 56.1 1,802.7 2.0 0.1% ≤0.1%Mexico 37.1 6,418.0 58.1 0.9% ≤0.9%UnitedKingdom 33.1 12,313.5 2,457.3 20.0% ≤20.0%China 31.9 1,226.1 134,209.6 10946.0% 376.2 30.7%

ConsiderabletradewithinthetoptendestinationcountrieswasobservedbyasdemonstratedinFigure31.Argentina,HongKong,UnitedArabEmirates,Chile,UnitedKingdomandChinaareexportdestinationsfromothertoptenUSdestinationcountries.Canada’stopthreere‐exportdestinationsaretoptendestinationcountries.Also,notethatLebanonreportsfewerimportsfromtheworldthantheUSexportestimate.

ExportingCountry TradeDirection ImportingCountryLebanon LebanonArgentina ArgentinaHongKong HongKongCanada CanadaUnitedArabEmirates UnitedArabEmiratesChile ChileBolivia BoliviaMexico MexicoUnitedKingdom UnitedKingdomChina ChinaFigure32:Laptoptradebetweenthetoptendestinationcountriesin2010

48

3.2.2 ComparisonwithOtherStudy

InFigure33below,comparisonsaremadebetweenthisstudy’sexportestimates,averagedacrossallmethods,andresultsfromtheUSITC(2013)study10.AsdescribedindetailintheAppendix5.2.1.1,themainresultsoftheUSITCwereinferredfromabroadsurveyofplayersthroughouttheusedelectronicschain.Additionally,analysisofshipment‐leveltradedatafrom2011wascompleted.ThoughUsed‐Newthresholdswerenotidentified,statisticswereprovidedatthelowest10%,25%,50%and100%oftradebyaverageunitvalue.Comparisonsweremadebetweenappropriatestatisticsthatwerecomparablewiththisstudy’sUsed‐Newthresholds.Thecomparableresultsbetweenthisstudy’sapproachandtheUSITCshipment‐levelresults,withtheexceptionoflaptops,suggestthatthisstudy’stradedataapproachcanreasonablyapproximateshipment‐leveltotalquantities.

Figure33:ComparisonbetweenthisstudyandUSITCreport

49

4 ConclusionsandRecommendations

4.1 Conclusions

Thisreportpresentstheresultsofanefforttocalculatequantitiesofusedelectronics(aswholeunits)generatedandcollectedintheUnitedStates,andexportedfromtheUnitedStates.TheproductsincludedTVs,mobilephones,computersandmonitors.Generationandcollectionquantitieswerecalculatedusingasalesobsolescencemethodthatincludeduncertainty,andexportquantitieswerecalculatedusingatradedataapproach.Theadvantageofthetradedataapproachisthattradedataforalltypesofelectronicproductsiswidelyavailable(includingextensivehistoricaldata),updatedrelativelyfrequently,andprovidesinsightintothedestinationsofproducts.Thedisadvantageisthattherearenotradecodesforusedproducts,exportersmaynotbereportingshipmentsofusedproductsproperly,andthedestinationlistedinthetradedatamayactuallybeaninitialstoppingpointandnotafinaldestination.Giventheselimitations,theexportflowsshouldbeviewedasalowerboundbecausetheymaynotbecapturingalloftheflowsofusedelectronicsshippedaswholeunits.

Theresultsshowthatapproximately258.2millionunitsofusedelectronicweregeneratedand171.4millionunitswerecollectedintheUSin2010.Exportflowswereestimatedtobe14.4millionunits,whichis8.5%ofthecollectedestimateonaverage.Onaweightbasis,1.6milliontonsofusedelectronicsweregeneratedintheUSin2010and0.9milliontonswerecollected.Oftheamountcollected,26.5thousandtonswereexported,whichis3.1%oftheweightcollected.Mobilephonesdominategeneration,collection,andexportonaunitbasis,butTVsandmonitorsdominateonaweightbasis.Asareminder,thismethodologycanonlybeusedtotrackwholeunitsandnotscrapcommoditystreamsfromunitsdisassembledintheUS.Whilethetotalquantityofusedelectronicsexportsreportedhereismostlikelyanunderestimateduetothelikelihoodthatsomeshipmentsofwholeunitsarenotreportedusingthepropertradecodes,theproportionsofexportstoworldregionsislikelyaccurate.

Analysisofthedestinationregionsindicatesthatbulkyelectronics,especiallyTVsandmonitors,weremorelikelytobeexportedoverlandorbyseatodestinationssuchasMexico,Venezuela,ParaguayandChina.ThemajordestinationsformobilephonewereAsia(HongKong)andLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean(ParaguayandGuatemala,Panama,PeruandColombia).Bycontrast,Asiancountries(HongKong,UnitedArabEmiratesandLebanon)weremorelikelytoreceivetheusedcomputers(especiallylaptops).Around80%ofusedelectronics,includingTVs,monitors,andmobilephones,areexportedtocountrieswithuppermiddleandlowermiddleincomegroups.ItisinterestingtonotethatAfricareceivesaverysmallfractionoftheusedelectronics(selectedtypesofelectronicsinthisstudy)exportedfromtheUS.

Generally,thekeydriversofgenerationofusedelectronicsestimateswerethelengthoftheuselifespanstageandthetotalsalesestimates.Thissuggeststhatforgenerationestimateswithloweruncertainty,uselifetimeestimateswithloweruncertaintyshouldbeatoppriority,followedbymoreaccuratesalesdataestimates.Unsurprisingly,

50

collectionrateisthemostimportantparameterforcollectionestimatesandproductunitweightisthemostimportantparameterforweight‐basedestimates.Therangeofused‐newthresholdsdrivetheuncertaintyfortheexportestimate.Amongthethreeused‐newthresholdmethods,thesalesvalue‐basedthreshold(ExportPub.Method)hasalargeruncertaintythanthethresholdsbasedonthedistributionsofthetradedata(ExportNVEM).

4.2 Recommendations

Thereareseveralrecommendationsthatarisefromthiswork.

Thecreationoftradecodesforusedproductswouldenableexplicittrackingofthoseproducts.

Investigationsshouldbedoneintothespecifictradecodesusedbyexportersforusedelectronicsthatarewholeunits.

Allowingmoreopenaccesstoshipmentleveltradedatawouldenablemoreaccurateanalysesofexportflows.

Morecooperationandexchangeofdatabetweeninspectionauthoritiesinexportandimportcountriesshouldbeencouraged.

Increasedreportingofre‐exportdestinationswouldimprovetheaccuracyoffinaldestinationsfortradeflows.

Flowsshouldbeanalyzedacrossmultipleyearsinordertodiscerntrends.

Otherapproachesshouldbeusedtoestimateexportflowsofusedelectronicsinordertounderstandtheimpactofthelimitationsinallapproachesontheestimationofquantities.

51

5 References(1) InteragencyTaskForceonElectronicsStewardship, National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship. Co-

chairs: Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Geological Society of America (GSA). 2011.

(2) USITC. Used electronic products: An examination of US exports. Investigation No. 332-528; USITC. Washington, D.C. USA, 2012.

(3) Schluep, M.; Wasswa, J.; Kreissler, B.; Nicholson, S. E-waste generation and management in Uganda. Proceedings of the 19th Waste Management Conference of the IWMSA (WasteCon2008). Durban, South Africa, 2008.

(4) Terazono, A. Generation and material flow of e-waste in East Asia. In Regional Workshop on E-Waste Identification toward the Prevention of Illegal Transboundary Movemetn for Hazardours Waste and Other Wastes in Asia, BCRC: Beijing, China., 2008.

(5) Terazono, A.; Murakami, S.; Abe, N.; Inanc, B.; Moriguchi, Y.; Sakai, S.-i.; Kojima, M.; Yoshida, A.; Li, J.; Yang, J.; Wong, M. H.; Jain, A.; Kim, I.-S.; Peralta, G. L.; Lin, C.-C.; Mungcharoen, T.; Williams, E. Current status and research on e-waste issues in Asia. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 2006, 8(1), 1-12.

(6) Yang, J.; Lu, B.; Xu, C. WEEE flow and mitigating measures in China. Waste Manage. 2008, 28(9), 1589-1597.

(7) Yu, J.; Williams, E.; Ju, M.; Yang, Y. Forecasting global generation of obsolete personal computers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44(9), 3232-3237.

(8) USEPA. Electronics waste management in the United States (approach 1). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Washington, DC, US, 2008.

(9) USEPA. Electronics waste management in the United States through 2009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Washington DC, US, 2011.

(10) USITC. Used electronic products: An examination of U.S. United States International Trade Commission. Washington, DC, USA, 2013.

(11) Kahhat, R.; Williams, E. Materials flow analysis of e-waste: Domestic flows and exports of used computers from the United States. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2012, 67(0), 67-74.

(12) NERC. Used electronics market study survey analysis. 2003. (13) Miller, T. R.; Gregory, J.; Duan, H.; Kirchain, R. Characterizing transboundary flows of used. Electronics:

Summary report. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA, 2012. (14) Daoud, D. Survey: Inside the US electronics recycling industry. IDC. 2011. (15) Huisman, J.; van der Maesen, M.; Eijsbouts, R. J. J.; Wang, F.; Baldé, C. P.; Wielenga, C. A. Dutch future

flows report. United Nations University, ISP – SCYCLE. Bonn, Germany, 2012. (16) UNEP. E-waste volume I: Inventory assessment manual. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),

International Environmental Technology Centre. Osaka Office, Japan, 2007. (17) Matthews, H. S.; McMichael, F. C.; Hendrickson, C. T.; Hart, D. J. Disposition and end-of-life options for

personal computers. In Carnegie Mellon University, 1997. (18) National Safety Council. Electronic product recovery and recycling baseline report: Recycling of selected

electronic products in the United States. In Washington, D.C., 1999. (19) US EPA ORCR, Electronics waste management in the United States through 2009. In 2011. (20) Gregory, J.; Nadeau, M.; Kirchain, R. Evaluating the economic viability of a material recovery system: The

case of Cathode Ray Tube glass. Environmental Science & Technology 2009, 43(24), 9245-9251. (21) PHA Consulting Associates Electronic waste recovery study. Nova Scotia, Canada, 2006. (22) Müller, E.; Schluep, M.; Widmer, R.; Gottschalk, F.; Böni, H., Assessment of e-waste flows: A probabilistic

approach to quantify e-waste based on world ICT and development indicators. In EMPA: Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research.: 2009.

(23) Yang, Y.; Williams, E. Logistic model-based forecast of sales and generation of obsolete computers in the US. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2009, 76(8), 1105-1114.

(24) Babbitt, C.; Kahhat, R.; Williams, E.; Babbitt, G. Evolution of product lifespan and implications for environmental assessment and management: A case study of personal computers in higher education. Environmental Science & Technology 2009, 43(13), 5106-5112.

52

(25) Kahhat R, W. E. Materials flow analysis of e-waste: Domestic flows and exports of used computers from the United States. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2012, 67, 67 - 74.

(26) Wang, F.; Huisman, J.; Stevels, A.; Baldé, C. P. Enhancing e-waste estimates: Improving data quality by multivariate input–output analysis. Waste Management 2013. Available online. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.07.005

(27) RIS International LTD., Information technology (IT) and telecommunication (telecom) waste in Canada - 2003 update. In Concord, Ontario, Canada, 2003.

(28) Consumer Reports. E-waste survey 2006. In 2006. (29) Saphores, J.; Nixon, H.; Ogunseitan, O.; Shapiro, A. How much e-waste is there in US basements and attics?

Results from a national survey. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 90(11), 3322-3331. (30) Babbitt, C. W.; Williams, E.; Kahhat, R. Institutional disposition and management of end-of-life electronics.

Environmental Science & Technology 2011, 45(12), 5366-5372. (31) Van Schaik, A.; Reuter, M. The time-varying factors influencing the recycling rate of products. Resources,

Conservation and Recycling 2004, 40(4), 301-328. (32) Walk, W. Forecasting quantities of disused household crt appliances–a regional case study approach and its

application to baden-württemberg. Waste Management 2009, 29(2), 945-951. (33) Alcorn, W. 2012 CE recycling and reuse survey. Consumer Electronics Association. 2012. (34) Brugge, P. Trends in CE reuse, recycle and removal. Consumer Electronics Association. 2008. (35) Williams, E. Mattick, R. Survey of consumer purchases and use of electronics. In 2009. (36) Urban, B.; Tiefenbeck, V.; Roth, K. Energy consumption of consumer electronics in U.S. Homes in 2010.

Fraunhofer Center for Sustainable Energy Systems. Cambridge, MA, US, 2012. (37) EI. Televisions and projectors in the US. Euromonitor International (EI). 2012. (38) Aoe, T. Eco-efficiency and ecodesign in electrical and electronic products. Journal of Cleaner Production

2007, 15(15), 1406-1414. (39) Feng, C.; Ma, X. Q. The energy consumption and environmental impacts of a color TV set in China. Journal of

Cleaner Production 2009, 17(1), 13-25. (40) Liu, X.; Tanaka, M.; Matsui, Y. Generation amount prediction and material flow analysis of electronic waste:

A case study in Beijing, China. Waste management & research 2006, 24(5), 434-445. (41) Kazemi, M.-A. A.; Eshlaghy, A. T.; Tavasoli, S. Developing the product strategy via product life cycle

simulation according to the system dynamics approach Applied Mathematical Sciences 2011, 5(17), 845-862. (42) CR. E-waste survey 2006. Consumer Reports National Research Center (CR). 2006. (43) MTI. Residential waste reduction and recycling survey 2003: Residential waste reduction and recycling survey

2003 (WA). Market Trends, Inc.(MTI). Washington, US., 2003. (44) KCI. State of electronics in Florida households: Residential household electronics survey. Kessler Consulting,

Inc. (KCI) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tampa, FL, US, 2003. (45) Daoud, D. Report inside the US electronics recycling industry. IDC. 2011. (46) WDNR. Wisconsin residents and electronics recycling, results from 2010 and 2011. Wisconsin DNR.

Wisconsin, US, 2012. (47) ETC. Ten lessons learned from state e-waste laws. Electronics TakeBack Coalition (ETC). San Francisco, CA,

US, 2011. (48) CCGI. 2008 California statewide waste characterization study. California Integrated Waste Management

Board. Sacramento, CA, US, 2009. (49) CCGI. 2003 California statewide waste characterization study. Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. (CCGI) and

California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, CA, US, 2003. (50) Criner, G. K.; Blackmer, T. L. 2011 Maine residential waste characterization study. The University of Maine.

Maine, US, 2012. (51) MDOE. 2009 Maryland solid waste management and diversion report. Maryland Department of the

Environment (MDOE). Baltimore, MD. US, 2010. (52) MID-ASWC. 2010 Massachusetts waste characterization study in support of class II recycling program. MID

Atlantic Solid Waste Consultants (MID-ASWC). Westfield, MA, US, 2011. (53) ODEQ. 2009 Oregon statewide waste composition: Field data and contamination correction. Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Oregon, US, 2009. (54) CCGI. 2009 Washington statewide waste characterization study. Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. (CCGI) and

Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDE). Seattle, WA, US, 2010.

53

(55) DSM-ESI. 2010 Connecticut state-wide solid waste composition and characterization study, final report. DSM Environmental Services, Inc. (DSM-ESI) and Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CDEP). Hartford, Connecticut, US, 2010.

(56) CCGI; DSM-ESI; MSWC. 2006-2007 Delaware solid waste authority statewide waste characterization study. Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. (CCGI), DSM Environnemental Services, Inc. (DSM-ESI), MSW Consultants (MSWC). Delaware, US, 2007.

(57) KCI. Florida Pinellas county 2007 waste composition study final report. Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI), Pinellas County Utilities. Tampa, FL, US, 2007.

(58) RWBI. Georgia statewide waste characterization study. R. W. Beck, Inc. (RWBI), Georgia Department of Community Affairs. Georgia, US, 2005.

(59) CDM. 2009 Illinois commodity/waste generation and characterization study. CDM and Illinois Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunity. Illinois, US, 2009.

(60) Abramowitz, H.; Sun, Y. In MSW_characterizarion_study. Purdue University, Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Hammond, IN, US, 2012.

(61) MID-ASWC. 2011 Iowa statewide waste: Characterization study. MID Atlantic Solid Waste Consultants (MID-ASWC) and Iowa Department Of Natural Resources. Iowa, US, 2011.

(62) RWBI. Iowa statewide waste characterization study. R. W. Beck, Inc. (RWBI), 2005 Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Iowa, US, 2006.

(63) NYC-DS. Preliminary waste characterization study. New York City Department of Sanitation (NYCDS). New York City, US, 2004.

(64) ODEQ. 2005 Oregon statewide waste composition: Field data and contamination correction. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Oregon, US, 2005.

(65) ODEQ. 2002 Oregon statewide waste composition: Field data and contamination correction. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Oregon, US, 2002.

(66) PDEP. 2003 Pennsylvania statewide waste composition study. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP). Pennsylvania, US, 2003.

(67) RWBI. Sioux Falls regional sanitary landfill waste characterization study. R. W. Beck, Inc. (RWBI) and City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. South Dakota, US, 2007.

(68) Painter, R.; Watson, V. 2008 Tennessee waste characterization study. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. Tennessee, US, 2008.

(69) RCC.; MSWC. 2009 Wisconsin statewide waste characterization study. MSW Consultants (MSWC), Recycling Connections Corporation (RCC), Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Wisconsin, US, 2009.

(70) CCGI. 2001 Wisconsin statewide waste characterization study. Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. (CCGI), Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Wisconsin, US, 2003.

(71) Llamas, R. T.; Stofega, W. U.S. Mobile phone 2011-2015 forecast. IDC. 2011. (72) EI Mobile phones in the U.S. Euromonitor International (EI). 2012. (73) USITC. Wire less handsets: Industry & trade summary. United States International Trade Commission.

Washington, DC, USA, 2010. (74) Jang, Y.-C.; Kim, M. Management of used & end-of-life mobile phones in Korea: A review. Resources,

Conservation and Recycling 2010, 55(1), 11-19. (75) Yu, J.; Williams, E.; Ju, M. Analysis of material and energy consumption of mobile phones in China. Energy

Policy 2010, 38(8), 4135-4141. (76) Polák, M.; Drápalová, L. Estimation of end of life mobile phones generation: The case study of the Czech

Republic. Waste Management 2012. (77) Wilhelm, W.; Yankov, A.; Magee, P. Mobile phone consumption behavior and the need for sustainability

innovations. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainabilit 2011, 7(2), 20-40. (78) ISG. 2010 residential recycling survey. ISG, Ramsey County Minnesota. Minnesota, US, 2010. (79) Hanks, K.; Odom, W.; Roedl, D.; Blevis, E. Sustainable millennials: Attitudes towards sustainability and the

material effects of interactive technologies. Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, 2008; pp 333-342.

(80) Deb, P. Fmm: Stata module to estimate finite mixture models. Statistical Software Components 2012. (81) Miller, T. R.; Gregory, J.; Kirchain, R.; Duan, H. Characterizing transboundary flows of used electronics:

Summary report. In MIT and NCER: 2012.

54

(82) Kahhat, R.; Williams, E. Product or waste? Importation and end-of-life processing of computers in Peru. Environmental Science & Technology 2009, 43(15), 6010-6016.

(83) Yoshida, A.; Tasaki, T.; Zollo, A. Material flow analysis of used personal computers in Japan. Waste Management 2009, 29(5), 1602-1614.

(84) Terazono, A., Generation and material flow of e-waste in East Asia. In Regional Workshop on E-Waste Identification toward the Prevention of Illegal Transboundary Movement for Hazardours Waste and Other Wastes in Asia, Beijing, China, 2008.

(85) NERC. Used electronics market study survey analysis. In Northeast Recycling Council, Inc.: 2003. (86) IAER. Iaer electronics recycling industry study. International Association of Electronics Recyclers. 2003. (87) IAER. Iaer electronics recycling industry report. International Association of Electronics Recyclers. 2006. (88) Daoud, D. Survey: Inside the u.S. Electronics recycling industry. In IDC: 2011. (89) World Bank Country and lending groups. http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-

lending-groups (21 July 2012), (90) UN Statistics Division Un comtrade: United nations commodity trade statistics database.

http://comtrade.un.org/db/default.aspx (91) Co, C. Y. Factors that account for the large variations in US export prices. Review of World Economics 2007,

143(3), 557-582. (92) Baldwin, R.; Harrigan, J. Zeros, quality and space: Trade theory and trade evidence. National Bureau of

Economic Research. Cambridge, MA, US, 2007. (93) Miller, T. R. Quantitative characterization of transboundary flows of used electronics: A case study of the

United States. MIT: 2012. (94) Fan, J.; Lei, B. A modified valley-emphasis method for automatic thresholding. Pattern Recognition Letters

2012, 33(6), 703-708. (95) Kaplinsky, R.; Santos-Paulino, A. A disaggregated analysis of EU imports: The implications for the study of

patterns of trade and technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics 2006, 30(4), 587-611. (96) UN Statistics Division Un comtrade: United nations commodity trade statistics database.

http://comtrade.un.org/db/default.aspx (97) USITC Industry & trade summary: Television picture tubes and other. United States International Trade

Commission (USITC). 1995. (98) Mizuki, C.; Pitts, G.; Aanstoos, T.; Nichols, S. CRT disposition: An assessment of limitations and

opportunities in reuse, refurbishment, and recycling in the US. Electronics and the Environment, 1997. ISEE-1997., Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Symposium on, IEEE, 1997; pp 73-78.

(99) Weitzman, D. H. Is CRT glass-to-lead recycling safe and environmentally friendly? Electronics and the Environment, 2003. IEEE International Symposium on, IEEE, 2003; pp 329-334.

(100) Kwak, M.; Kim, H.; Thurston, D. Formulating second-hand market value as a function of product specifications, age, and conditions. Journal of Mechanical Design 2012, 134, 032001-11.

55

6 Appendices

56

6.1 GenerationandCollection

6.1.1 MethodologyOverview

Figure34demonstratesthatthequantityofgeneratedwholeunitsisgreaterthanthatofcollected,whichisgreaterthanthequantityexported.Differentmethodologicalapproacheswereneededtoestimateeachquantity,overallthisapproachisnamedtheHybridSalesObsolescence‐TradeDataMethod(HSOTDM)V.ThecollectedquantitywasestimatedbasedonthegeneratedquantityestimatedwithaSalesObsolescencemodel,whereastheexportedquantitywasdeterminedindependentlywithTradeData.Onetestforreasonablenessoftheexportestimateiswhetheritislessthanthecollectionestimate,sinceusedelectronicequipmentisassumedtobecollectedbeforeitisexported.Inthissection,themethodsusedtoestimatethegeneration,collectionandexportquantitiesforthelaptopcasestudyaredescribed,andresultsarepresented.

Figure34:Illustrationthatexportedwholeunitsofusedelectronicsareasubsetofcollectedwholeunits,whichareasubsetofgeneratedwholeunits.[Letters]andcolorsrefertoFigure1(repeatedbelowforconvenience).

VNotethatthismethodwassimilarlydescribedinMilleretal.2013.QuantitativeCharacterizationof

DomesticandTransboundaryFlowsofUsedElectronics:CaseStudy:UsedComputersandMonitorsinNorthAmerica.CommissionforEnvironmentalCooperationofNorthAmerica(CEC).

57

Figure1:LifeCycleFlowChartofElectronicProducts

Thebasicapproachtodeterminegenerationandcollectionquantitiesconsistentacrossmoststudiesreviewedinvolvesstepsto:

1. Determinethesalesofaproductinaregionoveratimeperiod2. Determinethetypicaldistributionoflifespansfortheproductoveratime

period3. Calculatehowmanyproductsarepredictedtobegeneratedinagivenyear

usingthesalesandlifespaninformation4. Calculatehowmanyofthegeneratedproductsarepredictedtobecollected

inagivenyearbyapplyingcollectionrates5. Optional:Calculatetheweightofgeneratedandcollectedproductsby

multiplyingunitweightsbythequantities

Thesegenerationandcollectioncalculationstepsroughlycompriseasalesobsolescencemodel(alternativelyknownasmarketsupplymethod16).Studiescoverdifferentproducts,timeperiods,geographicalregions,andvaryincomplexity17‐21.

6.1.1.1 PreviousWorkOtherstudiestakeadvantageofpublishedstatisticsaboutthestockofelectronics,

orextrapolatefromin‐depthcasestudiesandsurveystoestimategeneration.Forexample,UNEP’sInternationalEnvironmentalTechnologyCenter(UNEP/DTIE‐IETC)describedin2007severalvariationsofsimplestockmodels16.Mulleretal.(2009)intentionallyutilized“freeorcheaplyavailableindicatorsprovidedbytheInternationalTelecommunicationUnion(ITU)andtheWorldBank”formuchoftheirstockandflowmodeldata22.Yangand

58

Willams(2009)andYuetal.(2010)havecreatedstockandflowmodelsfortheUS7,23.Babbittetal.(2009)usedemployeepersonalcomputerpropertycontroldatafromArizonaStateUniversitytoestimatethehighereducationgenerationquantity24.KahhatandWilliams(2012)surveyedUScomputerownersandcapturedtheirownershipanddispositionbehavior25;generationandcollectionestimatesinthisstudyinpartderivesfromthosesamesurveys.Wangetal.(2013)developedan“advanced,flexibleandmultivariateInput–OutputAnalysis(IOA)method”which“linksallthreepillarsinIOA(productsales,stockandlifespanprofiles)toconstructmathematicalrelationshipsbetweenvariousdatapoints”and“demonstratessignificantdisparitybetweenvariousestimationmodels,arisingfromtheuseofdataunderdifferentconditions.”26

Surveys,collectionratesfromotherregions,andgovernmentdatahavebeenusedtoestimateUSusedelectronicscollectionrates.Severalsurveys,forexampleKahhatandWilliams(2012),RIS International (2003), Consumer Reports (2006), and Saphores et al. (2009),havebeenconductedtoascertaintheend‐of‐life(EoL)managementoptionsutilizedbyconsumersandbusinesselectronicsowners;thisdatacanbeusedtoinfercollectionrates25,27‐29.Gregoryetal.(2009)adjusteddocumentedEuropeantrendsincollectionforotherworldregions’CRTcollection20.USEPA(2011)useddatafromstateswithusedelectronicsrecyclingprogramstoestimatetheshareofresidentialgeneratedelectronicsthatarecollectedforprocessingversusdisposal.Lowcollectionrates(onepoundcollectedpercapita)wereassumedforstateswithoutprograms19.

InordertoestimatethegenerationandcollectionofTVs,mobilephones,computersandmonitorsintheUnitedStatesin2010,thereremainafewgapsintheexistingliterature.Allbutoneoftheexistinggenerationandcollectionestimatesfor2010combinesdesktopsandlaptopsintoasinglecomputercategory.Lifespandistributionsusedvaryconsiderablybetweenstudies.Theexistingestimatesdonotagreewithoneanother;thisstudywillmodelthegenerationoflaptopsfactoringintheuncertaintyassociatedwithrelevantparameters.

6.1.1.2 MethodologiesDevelopedandUtilizedTwoseparatemethodologiesweredevelopedtoestimategenerationandcollection

withintheoverallHSOTDM,andbothfollowthesamebasicfivestepsoutlinedatthebeginningofthechapter.Table7belowoutlinesthedifferencesinthemethodologicalstepsandproductscovered.Thefirstmethoddescribed(Literature‐basedMethod)reliesonpublishedlifespanestimatesandcollectionestimates,whilethesecondmethoddescribed(Survey–basedMethod)reliesondirectlyonlifespandistributions,generationandcollectionestimatesderivedfromrecentconsumerandbusinesssurveysaboutelectronicspurchase,use,anddiscardhabits.Thesesurveysfocusedoncomputersandmonitors,buttouchedonotherelectronicssuchasTVsaswell.

ThereisadditionalinformationavailableforTVs,andthereforeanothersetofvalidatingmethodologiesweredevelopedtotakeadvantageofthisdata.TheprevalenceofTVsinhomeshasbeenstudiedindepth,andsoasimplestockandflowmodelwasusedcombiningTVpenetrationdatawithsalesdatatoarriveatgenerationresults.ThisapproachcannotbeclassifiedasaLiterature‐basedorSurvey‐basedapproachasdefinedinthisstudy,andsoistreatedseparately.Also,manyUSstateshavehadcollectionprograms

59

since2010,andsocollectionrateswereestimatedbasedonreportedcollectionquantities;TVsweretheonlyproductcategorywherethereweresufficientstatestoperformthisanalysisinarobustfashion(Literature‐basedMethodB).

Sincedifferentownertypeshavedifferentconsumption,useandendofusedispositionhabitsduetodifferentbudgetsandpriorities,generationandcollectionweremodeledseparatelyforresidentialandbusiness/publicowners.Resultsarepresentedwithtotalgenerationandcollectionquantitiessummed.

Table7:ComparisonbetweenLiterature‐basedMethodandSurvey‐basedMethodforGenerationandCollection

Step1‐5andProducts Literature‐basedMethod Survey–basedMethod

1.SalesDataOwnerTypes:Residential,Business/Public

OwnerTypes:Residential,Business/Public

2.LifespanEstimation Publishedestimates Modeledsurveydata

3.GenerationPredictionProbabilisticpathwayswithlognormaldistributions

ComputerandMonitors:Residential:ReusemodelwithWeibulldistributionsBusiness/Public:SurveyestimatesscaledupTVs:Surveyestimatesscaledup

4.CollectionPrediction A.PublishedestimatesB.Statecollectionprograms Surveyestimatedcollectionrates

5.WeightEstimation Publishedestimates ModelofstatecollectiondataProducts TVs,MobilePhones ComputersandMonitors,TVs

Bothmethodsrequiresalesofaproductinaregionoveratimeperiodforbothresidentialandbusiness/publicestimates.Anticipatingthatsomeusedelectronicsaregenerateddecadesaftertheirpurchase,timeseriessalesdataissoughtfromtwodecadesbeforetheyearofprediction.Salesdataestimatesthemselvesareusedinthebaselineanalysis,andareallowedtovary+/‐10%tocapturepotentialerrorintheMonteCarlosimulation.SalesdataforeachproductaredescribedinthefollowingDataandIntermediateResultssection.

6.1.1.2.1 Literature‐basedMethod

6.1.1.2.1.1 Determinethetypicaldistributionoflifespansfortheproductoveratimeperiod

ThismethodfordeterminingtypicaldistributionsoflifespansfortheproductisarefinementofthemodeldevelopedbyMatthewsetal.whichaccountsfortwousestages(initialandreused),andaccountsfordifferentfatesaftereachstage17.Theprimarydifferenceistheincorporationofadistributionoflifespanlengthsandpathprobabilitiessothatbothdataqualityuncertaintyandvariationareconsidered.Thestepsareasfollows:

i. Combineliteratureandindustryestimatesforthedistributionoflengthsofeachlifespanstage(s)(eg.B.InitialUse,E.ReuseStorage)inFigure1(repeatedaboveforconvenience)toarriveatameanestimatewithuncertaintyforeachlifespanstage.

60

ii. Definepathwaystogeneration(Figure35)involvingcombinationsoflifespanstagesrelatedtoFigure1.

Thismethodissomewhatofanunderestimate,becausewedonotestimatethesecondroundofgenerationofproductsthatunderwentformaldomesticreuse.AfullmodelinclusiveofthesecondroundofgenerationispresentedinFigure35;initialsensitivityanalysessuggestthattheresultisnotverysensitivetotheexclusionofthesecondroundofgeneration.

Figure35:Probabilitytreediagramofinformalpathsleadingtogeneration.LettersandcolorsrefertolifespanstagesinFigure1.TheprobabilitiesofapathtoalifespanstagearerepresentedbyP(lifespanstage),oritscomplementP(lifespanstage’).Someprobabilitiesareconditionalonpreviouspathways,P(lifespanstage|previouslifespanstage).

61

Figure36:ProbabilityTreeDiagramofInformalandFormalPathsLeadingtoGeneration.

62

iii. Combinethelengthsofthelifespanstagestocalculatethelengthsofeachpathwaytogenerationandestimatetheprobabilityofeachpathwaytogeneration.

InTable8below,theequationsfordeterminingthemeanpathlengthandmeanpathprobabilityarefoundforeachofthesixpathwaystogeneration.

Table8:Equationsusedtocalculatemeanpathlengthandmeanpathprobability

SixPaths( ) MeanPathLength MeanPathProbability

PathB,D,C,E 1*P(D)*P(C|D)*P(E)

PathB,D,C,E’ 1*P(D)*P(C|D)*P(E’)

PathB,D,C’ 1*P(D)*P(C’|D)

PathB,D’,C,E 1*P(D’)*P(C|D’)*P(E)

PathB,D’,C,E’ 1*P(D’)*P(C|D’)*P(E’)

PathB,D’,C’ 1*P(D’)*P(C’|D’)

iv. Determinetheoverallmeanlifespanbyaggregatingthepathstogeneration

probabilistically.Estimatethevarianceofthelifespandistributionfromliterature.

Thegenerationmodelonlyincorporatesasinglemeanpathlength,andsoinEquation1,theoverallweightedmeanoflifespansforallsixpaths ispresented.

Equation1:Overallweightedmeanoflifespansforallsixpaths

6.1.1.2.1.2 Calculatehowmanyproductsarepredictedtobegeneratedinagivenyearusingthesalesandlifespaninformation

Thequantityofusedproductsgeneratedinyearyisbasedonthesalesinyearsandtheprobability thataproductsoldinyearsisgeneratedinyeary.Theprobabilitydistribution iscreatedusingparametersfromthelifespanestimates.Here,alognormaldistributionwasassumed,whichiscomparabletoauniversitycomputerlifespanstudy30.Equation2showsthehowthequantityiscalculated.

Equation2:Quantitygeneratedinyeary

63

6.1.1.2.1.3 Literature‐basedMethoda:Calculatehowmanyofthegeneratedproductsarepredictedtobecollectedinagivenyearbyapplyingpublishedcollectionrates

Theusedelectronicscollectedforprocessinginyearyissimplytheproductofthegeneratedquantityinyearyandtheprobabilitythatgeneratedusedelectronicsarecollectedinthatyear, ,asshowninEquation3.

Equation3:Quantitycollectedforprocessinginyeary

,showninFigure37,canbethoughtofasthecollectionrate.Thecollected

quantitywascalculatedforeachownertypebecauseofdifferingcollectionrates.

Figure37:Probabilitytreediagramofpathsdirectlyaftergeneration.LettersandcolorsrefertolifespanstagesinFigure1.TheprobabilitiesofapathtoalifespanstagearerepresentedbyP(lifespanstage),oritscomplementP(lifespanstage’).

TheoverallestimatesandassociateduncertaintyofgeneratedandcollectedquantitiesweredeterminedusingMonteCarlosimulations.Allkeycalculationparameterswereallowedtovarywithinreasonabledistributions.Forexample,saleswereallowedtovaryuniformlytwostandarddeviationsfromthemean.A10,000trialMonteCarlosimulationwasconductedusingOracleCrystalBall®inMicrosoftExcel®.

6.1.1.2.1.4 Literature‐basedMethodB:Calculatehowmanyofthegeneratedproductsarepredictedtobecollectedinagivenyearbyapplyingcollectionratesderivedfromstatecollectionprograms

AsthissectionpertainsonlytoTVs,adescriptioncanbefoundinSection6.1.2.1.3.

64

6.1.1.2.2 Survey‐basedMethod

DatausedformanystepsintheSurvey‐basedMethodarefromUSresidentialandbusiness/publicsurveysconductedbyKahhatandWilliamsin2011,withafocusontheyear201025.Forcomputersandmonitors,theresidentialsurveyaskedabouteachitem,whilethebusiness/publicsurveyaskedaboutgroupsofitems.Therefore,theresidentialgenerationandcollectionmethodologyfollowsthebasicapproachtodeterminegenerationandcollectionquantitiesconsistentacrossmoststudiesoutlinedatthebeginningofthechapter,whilethebusiness/publicisamoresimplisticextrapolation,describedinthischapteraftertheresidentialmethod.Afinalquestioninthesurveysaskbasicquestionsaboutthedispositionofabroadsetofusedelectronics.ForTVs,generationandcollectionresultsareextrapolatedfromtheseresponses.

ThefollowingexcerptdescribesthesurveymethodologyemployedbyKahhatandWilliams25:

“Inthisstudytwoonlinesurveyswerelaunchedtocollectprimarydataonadoptionandend‐of‐lifemanagementofpersonalcomputersintheresidentialandbusiness/publicsectoroftheUnitedStates.Theresidentialsectorstudyincluded1000completedsurveysdrawnfromalargerpanelof350,000prospectiverespondentsconstructedbytheconsultingfirmResearchNow.Thesamplechosenwasrepresentativeof2010Censusdatafortheadultpopulationforthefollowingparameters:Gender,State,Age,HouseholdIncome,andEducationalAttainment.Thesurveyconsistedof15questionscoveringthreetopicareas:demographics,computerownershipanduseathome,andcomputerdisposal.Fourhundredcompletesurveyswhereobtainedfromthebusiness/publicsector.ThesamplewasrepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesbusiness/publicsectoraccordingtogeographiclocationandnumberofemployeeswithinacompany.Althoughitwouldbedesirabletohaveasamplematchingthenationaldistributionoforganizations/employeesbyindustrysector(e.g.NorthAmericanIndustryClassificationSystem(NAICS)),thecostofsolicitingsuchasamplewasbeyondavailableeconomicresources.Therespondentpoolwasabout25,000eligibleparticipantsofapanelofITexpertscollectedbytheconsultingfirmOpinionology.ThepanelincludedITdecisionmakersandassetmanagers.Thesurveyquestionnaireincluded15questions.BothsurveyswerelaunchedinApril2011andthequestionsaddressedthe2010calendaryear.Allcompletedsurveyswereexaminedbythesurveycompanyandresearchteambeforeincludedintheanalysis.Theresidentialandbusiness/publicsectorsurveyshadamarginoferrorof3%and5%,respectively,consideringaconfidencelevelof95%.Confidencelevelandmarginoferrorarebasedonsamplesizeandsampledistribution.Surveyquestionnaireandresultsareincludedinsupportinginformation.”

6.1.1.2.2.1 ResidentialComputersandMonitors:Determinethetypicaldistributionoflifespansfortheresidentialproductoveratimeperiod

RawsurveydataprovidedbyKahhatandWilliams25wasutilizedtoestimatethelifespandistributionofresidentialcomputersandmonitorsin2010;thesewerethefocal

65

productsofthesurveywhileotherelectronicswereaddressedbriefly.Thebusiness/publicmethoddidnotmodellifespans.

Tocomputethelifespandistributionsforeachresidentialproduct,survivalanalysisVItechniqueswereemployed.Survivalanalysisistypicallyemployedinstudiesofpatientsurvivalofdisease,orofmachinefailure,andtypicallyinvolvefittingtheWeibulldistribution.TheWeibulldistributionisusedinsimilarstudiesaswell15,31,32.Adaptingthatterminologytothisstudywiththeintentofunderstandingthelengthoftimeoneownerusesandstoresanelectronicitem,a“failure”isdefinedastheendofoneperiodofownership,delimitedeitherbygeneration(collectionortrash)orinformalreuse.Incomparisontotheliteraturemethod’sprobabilitytreediagraminFigure36,“failure”occursafter“D.InitialStorage”or“NoInitialStorage”.Thedistributionoflengthofoneperiodofownershipisaninputintothegenerationpredictionmodel,whichiswhyitissoughtversustimeuntilgenerationdirectlyasonemightexpect.Thestepstoestimatethedistributionoflengthofoneperiodownershipλareasfollows,andelaboratedonafterwords:

Overviewofsteps

i. Preparetheresidentialsurveydata.ii. Determinetheageofproductseitheratthepointof“failure”,oratthetimeof

“censor”(aproductiscensoredifitisstillwiththeownerwhensurveyed).Wherepossible,screentheresponsesbytherespondent’sprecisionofestimatingtheyearpurchasedincomparisonestimatingtimeinuseandstorage(cutoffof1yearwasdeemedreasonable).

iii. Determinetheyearthattheproductwaspurchased.iv. UseStata®12.1toproduceKaplan‐Meier(K‐M)survivorcurvesand

subsequentlyWeibullregressionsforalloftheproductstogether,andusethesameK‐McurveandassociatedWeibullregressionforallyearsofpurchaseVII.

v. FitadditionalparametersfortheWeibullregressiontotheK‐Mcurves.vi. TransformtheresultsoftheWeibullregressionintoaprobabilitydensity

function,whichwillbeusedasthedistributionoflengthofoneperiodownership.

vii. DuringtheMonteCarlosimulation,allowtheparametersoftheregressiontovarybetweena95%confidenceintervalandallowtheentiredistributiontoshiftleftandrighttoaccountforallowableerrorintherespondents’precision.Figure41displayssomeofthe10,000laptopdistributionsmodeledduringtheMonteCarlosimulationdescribedinthenextsection,andFigure43displaysthemeandistributionsforeachproduct.

Detailedexplanationofstepsusinglaptopsasacasestudy

VISinghR,MukhopadhyayK.Survivalanalysisinclinicaltrials:Basicsandmustknowareas.PerspectClinRes[serialonline]20112:145‐8.Availablefrom:http://www.picronline.org/text.asp?2011/2/4/145/86872VIIIdeally,estimateswouldbemadeasatrendforeachyear,butthatwasnotdoneduetodatalimitations.Also,ideallyitemswouldbeseparatedintothosethatwerepurchasednewandthosepurchasedusedsincenewproductslikelylastlonger,butthatwasnotpossiblewiththissurveydataset.

66

i. Preparetheresidentialsurveydata.

Thesurveydatareceivedfromthesurveyfirmneededtobeconsolidated,becausethedataoriginallywasarrangedbyrespondentinsteadofbyelectronic.Thereweretwosetsofrelevantquestions,requiringseparatepreparation:questionspertainingtothosehadbeen“discarded”,andelectronicsthatwerestillinthehome.Someofthe“discarded”itemswereconsideredtobe“failures”andothers“censored”inTable9.

Table9:DesignationofFailure,Generation,andCollectionbyDiscardType

DiscardType Fail? Category Generated?Disposalviacurbsidegarbagecollection Fail Trash GeneratedRecycledviacurbsiderecyclingprogram Fail Collected GeneratedReturnedtocollectiondepotforrecycling Fail Collected GeneratedReturnedtoretailer Fail Collected GeneratedReturnedtomunicipalityduringaspecialcollectionevent

Fail Collected Generated

Returnedtomanufacturer Fail Collected GeneratedStorageoff‐site Censor NotIncluded NotGeneratedDonatedtofriend/familywithinhousehold Fail InformalReuse NotGeneratedDonatedtofriend/familyoutsideofhousehold Fail InformalReuse NotGeneratedDonatedtoacharitableorganization Fail InformalReuse NotGeneratedOtherdonation Fail InformalReuse NotGeneratedReturnedtosellerafterleaseexpired Fail Collected GeneratedSoldonline(e.g.eBay) Fail InformalReuse NotGeneratedSoldlocally Fail InformalReuse NotGeneratedSoldtoanacquaintance/friend/family Fail InformalReuse NotGeneratedOther Censor NotIncluded NotGeneratedNADidnotdiscard Censor NotIncluded NotGenerated

ii. Determinetheageofproductseitheratthepointof“failure”,oratthetimeof“censor”(aproductiscensoredifitisstillwiththeownerwhensurveyed).Wherepossible,screentheresponsesbytherespondent’sprecisionofestimatingtheyearpurchasedincomparisonestimatingtimeinuseandstorage(cutoffof1yearwasdeemedreasonable).

InTable9,itcanbeseenthatthevastmajorityofrespondentswereinternallyconsistentwhenreportingboththeyearpurchasedandthecorrespondingtimeinuseandtimeinstorageforcomputersandmonitorsathome.Figure38belowillustrateshowtheprecisionmetricwascalculated.

67

Figure38:Respondents’internalprecisionofestimatingproductageandtimeathome.Zerorepresentshighprecision.

Notethatthismetriccannotbecalculatedforthoseelectronicsthatwere“discarded”,becausethesurveyaskedsolelyaboutlifespaninthehome,andnotaboutyearofpurchaseof“discarded”products.Theonlyqualitycontrolmetricavailablefor“discarded”electronicswastoensurethatwhenrespondentsreportedaboutthelifespanof“discarded”electronicsandseparatelyaboutthe“discardmethod”,thetypeofelectronicmatchedacrossthetwoquestions(eg.laptopandlaptop,notlaptopanddesktop).Mismatcheswereexcluded.

Equation4:DeterminationofInternalPrecisionofRespondent’s“Censored”Electronics

iii. Determinetheyearthattheproductwaspurchased.

For“censored”electronicsstillinthehome,theyearpurchasedwasgivendirectlybytherespondents.For“discarded”electronics,Equation5belowwasused.

Equation5:DeterminationofYearofPurchaseof“Discarded”Electronics

68

iv. UseStata®12.1toproduceKaplan‐Meier(K‐M)survivorcurvesand

subsequentlyWeibullregressionsforalloftheproductstogether,andusethesameK‐McurveandassociatedWeibullregressionforallyearsofpurchase.

ThefollowingcodewasinputintoStata®12.1,andrelevantoutputandcommentsareincluded.

Setdataforsurvivalanalysis:stsetage,failure(failure)

Describedatatoensureitwasprocessedcorrectly:stdescribe

K‐MSurvivalAnalysis:stslist

Thisdata,whichliststheK‐Mcurvedataforthemodeledsurvivalcurveandthe95%confidenceintervaliscopiedintoMicrosoftExcel®forthenextstep.

stsgraph

Figure39:Kaplan‐MeierSurvivalCurveforlaptops

WeibullRegression:

stregyear,dist(weibull)ThisreturnstheinformationabouttheWeibullregressionforthelaptop

dataset.NotethatpisthescalefactorusedtomodelWeibulldistributions.

69

Figure40:Stata®Weibullregressionanalysisforlaptops.

stcurve,surviv

ThisgraphsthesurvivalcurvebasedontheWeibullregression;Figure40modelstheK‐MsurvivalcurveinFigure38withtheparametersinFigure39.

Figure41:GraphofWeibullregressionmodelforlaptops

v. FitadditionalparametersfortheWeibullregressiontotheK‐Mcurves.

InordertodefineaWeibulldistribution,boththescaleandshapeparameterareneeded.ItisperhapspossiblebutdifficulttoextracttheshapeparametersfromtheWeibullregressiondata,andthereforethedatafromstslistiscopiedintoMicrosoftExcel®andtheSolveradd‐inisusedtofindtheshapeparametersminimizingthesquarederrorbetweenaninversecumulativeWeibullmodelandtheK‐Msurvivorcurves.

70

Figure42:ComparisonbetweenK‐McurvesandOLSfitlaptopWeibullregressioncurvesformean,andlowandhighboundsof95%confidenceinterval.

vi. TransformtheresultsoftheWeibullregressionintoaprobabilitydensityfunction,whichwillbeusedasthedistributionoflengthofoneperiodownership.

UsingtheparametersfoundthroughtheWeibullregression(scaleparameters)andfitwithminimumsquarederror(shapeparameters),thelifespandistributionssoughtforlengthofoneperiodownershiparemodeledwiththeMicrosoft®ExcelWeibull.Distfunction.

Figure43:Distributionoflaptoplengthofperiodofownership

71

Figure44:Distributionsoflaptoplengthofperiodofownershipλallowingvariation(randomsample)

Anotherlifespaninputtotheresidentialgenerationpredictionmodelisthedistributionoflengthoftimeuntilanelectronicisreused.Sincenotallelectronicsarereusedandthosethataretendtobeinbettercondition,themoregeneralperiodofownershipislikelylongerthanthetimeuntilanelectronicisreused.Giventhestructureofthesurveyquestions,thebestapproximationisfoundbymodelingthedistributionoflifespansofelectronicspreviously“discarded”intheInformalReusecategory(seeFigure44).Thisdoesnotcaptureelectronicsthatweresenttorecyclersandsubsequentlyreused,norelectronicsstillinthehomewhichwerepurchasedused.Still,itisareasonableapproximation.

BelowinFigure45isahistogramofthedistributionoflengthoftimeuntilanelectronicisreusedδ.Themeanwasallowedtovary+/‐2yearsforamarginoferror,andthestandarddeviationwasallowedtovary+/‐10%intheMonteCarlosimulation.Thesurveydataarethe100laptopswhichwere“discarded”forInformalReuse(seeFigure45).Thisisinputinthegenerationpredictionmodel.

72

Figure45:Histogramandfittedlognormaldistributionsoflengthoftimealaptopiswithanowneruntilinformalreuseδ

6.1.1.2.2.2 ResidentialComputersandMonitors:Calculatehowmanyresidentialproductsarepredictedtobegeneratedinagivenyearusingthesalesandlifespaninformation

Thegoalofthisstepistoestimatehowmanyresidentialproductsaregeneratedinagivenyearandsowhich“discard”activitiesleadtogenerationisdefinedfirst;aswiththeliteraturemethod,informalreuseisnotconsideredgeneration(seeFigure36).Next,theapproachistomodelthequantityofelectronicsthatareonlyusedoncebeforegeneration(O),thosethatareinformallyreusedbeforegeneration(I),andthatareformallyreusedafterafirstroundofgenerationandcollection(C).UsingFigure45fromtheliterature‐basedmethod,thequantitygeneratedineachyearywasmodeled,withthestartingyearfortheperiodofownershipofreusepurchases(IandC)shiftedbythedistributionoflengthoftimeuntilanelectronicisreused.Thesamelengthofperiodofownershipλwasappliedtousedandnewproductsgivendataconstraintsrelatedtothesurveyquestions;ideallytherewouldbeseparatedistributionssinceusedproductslikelyhaveashorterfunctionaluseperiod.

Inordertodetermineinwhichyearyeachgroup(O,I,andC)islikelytobegenerated,itisassumedthatreusepurchases(IandC)inagivenyearsarestronglycorrelatedwithnewsalesinthesameyears.Itmakessensethatpopularityofusedproductstrendswiththepopularityofnewproducts.Theratiosβofusedtonewpurchasesinthesurveydatafrom2000to2010weremodeledinordertocapturethisphenomenon.Thenextstepwastoapproximatethefractionαofusedpurchasesthatoccurredthroughinformalreuse(I)ascomparedtoformalreuseaftergenerationandsubsequentcollection(C).Lastly,allofthenewpurchasesinagivenyearwereassumedtoundergooneusebeforegeneration(O)lessthosewhicharepredictedtobeinformallyreusedinfutureyears(I).ThetotalofthesethreegroupsisshownsimplyinEquation6.

73

Equation6:TotalResidentialGenerationofUsedElectronicsinYeary

6.1.1.2.2.3 ResidentialComputersandMonitors:Calculatehowmanyoftheresidential

generatedproductsarepredictedtobecollectedinagivenyearbyapplyingresidentialcollectionrates

ThisstepismethodologicallysimilartothatusedintheLiterature‐basedmethod;thecalculationfollowsEquation3(repeatedbelowforconvenience).Thedifferenceisthatthesourceoftheresidentialcollectionratescalculatedsolelyfromsurveyresults,includingtheKahhatandWilliams25study.ThereweresixdifferentrepresentativegroupsofUSResidentialcomputerownersfrom2005to2012;somesurveyscoveredtwoyears28,33‐35.Toaccountforuncertaintyinthesurveydataandregression,theestimatedcollectionrateforagivenyearwereallowedtovary+/‐10%intheMonteCarlosimulation.Figure46belowprovidestheresultsforlaptops28,33‐35.

Equation3:Quantitycollectedforprocessinginyeary

Figure46:EstimatedUSresidentialusedlaptopcollectionratesacrossseveralsurveys.

6.1.1.2.2.4 Business/PublicComputersandMonitorsandTVsGenerationandCollectionSurvey‐basedSteps

Asareminder,theresidentialsurveyaskedabouteachitem,whilethebusiness/publicsurveyaskedaboutgroupsofitems.Therefore,thebusiness/publicgenerationandcollectionstepsareamoresimplisticextrapolationbasedonsurveyandsalesdata.Afinalquestioninthesurveysaskbasicquestionsaboutthedispositionofabroadsetofusedelectronics.ForTVs,generationandcollectionresultsareextrapolatedfromtheseresponses.Inthisapproach,theresponsestosurveyquestionsaboutmostrecentpurchasesinyear2010weretabulated;notethatbecausethisquestionaskedabout

74

mostrecentpurchases,thereisnotafulltimeseriesofpurchases.AScaleFactorforyear2010wasfoundforeachproduct(laptops,desktops,CRTandFlatPanelmonitors)usingEquation7.

Equation7:ScaleFactorforBusiness/PublicGenerationandCollectionsteps

BothinputstotheequationwereallowedtovaryinaMonteCarlosimulation;the

Salestovaried+/‐10%andtheSurveydatatovarywithintheboundsofthesurveyconfidenceinterval(+/‐5%).SincetheScaleFactorsdifferedsomewhatforeachproduct,duetoinaccuraciesineitherthesurveyorthesalesdata,anaveragemean,minimumandmaximumScaleFactoracrosslaptops,desktops,andFlatPanelmonitorswasfoundandappliedtoallproducts.SalesdatereportednosalesofCRTmonitorsin2010,andthereforetheScaleFactorswas0,whichbroughttheoverallaveragedown.Table10belowpresentsthescalefactorsbyproduct,andincomparisontoascalefactorbasedonsurveyedemployeesatfacilitiesandtotalemployees;theproductscalefactorismuchlowerthantheemployeescalefactor,whichmaybebecausesurveyedbusinesseshavecomputerswhereasmanycompaniesdonot.

Table10:Business/Public2010ComputerandMonitorScaleFactors

ScaleFactor Mean Min Max

Desktop 922 837 1,006

Laptop 1,385 1,258 1,511

FlatPanelMonitor 891 809 973

CRTMonitor 0 0 0

ProductAverage 799 726 873

Employee 1,878 1,706 2,050

Toarriveat2010generationandcollectionestimates,thereported2010generatedandcollectedproductstabulatedfromsurveyweremultipliedbytheScaleFactors,asshowninEquation8andEquation9.TheScaleFactorswereallowedtovarybetweentheminimumandmaximumvaluesinaMonteCarlosimulation.

Equation8:Business/Public2010Generation

Equation9:Business/Public2010Collection

75

6.1.2 DataandIntermediateResults

6.1.2.1 TVsToquantifygenerationandcollectionofusedTVs,Literature‐basedMethodB,

Survey‐basedMethod,andStockandFlowmodelsareused.

6.1.2.1.1 Sales

SeveralsourcesoffershipmentorsalesdataasshowninTable11.Shipmentshererefertomanufacturershipmentsintothechannel,whilesalesrefertoactualtransactionswithendusers.Salesarethereforeexpectedtobesomewhatlowerthanshipments.Salesdataismorerepresentativeoftheproductsavailableforuseandsubsequentgeneration.

Table11:SalesDataSourcesforTVs

Source TVstype DataType OwnerTypePurchaseYearsAvailable

Urban,etal.,2011(CEAdata)36

ColorCRTMonochromeCRTFlatPanelProjections

Sales Combined 2000‐2010

EPAa,20088EPAb,20119(CEA&IDCdata)

ColorCRTMonochromeCRTFlatPanelProjections

Sales Combined

1980‐2006(CEA)2007‐2011(IDC)

Euromonitor,201237

AnalogDigitals(LCD/LED/PDP/Other)


USCensusBureau(2012)I Combined

DomesticManufacturerShipments

Combined 2009

Therearethreedatasourcestogetthesalesdata,anditisnecessarytoevaluatetheuncertaintyandmakenecessaryadjustments.Thesalesdatainyears2000‐2010wasallowedtovaryonestandarddeviationfromthemeanofthethreedatasourcesintheMonteCarlosimulation.Thesalesdatainsurroundingyears(before2000andafter2010)withasingleCEAdatasourcewereallowedtovaryuniformlyonestandarddeviationfromthemean,bygivenanapproximate10%ofCorrelationofVariances(COV).

Figure47andFigure48displaytheTVssalesestimatesconsidered,aswellasthemodeledmean.Basedonthedataavailability,theTVshaveseparatedintoCRTTVs(AnalogTVs,ColorandMonochromeTVs)andFlatPanelTVs(LCD,LED,PDP,ProjectionsandotherDigitalTVs).

IUSCensusdata,ShipmentsofConsumerElectronics:2009and2008,Availableat:http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/manufactures.html

76

Figure47:CRTTVsSalesEstimatesforVariousDataSources,ModelParameters

Figure48:FlatPanelTVsSalesEstimatesforVariousDataSources,ModelParameters

Ifitisrequiredtomodeleachownertype’sgenerationseparately,salesneedtobemodeledbyownertypeaswell.Differenttocomputers,theresidentialconsumersdominatethemarketfortheTVs.Oftheavailablesalesdatasourcesconsulted,thereisnodatasourcedistinguishedbyownertype.

6.1.2.1.2 Lifespan

Ideally,lifespanstageassumptionswouldbedisaggregatedbyTVstype,ownertype,andpurchaseyearanddistinguishingfirstuse,reuse,andstorage.Table12presentsthesourcesused.ManyestimatesdonotdifferentiatebetweenCRTandFlatPanelTVs.SomemodelgeneratedTVsusingstaticlifespans,whileothersaccountforshiftingtrendsinlifespans.“Totallife”referstolifespanstagesuntilgeneration.

77

Table12:LifespanDataSources

Source TVType OwnerType Years Lifespanstages

Aoe,200338 CRTandFlatPanel

Combined 2002 Totallifetime

Feng&Ma,200939 Combined Combined 2009 Totallifetime

Liuetal.,200640 Combined Combined 2005 Totallifetime

MilovantsevaandSaphores,201241 Combined Combined 2010 Totallifetime

ConsumerReports,200642

Combined Combined 2005 Totallifetime

USEPA,2008&20118,9

CRTandFlatPanel

Combined1980‐2010,Static

Totallifetime

KahhatandWilliams,201211**

CRTFlatPanel

Residential 2008 Initiallifespanandinitialstoragelifespan

**USNationalsurveyin2008.Moredetaileddataisavailablejustbasedoninternaldatasharing.

LifespansweremodeledseparatelyforthefollowingTVstypes:CRTandFlatPanel.Therefore,therelevantestimatesforeachTVtypefromTable13wereincludedinthedevelopmentoflifespanstagelengthestimates.

Withagoalofmodelinggenerationinyear2010,theanalysisincludedlifespanstageestimatesfromtwentyoneyearspriorin1989,whichallowsforageneroustotallifespanofTVspurchasedin1989.BecausemostofthedatasourcesonlyreportedthetotallifespananddonotdifferentiatetheTVstype,lifespanstageestimatesforeachTVtypewereonlyincludedthesurveydataprovidedbyKahhatandWilliams.ThemeanµandstandarddeviationσforeachlifespanstageforeachTVtypeareshownin

78

Table14.

KahhatandWilliamsconductedanationalsurvey(with1000questionnaires)toinvestigateuseofelectronics(TVs,MobilephoneandComputers)in2008,includingtheevaluationoftheinitialuselifespan(Howoftenisthedevicereplaced?)andinitialstoragelifespan(Howlonghaveyoukeptunuseddevicesbeforediscardingthem).Theinitialuselifespanisseparatedintothelifetimesof:lessthan1year,2years,3‐4years,5‐10yearsandabove10years;and,theinitialstoragelifespanwasseparatedintothelifetimesof:lessthan3months,1year,2‐3years,4‐5yearsandabove5years.Basedonthefrequenciesfellintovariousscopesofthelifetime,thegoodnessofdistributionfithasbeenevaluatedfortheinitialuselifespanandinitialstoragelifespan,respectively.Boththeµandσarederivedfromthelognormaldistributionfit,whichisrankedbyoneofthebestfit.Thelognormaldistributionhasalsobeenwidelyacceptedtorepresentrealsituationoftheusebehaviors.However,therearenotsurveysdatarelatedtothedomesticreuseandreusestoragelifetime,whichareassumedtobehalfoftheinitialusetimeandinitialstoragetimerespectively.

Table13:ModeledLifespanStageLengths(Years)

TVsB.InitialUse

D.InitialStorage*

C.DomesticReuse

E.ReuseStorage

CRT µ 8.01 1.69 4.01 0.85

σ 3.09 2.29 1.55 1.15

FlatPanel µ 6.12 1.69 3.06 0.85

σ 2.90 2.29 1.45 1.15

*TherewereonlysurveysdataforinitialuselifespanfortheFlatPanelTVs,theinitialstorageforFlatPanelisthereforeassumedtobethesametoCRTTVs.

79

Table14:ProbabilityofPathsLeadingtoGeneration(CRTTVs)

Source ScopeStoragerate Reuserate ReuseStorage

rate*

Collectedforprocessing

rate

Reuserateafter

processing

P(D) P(D’) P(C) P(C’) P(E) P(E’) P(F) P(F’) P(H) P(H’)

MTI.,200343

WAKingCounty

surveys(2003)17% 83% 9% 92%

Florida,200344

Floridasurvey(2002,2003) 16% 84% 8% 92%

ConsumerReports,200642***

NationalSurveys(2005)

46% 54% 40% 60%

KahhatandWilliams,201211


57% 43% 42% 58%


NationalSurveys

(2010)(CRT)6% 94% 51% 49% 3% 97% 64% 36%


NationalSurveys

(2010)(FP)3% 97% 46% 54% 1.5% 98.5% 63% 37%

EPAb,20119

NationalInd.Surveys(2007)

30% 70%

EPAb,20119


33% 67%

Daoud,2011(ISRI)45


19% 81%

WisconsinDNR,201246

StatewideHousehold

surveys(2006) 51% 49% 30% 70%

WisconsinDNR,201246

StatewideHousehold

surveys(2010) 64% 36% 68% 32%

CCGI.,2008(WA)43

Countysurveys(2005) 41% 59% 38% 62%

CCGI.,2008(WA)43

Countysurveys(2007) 36% 64% 53% 47%

St.Louis,2007I

Citysurveys(2007) 51% 49% 51% 49%

Min 16% 36% 3% 40% 19%Max 17% 64% 9% 64% 30%Mean 13.0% 49.6% 6.5% 48.3% 27.3%

StandardDeviation 6.1% 8.8% 3.0% 13.2% 7.4%

*ReuseStoragerateisassumedhalfofInitialStoragerate;**Detailedsurveysdata(2008and2010)areprovidedbytheKahhatandWilliamsintermsofinformalsharing,andtheTVsincludetheCRTandFlatPanel(FP),,alloftheothersourcesdonotdifferentiatetheTVstype;***WhileitisunclearwhethertheTVscompriseboththeCRTandFP,weassumedCRTTVsdominatedthegenerationin2006.

ISt.Louis,2011,CitywideResidentialRecyclingTelephoneSurveyin2007Availableat:http://stlouis‐mo.gov/government/departments/street/refuse/recycle/recycling‐survey.cfm

80

ThevaluesofP(D),P(C),P(E),P(F)andP(H)applicabletotheTVstypeswereallowedtouniformdistributionintheMonteCarlosimulationof .ComplementsP(D’),P(C’),P(E’),P(F’)andP(H’)arefoundbytakingthedifferencewith100%.

TheprobabilitiesofeachpathwayP(ϖ)andmeantotallifespanlengths byTVstypeareinTable15.SimilarityacrossTVstypesforP(ϖ)reflectstheabsenceofspecificprobabilityestimatesforeachTVstype.

Table15:MeanProbabilitiesandMeanTotalLifespansof6PathstoGeneration

ScopeCRT TVs FlatPanelTVs

P(ϖ) P(ϖ)

Path1(ϖ=1) 6% 9.7 5% 7.8

Path2(ϖ=2) 6% 13.7 5% 10.9

Path3(ϖ=3) 1% 15.3 0.5% 12.5

Path4(ϖ=4) 44% 8.0 45% 6.1

Path5(ϖ=5) 46% 12.0 47% 9.2

Path6(ϖ=6) 4% 13.7 4% 10.9

6.1.2.1.3 Literature‐basedMethodB:StatesCollectionProgram

Therearesomeworksgoingonaroundthecountrytopromotetheusedelectronicswasterecycling,including25statespassinglawsone‐wasterecycling,ofwhichmosthavepassedthedisposalbanII.

MostofthestateswiththeelectronicswasteregulationhaveasystemmodeledaftertheEUapproachcalledExtendedProducerResponsibility(EPR),whichrequiresthemanufacturestopayforelectronicsrecyclingcosts.CaliforniainsteadutilizesanAdvancedRecoveryFee(ARF),whichconcentratesonconsumersofelectronics.

Therefore,thestatesoftheUShavebeenclassifiedintotwogroupsforestimationonthecollectionratefortheyearof2010:

o Stateswithprogram:Thestateswithmandaterecyclingregulation,disposalbanorbothin2010;

o Stateswithoutprogram:Thestateswithout(orineffective)regulationsanddisposalbanin2010.

Thecollectionrateisbasedonthestatewideelectronicswasteormunicipalsolidwastestatisticreportsorsurveys.Whilemostofstateswithprogramshavereportedthedataoftotalelectronicwastecollectionforoneorseveralofthepastyears,onlyafew

IISustainableElectronicInitiative(2012),SummaryofUS.StateLawsonElectronicWasteandDisposal,Banshttps://ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/16301/State%20Legislation_May09.pdf?sequence=2

81

statesreportbreakdownsbyproducttype,showninTable1647.Manystatesdonotyethave2010data.Nostatesreportedmobilephoneorlaptopcollectiondata.

Table16:StatewideUsedElectronicsCollection(lbs)forThoseStateswithStatisticsin2010

StatePopulationFraction

UsedElectronics TVs Desktop Monitor

California 12.1% 193,720,571 Hawaii 0.4% 3,237,516 Illinois 4.2% 30,151,985 Maine 0.4% 5,366,578 3,960,387 1,208,586

Maryland 1.9% 17,031,978 Minnesota 1.7% 34,316,395 Missouri 1.9% 2,215,903 NorthCarolina

3.1% 9,154,064

Oklahoma 1.2% 5,514,486 Oregon 1.2% 24,174,077 14,972,860 2,897,973 6,520,439

RhodeIsland 0.3% 2,820,880 Texas 8.2% 24,391,194 Virginia 2.6% 4,480,573

Washington 2.2% 39,809,277 24,969,639 3,759,919 10,738,240WestVirginia 0.6% 1,646,155 Wisconsin 1.8% 20,643,759

Tomakefaircomparisons,itisimportanttoknowthattheseprogramsarenotallacceptingthesameproducts,andsomecollectfrommorethanjusthouseholds.Thus,thecollectionrate showninEquation10forseveralstatesreportwhichbreakdownsbyproducttype(TVsandcomputerproducts)havebeenselectedtorepresentthecollectionrateforgroup(withprogram)ThegenerationofthespecificelectronicstypeintheUSreferstheestimationfortheEPAreport(USEPA,2011).

Equation10

Sofar,thereisalmostnostatewithoutprogramwhichhasreportedthecollection

number.However,someofthestatesfromtwogroupshavereportedthedisposalquantityoftheelectronicswithintheirstatewidemunicipalsolidwastecompositioncharacterizationreportsduringthepastseveralyears,showninTable17.

82

Table17:StatewideUsedElectronicsDisposalRate,PercentageofMSWDisposalWeight

States ReportYear

PrograminReportYear?

TVsandMonitor

Mobilephone

ComputerRelated

UsedElectronicsTotal*

California48 2008

Withprogram

0.20% 0.10% 0.50%California49 2003 0.60% 0.30% 1.20%Maine50 2011 0.92%

Maryland51 2009 1.80%Massachusetts52 2010 1.10% 0.90% 4.10%NewYorkStateI 2010 1.40%

Oregon53 2009 0.38% 0.08% 1.53%Washington54 2009 0.70% 0.10% 1.50%Connecticut55 2009

Withoutprogram

1.00% 0.40% 2.10%Delaware56 2006 1.50%Florida57 2007 2.70%Georgia58 2005 0.10% 0.10% 2.00%Illinois59 2008 0.20% 0.40% 1.30%Indiana60 2009 0.11% 0.02% 0.14% 1.23%Iowa61 2011 0.30% <0.01% 0.40% 2.30%Iowa62 2005 0.04% <0.01% 0.15% 1.70%

NewYorkCity63 2004 0.15% <0.01% 0.19% 0.85%Oregon64 2005 0.54% 0.30% 1.98%Oregon65 2002 0.67% 0.32% 1.91%

Pennsylvania66 2001 1.50%SouthDakota67 2007 0.15% 0.01% 0.24% 2.91%Tennessee68 2008 1.66%Wisconsin69 2009 0.60% 0.30% 2.60%Wisconsin70 2001 0.70% 0.10% 2.50%

*Someofthestate’sreportalsoincludesthecharacterizationofotherelectronics,e.g.,largehomeapplianceandmiscellaneoussmallelectronicandelectricproducts.

BasedonTable17,thereissomeevidencetosuggestthatthetwogroupshaveasimilardisposalrateoftheTVspercapita.Thet‐testonthedisposalratealsoshowsthatthereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenthemeansofthetwogroups.Ifweassumethegenerationoftheelectronicsforthetwogroupsareconsistent,thecollectionrateoftheelectronicwasteshouldbesimilar.Wethereforeassumedthecollectionratesfortwogroupsarethesame,althoughwerecognizethatthisdoesnotaccountforthepossibilitythatinstateswithoutprogramstherecouldbemorestorage,andownersdelaytakingactionontheirusedelectronicsuntilaprogramarises.

AsidefromthegovernmentalExtendedProducersResponsibility(EPR)andAdvancedRecyclingFee(ARF)recyclingprogram,somemanufacturers,retailers,serviceprovidersandsomesmallrecyclersaremakingtheefforttotakebackusedelectronicsbeyondwhatthelawsrequire.Thatmeansmanyfirms,non‐governmentagenciesandnon‐

IMSWMaterialsCompositioninNewYorkState,http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/65541.html

83

profitsareactivelypromotingrecycling,andcommunitycollectioneventsarecommoninmanyareasII.Table18summarizesthepotentialapproachesfortheTVrecycling.Duetotheunavailabilityofdataformostofthepaths,thecollectionratebasedonstaterecyclingwhichisusedisexpectedtobeanunderestimateofthetotalcollectionrate.Table19summarizesthecollectionratesbytwoapproaches.

Table18:2010TVsCollectionApproachesEvaluation

CollectionPath ExamplesDatacharacterization

Dataavailability

Breakdownproducts Historicaldata

Governmentmandated

StateswithEPRorARFprograms

MostStates

Onlyafewstates

Onlyafewstates

Manufacturer Dell,Apple,Samsung,Lenovo,etc.

Few No Veryfew

Retailers BestBuy,Staples,Lowes,OfficeDepot,etc.

Few No Veryfew

Serviceproviders Verizon,AT&T,etc. Few No NoHandlers Recycler,

Repairer/Refurbisher,etc.Few No

Donation&Reuseoptions

CharityAmerica,GoodwillIndustries,SeriousGood,etc.

No No

Drop‐off&Mail‐In Communitycollectionevent No No

6.1.2.1.4 Survey‐basedMethod

BasedonthenationalsurveysconductedbyConsumerReport(2006)42,surveysin2008and2010byKahhatandWilliamsshownin

IIElectronicsTakeBackCoalition,2011.E‐wasteexportlegislationisthemostimportantactionthefederalgovernmentcantakeone‐wasteproblem.Availableat:http://www.electronicstakeback.com/2011/06/23/e‐waste‐export‐legislation/

84

Table14,itwasfoundthat40%and60%oftheusedTVshavebeencollectedforprocessingin2006and2010respectively.Whilethesurveyshadbeenconductedbydifferentresearches,theresultsarestillcomparable.ThevaluesofP(F)applicabletotheTVswereallowedtovarywithinreasonableboundsofauniformdistributionintheMonteCarlosimulationof .Table19summarizesthecollectionratesfoundbythetwoapproaches.

Table19:2010TVsCollectionRates

Statesgroup Product Mean Min Max

Literature‐basedMethodB

Stateswithprogram AllTVs 47% 40% 54%Stateswithoutprogram AllTVs 47% 40% 54%

Survey‐basedMethod

National CRTTVs 49% 40% 64%National FlatPanel

TVs62% 57% 65%

6.1.2.1.5 StockandFlowModelforModelingTVsGeneration

6.1.2.1.5.1 Methodology

Besidesusingsalesobsolescencemodeltoquantifythegenerationofusedelectronics,thereisanotherpotentialmethodtoestimatethegeneratedquantityinagivenyearn,whichisexpressedinEquation11.Mulleretal.(2009)presentedasimilarequation.Thismethodisusefulwhenboththesalesdataandstockdataareavailable.

Equation11

6.1.2.1.5.2 Stockdata

TwosourcesofresidentialTVstockdatawerefoundtoprovidethestockdata,thoughbotharebasedonTVBasics(2012)IIIcitingNielsen2010.Theinstalledbaseestimateisfromthereportdirectly,whilethepossessioninthehomeestimatecombinedUScensusdatain200936,FloridaElectronicResidentialSurveyin2003,andthepenetrationisfromNielsensurvey(TVBasics2012).ThestockdatadoesnotdifferentiatethetypeofTVsbetweenCRTandFlatPanel.Figure49presentsthetrendsovertimechange.BecausethereisminordifferencebetweentheInstalledbaseandpossession,thusweusedtheaveragevaluetorepresentthestockofTVsintheUShome.Accordingly,thehistoricgenerationfortheTVscanbeestimated.

IIITelevisionBureauofAdvertising,Inc.(2010,TVBasics),http://www.tvb.org/media/file/TV_Basics.pdf

85

Figure49:TVsinUSHomes

6.1.2.1.5.3 ResultsandComparison

Figure50presentsacomparisonofthisstudy’sTVgenerationfoundwiththeSales‐ObsolescencemodelinLiterature‐basedMethodandStockandFlowmodelandEPAestimates.Theresultsareallcomparable.Thissuggeststhatthoughthereisnotreadilyavailablestockdataforotherproducts,thisstudy’sLiterature‐basedMethodisvalidforgenerationestimates.

Figure50:ComparisonoftheGeneratedUsedTVswithVariousModels

6.1.2.1.6 UnitWeight

Inordertoquantifythegenerated,collectedandexportedusedelectronicsinweight,theunitweightdataismultipliedbythequantity.WhilerecentcollectiondatafromWashingtonandOregonwasusedforcomputersandmonitors,theTVdatadidnotdifferentiatebetweenCRTTVsandFlatScreenTVs.Therefore,theunitweightdataforTVsaretakenfromtheUSEPAreport(EPAb,2011):ElectronicsWasteManagementintheUnitedStatesThrough2009.Belowisanexcerptofthemethod.

86

“Toconvertthenumberofelectronicproductssoldintotonnagessoldforeachmodelyear,wecollecteddataonthetypicalweightofindividualelectronicproductsbymodelyear.DatafromtheFloridaDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(DEP)wereusedtodevelopweightestimatesfordesktopCPUs,hard‐copydevices,PCFlatPanels,andCRTTVspriorto2008.Fortheremainingcategories,estimatesweretakenfromConsumerReportsAnnualandMonthlyBuyingGuides(from1984to1999)andonlineinformation.WeupdatedunitweightdatafordesktopCPUs,portables,multi‐functiondevices,mobiledevices,andflat‐panelTVsinthe2008,2009,and2010model‐yearsusing2008and2009ConsumerReportsBuyingGuidesandonlinemanufacturerspecificationsheets.1Foreachtypeofproduct,wesampledweightsacrossarangeofmodelsizestocalculateatypicalweight.Wewereunabletocalculateasalesshare‐weightedaverageweightforeachproduct,however,becausethedataonthesalesshareofindividualmodelswithineachtypeofproductwerenotavailable.”

6.1.2.1.7 SensitivityAnalysis

Theassumptionsthatcontributedmosttothevariance,representedbyerrorbarsinFigure7,areshowninFigure51.forgenerationestimatesandcollectionestimates.

87

Figure51:ContributiontoVarianceofGenerationandCollectionEstimatesofUsedCRTTVsin2010

Themajorcontributorswerethelengthoftheinitialuselifespanstageandthesalesestimate.Thissuggeststhatfortightergenerationestimates,tighteruselifetimeestimatesshouldbeatoppriority,followedbymoreaccuratesalesdataestimates.Asonewouldexpect,thecollectionrateswerethetopdriverofvarianceinthecollectionestimates,followedbythesamedriversforthegenerationestimates.

6.1.2.2 MobilePhonesToquantifygenerationandcollectionofusedmobilephones,Literature‐based

MethodAisused.

6.1.2.2.1 Sales

SeveralsourcesoffershipmentorsalesdataasshowninTable20.Shipmentshererefertomanufacturershipmentsintothechannel,whilesalesrefertoactualtransactionswithendusers.Salesarethereforeexpectedtobesomewhatlowerthanshipments.Salesdataismorerepresentativeoftheproductsavailableforgeneration.

88

Table20:SalesDataSourcesforMobilephone

Source DataType OwnerTypePurchaseYearsAvailable

EPAb,20119(InformInc.data)


EPAb,20119(IDCdata) Sales Combined 2004‐2009

IDC,201171 Sales Combined 2010‐2015Urban,etal.,2011(CEAdata)36 Sales Residential 1985‐2004Euromonitor,201272 Sales Residential 2004‐2016USITC,2010(TIAdata)73 Sales Residential 2004‐2008

USCensusBureau(2012)IDomesticManufacturerShipments

Combined 2007‐2011

Themobilephonesaleshavebeenseparated intoResidentialandBusiness/Publicowner types in order to model generation by owner type. Business/Public sales wereassumedtobetheremainderofCombinedsaleslessResidentialsales.Inyearswherethereweremultiple data sources, themean and standard deviation of the sale quantitywerefound. Inyearswithasingledatasource,themeanwasallowedtovary10%inaMonteCarlo simulation. Figure 52 and Figure 53 display the mobile phones sales estimatesconsidered,aswellasthemodeledmean.

Figure52:MobilePhoneSalesEstimatesforVariousDataSources

IUS.CensusBureau,Telecommunications–Summary.2010http://academicarchive.snhu.edu/bitstream/handle/10474/2007/mq334p105.pdf?sequence=1

89

Figure53:MobilephoneSalesEstimatesforModelParameters

6.1.2.2.2 Lifespan

Ideally,lifespanstageassumptionswouldbedisaggregatedbyownertype,purchaseyear,andlifespanstage(firstuse,reuse,andstorage).Table21presentsthesourcesused.Manyestimatesdonotdifferentiatebetweenresidentialandbusiness/publicownertypes.Somemodelgeneratedmobilephoneusingstaticlifespans,whileothersaccountforshiftingtrendsinlifespans.

Table21:LifespanDataSources

Source OwnerType Years Lifespan stagesJangandKim,201074

Combined 2002 Timeuntilgeneration

Yuetal.,201075 Combined 2009 Timeuntilgeneration

PolakandDrapalova,201276

Combined 2005 Timeuntilgeneration

Wilhelmetal.,201177

Combined 2010 Initial use

2011,USEPA9 Combined 1980‐2010

Timeuntilgeneration(staticestimateacrossallyears)

ISG,201078 Combined 2007 Initialuse,initialstoragelifespan


Residential 2008 Initialuse,initialstoragelifespan

Lifespansweremodeledasthesameforresidentialandbusiness/publicownertypes.Therefore,therelevantestimatesfromFigure44wereincludedinthedevelopmentoflifespanstagelengthestimates.

Becausemostofthedatasourcesonlyreportedthetotallifespananddonotdifferentiatetheownertype,lifespanstageestimatewasonlyincludedthesurveydata

90

conductedbyKahhatandWilliamsin2008.ThemeanµandstandarddeviationσareshowninTable22.

KahhatandWilliamsconductedanationalsurveywith1,000questionnairestoinvestigateuseofelectronics(TVs,MobilephoneandComputers)in2008,includingtheevaluationoftheinitialuselifespan(Howoftenisthedevicereplaced?)andinitialstoragelifespan(Howlonghaveyoukeptunuseddevicesbeforediscardingthem).Theinitialuselifespanisseparatedintothelifetimesof:lessthan1year,2years,3‐4years,5‐10yearsandabove10years;and,theinitialstoragelifespanwasseparatedintothelifetimesof:lessthan3months,1year,2‐3years,4‐5yearsandabove5years.

Boththeµandσarederivedfromthelognormaldistribution,whichisrankedtobeoneofthebestfit.BesidestheWeibulldistribution,thelognormaldistributionhasalsobeenwidelyacceptedtorepresentrealsituationoftheusebehaviors.However,therearenotsurveysdatarelatedtothedomesticreuseandreusestoragelifetime,whichareassumedtobehalfoftheinitialusetimeandinitialstoragetimerespectively.

Table22:ModeledLifespanStageLengths(Years)

Mobilephone

B.InitialUse

D.InitialStorage*

C.DomesticReuse

E.ReuseStorage

µ 2.54 1.7 1.3 1.7σ 1.5 2.3 0.7 2.3

6.1.2.2.3 PathstoGeneration

FollowingFigure35andTable8,Table23presentsthesourcesoftheseprobabilityestimatesandtheirapplicability.Noneofthestudiesdifferentiatetheownertypes.Thus,thesamepathstogenerationandsamecollectionrateshavebeenassumedforresidentialandbusiness/publicownertypes.

91

Table23:ProbabilityofPathsLeadingtoGeneration

Source ScopeStoragerate Reuserate

ReuseStoragerate*

CollectionRate

Reuserateafter

processingP(D) P(D’) P(C) P(C’) P(E) P(E’) P(F) P(F’) P(H) P(H’)

ConsumerReports,200642


57% 43%

58% 42%



63% 37% 60% 40%



16% 84% 64% 36% 8% 92% 59% 41%

EPAa,20119


38% 62%

EPAb,20119


42% 58%

Daoud,201145(IDC)


WisconsinDNR,201246

Statewidesurveys(2006)

52% 48% 30% 70%

Hanksetal.,200879

Univ.Surveys2006(IN)

53% 47% 27% 74%

Wilhelm,201177

Univ.Surveys2010(IL)

67% 33% 34% 67%

OverallMean 45% 59% 23% 52% 40% OverallStandard

Deviation 26% 6% 13% 15% 3%

TheprobabilitiesofeachpathwayP(ϖ)andmeantotallifespanlengths areinTable24.

Table24:MeanProbabilitiesandMeanTotalLifespansof6PathstoGeneration

ScopeMobilephone

P(ϖ)Path1(ϖ=1) 17% 4.2Path2(ϖ=2) 22% 5.5Path3(ϖ=3) 6% 7.2Path4(ϖ=4) 25% 2.5Path5(ϖ=5) 31% 3.8

Path6(ϖ=6) 8% 5.5

92

6.1.2.2.4 Collection

Sincemostofthestatesdonotincludethemobilephoneintotherecyclingprogramordisposal.Thereisrelativelylittledatafromstatereports.Thus,onlythesecondmethodissuitableforthecollectionrate.BasedonthenationalsurveysconductedbyConsumerReport(2006)42,KahhatandWilliams’surveys(2008and2010)showninTable25,itwasfoundthat57%and61%oftheusedmobilephonehavebeencollectedforprocessingin2006and2010respectively.Whilethesurveyssamplesarenotconsistent,theresultsarestillcomparable.

Table25:2010MobilePhoneCollectionRates

Statesgroup Mean Min Max

Overall(Literature-based Method B) 59% 57% 61%

*Thestatesreportswithoutbreakdownownertypes.


Inordertoquantifythegenerated,collectedandexportedusedelectronicsinweight,theunitweightdataismultipliedbythequantity.WhilerecentcollectiondatafromWashingtonandOregonwasusedforcomputersandmonitors,mobilephonedatawasnotincludedsincemostcollectionprogramsdonotincludemobilephones.Therefore,theunitweightdataforCRTTVsandmobilephonesaretakenfromtheUSEPAreport(EPAb,2011):ElectronicsWasteManagementintheUnitedStatesThrough2009.Belowisanexcerptofthemethod.

“Toconvertthenumberofelectronicproductssoldintotonnagessoldforeachmodelyear,wecollecteddataonthetypicalweightofindividualelectronicproductsbymodelyear.DatafromtheFloridaDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(DEP)wereusedtodevelopweightestimatesfordesktopCPUs,hard‐copydevices,PCFlatPanels,andCRTTVspriorto2008.Fortheremainingcategories,estimatesweretakenfromConsumerReportsAnnualandMonthlyBuyingGuides(from1984to1999)andonlineinformation.WeupdatedunitweightdatafordesktopCPUs,portables,multi‐functiondevices,mobiledevices,andflat‐panelTVsinthe2008,2009,and2010model‐yearsusing2008and2009ConsumerReportsBuyingGuidesandonlinemanufacturerspecificationsheets.1Foreachtypeofproduct,wesampledweightsacrossarangeofmodelsizestocalculateatypicalweight.Wewereunabletocalculateasalesshare‐weightedaverageweightforeachproduct,however,becausethedataonthesalesshareofindividualmodelswithineachtypeofproductwerenotavailable.”

6.1.2.2.6 SensitivityAnalysis

TheassumptionsthosecontributedmosttothevarianceareshowninFigure54.SimilartotheTVs,themajorcontributorswerethemeanlengthoftheinitialuselifespanstage,initialstoragelifetimeandsalesestimate.Theresidentialownersaccountedforthemajorityofsalesinrecentyears,explainingtheimportanceofthoselifespansascompared

93

tootherownertypes.Thissuggeststhatfortightergenerationestimates,tighterlifetimeandsalesdataestimatesshouldbeatoppriority,followedbymoreaccuratestoragelifetimeestimates.

Figure54:ContributiontoVarianceofGenerationandCollectionEstimatesofUsedMobilePhonesin2010

6.1.2.3 ComputersandMonitorsTheSurvey‐basedMethodwasusedtoquantifygenerationandcollectionestimates

ofusedcomputersandmonitors.

6.1.2.3.1 Sales

SeveralsourcesoffersalesdataasshowninTable26.

Table26:SalesDataSourcesforComputersandMonitors

Source DataType OwnerType YearIDC(EPAa,2008)IDCReport* Desktop Residential

Business/Public1990‐1994(IDCdatafromEPAreport)1995‐2011(IDC,data)

IDC(EPAa,2008)IDCReport* Laptop

ResidentialBusiness/Public

1990‐1994(IDCdatafromEPAreport)1995‐2011(IDC,data)

IDC(EPAa,2008)GIAInc.**IDCReport&

CRTandFlatPanelmonitor

ResidentialBusiness/Public

1990‐1999(IDCdatafromEPAreport)2000‐2007(GIA)2008‐2011(IDC)

94

6.1.2.3.2 Lifespan

BelowinFigure55,themeanLengthsofPeriodofOwnershipλforeachproductarepresented.ItispossiblethatsincelaptopsandFlatPanelmonitorshavebeenintroducedintothemarketmorerecentlythandesktopsandCRTmonitorsthedatasetsareimpactedinsuchawaythattheirλvaluesareartificiallyslightlylonger.Moreadvanceddatamodelingmaybeabletocorrectforthiseffectifitispresent.

Figure55:DistributionofLengthsofPeriodofOwnershipforeachproduct.Meanparameterspresented.Duringsimulation,distributionparametersvary.

BelowinTable27,theWeibulldistributionparametersforthemeanLengthsofPeriodofOwnershipλforeachproductarepresented.

Table27:MeanWeibullDistributionParametersforLengthofPeriodofOwnershipλ

Product WeibullDistributionScaleParameter

WeibullDistributionShapeParameter

Desktop 2.09 7.61

Laptop 1.71 13.28

CRTMonitor 2.10 7.46

FlatScreenMonitor 1.77 15.05

6.1.2.3.3 Collection

BelowinFigure56,theresidentialcollectionratetrendsfoundfromseveralsurveysforusedcomputersandmonitorsarepresented28,33‐35.

95

Figure56:EstimatedUSresidentialusedelectronicscollectionratesacrossseveralsurveys


DifferenttotheTVsandmobileunitweightdatathosecitedfromEPAreport,theunitweightdataforcomputers(laptopanddesktop)andmonitorsareestimatedbasedonthesamplingdatain2010ofusedelectronicsbytheOregonandWashingtonStatesII,withthesamplesizesrangingfrom1,000to10,000forbrandsofeachtypeofelectronic.

Figure56illustratesthehistogramoftheunitweightdistributionfordesktopandlaptopcomputers,respectively.AccordingtothedistributiongoodnessfitbyusingCrystalBall,lognormaldistributionwasconfirmedtofitwellforboth.

DuetothecombinationoftheunitweightdataforCRTmonitorandFlatPanelmonitordata,theFiniteMixtureModels80(FMM)packageembodiedinStatadatamanagementsoftwarewasemployedtodifferentiatethedistribution(assumedlognormaldistributionforthetwocomponents:CRTandFlatPanel)(showninFigure58).

IINCERBrandDataManagementSystem,samplingsharefromcomputerandmonitors(weight)‐OregonandWashingtonSamplingData:http://www.electronicsrecycling.org/BDMS/AlphaList.aspx?sort=All.

96

Figure57:UnitWeightforComputersforModelParameters

Figure58:UnitWeightforMonitorsforModelParameters

TheunitweightdataforcomputersandmonitorsfrommodelparametersareshowninTable28.

Table28:UnitWeight(kg)DataforComputersandMonitorsfromModelParameters

UsedElectronics Distribution Mean StandardDeviationDesktop Lognormal 10.6 3.3Laptop Lognormal 3.1 1.5

CRTmonitor Lognormal 15.4 1.2FlatPanelmonitor Lognormal 10.4 2.0

6.2 Export

6.2.1 MethodologyOverview

Avarietyofapproachesforquantitativecharacterizationoftransboundaryflowsofusedelectronicswereconsideredforthisstudy.Theseapproachesweregatheredthroughareviewoftherelevantliterature,discussionwithstakeholdersataworkshopinJune2011,andsubsequentdiscussionamongstthereport’sauthors.Amoredetailedfeasibility

97

assessmentoftheapproacheslistedaboveisprovidedinCharacterizingTransboundaryFlowsofUsedElectronics:SummaryReport81.

Toestimatethelevelofeffortrequiredforresearcherstoexecuteanapproach(lowtosignificant),andthequalityofinformationobtainedfromtheresults(lowtohigh),fourcriteriawerebrieflyevaluated:uncertainty,representativeness,availabilityandcost.Uncertaintyreferstothereliabilityinthedatabeingcollected,andtakesintoaccountanysourcesoferrororestimation.Representativenessreferstotheabilityofsampledatagatheredtorepresenttherangeofusedelectronicsexports.Availabilityreferstotheexistenceofdataandaccessibilityofthedata,andcostreferstothefinancialcosttoaccomplishtheresearchorpoliticalcostfordiplomaticcollaboration.Table29providesasummaryofresultsfromthisbriefevaluation.Notethattheterm“handler”referstocollectorsandprocessorsofusedelectronics.Thetradedataapproachwasselectedforthisresearchamongallofthealternativesasbeingareasonablecombinationofeffortandinformationquality.

Table29:Matrixofquantitativeapproachesbyeffortrequiredandinformationqualityyielded.Approachimplementedinthisstudyisinbold.

LowEffort ModerateEffort SignificantEffort

LowInformationQuality

ProxyTradeData Demographicand

EconomicCorrelation

MediumInformationQuality

MonitorInternetTrading

State‐LevelData EnforcementData:

MandatoryReporting

TradeData StandardHandler

Surveys BillofLadingData EnforcementData:

Seizures MassBalance

Medium‐HighInformationQuality

BayesianTruthSerumHandlerSurvey

VoluntaryExportsStandardsData

CollaborationwithOEMs

HighInformationQuality

MaterialFlowMonitoring

98

TheobjectivefortheexporttradedataapproachistodeterminethequantityofusedgoodsexportedfromtheUStovariouscountriesandworldregionswiththeassociateduncertainty.Thereareotherformsofuncertaintywhichcannotbequantifiedbythesemethods,however.Toavoidtariffs,lawsandregulations,orotherformsofnegativeattention,sometimesexportsareintentionallymisclassifiedortradedintheblackmarket82.Variousformsofhumanerrorcouldleadtounintentionalmisclassificationordatareporting.Theseunreportedexportswouldbedifficulttoquantifywithoutenforcementaction.Importpartnerdatararelyperfectlyalignswiththeexportdata,suggestingerrorsoneitherorbothends.Thisapproachproceedswithrecognitionthattheresultsareanunderestimateoftheactualusedlaptopexportquantity.

AversionofthetradedataapproachadoptedherehasbeendemonstratedpreviouslyforJapaneseexports.Yoshidaetal.(2009)demonstratedthismethodusing2004exportpricehistogramstodistinguishusedandnewdesktopandlaptopcomputerexports83.Terazono(2008)similarlydistinguishesSecondhandandBrand‐newTVsets,refrigerators,airconditionersandwashingmachinesexports.Forexample,Figure59presentsexportsofTVsetsfromJapantoChinain200184.

Figure59:Differentiationofused(secondhand)andnewexportsusingexportunitvalue(unitprice).ExampleofTVsetsexportedfromJapantoChinain2001.

Theoverallapproachistoutilizedetailed,disaggregatedtradedatatodistinguishthequantityofusedelectronicsexports.Thestepsareasfollows:

1. Collectandpreparedisaggregated,detailedexporttradedata.

2. Estimateused‐newthresholdunitvaluethresholdsfordifferentworldregions.

3. SumthequantityofgoodsdomesticallyexportedfromtheUStopartnercountrieswithaunitvaluebelowtheused‐newthreshold.

4. Estimatethere‐exportpotentialofdomesticexportsbyinvestigatingthetoptradepartner’sre‐exportactivity.

99

6.2.1.1 PreviousworkFewcomprehensiveexportcomparisonsexistforthecountriesstudied.Most

pertinentsurveysandinterviewsofindustryexpertsinrecentyearshaveproducedestimatesofthefractionofcollectedelectronicsthatareexported.Theformoftheusedelectronicsinthefollowingestimatesiseitherunspecifiedormayencompassbothwholeunitsanddisassembledscrapstreams.Thisvariationinscopemakesitdifficulttocomparenumbers.AsurveyofusedelectronicsprocessorsintheNortheasternUSreportedthat45%oftherespondentsareengagedinexport.Allowingforlistingofmultipledestinations,oftheexportingorganizations,overtwo‐thirdsexportedtoAsia,aquarterexportedtoSouthAmerica,andaquarterexportedtoAfrica85.Anationwideindustrysurveyin2003reportedthat“verylittleoftheoutputfromelectronicsrecyclingoperationsisexportedoutsidetheUS(typicallynoneorlessthan10%)”86.Onecaninferfroma2005industrysurveythatalmost31%ofusedelectronicscollectedforprocessingareexportedaswholeunits87.A2010surveyconductedbyIDCsaid“theUSgeographyremainsthebiggestmarketforsurveyrespondents'directoutputinbothweightandvalue”;79%ofrespondents“reportedthattheiroutputwastraded,soldand/ortransferredwithintheUnitedStates”88.Totranslatetheexportfractionsintoquantitiesandcaptureuncertainty,stochasticmethodstoestimatecollectionquantitiesarealsoneeded.

Arecent2013reportfromtheUSInternationalTradeCommission(USITC)investigatedexportsofusedelectronics10.AccordingtotheNewsRelease:

“TheUSITCrecentlyconcludedtheinvestigationfortheU.S.TradeRepresentative.Thereportisbasedondatacollectedthroughanationwidesurveyof5,200refurbishers,recyclers,brokers,informationtechnologyassetmanagers,andotherhandlersofusedelectronicproducts.Itcoverstheyear2011andfocusesonaudioandvisualequipment,computersandperipheralequipment,digitalimagingdevices,telecommunicationequipment,andcomponentpartsoftheseproducts.

ThereportprovidesanoverviewoftheU.S.UEPindustry,includinginformationondomesticUEPcollection,theshareofgoodsthatarerefurbishedcomparedtotheshareofgoodsthatarerecycled,andthecharacteristicsofexportedproducts.ThereportalsoprovidesinformationonthetypesofenterprisesthatexportUEPsandthosethatimporttheseproductsfromtheUnitedStates,anditexaminesthefactorsthataffecttradeintheseproducts.”III

Forthepurposesofcomparisonwiththisstudy’sinvestigationintoexportsofusedwholeunits,surveyresultsregardingrefurbished,remanufactured,andrepairedproductsweremade.Thiscategoryincludes:“usedelectronicproductsthatarecollectedfromtheiroriginalusersandthencleaned,fixed,orotherwisebroughtbacktoworkingconditionandresold.Thiscategoryincludesproductsthataredisassembledandresoldasreclaimedelectronicpartsforuseinrepairingofotherelectronicproducts.”Whiletherearewhole

IIIUSITC, U.S. Exports of used electronic products valued at $1.5 billion in 2011, says USITC. In New Release, 2013. http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2013/er0308ll1.htm

100

unitexportsforrecyclinganddisposal,thesurveyresultsdidnotdistinguishwholeunitsfrompartsandmaterialsdestinedforrecyclinganddisposal.

TheUSITCstudyalsoreported2011shipmentleveltradestatisticsaboutexportsofseveralproducts.Whilethisstudyfocusedonyear2010,thecomparisonismadesincemanysurveyrespondentsreportedthatexportsin2011andpreviousyearswereaboutthesame.Notethatfordesktops,exportcode847150wasnotincluded,differingfromourapproach(seeTable7).Also,theUSITCreportincludesexportcodes851720050,851720080butnot851720020(confirmedtypoinreportafterconversationwithstaff)whereasthisstudyincludesallthree.Forflatpanelmonitors,USITCexcludedflatpanelvideomonitors,whereastheywereincludedinthisstudy.Lastly,thetradecodemethodwasnotusedforflatpanelTVssonocomparisonwasmade.

WhiletheUSITCstudydoesnotassignaused‐newthreshold,theyprovidestatisticsbythelowest10%,25%,50%and100%oftradebyunitvalue.Quantitiesreportedsumthequantitybelowtheparticularunitvalue.Inordertohaveanapples‐to‐applescomparison,thecomparisonismadebetweenquantitiesassociatedwiththerangeofunitvaluesthatcorrespondtothethresholdsestimatedinthisreport.Therefore,ifthisstudy’sthresholdrangeliesaboveoneunitvalueandbelowanother,thedifferenceofthosequantitiesisfound.ForCRTTVsmonitors,100%oftradewasusedsincenonewCRTsareassumedtobeexported.ComparisonisshownbelowinTable30,withselectedUSITCcomparableunitvaluesinbold.

Table30:ComparisonbetweenHSOTDMThresholdsandUSITCLowestX%UnitValues($/unit)

ProductHSOTDMThresholdRange USITCLowestX%byUnitValue,u

USExportNVEM

ChinaExportNVEM

ExportPub.Method

Max.u Avg.uX=10% X=25% X=50% x=100%

FlatPanelTV 120‐200 NA 100‐200 NA NA NA NACRTTV CRTTV NA,100%Export 263 341 604 431CRTTubes NA,100%Export 95 149 970 154

Mobilephone 60‐195 65‐195 75‐150 50 104 184 123Laptop 100‐305 100‐300 200‐250 270 440 400 485Desktop

Desktop 305‐395 305‐400 200‐400 750 1,250 3,654 2,294Server 290‐400 195‐400 300‐400 750 1,250 3,654 2,294Otherdesktop 440‐600 500‐600 400‐600 NA NA NA NA

Flatpanelmonitor

Flatpanelmonitor

140‐200 115‐200 100‐200 100 118 161 175

Videomonitor 115‐200 110‐200 100‐200 NA NA NA NACRTmonitors

Alone NA,100%Export 227 353 780 359WithDesktop NA,100%Export 324 570 1,712 740

101

6.2.1.2 MethodologiesDevelopedandUtilized6.2.1.2.1 Collectandpreparedisaggregated,detailedexporttradedata

Figure2:Illustrationofexportquantityandunitvalueofdisaggregatedtradedataforagivenworldregion

AboveinFigure2(repeatedforconvenience),theexportquantityandexportunitvalueofdisaggregatedtradedataisillustrated.Forthisapproach,theunitvalueofeachproductshippedismodeled;evenwheneachrecordofshipmentisknown,onlytheoverallvaluefortheshipmentandquantityisreportedandnottheunitvalueofeachindividualpieceofequipment.

6.2.1.2.1.1 ExportTradeDatasets

Inordertomostaccuratelymodelthevalueoftheexportedequipment,disaggregated,detailedexporttradedataissought.Whenshipment‐leveldataisnotavailable,port‐levelordistrict‐leveldataareusedassubstitutesasdescribedattheendofthissection.Ideally,substitutetradedatasetswould:

Reporttrademonthly ContainvaluevinFOB,quantityofgoodsq,andweightw. Disaggregatedomesticexports(originatinginexportcountry)fromre‐

exports(originatinginpartnercountry) Disaggregatemodesoftransport Providetradecodesatthe10digitlevel

AftercomparingallofthepublicallyavailableUSexporttradedatasetsthatwewereabletolocateinTable31,threewereselected,seeTable32.Table33belowpresentsthesymbolsandtermsusedtodescribethedatasetsaswellasintheequationsinthefollowingsection.

SincetheidealUSexporttradedatasetofdetailedshipmentlevelreportingisnotavailableinfullIV,noristheidealsetofport‐leveldata,amethodwasdevelopedto

IVAftercompletingthecalculationspresentedinthisreportwediscoveredthatthesetypeofdataareavailablefromtheCensusResearchDataCentersasRestricted–UseTransactionsMicrodata:

102

approximateport‐leveldomesticexportunitvaluesandquantities.Alldatasetscomparedreportedtrademonthlyandcontainvalue,v.Somedatasetsconsideredcontainquantityofgoodsq,and/orweightw.Someaggregatedshipmentsattheport,districtorcountrylevel,andsomeaggregateddomesticexports(originatinginUS)withre‐exports(originatinginpartnercountry);someaggregatedmodesoftransportaswell.

Table31:AttributesofUSExportTradeDatasets

Attribute UNComtradeI

USITCDataWeb

USATradeOnline

SICEX(USExports)

SICEX(MXImports)

StatisticsCanada(CANImports)

Value,v,Measure

FOB,CIF

FOB

FOB

FOB

FOB,CIF

CIF

Quantity,q,Measure

Quantity,Weight

Quantity Weight

Quantity,Weight

Quantity

Quantity

TradeFlows,f

AllAvailable

DomesticExports

GeneralExports

DomesticExports

ImportsbyOrigin

ImportsbyOrigin

Period AnnualII Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly

Transportmodes,t

Combined Combined Air,Vessel

Air,Vessel,Multi,Other

Air,Vessel,Land,Other

Air,Vessel,Land

Region,r Country District Port District District Port

Table32:DatasetsUtilizedforUSExportsCalculations.Somedatasetsdonotreportquantityorweight.

Database 1.USATradeOnline 2.SICEX(USExports)

StatisticsCanada(CANImports)

Value,v

Quantity,q ‐‐

Weight,w

‐‐

http://www.census.gov/ces/rdcresearch/.However,onemustgothroughanextensiveapplicationprocessinordertoaccessthedata.I BACI data was considered as well, but not utilized for any purpose due to its inability to reconcile re-exports, and its use of 1996 export codes which are not as detailed as 2007 export codes used in other datasets. Gaulier, G. and S. Zignago BACI: International Trade Database at the Product-level: The 1994-2007 Version. CEPII. II UN Comtrade launched a free beta version of “UN Monthly Comtrade” in mid-2012 but it only reports value. http://comtrade.un.org/monthly/Public/Metadata.aspx.

103

Table33:ExportTradeDataSymbolsandTerms

Symbol Term Symbol Term

u Exportunitvalue FOB Free‐on‐boardvalues

v Exportvalue CIF Cost,InsuranceandFreightvalues

q Exportquantity m Month(ofspecificyear)

w Exportweight n Tradepartnernation

x Exportunitweight t Transportmode(airandvessel)

fg Generalexporttradeflows rs Shipment‐levelregionalaggregation

fe Domesticexporttradeflows rp Port‐levelregionalaggregation

fg‐e Re‐exporttradeflows rd District‐levelregionalaggregation

fi Totalimporttradeflows rc Country‐levelregionalaggregation

Port‐levelweight(orquantity)dataareneededtocalculatetheapproximateport‐levelunitvalue,whichisgenerallyavailablethroughUSATradeOnline.Unfortunately,thedatasetsutilizeddonotcontainthisinformationforlandshipments,sodistrict‐leveldatawasusedformostexportstoCanadaandMexicofromtheUS.I

I“CanadaandtheUnitedStatesparticipateina'dataexchange',inwhichtheexportstatisticsofeachcountryarederivedfromthecounterpartimportdata;therefore,therearenounexplaineddifferencesintheirtradestatistics.However,differencesbetweentheofficialtradestatisticsoftheUnitedStatesandMexico,andCanadaandMexicoaresizeable”(EconomicsandStatisticsAdministrationofUSCensusBureau2000).Therefore,port‐levelCanadianimportdatafromSTATCANisusedforUSdomesticexportdatatoCanadaforthecaseoflaptopsonly.District‐level

104

6.2.1.2.1.2 ExportTradeCodes

Thefollowingtablespresentthetradecodesforthefocusproductsofthisstudy.Table34presentsthecodesforTVs.

Table34:TVExportTradeCodesUsedinthisStudy

ProductTypeScheduleBExportCode OfficialDescription

CRTColorTVs

8528723000 TVreceptionapparatus,color,incorporatingvideorecordingorreproducingapparatus

8528726005TVreceptionapparatus,color,withpicturetube,combinedwithradiobroadcastreceiversorsoundrecordingapparatus

8528726010 TVreceptionapparatus,color,havingapicturetube,notexceeding52cm(<20inches)

8528726040TVreceptionapparatus,color,havingapicturetube,exceeding52cm(>20inches)

MonochromeTVs

8528730000 Other,blackandwhiteorothermonochrome

FlatPanelTVs 8528726057 TVreceptionapparatus,color,nothavingapicturetube

CRTTubes854011 Tubes,partsthereofCathode‐raytelevisionpicturetubes,

color

854012Tubes,partsthereofCathode‐raytelevisionpicturetubes,monochrome

CRTGlassEnvelopes

701120 Glassenvelopes(bulbsandtubes)forcathode‐raytubes,andglasspartsthereofcathode‐raytubesorthelike

Notethatformobilephones,asubsetoftheHScodeunder851712,8517120020(RadiotelephonesdesignedforinstallationinmotorvehiclesforthePublicCellular),hasbeenexcludedduetoitsdissimilaritywithtypicalmobilephones.

Table35:MobilePhoneExportTradeCodeusedinthisstudy

ProductTypeScheduleBExportCode OfficialDescription

Mobilephone 851712 Telephonesforcellularnetworksorforotherwirelessnetworks*

BelowinTable36aretheexportcodespertainingtocomputersandmonitors.USexportdataatthe10digitlevelwasusedtoidentifythequantitiesofDesktopswithCRTs(ScheduleBExportCodes8471410110and8471500110).GiventhatallCRTsexportedareassumedtobeused,desktopsexportedwithCRTsarealsoassumedtobeused.

105

Table36:ComputerExportTradeCodesUsedinthisStudy

ProductTypeScheduleBExportCode

SpecificProduct

Desktop

8471410110 DesktopwithCRTMonitor8471410150 DesktopwithoutCRTMonitor847149 Server8471500110 OtherDesktopwithCRTMonitor8471500150 OtherDesktopwithoutCRTMonitor

Laptop 847130 Laptop

CRTMonitor

8471410110 WithDesktop8471500110 WithOtherDesktop852841 PCMonitor852849 VideoMonitor

FlatPanelMonitor

852851 PCMonitor852859 VideoMonitor

6.2.1.2.1.3 PreparationofExportTradeData

First,alldatautilizedwasaggregatedtotheannual,alltransportmode,partnercountryleveltocheckforconsistencyacrossv,q,andwandincomparisonwithUNComtradedata.Minorissueswereencounteredwithregardstoinconsistenciesincountryclassification(e.g.Sudan,Curacao)acrossdatasets;tradewiththesecountrieswasverysmall.

ThedisaggregatedUSdomesticexportunitvaluewascalculatedattwolevelsofaggregation:district‐level,andapproximateport‐level.Theterm“approximateport‐level”isusedtorepresentthatunitvaluescannotbecalculatedfromport‐leveldatadirectlyduetolackofquantitydata,andthereforeapproximationsaremadetoarriveatport‐levelunitvaluesandquantities.District‐levelunitvaluescanbecalculateddirectlyfromdistrict‐levelquantities,sodistrict‐levelresultsarefoundinordertocheckthattheapproximateport‐levelresultsarewithinreason.Attheapproximateport‐level,CanadianimportdatawassubstitutedforUSdomesticexportdata,anddistrict‐levelexportdatawasusedforexportstoMexico.

Thedistrict‐levelUSdomesticexportunitvalue wascalculatedwithSICEXdataasshowninEquation12.SinceSICEXdoesnotprovidequantitydisaggregatedbytransportmode,theexportunitvalueisdisaggregatedjusttoforeachmonth,partnernation,anddistrict.

Equation12

Toarriveattheapproximateport‐leveldatafornon‐NorthAmericancountries,thegeneralexportport‐levelvalueperweightismultipliedbythecorrespondingdomestic

106

exportdistrict‐levelunitweight foreachmonth,partnernation,anddistrictasshowninEquation13andEquation14.

Equation13

Equation14

Toapproximatetheport‐levelquantity, ,theweightfractionof

district‐leveldomesticexportsoutofgeneralexportsismultipliedbyport‐levelgeneralexportweightinordertodeterminetheapproximateport‐leveldomesticexportweight,andthenweightisconvertedtoquantitybydividingbythecorrespondingdistrictaverageunitweight,asshowninEquation15.Substituting fromEquation13,Equation15isequivalenttothefractionofport‐levelgeneralexportweightoutofdistrict‐levelgeneralexportweightmultipliedbythedistrict‐leveldomesticexportquantityasshowninEquation16.Therefore,theapproximateport‐levelquantityessentiallyallocatesadistrict’sdomesticexportquantitytoaportbasedontheport’sshareofthedistrict’sgeneralexportweightforagivenmonthandtradepartnernation.

Equation15

Equation16

TocalculatebothoftheNorthAmericanimportunitvaluesfortradewithUSas

countryoforiginn,thevalueissimplydividedbyquantityforeachmonth,portordistrict,andtransportmode.CanadianimportunitvalueisshowninEquation17.

Equation17

AnexampletoarrivetheApproximatePort‐LevelCalculationsforLaptopexportis

showninTable37.

107

Table37:ExampleApproximatePort‐LevelCalculationsforLaptopexport(FromtheUStoArgentina)(ResultsShaded)

Tradepartnernationn&Month

m

n=Argentina,m=September2010(Note:somerecordsexcludedforthisdemonstration)

District,d Houston‐Galveston,TX Miami,FLNewYorkCity,NY

Port,p

HoustonIntercont‐inentalAirport,TX

Houston,TX

MiamiInternatio

nalAirport,FL

Miami,FL

PortEverglades,

FL

JFKInternatio‐nalAirport,NY

$634,444 $634,444 $3,389,603 $3,389,603 $3,389,603 $‐ 912 912 5,742 5,742 5,742 ‐

$5,877 $5,877 $27,842 $27,842 $27,842 $‐ ‐ ‐ 350 350 350 ‐

$113,541 $113,541 $4,099,759 $4,099,759 $4,099,759 $56,440300 300 10,941 10,941 10,941 208

$378 $378 $375 $375 $375 $271‐ ‐ 26,625 26,625 26,625 212

815 815 589 589 589 ‐ 815 815 27,214 27,214 27,214 2123 3 2 2 2 1

$634,444 $‐ $7,412,903 $‐ $‐ $56,4405,877 ‐ 54,467 ‐ ‐ 212$293 $‐ $339 $‐ $‐ $271

$‐ $113,541 $‐ $48,674 $27,785 $‐ ‐ 815 ‐ 589 350 ‐

$‐ $378 $‐ $206 $197 $‐ 0% 0% 49% 49% 49% 100%

100% 100% 63% 63% 63% 0%

912 ‐ 5,671 ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ 45 27 ‐

‐ ‐ 10,704 ‐ ‐ 208

‐ 300 ‐ 149 88 ‐

108

6.2.1.2.2 Estimateused‐newunitvaluethresholdvaluesfordifferentworldregions

FollowingTerazono(2008),theapproachinthisstudyassumesthatexportsbelowaunitvaluethresholdareusedandthoseaboveitarenew.Thethresholdapproachassumesthattheused‐newthresholdisconsistentacrossaregionforatypeofgood.WorldregionsweredefinedbyWorldBankcountryincomegroups89andUNmacrogeographicalregionI90forvessel,air,andlandtransport.Duetopriceadaptationtodifferentmarkets,methodsdevelopedinthisstudydonotassumethesameexportunitvaluetoallcountries.Co(2007)foundthat“USexportersdopricediscriminateacrossmarkets”,basedonincomelevel,Englishlanguage,andtosomeextentchangesincurrencyexchangerate91.BaldwinandHarrigan(2007)analyzeall2005USexportdataandfindthat“distancehasaverylargepositiveeffectonunitvalues”;exportstodestinationsfartherthan4000kmawayhadunitvaluesafactoroftwolargerthanexportstoothercountriesinNorthAmerica.Theyalsofoundanegativerelationshipwithexportunitvalueanddestinationmarketsize92.

Thethresholdvaluezisthevalleybetweentheusedandnewdistributionsembeddedinabimodaldistribution,asdemonstratedinFigure3,repeatedbelowforconvenience.

Figure3:IllustrationofexportquantityandunitvalueofdisaggregatedtradedatawithUsed‐NewthresholddifferentiatingunderlyingUsedandNewdistributionsforagivenworldregion

Inthisstudy,itisassumedthatthemagnitudeoftheerrorduetoincludingnewgoodsinthesumbelowthethresholdisroughlyequivalenttothemagnitudeoftheerrorduetoincludingusedgoodsinthesumabovethethreshold.Thiserrorwillactuallyvarydependingonthemagnitudeandformofthedistributions.

Thethresholdvaluesweredeterminedusingthreeseparatemethodsforcomparisonpurposes.USExportNVEMandChinaExportNVEMutilizetheneighborhood

IThesearefollowedwiththeexceptionofMexicobeingassignedtoNorthAmericainthisstudy;itisambiguousinUNclassifications,andelsewhereMexicoisassignedtoNorthAmerica.

109

valley‐emphasismethod(NVEM)foreachdestinationworldregionwithUSexportandChineseexportdata,respectivelyII94.Chinesedataisconsideredanticipatingthatthemajorityofexportedgoodsarenew,sinceChinaisamajormanufacturer95.NVEMfindstheoptimalthresholdwhichsimultaneouslymaximizesthevariancebetweenthemodes(here,usedandnew)andminimizestheprobabilityoftheunitvaluebin atandaroundtheoptimalthreshold.AnexampleofthethresholdrangefoundbyNVEMinChinaExportNVEMisshowninFigure60,withapproximatedistributionssuperimposedonthehistogram.ExportPub.Methodtakesadvantageofpublishedreferencevaluesforusedgoods,andappliesthesamethresholdtoallworldregions.

Figure60:ExampleofChinaExportNVEMhistogramwith$5exportunitvaluefor2010exportoflaptopsfromChinatoLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean(LAC)byvessel.

6.2.1.2.2.1 NeighborhoodValley‐EmphasisMethod(NVEM)forUsed‐NewThresholds

Thresholdswerecalculatedattheapproximateport‐level(ordistrictleveltoCanadaandMexico),foreachworldregionandforbothvesselandairtransport(andlandtransportforNorthAmerica).Sincethedatasetsutilizedlargelyreportexportvaluesthatdonotincludefreightcosts,itmayseemsuperfluoustofinddifferentthresholdsfortransportmodes.Still,considerabledifferencesinunitvaluesdistributionshavebeenobservedforthisdatasetbasedonmodeoftransport,soitmaybeuseful.

IINote:adifferentmethodfornumberingwasusedinreference[93]Miller,T.R.Quantitativecharacterizationoftransboundaryflowsofusedelectronics:Acasestudyoftheunitedstates.MIT:2012.

110

Theneighborhoodvalley‐emphasismethod(NVEM)wasemployedtodeterminetheused‐newthresholdvaluezfortheUSExportNVEMandChinaExportNVEM.FanandLei(2012)describetheirapproachfordeterminingthethresholdfordifferentiationbetweenmodesinadistribution,developedforapplicationinfindingthethresholdofabimodalhistogramofagrayscaleimage.TheydemonstratethewiderapplicabilityoftheirNVEMversustheOtsuandvalley‐emphasismethods,whichtheymodify.ThismethodwaschosenbecausethethresholdzIIIvaluesarenoteasilydistinguishedbytheeye,andFanandLei(2012)convincinglydemonstratedthesuperiorityofthismethod.Sincethisrequiresahistogramwithadevelopeddistribution,themethodwasonlyappliedtosuitabledatasetswithconsiderabletradequantity(hereabove10,000units);thesecalculatedthresholdssubstitutedformissingthresholdsinworldregionswithlowtradequantities.Forworldregionswithasmallertradequantity,theExportPub.Methodwassubstituted.

Themethodfindstheoptimalthreshold, ,whichsimultaneouslymaximizesthevariancebetweenthemodes(orclasses)andminimizestheprobabilityoftheunitvaluebin atandaroundtheoptimalthreshold.Byconsideringnotonlytheprobabilityatthethresholdvaluebinconsidered(theterm“valuebin”isusedbecauseahistogramisanalyzed)butitsneighborunitvaluebinsaswell,sporadicdipsnotcorrespondingtotruevalleysarenotselected.Themethodproceedsasfollows.

Eachunitvaluebin isevaluatedasapossiblethreshold ,andthusitsneighborhoodprobability iscalculated.Equation18isthesumofneighborhoodunitvalueprobabilityininterval forunitvalue ,where istheneighborhoodlength,normallyanoddnumber,and isthecountofbinsevaluatedoneithersideof(FanandLei2012).Theanalysisproceedsforseveralvaluesof tofindareasonablelength,basedonthesizeofthevaluebinandreasonablenessoftheresultsintermsofavoidanceofextraneousvalues.Theresultsarepresentedfor =7,9,and11representingexportunitvalueneighborhoodlengthsof$35,$45,and$55,respectively.

Equation18

Modes(orclasses)aredefinedas and whereisthemaximumunitvaluebin.Thetotalprobabilitiesofeachclassarefoundwith

simplesummations,showninEquation19andEquation20.ThemeansofeachclassareshowninEquation21andEquation22.

Equation19

III Notation used here differs from that presented in Fan and Lei (2012)

111

Equation20

Equation21

Equation22

Theoptimalthreshold, ,correspondstothemaximumacrossallvaluebinsofthe

objectivefunctionoftheneighborhoodvalley‐emphasismethod, ,inEquation23.

Equation23

6.2.1.2.2.2 ExportPub.MethodforUsed‐NewThresholds

InordertogetthesalesvaluesfortheusedelectronicsintheUSmarket,anumberofsalestradeplatformshavebeeninvestigated,includingbusinesstobusiness(e.g.,Alibaba),businesstoindividualconsumer(e.g.,AmazonandPriceGrabber)andindividualtoindividual(e.g.,ebay).Theadvantageisthatthesepotentialtransactionsshowusadirectsalevaluesfortheusedelectronics,aswellasthenormalpriceforthenewproductsasacomparison.However,thereareseveralconstraintsasfollows:

(a)Thepricescannotrepresentthesalesvalueofthewholeyear,onlythemostrecentspecificdate;

(b)Thereischangebetweentheauctionpricesandthefinalizedtradeprices;

(c)Itonlyrepresentsthemajorinternal‐basedtrades.

6.2.1.2.3 SumthequantityofgoodsdomesticallyexportedfromtheUStopartnercountrieswithaunitvaluebelow

Forthisstep,thequantityofexportsthatfallbelowtheused‐newthresholdforeachworldregionaresummed.Resultsarereportedforeachthresholdmethodandeachworldregion.Thetopusedexportrecipientsaredetermined.SignificantdifferencesintheresultsfromUSExportNVEM,ChinaExportNVEMandExportPub.Methodareinvestigated.Figure5below(repeatedforconvenience)illustratesthesummedquantities.

112

Figure5:IllustrationofsumofUsedandNewexportquantitiesfromdisaggregatedtradedatawithUsed‐NewthresholddifferentiatingunderlyingUsedandNewdistributionsforagivenworldregion

6.2.1.2.4 Estimatethere‐exportpotentialofdomesticexportsbyinvestigatingthetoptradepartner’sre‐exportactivity

TheUSdomesticexportdatautilizeddetailstheexporttradepartner,butnotnecessarilythefinaldestinationassometradepartnerswillthenre‐exporttheimports.Therefore,toapproximatethepotentialofre‐exportafterimportfromtheUS,ratiosbasedonaggregateUNComtradedata96werefoundasademonstrationforthelaptopcase.Notethatthismethodassumesequallikelihoodofre‐exportacrossallunitvaluesinsteadofdistinguishingusedfromnew.Fewcountriesdistinguishre‐exports,thereforeratiosaredevelopedcomparingexportstoimportsformostcountries.SomecountriesdonotreporttradedatatotheUN;formajorUSexportdestinations,tradeflowsareinferredfromreportingcountries’importandexportflowswiththesecountries.Chinawastreateddifferentlysinceitisaknownmajormanufacturerandexporter.UtilizingshipmentlevelChineseexportdata(HSInternationalInc.2012),re‐exportdestinationsofusedlaptops(underUS$250)werefound.

6.2.1.2.5 InDepthExplorationofTVProduction,Collection,andExport

BasedonourpreviousworkIV,20,itwasfoundthattherearealmostnonewCRTTVsbeingmanufacturedinNorthAmerica,whichimpliesthereisprobablynonewCRTTVswhichcanbeexportedoutofthisregion(exceptthere‐export).ThereisahypothesisthattheexportsofCRTTVsfromtheUSareallused.Inanotherword,itisunnecessarytodistinguishtheusedfromthetradeundertheHScodeofCRTrelatedproducts.ThissectionaimstoreviewtheCRTindustryintheUSandhelpconfirmthehypothesis.

6.2.1.2.5.1 GlobalTVProduction

IVJenniferAtlee,JeremyGregory,andRandolphKirchain,2005,Anoverviewofcathoderaytuberecyclinginternalreport.previousworkdonebyMaterialsSystemsLaboratoryatMIT.

113

USfirmsledtheworldinTVtechnologyandproductionuntiltheearly1970s.Then,foreign‐ownedfirmsgraduallytookcontroloftheUSmarketV.AreportfromIHSiSuppliVIindicatedthatglobalTVshipmentsreachedanall‐timehighof255millionunitsin2011butwilldeclineto241millionin2013.ThemajorreasonsforthedeclineinunitshipmentsarethecontinuedfallofCRTTVsandtheriseofinternettelevision.Thisisnotasurprisegiventhelong‐termdeclineofthemarket,butitishavinganimpactontheoverallshipmentoftelevisionsandcausingaperiodofadjustment.Currently,therearenoCRTTVsbeingshippedinWesternEurope,NorthAmericaandJapan.EasternEuropenowrepresentsonlyasliverofwhatoncewasamajorshipmentdestinationforthetechnology.EventheformerstrongholdofLatinAmericaisexperiencingadecreaseinthenumberofshipmentsofCRTTVsintheregion,withdigitizationandeconomicgrowthspurringtheuptakeofflat‐panels.By2016,CRTTVtechnologywillbecomenonexistentasallregionsswitchtoLCDandorganiclight‐emittingdiode(OLED)technology,IHSiSupplibelieves.ThemajorityofCRTTVsthatareshippednowgointotheAsia‐Pacificregion,ofwhich60%areshippedintoIndiaandIndonesia,withthenextmostsignificantregionbeingtheMiddleEastandAfrica,primarilysub‐SaharanAfrica,at15percent.However,eventheseregionswillbephasingoutoftheCRT‐TVbusinessduringthenextthreeyears.

6.2.1.2.5.2 USCRTGlassManufacturers

In1993(USITC,Industry&TradeSummary)97:

TelevisionPictureTubesandOther:therewere7producersofcolortelevisionpicturetubesintheUnitedStates,about30otherproducersofothertypesofCRTs,and21producersofelectrontubepartsexceptglassblanks;therewasnomonochrome(blackandwhite)tubeproductionintheUnitedStates.

RegardingtheCRTtubeglass,TechneglaswasthemajorsupplierofglassforpicturetubesintheUnitedStates,supplyinganestimated60to70percentofUSdemand.

In1997(USEPA,ComputerDisplayIndustry&MarketProfileVII):

ThemajorityofCRTdisplayfabricationtookplaceoutsideoftheUnitedStates.In1997,Asia(excludingJapan)produced54percentofallcolorTVsand79percentofallCRTmonitors.

CRTglass:FiveCRTglassmanufacturingplants,Techneglaswasthemajorsupplier

Picturetubes:7intotal,SonyforColormonitor;Hitachi,Matsushita,Philips,Thomson,Toshiba,andZenithforTVstubes.

CRTdisplayassembly,8intheUS.

VUSCongress,OfficeofTechnologyAssessment,theDeclineoftheUS.TVIndustry:Manufacturing.AppendixAfrom“TheBigPicture:HDTV&High‐resolutionSystems”,1990.Availableat:http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1990/9007/900709.PDFVITomMorrod,GlobalTelevisionShipmentstoshrinkin2012,IHS‐iSuppli,2012,Availableat:http://www.isuppli.com/Display‐Materials‐and‐Systems/MarketWatch/Pages/Global‐Television‐Shipments‐to‐Shrink‐in‐2012.aspxVIIUSEPA,1998,ComputerDisplayIndustry&MarketProfile:Chapter2.Availableat:http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/comp‐dic/tech_reports/SEC2‐0.pdf

114

Mizukietal.(1997)98state,“Theonlycolor‐displayproductionintheUSisoflargeentertainmentsystems(19"orlarger)becauseofthehighcostofimportingtheseheavieritems.Only5%ofthemonochromemonitorandTVCRTsconsumedintheUSaremanufacturedintheUS,andnocolormonitorsorsmallcolorentertainmentsystems(lessthan19")areproduceddomestically.”

Since2000VIII,therewerethreeCRTmanufacturers(ThomsonConsumerElectronicsInc.,TechneglasInc.,andCorningAsahiVideoProductsCompanyInc.)thatpurchasedfurnacereadyCRTcullet(Toto2003bIX).However,thesituationhaschangedinthepastfewyears.

AmericanVideoGlassCompany(aCorningAsahi&SonyPartnership)isstillinvolvedinglassbusiness,butnotCRTmanufacturingX

ThomsonConsumerElectronicshasapparentlymovedoffshore(toEurope?–unverified)

TechneglasrecentlywentoutofbusinessXI(BaselActionNetwork2004XII)

6.2.1.2.5.3 USGlass‐to‐GlassandGlass‐to‐LeadCulletProviders

Aroundadecadebefore,therewereonlytworecyclersprovidingfurnace‐readyculletintheUS(De‐manufacturingofElectronicEquipmentforReuseandRecycling2002XIII).Descriptionsoftheserecyclersareprovidedin(MaterialsfortheFutureFoundation2001XIV):

Envirocycle,Inc.(PA)XV:“AllmaterialsreceivedbyEnvirocycleareinspectedforthepossibilityofresale.Unitswithnovaluearesenttobedismantledandsortedintothepropermaterialstreamsforrecycling.TheaveragetimeforprocessingCRTglassis2weeks.WithinonemonththeculletisbackintothecommercestreamasanewCRT.Envirocycleemploysapproximately50peopleintheirtear‐downprocessandiscurrentlyinvestinginresearchanddevelopmenttoimprovethedismantlingtechnology.”

VIIIThissectionispartlyfromtothepreviousworkdonebyMaterialsSystemsLaboratoryatMIT:Anoverviewofcathoderaytuberecycling(JenniferAtlee,JeremyGregory,andRandolphKirchain,2005,internalreport).IXToto,D.(2003),Monitoringthefuture,RecyclingToday41(12):24‐8.XEPAannouncementaboutpartnership:http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/avglass.htmXIAuctionannouncementfromthebankruptcycourt:http://www.zonetrader.com/Auctions/AuctionDetail.asp?auctionID=9926NewsitemonTechneglasfilingforbankruptcy:http://www.dailyitem.com/archive/2004/0903/biz/stories/05biz.htmXIIBaselActionNetwork(2004),CRTGlassRecyclingSurveyResults,Availableat:http://ban.org/library/crt_survey_2004.pdfXIIIDe‐manufacturingofElectronicEquipmentforReuseandRecycling(TaskN.302),Availableat:http://www.ndcee.ctc.com/task_descriptions/N_302.pdfXIVMaterialsfortheFutureFoundation(2001),CRTGlasstoCRTGlassRecycling,Availableat:http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/electronics/resources/Publications/GlassMFF.pdfXVEnvirocycle,Inc.(PA):http://www.enviroinc.com

115

DlubakGlassCompany,Inc.(OH&PA)XVI:“DlubakGlassisthelargestglassrecyclerinthecountry;Dlubakhandlesautomotiveglass,lightingindustryglass,andCRTglass.Thecompanycurrentlyhandles300tonsofglassperyearandemployeesapproximately50workersintheUSFiveemployeeshandleCRTrecyclingattheDlubaksiteinSandusky,Ohio.Thesitehandles20to30truckloadsperday.CRTsarede‐manufacturedbyUSFederalPrisonIndustries,alsoknownasUNICOR.Dlubak’spartnershipwithUNICORprovidesdismantlingforfunnelandpanelglass,ferrousandnon‐ferrousmetalremovalforallnon‐glassmaterialsandpanelglasssortingbymaterials.”

Evenadecadeago,thereweremanyCRTrecyclersthatsentglasstoleadsmelters.Afewofthelargerprocessorsarementionedhere(Novelli,2003XVII).XVIII

UnitedRecyclersIndustries(IL):http://www.unitedrecycling.com GoldCircuit(AZ):http://www.goldcircuit.com.Tippingfeesof$0.18‐$0.25/lb,

areprincipalrevenueforplant.

6.2.1.2.5.4 LeadSmeltersUsingCRTCullet

Mizukietal.(199798)statedthatthirteensmeltersexistedintheUS(in1997)whohadprimaryandsecondarySICcodesforleadsmeltingorrefining,withNoranda,AsarcoIncorporated,andDoeRunCompanyappearingtobethemostwidelyusedprimarysmelters.

DoeRunandNorandaareconsistentlylistedastheprimaryleadsmeltersinNorthAmericaacceptingCRTcullet.However,Weitzman(2003)99alsolistsGopherResourceCorporationinMinnesota,Metalico/GolfCoastLeadinFlorida,andTeckComincoMetalsLTDinwesternCanadaasalternatives.ThelattertwodonotcurrentlyuseCRTcullet,butareexperimentingwiththepracticeandhaveplanstobringthepracticeon‐line.

6.2.1.2.5.5 CurrentCRTTubeandGlassReuseMarket

Likereuseofanyelectronics,CRTmarketsareprimarilyforeign,andsmallremainingmarketsforreuseofwholemonitors&TVs:Mexico,CentralandSouthAmerica,AfricaandAsia.ArecentreportreleasedbyCalRecycleCEWRecyclingProgram(2013XIX)indicatedthatthesolemanufacturerofnewCRTsacceptingprocessedglassislocatedinIndiaandischargingbetween$100and$200pertontodoso.

XVIDlubakGlassCompany,Inc.(OH&PA):http://www.dlubak.comXVIINovelli,L.R.(2003),MakingCRTrecyclingwork.Scrap60(2):107‐115.XVIIIUnitedRecyclersIndustries(IL):http://www.unitedrecycling.comGoldCircuit(AZ):http://www.goldcircuit.com.XIXCalRecycleCEWRecyclingProgram(2013),ResidualCRTGlassManagementandtheCEWRecyclingPaymentSystem,ElectronicWasteRecyclingStakeholderWorkshop,March13,2013.Availableat:http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Actions/Documents/77/20132013/835/Overview%20of%20CRT%20Issues%20and%20the%20CEW%20Program.pdf

116

ReportedlyonlythreelargemetalsmeltersinNorthAmerica,whereonlyonefacilityintheUS(DoeRun,Missouri)andtwoinCanada(TeckComincoandXstrata)knowntoacceptCRTglassinquantityandataprice,thoughnewleadextractiontechnologiesforhigh‐leadcontentfunnelglassareallegedlybeingdevelopedonsmallerscales.Theexamplebelowshowsthereuseandrecycling(flows)ofCRTtubeandglassinCaliforniabasedontheCalRecycleCEWRecyclingProgram(2013I):

“Bymid‐2009,approximately75%ofresidualCRTsand/orCRTglasswerebeingshippedtoMexicanprocessors.However,inthe4thquarterof2009,accesstoMexicanCRTglassprocessorswasinterruptedfornearlyayear.BecauseCEWrecyclerswererequiredtoshipCRTglasstoadestination“authorizedtoreceiveandfurthertreat”theglasspriortofilingCEWrecyclingclaims,thisinterruptioncausedthevolumeofclaimedCEWtodecreasedramaticallywhilerecyclerssearchedforalternativeoutletsforCRTglass.Acoupleofrecyclerspursuedestablishingtheirownin‐stateCRTprocessingcapabilities,whileotherenterprisesstartedorofferedcapacitiesout‐of‐state”.

“AsofJanuary2013,over300millionpoundsofresidualCRTsandCRTglasshadbeenshippedbyCEWrecyclerssinceJanuary2010.Atthesametime,though,substantialreductionindestinationoptionsoccurredovertheselastthreeyears,particularlytoout‐ofstateandforeignlocations.WiththeexceptionofDoeRun(smelter)andSamtelGlass/VideoconIndustries(theCRTmanufacturerinIndia),allout‐of‐statedestinationsthatreceivedshipmentsin2012arenotultimateendpoints;instead,theyareintermediatefacilitiesthatpossiblyperformsomedegreeofCRTprocessingbeforepresumablyshippingtheglassontoasubsequentdestinationorultimatedisposition”.

ThefollowingFigure61isasummaryofinitialresidualCRT/CRTglassshipmentdestinations,derivedfromdocumentationcontainedinCEWrecyclingpaymentclaimsI.ThefigurepresentsshipmentsinallthreeyearssinceJanuary2010aswellasjustthoseshipmentssinceJanuary2012.ItimpliestheexportsofresidualCRTandCRTglassaccountfor25%ofthetotalcollection,whichexcludestheexportswithorwithoutprocessingbythefirst‐handreceivers.Alllistedin‐statedestinationsareostensiblyauthorizedtotreatCRTsunder22CCR66273.73andmayaccumulateCRTsand/orCRTglassforuptooneyearunderuniversalwasterulesbeforepresumablybeingshippedontoanotherappropriatedestination.Out‐of‐statedestinationsthatreceivedshipmentsin2012arenotultimateendpoints.ForeigndestinationsincludeprimarilyMexico,India,MalaysiaandKorea.Inaddition,notethatdatafor2012maybeincompleteduetoatime‐laginreceivingCEWrecyclingpaymentclaims.Alsonotethatasmallnumberofincidentalshipmentsamountingtolessthan0.1%oftotalvolumesshippedarenotaccountedforhere.

117

Figure61:InitialResidualCRTandCRTGlassShippingDestinations(fractionsofweight)

The review on leaded class conducted by Thomas who went through the notifications to the US.US EPA for the shipment of broken CRTs in the year of 2010 and 2011 (enforcement data) found that 56% and 24% of exported CRTs scrap were been shipped to Canada and MexicoXX.

6.2.1.2.5.6 GlobalandUSCRTSupplyBasedonInternationalTradePlatform

InordertoconfirmthatthereisalmostnomanufacturingindustryoftheCRT‐relatedproductsintheUS,thisstudyalsoinvestigatesthesuppliers’worldwideandtheUSbaseddistributionontheinternationalbusinesstobusiness(B2B)andexports‐orientedtradeplatform‐Alibaba.

Basedonthesearchingonthesuppliers’informationofCRTTVsproducts(bothnewandused)inOctober2012XXI,itwasfoundthatmostofthesupplierswerefromChina,seetheTablebelow.

Table38:StatisticsonWorldwideCRTTVsSuppliersBasedonAlibabaB2BPlatform

RegionNumberofsuppliers

Fractionsofsuppliers

EastAsia 22,223 98.3%SouthAsia 66 0.3%SoutheastAsia 154 0.7%MiddleEast 27 0.1%Europe 77 0.3%SouthAmerica 2 0.0%NorthAmerica 38 0.2%Africa 31 0.1%

XXJakeThomas.Alookthroughtheleadedglass.E‐scrapNews,June,2013.http://resource‐recycling.com/node/3958XXIhttp://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?fsb=y&IndexArea=product_en&CatId=&SearchText=CRT+TVs

118

Whilethereare38suppliersforCRTTVinNorthAmerica(mainlyfromtheUS),theproductsclassifiedintoCRTTVsonlyincludethesecondhanditemswithextremelylowsaleprices(lessthan$50/unit),suchastheBrokenScreenTVs,CRT/TVsscrap,usedCRTmonitor,usedTVsorCRTTVs,untestedColorTVs(used),testedTVforreusedandcleanfunnelandpanelCRTglass,CRTglassandTVsplasticscrap.Inaddition,thereisafewsuppliersthattradetheproductsclassifiedintoCRTtubesorprocessedglassfromtheUS.ThisinformationhelpsprovideindirectevidencethatthereisalmostnomanufacturingindustryoftheCRT‐relatedproductsintheUS.

6.2.1.2.5.7 CRTGlassRecyclingSummary

Noglass‐to‐glassrecyclingmarketforUSgeneratedCRTglass,marketsforreuseofCRTsinmanufacturingnewTVsisinAsia.

Onlyend‐useatthemomentforleadedCRTfunnelglassisaleadsmelter.NotenoughsmeltingcapacitytomanagethesupplyofleadedCRTfunnelglass.

Thereareend‐marketoptionsforCRTpanelglasswithoptionsinthebuildingproductsandinsulationmarketsXXII.

6.2.1.2.6 SubstitutedMethodologyforCRTExports

WhiletheUSmarketstillhashighdemandforFlatPanelTVsandrelatedproductsXXIII,itwasfoundthattherewerealmostnomanufacturersforCRTTVsintheUSatleastaftertheyearof2010.Inaddition,onlyasmallquantityofFlatPanelTVshavebeendomesticallyXXIVmanufactured.ThereportreleasedbyUSITC10‐intermsoftheirsurvey–alsostatedthatthe“UShaslimitedcapacitytoprocessusedelectronicsintwosegmentsoftheindustry—CRTglassandfinalsmelting—creatingincentivestoexportCRTmonitors,CRTglass,andcircuitboardsdestinedforsmeltingtoretrievepreciousmetals.Some CRTs are exported to large plants in Mexico, where they are reportedly washed and readied for further processing, and Canada, where the lead is removed. According to one industry source, it is likely that future U.S. exports of CRTs for recycling will end up in India, as the only other glass-to-glass furnaces in the world (in China and Malaysia) are scheduled to close by 2013.” An latest report of “U.S. CRT Glass Management: A Bellwether for Sustainability of Electronics Recycling in the United States” published by TransparentPlanet LLC XXV discussed about the current status of CRT recycling from the perspectives of:“Factors contributing to stockpiling,

XXIIWasteManagementWorld,2011,MarketforRecycledCRTGlassDryingUpasVolumesRise,Availableat:http://www.waste‐management‐world.com/articles/2011/09/market‐for‐recycled‐crt‐glass‐drying‐up‐as‐volumes‐rise.htmlXXIIIStatista,thestatistic(fromUSCensusBureau)illustratesthetelevision,VCRandothervideoequipmentimportsfrom2002to2011.TheUS.importsamountedto33,486millionUS.dollarsin2011.Availableat:http://www.statista.com/statistics/221693/us‐imports‐of‐tvs‐vcrs‐and‐video‐equipment‐from‐world/.

XXIVUnitedStatesCensusBureau,CurrentIndustrialReports:MA334M–ConsumerElectronics(2010Annual).Availableat:http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma334m/index.html

XXVTransparentPlanet LLC,2012.U.S.CRTGlassManagement:ABellwetherforSustainabilityofElectronicsRecyclingintheUnitedStates.http://transparentplanetllc.com/us‐crt‐glass‐management/

119

estimated volumes and cleanup costs; Current volumes generated in the US and capacity for CRT recycling in North America; The case against landfilling-the race to the bottom”. This study concluded that “CRT industry experts estimate that 660 million pounds of CRT glass are currently being stored at locations throughout the US. It will cost between $85 million and $360 million to responsibly recycle all of this stockpiled glass, depending upon the condition of the glass; There are currently 16 companies with 24 US facilities processing CRT tubes in preparation for final recovery. None of these are operating at capacity in spite of what would seem to be a huge market demand. They simply cannot compete with stockpiling.”

To summarize,thereislimitedcapacityfortheUSmarkettoreuseandrecycle(glasstoglass,orleadrecovery)theCRTglass. These qualitativeanalysissuggestthattheoverseasmarketdominatesthereuseandrecycling.Duringthelast5‐10years,ThereisrelativelittlequantitativestudyonworldwideCRTglassmanufacturingwerefoundintheliteratureorontheInternet,suchasthehistoricalproductiondataofCRTTVsandglass20.

Thus,theHSOTDMwhichusestheused‐newthresholdtodifferentiatetheusedelectronicsisnotappropriateforCRTTVsandrelateditems(CRTtubeandCRTglass)becausealloftheseexporteditemscanbeclassifiedasused.Asaconsequence,weassumedthattheexportsofCRTTVsarealltheusedgoods,includingthecolorandmonochromeCRTTVs(852872and852873),CRTtubes(854011and854012)andtubeglass(701120).Itisunnecessarytoidentifyandestimatetheusedandnewproducts.

However,wecanstillusetheHSOTDMtoquantifyusedFlatPanelTVswhichhaveanindependenttradecode(8528726057)andthereareindeedmanufacturersforthisitem.SincethetotaldomesticexportofFlatPanelTVs(newandpotentialused)isquitesmall,therewasinsufficientdatafortheExportNVEMthresholds,soweonlyusedtheExportPub.Methodsecondarymarketsaleprices‐basedthresholdmethodtotracktheusedTVs,whichrangedfrom$100to200perunit.

ThesamesubstitutedmethodologyhasbeenappliedtoCRTmonitor,includingdesktopcombinedCRTmonitor(tradecodes8471410110and8471500110underthedesktops),CRTmonitor(852841)andCRTvideomonitor(852849).

6.2.2 DataandIntermediateResults

6.2.2.1 Used‐NewThresholdUnitValues

Used‐New thresholds for each geographical region, country‐income groups andtransportmethodbasedonexportunitvalueswere foundusingthreemethods,ofwhichtwo involved in the neighborhood valley‐emphasismethod, and the thirdmethod usingsalesvalues(showninTable39).Asareminder,USdomesticexportdataisappliedtoUSExport NVEM, Chinese export data was utilized in China Export NVEM, and sales valueestimates in Export Pub. Method.

120

Table39:SummaryandComparisonoftheThresholdsforAllElectronics(unitvalue:$/unit)

UsedElectronics USExportNVEM(USExportdata‐

based)*

ChinaExportNVEM

(ChinaExportdata‐based)*

ExportPub.Method

(Salevalues‐based)

FlatPanelTVs 120‐200 N/A 100‐200CRTTVs N/A,AllUsed N/A,AllUsed N/A,AllUsed

Mobilephone 60‐195 65‐195 75‐150Desktop 305‐395 305‐400 200‐400**Server 290‐400 195‐400 300‐400**

OtherDesktop 440‐600 500‐600 400‐600**Laptop 100‐305 100‐300 200‐250

CRTMonitors N/A,AllUsed N/A,AllUsed N/A,AllUsedFlatPanelmonitor 140‐200 115‐200 100‐200**FlatPanelvideo

monitor 115‐200 110‐200 100‐200**

*Themin.andmax.valuesforUSExportNVEMorChinaExportNVEMforaspecificproductrepresenttheminimumandmaximumofallthresholdsacrossallworldregionsandincomegroups.;

**Estimatedwithsignificantuncertaintyduethelimitationofdata.Inaddition,thethresholdsofChinaExportNVEMforFlatPanelTVsaredifficulttoobtainduetothemixtureoftradecodes.

6.2.2.1.1.1 ExportPub.Method(allelectronics)

Thesalevalued‐basedthresholds(ExportPub.Method)formobilephone,FlatPanelTVs,desktopcomputerandmonitorsareshowninTable40.Bothduetothetimeconstraintsmentionedearlieranddataavailabilityfromtheplatforms,thesalespricesarebasedthresholdarebasedoninvestigationin2013,whichmaynotaccuratelyreflect2010prices.

Figure62belowshowsanexampleforthepricesgapbetweentheusedandnewlaptopsfoundfromAmazoninAugust,2012.Thereissignificantgabbetweentheusedandnew,whichindicatedthethresholdforusedcanbesetfrom$200‐250perunits.

121

Figure62:PriceGapbetweentheUsedandNewLaptopsFoundfromAmazon(Aug.2012)

Inadditional,areportfromKwak(2012)didasurveyin2011tolookatthebuy‐backsalesvalueforusedlaptopandmobilephone100.Figure63100showsthepricesrangesassociatedwiththeageoftheusedlaptop,whichimpliesthattheolderofthelaptop,thelowerpricesfortheusedlaptoptobuyback.The2‐yearsoldlaptopcanresellwithanaverageunitpriceof$250.

122

Figure63:Buy‐backPriceswithExcellentCosmeticConditionandnoHardwareFailure(surveyin2011,responses367).Theerrorbarsrepresentonestandarddeviationfromthemean.

Table40:AuctionSalePricesforUsedElectronicsfromVariousSources(unitvalue:$/unit)

Source FlatPanelTV

Mobilephone Computer Server Laptop Monitor Sale

Type Status

Babbitt,etal.201131 1.30‐275 1.40‐475 1.30‐385 0.40‐125 Resale Both**

Kwak,2012100 2‐115 2‐250 Trade‐Back Both

Recycle.net 10‐100 10‐50 10‐150 10‐50 Recycle Non‐working

Alibaba.com 50‐200 100‐150 50‐100 125‐250 25‐50 Resale BothEbay.com 100‐300 50‐125 200‐600 150‐400 50‐150 Resale Used

Amazon.com 250‐600 200‐250 ResaleUsed‐Likenew

PriceGrabber.com

200‐600 100‐500 250‐1000 300‐1000 200‐1000 100‐400 Resale Likenew

Thresholdusedinthisstudy

100‐200 75‐150 200‐400 300‐400 200‐250 100‐200 Used

*Asurveyhasbeendonein2008atArizonaStateUniversitybyBabbittetal.(2013).**Includingworkingandnon‐working.