1 / 14

Data Collection Overview and Results

Data Collection Overview and Results. IEEE/Summit May 8, 2006 Jason Linnell Executive Director National Center for Electronics Recycling. Presentation Overview. National Center for Electronics Recycling Overview of Centralized Data Repository Goal, Benefits Data Gathering Activities

deacon-barlow
Download Presentation

Data Collection Overview and Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Data Collection Overview and Results IEEE/Summit May 8, 2006 Jason Linnell Executive Director National Center for Electronics Recycling

  2. Presentation Overview • National Center for Electronics Recycling • Overview of Centralized Data Repository • Goal, Benefits • Data Gathering Activities • Trends • Per Capita rates • Next Steps

  3. National Center for Electronics Recycling • Mission: coordinate initiatives targeting the recycling of end-of-life electronics in the United States and support actions to move towards a national system • In Polymer Technology Park in Davisville, WV • Incorporated as non-profit in WV, 501(c)(3) • Manufacturer-led organization – leading companies on environmental initiatives on Advisory Committee • Manufacturers, approve projects • Multi-stakeholder project committees

  4. CDR Goal • Organized under the multi-stakeholder NCER Data Committee • Goal: Develop the premier open U.S. data source for electronics recycling program data and information. • Building on previous data standards development effort in 2004 • Data collection forms

  5. CDR Benefits • Local Governments and Private Collectors:evaluate your options, learn from colleagues across the country, measure your success. • Recyclers:Gain national visibility, evaluate potential business opportunities, and contribute to the development of the electronics recycling industry as a whole. • Stakeholders Interested in Electronics Recycling Policy:Local, state, and the federal government are considering how to handle the challenges of recycling used electronics. Effective policies must be based on a reliable data.

  6. Example Data Collection Forms

  7. CDR status • With IMTS, the NCER maintains the Centralized Data Repository of electronics recycling programs from around the United States. www.electronicsrecycling.org/cdr • Working on multiple fronts to gather more data • Data forms can be used online, paper • Also willing to work with data in whatever form

  8. CDR Capabilities • REPORTS: Pre-Programmed and available for analysis • Volume Collected by Year: Total pounds of material collected, broken down by year. • Volume Collected by State: Total pounds of material collected, broken down by state. • Volume Collected by Product Type: Total pounds of material collected, broken down by the type of electronics • Units Collected by Product Type: Total number of units collected, broken down by the type of electronics • Waste per Participant: Average weight of material collected per participant • Total Participants by State: Total number of participants, broken down by state • Average Transportation Cost

  9. High Level Statistics • 43Programs in Repository3 Nationwide40 Non-Nationwide • 40,610,637 Pounds Collected • Largest Programs • Massachusetts: data from 204 towns, 12.8 million lbs • Hennepin County, MN: 10.2 million lbs • California SB 20/50 not yet integrated, but available

  10. Other Statistics • Most reports/sponsors: Local governments, over half • Others: non-profits, retailers, state government aggregates, manufacturers • Pounds per participant: most between 100-200 lbs

  11. Per Capita Calculations from the CDR • Massachusetts (2004) • 2.94 lbs./capita (average for the 197 towns/cities reporting to the MA DEP) • California’s first program year (2005) • 1.79 lbs/capita • Branford, CT (2004) • 1.61 lbs./capita (CRTs only) • Kirkland, WA (2004, curbside program) • 1.61lbs./capita • Snohomish County, WA (2004, transfer station) • 1.71 lbs./capita • Hennepin County, MN (2004) • 3.4 lbs./capita

  12. CDR Extension- Brand Sort Data • Added in 2005 as part of Orphan Research • Compiled existing studies for “National Return Share Estimates” • Number of Brands: • Desktops – 682; Laptops – 65; Monitors – 674; TVs - 436 brands • Launching Brand Data Management System in June • Allows sorting based on multiple scenarios/conditions (i.e. unit vs weight)

  13. Challenges Going Forward • Hard to draw conclusions from limited data • Not all programs have reported data • Not all data categories available for each program • Getting the word out • Using conferences, publications, email announcements • CALL FOR DATA developed • Getting more recycler data without double-counting • Protect any confidential data • Minimizing burden on data reporters

  14. Thank You! Jason Linnell NCER Phone: (304) 699-1008 jlinnell@electronicsrecycling.org

More Related