Case Study Summaries
SOURCES 1. Final Revised (Phase 1 and 2) Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Program Plan (July 10, 2009)
2. OES Annual Report, 2008
3. Personal Communication (G. Day, StewardEdge; C. Hochu, OES)
Recycling Programs in Canada
April 2010
PROGRAM
Saskatchewan (SWEEP)
BACKGROUND
Key Parties and Responsibilities
SWEEP (Association)
Saskatchewan Environment (Regulator) Product Care Association (Program Manager) SARCAN (Depot Manager)
Products included Desktop computers, notebook computers, monitors,
printers, computer peripherals, televisions.
Financing model Environmental handling fee (EHF) applied to
regulated products by SWEEP members.
Established Established 2006; operational 2007.
Other relevant details Governed by: Waste Electronic Equipment
Regulations Chapter E-10.21 Reg 4
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
(Currently in Use) Financial
• Administrative costs per tonne • Communications costs per tonne • Professional fees costs per tonne
• Processing/collection/audit costs per tonne • Overall system cost per tonne
Operational
• Total material collected (tonnes)
• Total units collected by product category • Collection rate per capita (kg/capita)
Awareness
• Program and product awareness • Advertising and engagement • Website visits
• Hotline calls
Accessibility • Number of depots
• Program coverage (GIS based analysis)
Environmental Impact Design for Environment (discussion)
KEY
METHODOLOGICAL STEPS AND DATA COLLECTION
Financial Standard data collection
Operational
Collection rate per capita (kg/capita):
Total volume materials collected (as reported by SARCAN) divided by Saskatchewan population (Statistics Canada) as of January 1 of reporting year.
Awareness Public survey
Accessibility Public survey and GIS-based analysis
Recycling Programs in Canada
April 2010
Page A1-10
PROGRAM
Saskatchewan (SWEEP)
CHALLENGES AND OTHER NOTES
Implementation of Phase II (selected audiovisual and telecommunications product categories) to take place at a later date.
A mass- balance approach to performance measurement is also identified in the SWEEP Stewardship plan but has not yet been implemented.
SOURCES 1. 2009 SWEEP Annual Report
2. www.sweepit.ca
3. Product Care PowerPoint presentation
4. The Waste Electronic Equipment Regulations 21 Oct 2005 cE-10.21 Reg 4 s8. 5. Proposal for a Product Management Program for Saskatchewan Waste
Electronic Equipment (Feb. 1, 2006)
6. SWEEP Info Notes - Edition #20, August 5, 2009
7. SWEEP Survey Research Project carried out by Sigma Analytics for Zapwell Communications and Product Care Association (2007)
8. Personal Communication (J. Meyer, SWEEP)
Recycling Programs in Canada
April 2010
PROGRAM
Alberta (ARMA)
BACKGROUND Key Parties and
Responsibilities
Electronics Recycling Alberta (division of Alberta Recycling Management Authority
Products included
Televisions, computer monitors, CPUs and servers, computer accessories (mouse, keyboard, cables, computer speakers), laptop and notebook computers, printers and printer combinations (printers with faxing and/or scanning capabilities).
Financing model Advanced Recycling Fee (ARF) applied to regulated
products by stewards.
Established 2004
Other relevant details
Governed by: Alberta Regulation 94/2004 Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. Designated Material Recycling & Management Regulation; Electronics Designation Regulation;, Electronics Recycling Bylaw, Alberta Recycling Management Authority.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
(Currently in Use)
Financial • Audited program financial statements presented in
annual report
Operational
• Total tonnes of material processed
• Kilograms per capita of material processed • Total number of units recycled
• Total volume (tonnes) of substances diverted (lead, mercury, etc.)
• Recovery rate (products processed as a percent of the estimated amount of product sold)
• Capture rate (the amount of recyclables processed divided by the estimated amount of recyclables discarded
• Tonnes of material recycled (glass, plastic, etc.)
Awareness • Public support and participation
• Public use of the website
Accessibility • Number of collection sites
Environmental Impact
Design for environment
KEY
METHODOLOGICAL STEPS AND DATA COLLECTION
Financial Audited program financial statements presented in annual
report.
Operational
Capture rate:
Total weight of electronics processed (tonnes) divided by the estimated amount of recyclables available for
Recycling Programs in Canada
April 2010
Page A1-12
PROGRAM
Alberta (ARMA)
discarded).
Recovery rate:
Total volume of electronics recycled (tonnes) divided by total volume of electronics sold (tonnes; determined using ARF’s paid, product weight estimates) within a fiscal year period.
Awareness Public survey
Accessibility Public survey
Environmental Impact
Design for Environment (discussed)
CHALLENGES AND OTHER NOTES
Annual report identifies additional indicators that are not currently reported but are expected to be in future (e.g., product collected but not processed,
design for environment).
Additional detail is provided in the program stewardship plan, annual report and regulation.
SOURCES 1. ARMA Annual Report
2. ARMA Waste Electronics Incentive Program Requirements, September 2007 3. ARMA and Electronics Recycling Alberta Electronic Product Clarification List,
April, 2008
4. ARMA Alberta Recycling 2007/08-2009/10 Business Plan (performance measures taken directly from this report)
5. Personal Communication (B. Gray, ARMA)
Recycling Programs in Canada
April 2010
PROGRAM
Washington (eCycle)
BACKGROUND
Key Parties and Responsibilities
Washington State Department of Ecology (regulator) Washington Materials and Management Financing Authority (WMMFA)(Program Manager)
Products included Includes computers, monitors, laptops and televisions
Financing model
Manufacturers pick up all collection, transportation and recycling costs. Cost allocation methodology determined by manufacturers as stated in recycling plan prepared for WMMFA (either market share or return share).
Established January 2006
Other relevant details
• Governed by: Electronic Products Recycling Program Chapter 173-900 WAC, 2007
• Performance measure reporting requirements typically producer/ manufacturer responsibilities rather than the Department of Ecology. Proposed recovery and recycling rate measures are identified and described by manufacturers in their submitted plans (not accessed as part of this study)
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Financial None specified
Operational
• Total volumes collected (pounds by product category)
• Pounds collected (by county and type of
consumer....businesses, small government, charity and school district)*
• Pounds recycled *
• Pounds of non-recycled residuals*
• Total weight of units processed (by processor)* • Amount of unwanted components or scrap
exported*
*Reporting requirement responsibilities of manufacturers
Awareness
• Satisfaction*
• Communication and engagement*
*Reporting requirement responsibilities of manufacturers
Accessibility Accessibility, convenience of services
Environmental Impact
Recycling Programs in Canada
April 2010
Page A1-14
PROGRAM
Washington (eCycle)
KEY
METHODOLOGICAL STEPS AND DATA COLLECTION
Financial None specified
Operational
Standard methods
Awareness Satisfaction reports submitted by communities/
municipalities
Accessibility Satisfaction reports submitted by communities/
municipalities Environmental Impact None specified CHALLENGES AND OTHER NOTES
Manufacturers submit recycling plans; must periodically undertake sampling of electronic products at established non-brand-specific collection sites and report the results to Washington State Department of Ecology (brand names, product type and numbers, weights). All sampling information across plans
(manufacturers) is combined to determine annual return share for each
manufacturer). Three year rolling average of sampling results will be used once enough years have passed. Manufacturers are responsible for handling and recycling all units produced by them (as well as a pro rate share of orphan waste). Consolidators record total weight of all units and invoice manufacturers (WMMFA) monthly.
SOURCES 1. Electronic Products Recycling Program Chapter 173-900 WAC, 2007 2. Comparisons of State E-Waste Laws. Electronics TakeBack Coalition. 2008 3. Washington State Department of Ecology website
4. CEP pounds collected by type and by county. Washington Materials Management and Financing Authority (2009)
5. Personal Communication (M. Kunte, Washington Department of Ecology; M. Thomson, Washington Department of Ecology)
Recycling Programs in Canada
April 2010
PROGRAM
Oregon (E-Cycles)
BACKGROUND Key Parties and
Responsibilities
State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (regulator)
Products included Computers, monitors and televisions
Financing model
Mixed - Computer manufacturers participating in the state contractor program pay a per-pound fee based on their share of the electronic wastes collected in a year plus their share of orphan products recycled. Television manufacturers in the state contractor program pay a per- pound fee based on return share, with the recycling fee prorated based on market share.
Established 2007
Other relevant details
Governed by: Oregon Electronics Recycling Law (ORS 459A.300-.365). Disposal ban in effect as of January 1, 2010.
Manufacturers choose to manage their own state-wide collection programs or participate in a state contractor program that DEQ will establish. Manufacturers cover their own manufacturer-run program costs or pay a recycling fee to participate in the state contractor program.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Financial None specified
Operational
• Weight (pounds) of material collected per capita • Number of units collected by country and collection
site or service*
• Number of units recycled (by recycler)*
• Weight, number of truckloads and size of truckloads of units transported from each collection site to consolidation points and to each recycler
• Final destination at which units/materials become raw materials for use, through to final disposition. • Total weight in pounds (or count) by type of product
sent for reuse or refurbishment. • Weight of CEDs processed by recyclers *Manufacturer requirements
Awareness
• Description of educational and promotion efforts *Manufacturer requirements
Recycling Programs in Canada
April 2010
Page A1-16
PROGRAM
Oregon (E-Cycles)
*Manufacturer requirements Environmental Impact None specified KEY METHODOLOGICAL STEPS AND DATA COLLECTION
Financial None specified
Operational
Return share
Wide range of techniques and assumptions (other
programs, charitable returns, etc.) to determine expected product returns for 2010.
Awareness Standard methods
Accessibility Standard methods
Environmental Impact None specified CHALLENGES AND OTHER NOTES - SOURCES http://www.deq.state.or.us
Recycling Programs in Canada
April 2010
PROGRAM
California
BACKGROUND
Key Parties and Responsibilities
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) (Regulator)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC) (Regulator)
Products included Monitors, televisions, laptop computers, portable DVD
players with LCD screens.
Financing model Advance Recycling fee (ARF) applied to regulated
products by stewards.
Established January 2005
Other relevant details
Governed by Electronic Waste Recycling Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Health and Safety Code
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Financial None specified
Operational
• Per capita disposal rate by jurisdiction (for all solid waste – not electronics specifically. Waste
characterization study undertaken periodically to determine percentage attributable to electronics) • Volume (number) of electronics sold
• Volume (weight) of electronics recycled • Estimated volume (weight) of toxic material
processed*
• Estimated volume (weight) of recyclable materials contained in products sold*
*Reported by manufacturer
Awareness None specified
Accessibility None specified
Environmental Impact
None specified
KEY
METHODOLOGICAL STEPS AND DATA COLLECTION
Financial None specified
Operational
Per Capita Disposal Rate
[Total weight of materials disposed of in a given year at regulated facilities divided by State population January 1 for the Federal Fiscal Year (Oct. 1 to September 30) of specified year] divided by 365 days.
Awareness None specified
Accessibility None specified
Recycling Programs in Canada April 2010 Page A1-18 PROGRAM
California
Environmental Impact None specified CHALLENGES AND OTHER NOTES -SOURCES 1. Comparisons of State E-Waste Laws. Electronics TakeBack Coalition. Oct. 10,