Deleting Electronic Waste: Recommendations for Electronics Recycling Programs in North Carolina

Transcription

1 Deleting Electronic Waste: Recommendations for Electronics Recycling Programs in North Carolina By Christopher Richard Hansard A paper submitted to the faculty of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Public Administration March 5, 2010 The attached paper represents work done by a UNC Chapel Hill Master of Public Administration student for his capstone project. It is not a formal report of the School of Government, nor is it the work of School of Government faculty. Executive Summary North Carolina local government electronics recycling programs need performance measurement and best practice tools to make their programs successful. To aid in development of these tools, I conducted semistructured interviews with eleven county recycling programs. The counties current performance measurements correlate with their program goals; however, most counties lack the data and analysis needed for higher-level evaluation of their programs. Therefore, I recommend performance measures and best practices tools that will help electronics recycling practitioners to administer and evaluate their programs.

2 Background and Purpose Electronic devices are inextricably mixed into American society. Consequently, around two million tons of consumer electronics were available for disposal in the United States in Many of these devices will end up in landfills, presenting human health and environmental risks. 2 Some states have banned these hazardous materials from their landfills. 3 After recognizing that electronic devices contain materials which can be recaptured and reused, several states have passed mandatory recycling laws. The North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation banning the disposal of computer equipment and televisions effective January 1, As a result, many North Carolina local governments will develop electronics recycling programs to comply with the ban. Since electronics recycling is relatively new in North Carolina, local governments will need tools and information to make their programs successful. Considerable research exists on local government recycling, but there is little research on ways to measure the performance of electronics recycling programs. This study seeks to answer the following question: What performance measures are feasible and effective in evaluating local government electronics recycling programs? This report provides recommendations to local government recycling practitioners on performance measures and best practices for their programs. Methodology and Limitations I conducted semi-structured interviews with eleven North Carolina local government electronics recycling practitioners. The pool from which I selected the interviewees came from the statutorily required Solid Waste Annual Reports (FY ) submitted to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Sixty-three local governments reported some type of electronics recycling information. For research purposes, I limited my interviews to county governments that have had a permanent electronics recycling program in existence for the past three fiscal years. I limited the sample in this way for the following reasons. Counties operate the majority of North Carolina electronics recycling programs. Historically, counties have been the lead local government agencies in dealing with electronic waste. A permanent program means that citizens are able to discard their electronics on a continuous basis, usually via a drop-off site. I only interviewed counties with permanent programs because I believe they are most familiar with the daily operations and comprehensive aspects of electronics recycling programs. Single-day collection events, even if they occurred multiple times a year, were not counted as permanent programs. Counties that have not had programs running for three consecutive fiscal years may not have developed their programs fully. I wanted the programs I interviewed to have had time to develop their program to the point where performance measurement and best practices are relevant. Though all counties interviewed appeared to meet these criteria based on their Annual Report, the interviews revealed that two counties did not strictly meet the criteria. Inaccurate reporting is common on the Solid Waste Annual Reports, and this is a limitation of my methodology. This report includes results from all eleven interviews. The interviews were 20 to 50 minutes long and provided detailed information about the counties electronics recycling programs. Interviewees generally held manager or coordinator positions; only three were directors or assistant directors. The selected counties came from all three of North Carolina s geographic regions. 1

3 Findings The interviews focused on multiple dimensions of the counties electronics recycling programs, including: (1) full-cost accounting, (2) participation rates, (3) types of electronics collected (4) downstream tracking, and (5) generation estimates. Figure 1 summarizes the counties responses. Program Dimension Figure 1: Program Dimension Data Counties Believe Data Useful (n=11) Counties with Data Most Cited Barrier to Collecting Data Full-Cost Accounting 9 3 Time Participation Rates 7 0 Labor E-Waste Collected 8 6 Labor Downstream Tracking 6 7 None Generation Estimates 7 2 None Of the six counties with data on the types of E-Waste Collected, all but one of them receives these data from their electronics recycling vendor. Four of the counties who reported performing Downstream Tracking rely heavily on vendor or state involvement in the auditing. Though only two counties perform their own Generation Estimates, DENR provides generation estimates to another four counties. Eight of the eleven interviewees stated that measuring the performance of their electronics recycling program was a priority. However, Figure 1 shows a disconnect between what data counties believe are useful for performance measurement and what data are actually being collected. Though a majority of counties agreed that having data on the selected program dimensions was important, few counties are collecting all these data. Even for E-Waste Collected and Downstream Tracking, the counties rely on other organizations for their data. Actual county data collection seems to conflict with the eight interviewees statements regarding the priority of performance measurement. To resolve this conflict, understanding county electronics recycling program goals is necessary. Reponses to the prompt What are the goals of your program? are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Electronics Recycling Program Goals Programs Goals Times Cited Preserving Landfill Space 8 Protect Environment 4 Meet Citizen Demand 3 Various Financial Concerns 2 Other Goals 5 The program goal most often cited was Preserving Landfill Space. This finding resolves the tension between what interviewees said about performance measurement and their program s lack of data collection. If their primary goal is to preserve landfill space, then counties will use a measure which tracks progress towards that goal. The Solid Waste Annual Report contains such a measure. On the report, counties calculate the total tonnage of electronic waste they collected. Counties use this figure as a performance measure, tracking progress towards preserving landfill space. The higher the total tonnage collected figure is, the more landfill space that is preserved. Figure 1 shows limited data collection because counties did not need additional data to track progress towards their main program goal. The counties current performance measurements correlate with their program goals; however, most counties lack the data and analysis needed for higher-level evaluation of their programs. 2

4 Recommendations The performance measure total tonnage collected can adequately track progress towards the goal preserving landfill space. But this report assumes that general local government program goals are also important to electronics recycling programs. Specifically, the recommendations assume that any local government program aims to be (1) well-planned, (2) professionally administered, (3) accountable, (4) cost efficient, and (5) effective towards its own purpose. The counties I interviewed have suitable performance measures to address their primary goal, but this report will provide performance measurement and best practice recommendations based on general and specific program goals. This study does not attempt to discuss the ways in which electronics recycling program goals are developed, but I believe it fairly assesses the desires of local government electronics recycling programs. This section will provide North Carolina local governments with recommendations on important performance measures and best practices for their programs. Numerous performance measures and best management practices for electronics recycling programs exist, but this report does not allow for a detailed description of all of them. I believe those listed below will give electronics recycling practitioners useful tools for administering and evaluating their programs. Performance Measurement Recommendations The feasibility and effectiveness of performance measures were evaluated in the following ways: Feasibility was assessed in light of the barriers that interviewees identified. By reviewing the barriers for collecting and analyzing data, I was able to establish a baseline for what local governments with developed programs can do. Effectiveness was assessed through local government productivity literature. In Leading Performance Management, David Ammons explains that a set of measures must be multidimensional. Ammons suggests a well-rounded set of performance measures that includes measures of output as well as those of efficiency and effectiveness. 5 Performance Measure 1: Total tonnage and breakdown of tonnage into types of electronic waste diverted from landfill DENR requires local governments to collect and report electronic waste tonnage data, and I recommend they continue to do so but with increased precision. I advise local governments to break down their total tonnage diverted into specific categories of each type of electronic item. Knowing the amount of specific types of electronic devices being recycled provides useful program information. Since recycling vendors charge programs according to the type of electronic device, local governments should disaggregate their total tonnage figures. These data can then be used when creating program budgets. Due to the setup of county drop-off centers, labor was the most common barrier to gathering specific data on the types of materials collected. To make gathering this information feasible, local governments should require their vendor to give them a detailed report of the materials sent for recycling. Figure 1 shows five of the eleven counties interviewed receive these data from their vendor. The best practices section of this report will discuss this option further. Measures of program output are vital to performance measurement systems, but they are only one dimension of them. Local governments should continue to use Performance Measurement 1 (PM1) as a way to track progress toward their goal of preserving landfill space. However, PM1 should not be the exclusive performance measure. As an output measure, PM1 has limited ability in program evaluation. Local governments must also use higher-level performance measures to track progress towards general program goals. 3

5 Performance Measure 2: Cost-per-ton of electronic waste recycled Many local governments already calculate a cost-per-ton for other solid waste programs. Using PM1 along with a full-cost accounting of their program, local governments will be able to calculate their cost-per-ton of electronic waste recycled. As one county stated in its interview, performing full-cost accounting is an important administrative function necessary to track expenses and allocate resources. Figure 1 shows that only three counties reported conducting full-cost accounting for their program. While probing counties regarding their program cost accounting, I found that some local governments did not conduct a full-cost accounting because their program had no specific budgetary expenditures. While these counties did not have specific budget expenditures for their programs, all programs have a cost. Expenditures are seen directly in budget documents and do not always exist for every program. Costs, however, can be direct or indirect and encompass a broad range of items including salaries, utilities, and storage space, among others. All county governments can perform a full-cost accounting for their electronics recycling program, even if it is combined with other solid waste programs. Full-cost accounting is an important administrative function for any local government program, and it is necessary in order to develop a cost-per-ton of electronic waste recycled. Cost-per-ton is a measure of efficiency, a high-level performance measure. Efficiency measures are important because they give insight into how far inputs are going towards producing a given output. Knowing their costper-ton allows local governments to look for ways to increase the efficiency of their program and justify it in the budget and program review process. As with many local government programs, solid waste dollars are limited. If a main goal of many programs is to reduce tonnage in the landfill, then electronics recycling is just one part of this goal. Other materials such as paper, plastics, and metals play a role as well. Through understanding the cost-per-ton of electronic waste recycled, local governments can decide how best to allocate their limited resources. Performance Measure 3: Percent of estimated jurisdictional electronic waste collected I recommend local governments use PM1 and divide that figure by the electronics generation estimate for their jurisdiction. Dividing PM1 by the generation estimate of a given area yields PM3, the percent of estimated jurisdictional electronic waste collected. Generation estimates approximate the total tonnage of durable goods available for disposal in a given area. Generation estimates for electronic devices are available through DENR and the Environmental Protection Agency. 6 Interviews showed that some counties are aware of these generation estimates and use them. Local governments could perform their own generation estimates, but based on interview responses, I believe only well-developed programs would have the resources to complete this kind of study. PM3 is uncomplicated to calculate, and it does not involve collecting additional data. However, the accuracy of PM3 is difficult to know. Generation estimates involved complex methodology, and so the accuracy of their findings is highly debatable. Also, the potential effects of new North Carolina electronics recycling legislation on PM3 are unknown. Given these two factors, practitioners should not rely on it heavily for measuring the performance of their program. PM3 should be used to provide a baseline to track local government efforts and the effects of state law over time. PM3 is a measure of effectiveness, meaning it measures how well a program is achieving a specific goal. Between the three recommended performance measures, local governments have a multidimensional set of measures they can use to evaluate program output, efficiency, and effectiveness. One performance measure not discussed here is participation rate. While most of the counties interviewed agreed that knowing the participation rate for their program would be useful, overcoming the barriers to collecting the data is not feasible. Other recycling programs offered by local governments use curbside pick-up, and so participation rates are relatively easy to calculate. Electronics recycling does not use curbside service, but instead relies on citizen utilization of drop-off centers. The arrangement of drop-off centers makes it difficult to capture electronics recycling participation rates. Only if curbside electronics recycling programs proliferate will participation rates be feasible to calculate. 4

6 Best Practice Recommendations Best Practice 1: Require assent to facility and secondary market auditing in contract Local governments should make downstream auditing part of the contract with their vendor. They should not rely primarily on the state or their vendor for downstream auditing. Ideally, the contract should specify that the local government be allowed to audit the vendor s facility and secondary markets at random. Vendors should be required to provide physical and written documentation of their downstream markets. Any request for proposals created by the local government should specify all these requirements, and an on-site inspection should be part of the proposal process. Vendors should be forthcoming with all the information about their service and be able to prove their environmental credentials. This best practice will require local governments to understand the importance of their contractual relationship with their vendor. Contract management will be essential to ensuring that electronic waste is managed properly. Multiple counties stated that this kind of downstream tracking was provided for in their contract. Best Practice 2: Require vendor to give detailed, categorized report on materials collected In the section on Performance Measurement 1, I advise local governments to break down their total tonnage diverted into specific categories of each type of electronic item. This information will be helpful when making service and budgetary decisions for electronics recycling programs. However, I also noted that gathering these data might not be feasible because of the setup of drop-off centers. To solve that problem, I recommend local governments require their vendor to give them a detailed, categorized report on the types of materials submitted to them. This requirement should be in the contract with the vendor. Local governments can then compile the periodical reports and view trends in material collection and vendor pricing. Best Practice 3: Establish a permanent electronics recycling program Like many public programs, electronics recycling benefits from economies of scale. Annual or biannual electronics collection events are good, but in the long run, they are not as economical as establishing permanent electronics recycling programs. Greater capital costs are associated with permanent programs, but electronics recycling will grow in the future. Local governments should pay capital costs now to avoid larger costs in the future when increased electronics volume leads to increased demand for electronics recycling. Almost all the counties interviewed moved from single-day collection events to permanent programs to reduce cost and provide better service. Conclusion Electronics recycling s importance will grow exponentially in the next decade. Because of changing technology, old devices are discarded on a regular basis. Their traditional role in solid waste and recycling means that local governments will have a unique and important role in managing electronic waste. As North Carolina electronics recycling programs begin operation, they will need as many tools and as much information as is available to ensure successful programs. I believe the performance measure and best practice recommendations in this report are part of the essential tools local governments will use to evaluate and manage their programs. This study should only be the beginning of academic and practical research into electronics recycling. More research is needed on the interaction of state and local government and the role of manufacturers in electronics recycling. Further research will also have the opportunity to investigate the divergence of different states electronics recycling legislation while evaluating the full environmental and fiscal impact of North Carolina law. With effort from research institutions, all levels of government, recyclers, manufacturers, and the public, electronic waste can be deleted from landfills. 5

7 1 Environmental Protection Agency. Fact Sheet: Management of Electronic Waste In The United States. July January < 2 GreenBiz Staff. Study Says Used Cell Phones, Printers, and Keyboards May Be Hazardous Waste. 6 March January < 3 Product Stewardship Institute. Extended Producer Responsibility Laws. November January < 4 North Carolina General Statute 130A (f) (14) and 130A (f) (15). 27 January < html>. 5 Ammons, David N., ed. Leading Performance Management in Local Government. Washington, D.C.: ICMA Press, Pg EPA estimates can be found at < North Carolina DENR DPPEA estimates can be found at < 6

8 Appendix A Figure 1 lists the eleven counties I interviewed along with their basic demographic data and specific data about their electronics recycling program. Population figures come from the U.S. Census Bureau s annual estimates. The 2008 population estimates are given because the 2009 estimates were not available at the writing of this report. Economic Tier Level is an indicator assigned to North Carolina counties by the North Carolina Department of Commerce. The 40 most economically distressed counties are designated as Tier 1, the next 41 as Tier 2, and the 19 least distressed as Tier 3. The table shows 2010 Tier Levels. When my study began in 2009, all three tier levels were represented in my sample. However, in 2010, Cumberland County was reclassified as Tier 2, so my sample no longer included any Tier 1 counties. The electronic waste tonnage data come from the North Carolina Solid Waste Annual Reports, which are submitted to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance. These data are public, but you must make a request to receive them. The last three fiscal years data was included in the table, which were part of the criteria I used to select these counties. The last two columns give the start years for county electronics recycling programs. Collection Events Start gives the year when the county began single-day collection events for electronics recycling. Permanent Collection Start gives the year for the beginning of their permanent collection program. County 2008 Population 1 Figure 1: Interviewed Counties and Demographic and Program Data Electronic Electronic Electronic Economic Waste Waste Waste Tier Level 2 Collected Collected Collected (tons) 3 (tons) (tons) Collection Events Start (year) Permanent Collection Start (year) Buncombe 229, N/A N/A Cumberland 312, N/A 1996 Davidson 158, Gaston 206, Iredell 155, N/A 2006 Lee 59, N/A 2000 Mecklenburg 890, N/A 2000 Orange 126, Pitt 156, N/A 2000 Transylvania 30, Wake 866, N/A

9 Because of the confidentiality agreement I had with my interviewees, I cannot link names or job titles to specific counties. Therefore, Figure 2 lists interviewee position titles sorted by interview date. Figure 2: Interviewee Position, Interview Date, and Selection Criteria Selected Interview Position Based on Date Criteria Actually Met Criteria Successfully Interviewed Assistant Director for Solid Waste Management Yes Yes Yes Solid Waste Superintendent Yes Yes Yes Solid Waste Facility Manager Yes Yes Yes Recycling Programs Manager Yes Yes Yes Recycling Coordinator Yes Yes Yes Solid Waste Management Recycling Coordinator Yes Yes Yes Director of Solid Waste Yes Yes Yes Operations Manager Yes Yes Yes Recycling Coordinator Yes No Yes Bio-Reactor Manager Yes No Yes Recycling Coordinator Yes Yes Yes 1 U.S. Census Bureau. Population Estimates. 11 February < 2 North Carolina Department of Commerce. County Tier Designation. 11 February < ons2010.htm>. 3 Data can be requested from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Divisions of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance. < 8

10 Acknowledgements Producing a capstone paper is not easy, but no one does it alone. For the invaluable guidance and expertise of my committee members Richard Whisnant, Scott Mouw, and Jeff Hughes I am extremely grateful. I am also indebted to Willow Jacobson and David Ammons who taught me skills without which I could not have produced this report. I would be remiss if I forgot to thank Jim Hickman, formerly of the Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance, for providing me all the electronics recycling data I could ever want. For the impetus of my research question, I must thank the staff at the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners whose work on the issue inspired me. Also, I and all those who learn from this paper owe a special thank you to the eleven county employees who took time to discuss their electronics recycling programs openly with me. Finally, none of the preceding would have been possible without the love and support of my family, friends, and fiancée. Thank you. 9