Electronic Waste
EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S. Exports through Stronger Enforcement and More Comprehensive Regulation Gao ID: GAO-08-1044 August 28, 2008Increasingly, U.S. consumers are recycling their old electronics to prevent the environmental harm that can come from disposal. Concerns have grown, however, that some U.S. companies are exporting these items to developing countries, where unsafe recycling practices can cause health and environmental problems. Items with cathode-ray tubes (CRT) are particularly harmful because they can contain 4 pounds of lead, a known toxin. To prevent this practice, since January 2007 EPA began regulating the export of CRTs under its CRT rule, which requires companies to notify EPA before exporting CRTs. In this context, GAO examined (1) the fate of exported used electronics, (2) the effectiveness of regulatory controls over the export of these devices, and (3) options to strengthen federal regulation of exported used electronics. Among other things, GAO reviewed waste management surveys in developing countries, monitored e-commerce Web sites, and posed as foreign buyers of broken CRTs.
Some exported used electronics are handled responsibly in countries with effective regulatory controls and by companies with advanced technologies, but a substantial quantity ends up in countries where disposal practices are unsafe to workers and dangerous to the environment. Recent surveys made on behalf of the United Nations found that used electronics exported from the United States to many Asian countries are dismantled under unsafe conditions, using methods like open-air incineration and acid baths to extract metals such as copper and gold. GAO observed thousands of requests for these items on e-commerce Web sites during a 3-month period--mostly from Asian countries such as China and India but also from some in Africa. U.S. hazardous waste regulations have not deterred exports of potentially hazardous used electronics, primarily for the following reasons: (1) Existing EPA regulations focus only on CRTs. Other exported used electronics flow virtually unrestricted--even to countries where they can be mismanaged--in large part because relevant U.S. hazardous waste regulations assess only how products will react in unlined U.S. landfills. (2) Companies easily circumvent the CRT rule. GAO posed as foreign buyers of broken CRTs in Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, and other countries, and 43 U.S. companies expressed willingness to export these items. Some of the companies, including ones that publicly tout their exemplary environmental practices, were willing to export CRTs in apparent violation of the CRT rule. GAO provided EPA with the names of these companies at EPA's request. (3) EPA's enforcement is lacking. Since the CRT rule took effect in January 2007, Hong Kong officials intercepted and returned to U.S. ports 26 containers of illegally exported CRTs. EPA has since penalized one violator, and then only long after the shipment had been identified by GAO. EPA officials acknowledged compliance problems with its CRT rule but said that given the rule's relative newness, their focus was on educating the regulated community. This reasoning appears misplaced, however, given GAO's observation of exporters willing to engage in apparent violations of the CRT rule, including some who are aware of the rule. Finally, EPA has done little to ascertain the extent of noncompliance, and EPA officials said they have neither plans nor a timetable to develop an enforcement program. Beyond enforcing the CRT rule, EPA can take steps to ensure that the larger universe of potentially harmful electronic devices--such as computers, printers, and cell phones--are exported in a manner that does not harm health or the environment. Among the options raised by GAO are (1) expanding hazardous waste regulations to cover other exported used electronics; (2) submitting a legislative package to Congress for ratifying the Basel Convention, an international regime governing the import and export of hazardous wastes; and (3) working with Customs and Border Protection and other agencies to improve identification and tracking of exported used electronics. Options such as these could help make U.S. export controls more consistent with those of other industrialized countries.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-1044, Electronic Waste: EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S. Exports through Stronger Enforcement and More Comprehensive Regulation
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-1044
entitled 'Electronic Waste: EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S.
Exports through Stronger Enforcement and More Comprehensive Regulation'
which was released on September 17, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
August 2008:
Electronic Waste:
EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S. Exports through Stronger
Enforcement and More Comprehensive Regulation:
GAO-08-1044:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-1044, a report to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Increasingly, U.S. consumers are recycling their old electronics to
prevent the environmental harm that can come from disposal. Concerns
have grown, however, that some U.S. companies are exporting these items
to developing countries, where unsafe recycling practices can cause
health and environmental problems. Items with cathode-ray tubes (CRT)
are particularly harmful because they can contain 4 pounds of lead, a
known toxin. To prevent this practice, since January 2007 EPA began
regulating the export of CRTs under its CRT rule, which requires
companies to notify EPA before exporting CRTs.
In this context, GAO examined (1) the fate of exported used
electronics, (2) the effectiveness of regulatory controls over the
export of these devices, and (3) options to strengthen federal
regulation of exported used electronics. Among other things, GAO
reviewed waste management surveys in developing countries, monitored e-
commerce Web sites, and posed as foreign buyers of broken CRTs.
What GAO Found:
Some exported used electronics are handled responsibly in countries
with effective regulatory controls and by companies with advanced
technologies, but a substantial quantity ends up in countries where
disposal practices are unsafe to workers and dangerous to the
environment. Recent surveys made on behalf of the United Nations found
that used electronics exported from the United States to many Asian
countries are dismantled under unsafe conditions, using methods like
open-air incineration and acid baths to extract metals such as copper
and gold. GAO observed thousands of requests for these items on e-
commerce Web sites during a 3-month period”mostly from Asian countries
such as China and India but also from some in Africa.
U.S. hazardous waste regulations have not deterred exports of
potentially hazardous used electronics, primarily for the following
reasons:
* Existing EPA regulations focus only on CRTs. Other exported used
electronics flow virtually unrestricted”even to countries where they
can be mismanaged”in large part because relevant U.S. hazardous waste
regulations assess only how products will react in unlined U.S.
landfills.
* Companies easily circumvent the CRT rule. GAO posed as foreign buyers
of broken CRTs in Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, and other countries, and
43 U.S. companies expressed willingness to export these items. Some of
the companies, including ones that publicly tout their exemplary
environmental practices, were willing to export CRTs in apparent
violation of the CRT rule. GAO provided EPA with the names of these
companies at EPA‘s request.
* EPA‘s enforcement is lacking. Since the CRT rule took effect in
January 2007, Hong Kong officials intercepted and returned to U.S.
ports 26 containers of illegally exported CRTs. EPA has since penalized
one violator, and then only long after the shipment had been identified
by GAO. EPA officials acknowledged compliance problems with its CRT
rule but said that given the rule‘s relative newness, their focus was
on educating the regulated community. This reasoning appears misplaced,
however, given GAO‘s observation of exporters willing to engage in
apparent violations of the CRT rule, including some who are aware of
the rule. Finally, EPA has done little to ascertain the extent of
noncompliance, and EPA officials said they have neither plans nor a
timetable to develop an enforcement program.
Beyond enforcing the CRT rule, EPA can take steps to ensure that the
larger universe of potentially harmful electronic devices”such as
computers, printers, and cell phones”are exported in a manner that does
not harm health or the environment. Among the options raised by GAO are
(1) expanding hazardous waste regulations to cover other exported used
electronics; (2) submitting a legislative package to Congress for
ratifying the Basel Convention, an international regime governing the
import and export of hazardous wastes; and (3) working with Customs and
Border Protection and other agencies to improve identification and
tracking of exported used electronics. Options such as these could help
make U.S. export controls more consistent with those of other
industrialized countries.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that EPA (1) develop a systematic plan to enforce the
CRT rule and (2) develop options to broaden its regulatory authority to
address the export of other potentially harmful used electronics. In
its comments, EPA expressed significant reservations with GAO‘s
findings and recommendations. GAO maintains, however, that they are
fair and well supported.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1044]. For more
information, contact John Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or
stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Used Electronics Are Exported Worldwide and Often Handled and Disposed
of Unsafely:
U.S. Exports of Potentially Harmful Used Electronics Flow Virtually
Unrestricted:
EPA Has Several Options That Would Strengthen the Federal Role in
Reducing Harmful Exports of Used Electronics:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: Toxic Substances Contained in a Central Processing Unit and
CRT Monitor:
Figure 2: Developing Countries Requesting CRTs on Two Internet E-
commerce Web Sites, February 2008 to May 2008:
Figure 3: Three Stages of Electronics Dismantling and Disposal in
Indonesia:
Figure 4: Open Dump Site for Electronic Waste in Cambodia:
Figure 5: Broken CRT Monitors from an Illegal Shipment of Used CRTs:
Abbreviations:
CRT: cathode-ray tube:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
LCD: liquid-crystal display:
OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development:
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
August 28, 2008:
The Honorable Howard L. Berman:
Chairman:
Committee on Foreign Affairs:
House of Representatives:
In recent years, consumers have grown more aware that tossing their old
electronic devices into the trash can produce undesirable, and
unintended, consequences. Toxic substances contained in used
electronics--such as lead--are well known to harm people's health, and
when electronics are disposed of improperly, they can leach from
discarded devices into the surrounding environment. As a result, when
U.S. consumers purchase new devices, such as computers, monitors,
televisions, and cell phones, they are increasingly paying electronics
recyclers--who routinely assure them that the used items will not end
up in a landfill--to handle their old ones. Since one person's trash is
often another person's treasure, a thriving international trade has
emerged in used electronics, largely from industrialized to developing
countries. Functional secondhand computers exported from the United
States to Africa, for example, can be purchased for less than 1/10th
the cost of a new one, a practice referred to as bridging the "digital
divide."
As the export of used electronics has continued, however, concerns have
mounted that not all recycling is conducted responsibly, particularly
in developing countries, and that some U.S. recyclers and exporters may
be at fault. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Americans removed more than 300 million electronic devices from their
households in 2006. As alleged in recent years by environmental groups,
imported used electronics that cannot be repaired are often recycled in
developing countries by crude and inefficient means and with virtually
no human health or environmental protection. One report by two such
groups asserted that most of the used electronics handled in this
manner originated in North America.[Footnote 1]
Products with cathode-ray tubes (CRT), such as televisions and computer
monitors, can be especially harmful to humans and the environment. CRTs
contain copper--a commodity in high demand, in part because its price
has increased threefold over the last several years--but also 4 pounds
of lead, a toxin that can delay neurological development. Accordingly,
used CRTs are the only electronic device regulated as hazardous waste
and whose export is specifically controlled by EPA.[Footnote 2] The
agency's July 2006 CRT rule required that, starting in January 2007,
CRT exporters file a notification of export with EPA. For CRTs exported
for reuse, the rule requires the exporter to notify EPA of intent to
export CRTs for reuse or repair. Further, for CRTs exported for
recycling, exporters must obtain consent from the importing country for
shipment.[Footnote 3] If these conditions are not met, CRTs, which
would likely fail EPA tests for toxicity, would be considered hazardous
waste. Implementation of the CRT rule is a shared responsibility
between EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Used electronic devices
other than CRTs do not generally qualify as hazardous waste under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as amended (RCRA), which
is the statute governing hazardous waste handling and disposal.
The Basel Convention, an outgrowth of the United Nations Environment
Programme, in 1989 established an international legal regime governing
the export and import of hazardous wastes for disposal. Ratified by 170
countries--including virtually all industrialized countries except the
United States--the Basel Convention stipulates that a country may ship
hazardous waste only after receiving prior written consent from the
receiving country. Although not a ratifying member of the Basel
Convention, the United States is a member of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and therefore has agreed to
be bound by OECD Council decisions.[Footnote 4] A 1986 decision imposes
general obligations on members concerning exports of hazardous wastes
to non-OECD countries (in part because of concerns over the
effectiveness of developing countries' regulatory regimes) and
prohibits exports unless the wastes are sent to an adequate disposal
facility.[Footnote 5] A 1992 decision established a notice-and-consent
process for hazardous waste recovery among OECD members; this decision
has been implemented by the United States in RCRA provisions.[Footnote
6] In 2001, because a majority of its members are also parties to the
Basel Convention, the OECD Council changed its waste classifications,
including which products are considered hazardous wastes, to harmonize
with those of the Basel Convention. While the 2001 decision does not
require changes to the scope of hazardous wastes regulated in the
United States, it does require adoption of the classification system to
facilitate coordination among exporting and importing countries.
Although the United States has agreed to be bound by the OECD decision,
the United States has not yet implemented it.[Footnote 7],[Footnote 8]
As electronic devices are purchased with increasing frequency--along
with the coming transition from analog to digital signals for
televisions, making CRT technology obsolete--the prospect looms that
many more used electronic devices will be discarded in the near future.
In addition, a growing number of state laws prohibit discarding used
electronics in landfills, in part because of the toxic substances
contained within them. The increase in landfill bans could cause U.S.
exports to increase significantly. In this context, this report
examines (1) the fate of exported used electronics, (2) the
effectiveness of regulatory controls over the export of used
electronics from the United States, and (3) opportunities for
strengthening the federal role in regulating used electronics exports.
To answer these questions, we reviewed pertinent EPA documents;
interviewed EPA, State Department, and Customs and Border Protection
officials; and conducted several Internet-based exercises, such as
monitoring Internet e-commerce sites and posing as foreign buyers of
nonworking CRTs. Specifically, we conducted the following work:
* To examine the fate of used electronics, we obtained and analyzed
Basel Convention surveys and reports on electronic waste disposal in
Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka. We also
interviewed a West African computer importer and officials with Hong
Kong's Environmental Protection Department. As part of our monitoring
of Internet e-commerce sites, we documented information on global
demand for CRTs, the location of the demand, the volume requested, the
price offered, and whether working or nonworking equipment was sought.
* To examine regulatory control over used electronics exported from the
United States, we interviewed EPA officials to obtain information on
EPA's enforcement of the CRT rule and what, if any, enforcement
challenges existed. We posed as overseas and domestic scrap brokers
with a clear intent to purchase and export untested, nonworking, or
broken CRTs--items that are not likely to be recycled in an
environmentally responsible manner. We e-mailed 343 solicitations to
electronics recyclers and trading companies in the United States,
including members of the International Association of Electronics
Recyclers;[Footnote 9] of these, 64 responded.[Footnote 10] During the
3-month period from mid-February to mid-May 2008, we also monitored two
Internet sites that facilitate trade in electronic products, among
other goods.
* To examine opportunities for strengthening the federal role in
regulating used electronics exports, we obtained and analyzed
documentation on EPA's authority to regulate exported used electronics.
In addition, we examined other countries' approaches to governing
exported used electronics. We also obtained and analyzed EPA Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response and Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance documentation on the implications of expanding
EPA's authority to regulate these items.
We found the data we obtained on Internet e-commerce Web sites to be
adequate to conclude that significant demand exists for exported used
electronics. Appendix I describes our scope and methodology in greater
detail. We conducted our review from October 2007 through July 2008 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. These
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the
evidence we obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
While some exported used electronics can be handled responsibly in
countries with effective regulatory regimes and by companies with
advanced technologies, a substantial amount ends up in countries such
as China and India, where they are often handled and disposed of
unsafely. These countries often lack the capacity to safely handle and
dispose of used electronics if the units are not in reusable condition
when received, and the countries' extremely low labor costs and the
reported lack of effective environmental controls make unsafe recycling
commonplace. Recent surveys conducted on behalf of the United Nations
Environment Programme found that used electronics imported from the
United States are dismantled in many developing countries under unsafe
health conditions. Other investigations have corroborated disassembly
practices in some Asian countries involving the open-air burning of
wire to recover copper and open acid baths for separating metals. These
practices expose people to lead and other hazardous materials. China,
in particular, has been at the center of much of the world's attention
regarding electronic waste export issues since 2002, when environmental
groups first exposed egregious electronics-recycling and disposal
practices in Guiyu and other areas in southeastern China. As China's
growing economy has driven its demand for raw materials, China appears
to have come to also rely on the inexpensive labor and lax
environmental controls reported in other countries in the region, such
as Indonesia and Cambodia, to help meet its demand. Whereas used
electronics exported to Asian countries are often recycled, such items
are exported to West African countries primarily for reuse. Many units
are exported broken, however, and some U.S. companies appear to mix
broken units with shipments of working units. The nonworking units are
often dumped and left for scavengers.
Current U.S. regulatory controls do little to stem the export of
potentially hazardous used electronics, primarily for the following
reasons:
* Narrow scope of regulatory control. U.S. law allows the unfettered
export of nearly all types of used electronic devices. U.S. hazardous
waste regulations do not consider most used electronic products, such
as computers, printers, and cell phones, as hazardous, even though they
can be mismanaged overseas and can cause serious health and
environmental problems. Instead, under U.S. law, only exports of CRTs
are regulated as hazardous waste.
* Regulatory controls easily circumvented. The export of CRTs from the
United States in apparent violation of the CRT rule seems widespread,
despite adoption of the CRT rule in 2006. Posing as fictitious buyers
from Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Singapore, and Vietnam, among other
countries, we found 43 electronics recyclers in the United States who
were willing to export to us broken, untested, or nonworking CRTs under
conditions which would appear to violate the CRT rule. Three other
companies indicated they do not export broken CRTs, and 7 others asked
for more information about our fictitious identities, such as phone
numbers, a Web site, or what we intended to do with the broken CRTs.
EPA records show that none of the recyclers willing to sell to us had
filed proper notifications of their intent to export CRTs for
recycling, as required by the CRT rule for such shipments.[Footnote 11]
Some of these seemingly noncompliant companies actively cultivate an
environmentally responsible public image; at least 3 of them held Earth
Day 2008 electronics-recycling events.
* EPA has done little to enforce the CRT rule. EPA has taken few steps
to enforce the CRT rule. Since the rule took effect in January 2007,
for example, Hong Kong has intercepted and returned to the United
States 26 shipping containers of used CRT monitors because these
exports violated Hong Kong's hazardous waste import laws, Hong Kong
officials said. Under the CRT rule, these shipments are considered
illegal hazardous waste exports because the U.S. exporter did not
notify EPA. Such exporters could be subject to administrative or
criminal penalties. The agency can take action and seek criminal
penalties of up to $50,000 per day of violation and imprisonment of up
to 2 years against exporters who knowingly violate the CRT rule's
notice-and-consent requirements.[Footnote 12] Nonetheless, EPA did not
issue its first administrative penalty complaint against a company for
potentially illegal CRT shipments until July 2008, and this penalty
came as a result of a problem we identified. EPA acknowledges the
existence of compliance problems with its CRT rule, but agency
enforcement officials told us that given the rule's relative newness,
the regulated community must first be made aware of the requirements.
This explanation, however, is undermined by the instances we found
where companies that indicated a willingness to engage in activities
that would likely violate the CRT rule also indicated an awareness of
the rule. Finally, EPA has done little to ascertain the extent of
noncompliance, and Enforcement and Compliance Assurance officials told
us they have no plans and no timetable for developing the basic
components of an enforcement strategy, such as enforcement targets,
monitoring, follow-up of suspected violations, and prosecution.
Beyond enforcing its own CRT rule, EPA can also take steps to ensure
that the larger universe of potentially harmful electronics--possibly
including computers, flat-panel monitors, and cell phones, among other
items--are also exported in a manner that does not contribute to human
health and environmental harm overseas. EPA's adoption of the CRT rule
shows that the agency recognized that while certain CRTs--those being
reused--may not need to be considered hazardous waste within U.S.
borders, regulatory control was needed to ensure that, when exported,
they are not ultimately discarded in a manner that poses a health and
environmental hazard outside U.S. borders. Among the options available
to EPA to deal with this larger universe of exported used electronics-
-options that could make U.S. export controls more consistent with
international norms--is to propose amending RCRA regulations to include
exports of used electronics posing health or environmental risks when
disassembled or reclaimed, such as by expanding the scope of the CRT
rule and revising the regulatory definition of hazardous waste.
Additionally, EPA could (1) submit a legislative package to Congress
for ratifying the Basel Convention, (2) work with Customs and Border
Protection and the International Trade Commission to improve
identification and tracking of exported used electronics, and (3)
update RCRA regulations to reflect U.S. obligations under OECD.
To help ensure that EPA provides a deterrent to potentially illegal
exports of CRT monitors and televisions, we are recommending that the
Administrator, EPA, develop a timetable for implementing an enforcement
plan for the CRT rule. We also recommend that EPA evaluate options to
regulate other exported used electronics, which could include expanding
the scope of the CRT rule and collaborating with other federal agencies
to improve tracking of exported used electronics. In addition,
determining whether to ratify international treaties is a policy
decision that rests with Congress and the President; we therefore
recommend that EPA submit to Congress a legislative package to complete
ratification of the Basel Convention, so Congress can deliberate
whether and to what extent the United States should have additional
controls over the export of used electronic items that may threaten
human health and the environment when disassembled overseas.
In commenting on a draft of this report, EPA generally disagreed with
our recommendations, stating, among other things, that (1) it did not
want to build an "extensive compliance monitoring and enforcement
program" around the CRT rule or any other individual provision of its
broader RCRA program and (2) it preferred nonregulatory, voluntary
approaches to address the problems discussed in this report. First, we
disagree that an extensive program would be required to develop the
basic components of an enforcement deterrent, such as enforcement
targets and a plan for compliance monitoring, following up on suspected
violations, and prosecuting violators. Second, our findings cast
serious doubt about the effectiveness of a strategy that relies almost
entirely on voluntary approaches. Overall, we believe that nothing in
EPA's comments changes the reality that the United States' regulatory
coverage of exported used electronics is among the narrowest in the
industrialized world and that the little regulation that does exist has
been enforced to only a minor degree. EPA's comments and our response
are included in appendix II.
Background:
Consumers and businesses may hesitate to discard obsolete electronic
devices because the devices may still function and have value. Users
generally have to pay fees, however, to have their used electronics
recycled or refurbished domestically. Recyclers and refurbishers charge
these fees because costs associated with recycling and refurbishing
outweigh the revenue received from recycled commodities or refurbished
units.
The costs associated with recycling often make it unprofitable without
charging fees for several reasons. First, recycling used electronics is
labor intensive: the equipment must be separated into its component
parts, including the plastic housing, copper wires, metals (e.g., gold,
silver, and aluminum), and circuit boards, as well as parts that can be
easily reused or resold, like hard drives and CD-ROM drives. Second, to
obtain salable commodities, metal and plastic "scrap" must be further
processed to obtain shredded plastic, aluminum, copper, gold, and other
recyclable materials, and such processing typically involves
multimillion-dollar machinery. Finally, recyclers incur additional
expenses when handling and disposing of some toxic components (such as
mercury-containing lamps). In contrast, selling these items for export
can bring in revenue. According to EPA, a vast majority of used
electronics (including their component parts and commodities) donated
for reuse or recycling are exported, both responsibly and
irresponsibly.[Footnote 13] Responsible recyclers often test used
electronics to determine which components can be reused, then separate
the remaining materials into their component parts and commodities
before exporting. Recyclers like these have told us that they operate
at a competitive disadvantage against companies that export whole,
untested units.
Exporting used electronics from the United States brings important
benefits. For example, export leads to viable and productive secondhand
use of electronic devices in developing countries--a practice known as
"bridging the digital divide"--where they can be purchased for 1/10th
the price of a new unit and contribute significantly to the operations
of schools, small businesses, and government agencies. Moreover,
extending the life cycle of electronic products prevents substantial
environmental damage. A United Nations University study found that the
manufacturing phase takes up 80 percent of the natural resources used
during the life cycle of computers, so extending the lifetime of
computers provides an important environmental service.
In addition, strong demand exists overseas to recycle the raw materials
contained within electronic devices. State-of-the-art recycling
facilities in developed countries, such as Belgium, can extract
precious metals and salable commodities. Recycling in this fashion also
provides an important environmental benefit: Metals can often be
extracted from used electronics with less environmental impact than
from mining. The U.S. Geological Survey, for instance, reports that 1
metric ton of computer scrap contains more gold than 17 metric tons of
ore and much lower levels of harmful elements common to ores, such as
arsenic, mercury, and sulfur.
In recent years, concerns have been raised because toxic substances
such as lead, which have well-documented adverse health effects, can
potentially leach from discarded electronic products, especially if
disposed of improperly. Nearly all the substances of concern in an
electronic appliance are in solid, nondispersible form, so there is no
cause for concern with respect to human exposure or release into the
environment through normal contact. Instead, human health and
environmental concerns related to the presence of these substances
arise if the equipment is improperly disassembled or incinerated. EPA
has identified lead, mercury, and cadmium (which are typically found in
computers or monitors) as priority toxic chemicals for reduction.
According to EPA, these toxic substances do not break down when
released into the environment and can be dangerous, even in small
quantities (see fig. 1).
[This page intentionally left blank]
Figure 1: Toxic Substances Contained in a Central Processing Unit and
CRT Monitor:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of a CPU and monitor, indicating key
contaminants and their locations, as follows:
Key contaminant: Lead:
CRTs contain up to 4 pounds of lead, and circuit boards also contain
some of this metal. Lead is toxic and can delay neurological
development in children and cause other adverse health effects in
adults. Lead can leach out of CRT glass and circuit boards disposed of
in landfills, or it can be released into the environment by
incineration.
Locations: CRT; monitor circuit boards; CPU circuit boards.
Key contaminant: Brominated flame retardants:
Found in plastic casings of personal computers, CRT monitors, and
circuit boards, brominated flame retardants can persist in the
environment and accumulate in living organisms, where they may cause
liver and thyroid toxicity. They can be released into the environment
when computer parts are shredded or heated.CRT monitors may also
contain antimony, barium oxide, and phosphors, which could cause human
health and environmental concerns if improperly managed.
Locations: Plastic casings of monitor and CPU; Monitor and CPU circuit
boards.
Key contaminant: Cadmium;
Small amounts of this highly toxic metal are in electronic contacts and
switches. Cadmium persists in the environment and accumulates in living
organisms. It may be released into the environment by heat and
incineration.Computer central processing units may also contain
beryllium and lithium, which could cause human health and environ-
mental concerns if improperly managed.
Locations: connectors within CPU.
Sources: EPA and GAO analysis of Basel Convention technical guidelines.
[End of figure]
Used Electronics Are Exported Worldwide and Often Handled and Disposed
of Unsafely:
Some exported used electronics can be handled responsibly in countries
with effective regulatory regimes and by companies with advanced
technologies. A substantial quantity, however, ends up in countries
where the items are handled and disposed of in a manner that threatens
human health and the environment.
Some Exported Used Electronics Appear to Be Handled Responsibly:
Certain developed countries have regulatory regimes that require safe
handling and disposal of used electronics. Member states of the
European Union, for example, must comply with the Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment Directive of 2002, which established comprehensive
take-back and recycling requirements involving retailers,
manufacturers, and importers of electrical and electronic products. The
directive requires member countries to ensure that producers and
importers finance the separate collection, treatment, recovery, and
environmentally sound disposal of "waste electronics," either on their
own or through collective systems financed by themselves and other
members of the industry.
European Union countries are also parties to the Basel Convention. The
aim of the convention is to protect human health and the environment
from the adverse effects caused by the export of hazardous wastes,
especially to developing countries, where the risk of unsafe hazardous
waste management is often higher. As part of European Union countries'
implementation of the Basel Convention, hazardous wastes intended for
disposal cannot be shipped to non-OECD countries. Exports of waste
occur only under the following circumstances: (1) if the exporting
country does not have sufficient disposal capacity, (2) if the
exporting country does not have disposal sites that can dispose of the
waste in an environmentally sound manner, and (3) if the wastes are
required as a raw material for recycling or recovery industries in the
importing country.[Footnote 14]
In addition to being governed by comprehensive regulatory controls,
some companies in European Union countries use advanced technologies to
recycle used electronics. For example, the recycler Umicore, according
to its own documents, operates a state-of-the-art facility in Belgium,
where it uses advanced technologies and processes to extract precious
metals from circuit boards and responsibly handles waste by-products.
Umicore samples electronic scrap to determine the presence of hazardous
materials. The company then captures hazardous materials, such as
cadmium and mercury, in the extraction process and disposes of them in
an environmentally sound manner, state company documents. Over 95
percent of the electronic items that Umicore recycles become new
electronic products, and many of the remnants are recycled into
construction materials.
Some companies located in developing countries also appear to safely
recycle and dispose of used electronics using advanced technologies.
Samsung Corning, for example, operates a plant in Malaysia that not
only recycles CRT glass but also manufactures new CRT televisions
containing as much as 50 percent recycled-glass content. Samsung
Corning's contractor in the United States has coordinated with
approximately 40 U.S. recyclers for the export of CRT glass. According
to the contractor, about 250 shipping containers, totaling about 4,000
tons of CRT glass, leave the United States for the Malaysian facility
each month. Malaysia's regulatory regime helps ensure safe recycling
and disposal practices for CRTs; these products may be exported to
Malaysia only if they meet certain conditions, according to Malaysian
environmental protection officials. If local facilities lack the
capacity or ability to safely carry out recycling activities, the
government of Malaysia will not allow companies to import CRTs from the
United States, according to a Malaysian government document. In
addition, officials with the country's Department of Environment and
Department of Customs have said CRTs cannot be legally imported from
other countries if destined for final disposal.
Many Countries Receiving Used Electronics Lack the Capacity to Safely
Handle and Dispose of Them:
While the United States has the landfill and institutional capacity to
provide safe handling and disposal of used electronics domestically,
many foreign countries, particularly those in the developing world, do
not. According to surveys made on behalf of the United Nations
Environment Programme, many developing countries lack the
infrastructure to safely manage waste, including hazardous waste. These
surveys found that large quantities of used electronic items are
imported by developing countries, particularly in Southeast Asia, where
they are improperly handled and, in some cases, informally recycled in
"backyard" operations involving open-air burning of copper wire and
acid baths to recover valuable metals.
Upon importation, brokers, recyclers, and refurbishment companies in
some developing countries examine items to determine how they can be
used most profitably. According to individuals familiar with the
international electronics industry, to maximize profit, working units
are resold, repairable products are refurbished, and broken units are
disassembled into component parts for further reclamation. Reusable
electronics--those that can be directly resold or easily refurbished--
generally have the highest value and are sold in retail shops in some
developing countries. For nonworking or otherwise broken units, workers
disassemble those that cannot be resold into their component parts,
generally by hand. After disassembly, metals and plastics are recovered
from the component parts, using methods that may lead to pollution and
contamination. For instance, in some cases, workers burn the plastic
coating off wires to recover copper and submerge circuit boards in open
acid baths to extract gold and other metals. Unsalvageable computer
parts are often burned in the open air.
Significant demand exists for used electronics from the United States,
particularly in developing countries. In a search of one Internet e-
commerce site, we observed brokers from around the world place 2,234
requests to purchase liquid-crystal display (LCD) screens. On the same
site, we found 430 requests for central processing units and 665
requests for used computers. In an extensive search of two Internet e-
commerce sites over a 3-month period, we observed brokers in developing
countries make 230 requests for about 7.5 million used CRTs. Brokers in
developing countries represented over 60 percent of all requests we
observed. Over 75 percent of the brokers' requests offered $10 or less
per unit, and almost half offered $5 or less. Low prices (under $10 per
unit) indicate a high likelihood that these items will ultimately be
handled and disposed of unsafely. About 70 percent of the requests came
from developing countries in Asia, with China and India posting the
largest number by far; the remaining requests came largely from Africa
(see fig. 2).
Figure 2: Developing Countries Requesting CRTs on Two Internet E-
commerce Web Sites, February 2008 to May 2008:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the world depicting developing countries
requesting CRTs on two internet e-commerce web sites, February 2008 to
May 2008:
Ten highest requests:
Bangladesh;
China;
Egypt;
Hong Kong;
India;
Malaysia;
Pakistan;
Sri Lanka;
United Arab Emirates;
Vietnam;
Placed requests:
Afghanistan;
Albania;
Algeria;
Botswana;
Burma;
Ethiopia;
Ghana;
Indonesia;
Iran;
Jordan;
Kenya;
Moldova;
Morocco;
Nigeria;
Philippines;
Singapore;
South Africa;
Syria;
Taiwan;
Thailand;
Tunisia;
Ukraine;
Zambia;
Zimbabwe.
Transshipment points:
Hong Kong;
Singapore.
Source: GAO analysis of two Internet-e-commerce sites.
The information presented in figure 2 assumes that buyers do not post
fictitious country names. It also assumes that there is no double
counting of requests. Hong Kong is a special administrative region of
China. Requests were also placed in Aruba, Peru, and Venezuela.
[End of figure]
China and Hong Kong Define the Used Electronics Trade in Southeast
Asia:
China has received global attention over electronic waste export issues
since 2002, when environmental groups exposed "egregious" electronics-
recycling and disposal practices in the city of Guiyu and elsewhere in
southeastern China. China's fast-growing economy drives the nation's
demand for raw materials, and one way that this demand is met is by
importing used electronic products, according to a 2005 report by the
Basel Convention Regional Centre in China.[Footnote 15] The report
concluded that Chinese importers and foreign exporters (including ones
in the United States and Japan) could easily evade China's import and
export controls, resulting in potentially hazardous electronic devices
entering the country illegally for disassembly and recycling. Chinese
and Japanese researchers told us that most of these devices are likely
to be shipped through Hong Kong.
Once in China, most disassembly happens "by hand," according to the
2005 report, where workers use primitive means in workshops of seven or
eight employees.[Footnote 16] In Guiyu, the study found, more than 300
groups were active in electronic waste recovery efforts. Open burning
and acid baths to recover metals are commonplace, and the residual
toxic waste from such operations is simply discarded, allowing
pollutants to seep into the ground and water sources.
Recent studies have highlighted the dangers of working and living near
these facilities, particularly for children. For example, a study
conducted by a Chinese medical school and published in 2007 in the
journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that children in Guiyu
had lead levels in their blood that were more than 50 percent higher
than the limit for lead exposure set by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention in the United States. The study also found that lead
levels among children in Guiyu were also more than 50 percent higher
than among children in a neighboring village where used electronics
were not dismantled.
At a 2007 conference in Beijing, Chinese environmental protection
officials acknowledged that the country lagged behind developed
countries in its ability to ensure safe reuse, recycling, and disposal
of hazardous wastes such as used electronics.
Other Asian Countries Import Used Electronics for Recycling and Reuse:
While much of the export of used electronics to date has focused on
China, awareness of electronic-waste-recycling and disposal problems in
other Asian countries has grown in recent years. As a reflection of
this growing awareness, eight Asian countries met in Cambodia in March
2007 to discuss electronic waste management issues. At the conference,
Indonesian officials disclosed that used electronics are imported from
the United States for re-export to China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, and
the lack of effective environmental controls make unsafe recycling
commonplace. As an archipelago, Indonesia has hundreds of seaports,
which are nearly impossible to monitor, according to the environmental
officials. According to these officials, electronics-recycling
activities occur in east Java in an industrial estate and on Batam
Island (near Singapore) in a "special bounded zone" exempt from
government regulation. Recyclers at these facilities dismantle, crush,
and melt used electronics. Most of the waste recycled on Batam Island
is hazardous and would otherwise be more expensive to handle in "legal"
facilities outside the special bounded zone, according to Indonesian
officials. Photographs from the presentation show workers dismantling
electronics by hand, with low-value components discarded haphazardly
(see fig. 3).
Figure 3: Photograph: Three Stages of Electronics Dismantling and
Disposal in Indonesia:
[See PDF for image]
Source: 2007 Regional Workshop for the Environmentally Sound Management
of E-Wastes.
[End of figure]
Cambodian environmental protection officials described similar human
health and environmental harm associated with unsafe disassembly of
used electronics in Cambodia. These officials stated that refurbishment
and reuse activities are more prevalent in their country than
recycling. According to Cambodian environmental officials, the primary
electronic devices for sale consist mostly of secondhand material
imported from the United States, the European Union, China, and other
Southeast Asian countries. According to the Basel Convention Regional
Centre in China's 2005 report, although used electronics are imported
primarily for resale, some "rudimentary" recycling activities also take
place. Unrepairable electronic products are often disposed of in
municipal waste sites that are not designed to contain hazardous
materials. Some scavengers in Cambodia, including children, often work
directly for scrap yards, collecting material for as little as $1 a
day. At the scrap yards, material is sorted, and metals are exported
abroad for recycling. Materials that lack value are often dumped and
sometimes burned (see fig. 4).
Figure 4: Photograph: Open Dump Site for Electronic Waste in Cambodia:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Basel Convention Regional Centre in China.
[End of figure]
In India, which also receives used electronics from the United States,
many parts of the country cannot safely handle these devices. In 2004,
the environmental group Toxics Link documented containers of computer
waste labeled as mixed electronics scrap imported from the United
States through the port of Chennai. According to Toxics Link, more than
10,000 people--including children--work in the "informal" recycling
industry in Delhi alone, breaking equipment, using acid baths, and
openly burning wires and plastic casings to reclaim gold, copper, and
other commodities.
Used Electronics Are Exported to Western Africa Primarily for Reuse:
In contrast to the situation in many Asian countries, used electronics
exported to West African countries are intended for reuse. Businesses
importing used computers, for example, can sell functional units for as
little as $100, well below the cost of a new computer, bringing
technology within the reach of more people, according to one African
computer importer. Recycling is not as prevalent in West Africa as it
is in Southeast Asia, in part because West Africa is farther from
markets where recycled commodities are sought. In addition, shipping
costs to Africa are considerably higher than to Hong Kong and Southeast
Asian countries. One recycler told us that rates from the United States
to West Africa range from $4,000 to $7,000 per 20-foot container--
considerably more expensive than the $750 it costs to ship 40-foot
containers from the United States to Hong Kong.
Some U.S. recyclers mix broken units with working units in shipments to
Africa, and the nonworking units are often dumped and left for
scavengers. Accepting "junk" equipment is often part of the
"arrangement" U.S. recyclers make with African importers, according to
a used computer importer in Senegal. Negotiating the amount of working
versus broken equipment is routinely part of the agreement, and this
importer told us that even if he receives a shipment of up to 40
percent "junk," he can still make a profit. Often, the "junk" computers
are dumped in the countryside and burned, he explained. In addition, in
2007, an official with the Basel Convention Regional Centre for Africa
for Training and Technology Transfer noted, on the basis of his
experience that a high proportion of the units that arrive in Nigeria
are unusable, that used electronics are rarely tested for functionality
before export to developing countries like those in Africa.
U.S. Exports of Potentially Harmful Used Electronics Flow Virtually
Unrestricted:
Current EPA regulations for hazardous waste have not prevented the
export of potentially hazardous used electronics. Most used electronics
can be legally exported from the United States with no restrictions;
EPA controls only the export of used CRTs under its CRT rule, yet we
observed widespread willingness to engage in activities that would
appear to violate the CRT rule. Further, EPA has done little to
determine the extent of noncompliance with the rule and even less to
deter such noncompliance.
Existing Regulation Focuses Only on CRTs:
Current EPA hazardous waste regulations control only the export of a
narrow segment of used electronics--CRTs--therefore allowing
unrestricted export of nearly all others.[Footnote 17] In issuing its
final CRT rule in July 2006, EPA obtained information that prompted the
agency to assert that "[CRTs] are sometimes managed so carelessly
[overseas] that they pose possible human health and environmental risks
from such practices as open burning, land disposal, and dumping into
rivers." As a result, for nearly 2 years, CRT exporters have been
required to notify the appropriate EPA regional office when the items
are destined for reuse. When CRTs are exported for recycling, the
exporter must first notify EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance in Washington, D.C., which then obtains consent from the
importing country. The written acknowledgment of the importing
country's consent, which EPA then sends to the exporter, must accompany
the shipment. If these conditions are not met, the CRTs are considered
hazardous waste subject to full RCRA regulation because they typically
fail EPA's tests for toxicity.[Footnote 18] As of June 2008, 25
companies have submitted to EPA 47 notices for export of CRTs for
recycling. These companies informed EPA that they intended to
responsibly recycle CRTs at facilities in Brazil, Canada, Korea,
Malaysia, and Mexico.
Besides CRTs, most other types of exported used electronics can be
mismanaged and cause serious health and environmental problems
overseas. These products, however, are generally not considered
"hazardous" under EPA's regulatory definition. Consequently, exporters
can ship most types of used electronic products, such as computers,
printers, and cell phones, without restriction. Under RCRA regulations,
waste products are designated as "hazardous" according to the extent to
which they will leach toxins if disposed of in unlined landfills.
[Footnote 19] The tests used to make such a designation do not account
for the potential for toxic exposure when items are disassembled or
handled differently, such as by burning, as they often are outside the
United States, particularly in developing countries.
In contrast, the European Union's hazardous waste rules govern the
export of nearly all types of used electronics, generally requiring
that exporters notify relevant environmental protection agencies and
receive consent from importing countries. In addition, the European
Union has banned the export of hazardous materials contained within
waste electronic and electrical equipment to non-OECD countries.
[Footnote 20]
Companies Exporting Nonworking CRTs Can Easily Circumvent EPA's
Regulatory Controls:
The limited regulation that exists over used electronics exports from
the United States--namely, the CRT rule--is largely ineffectual because
EPA's implementation of it apparently has not deterred companies from
illegally exporting these items from the United States. When we posed
as foreign buyers looking for nonworking CRT monitors, 43 U.S.
companies that responded to our fictitious requests were willing to
export nonworking CRTs to us, in apparent violation of the CRT rule.
[Footnote 21] According to EPA records, as of July 2008, only 1 of
these 43 companies submitted a notification for recycling as required
by the CRT rule.[Footnote 22] The company that submitted the
notification for recycling, however, informed EPA that it intended to
export CRTs to Malaysia for recycling, whereas our fictitious request
was for exports to Hong Kong. Moreover, as of July 2008, the government
of Malaysia has not consented to CRT imports from this company.
We reached employees with 18 of the 43 companies and interviewed them
about the effect of the CRT rule on their business. In some cases,
employees claimed that their companies do not export CRTs, even though
we received contradictory information from e-mails they sent to our
fictitious foreign brokers, as shown by the following examples:
* A regional manager for a trading company in California stated that he
was not aware of CRT rule notification requirements, but his company
does not export CRTs. In an e-mail to our fictitious broker in
Pakistan, however, he offered to sell "as-is" CRT monitors. In
addition, his company offered 900 as-is CRT monitors, some with power
cords cut, on a Chinese e-commerce Web site.
* A sales representative for a large electronics recycler in New Jersey
said that he was not aware of the CRT rule and was not the right person
to speak to about this issue. This same individual, however, told our
fictitious buyer from Hong Kong not to worry about U.S. laws' holding
up export of untested CRT monitors. He explained that "it's the laws at
[the port of Hong Kong] that you have to find out about."[Footnote 23]
* A representative of an electronics-recycling company in Colorado told
us that the company does not export CRTs; instead, all CRTs are
recycled in-house, so the CRT rule does not apply. This same person
offered to sell 1,500 CRT monitors and 1,200 CRT televisions, which
were ready for immediate shipment, to our fictitious broker in Hong
Kong.
* A representative of an electronics-recycling company in Washington
State told us that all of its CRT monitors are sent to its shredding
facility in Oregon. A sales associate at the company, however, offered
to sell 4 containers of CRT monitors (approximately 3,200 units) in
April 2008 and another 20 containers (approximately 16,000 units) in
June 2008 to our fictitious broker in Hong Kong.
* A representative of a metal-recycling company in Illinois told us
that the CRT rule does not apply to this company because it sends all
of its CRT glass to a lead smelter in the United States. In response to
an e-mail inquiry to ship nonworking and untested CRT monitors to
Southeast Asia, however, this person wrote back, "What are you paying
for the monitors? Let me know and I'll give you an inventory count."
We were unable to interview the other 25 companies that indicated a
desire to export CRTs to our fictitious foreign brokers, although some
of them showed a willingness to knowingly export CRTs in apparent
violation of the CRT rule. For example, an electronics recycler in Utah
who offered to sell five containers of used CRTs stated in an e-mail
that he had had "no problems with the CRT rule so far." He offered to
mix the broken materials at the back of the containers, which implies
he is aware that it is illegal to export broken CRTs without consent.
In addition, a computer wholesaler in Wisconsin offered to sell two
containers (900 units per container), telling us that the CRT rule will
definitely not affect shipment: "We ship these overseas all the time,"
he wrote.
Many of the companies that responded to our fictitious foreign brokers,
particularly the electronics recyclers, actively promote an
environmentally responsible public image. Nearly all of the electronic
recyclers claimed to be environmentally friendly, with at least 17 of
these companies citing on their Web sites the hazards of improper
disposal of used electronics equipment. At least 3 of these recyclers
held Earth Day 2008 electronics-recycling events. Some of the
electronics recyclers accept used CRTs at no charge, while others
charge the consumer, ostensibly to cover recycling expenses. One
Maryland electronics recycler, for instance, charges from $10 to $30
for CRT monitors, depending on size, to cover its "responsible,
domestic recycling costs." In fact, the company's Web site states that
its mission is to be globally responsible and asserts that it sends its
monitors to domestic glass-to-glass recycling facilities. Yet when we
posed as a buyer in Singapore, the Chief Operating Officer of this
company asked what price we were paying for untested, as-is CRT
monitors, suggesting that he was interested in selling CRTs to us.
Another recycler from Missouri states on its Web site that it is an
organization "dedicated to keeping old discarded computer equipment
from entering America's landfills." This company, however, offered to
sell a container-load of CRT monitors to our fictitious broker in Hong
Kong, offering us a 10 percent discount because we were new buyers.
At least two electronics recyclers that responded to our fictitious
foreign brokers have purchased used state-government surplus CRT
monitors from two auction Web sites. One of these sites was
GovDeals.com, a Web site that posts surplus equipment from state and
local government agencies, indicating that government CRTs may be among
those offered for sale to overseas brokers. In our review of one
auction site's records for sales of surplus electronics between May
2007 and May 2008, a New York electronics recycler made four purchases
of used electronics from the New York state Office of General Services,
including 221 CRT monitors. In response to our fictitious Hong Kong
broker's inquiry on the availability of nonworking CRT monitors, this
company replied, "Yes. Many. What is your best price?" In February
2008, a Georgia electronics recycler purchased two lots of computer
monitors from the state of Alabama's Surplus Property Division on
GovDeals.com, one lot of 100 CRT monitors for $45 and another lot of
155 CRT monitors for $366. This company was also ready to send three
container-loads of a mix of untested CRT monitors to our fictitious
broker in India. For an additional $400, this company offered to "hand
stuff" the container to increase the load from about 850 monitors per
container to between 1,100 and 1,200 monitors per container.
EPA Has Done Little to Enforce the CRT Rule:
EPA has done little to enforce the CRT rule. Since the rule took effect
in January 2007, Hong Kong's Environmental Protection Department and
its Customs Department have worked together to intercept and return 26
containers of "waste" CRT monitors to the United States. In each
instance, the U.S. exporters neither notified EPA nor received consent
from Hong Kong. An official from Hong Kong's Environmental Protection
Department stated that his agency would not grant consent for importing
such items because under Hong Kong regulations, it is illegal to import
CRTs from the United States. From January to July 2008, we provided
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance with current
information we received from Hong Kong's Environmental Protection
Department, which included information on six shipments (10 40-foot
containers) of waste CRTs intercepted and returned to the United States
during this period, one of which was returned from Hong Kong multiple
times.
In one instance, we asked U.S. Customs and Border Protection to detain
a container that was intercepted in Hong Kong and returned to the
United States in February 2008. We viewed the contents of this
container at the Port of Long Beach, California. We observed hundreds
of CRT computer monitors stacked haphazardly, some with cracked plastic
cases and broken glass tubes (see fig. 5).[Footnote 24]
[A Tale of Three Containers:
Three containers were shipped across the Pacific Ocean four times
before EPA initiated enforcement action. Hong Kong‘s Environmental
Protection Department notified GAO of three 40-foot containers of CRT
monitors that had been inspected in Hong Kong and returned to the Port
of Los Angeles because they contained ’waste“ CRT monitors, which are
illegal for import into Hong Kong. EPA records indicate that the U.S.
exporter had not notified EPA. GAO notified EPA‘s Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance that the containers were still at the Port of
Los Angeles. After sitting at the port for 11 more days, the three 40-
foot containers were loaded onto another cargo ship and re-exported to
Hong Kong. An EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
official explained to GAO that the original shipper had placed the CRT
monitors in the containers ’by mistake“ and that the company had
voluntarily removed the CRT monitors before re-exporting the containers
to Hong Kong. About 3 weeks later, Hong Kong‘s Environmental Protection
Department intercepted the containers a second time and verified that
the three containers still contained the same ’waste“ CRT monitors.
They were returned again to the Port of Los Angeles, at which time EPA
detained the containers and arranged for their inspection. The result
of EPA‘s investigation is pending. According to an EPA inspector, the
shipper had simply changed the name of his business to a fictitious
company and re-exported the containers after they had originally been
returned from Hong Kong.]
Figure 5: Four photographs: Broken CRT Monitors from an Illegal
Shipment of Used CRTs:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
We received photographic evidence showing that this illegal shipment of
CRT monitors originated from the Denver metropolitan area. According to
a third-party source, these monitors came from an electronics recycler
in Colorado, which claims to hold 20 to 30 community recycling events
each year for homeowners' associations, city governments, and property
managers. The company's Web site also states that "many domestic
recycling companies ship e-waste to China, where it ends up harming the
environment and the population. With [this company], your e-waste is
recycled properly, right here in the United States, not simply dumped
on somebody else."
The director of EPA's Waste and Chemical Enforcement Division explained
that inspections to determine compliance with environmental laws are
labor intensive because inspectors must spend time planning and
preparing before each inspection occurs. After an inspection,
inspectors must spend time analyzing any information collected,
drafting an inspection report, and determining necessary follow-up
actions. Given the number of regulated facilities and competing
priority demands, the director said, EPA must "carefully plan" how it
directs its inspection resources.
In at least one case, EPA chose not to physically inspect and detain a
container that was intercepted and returned to the United States by
Hong Kong, even though EPA acknowledged that the container likely
contained broken CRTs. In this case, referring to a container returning
to the Port of Tacoma in April 2008, EPA asked a Customs and Border
Patrol officer not to detain the container on its behalf, according to
an Enforcement and Compliance Assurance regional manager:
EPA has reason to believe that this container includes used CRTs that
may be in broken or unstable condition. Since CRTs typically contain
hazardous constituents, I recommend that the contents of the container
should not be opened or disturbed unless appropriate precautions have
been taken to protect individuals handling the materials and to prevent
the materials from being released to the environment.
EPA concluded that an inspection of the container was not necessary to
address the apparent noncompliance. Customs and Border Protection
inspected the container and provided information to EPA about the
container's contents and the identity of the shipper. Upon consultation
with EPA, Customs and Border Protection released the container, which
was re-exported to Hong Kong. We do not know if Hong Kong's
Environmental Protection Department again intercepted the container.
EPA's deputy director for Civil Enforcement stated that EPA intended to
initiate contact with the responsible party for this shipment. The
outcome of EPA's investigation was pending at the time of our report.
The Deputy Director of EPA's Office of Civil Enforcement told us that
EPA's enforcement of the CRT rule relies primarily on tips and
complaints. As of August 2008, EPA reported having 10 ongoing
investigations of potentially illegal CRT shipments based on such
complaints (7 of which appeared to be from us.) As a result of its
investigations, in July 2008, EPA issued its first administrative
penalty complaint against a California company we identified, seeking
the maximum civil penalty of $32,500. In the view of one recycler, who
had expressed willingness to sell nonworking CRTs to our fictitious
broker from Singapore, "If EPA whacked some [exporters], then they
would comply with the rule."
The Director of EPA's Hazardous Waste Identification Division
acknowledged in an e-mail to EPA's RCRA regional directors, "[I] expect
there has been considerable noncompliance with the rule's notification
provision." The Deputy Director of the agency's Office of Civil
Enforcement, however, told us that EPA's initial efforts to address
noncompliance have been aimed at education and outreach. He explained
that given the rule's relative newness, the regulated community must
first be made aware of the rule's requirements.[Footnote 25] His
statement is consistent with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance's Guide for Addressing Environmental Problems, which states
that the regulated community should be aware of and understand the
regulations that apply to it and have the means of achieving compliance
with those requirements.[Footnote 26]
We believe that EPA's explanation that it needs to focus on education
and outreach is insufficient. The explanation that an enforcement
deterrent should await the effects of an education program implies that
violations to date have resulted largely from unawareness of the rule
and not from willful disregard for it. This implication has clearly not
been borne out. With little effort, we were able to observe substantial
willingness to engage in activities that would appear to violate the
CRT rule--including instances where the exporters were aware of the CRT
rule--by simply monitoring e-commerce Web sites and conducting limited
follow-up. EPA, on the other hand, has done little to ascertain the
extent of noncompliance with the CRT rule. In the absence of such an
effort, it has set no enforcement targets, conducted no monitoring, and
taken only one action against a violator of the rule.[Footnote 27]
Moreover, the agency has not taken the initial steps necessary to
develop a program for identifying and prosecuting exporters who do not
notify the agency when shipping CRTs overseas for recycling or reuse,
and it does not have plans to develop such a program. The deputy
director of EPA's Office of Civil Enforcement explained that there is
no "hard and fast" rule on how long EPA is going to rely on outreach as
its primary tool for the CRT rule or when the agency will use its
enforcement resources to deter noncompliance. He added that enforcement
of the CRT rule is one of the office's many responsibilities, but it is
not among its highest enforcement priorities.
EPA Has Several Options That Would Strengthen the Federal Role in
Reducing Harmful Exports of Used Electronics:
Even if there were total compliance with the CRT rule, the effect would
reach only a small percentage of all potentially harmful used
electronics exported from the United States. Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance guidance states that if an environmental problem would not be
solved if 100 percent compliance were achieved within the regulated
community, then modification of regulations or other initiatives may be
necessary.[Footnote 28] It adds that if "gaps" exist in the regulatory
structure and opportunities exist for filling these gaps, voluntary
initiatives, new regulations, or combinations of multiple approaches
may be needed to fill these gaps. As we have shown, such a gap exists
with respect to used electronics that do not meet the current U.S.
regulatory definition of hazardous waste. More comprehensive regulation
of used electronics exports could narrow this gap. Options in this
regard include, but are not limited to, amending RCRA regulations to
include exports of used electronics posing health or environmental
risks when disassembled or reclaimed, expanding the scope of the CRT
rule, and revising the regulatory definition of hazardous waste. In
addition, EPA has options to enhance U.S. control over the export of
used electronics: It could submit a legislative package to Congress for
ratifying the Basel Convention, work with Customs and Border Protection
and with the International Trade Commission to improve identification
and tracking of exported used electronics, and update RCRA regulations
to reflect U.S. obligations under OECD decisions.
Amend RCRA Regulations:
EPA could amend RCRA regulations to cover exports of used electronics
where risks exist to human health or the environment when reclaimed for
reuse or recycling, an amendment that--if implemented--could bring U.S.
export controls more in line with those of other industrialized
countries. For example, EPA could revise the definition of "hazardous"
in its RCRA regulations to encompass certain used products that can
pose risks upon disassembly or reclamation, including desktop
computers, laptop computers, printers, and cell phones. Currently, many
electronics contain toxic constituents in small quantities, yet do not
come within the regulatory definition of "hazardous" because these
substances do not leach from the electronic products at unsafe amounts
under tests simulating disposal in a landfill. Compelling evidence
shows, however, that when exported, many of these used electronics are
disassembled in a way that results in human and environmental exposure
to toxic components.
As long as the regulatory definition of "hazardous" does not include
such used products, they will not be subject to any of RCRA's export
provisions, such as notice and consent, and the burden for identifying
and controlling the flow of such products will remain solely with the
receiving country. A revised definition or new rule for other used
electronics could be developed to effectively cover only exports while
conditionally exempting domestic activity from substantive
requirements, if EPA determines that such conditions along with other
approaches--such as voluntary initiatives and existing regulatory
controls on recycling facilities--provide adequate domestic protection
of health and the environment.
If EPA expanded the scope of used electronics subject to RCRA export
rules, it could consider requiring exporters of such products for
reuse--not just those for recycling--to notify EPA. The rationale for
regulating used electronics destined for reuse with at least a
notification requirement would be the same as for the CRT rule. In the
preamble to the final CRT rule, for instance, EPA explained that it
obtained compelling evidence showing that exported CRTs often are not
handled as valuable commodities in foreign countries. Used and unused
intact CRTs are identical in appearance; consequently, it would be
difficult to distinguish between intact CRTs destined for recycling
(including disassembly and reclamation) and those for reuse. This same
difficulty characterizes other used electronic products, such as
desktop computers, laptop computers, flat panel monitors, and cell
phones, which can look identical whether functional or broken.
Moreover, EPA could examine its authority to modify its regulations so
that regulated used electronics--when shipped for reuse and
indistinguishable from those shipped for recycling--would be subject to
the same control procedures as when shipped for recycling. Currently,
exporters of CRTs for reuse or repair are required to notify EPA of
their intent to export CRTs, whereas exporters of CRTs for recycling
are required to notify EPA and to obtain consent from the importing
country. Thus, although exporters of CRTs for reuse have a lesser
requirement than those exporting CRTs for recycling, the former need
only assert that the products are reusable or repairable, and the
products can be visually indistinguishable. Regulating used electronics
exported for reuse in this manner, however, would likely create an
"overwhelming" number of notice-and-consent requests for EPA to handle
each month, according to EPA officials, and could be successfully
managed only with additional resources.
Revising RCRA regulations to more comprehensively cover used
electronics for export could help ensure that they are handled as
commodities and, if necessary, disposed of safely. Once regulated as
hazardous wastes, such used electronics would be subject to RCRA's
existing export provisions. Revising RCRA regulations would require one
or more rule makings, which could take several years to implement.
Provide Congress with a Legislative Package for U.S. Ratification of
the Basel Convention:
U.S. regulations contain no provisions for addressing situations when a
waste is not classified as hazardous under U.S. law but is so
classified--with its trade restricted or prohibited--under an importing
country's law. The effect is that the importing country bears the full
burden of identifying and intercepting such materials, without the
benefit of U.S. cooperation as the export country. By contrast, the
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous
Wastes and Their Disposal--effectively the international standard for
hazardous wastes shipped for disposal or recycling--provides for
cooperation between exporting and importing countries. For example, the
convention requires that an exporting country stop shipments of waste
if it has reason to believe that the waste will not be handled in an
environmentally sound manner, as well as an obligation to prohibit
exports to countries that have prohibited the import of that type of
waste. The Basel Convention also established a prior notice-and-consent
system for such wastes. While the U.S. has an existing notice-and-
consent system, the Basel Convention and its system have significant
distinctions. According to EPA's International and Transportation
Branch Chief, U.S. ratification of the Basel Convention has five key
implications:
* Scope of waste. The Basel Convention has a much broader definition of
"controlled" waste than the current RCRA regulatory definition. In
contrast to the United States, which, to encourage recycling and reuse,
has numerous conditional exclusions and exemptions to the definition of
waste, the Basel Convention considers a broader range of items as
waste. In addition, unlike the United States and OECD, the Basel
Convention defines hazardous waste in terms of intrinsic hazards;
therefore, a product is potentially hazardous even when it contains
very small amounts of toxic substances, as is the case with cell phones
and other electronic devices.[Footnote 29]
* Notice-and-consent process. If the United States ratified the Basel
Convention, an exporter would typically need to work through EPA to
obtain written consent from the importing country before exporting
material to a country that considered this material to be hazardous
waste. U.S. law provides a notice-and-consent process for regulated
hazardous waste exports; if the United States ratified the Basel
Convention, the number of products requiring notice and consent would
likely increase.
* Environmentally sound waste management. The Basel Convention imposes
a requirement on the exporting country to ensure that the wastes will
be handled and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.
Implementing this provision would require EPA to make this
determination, which could involve evaluating overseas facilities. EPA
has already developed a plan to determine environmental soundness in
this fashion, but actual implementation will likely require additional
resources.
* Understanding importing countries' laws. U.S. ratification of the
Basel Convention would impose on the United States a greater obligation
to understand the hazardous waste laws of foreign countries to
determine what materials U.S. exporters cannot export to other
countries. Exporting countries must prohibit or not allow exports to
countries that have informed the Basel Secretariat of an import
prohibition.
* Take-back provisions. The Basel Convention requires that if an export
of hazardous waste is refused by the importing country or facility, the
exporting country must take it back. At present, EPA lacks the legal
authority or the implementing regulations to take back waste, according
to EPA officials. For example, from 1998 through 2001, Pyramid
Chemicals shipped 29 containers of falsely labeled hazardous wastes,
which were intended for Nigeria, from the United States to the
Netherlands. Environmental protection officials in the Netherlands
noticed leakage from some of the shipping containers and detained the
shipment. Dutch officials cooperated with EPA, but EPA could not have
the containers returned to the United States for proper handling.
Instead, EPA had to work with its criminal investigative units to
prosecute Pyramid Chemicals. According to EPA's International and
Transportation Branch Chief, EPA found itself in an embarrassing
position. Ultimately, the containers were not returned; they instead
had to be disposed of by Dutch officials.[Footnote 30] In proposing the
implementing legislation necessary for U.S. ratification of the Basel
Convention, EPA would seek to obtain the statutory authority to take
back hazardous waste shipments denied by an importing country.
Some government and industry officials have expressed concerns about
some aspects of the Basel Convention. For example, the scrap-recycling
industry has mixed views about Basel ratification because of lingering
uncertainties over the convention's definitions of exports for
recycling, refurbishment, and reuse. Some Basel parties argue, for
example, that the Basel Convention regulates the international movement
of used products for repair, refurbishment, or remanufacture. If Basel
Convention parties decide that exports for refurbishment should be
controlled in the same way that other exports are controlled, then,
according to EPA officials, the agency would have to manage an
"overwhelming" number of notice and consents. The U.S. State Department
takes the position that trade of used products for refurbishment is not
within the convention; it has also asserted that the current Basel
system for controlling international shipments of hazardous waste makes
trade in many used and scrap electronics "difficult." The department
favors alternative systems for such wastes under the convention.
Although disagreement persists, some Basel parties are working together
to develop interim proposals, described in the Mobile Phone Partnership
Initiative, for managing exports for refurbishment under the Basel
Convention. Under these proposals, the Basel Convention is exploring
appropriate mechanisms for exports of mobile phones destined for the
reuse and refurbishment markets. These proposals could serve as a model
for regulating reuse and refurbishment exports of other potentially
hazardous items.
For the United States to become a party to the Basel Convention,
Congress would need to enact implementing legislation giving a U.S.
agency, such as EPA, the authority to enforce the convention's
provisions domestically.[Footnote 31] Passage of such legislation would
complete the prerequisites to ratification and, in effect, would make
the United States party to the Basel Convention. EPA informs us that
the United States supports ratification of the Basel Convention, but to
date no implementing legislation has been enacted. Although EPA had
developed a legislative package that, if signed into law, would give
EPA the statutory authorities it needs to fulfill the requirements of
the Basel Convention, the legislative package has not been submitted to
Congress. The legislative package has not been submitted to Congress
because, according to Solid Waste officials, the agency has other
priorities for congressional attention. These officials told us that
EPA instead wants attention devoted to its legislative package on the
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which is a
global treaty to protect human health and the environment from widely
distributed toxic chemicals that remain intact in the environment for
long periods.
Cooperate with Other Federal Agencies to Improve Tracking of Exported
Used Electronics:
The U.S. government has adopted the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as the
basic system for tracking exports for duty, quota, and statistical
purposes. While the schedule is based on an international standard, the
United States uses more detailed categories to track goods of
particular national interest. The U.S. International Trade Commission
is responsible for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, while Customs and
Border Protection is responsible for interpreting and enforcing it.
At present, the harmonized tariff codes neither enable identification
of used electronics nor distinguish whether such electronics are being
exported for recycling or reuse. Through identification of potentially
illegal shipments of CRTs, we observed that shippers described used
electronic exports as "mixed plastics" and "scrap metals." Customs
regulations require that U.S. exporters use the 7-digit international
standard code that most closely describes the contents of a container,
but there is no such code for used electronics. U.S. exporters can use
8-or 10-digit codes, which helps Customs and Border Protection
officials track specific product types.
Adding more detailed codes to the schedule could assist other countries
in controlling used electronics exported from the United States. For
example, a country such as China, which reports it has tried to ban all
imports of used electronics, could use the codes as listed on the
shipper export declaration accompanying the shipment to select
shipments for inspection and potential rejection at the border.
Further, such codes could facilitate basic statistical tracking of such
exports, including by type, price, and receiving country, among other
data.
Customs and Border Protection appears to have a framework in place that
could help EPA obtain data and improve oversight of exported used
electronics. The agency's automated tracking systems electronically
store information from shippers' export declaration forms, which
include tariff codes. These systems help Customs monitor and, if
necessary, enforce the provisions of agreements it has with other
agencies.[Footnote 32] For example, these systems are used to target
high-risk outgoing shipments, such as those possibly containing
materials that would have national security implications. To determine
which shipments to target, Customs uses criteria based on those
provided by the responsible agency, such as EPA for hazardous waste
shipments. While most of Customs' monitoring and enforcement efforts
directed to outgoing containers occur on behalf of the State Department
and the Department of Commerce, Customs officials told us that
provisions are in place to monitor outgoing shipments of RCRA hazardous
wastes and CRTs. Because Customs enforces the policies, directives, and
regulations of other agencies, if EPA were to designate used
electronics as hazardous waste, and tariff codes were developed to
describe such shipments, Customs could give additional scrutiny to
outgoing shipments of used electronic products. Moreover, EPA could ask
for greater scrutiny of particular types of shipments. One Customs
official stated that, to his knowledge, EPA has not requested Customs'
assistance to enforce RCRA hazardous waste export provisions. Beyond
potentially using the information for enforcement, EPA could benefit
from the data that detailed codes would generate, such as quantitative
information not currently available about potentially hazardous
exports, whether regulated or not.
Update RCRA Regulations to Reflect OECD Changes:
Although a member of OECD, the United States has not yet updated its
RCRA regulations to reflect the 2001 OECD decision concerning
transboundary shipments of wastes for recovery and its subsequent 2004
amendments. Because the majority of OECD members are also Basel
parties, the OECD decision revised waste classifications to harmonize
them with those of the Basel Convention. The decision also altered the
OECD notice-and-consent framework. Although the 2001 change does not
require changes to the scope of hazardous wastes regulated in the
United States, it does require adoption of the classification system to
facilitate coordination among exporting and importing countries.
EPA has acknowledged that the 2001 decision is legally binding and must
be implemented by amending RCRA regulations. EPA told us that they
submitted proposed changes to RCRA regulations to the Office of
Management and Budget on May 8, 2008, and EPA officials anticipate
issuing a proposed rule in mid-November in the Federal Register. The
proposal would revise RCRA regulations to be completely consistent with
the 2001 OECD decision, according to EPA officials, and would give EPA
the regulatory authority to fulfill its obligations as described in the
decision.
The options described above--amending RCRA regulations to broaden U.S.
control over exported used electronics, submitting a legislative
package to Congress for consideration to complete ratification of the
Basel Convention, working with Customs and Border Protection and with
the International Trade Commission to improve identification and
tracking of exported used electronics, and updating RCRA regulations to
reflect U.S. obligations under OECD--are just several possible options
to strengthen the federal role in preventing exports of harmful used
electronics. These options are not mutually exclusive, and they could
be used together in any combination. In particular, the first three
options could explicitly address exports to developing countries where
adverse human health and environmental effects occur. Broadening U.S.
control over exported used electronics, and cooperating with other
federal agencies to improve identification and tracking of these
devices, are actions that can be spearheaded by EPA.
Conclusions:
Americans have increasingly adopted the environmental tenet of "reduce,
reuse, recycle," but when it comes to obsolete electronics, they lack
sound information on their disposal options. Exporting used electronics
to support reuse and recycling ought not be discouraged. Recycling
electronics can provide social, economic, and environmental benefits,
both in the United States and abroad, such as providing affordable
computers to the developing world. In recent years, however,
irresponsible practices have come to light, prompting EPA to implement
notification requirements for any company exporting CRTs. To date, the
agency has established no enforcement targets, done no monitoring,
conducted only preliminary follow-up of suspected violations, and taken
only one enforcement action. Not only do EPA's present enforcement
efforts fall short, but the agency also apparently has no tangible
plans to develop more effective ones. Until an enforcement mechanism is
developed and effectively implemented, consumers and businesses aiming
to be environmentally responsible with their used electronics--
particularly CRT monitors and televisions--should be skeptical of some
companies that claim to responsibly recycle these devices.
Because of high demand for the metals and other resources within
electronic products, all kinds of exported used electronics--computers,
televisions, laptops, printers, and cell phones, among others--are
dismantled in developing countries where local waste management systems
are often not equipped to handle them. Despite well-documented health
and environmental effects, EPA's regulation of exported used
electronics is confined only to CRTs. In stark contrast, countries that
are party to the Basel Convention, including most members of OECD, have
largely embraced the idea that industrialized countries should be
responsible for ensuring the environmentally sound management of
potentially hazardous items exported to countries that cannot guarantee
the safety of workers who will handle them. In issuing the CRT rule,
EPA exercised its authority to regulate exports of functional CRTs
because of the likelihood that some will be handled unsafely and the
danger that they pose when disassembled. Following the rationale of
this rule to provide controls over other potentially harmful used
electronics could help bring the United States in line with important
international norms. A number of options could move EPA forward along
these lines, such as providing controls over electronic products that
pose health and environmental risks when unsafely disassembled, such as
in another country, and taking steps to honor key international
agreements.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, identify a timetable for
developing and implementing a systematic plan to enforce the CRT rule.
This plan should include the basic elements of effective enforcement,
such as enforcement targets, monitoring, follow-up of suspected
violations, and prosecution.
We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, direct the heads of
appropriate offices to take the following two actions:
* Develop options on how the agency could broaden its regulations under
existing RCRA authority to address the export of used electronic
devices that might not be classified as hazardous waste by current U.S.
regulations but have a high likelihood of threatening human health and
the environment when unsafely disassembled, as often occurs overseas.
Among the options that should be considered is expanding the scope of
the CRT rule to cover other exported used electronics and revising the
regulatory definition of hazardous waste.
* Cooperate with other federal agencies to improve the tracking of
exported used electronics, which could be accomplished by implementing
specific harmonized tariff codes for these devices.
In addition, because determining whether to ratify international
treaties is a policy decision that rests with Congress and the
President, we recommend that EPA submit to Congress a legislative
package for ratification of the Basel Convention, so Congress can
deliberate whether and to what extent the United States should adopt
additional controls over the export of used electronics that may
threaten human health and the environment when disassembled overseas.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Administrator, EPA, for
review and comment. EPA's August 1, 2008, letter said the draft report
"does not provide a complete or balanced picture of the agency's
electronic waste program" and disagreed with our recommendations to
improve enforcement of the CRT rule and to broaden EPA's authority to
cover used electronics exports other than CRTs. We continue to believe
that, as now constructed, the breadth of U.S. regulation covering
exported used electronics is unacceptably narrow--an outlier among most
industrialized countries in the world. We also believe that EPA's
enforcement over used CRT exports--the only electronic device currently
covered by U.S. regulations--has done little to deter violations.
The following paragraphs summarize EPA's comments and our responses. In
keeping with the structure of EPA's letter, we then address the
agency's comments on our findings related to (1) EPA's enforcement of
the CRT rule, (2) EPA's outreach to affected parties about CRT rule
requirements, and (3) the potential expansion of regulation over
exported used electronics.
Overall observations. EPA wrote, "Overall, as a general matter, EPA is
concerned that readers of the report may be misled to believe that a
very large percentage of U.S. electronic waste is currently being
reused and recycled globally." The agency then cited statistics showing
that "80 to 85 percent of used electronics are disposed of
domestically, primarily in landfills." The wording suggests that
because only 15 percent to 20 percent of used electronics are collected
for reuse or recycling, our report overstates the health and
environmental problems associated with exported used electronics. We
find that this response needs to be put in the proper perspective.
First, the document EPA references shows that 330 million electronic
products were "ready for end-of-life management" in 2006. Fifteen
percent to 20 percent of 330 million (50 million to 66 million) is
still a significant number--especially in light of EPA's estimate that
"a vast majority" of such products are exported. Second, and more
important, it is EPA's stated goal to significantly reduce the amount
of used electronics going into landfills--a goal that is also pursued
by a growing number of states that are banning the dumping of
electronics in their landfills. Over time, the effect of these efforts
can be expected to greatly increase the quantity of used electronics
being both recycled and exported. Under this likely scenario, it will
become that much more important to ensure that used electronics are
handled safely and exported in a manner that complies with U.S. and
international laws.
EPA's enforcement of the CRT rule. Among EPA's most significant
comments regarding our enforcement-related findings is its contention
that the agency should not be asked to "build an extensive compliance
monitoring and enforcement program" around the CRT rule or any other
individual provision of its broader RCRA program. We believe the
comment mischaracterizes our recommendation and the resource commitment
that would be needed to establish a credible enforcement deterrent. We
are not recommending that EPA establish an extensive program, but
rather that it develop the basic enforcement components needed to
enforce the CRT rule, such as enforcement targets and a plan for
compliance monitoring, following up on suspected violations, and
prosecuting violators. Moreover, we continue to believe that these
actions are reasonable and necessary in light of (1) the substantial
number of exporters we observed willing to export in apparent violation
of the CRT rule and (2) EPA's very limited enforcement of the CRT rule.
In this connection, our work has demonstrated that much can be done to
identify violators and deter noncompliance without an exorbitant
commitment of resources. It took little of our time and effort, for
example, to identify potential violators and potentially illegal
shipments. Specifically, in several hours--rather than days--of
monitoring e-commerce Web sites, we observed substantial willingness to
engage in activities that would appear to violate the CRT rule.
Similarly, it took only minutes to identify potentially illegal CRT
shipments by contacting environmental protection officials in countries
known to import these items and by working with Customs and Border
Protection officials to detain and observe the shipments.
EPA's outreach to affected parties about CRT rule requirements. EPA
stated that our draft report incorrectly described the agency's
outreach efforts as consisting of only a limited number of
presentations at conferences and similar venues. The letter points to
the agency's CRT rule "Communication Plan," stating that the plan "sets
forth a number of specific activities to reach out to the regulated
community." It further states that EPA "implemented this plan
immediately after the rule was published" in July 2006. We have used
the information provided by EPA to more fully describe what the agency
states is the entire range of its outreach activities. That said, our
characterization of EPA's actual outreach efforts is based on comments
we obtained from EPA program officials during our review and, most
recently, at meetings with EPA Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and
Solid Waste officials in May and June 2008. Moreover, although an
outreach plan may have existed for some time, it is unclear to what
extent these efforts have focused on educating the regulated community
about the need to notify EPA when exporting used CRTs. For example, a
March 2008, internal Office of Solid Waste e-mail to EPA's RCRA
division directors--prepared 20 months after the rule's adoption--
stated, "We expect that there has been considerable noncompliance with
the notification provisions of the CRT rule and we are planning to
develop [emphasis added] a strategy for reaching out to the regulated
community and the states to educate them about the [notification]
requirements." Hence, the e-mail suggests that a plan for educating the
regulated community was still needed at the time of our report.
Potential expansion of regulation over exported used electronics. EPA
disagreed with our conclusion that the regulatory framework governing
used electronic exports was too narrowly constructed and with our
recommendation that it broaden its regulations under existing RCRA
authority to address the export of used electronics other than CRTs
(such as computers and cell phones). EPA contends that it should
instead pursue nonregulatory, voluntary approaches to address the
problems discussed in this report, because developing options to
broaden its RCRA regulatory authority might take years and would entail
legal complexities. Our findings, however, cast serious doubt about the
effectiveness of a strategy that relies almost entirely on voluntary
approaches. Given the compliance issues and market realities we
identified with just the CRT rule, it is not realistic to expect that
sufficient control over exports of nonworking and potentially harmful
electronic devices will be achieved without a credible and enforceable
regulatory framework. Moreover, we do not believe that the time and
complexities in establishing necessary regulatory controls over
electronic waste exports is a sufficiently compelling reason for not
doing so, particularly in light of the anticipated increase in
potentially harmful electronic devices available for export.
EPA's letter appears in appendix II, along with our responses. The
agency also provided technical comments that were incorporated in our
final report, as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested
congressional committees; the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency; and other interested parties. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To examine the fate of used electronics, we obtained and reviewed
surveys from Basel Convention Regional Centres in Africa, China, and
Southeast Asia on electronic waste disassembly and disposal practices.
We obtained and reviewed conference proceedings and presentations from
a regional workshop in Siem Reap, Cambodia, held from March 13 through
15, 2007, on environmentally sound management of electronic wastes in
Southeast Asia. We interviewed officials with Hong Kong's Environmental
Protection Department about imports of used electronics from the United
States. We interviewed experts from government, industry, environmental
groups, and academia and obtained and reviewed documents authored by
them to learn how used electronics exported from the United States are
managed overseas. For example, we interviewed officials with Dell on
its overseas recycling practices and two companies that export CRT
monitors to facilities in Southeast Asia from the United States. To
learn firsthand about practices in Africa, we also spoke with a West
African computer dealer who imports used computers from the United
States. In addition, we spoke with officials from Greenpeace in China
and the Basel Action Network in the United States. We also reviewed
published scientific studies about the health effects of improper
recycling practices in Asia. We interviewed a professor at Arizona
State University currently conducting research on used electronics
exports. We also attended two conferences on the export of used
electronics, where we interviewed officials with Toxics Link, a
nonprofit organization; academic officials from research institutions
in China, Japan, Switzerland, and the United States; electronics-
recycling and scrap industry officials; and officials from the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) national and regional offices.
In addition, we monitored two e-commerce Web sites to obtain
information on requests for used monitors, untested monitors,
nonworking monitors, cathode-ray tubes (CRT), used CRTs, untested CRTs,
nonworking CRTs, liquid-crystal displays (LCD), used LCDs, untested
LCDs, nonworking LCDs, central processing units (CPU), used CPUs,
untested CPUs, nonworking CPUs, used computers, untested computers, and
nonworking computers. We collected information from these Internet
sites from February 2008 to May 2008. Among the information we obtained
were data on the volume requested, location of request, price, and
quality of equipment sought (such as working, nonworking, untested, as-
is, or broken). For CRTs in particular, we estimated the total number
of units requested using conservative assumptions. For example, if a
buyer requested one container per month, we estimated that 800 CRTs fit
in a container and multiplied this number by three to obtain an
estimated request of 2,400 monitors for the 3-month period.
To determine the effectiveness of regulatory controls over used
electronics exported from the United States, we took several
approaches. First, we interviewed EPA officials and reviewed key
documents. For example, we interviewed officials in the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, and the Office of Civil Enforcement to determine what
challenges exist to implementing EPA's CRT rule. We also reviewed EPA's
CRT rule and hazardous waste export provisions of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, and its
implementing regulations. Finally, we reviewed EPA's Hazardous Waste
Civil Enforcement Response Policy and the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance's Guide for Addressing Environmental Problems.
Second, we posed as buyers of CRTs from India, Indonesia, Hong Kong,
Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam. We also
posed as a United States-based broker working for a fictitious company
in Hong Kong. Using these identities, we e-mailed 343 U.S. companies,
including members or affiliates of an electronics recyclers'
association and other companies that posted CRT "sell" offers on the e-
commerce Web sites we monitored. From these companies, we requested CRT
monitors that were unlikely to be reused (untested, nonworking, and
broken CRTs), clearly destined for export, and could be supplied in
less than the 60-day time period for export notifications under the CRT
rule. Of the 64 firms that responded to our requests, 43 expressed a
willingness to export. Among the other 21 companies that responded, 3
stated that they did not export broken CRT monitors; 7 asked for more
information about our fictitious identities, such as phone numbers, a
Web site, or what we intended to do with the broken CRTs; and the
remaining 11 provided various responses, such as offering broken CRT
monitors from Canada, currently not having CRT monitors in inventory,
offering working televisions, or offering Pentium IV motherboards. Of
the 43 companies that expressed a willingness to export, we reached 18
in separate interviews and asked employees about their knowledge of the
CRT rule and their perspectives on its effect on their business. We
obtained notifications for CRT exports for recycling from EPA's Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and from EPA's regional
offices, we obtained notifications to export CRTs for reuse. We used
this information to determine whether the U.S. companies that responded
to our fictitious foreign buyers had previously filed a notification
for export with EPA.
Third, we obtained information from Hong Kong's Environmental
Protection Department on shipments of used CRTs that the department had
intercepted and returned to the United States because, according to the
officials, the shipments violated Hong Kong's hazardous waste import
laws. For the shipments that occurred during our review, we referred
the information to EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance. On one occasion, we personally viewed one of these shipments
at the Port of Long Beach, California, with the assistance of Customs
and Border Protection officials.
To examine options for strengthening the federal role in regulating
used electronics exports, we interviewed EPA officials in the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance about the implications of (1) expanding the scope
of the CRT rule to cover other exported used electronics, (2)
submitting to Congress a legislative package for ratification of the
Basel Convention, and (3) updating RCRA regulations to reflect a key
2002 decision by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. We interviewed Customs and Border Protection officials
about the implications of working with EPA to improve tracking of
exported used electronics. We also examined the regulatory regimes of
European Union countries pertaining to hazardous waste exports.
We found the data we obtained on e-commerce Web sites to be adequate to
conclude that a significant demand exists for exported used
electronics. We conducted our review from October 2007 through July
2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe the evidence we obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Washington, D.C. 20480:
[hyperlink, http://www.epa.gov]
August 1, 2008:
Mr. John B. Stephenson, Director:
Natural Resources & Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G. Street, NW Room 2075:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
report, "EPA Needs to Take a Stronger and More Comprehensive
Enforcement Action to Control Harmful U. S. Exports," dated August
2008. - We have completed our review and have significant concerns with
the completeness and accuracy of this draft report.
EPA believes the GAO draft report does not provide a complete or
balanced picture of the Agency's electronic waste program. In
particular, the draft report fails to consider enforcement of the
Cathrode-ray tube (CRT) rule in the larger context of the Resources
Conservation and Recovery Act's (RCRA's) enforcement program and
mischaracterizes EPA's actions with respect to incidents of non-
compliance with the rule. Further, EPA disagrees with the
recommendation to develop a separate program for compliance monitoring
and enforcement of the CRT rule. In reviewing the draft report, we
address each of these issues by providing background on the
responsibilities of the RCRA enforcement program, discussing how EPA
has responded to information provided by GAO, and explaining what EPA
will do to help address the larger issue of non-compliance with the
rule. In addition, we have provided a number of comments, attached,
that correct technical and factual errors we identified during our
review. [See comment 1]
Overall, as a general matter, EPA is concerned that readers of the
report may be misled to believe that a very large percentage of U.S.
electronic waste is currently being reused and recycled globally. To
avoid this mistaken conclusion, the report should put into proper
perspective the amount of used electronics now being reused or
recycled. Consumer electronics - including TVs and other video
equipment, computers, assorted peripherals, audio equipment, and
phones - comprise less than two percent of the municipal solid waste
stream. US EPA, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: Facts and
Figures for 2005. EPA 530-R-06-011. EPA estimates that, in the U.S.,
between 15-20 percent by weight of used and end-of-life electronics
(TVs, computer products, and cell phones) are collected for reuse and
recycling. The remaining 80-85 percent is disposed of domestically,
primarily in landfills. US EPA, Office of Solid Waste. Electronics
Waste Management in the United States: Fact Sheet: Management of
Electronic Waste In the United States. April 2007. EPA530-R-07-004a.
[hyperlink, http://www.epa.gov/ecycling/manage.htm]. [See comment 2]
We also recommend changing the report's title by eliminating the term
"Enforcement," because singling out enforcement does not accurately
reflect the report's content. The report discusses the regulation of
used electronics. In fact, only one of the report's four
recommendations is directed at strengthening enforcement. [See comment
3]
Enforcement:
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and its
counterparts in EPA's 10 regional offices oversee the compliance
monitoring and enforcement program for all environmental statutes,
including RCRA. RCRA regulates the transport, treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous waste. Monitoring compliance and enforcing these
regulations is no small task. Tens of thousands of entities generate
and manage more than 80 billion pounds of hazardous waste a year in the
United States.
EPA does not agree that formally subdividing the RCRA enforcement
program to dedicate resources solely to the CRT export rule is wise or
necessary. [See comment 4] The RCRA regulations governing hazardous
waste are comprehensive and complex and the threats posed to human
health and the environment by non-compliance are serious and diverse.
The current RCRA enforcement program has a demonstrated track record of
success enforcing all of RCRA's requirements. Given the diversity of
facilities and problems that the RCRA enforcement program must address,
it is not practical for EPA to build an extensive compliance monitoring
and enforcement program around every limited provision of the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations. That does not mean that EPA will not take
steps to monitor and compel compliance with the CRT rule. In fact, EPA
has quickly responded to the problems identified by GAO, issuing one
administrative penalty complaint, initiating eight additional
investigations, and planning a number of inspections to take place this
year. [See comment 5]
EPA's RCRA enforcement program makes significant contributions to
protecting human health and the environment. In fiscal year 2007, the
program conducted nearly 4,000 inspections, of which approximately
2,000 revealed incidents of non-compliance with the RCRA hazardous
waste requirements. During the same year, EPA concluded 446 RCRA
enforcement actions. These actions reduced, treated, or eliminated
nearly 100 million pounds of hazardous waste that companies mismanaged,
mischaracterized, or illegally disposed - posing a threat to human
health and the environment. Through these actions, EPA also collected
approximately $9 million in civil penalties and secured complying
actions and supplemental environmental projects totaling over $400
million.
For the majority of the RCRA regulations EPA shares its compliance
monitoring and enforcement authorities with the States. The states
typically conduct more inspections and enforcement actions than EPA,
while EPA tends to focus on facilities and problems where the threats
to human health and the environment are most significant. This leads to
a broad range of cases, against a variety of entities that address a
number of different problems. [See comment 6]
EPA appreciates the time and effort that GAO expended to identify
compliance problems with the CRT rule. The report notes that GAO
discovered 22 shipments where the exporter failed to provide proper
notice; GAO informed EPA of seven of these shipments. In addition, GAO
identified in its report 43 companies that appeared willing to violate
the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Contrary to statements in the
report, EPA does ensure that every tip and complaint is investigated.
[Footnote 1] However, investigations do not always mean "inspections."
[Footnote 2] EPA uses a variety of means to collect evidence, including
working with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to obtain information
and issuing information request letters to exporters or other
potentially liable companies or individuals.[Footnote 3] [See comment
7] To be effective, RCRA enforcement actions require the development of
information and evidence and take time to reach a conclusion. To date,
EPA has issued one administrative penalty complaint against a company
associated with one of the seven shipments, seeking the statutory
maximum civil penalty of $32,500. [See comment 8]
The report suggests that EPA has not taken sufficient action against
violators and bases this conclusion on EPA's statements that for new
rules EPA primarily focuses on outreach to ensure that the regulated
community is aware of the requirements. EPA does follow that general
principle; however, a primary focus on outreach does not mean that EPA
will not take enforcement actions if it learns of specific incidents of
non-compliance. EPA is investigating and will take appropriate action
to address violations of the CRT rule. EPA currently has ten ongoing
investigations and the regions plan to conduct inspections at
electronic waste collection and recycling facilities this year. In
addition to EPA's investigations of the specific incidents shared by
GAO, EPA has initiated an internal discussion to raise awareness of the
issue within the RCRA enforcement program and identify steps that EPA
could take to help address the problem.
Outreach:
The draft report criticizes EPA's implementation of the CRT rule,
stating that "EPA has conducted virtually no outreach beyond a limited
number of presentations..." (See the top of page 31 of the draft
report.) We believe this significantly understates EPA's outreach
efforts to the regulated community relative to the CRT rule. EPA's
outreach efforts consisted of much more than "a limited number of
presentations at annual scrap-recycling conferences." In fact, the
Agency's "Communication Plan" for the CRT rule set forth a number of
specific activities to reach out to the regulated community. We
implemented this plan immediately after the rule was published. EPA
mailed and e-mailed copies of the rule and Fact Sheet to numerous
interested parties, including all relevant trade associations, public
interest groups, states (through the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials), local government
associations, the trade press, and the print media. EPA made many
presentations at major e-waste conferences (which are attended by the
major recyclers), and also invested significant staff time in providing
assistance to the regulated community, states, and others to enhance
their understanding of the rule. Further, EPA spoke with the national
press on issues related to electronics in general and on export
requirements under the CRT rule, specifically. Moreover, EPA believes
our website is an excellent source of information on the rule. We also
believe this statement is contradicted by several statements reflecting
GAO's own experiences in its contacts with electronics recyclers. For
example, in the paragraph that follows (with similar statements made on
pages 7, 21, and 23 through 26 and in the draft report "GAO
Highlights"), GAO states that it observed that recyclers had a
"substantial willingness to engage in activities that would appear to
violate the CRT rule-including instances where the exporters were aware
of the CRT rule...." Additionally, the electronics recycling industries
closely followed the progress of the rule and were well aware of its
issuance through implementation of our outreach strategy and through
their persistent inquiries as to the rule's status. [See comment 11]
The RCRA enforcement program also has discussed the issue at length
during regularly scheduled monthly conference calls and biannual
meetings. OECA has also talked with individual regional offices with
large U.S. ports. These discussions have already led three EPA regional
enforcement programs to conduct additional investigations of companies
beyond those shared by GAO. The conversations have also generated the
following ideas for actions that EPA plans take to better monitor
compliance and enforce the rule:
* Review existing enforcement guidance to determine the need for
modifications to address the unique aspects of compliance monitoring
and enforcement of the CRT rule. Such documents include the National
Program Managers Guidance (2008)(revised annually) and the Hazardous
Waste Enforcement Response Policy (2003).
* Hold discussions with CBP and individual port authorities about the
CRT rule and ways to improve the monitoring of CRT shipments.
* Publicize concluded enforcement actions to deter others from non-
compliance.
* Refer the most serious violations of the CRT rule to the OECA's
Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training (OCEFT) for
criminal investigation into whether the violations were "knowing",
i.e., where the alleged violators knew that they were exporting
electronic waste and were aware of the general hazardous character of
the waste.
* Offer compliance assistance to the e-waste recycling industry, states
and retailers.
EPA believes these actions will lead to increased compliance with the
rule and increase the number of identified violations. Therefore, we
believe that the draft report should be modified to more accurately
reflect the Agency's outreach efforts on the CRT rule.
Regulatory Program:
One of the GAO's recommendations to address electronic waste is for EPA
to "...develop options on broadening its authority to address the
export of other potentially harmful used electronic items that are
currently unregulated." Specifically, GAO identified a number of
options that EPA could consider, including "...amending RCRA
regulations to include exports of used electronics posing health or
environmental risks when disassembled or reclaimed, expanding the scope
of the CRT rule, and revising the regulatory definition of hazardous
waste." (See pg 32 of draft report.) Furthermore, GAO suggested that
"...a revised definition or rule for other used electronics could be
developed to cover only exports or to exempt domestic activity from
substantive requirements if EPA determines that other approaches-such
as voluntary initiatives and existing regulatory controls on recycling
facilities-provide adequate domestic protection of health and the
environment." (See pg 33 of draft report.) GAO also suggested that EPA
examine its authority to regulate used electronics shipped for reuse
under the same control procedures as electronics shipped for recycling
(see pg 34 of draft report).
EPA is well aware of the numerous challenges in appropriately
controlling the management of e-waste, both domestically and
internationally. [See comment 12] However, we are not convinced that
developing a regulatory scheme to address these issues is the most
appropriate course of action. First, as GAO itself acknowledges, the
development of regulations would take several years. In addition, we
believe that there may be legal questions that would limit our
authority or would need to be resolved. For example, many of the
concerns that were identified by GAO deal with worker safety issues,
which are addressed domestically by the Occupational Safety Health Act.
[See comment 13] Additionally, defusing a waste as hazardous based on
another country's management scheme may also raise legal questions
since RCRA does not apply extra territorially. Therefore, because we
believe that we should not wait years to address some of the issues
identified by GAO, we believe that non-regulatory approaches can make
important contributions when it comes to safe exports of electronic
equipment. As an example, EPA, along with numerous other stakeholders,
has invested a great deal of effort over the last couple of years in
our "Responsible Recycling" initiative. `R2' is a voluntary, third-
party, e-waste recycler certification program. EPA is now working with
electronics recyclers on a voluntary basis to determine which exports
of various kinds of electronics equipment are or are not allowed to
enter various foreign countries. We believe we will learn a great deal
about the regulatory programs of countries such as China (including
Hong Kong), South Korea, India, and others through our communication
with the competent authorities in those countries concerning allowable
imports of electronics to those countries.
Regarding EPA's ongoing rulemaking effort related to the Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Council Decision, on
page, 3 the draft report reads as follows - "In 2001, because a
majority of its members are also Basel parties, the OECD council
changed its waste classifications, including what products are
considered hazardous wastes, to harmonize with those of the Basel
Convention. Although the United States has agreed to be bound by such
decisions, the U.S. has not yet implemented the 2001 change." We
believe this statement is misleading and could be read to imply that
under our OECD responsibilities, the U.S. must modify our hazardous
waste determinations to comport with those contained in the Basel
Convention. [See comment 14] This is not the case. The 2001 OECD
Decision still retains the fundamental approach of allowing each Member
country to employ its "national procedures" to determine whether a
waste is hazardous under its laws and regulations, and therefore
whether it is subject to the OECD controls. The national procedures for
the U.S. specify that OECD's "Amber list controls" (i.e., hazardous
waste controls) apply to the wastes that are: (1) defined as RCRA
hazardous waste in 40 CFR 262.3, and (2) subject to Federal hazardous
waste manifesting requirements or to the universal waste management
standards. (See 40 CFR 262.89(a).) Therefore, although the OECD waste
lists were modified to align more closely with the Basel Convention
waste lists, this does not change the scope of wastes in the U.S.
subject to Amber controls, nor does this OECD decision obligate the
U.S. to change its national procedures for defining Amber wastes. A
more accurate description of the waste classification change would be:
In 2001, because a majority of its members are also Basel parties, the
OECD council changed its waste classifications to harmonize with those
of the Basel Convention, although the application of the waste lists is
different under the OECD than it is under Basel.
In addition, while the draft report correctly notes (on page 40) that
the Agency is in the process of modifying its hazardous waste
regulations to reflect the 2001 OECD Council Decision, we believe such
statements (in a footnote) should also be noted when GAO discusses this
issue, such as on pages 3, 8, and 32. [See comment 15]
Furthermore, in a number of places in the draft report, GAO recommends
that EPA could work with Customs and the International Trade Commission
to improve identification and tracking of exported electronics" and
thus enhance control over the export of used electronics. We agree with
GAO and intend to contact representatives of those agencies.
We are providing an enclosure to this response which provides our more
detailed comments on this draft report. We would like your office to
consider our comments as you finalize this report. Please see the
enclosure for additional detailed technical comments.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with your team on this review,
and your consideration of our significant reservations with the
findings and recommendations of this report, If you have any comments
or questions regarding this Agency response, you may contact Margaret
Schneider, Director, Office of Administration and Policy at 202-564-
2530.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Granta Y. Nakayama:
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance:
Signed by:
Susan Parker Bodine:
Assistant Administrator:
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
Comment letter footnotes:
[1] EPA has asked GAO for information regarding the other 15 shipments
but, to date, EPA has not yet received that information from GAO. [See
comment 9]
[2] GAO also appears to criticize EPA for not detaining shipments. EPA
has no explicit authority to detain shipments or seize personal
property under RCRA. With respect to the shipment in Long Beach,
referenced in Figure 5 of the report, CBP exercised its authority to
detain the shipment. CBP also made the decision to release the
containers based on a letter from the exporter to Customs that the
exporter would remove the CRTs from the container. EPA was not aware of
the exporter's letter until after the containers arrived back in Long
Beach, and after Hong Kong had rejected the container for the second
time. [See comment 10]
[3] EPA issues information request letters pursuant to RCRA §3007. 42
U.S.C. 6927 (2000). GAO questions whether we obtain any meaningful
information from such information request letters. EPA commonly issues
information request letters in RCRA investigations. We usually receive
useful information because recipients know that they can be penalized
for failing to respond. A person who fails to respond to such a letter
is subject to penalties of up to $32,500 a day under RCRA. In addition,
all information submitted in response to a 3007 request must be
certified as true, accurate, and complete; a knowing submittal of false
information in response to a 3007 request may be actionable under 18
U.S.C. § 1001 and 42 U.S.C. § 6927(d).
The following are GAO's comments on the Environmental Protection
Agency's letter dated August 1, 2008.
GAO Comments:
1. EPA's statement incorrectly characterizes our recommendation in
asserting that the recommendation calls on EPA "to develop a separate
program for compliance monitoring and enforcement of the CRT rule."
Rather, the recommendation asks EPA to "identify a timetable for
developing and implementing a systematic plan to enforce the CRT rule,"
which would "include the basic elements of effective enforcement such
as enforcement targets, monitoring, follow-up of suspected violations,
and prosecution." We do not see why such basic elements could not be
developed within the context of the overall RCRA enforcement program.
In any case, our May 2008 meeting with EPA officials to discuss
preliminary findings made it apparent that a strategy for enforcing the
rule was needed. Specifically, we were told at that time that the
agency had not begun to consider how it would enforce the rule (it also
did not have a time frame for doing so) because it was still
emphasizing outreach to the regulated community. We continue to believe
that without the minimal elements of a formal enforcement strategy, it
will be difficult to determine whether the single penalty EPA has
levied to date is an isolated action or part of an overall strategy to
deter noncompliance.
2. EPA stated that our report should "put into proper perspective the
amount of used electronics now being reused or recycled," noting that
"80-85 percent is disposed of domestically, primarily in landfills."
EPA's comment implies that because only 15 percent to 20 percent of
used electronics are collected for reuse or recycling (since the other
80 percent to 85 percent is primarily disposed of in landfills), we
overstate the human health and environmental problems associated with
exported used electronics. We find that this response needs to be put
in the proper perspective. First, the document EPA references shows
that 330 million computer products were "ready for end-of-life
management" in 2006. Fifteen to 20 percent of 330 million is not an
insignificant number--especially in light of EPA's acknowledgment that
"a vast majority" of such products are exported. Second, and more
important, it is EPA's stated goal to significantly reduce the 80
percent to 85 percent of used electronics going to landfills--a goal
that is also pursued by a growing number of states enacting bans on
disposing of used electronics in landfills. Over time, the effect of
these efforts can be expected to greatly increase the quantity of used
electronics being both recycled and exported--but especially exported,
given the relatively greater profitability of that alternative. Under
this likely scenario, it will become that much more important to ensure
that exported used electronics are handled safely.
3. We did not delete the word enforcement from the title, as suggested
by EPA, given the state of present CRT rule enforcement. We did,
however, broaden and clarify our title to reflect our findings beyond
enforcement, particularly the limited scope of U.S. regulation. The
title now reads, Electronic Waste: EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful
U.S. Exports through Stronger Enforcement and More Comprehensive
Regulation.
4. This paragraph restates what we believe to be a misinterpretation of
our recommendation. EPA's comment implies we are recommending that the
agency build an extensive compliance monitoring and enforcement program
for the CRT rule. To the contrary, we are recommending that the agency
take reasonable steps to establish a credible enforcement deterrent--
such as developing enforcement targets and plans for monitoring,
following up on suspected violations, and prosecuting violators. We
continue to believe that these actions are necessary and appropriate in
light of what we observed, including exporters willing to engage in
apparent violations despite awareness of the CRT rule. We believe our
own work demonstrates that much can be done to identify violators and
deter noncompliance without establishing the "extensive compliance
monitoring and enforcement program" that EPA describes. In particular,
little effort was required on our part to identify potential violators
and potentially illegal shipments. In just several hours of monitoring
of e-commerce Web sites, we were able to observe substantial
willingness to engage in activities that would appear to violate the
CRT rule. Additionally, in only minutes, we were able to identify 26
potentially illegal CRT shipments by simply e-mailing environmental
protection officials in countries where such imports are known to
occur. While collecting evidence to establish a violation would take
additional efforts, our experience suggests that obtaining leads is
relatively simple.
5. We acknowledge EPA's response to the violations we identified, but
also note that 2 years after the CRT rule's implementation, the agency
has demonstrated little effort to identify noncompliance on its own. We
would note further that the only administrative penalty EPA has issued
to date was on July 31, 2008, more than 5 months after we identified
that violation for the agency in February 2008. Thus, while we
acknowledge this action, we continue to believe that until EPA adopts
the basic elements of an enforcement strategy, it will remain unclear
whether this single penalty was an isolated action--that, in turn, is
unlikely to deter future violations--or part of an emerging enforcement
strategy. We also acknowledge EPA's claim that it is "planning a number
of inspections to take place this year," and see this as a positive
development if it is part of an overall strategy to ensure greater
compliance as part of a formal, written plan.
6. EPA notes that for most RCRA regulations, it shares its compliance
monitoring and enforcement authorities with the states. We acknowledge
that this practice is common among RCRA and other environmental
programs, but, as agency officials told us on May 28, 2008, states do
not have authority over export provisions. Hence, the states' lack of
jurisdiction over this particular issue amplifies the importance of
EPA's role.
7. EPA's letter states that the agency "uses a variety of means to
collect evidence, including working with Customs and Border Protection
to obtain information and issuing information request letters to
exporters or other potentially liable companies or individuals." EPA
does, in fact, have two memorandums of understanding with Customs and
Border Protection to promote information sharing and enforcement of
environmental laws. The memorandum on information sharing addresses
imports only. The memorandum on enforcement of environmental laws is
intended to ensure the timely coordination, communication, and
cooperation necessary to process violations of environmental
regulations as they relate to exports and imports. During our May 28
meeting with EPA officials, they told us they had worked with Customs
and Border Protection only on imports of potentially hazardous waste,
not exports.
8. We applaud EPA's issuance of the administrative penalty on July 31
but, as noted above, believe this action should be part of an emerging
enforcement strategy and not an isolated instance. We also note that we
had identified this particular shipment as a potentially illegal export
of CRT monitors 5 months earlier, after we were told by Hong Kong
authorities that it was being returned to the United States as an
illegal shipment of used electronics. On February 20, 2008, we informed
EPA of the shipment and asked Customs and Border Protection to detain
it. We viewed the container's contents on February 27, 2008, and
observed hundreds of CRT computer monitors stacked haphazardly, some
with cracked plastic cases and broken glass tubes. EPA completed its
action 5 months later.
9. The EPA comment suggests it is waiting for information from us. In
fact, an Office of Solid Waste official told us EPA already has this
information. In January 2008, when we began to uncover potentially
illegal shipments of CRTs where the exporter failed to provide proper
notice, we also began to provide this information to EPA. EPA implies
that it asked us for information on all shipments mentioned in our
draft report. During a June 2008 meeting with the agency, however, EPA
officials asked us to verify only the information we obtained on the
shipments we identified during our review. EPA did not ask us for
information on the containers that were returned before our review
began (although this information would have been easy for EPA to obtain
from Hong Kong environmental protection officials). We understand that
EPA has since obtained this information.
10. EPA's comment suggests that the agency was not aware of the
potential illegality of the three containers until they had been
shipped to Hong Kong for the second time. We find this suggestion
puzzling since we provided EPA with information on these containers
when they were returned from Hong Kong the first time. We had several
telephone conversations and sent numerous e-mails to EPA staff in the
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Before the three
containers were re-exported to Hong Kong, about 4 weeks after being
returned to the Port of Los Angeles, a director in EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance e-mailed us, stating that the
exporting company had contacted Customs and Border Protection and
intended to remove the monitors before shipping the containers back to
Hong Kong. As we note in our report, the exporter did not remove the
monitors. In fact, according to an Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance investigator, the exporter merely changed his company's name
and re-exported the used CRTs.
11. Our characterization of EPA's outreach efforts was based on (1)
interviews during two meetings with EPA officials in May and June 2008,
and (2) an internal EPA document from March 2008--20 months after
adoption of the rule--stating that "the agency still needed to develop
a strategy for educating the regulated community about CRT rule
notification requirements." In our final report, we have nonetheless
used the information provided by EPA to more fully describe what the
agency states is the entire range of its outreach activities. For
example, the agency's communication plan for the CRT rule states that
EPA is to notify its regional offices, state hazardous waste directors,
the press, environmental groups, and relevant associations.
12. EPA contends that because developing options to broaden the
agency's regulations under existing RCRA authority might take several
years and require addressing legal complexities, the agency should
instead pursue nonregulatory, voluntary approaches. We disagree. First,
as EPA's experience has shown, voluntary programs can also take years
to implement--and in some cases may never attain effective broad
coverage since in a voluntary scheme, the agency has no enforcement
recourse against reluctant participants. Second, given the widespread
willingness to export in apparent violation of EPA's one existing
electronics export regulation (the CRT rule), including some exporters'
admitting knowledge of the rule, we do not assume that the industry
will voluntarily agree to adopt and adhere to broader, meaningful
export controls in the absence of a broader, better enforced regulatory
framework.
13. Among the factors EPA cites as drawbacks to the regulatory options
we identified are possible "legal questions that would limit [EPA's]
authority or would need to be resolved" involving the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) and RCRA. We believe these concerns are
not well founded. With respect to the applicability of the OSH Act, EPA
states that many of the concerns our report identified relate to worker
safety risks, which in the United States are regulated under the OSH
Act by another agency. Although EPA's statement is correct as far as it
goes, it does not explain why the other risks our report identified--
risks to the environment--cannot be regulated by EPA under RCRA in the
ways we have suggested. We note that the OSH Act focuses solely on
workplace safety, including controlling exposures to hazardous
materials, while RCRA grants EPA broad authorities to regulate
management of hazardous waste to protect human health and the
environment. Many of the improper management practices we have cited
pose a risk both to workers' health and to the environment (e.g., via
related releases of gases and liquids and potential dumping of
materials without value). Because RCRA and the OSH Act regulate
different aspects of the same toxic substances, applicable OSH Act
regulations may be an appropriate consideration in crafting a RCRA
approach to used electronics. As a part of developing options on how
the agency can broaden its RCRA regulations to address used electronic
devices, EPA should address any legal issues it may identify involving
the OSH Act. With respect to EPA's suggestion that a regulatory program
to include additional used electronics "may also raise legal questions
since RCRA does not apply extraterritorially," we are not suggesting
that EPA apply RCRA extraterritorially. We recommend that EPA develop
options to address management of used electronics under existing RCRA
authority, including RCRA's existing subtitle C export provisions,
which apply to parties in the United States, on the basis of conditions
in the United States. These provisions control exports by imposing
requirements, such as notice and consent, upon parties in the United
States who are exporting regulated wastes. Our recommendation would
expand the scope of the regulated wastes subject to existing export
provisions, not extend the geographical application of the export
provisions themselves. The basis for this expansion of the scope of
regulated wastes subject to export provisions is EPA's existing broad
legal authority under RCRA. Thus, we are not suggesting that EPA
"define a waste as hazardous based on another country's management
scheme." Although our rationale for our recommendation acknowledges the
risks to health and the environment that can occur when these items are
exported, as documented in this report, it also involves concerns about
domestic management, which fall squarely within EPA's RCRA authorities.
[Footnote 33] We believe EPA has authority to regulate at least some
used electronics on the basis of potential domestic mismanagement.
While RCRA provides EPA with broad authority and significant
flexibility in its regulatory approaches, EPA should address any legal
issues it may identify as part of developing options on how the agency
can broaden its RCRA regulations to address used electronic devices.
If, after studying the options that we discuss herein, EPA concludes it
needs additional authority to implement its preferred approach, then
the agency should seek such authority.
14. Our statement is accurate as written. But to avoid any implication
that our OCED responsibilities require the United States to modify its
hazardous waste determinations to comport with those contained in the
Basel Convention, we have added the following sentence: "While the 2001
change does not require changes to the scope of hazardous wastes
regulated in the United States, it does require adoption of the
classification system to facilitate coordination among exporting and
importing countries."
15. We added footnotes as requested, noting that EPA has stated that it
intends in the fall of 2008 to propose regulatory amendments to
implement the 2001 OECD decision.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Steve Elstein, Assistant
Director; Nathan Anderson; Elizabeth Beardsley; Mark A. Braza; Ellen W.
Chu; Michael Derr; Paul Kazemersky; David Stikkers; and Arvin Wu made
key contributions to this report. Also contributing to the report were
Lydia Araya and Katherine Raheb.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Basel Action Network and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Exporting
Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia (Seattle, Washington, and San
Jose, California, Feb. 25, 2002).
[2] Circuit boards (removed from any product) are also regulated under
RCRA. Circuit boards intended to be disposed of, recycled, or reclaimed
would come under the definition of hazardous waste. EPA regulations,
however, provide a conditional exclusion from the hazardous waste
definition for circuit boards that are shredded for recycling after
removal of certain hazardous components and an exemption from the
definition for whole circuit boards to be recycled, which are
considered scrap metal. These circuit boards are not subject to any
regulatory requirements when exported. Any exported circuit boards
intended for disposal must comply with notice-and-consent requirements.
Beyond CRTs and circuit boards, any other used electronics that qualify
as "hazardous" under RCRA regulations would be subject to export
provisions; EPA has stated repeatedly, however, that to its knowledge,
other types of electronics do not fail its threshold toxicity test and
thus are not currently regulated.
[3] The CRT rule requires that any exporter of CRTs for recycling
(which includes reclamation and other processing) must notify EPA at
least 60 days prior to the intended shipment, and that the shipment be
accompanied by and conform with an acknowledgment of consent, provided
by EPA, that documents the importing country's consent. Any exporter of
intact CRTs for reuse (which includes use after repair or
refurbishment) must send EPA a one-time notification and maintain
business records demonstrating that each shipment will be reused. Thus,
broken CRTs (which cannot be reused and can only be recycled) that lack
or fail to conform with an acknowledgment of consent would be in
violation of the CRT rule and therefore regulated as hazardous waste. A
shipment of broken CRTs falsely represented as intact CRTs for reuse
would likewise be considered hazardous waste, since any shipment of
broken CRTs (excluding processed CRT glass) is required to have and to
conform with an acknowledgment (whether shipped for recycling under the
CRT rule or as hazardous waste for disposal). Used CRTs generated by
households are subject to the CRT rule when a recycler or collector
mixes them with CRTs from other sources (e.g., businesses or government
entities).
[4] Since 1961, the OECD has provided a setting where governments
compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify
good practices, and coordinate domestic and international policies,
particularly in the areas of trade, environment, agriculture,
technology, and taxation.
[5] OECD Council, On Exports of Hazardous Wastes from OECD Area,
Decision-Recommendation C(86)64/Final (June 5, 1986). The decision
recommends that member countries implement it by requiring exporters of
hazardous waste to non-OECD countries to provide the exporting country
with documentation that the proposed disposal operation will be
performed in an environmentally sound manner and that the proposed
disposal facility may, under the importing country's laws and
regulations, dispose of the exported wastes.
[6] OECD Council, Concerning the Control of Transfrontier Movements of
Wastes Destined for Recovery Operations, Decision C(92)39/Final (Mar.
30, 1992).
[7] OECD Council, On the Control of Transboundary Movements of Wastes
Destined for Recovery Operations, Decision C(2001)107/Final (June 14,
2001) as amended by Decision C(2004)20 (March 9, 2004), which replaces
Decision C(92)39/Final.
[8] EPA submitted proposed changes to RCRA regulations to the Office of
Management and Budget on May 8, 2008, and EPA officials anticipated
issuing a proposed rule in the Federal Register by mid-November 2008.
[9] The International Association of Electronics Recyclers is a trade
association that represents the electronics recycling industry. Its
stated priority is to promote high standards of environmental quality
and regulatory compliance, as well as high-quality business practices.
[10] It is not possible to determine why the other 279 companies did
not respond to our offers from fictitious foreign brokers. It is likely
that many of our e-mails did not reach recipients because of spam-mail
filters.
[11] As of June 2008, 25 companies have submitted 47 notices for export
of CRTs for recycling to EPA. These companies informed EPA that they
intended to responsibly recycle CRTs at facilities in Brazil, Canada,
Korea, Malaysia, and Mexico.
[12] To establish such a criminal violation in these circumstances, EPA
would need to prove that (1) the party exported CRTs, (2) the party did
not notify EPA as required by the CRT rule, and (3) the party knowingly
failed to notify EPA.
[13] In addition to the location of markets for reusable and recyclable
electronics, a number of reasons lead U.S. companies to export used
products, including waste. Often, the nearest waste management facility
capable of handling a particular waste stream may be just over the
international border from the point of generation. In other cases, a
facility in another country may specialize in treating, disposing of,
or recycling a particular waste. Such a facility may be one of a kind,
or it may present a more environmentally sound management solution for
the waste. In some cases, hazardous wastes constitute "raw" material
for industrial and manufacturing processes in many developing countries
where natural resources are scarce or nonexistent. In addition, using
hazardous wastes is often preferable to natural resource extraction or
hazardous waste disposal.
[14] The Basel Convention also prohibits movement of waste between
parties and nonparties to the convention, except when these movements
occur under an equivalent bilateral or multilateral agreement. The
bilateral or multilateral agreements must provide an equally sound
management structure for transboundary movements of waste.
[15] Asia-Pacific Regional Centre for Hazardous Waste Management
Training and Technology Transfer, Report on the Survey of the Import
and the Environmentally Sound Management of Electronic Wastes in the
Asia-Pacific Region (2005). The Basel Convention Regional Centre in
China, the publisher of this report, is one of 14 regional centers that
assist party countries in controlling the transboundary movement of
hazardous wastes.
[16] Hand dismantling has many positive benefits: more reusable
components can be obtained, and the value of the extracted materials is
higher because of less contamination. Hand dismantling is the
predominant method of recycling in the United States.
[17] EPA issued a special regulation for CRTs because, the agency
stated, the products are hazardous waste under RCRA regulations as they
typically fail EPA's tests for toxicity. EPA also stated that the
principal goal of this regulation was to promote the reuse and
recycling of CRTs.
[18] U.S. exporters of hazardous wastes must comply with all applicable
domestic laws and regulations, which include regulations under RCRA. In
general, a U.S. exporter must prepare and submit certain documents.
Before a shipment proceeds, an exporter must submit to EPA headquarters
a notification of intent to export, describing the type and amount of
waste, its itinerary, the number of shipments expected, and the period
during which shipments will occur. EPA forwards this notification to
the governments of all concerned countries. The government of the
importing country must consent to the shipment before it may proceed.
While a shipment is in transit, an exporter must attach a hazardous
waste manifest to the shipment, along with the acknowledgment of
consent from the importing and transit countries. Finally, an exporter
must file an annual report with EPA headquarters summarizing the
exporter's shipments for the previous calendar year.
[19] EPA regulations pursuant to RCRA state that a solid waste is a
hazardous waste if it exhibits one or more of the characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity or if it is
specifically listed as a hazardous waste (e.g., certain industrial
wastes and pure chemicals). The hazardous characteristic most relevant
to electronics is toxicity. By EPA regulation, toxicity is measured by
a lab procedure called the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure,
which predicts whether a particular waste is likely to leach toxic
chemicals into groundwater at dangerous levels. A waste would fail--and
be regulated as hazardous waste--if the leachate from the test exceeded
specified levels of a toxic contaminant. Because many used electronics
feature constituents such as plastic housing that are not prone to
leach toxics, they are unlikely to exceed the concentrations because
the test is performed on the entire product, not separately on its
potentially toxic constituents.
[20] Despite this export ban, a 2006 European Union report estimates
that since implementation of the ban, a small number of exporters have
shipped over 2 million computer monitors and 1 million televisions out
of the European Union, ostensibly for reuse; many of these items were
probably for dismantling under unsafe conditions.
[21] Six others requested more information about our purchase offer;
two indicated they would sell us only working CRTs; and three said they
would not do business with us because they did not export nonworking
CRTs.
[22] The 43 may represent the tip of an iceberg for a number of
reasons. For example, over a 3-month period, we observed more than 50
U.S companies selling nearly 1.3 million CRTs on two Internet e-
commerce trade sites. In addition, according to California State
officials knowledgeable about the electronics-recycling industry, the
electronics-recycling community is "tight-knit" and tends to operate
only within long-standing, established relationships. They said that
established players do not need to advertise on Web sites for new leads
and would therefore be invisible to us.
[23] We continue to receive requests from this company, including one
from July 2008, seeking a buyer for 60 40-foot containers of used
televisions "available now," or around 48,000 used televisions. On a
Chinese e-commerce Web site, this company states that it has "a
continuous supply of used monitors" and currently has over 200,000
nonworking CRT monitors for sale. On its own Web site, this company
claims that it is a "leader in CRT recycling" and it "satisfies all
state and federal requirements regarding proper disposal of toxic/
hazardous electronic waste," as well as ensuring that "100 percent of
the electronic waste we receive is reused or responsibly recycled."
[24] California's Department of Toxic Substances Control sent
investigators to inspect the containers and, upon inspection, pursued
administrative penalties against the shipper for potentially violating
California's hazardous waste storage and transportation laws. The
outcome of California's action against the shipper was pending as of
August 2008. Like all states, however, California does not have
authority over exports.
[25] EPA advised the public as early as 2001 that CRTs were generally
regulated as hazardous waste because they typically fail the toxicity
test. EPA officials told us, however, that before the CRT rule, the
agency had not made its regulatory policy on CRT exports clear.
[26] The agency's May 2006 communication plan for the CRT rule states
that EPA would notify its regional offices, state hazardous waste
directors, the press, environmental groups, and relevant associations.
It is unclear, however, the extent to which these efforts have focused
on educating the regulated community about the need to notify EPA when
exporting used CRTs. For example, an internal EPA document from March
2008--20 months after adoption of the rule--states that "the agency
still needs to develop a strategy for educating the regulated community
about CRT rule notification requirements." One electronics recycler,
for instance, told us that he has "not seen any effort to publicize the
rule besides seeing it in print, which is in contrast to EPA's previous
[outreach] efforts."
[27] RCRA provides EPA with broad authorities to collect information
and to inspect facilities to investigate suspected violations, as well
as to evaluate compliance. EPA has the authority to contact exporters
who have notified the agency, when appropriate, to ask for verification
that the CRTs are exported for reuse instead of recycling or disposal.
These persons must keep copies of normal business records demonstrating
that each shipment of exported CRTs will be reused, and this
documentation must be retained for 3 years from the date the CRTs were
exported. For any past or present violation, EPA may issue an
administrative enforcement order assessing a penalty of up to $32,500
per day or requiring compliance. Further, EPA may submit a civil
judicial referral to the Department of Justice. RCRA also provides for
criminal penalties for knowing violations; if an exporter of CRTs
knowingly fails to file a notification--or if the CRTs were intended to
be or actually were discarded and the exporter did not obtain an
acknowledgment--then the exporter may be subject to criminal penalties.
Relevant to the CRT rule's documentation requirements, criminal
penalties are authorized for any person who knowingly omits material
information or makes any false material statement or representation in
any document filed, maintained, or used for purposes of compliance with
RCRA regulations or who exports a hazardous waste and knowingly
destroys, alters, conceals, or fails to file any document required to
be maintained or filed. Criminal penalties also are authorized for any
person who knowingly exports a hazardous waste without the consent of
the receiving country. The criminal penalties may include a fine of up
to $50,000 per day of violation or imprisonment of up to 2 years.
[28] EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Guide for
Addressing Environmental Problems: Using a Strategic Approach
(Washington, D.C., March 2007).
[29] Under the Basel Convention, a country may use its own national
definition of hazardous waste. If a country prohibits import of a
hazardous waste, other countries must prohibit or not permit exports of
such wastes to that country.
[30] The owner and an affiliated company were indicted and pleaded
guilty to illegally storing, transporting, and exporting hazardous
waste. The damages imposed as part of the sentences (which included
over $2 million in restitution and fines) covered the port operator's
costs for storing the hazardous wastes for 3 years, the Dutch
government's cost in incinerating the almost 300 tons of hazardous
wastes, and EPA's cost in overseeing the warehouse cleanup in the
United States, according to EPA.
[31] The United States Ambassador to the United Nations signed the
Basel Convention on March 21, 1990. The United States Senate gave
consent to ratification in 1992 (138 Congressional Record 12291-92).
The State Department has advised the Senate that it will not ratify the
convention before the enactment of implementing legislation.
(Ratification occurs when a country submits its documents of
ratification to the Secretariat.) Thus, the next step in ratification
would be congressional passage of implementing legislation, followed by
presentation to the President.
[32] Customs and Border Protection has existing memorandums of
understanding with EPA; EPA, however, told us that its current
coordination activities with Customs focus mainly on imports.
[33] See, for example, GAO, Electronic Waste: Strengthening the Role of
the Federal Government in Encouraging Recycling and Reuse, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-47] (Washington, D.C.: Nov.
10, 2005).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
