Electronic Waste
Harmful U.S. Exports Flow Virtually Unrestricted Because of Minimal EPA Enforcement and Narrow Regulation Gao ID: GAO-08-1166T September 17, 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 damage health and the environment. Items with cathode-ray tubes (CRTs) are particularly harmful because they contain lead, a known toxin. As a result, in January 2007, EPA began regulating the export of CRTs under a rule requiring companies to notify EPA before exporting CRTs. GAO's August 2008 report 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 Internet 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 amount ends up in countries where disposal practices can harm workers and the environment. Recent surveys taken on behalf of the United Nations found that used electronics exported from the United States to many Asian countries are dismantled using methods like open-air incineration and acid baths to extract metals such as copper and gold. Over 3 months, GAO observed thousands of requests for these items on e-commerce Web sites--mostly from Asian countries such as China and India but also from 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 EPA's CRT rule. Posing as foreign buyers of broken CRTs in Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, and other countries, GAO found 43 U.S. companies that expressed willingness to export such CRTs. 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 was identified by GAO. EPA officials acknowledged CRT rule compliance problems but said that given the rule's relative newness, they were focusing on educating the regulated community. This explanation, however, is undermined by GAO's observation of the apparent willingness by many companies to violate the rule, even by those aware of it. Finally, EPA has done little to ascertain the extent of noncompliance, and EPA officials told us that 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 GAO has raised 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 like these could help make U.S. export controls more consistent with those of other industrialized countries.
GAO-08-1166T, Electronic Waste: Harmful U.S. Exports Flow Virtually Unrestricted Because of Minimal EPA Enforcement and Narrow Regulation
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-1166T
entitled 'Electronic Waste: Harmful U.S. Exports Flow Virtually
Unrestricted Because of Minimal EPA Enforcement and Narrow 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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global
Environment, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2:00 a.m. EDT:
Wednesday, September 17, 2008:
Electronic Waste:
Harmful U.S. Exports Flow Virtually Unrestricted Because of Minimal EPA
Enforcement and Narrow Regulation:
Statement of John B. Stephenson, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-08-1166T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-1166T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment, 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 damage
health and the environment. Items with cathode-ray tubes (CRTs) are
particularly harmful because they contain lead, a known toxin. As a
result, in January 2007, EPA began regulating the export of CRTs under
a rule requiring companies to notify EPA before exporting CRTs.
GAO‘s August 2008 report 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 Internet 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 amount ends up in countries where
disposal practices can harm workers and the environment. Recent surveys
taken on behalf of the United Nations found that used electronics
exported from the United States to many Asian countries are dismantled
using methods like open-air incineration and acid baths to extract
metals such as copper and gold. Over 3 months, GAO observed thousands
of requests for these items on e-commerce Web sites”mostly from Asian
countries such as China and India but also from 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 EPA‘s CRT rule. Posing as foreign buyers
of broken CRTs in Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, and other countries, GAO
found 43 U.S. companies that expressed willingness to export such CRTs.
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 was identified by
GAO. EPA officials acknowledged CRT rule compliance problems but said
that given the rule‘s relative newness, they were focusing on educating
the regulated community. This explanation, however, is undermined by
GAO‘s observation of the apparent willingness by many companies to
violate the rule, even by those aware of it. Finally, EPA has done
little to ascertain the extent of noncompliance, and EPA officials told
us that 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 GAO has raised
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 like these could help
make U.S. export controls more consistent with those of other
industrialized countries.
What GAO Recommends:
In its August 2008 report, GAO recommended that EPA (1) develop a
systematic plan to implement and enforce the CRT rule and (2) develop
options to broaden its authority to address the export of other
potentially harmful used electronic items. 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-08-1166T]. For more
information, contact John Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or
stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our recent findings regarding
exports of electronic waste from the United States and the
effectiveness of regulatory controls over export practices. According
to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Americans removed more
than 300 million electronic devices from their households in 2006.
Toxic substances, such as lead, in electronics are well known to harm
people's health, and when electronics are disposed of improperly, these
substances 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 to recycle 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. As the export of these items
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. Environmental groups
have alleged that 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.
Products with cathode-ray tubes (CRTs), such as televisions and
computer monitors, can be especially harmful to humans and the
environment. Accordingly, in the United States, used CRTs are the only
electronic devices regulated as hazardous waste and whose export is
specifically controlled by EPA. Internationally, 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.
Our testimony, which is based on our recent report on electronic waste
exports,[Footnote 1] addresses (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.
Summary:
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. 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
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,
exposing people to lead and other hazardous materials. In particular,
as China's growing economy has driven its demand for raw materials, the
country appears to be relying 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 unsafely recycled,
such items are exported to West African countries primarily for reuse.
Many units are in fact 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. 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. Under U.S. law, only exports of CRTs are regulated as
hazardous waste.
* Regulatory controls easily circumvented. Despite adoption of a CRT
rule in 2006, the export of CRTs from the United States in apparent
violation of the rule seems widespread. 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 that would appear to violate the CRT rule.[Footnote 2] 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 is
required by the CRT rule for actual shipments.[Footnote 3] 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, Hong Kong
officials said, these exports violated Hong Kong's hazardous waste
import laws. 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. 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 the agency has done little to ascertain
the extent of noncompliance. Moreover, Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance officials told us that 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--are also
exported in a manner that does not contribute to human health and
environmental harm overseas. Among the available options--which could
make U.S. export controls more consistent with international norms--is
to propose amending RCRA regulations to include exports of a broader
range of used electronics posing health or environmental risks when
disassembled or reclaimed. Additionally, EPA could enhance U.S. control
over the export of used electronics by submitting a legislative package
to Congress to complete ratification of the Basel Convention and by
working with Customs and Border Protection and the International Trade
Commission to improve identification and tracking of exported used
electronics.
Background:
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 4] 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 has been ratified by 170 countries, including
virtually all industrialized countries except the United States. It
stipulates that a country may ship hazardous waste only after receiving
prior written consent from the receiving country. Additionally, exports
of hazardous waste can occur only under the following circumstances:
(1) if the exporting country does not have sufficient disposal capacity
and (2) if the exporting country does not have disposal sites that can
dispose of the waste in an environmentally sound manner.[Footnote 5]
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 generally cannot be shipped to
developing countries.
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
recycles CRT glass and manufactures new CRT televisions, which can
contain 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 safety conditions, according to Malaysian
environmental protection officials.
Significant Demand Exists for Exported Used Electronics, and Many
Countries Receiving These Items Lack the Capacity to Safely Handle and
Dispose of Them:
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 LCD monitors. On the same site, we found 430
requests for central processing units and 665 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 CRTs--seeking about 7.5 million units. Brokers in developing
countries represented over 60 percent of all requests we observed. Over
75 percent of the requests made by brokers were for $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 that
came from developing countries were from Asia, with China and India
posting by far the largest number; the remaining requests came largely
from Africa (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: 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 1 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]
Unlike the United States, many foreign countries, particularly those in
the developing world, do not have the landfill capacity and regulatory
controls to ensure safe handling and disposal of used electronics.
According to surveys made on behalf of the United Nations Environment
Programme, 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.
China and Hong Kong: 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 6] 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. In one city, the report
found that 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.[Footnote 7]
Indonesia: In March 2007, Indonesian officials reported 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.[Footnote 8] 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.
Cambodia: 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. 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. Items that lack value are often dumped
and sometimes burned (see fig. 2).
Figure 2: Photograph: Open Dump Site for Electronic Waste in Cambodia:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Basel Convention Regional Centre in China.
[End of figure]
India: 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--again, 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.
Western Africa: 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. Some U.S. recyclers,
however, 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.
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 9] 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. 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.
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 has frequently failed to deter 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 10] Many of these companies also actively promote an
environmentally responsible public image, with 3 holding Earth Day 2008
electronics-recycling events. For example:
* 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."
* A 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.
* A representative of an electronics-recycling company in Colorado told
us that the company does not export CRTs, instead asserting that all
CRTs are recycled in-house and that the CRT rule therefore 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 Maryland electronics recycler charges $10 to $30 for CRT monitors
to cover its "responsible, domestic recycling costs," stating that its
mission is to be globally responsible. Yet when we posed as a buyer in
Singapore, the Chief Operating Officer asked what price we were paying
for untested, as-is CRT monitors, suggesting that he was interested in
selling the items to us.
Of note, 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, indicating that government
CRTs may be among those offered for sale to overseas brokers.
EPA Has Done Little to Enforce the CRT Rule:
Our investigation revealed little inclination on EPA's part to enforce
the CRT rule. Since the rule took effect in January 2007, for example,
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.
[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.]
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. 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."
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. Although EPA
acknowledged that the container included used CRTs that may be in
broken or unstable condition, the agency concluded that an inspection
of the container was not necessary to address the apparent
noncompliance. 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 in August.
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 [CRT] rule's
notification provision." Nonetheless, the Deputy Director of the
agency's Office of Civil Enforcement 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.
We believe that EPA's contention, that a focus on enforcement should
await the effects of an education program, has not been substantiated
by the facts. This view implies that violations to date have resulted
largely from unawareness of the rule and not from willful disregard for
it. This implication, however, has clearly not been borne out. With
very 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. 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, nor does it have plans to develop
such a program.
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 11] 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, (1) amending RCRA regulations
to include exports of used electronics posing health or environmental
risks when disassembled or reclaimed, to expand the scope of the CRT
rule, and/or to revise the regulatory definition of hazardous waste,
(2) submitting a legislative package to Congress for ratifying the
Basel Convention, and (3) working with Customs and Border Protection
and with the International Trade Commission to improve identification
and tracking of exported used electronics.
* 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 action 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. 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.
* 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
exporting countries stop shipments of waste if they have reason to
believe that the waste will not be handled in an environmentally sound
manner, as well prohibit exports to countries that have prohibited
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 the U.S.
system have significant distinctions.
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 12] Passage of such legislation would
complete the prerequisites to ratification and, in effect, would make
the United States party to the Basel Convention. Although the 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 to date not been
submitted to Congress. According to EPA Solid Waste officials, the
agency has not submitted the legislative package to Congress because,
at present, it has other priorities for Congressional attention.
* 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. At present,
the schedule's codes do not enable identification of used electronics,
nor do they distinguish between 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 no such code exists for used electronics. U.S. exporters can use 8-
or 10-digit codes, which helps Customs and Border Patrol officials
track more 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's 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 others.
Because of EPA's enforcement and regulatory shortcomings, we
recommended in our August 2008 report 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. We maintain,
however, that the recommendations are fair and well supported, and that
a commitment on EPA's part to address these issues is appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may
have.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841. Steve Elstein, Assistant Director; Nathan Anderson;
Elizabeth Beardsley; Mark Braza; Ellen Chu; Paul Kazemersky; and Arvin
Wu also made key contributions to this statement.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Electronic Waste: EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S.
Exports through Stronger Enforcement and More Comprehensive Regulation,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1044] (Washington,
D.C.: Aug. 28, 2008).
[2] Three others indicated that 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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 government(s) 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.
[5] The Basel Convention also prohibits movement of waste between
parties and non-parties, 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.
[6] 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, December 2005. The Basel Convention has a network
of 14 regional centers that assist party countries in controlling the
transboundary movement of hazardous wastes.
[7] 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. Xia Huo et al., "Elevated Blood
Lead Levels of Children in Guiyu, an Electronic Waste Recycling Town in
China," Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 115, no. July 7, 2007.
[8] Regional Workshop on the Environmentally Sound Management of E-
Wastes, Siem Reap, Cambodia, March 13-15, 2007.
[9] 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.
[10] Six others requested more information about our purchase offer; 2
indicated they would sell us only working CRTs; and 3 others said they
would not do business with us because they did not export nonworking
CRTs.
[11] EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Guide for
Addressing Environmental Problems: Using a Strategic Approach
(Washington, D.C., March 2007).
[12] 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 prior to 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.
[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:
