Electronic Waste
Considerations for Promoting Environmentally Sound Reuse and Recycling Gao ID: GAO-10-626 July 12, 2010Low recycling rates for used televisions, computers, and other electronics result in the loss of valuable resources, and electronic waste exports risk harming human health and the environment in countries that lack safe recycling and disposal capacity. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the management of used electronics that qualify as hazardous waste and promotes voluntary efforts among electronics manufacturers, recyclers, and other stakeholders. However, in the absence of a comprehensive national approach, a growing number of states have enacted electronics recycling laws, raising concerns about a patchwork of state requirements. In this context, GAO examined (1) EPA's efforts to facilitate environmentally sound used electronics management, (2) the views of various stakeholders on the state-by-state approach, and (3) considerations to further promote environmentally sound management. GAO reviewed EPA documents, interviewed EPA officials, and interviewed stakeholders in five states with electronics recycling legislation.
EPA's efforts to facilitate the environmentally sound management of used electronics consist largely of (1) enforcing its rule for the recycling and exporting of cathode-ray tubes (CRT), which contain significant quantities of lead, and (2) an array of partnership programs that encourage voluntary efforts among manufacturers and other stakeholders. EPA has improved enforcement of export provisions of its CRT rule, but issues related to exports remain. In particular, EPA does not specifically regulate the export of many other electronic devices, such as cell phones, which typically are not within the regulatory definition of hazardous waste despite containing some toxic substances. In addition, the impact of EPA's partnership programs is limited or uncertain, and EPA has not systematically analyzed the programs to determine how their impact could be augmented. The views of stakeholders on the state-by-state approach to managing used electronics have been shaped by the increasing number of states with electronics recycling legislation. To varying degrees, the entities typically regulated under the state laws--electronics manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers--consider the increasing number of state laws to be a compliance burden. In contrast, in the five states GAO visited, state and local solid waste management officials expressed overall support for states taking a lead role in the absence of a national approach. The officials attributed their varying levels of satisfaction more to the design and implementation of individual state recycling programs, rather than to the state-by-state approach. Options to further promote the environmentally sound management of used electronics involve a number of policy considerations and encompass many variations, which generally range from a continued reliance on state recycling programs to the establishment of federal standards via legislation. The first approach provides the greatest degree of flexibility to states, but does not address stakeholder concerns that the state-by-state approach is a compliance burden or will leave some states without electronics recycling programs. Moreover, EPA does not have a plan for coordinating its efforts with state recycling programs or articulating how EPA's partnership programs can best assist stakeholders to achieve the environmentally sound management of used electronics. Under the second approach, a primary policy issue is the degree to which federal standards would allow for stricter state standards, thereby providing states with flexibility but also potentially worsening the compliance burden from the standpoint of regulated entities. As a component of any approach, a greater federal regulatory role over exports could address limitations on the authority of states to regulate exports. GAO previously recommended that EPA submit to Congress a legislative proposal for ratification of the Basel Convention, a multilateral environmental agreement that aims to protect against the adverse effects resulting from transboundary movements of hazardous waste. EPA officials told GAO that the agency had developed a legislative proposal under previous administrations but had not finalized a proposal with other federal agencies. GAO recommends that the Administrator, EPA, (1) examine how EPA's partnership programs could be improved to contribute more effectively to used electronics management and (2) work with other federal agencies to finalize a legislative proposal on ratification of the Basel Convention for congressional consideration. EPA agreed with the recommendations.
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: John B. Stephenson Team: Government Accountability Office: Natural Resources and Environment Phone: (202) 512-6225GAO-10-626, Electronic Waste: Considerations for Promoting Environmentally Sound Reuse and Recycling
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-626
entitled 'Electronic Waste: Considerations for Promoting
Environmentally Sound Reuse and Recycling' which was released on
August 11, 2010.
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 Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2010:
Electronic Waste:
Considerations for Promoting Environmentally Sound Reuse and Recycling:
GAO-10-626:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-626, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Science and Technology, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Low recycling rates for used televisions, computers, and other
electronics result in the loss of valuable resources, and electronic
waste exports risk harming human health and the environment in
countries that lack safe recycling and disposal capacity. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the management of used
electronics that qualify as hazardous waste and promotes voluntary
efforts among electronics manufacturers, recyclers, and other
stakeholders. However, in the absence of a comprehensive national
approach, a growing number of states have enacted electronics
recycling laws, raising concerns about a patchwork of state
requirements. In this context, GAO examined (1) EPA‘s efforts to
facilitate environmentally sound used electronics management, (2) the
views of various stakeholders on the state-by-state approach, and (3)
considerations to further promote environmentally sound management.
GAO review-ed EPA documents, interviewed EPA officials, and
interviewed stakeholders in five states with electronics recycling
legislation.
What GAO Found:
EPA‘s efforts to facilitate the environmentally sound management of
used electronics consist largely of (1) enforcing its rule for the
recycling and exporting of cathode-ray tubes (CRT), which contain
significant quantities of lead, and (2) an array of partnership
programs that encourage voluntary efforts among manufacturers and
other stakeholders. EPA has improved enforcement of export provisions
of its CRT rule, but issues related to exports remain. In particular,
EPA does not specifically regulate the export of many other electronic
devices, such as cell phones, which typically are not within the
regulatory definition of hazardous waste despite containing some toxic
substances. In addition, the impact of EPA‘s partnership programs is
limited or uncertain, and EPA has not systematically analyzed the
programs to determine how their impact could be augmented.
The views of stakeholders on the state-by-state approach to managing
used electronics have been shaped by the increasing number of states
with electronics recycling legislation. To varying degrees, the
entities typically regulated under the state laws”electronics
manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers”consider the increasing number
of state laws to be a compliance burden. In contrast, in the five
states GAO visited, state and local solid waste management officials
expressed overall support for states taking a lead role in the absence
of a national approach. The officials attributed their varying levels
of satisfaction more to the design and implementation of individual
state recycling programs, rather than to the state-by-state approach.
Options to further promote the environmentally sound management of
used electronics involve a number of policy considerations and
encompass many variations, which generally range from a continued
reliance on state recycling programs to the establishment of federal
standards via legislation. The first approach provides the greatest
degree of flexibility to states but does not address stakeholder
concerns that the state-by-state approach is a compliance burden or
will leave some states without electronics recycling programs.
Moreover, EPA does not have a plan for coordinating its efforts with
state recycling programs or articulating how EPA‘s partnership
programs can best assist stakeholders to achieve the environmentally
sound management of used electronics. Under the second approach, a
primary policy issue is the degree to which federal standards would
allow for stricter state standards, thereby providing states with
flexibility but also potentially worsening the compliance burden from
the standpoint of regulated entities. As a component of any approach,
a greater federal regulatory role over exports could address
limitations on the authority of states to regulate exports. GAO
previously recommended that EPA submit to Congress a legislative
proposal for ratification of the Basel Convention, a multilateral
environmental agreement that aims to protect against the adverse
effects resulting from transboundary movements of hazardous waste. EPA
officials told GAO that the agency had developed a legislative
proposal under previous administrations but had not finalized a
proposal with other federal agencies.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Administrator, EPA, (1) examine how EPA‘s
partnership programs could be improved to contribute more effectively
to used electronics management and (2) work with other federal
agencies to finalize a legislative proposal on ratification of the
Basel Convention for congressional consideration. EPA agreed with the
recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-626] or key
components. For more information, contact John B. Stephenson at (202)
512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
EPA Has Contributed to the Sounder Management of Used Electronics, but
Its Results Are Limited or Uncertain:
Stakeholders' Views on the State-by-State Approach to Managing Used
Electronics Vary Widely:
Options for Promoting the Environmentally Sound Management of Used
Electronics Involve Basic Policy Considerations:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: State Electronics Recycling Programs:
Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Key Characteristics of the Electronics Recycling Legislation
in Five Selected States:
Figure:
Figure 1: States with Electronics Recycling Legislation:
Abbreviations:
CalRecycle: Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery:
CRT: cathode-ray tube:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
EPEAT: Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool:
R2: Responsible Recycling:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 12, 2010:
The Honorable Bart Gordon:
Chairman:
Committee on Science and Technology:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Each year, consumers purchase millions of electronic devices, such as
televisions, computers, and cell phones, and are faced with what to do
with their used electronics. Recycling[Footnote 1] can recover a
variety of materials, including precious metals, and many electronics
can be reused or contain reusable components. Yet, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and industry data show that tens of millions
of used electronics are thrown away each year. Moreover, because used
electronics often contain toxic substances, such as lead and mercury,
their end-of-life management raises concerns about the potential
adverse impacts on human health and the environment, particularly when
used electronics are exported to countries that lack a safe recycling
and disposal capacity.
The management of used electronics may be subject to a combination of
federal and state regulations as well as nonregulatory, or voluntary,
efforts. At the federal level, EPA regulates the handling and disposal
of used electronics that qualify as hazardous waste, such as those
that fail EPA's tests for toxicity.[Footnote 2] In particular, items
with cathode-ray tubes (CRT), such as older televisions and computer
monitors, contain significant quantities of lead. EPA also works with
electronics manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers; state
governments; environmental groups; and other stakeholders under
partnership programs that seek to ensure the environmentally sound
management of used electronics. At the state level, numerous states
have enacted laws establishing electronics collection and recycling
programs, including mechanisms for funding the cost of recycling. As
of June 2010, 23 states had enacted some type of electronics recycling
legislation. Other states have banned certain electronics from
landfills or funded voluntary recycling efforts. Such efforts have
increased recycling opportunities for consumers but raised concerns
about the growth of a patchwork of state requirements.
In this context, GAO examined (1) EPA's current efforts to facilitate
the environmentally sound management of used electronics; (2) the
views of manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, state and local
governments, and other stakeholders on the current state-by-state
approach to the management of used electronics; and (3) considerations
for further promoting the environmentally sound management of used
electronics.
To address these objectives, we reviewed EPA documents and interviewed
EPA officials regarding efforts to promote the environmentally sound
management of used electronics. We also interviewed representatives of
an array of national organizations of stakeholders affected by or
concerned with management of used electronics, including
manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, state and local governments, and
environmental groups. To gain insights into the impact of state
electronics recycling laws, we studied in detail the programs in five
states--California, Maine, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington. We
selected states to represent a range of models for financing recycling
programs. In addition, we selected states with recycling programs that
had been in place long enough for stakeholders to provide an
assessment of the impacts of the legislation. In each state, we
interviewed representatives of state and local governments, collectors
and recyclers of used electronics that operate under the state program
as well as refurbishers of used electronics, state retail
associations, and state environmental groups. During these interviews,
we generally discussed the impact of state legislation on collection
rates for used electronics, convenience of disposal options for
consumers, and environmentally sound management of electronics
collected under the state programs. We also obtained stakeholders'
views on options to further promote the environmentally sound
management of used electronics. While recognizing that stakeholders
may benefit from state legislation, such as through an increase in
business opportunities for electronics recyclers, we specifically
asked about the burden (if any) created by the state-by-state approach.
We encountered a number of limitations in the availability of reliable
data on the impact of the state-by-state approach on various
stakeholders. For example, the five states we selected did not have
data on collection and recycling rates prior to the effective dates of
their laws, which would be useful to quantify the impact of their
programs. Similarly, some manufacturers and other stakeholders
regulated under state laws had concerns about providing us with
proprietary information or did not identify compliance costs in a way
that enabled us to determine the portion of costs that stems from
having to comply with differing state requirements. Due to such
limitations, we relied predominately on stakeholders' statements
regarding how they have been impacted under the state-by-state
approach. Appendix I contains detailed information on the scope and
methodology of this report.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2009 to July 2010 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those 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
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
The management of used electronics presents a number of environmental
and health concerns. EPA estimates that only 15 to 20 percent of used
electronics (by weight) are collected for reuse and recycling, and
that the remainder of collected materials is primarily sent to U.S.
landfills. While a survey conducted by the consumer electronics
industry suggests that EPA's data may underestimate the recycling
rate, the industry survey confirms that the number of used electronics
thrown away each year is in the tens of millions. As a result,
valuable resources contained in electronics, including copper, gold,
and aluminum, are lost for future use. Additionally, while modern
landfills are designed to prevent leaking of toxic substances and
contamination of groundwater, research shows that some types of
electronics have the potential to leach toxic substances with known
adverse health effects. Used electronics may also be exported for
recycling or disposal. In August 2008, we reported that, while such
exports can be handled responsibly in countries with effective
regulatory regimes and by companies with advanced technologies, a
substantial amount ends up in countries that lack the capacity to
safely recycle and dispose of used electronics.[Footnote 3]
We also have previously reported on the economic and other factors
that inhibit recycling and reuse.[Footnote 4] For example, many
recyclers charge fees because their costs exceed the revenue they
receive from selling recycled commodities or refurbishing units.
Household electronics, in particular, are typically older and more
difficult to refurbish and resell, and, thus, may have less value than
those from large institutions. In most states, it is easier and
cheaper for consumers to dispose of household electronics at a local
landfill. Moreover, as EPA and others have noted, the domestic
infrastructure to recycle used electronics is limited, and the major
markets for both recycled commodities and reusable equipment are
overseas.
The United States does not have a comprehensive national approach for
the reuse and recycling of used electronics, and previous efforts to
establish a national approach have been unsuccessful. Under the
National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative, a key previous
effort that was initially funded by EPA, stakeholders met between 2001
and 2004, in part to develop a financing system to facilitate reuse
and recycling. Stakeholders included representatives of federal,
state, and local governments; electronics manufacturers, retailers,
and recyclers; and environmental organizations. Yet despite broad
agreement in principle, stakeholders in the process did not reach
agreement on a uniform, nationwide financing system. For example, they
did not reach agreement on a uniform system that would address the
unique issues related to televisions, which have longer life spans and
cost more to recycle than computers. In the absence of a national
approach, some states have since addressed the management of used
electronics through legislation or other means, and other stakeholders
are engaged in a variety of voluntary efforts.
State Electronics Recycling Legislation:
In the 9 years that have passed since stakeholders initiated the
National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative in an ultimately
unsuccessful attempt to develop a national financing system to
facilitate the reuse and recycling of used electronics, 23 states have
enacted some form of electronics recycling legislation. For example,
some of these state laws established an electronics collection and
recycling program and a mechanism for funding the cost of recycling
(see figure 1).
Figure 1: States with Electronics Recycling Legislation:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map]
States with producer responsibility legislation:
Connecticut;
Hawaii;
Illinois;
Indiana;
Maine;
Maryland;
Michigan;
Minnesota;
Missouri;
New Jersey;
New York;
North Carolina;
Oklahoma;
Oregon;
Rhode Island;
South Carolina;
Texas;
Vermont;
Virginia;
Washington;
West Virginia;
Wisconsin.
State with a recycling fee paid by consumers:
California.
Sources: GAO analysis of state electronics recycling laws; Map
Resources (map).
[End of figure]
The state laws represent a range of options for financing the cost of
recycling and also differ in other respects, such as the scope of
electronic devices covered under the recycling programs, with
televisions, laptop computers, and computer monitors frequently among
the covered electronic devices.[Footnote 5] Similarly, while the state
laws generally cover used electronics generated by households, some
laws also cover used electronics generated by small businesses,
charities, and other entities.
Five of the states--California, Maine, Minnesota, Texas, and
Washington--represent some of the key differences in financing
mechanisms. California was early to enact legislation and is the only
state to require that electronics retailers collect a recycling fee
from consumers at the time of purchase of a new electronic product
covered under the law. These fees are deposited into a fund managed by
the state and used to pay for the collection and recycling of used
electronics.
In contrast, the other four states have enacted legislation making
manufacturers selling products in their jurisdictions responsible for
recycling or for some or all of the recycling costs. Such laws are
based on the concept of "producer responsibility" but implement the
concept in different ways. In Maine, state-approved consolidators of
covered used electronics bill individual manufacturers, with the
amount billed for particular electronics being based in part either on
the manufacturer's market share of products sold or on the share of
used electronics collected under the state's program. Under the
Minnesota law, manufacturers either must meet recycling targets by
arranging and paying for the collection and recycling of an amount in
weight based on a percentage of their sales or must pay recycling
fees. Texas requires that manufacturers establish convenient "take-
back" programs for their own brands of equipment. Finally, the
Washington law requires that manufacturers establish and fund
collection services that meet certain criteria for convenience, as
well as transportation and recycling services. Table 1 summarizes the
key characteristics of the electronics recycling legislation in these
five states.
Table 1: Key Characteristics of the Electronics Recycling Legislation
in Five Selected States:
State: California;
Program start date: 2005;
Financing mechanism: Retailers collect a fee from consumers at the
point of sale. The state uses the fees to pay for collection and
recycling;
Covered electronic devices: Video display devices with a screen size
greater than 4 inches, measured diagonally, identified in regulations
as presumed hazardous;
Entities whose discarded devices are covered: Any user of a covered
electronic device located within the state.
State: Maine;
Program start date: 2006;
Financing mechanism: Municipalities provide collection and arrange
transport to state-approved consolidators, which generally bill
individual manufacturers for recycling costs;
Covered electronic devices: Computers, printers, video game consoles,
and video display devices with a screen size greater than 4 inches,
measured diagonally;
Entities whose discarded devices are covered: Households.
State: Minnesota;
Program start date: 2007;
Financing mechanism: Manufacturers of video display devices are
responsible for recycling a target amount of covered electronic
devices or for paying a recycling fee;
Covered electronic devices: Computers, computer peripherals, facsimile
machines, DVD players, video cassette recorders, and video display
devices with a screen size greater than 9 inches, measured diagonally;
Entities whose discarded devices are covered: Households.
State: Texas;
Program start date: 2008;
Financing mechanism: Manufacturers collect and recycle their own
brands. Collection must be convenient and not require a fee at the
time of recycling;
Covered electronic devices: Desktop and notebook computers, computer
monitors without a tuner, and accompanying mice and keyboards;
Entities whose discarded devices are covered: Individuals who use
computer equipment purchased primarily for personal or home business
use.
State: Washington;
Program start date: 2009;
Financing mechanism: Manufacturers participate in a state-approved
independent or standard plan for collection, transport, and recycling.
A plan must provide collection service in every county and in every
city or town with a population greater than 10,000;
Covered electronic devices: Cathode-ray tube or flat-panel computer
monitors and televisions having a viewable area greater than 4 inches,
measured diagonally; desktop computers; and laptop or portable
computers;
Entities whose discarded devices are covered: Households, charities,
school districts, small businesses employing fewer than 50 people, and
small governments (cities with a population fewer than 50,000,
counties with a population fewer than 125,000, and special purpose
districts).
Source: GAO analysis of state electronics recycling legislation.
Note: See appendix II of this report for additional information about
these five state programs.
[End of table]
Other State and Voluntary Efforts:
As of June 2010, the remaining 27 states had not enacted legislation
to establish electronics recycling programs. In some of these states,
legislation concerning electronics recycling has been proposed, and
some state legislatures have established commissions to study options
for the management of used electronics. In addition, some of these
states, as well as some of the states with recycling legislation, have
banned certain used electronics, such as CRTs, from landfills. In
states with no mechanism to finance the cost of recycling, some local
governments that offer recycling bear the recycling costs and others
charge fees to consumers. Also, some states have funded voluntary
recycling efforts, such as collection events or related efforts
organized by local governments. For example, Florida has provided
grants to counties in the state to foster the development of an
electronics recycling infrastructure.
A variety of entities offer used electronics collection services,
either for a fee or at no charge. Localities may organize collection
events or collect used electronics at waste transfer stations. A
number of electronics manufacturers and retailers support collection
events and offer other services. For example, Best Buy offers free
recycling of its own branded products and drop-off opportunities for
other products at a charge that is offset by a store coupon of the
same value; Dell and Goodwill Industries have established a
partnership to provide free collection services at many Goodwill
donation centers; and a number of electronics manufacturers collect
used electronics through mail-back services offered to consumers. Some
manufacturers and retailers also have made voluntary commitments to
manage used electronics in an environmentally sound manner and to
restrict exports of used electronics that they collect for recycling.
EPA Has Contributed to the Sounder Management of Used Electronics, but
Its Results Are Limited or Uncertain:
EPA has taken some notable steps to augment its enforcement of
regulations on exports of CRTs for recycling, but the export of other
used electronics remains largely unregulated. In addition, the effect
of EPA's partnership programs on the management of used electronics,
although positive, is limited or uncertain.
EPA Has Improved Its Enforcement of CRT Export Regulations, but the
Export of Other Used Electronics Remains Largely Unregulated:
To encourage the recycling and reuse of used CRTs, EPA amended its
hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act by establishing streamlined management requirements. If
certain conditions are met, the regulations exclude CRTs from the
definition of solid waste and thereby from the regulations that apply
to the management of hazardous waste. The conditions include a
requirement that exporters of used CRTs for recycling notify EPA of an
intended export before the shipments are scheduled to leave the United
States and obtain consent from the importing country. In contrast,
exporters of used, intact CRTs for reuse (as opposed to recycling) may
submit a one-time notification to EPA and are not required to obtain
consent from the importing country.[Footnote 6] The export provisions
of the CRT rule became effective in January 2007.
We reported in August 2008 that some companies had appeared to have
easily circumvented the CRT rule, and that EPA had done little to
enforce it.[Footnote 7] In particular, we posed as foreign buyers of
broken CRTs,[Footnote 8] and 43 U.S. companies expressed a willingness
to export these items. Some of the companies, including ones that
publicly touted their exemplary environmental practices, were willing
to export CRTs in apparent violation of the CRT rule. Despite the
apparently widespread potential for violations, EPA did not issue its
first administrative penalty complaint against a company for
potentially illegal shipments until the rule had been in effect for 1˝
years, and that penalty came as a result of a problem we had
identified. In response to our prior report, EPA officials
acknowledged some instances of noncompliance with the CRT rule but
stated that, given the rule's relative newness, their focus was on
educating the regulated community.
Since our prior report's issuance, however, EPA has initiated
investigations and taken several enforcement actions against companies
that have violated the notice-and-consent requirement for export of
CRTs for recycling. For example, in December 2009, the agency issued
an order seeking penalties of up to $37,500 per day to a company that
failed to properly manage a shipment of waste CRTs. According to EPA,
the company did not provide appropriate notice to the agency or to
China, the receiving country, where customs authorities rejected the
shipment. Similarly, in December 2009, EPA announced that two
companies that failed to notify the agency or receive written consent
from China of a shipment of waste CRTs for recycling entered
agreements with EPA, with one company agreeing to pay a fine of over
$21,000.
Despite steps to strengthen enforcement of the CRT rule, issues
related to CRT exports and to exports of other used electronics
remain. First, as we reported in August 2008, exports of CRTs for
reuse in developing countries have sometimes included broken units
that are instead dumped. EPA's CRT rule does not allow such exports
and requires that exporters keep copies of normal business records,
such as contracts, demonstrating that each shipment of exported CRTs
will be reused. However, the rule does not require exporters to test
used equipment to verify that it is functional. Moreover, according to
EPA, the agency has focused its investigations under the CRT rule on
companies that have failed to provide export notifications altogether.
In contrast, the agency has not yet conducted any follow-up on
notifications of exports for reuse to protect against the dumping of
nonworking CRTs in developing countries by ensuring that the CRTs
companies are exporting are, in fact, suitable for reuse.
Second, CRTs are the only electronic devices specifically regulated as
hazardous waste under EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
regulations.[Footnote 9] Many other electronic devices, however,
contain small amounts of toxic substances, and according to EPA,
recent studies have shown that certain used electronics other than
CRTs, such as some cell phones, sometime exceed the act's regulatory
criteria for toxicity when evaluated using hazardous waste test
protocols. Finally, because one of the purposes of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act is to promote reuse and recovery, EPA's
rules under the act exclude used electronics and disassembled
component parts that are exported for reuse from the definition of
"solid waste" and, therefore, from hazardous waste export
requirements, regardless of whether the used electronics exceed the
toxicity characteristic regulatory criteria.[Footnote 10]
EPA's Partnership Programs Have Had a Positive but Limited Effect:
EPA has worked with electronics manufacturers, retailers, recyclers,
state governments, environmental groups, and other stakeholders to
promote partnership programs that address the environmentally sound
management of used electronics. In addition, EPA comanages a program
to encourage federal agencies and facilities to purchase
environmentally preferable electronics and manage used electronics in
an environmentally sound manner. Key programs include the following:
* Responsible Recycling practices. EPA convened electronics
manufacturers, recyclers, and other stakeholders and provided funding
to develop the Responsible Recycling (R2) practices, with the intent
that electronics recyclers could obtain certification that they are
voluntarily adhering to environmental, worker health and safety, and
security practices. Certification to the R2 practices became available
in late 2009. According to EPA officials, the R2 practices represent a
significant accomplishment in that they provide a means for
electronics recyclers to be recognized for voluntary commitments that,
according to EPA, go beyond what the agency is able to legally
require. The R2 practices identify "focus materials" in used
electronics, such as CRTs or items containing mercury, that warrant
greater care due to their toxicity or other potential adverse health
or environmental effects when managed without the appropriate
safeguards. The practices specify that recyclers (and each vendor in
the recycling chain) export equipment and components containing focus
materials only to countries that legally accept them. The practices
also specify that recyclers document the legality of such exports.
Upon request by exporters, EPA has agreed to help obtain documentation
from foreign governments regarding whether focus materials can be
legally imported into their country.
* Plug-In To eCycling. To promote opportunities for individuals to
donate or recycle their used consumer electronics, EPA began to
partner with electronics manufacturers, retailers, and mobile service
providers in 2003. Under the Plug-In To eCycling program, partners
commit to ensuring that the electronics refurbishers and recyclers
they use follow guidelines developed by EPA for the protection of
human health and the environment. Among other things, the current
guidelines call for minimizing incineration and landfill disposal and
for ensuring that exports comply with requirements in importing
countries. According to EPA, Plug-In To eCycling partners have
collected and recycled steadily increasing quantities of used
electronics,[Footnote 11] and some partners have expanded the
collection opportunities they offer to consumers (e.g., from
occasional events to permanent locations).
* Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool. Developed under a
grant from EPA and launched in 2006, the Electronic Product
Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) helps purchasers select and
compare computers and monitors on the basis of their environmental
attributes. EPEAT evaluates electronic products against a set of
required and optional criteria in a number of categories, including
end-of-life management. To qualify for registration under EPEAT, the
sale of all covered products to institutions must include the option
to purchase a take-back or recycling service that meets EPA's Plug-In
To eCycling recycling guidelines. Auditing of recycling services
against the guidelines is an optional criterion. Currently, EPA is
participating with other stakeholders in the development of additional
standards covering televisions and imaging equipment, such as copiers
and printers.
* Federal Electronics Challenge. To promote the responsible management
of electronic products in the federal government, EPA comanages the
Federal Electronics Challenge, a program to encourage federal agencies
and facilities to purchase environmentally preferable electronic
equipment, operate the equipment in an energy-efficient way, and
manage used electronics in an environmentally sound manner. According
to EPA, partners reported in 2009 that 96 percent of the computer
desktops, laptops, and monitors they purchased or leased were EPEAT-
registered, and that 83 percent of the electronics they took out of
service were reused or recycled. One of the national goals of the
Federal Electronics Challenge for 2010 is that 95 percent of the
eligible electronic equipment purchased or leased by partnering
agencies and facilities be registered under EPEAT. Another goal is
that 100 percent of the non-reusable electronic equipment disposed of
by partners be recycled using environmentally sound management
practices.[Footnote 12]
While EPA and other stakeholders have contributed to progress in the
partnership programs, the impact of the programs on the management of
used electronics is limited or uncertain. For example, the Plug-In To
eCycling program does not (1) include a mechanism to verify that
partners adhere to their commitment to manage used electronics in
accordance with EPA's guidelines for the protection of human health
and the environment or (2) confirm the quantity of used electronics
collected under the program.
In addition, because the development of electronics purchasing and
recycling standards is ongoing or only recently completed, it is too
soon to determine how the standards will affect the management of used
electronics collected from consumers. EPA officials told us that the
agency lacks the authority to require electronics recyclers to adhere
to the R2 practices, since most electronics are not hazardous waste
under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations. EPA
participated in the development of the practices through a process
open to a range of stakeholders concerned with the management of used
electronics. Two environmental groups that participated in the process
withdrew their support because the R2 practices failed to address
their concerns (e.g., about the export of used electronics). As a
result, one of the groups, the Basel Action Network, spearheaded the
development of another standard (i.e., e-Stewards®) under which
electronics recyclers may be certified on a voluntary basis. EPA is
currently considering whether and how to reference such recycler
certification standards in other programs, such as Plug-In To eCycling.
Furthermore, EPEAT currently focuses on electronic products sold to
institutions but not to individual consumers. In particular, the
requirement that manufacturers of EPEAT-registered computers and
monitors offer a take-back or recycling service to institutional
purchasers does not currently apply to sales to individual consumers.
According to an EPA official participating in development of the
standards, EPA and other stakeholders plan to begin work in 2010 on
expanding the standard for computer equipment into the consumer
marketplace, and stakeholders are still discussing whether the new
EPEAT standards for imaging equipment and televisions, which will
cover electronics sold to individual consumers, will include a
required or optional criterion for take back of such electronics.
In October 2009, we reported that an increasing number of federal
agencies and facilities has joined the Federal Electronics Challenge,
but we also identified opportunities for higher levels of
participation and noted that agencies and facilities that participate
do not maximize the environmental benefits that can be achieved.
[Footnote 13] We reported, for example, that agencies and facilities
representing almost two-thirds of the federal workforce were not
program partners, and that only two partners had reported to EPA that
they managed electronic products in accordance with the goals for all
three life-cycle phases--procurement, operation, and disposal.
[Footnote 14] We concluded that the federal government, which
purchases billions of dollars worth of information technology
equipment and services annually, has the opportunity to leverage its
substantial market power to enhance recycling infrastructures and
stimulate markets for environmentally preferable electronic products
by broadening and deepening agency and facility participation in the
Federal Electronics Challenge. However, EPA has not systematically
analyzed the agency's partnership programs, such as the Federal
Electronics Challenge, to determine whether the impact of each program
could be augmented.
Stakeholders' Views on the State-by-State Approach to Managing Used
Electronics Vary Widely:
To varying degrees, the entities regulated under the state electronics
recycling laws--electronics manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers--
consider the increasing number of laws to be a compliance burden. In
contrast, in the five states we visited, state and local solid waste
management officials expressed varying levels of satisfaction with
individual state recycling programs, which they attributed more to the
design and implementation of the programs, rather than to any burden
caused by the state-by-state approach. (See appendix II for a
description of key elements of the electronics recycling programs in
the five states.)
Manufacturers, Retailers, and Recyclers View the State-by-State
Approach as a Compliance Burden to Varying Degrees:
Electronics manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers described various
ways in which they are affected by the current state-by-state approach
toward the management of used electronics, with manufacturers
expressing the greatest concern about the lack of uniformity.
Manufacturers:
The scope of manufacturers regulated under state electronics recycling
laws, as well as how states define "manufacturer," varies by state.
The laws apply to both multinational corporations as well as small
companies whose products may not be sold in every state and, depending
on the law, to manufacturers of both information technology equipment
and televisions. In some states, such as Maine and Washington, the
number of regulated manufacturers is over 100.
Because most state electronics recycling laws are based on the
producer responsibility model, these laws, by design, assign
manufacturers significant responsibility for financing and, in some
states, for arranging the collection and recycling of used
electronics. As a result, the two electronics manufacturer
associations we interviewed, as well as eight of the nine individual
manufacturers, told us that the state-by-state approach represents a
significant compliance burden. The individual manufacturer that did
not consider the state-by-state approach to be a significant burden
explained that the company is not currently manufacturing covered
electronic devices (specifically televisions) and, therefore, does not
have responsibilities under most of the state laws.
Depending on the specific provisions of state laws, examples of the
duplicative requirements that individual manufacturers described as
burdensome included paying annual registration fees to multiple state
governments, submitting multiple reports to state environmental
agencies, reviewing and paying invoices submitted by multiple
recyclers, and conducting legal analyses of state laws to determine
the responsibilities placed on manufacturers. A representative of a
manufacturer of information technology equipment said that, due to the
time needed to ensure compliance with differing state laws, the
company cannot spend time on related activities, such as finding ways
to reduce the cost of complying with the state laws or ensuring that
electronics are recycled in an environmentally sound manner.
Representatives of one manufacturer noted that even states with
similar versions of producer responsibility legislation differ in
terms of specific requirements, such as the scope of covered
electronic devices, registration and reporting deadlines, and the
types of information to be submitted. As a result, they said that they
needed to conduct separate compliance efforts for each state, rather
than implement a single compliance program. A few manufacturers also
told us that their current compliance costs are in the millions of
dollars and are increasing as more states enact electronics recycling
legislation. For example, a Sony representative said that he expects
the amount the company spends in 2010 to comply with the requirements
in states with producer responsibility laws to increase almost
sevenfold over the amount spent in 2008.
While the producer responsibility model is based on the assumption
that manufacturers pass along the cost of recycling to consumers in
the form of higher prices, the electronics manufacturer associations,
as well as individual manufacturers, described inefficiencies and
higher costs created by the state-by-state approach that they said
could be reduced through a uniform national approach. For example, the
Consumer Electronics Association cited a 2006 report, which the
association helped fund, on the costs that could be avoided under a
hypothetical, single national approach.[Footnote 15] The report
estimated that, with 20 different state programs, manufacturers would
spend an additional $41 million each year, and that the total
additional annual costs among all stakeholders--including
manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, and state governments--would be
about $125 million.
Both the Consumer Electronics Association, most of whose members the
association considers to be small electronics manufacturers, as well
as the Information Technology Industry Council, which represents large
manufacturers, told us that some provisions of state laws--such as
registration fees that do not take into account the number of covered
electronic devices sold in a state--can create a disproportionate
burden on small manufacturers. For example, Maine's law imposes a
$3,000 annual registration fee on all manufacturers, regardless of
size or sales volume. One small manufacturer told us that Maryland's
initial registration fee of $10,000 exceeded the company's $200
profits from sales in the state. The manufacturer said that, if all 50
states imposed such fees, the company would not remain in business.
Similarly, the need to analyze differing requirements in each state
law requires staff resources that, unlike their larger counterparts,
small manufacturers may lack.
Despite the costs of complying with state electronics recycling
legislation, representatives of the two electronics manufacturer
associations we interviewed, as well as most of the individual
manufacturers, told us that state laws based on the producer
responsibility model have not led to the design of electronic products
that are less toxic and more recyclable, which some states cite as one
of the purposes for making manufacturers responsible for the
management of used electronics. Manufacturers cited the following
reasons for the lack of an impact on product design:
* the inability of manufacturers to anticipate how recycling practices
and technologies may develop over time and incorporate those
developments into the design of products that may be discarded only
after years of use;
* some producer responsibility laws, such as in Minnesota and
Washington, making individual manufacturers responsible for recycling
not their own products but a general category of devices, including
those designed by other manufacturers; and:
* the greater impact of other factors on product design, such as
consumer demand and the use by institutional purchasers of EPEAT to
select and compare electronic devices on the basis of their
environmental attributes.
Retailers:
Retailers generally affected by state electronics recycling laws
include national chains as well as small electronics shops. Some
retailers, such as Best Buy, sell their own brand of covered
electronic devices and are also classified as manufacturers under
certain states' laws. As an example of the number of retailers covered
under the laws, information from the state of California indicates
that over 15,000 retailers have registered to collect the state's
recycling fee, and state officials estimated that large retailers
collect 80 percent of the revenues.
While the requirements imposed by state electronics recycling
legislation on retailers typically are less extensive than the
requirements pertaining to manufacturers, representatives of national
and state retail associations we interviewed, as well as individual
electronics retailers, described ways that the state-by-state approach
creates a compliance burden. For example, according to the Consumer
Electronics Retailers Coalition, certain state requirements, such as
prohibitions on selling the products of electronics manufacturers that
have not complied with a state's law, are difficult for large
retailers to implement since they do not use state-specific networks
for distributing products to their stores. Rather, electronic products
are developed, marketed, and sold on a national and even global basis.
Similarly, representatives of the Consumer Electronics Retailers
Coalition, as well as the majority of individual retailers and state
retail associations in the five states we visited, told us that state
"point-of-sale" requirements to collect a fee (in California) or
distribute information on recycling when consumers purchase an
electronic product represents a burden (e.g., many retailers operate
their point-of-sale systems out of a centralized location yet are
required to meet differing requirements in each state). Some retailers
also expressed concern that states have difficulty in enforcing
requirements on Internet retailers and, as a result, that businesses
with a physical presence in the state are disadvantaged. This point is
supported by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, which
has indicated that the department lacks sufficient staff to ensure
that retailers that sell exclusively on the Internet comply with the
sales ban on products from noncompliant manufacturers.
Retailers also expressed concerns over specific provisions of
individual state laws. For example, representatives of the California
Retailers Association said their members consider the state's
requirement to collect a recycling fee at the point of sale and remit
the fee to the state to be particularly burdensome, even though the
law allows retailers to retain 3 percent of the fee as reimbursement
for their costs. One retailer explained that collecting the fee also
generates resentment against the retailer among customers who are
unaware of the state's recycling law. Similarly, according to the
Minnesota Retailers Association, retailers found it challenging to
gather and report accurate sales data required to calculate
manufacturer recycling targets under the state's law. In response to
concerns over collecting and reporting sales data, Minnesota amended
its law to eliminate this requirement and to use national sales data
instead.
Retailers that sell their own brand of covered electronic devices and
are classified as manufacturers under a particular state's law must
meet all requirements imposed on either type of entity. Similarly,
Best Buy and other retailers that offer customers a take-back service
for used electronics are considered authorized collectors under some
state programs and, as a result, are subject to additional
registration and reporting requirements. Best Buy officials told us
they face unique challenges under the state-by-state approach because
they participate in programs as a retailer; a manufacturer; and, in
some cases, a collector. For example, the officials cited 47 annual
reporting and registration deadlines to comply with requirements
imposed on manufacturers, 19 annual reporting or review dates
associated with retailer requirements, and 6 annual reporting or
registration dates associated with collector requirements.
Recyclers:
Electronics recyclers range from large multinational corporations to
small entities with a location in one state and encompass a range of
business models. For example, some recyclers focus on "asset
disposition"--that is, providing data destruction and computer
refurbishment services to businesses and large institutions--and other
recyclers focus on recovering valuable commodities, such as precious
metals. The use of "downstream" vendors to process various components
separated from electronics is common, and many of the downstream
entities, such as those that recycle glass from CRTs, are located
overseas. Numerous nonprofit organizations refurbish used computers
for use by schools, low-income families, and other nonprofit
organizations both in the United States and overseas.
The degree to which the recyclers we interviewed expressed concerns
about the state-by-state approach varied. While state laws have
established differing registration, reporting, and record-keeping
requirements for recyclers and, where specified, different methods of
payment for the cost of recycling or collection, some recyclers said
they are not generally impacted by such differences (e.g., they
operate in only one state with electronics recycling legislation or
they can cope with differing state requirements for environmentally
sound management by adhering to the most stringent requirements). One
recycler even pointed out that the existence of various state laws can
create business opportunities. In particular, rather than attempt to
develop their own programs to comply with differing state
requirements, manufacturers may decide to contract with recyclers that
may have greater familiarity with the provisions of different laws.
In contrast, other recyclers expressed concern over the burden of
meeting the requirements of differing state laws. Due to the
differences among state laws and the programs as implemented, these
recyclers may have to carry out different tasks in each state to be
reimbursed, such as counting and sorting covered electronic devices by
brand and invoicing individual manufacturers; marketing and selling
the amount of used electronics they have processed to manufacturers
that must meet recycling targets; and, in California, submitting
recycling payment claims to the state government. One recycler told us
that the differences among state laws create a disincentive for
establishing operations in other states, while another mentioned how
small variations among state laws can significantly affect a
recycler's capacity to do business in a state. Another recycler added
that the state-by-state approach hinders the processing of large
volumes of used electronics from households and the ability to
generate economies of scale that would reduce recycling costs.
Almost all of the electronics recyclers we interviewed, including
those in each of the five states we studied in detail, told us that
they are concerned about the ability of irresponsible recyclers to
easily enter and undercut the market by charging low prices without
processing the material in an environmentally sound manner. While such
undercutting might persist even under a national approach to managing
used electronics, the recyclers identified a number of factors in the
state-by-state approach that magnify the problem, including their
perception of a lack of enforcement by state environmental agencies.
In addition, according to recyclers in California and Washington, some
recyclers export--rather than domestically recycle--electronic devices
not covered under the state laws, which is less costly and thereby
gives them a competitive advantage over recyclers that do not engage
in exports, even where legal.
Some recyclers and refurbishers of used electronics told us that state
laws foster recycling at the expense of reuse, even though
refurbishment and reuse is viewed by EPA as being more environmentally
friendly than recycling. Specifically, according to these
stakeholders, some state programs focus on collecting and recycling
used electronics but not refurbishing them, thereby creating a
financial incentive to recycle used electronics that could otherwise
be refurbished and reused. For example, in Minnesota, only the amount
in weight of collected used electronics that is recycled counts toward
manufacturers' performance targets. According to one refurbisher in
the state, this provision leads to the recycling of equipment that is
in working condition and reusable. Similarly, California pays for the
cost of collecting and recycling used electronics but not for
refurbishment. In contrast, according to a Texas affiliate of Goodwill
Industries that recycles and refurbishes used electronics, the state's
law promotes reuse of used electronics. For example, by requiring that
manufacturers establish take-back programs but not setting recycling
targets, the Texas law avoids creating an incentive to recycle used
electronics that can be refurbished.
State and Local Governments Are Mainly Concerned with the Success of
Their Individual Recycling Programs:
In the five states that we selected for detailed review, state and
local government officials expressed varying levels of satisfaction
with their electronics recycling laws. In addition, while some state
and local governments had participated in the National Electronics
Product Stewardship Initiative in an attempt to develop a national
financing system for electronics reuse and recycling, the state and
local officials we interviewed generally said that the state-by-state
approach had not hindered the successful implementation of electronics
recycling programs in their jurisdictions. Rather, they attributed
their level of satisfaction to the design of the programs, such as the
degree to which the programs provide a financing source for collecting
and recycling used electronics and the effectiveness of efforts to
educate consumers.
None of the five states had statewide data on collection rates prior
to implementation of the electronics recycling programs to quantify
the impact of the laws, but state and local officials provided a
variety of anecdotal information to illustrate the laws' impact, such
as collection rates in local communities and trends in the dumping of
used electronics on roadsides and other areas.[Footnote 16] Moreover,
the experiences described by state and local officials in the five
states illustrate that both general financing models--producer
responsibility and a recycling fee paid by consumers--are viable and
have the potential to ensure convenient collection opportunities.
Local solid waste management officials in the five states we visited
expressed varying levels of satisfaction with state electronics
recycling legislation in terms of reducing their burden of managing
used electronics. On one hand, local officials in Washington told us
that the state's law requiring that manufacturers establish a
convenient collection network for the recycling of used electronics
has been successful in increasing collection opportunities and
relieving local governments of recycling costs. Similarly, local
officials in California said the state's use of a recycling fee for
reimbursing collection and recycling costs had relieved their
governments of the burden of managing used electronics by making it
profitable for the private sector to provide collection and recycling
services. On the other hand, according to local solid waste management
officials in Texas, the lack of specific criteria in the provision of
the state's law requiring that manufacturers collect their own brands
of used computer equipment limited the law's impact on increasing the
convenience of collection opportunities. In addition, the officials
said the state government had not done enough to educate residents
about the law. As a result, they said that local governments were
still bearing the burden of managing used computer equipment.
State and local solid waste management officials we interviewed from
three states without electronics recycling legislation also expressed
varying levels of satisfaction with their voluntary efforts to promote
recycling under the state-by-state approach to managing used
electronics. For example, a county hazardous waste coordinator in
Florida said the county used funding from the state to establish an
electronics recycling program that is self-sustaining and free to
households, but he also said that the state-by-state approach is
cumbersome. Similarly, Florida state officials said that every state
county has recycling opportunities, although collection could be more
convenient. A representative of the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials said that, without a
mechanism to finance the cost of recycling used electronics, local
governments that provide recycling opportunities may be bearing the
cost of providing such services, which can impose a financial burden
on communities. In addition, while most of the state and local
officials we interviewed from states without legislation said that the
state-by-state approach does not represent a burden, Arizona state
officials pointed out an increased burden of ensuring the
environmentally sound management of used electronics collected in a
neighboring state (California) and shipped to their state, since
California has an electronic waste law, but Arizona does not.
While state environmental officials we interviewed agreed that the
burden of the state-by-state approach falls primarily on the regulated
industries, they also acknowledged a number of aspects of the state-by-
state approach that limit or complicate their own efforts, including
the following:
* The need to ensure that state programs do not pay for the recycling
of used electronics from out of state. In California, where the state
reimburses recyclers $0.39 per pound for the cost of collecting and
recycling covered electronic devices, state environmental officials
said that they have regularly denied 2 to 5 percent of the claims
submitted by recyclers due to problems with documentation, and that
some portion of the denied claims likely represents fraudulent claims
for the recycling of used electronics collected from other states. To
prevent the recycling fee paid by consumers in the state from being
used to finance the cost of recycling used electronics from other
states, California requires that collectors of used electronics (other
than local governments or their agents) maintain a log that includes
the name and address of persons who discard covered electronic
devices, and the state checks the logs to ensure that it pays only for
the recycling of devices generated within the state. California state
officials responsible for implementing the electronics recycling
legislation said that the time spent on ensuring this requirement is
met is a significant contributor to their workload. State and local
government officials in other states we visited also acknowledged the
potential for their programs to finance the recycling of used
electronics collected from out of state, but these officials did not
consider the problem to be widespread or difficult to address. For
example, a Maine official said that, as a standard practice, waste
collection facilities in the state check the residency of individuals,
including when the facilities collect used electronics for recycling.
* Ability to ensure compliance with state requirements for
environmentally sound management. State environmental officials in the
five states we visited described varying levels of oversight to ensure
the environmentally sound management of used electronics collected
under their programs. For example, California conducts annual
inspections of recyclers approved under the state program. Among other
things, the state's inspection checklist covers the packaging and
labeling of electronic devices, the training of personnel on how to
handle waste, the tracking of waste shipments, and the procedures and
protective equipment needed to manage the hazards associated with the
treatment of electronic devices. In contrast, citing limited
resources, officials in Minnesota said they rely on spot checks of
large recyclers, and officials in Texas said they have prioritized
regular, scheduled enforcement of other environmental regulations over
the requirements adopted by the state for the recycling of
electronics. Even in California, state officials said that their
ability to ensure the environmentally sound management of waste
shipped out of state is limited because, while covered devices must be
dismantled in California to be eligible for a claim within the state's
payment system, residuals from the in-state dismantling and treatment
of covered devices may be shipped out of state. Intact but noncovered
electronic devices are not subject to the California program and hence
may also be shipped out of state. The problem is exacerbated because
many of the "downstream" vendors used to process materials separated
from electronics are located overseas, which further limits the
ability of state officials to ensure that recyclers are conducting due
diligence on downstream vendors and that the materials are being
managed in an environmentally sound manner. (See appendix II for
additional information on the requirements for environmentally sound
management in the five states we studied in detail.)
Environmental Groups Cited the Accomplishments of State Electronics
Recycling Programs but Acknowledged Limitations in States' Ability to
Address Exports:
In each of the five states we visited, state environmental nonprofit
organizations either advocated for the enactment of state electronics
recycling legislation or have been active in tracking the
implementation of the laws. In addition, a number of groups advocate
on issues related to the management of used electronics on a national
or international basis. For example, the Electronics TakeBack
Coalition, which includes a number of nonprofit organizations,
advocates for producer responsibility as a policy for promoting
responsible recycling in the electronics industry, and the Basel
Action Network works in opposition to exports of toxic wastes to
developing counties.
Like state and local government officials in the five states we
visited, state environmental groups we interviewed described the
design of the state recycling programs, rather than the state-by-state
approach, as the primary factor in the success of the programs.
Representatives of the state environmental groups in four of the five
states--California, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington--said that they
considered their state program to have been successful in providing
convenient collection opportunities and in increasing the collection
rates of used electronics. For example, citing a 2007 survey of Maine
municipalities, a representative of the Natural Resources Council of
Maine said that the collection opportunities under the state program
are more convenient than anticipated, although convenience could be
improved for some state residents. Similarly, a representative of
Californians Against Waste said that the state's recycling fee had
resulted in convenient collection opportunities and in steadily
increasing collection rates, and that a recycling fee paid by
consumers is no less effective than the producer responsibility model
in promoting the collection of used electronics.
In contrast, echoing the results of a 2009 survey conducted by the
organization, a Texas Campaign for the Environment representative said
that the state's law had not had a significant impact on the
collection and recycling of used electronics, because both consumers
and local solid waste management officials are unaware of the
opportunities manufacturers are to provide under the law for the free
collection and recycling of electronics discarded by households. In
addition, the organization is critical of the fact that the Texas law
does not cover televisions, and that the governor vetoed a bill that
would have made television manufacturers responsible for recycling,
including costs.
Some environmental groups pointed out that, in and of itself, the
ability of a state program to improve collection rates does not
necessarily ensure that used electronics will be recycled in an
environmentally sound manner. Key issues raised by environmental
groups as complicating the effectiveness of state programs included a
lack of adequate requirements for the environmentally sound management
of used electronics or requirements that differ among states, limited
state resources or oversight to ensure compliance with the
requirements, and a lack of authority to address concerns about
exports. For example, a representative of the Basel Action Network
said that provisions in state laws regarding exports, such as those in
California, could be challenged on constitutional grounds since the
Constitution generally gives the federal government the authority to
regulate commerce with foreign nations, thereby limiting states'
authorities to do so.
Options for Promoting the Environmentally Sound Management of Used
Electronics Involve Basic Policy Considerations:
Options to further promote the environmentally sound management of
used electronics involve a number of basic policy considerations and
encompass many variations. For the purposes of this report, we
examined two endpoints on the spectrum of variations: (1) a continued
reliance on state recycling programs supplemented by EPA's partnership
programs and (2) the establishment of federal standards for state
electronics recycling programs. Further federal regulation of
electronic waste exports is a potential component of either of these
two approaches.
Continued Reliance on State Recycling Programs Supplemented by EPA's
Partnership Programs:
Under a national approach for managing used electronics on the basis
of a continuation of the current state-by-state approach, EPA's
partnership programs, such as Plug-In To eCycling, would supplement
state efforts. Most used electronics would continue to be managed as
solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, with a
limited federal role. For example, beyond its establishment of minimum
standards for solid waste landfills, EPA is authorized to provide
technical assistance to state and local governments for the
development of solid waste management plans and to develop suggested
guidelines for solid waste management.
EPA's partnership programs can supplement state recycling efforts in a
variety of ways. For example, Minnesota state environmental officials
told us that they hope to incorporate the R2 practices into the
state's standards for the environmentally sound management of used
electronics. However, as we have previously noted, the impact of the
EPA's promotion of partnership programs on the management of used
electronics is limited or uncertain. Moreover, EPA does not have a
plan for coordinating its efforts with state electronics recycling
programs or for articulating how EPA's partnership programs, taken
together, can best assist stakeholders to achieve the environmentally
sound management of used electronics. For example, while partnership
programs such as Plug-In To eCycling can complement state programs,
EPA does not have a plan for leveraging such programs to promote
recycling opportunities in states without electronics recycling
legislation.
Key Implications of a Continuation of the State-by-State Approach:
Among the key implications of a continuation of the state-by-state
approach are a greater flexibility for states and a continuation of a
patchwork of state recycling efforts, including some states with no
electronics recycling requirements.
Greater flexibility for states. This approach provides states with the
greatest degree of flexibility to engage in recycling efforts that
suit their particular needs and circumstances, whether through
legislation or other mechanisms, such as grants for local communities.
For example, according to local solid waste management officials in
Texas, which has enacted electronics recycling legislation, the state
has not banned the disposal of electronics in landfills, and the
officials pointed to factors, such as the state's landfill capacity,
that would work against a landfill ban. In contrast, New Hampshire,
which has limited landfill capacity, has banned the disposal of
certain electronics in landfills but has not enacted a law that
finances the recycling of used electronics.[Footnote 17] The state's
solid waste management official told us that the state's approach had
been successful in diverting a large amount of used electronics from
disposal in landfills, and an official with the state's municipal
association told us that residents of the state accept that they must
pay fees to cover the cost of waste disposal services, including
electronics recycling. A state-by-state approach also allows for
innovations among states in enacting electronics recycling
legislation. For example, a representative of the Electronics TakeBack
Coalition told us that state electronics recycling legislation can be
effective in providing convenient collection opportunities and in
increasing collection and recycling rates, but that more time is
needed to be able to assess the impact of the state programs. The
representative described the state programs as laboratories for
testing variations in the models on which the programs are based, such
as the use of recycling targets in the producer responsibility model,
and for allowing the most effective variations to be identified.
A continuation of the patchwork of state recycling efforts. While the
state-by-state approach may provide states with greater regulatory
flexibility, it does not address the concerns of manufacturers and
other stakeholders who consider the state-by-state approach to be a
significant compliance burden. The compliance burden may actually
worsen as more states enact laws (e.g., the number of registration and
reporting requirements imposed on manufacturers may increase). One
manufacturer pointed out that, while some states have modeled their
laws on those in other states, even in such cases, states may make
changes to the model in ways that limit any efficiency from the
similarities among multiple laws. In addition to creating a compliance
burden, the state-by-state approach does not ensure a baseline in
terms of promoting the environmentally sound reuse and recycling of
used electronics, not only in states without electronics recycling
legislation but also in states with legislation. For example, unlike
some other state electronics recycling legislation, the Texas law does
not require manufacturers to finance the recycling of televisions,
which may require a cost incentive for recycling, since the cost of
managing the leaded glass from televisions with CRTs may exceed the
value of materials recycled from used equipment. Furthermore, the
requirements for the environmentally sound management of used
electronics vary among states, and state environmental agencies engage
in varying levels of oversight to ensure environmentally sound
management. For example, according to the state solid waste management
official in New Hampshire, budget constraints prevent the state from
being able to track what happens to used electronics after they are
collected.
Stakeholder Efforts to Ease the Compliance Burden of the State-by-
State Approach:
Various stakeholder efforts are under way to help coordinate state
programs and relieve the compliance burden, although some stakeholders
have pointed to limitations of such efforts. In particular, in January
2010, a number of state environmental agencies and electronics
manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers helped form the Electronics
Recycling Coordination Clearinghouse, a forum for coordination and
information exchange among the state and local agencies that are
implementing electronics recycling laws and all impacted stakeholders.
[Footnote 18] Examples of activities planned under the clearinghouse
include collecting and maintaining data on collection volumes and
creating a centralized location for receiving and processing
manufacturer registrations and reports required under state laws.
Other examples of stakeholder efforts to ease the compliance burden
include the formation of the Electronic Manufacturers Recycling
Management Company, a consortium of manufacturers that collaborate to
develop recycling programs in states with electronics recycling
legislation. In addition, individual states have made changes to their
recycling programs' legislation after identifying provisions in their
laws that created unnecessary burdens for particular stakeholders. For
example, Minnesota amended its law to remove the requirement that
retailers annually report to each manufacturer the number of the
manufacturer's covered electronic devices sold to households in the
state--a requirement that retailers found particularly burdensome.
A number of stakeholders, however, including members of the
Electronics Recycling Coordination Clearinghouse, have pointed to
limitations of stakeholder efforts to coordinate state electronics
recycling programs. According to representatives of the Consumer
Electronics Association, concerns over federal antitrust provisions
limit cooperation among manufacturers for the purpose of facilitating
compliance with the state laws. For example, cooperation among
manufacturers trying to minimize the cost of compliance would raise
concerns among electronics recyclers about price-fixing. Similarly,
the executive director of the National Center for Electronics
Recycling, which manages the Electronics Recycling Coordination
Clearinghouse, told us states are unlikely to make changes to
harmonize basic elements of state laws that currently differ, such as
the scope of covered electronic devices and the definitions of terms
such as "manufacturer."[Footnote 19]
Establishment of Federal Standards for Electronics Recycling Programs:
Under a national strategy based on the establishment of federal
standards for state electronics recycling programs, federal
legislation would be required. For the purpose of analysis, we assumed
that the legislation would establish federal standards and provide for
their implementation--for example, through a cooperative federalism
approach whereby states could opt to assume responsibility for the
standards or leave implementation to EPA, through incentives for
states to develop complying programs, or through a combination of
these options. Within this alternative, there are many issues that
would need to be addressed. A primary issue of concern to many
stakeholders is the degree to which the federal government would (1)
establish minimum standards, allowing states to adopt stricter
standards (thereby providing states with flexibility but also
potentially increasing the compliance burden from the standpoint of
regulated entities), or (2) establish fixed standards. Further issues
include whether federal standards would focus on the elements of state
electronics recycling laws that are potentially less controversial and
have a likelihood of achieving efficiencies--such as data collection
and manufacturer reporting and registration--or would focus on all of
the elements, building on lessons learned from the various states.
Issue of Establishing Minimum Federal Standards versus Fixed Federal
Standards:
An overriding issue of concern to many stakeholders is the degree to
which federal standards would be established as minimum standards,
fixed standards, or some combination of the two. In this context, we
have assumed that either minimum or fixed standards would, by
definition, preempt less stringent state laws and lead to the
establishment of programs in states that have not enacted electronics
recycling legislation. Minimum standards would be intended to ensure
that programs in every state met baseline requirements established by
the federal government, while allowing flexibility to states that have
enacted legislation meeting the minimum standards to continue with
existing programs, some of which are well-established. In contrast,
under fixed federal standards, states would not be able to establish
standards either stricter or more lenient than the federal standards.
Thus, fixed standards would offer relatively little flexibility,
although states would still have regulatory authority in areas not
covered by the federal standards.
As we have previously reported,[Footnote 20] minimum standards are
often designed to provide a baseline in areas such as environmental
protection, vehicle safety, and working conditions. For example, a
national approach based on minimum standards would be consistent with
the authority given to EPA to regulate hazardous waste management
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which allows for
state requirements that are more stringent than those imposed by EPA.
Such a strategy can be an option when the national objective requires
that common minimum standards be in place in every state, but stricter
state standards are workable. Conversely, fixed standards are an
option when stricter state standards are not workable. For example, to
provide national uniformity and thereby facilitate the increased
collection and recycling of certain batteries, the Mercury-Containing
and Rechargeable Battery Management Act does not allow states the
option of establishing more stringent regulations regarding
collection, storage, and transportation, although states can adopt and
enforce standards for the recycling and disposal of such batteries
that are more stringent than existing federal standards under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Most manufacturers we interviewed told us they prefer fixed federal
standards over minimum standards. For example, these manufacturers are
concerned that many states would opt to exceed the minimum federal
standards, leaving manufacturers responsible for complying with
differing requirements, not only in the states that have electronics
recycling legislation but also in the states currently without
legislation. In contrast, most state government officials and
environmental groups we interviewed told us that they would prefer
minimum federal standards over fixed federal standards as a national
approach for the management of used electronics. In addition, a
representative of the National Conference of State Legislatures told
us that the organization generally opposes federal preemption but
accepts that in the area of environmental policy, the federal
government often sets minimum standards. According to the
representative, even if federal requirements were of a high standard,
states may want the option to impose tougher standards if the need
arises. Similarly, some legislative and executive branch officials in
states with electronics recycling legislation expressed concern that
federal standards for electronics recycling would be of a low
standard. As a result, the officials said they want to preserve the
ability of states to impose more stringent requirements.
To help address manufacturer concerns about a continuation of the
state-by-state approach under minimum standards, the federal
government could encourage states not to exceed those standards. For
example, establishing minimum standards that are relatively stringent
might reduce the incentive for states to enact or maintain stricter
requirements. Consistent with this view, some of the state electronics
recycling laws, including those in four of the five states we studied
in detail, contain provisions for discontinuing the state program if a
federal law takes effect that meets specified conditions (e.g.,
establishing an equivalent national program).
Other Issues to Consider in Establishing Federal Standards:
Based on our review of state electronics recycling legislation and
discussions with stakeholders regarding a national strategy for the
management of used electronics, we identified a range of issues that
would need to be considered and could be addressed as part of the
establishment of federal standards for state electronics recycling
programs, including the following issues:
The financing of recycling costs. A potential element in federal
standards for state electronics recycling programs would be a
mechanism for financing the cost of recycling. For example,
representatives of the Consumer Electronics Association told us they
support a national approach with a single financing mechanism.
Similarly, the California and Washington laws stipulate that their
programs be discontinued if a federal law takes effect that
establishes a national program, but only if the federal law provides a
financing mechanism for the collection and recycling of all electronic
devices covered under their respective laws. While there are
differences among their views, most stakeholders we interviewed,
including some manufacturers, said they would prefer that any federal
standards be based on some form of the producer responsibility model
rather than on a recycling fee paid by consumers because, for example,
they consider the producer responsibility model more efficient to
implement in comparison with the resources devoted to collecting a
recycling fee and reimbursing recyclers. Even California state
government officials, who were generally pleased with what has been
accomplished under the state's recycling fee and payment model,
expressed openness to the producer responsibility model. The level of
support for producer responsibility represents a shift in the views of
some manufacturers. In particular, representatives of the Information
Technology Industry Council told us that television manufacturers
previously supported a recycling fee paid by consumers because of the
frequent turnover of television manufacturers and the problem of
assigning recycling costs for legacy equipment whose original
manufacturer is no longer in business, no longer makes televisions, or
otherwise cannot be determined. According to the council, with only
one state having enacted legislation based on a recycling fee,
television and other manufacturers now support the producer
responsibility model.
The allocation of costs and responsibilities among stakeholders. Even
under a producer responsibility model, stakeholders other than
manufacturers would participate in the implementation of state
electronics recycling legislation, and the costs of collecting and
recycling used electronics can be assigned in different ways. For
example, while they support the producer responsibility model,
Information Technology Industry Council representatives have proposed
that the model be based on "shared responsibility," whereby various
entities that profit from the sale of electronic devices--including
electronics distributors, retailers, and other stakeholders--all
contribute to the cost of collection and recycling. In a variation of
the concept of shared responsibility, under Maine's electronics
recycling legislation participating local governments generally bear
collection costs and manufacturers finance recycling costs. The way in
which costs and responsibilities are allocated can also create
inequities from the standpoint of certain stakeholders. For example,
certain manufacturers may pay more or less than others depending on
whether recycling costs are based on the weight of a manufacturer's
own brand of electronics collected for recycling (return share) or on
the amount of a manufacturer's new products sold (market share). Under
a return share system, long-standing manufacturers bear a greater
proportion of the costs in comparison with newer manufacturers with
fewer used electronics in the waste stream. In contrast, a market
share system can result in newer manufacturers with a large market
share financing the recycling of products produced by their
competitors.
The division of federal and state responsibilities for implementation
and enforcement. Federal standards can be implemented directly by a
federal agency, by the states with some degree of federal oversight,
or through state implementation in some states and direct federal
implementation in others. For example, EPA develops hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and has
encouraged states to assume primary responsibility for implementation
and enforcement through state adoption of the regulations, while EPA
retains independent enforcement authority. Regarding used electronics,
the division of responsibilities among the federal and state
governments would have a direct bearing on EPA's resource
requirements. EPA has previously cautioned that assigning
responsibilities to the agency--such as for registration of
electronics manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers; collection of
registration fees; approval of manufacturer recycling programs; and
authorization of parallel state programs for electronics recycling--
would be costly and time-consuming to implement. Similarly, a
representative of the National Conference of State Legislatures said
the organization would oppose any federal requirements that do not
provide a source of funding to states for implementing the
requirements, and a representative of the National Governors
Association pointed out that states not currently having electronics
recycling legislation would express concern about the administrative
costs of implementing an electronics recycling program.
Determination of the scope of covered electronic devices. Stakeholders
have cited a variety of criteria for determining the scope of
electronic devices covered by state recycling laws. For example, some
stakeholders have cited the growing volume of used electronics in
comparison with limited landfill capacity or the presence of toxic
substances in many electronics. In contrast, other stakeholders have
argued that cell phones and other mobile devices, which may contain
toxic substances, should not be included with other used electronics
(e.g., mobile devices can be easily collected through mail-back
programs). As yet another alternative, stakeholders have cited the
loss of valuable resources, such as precious metals, when used
electronics are disposed in landfills, as well as the environmental
benefits of extending the life of used electronics through
refurbishment, as a key consideration in electronics recycling
legislation. An issue closely related to the scope of covered
electronic devices is the scope of entities whose used electronics are
covered under programs for financing the cost of recycling. The state
electronics recycling laws typically include used electronics from
households, but some states also include other entities, such as small
businesses and nonprofit organizations that may otherwise need to pay
a fee to recycle used electronics in an environmentally sound manner,
while California's law is nontargeted and includes any user of a
covered electronic device located within the state.
Further Federal Regulation of Exports Is a Potential Component of
Either Approach to Managing Used Electronics:
In doing our work, we found that a potential component of either
approach that we discuss for managing used electronics is a greater
federal regulatory role over exports to (1) facilitate coordination
with other countries to reduce the possibility of unsafe recycling or
dumping and (2) address the limitations on the authority of states to
regulate exports. Assuming a continuation of the factors that
contribute to exports, such as a limited domestic infrastructure to
recycle used electronics, an increase in collection rates resulting
from electronics recycling laws, either at the state or federal level,
is likely to lead to a corresponding increase in exports, absent any
federal restrictions. While, as we have previously noted, exports can
be handled responsibly in countries with effective regulatory regimes
and by companies with advanced technologies, some of the increase in
exports may end up in countries that lack safe recycling and disposal
capacity.
Exports of used electronics are subject to a range of state
requirements and guidelines in the five states we visited.
Nevertheless, many of the state officials we interviewed expressed
support for federal action to limit harmful exports because, for
example, states lack adequate authority and resources to address
concerns about exports. Washington state officials noted that their
governor vetoed a provision of the state's electronic waste
legislation that addressed exports of electronics collected under the
program because of concerns about the state's lack of authority to
prohibit such exports. The governor instead called for federal
legislation prohibiting the export of hazardous waste to countries
that are not prepared to manage the waste. In addition, under
"preferred standards" established by the state, recyclers can be
contractually obligated to ensure that countries legally accept any
imports of materials of concern. Washington state officials told us
that establishing preferred standards helped the state partially
address concerns about used electronics exports, notwithstanding
potential limitations on the state's authority, but that further
federal regulation of exports would still be helpful.
In our August 2008 report,[Footnote 21] we made two recommendations to
EPA to strengthen the federal role in reducing harmful exports. First,
we recommended that EPA consider ways to broaden its regulations under
existing Resource Conservation and Recovery Act authority to address
the export of used electronic devices that might not be classified as
hazardous waste by current U.S. regulations but might threaten human
health and the environment when unsafely disassembled overseas. For
example, we suggested that EPA consider expanding the scope of the CRT
rule to cover other exported used electronics and revising the
regulatory definition of hazardous waste. Citing the time and legal
complexities involved in broadening its regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, EPA disagreed with our recommendation
and instead expressed the agency's support for addressing concerns
about exports of used electronics through nonregulatory, voluntary
approaches. However, EPA officials told us that the agency is taking
another look at its existing authorities to regulate exports of other
used electronics.
Second, we recommended that the agency submit to Congress a
legislative package for ratification of the Basel Convention on the
Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their
Disposal, a multilateral environmental agreement that aims to protect
against the adverse effects resulting from transboundary movements of
hazardous waste. Under the convention's definition, a broader range of
materials could be considered potentially hazardous, including some
electronic devices. While the Senate provided its advice and consent
to ratification in 1992, successive administrations have not submitted
draft legislation to Congress giving EPA the necessary statutory
authorities to implement the convention's requirements in order to
complete the ratification process. EPA officials explained that these
needed additional authorities include, among others, the authority to
control the scope of wastes covered by the Basel Convention, the
authority to halt exports of hazardous waste if the agency believes
they will not be handled in an environmentally sound manner, and the
authority to take back shipments that cannot be handled in an
environmentally sound manner in the importing country. EPA officials
told us that the agency had developed a legislative proposal on more
than one occasion under previous administrations but did not finalize
any proposal with other federal agencies. According to these
officials, finalizing the proposal requires coordination with a number
of agencies, including the Department of State and the White House
Council on Environmental Quality, which coordinates federal
environmental efforts in the development of environmental policies and
initiatives.
In May 2010, the current EPA Administrator called for legislative
changes to address exports and for taking steps toward ratification of
the Basel Convention. EPA officials have also cited a number of
benefits of ratifying the Basel Convention, such as the ability to
fully participate in convention decisions on issues related to the
environmentally sound management of used electronics. For example,
according to EPA officials, upcoming convention decisions on
guidelines for environmentally sound refurbishment and repair will
impact parties' export of used electronics for reuse, which is
regarded by refurbishers as environmentally preferable to recycling
but also raises concerns about the dumping of used electronics in
developing countries. Basel Convention working groups on
environmentally sound management are open to a range of participants
that do not represent parties to the convention, including EPA,
electronics manufacturers, electronics recyclers and refurbishers, and
environmental groups. However, given that the United States is a
signatory but not a party to the convention, the United States does
not participate in the final decisions on issues such as
environmentally sound management. EPA officials said they anticipate a
number of such decisions in the next few years, especially regarding
the transboundary movement of used and end-of-life electronics.
According to EPA officials, a greater federal regulatory role over
exports resulting from ratification of the Basel Convention would
require an increase in EPA's programmatic and enforcement resources,
such as additional staff. The additional resources would be needed to
enable the Administrator to determine whether proposed exports will be
conducted in an environmentally sound manner and to implement the
Basel Convention's notice-and-consent requirement. Moreover, the
European Union's experience under the waste electrical and electronic
equipment directive, which contains an obligation for waste equipment
to be treated in ways that avoid environmental harm, demonstrates the
need to couple the regulation of exports with enforcement efforts. A
European Commission report estimated that 50 percent of waste
equipment that is collected is probably not being treated in line with
the directive's objectives and requirements, and that a large volume
of waste may be illegally shipped to developing countries, where it is
dumped or recycled in ways that are dangerous to human health and the
environment.
Conclusions:
Broad agreement exists among key stakeholders that reusing and
recycling electronics in an environmentally sound manner has
substantial advantages over disposing of them in landfills or
exporting them to developing countries in a manner that threatens
human health and the environment. There has been much debate over the
best way to promote environmentally sound reuse and recycling,
however, and any national approach may entail particular advantages
and disadvantages for stakeholders. While empirical information about
the experiences of states and other stakeholders in their efforts to
manage used electronics can inform this debate, the question of a
national approach revolves around policy issues, such as how to
balance the need to ensure that recycling occurs nationwide as well as
industry's interests in a uniform, national approach with states'
prerogatives to tailor used electronics management toward their
individual needs and preferences. In the end, these larger policy
issues are matters for negotiation among the concerned parties and for
decision making by Congress and the administration.
At the same time, there are a number of beneficial actions that the
federal government is already taking that, as currently devised, do
not require the effort and implications of new legislation, but rather
would complement any of the broader strategies that policymakers might
ultimately endorse. In particular, EPA's collaborative efforts--
including Plug-In To eCycling, the R2 practices, EPEAT, and the
Federal Electronics Challenge--have demonstrated considerable
potential and, in some cases, quantifiable benefits. However, these
programs' achievements have been limited or uncertain, and EPA has not
systematically analyzed the programs to determine whether their impact
could be augmented. Moreover, EPA has not developed an integrated
strategy that articulates how the programs, taken together, can best
assist stakeholders to achieve the environmentally responsible
management of used electronics.
A key issue of national significance to the management of used
electronics is how to address exports--an issue that, according to
many stakeholders, would most appropriately be addressed at the
federal level. EPA has taken useful steps by developing a legislative
package for ratification of the Basel Convention, as we recommended in
2008. However, EPA has not yet worked with other agencies, including
the State Department and the Council on Environmental Quality, to
finalize a proposal for the administration to provide to Congress for
review and consideration. While there are unresolved issues regarding
the environmentally sound management of used electronics under the
Basel Convention, providing Congress with a legislative package for
ratification could provide a basis for further deliberation and,
perhaps, resolution of such issues.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Administrator of EPA undertake an examination of
the agency's partnership programs for the management of used
electronics. The analysis should examine how the impacts of such
programs can be augmented, and should culminate in an integrated
strategy that articulates how the programs, taken together, can best
assist stakeholders in achieving the environmentally responsible
management of used electronics nationwide.
In addition, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA work with
other federal agencies, including the State Department and the Council
on Environmental Quality, to finalize a legislative proposal that
would be needed for ratification of the Basel Convention, with the aim
of submitting a package for congressional consideration.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to EPA for review and comment. A
letter containing EPA's comments is reproduced in appendix III. EPA
agreed with both of our recommendations and also provided additional
clarifications and editorial suggestions, which we have incorporated
into the report as appropriate.
Regarding our recommendation for an examination of the agency's
partnership programs culminating in an integrated strategy for the
management of used electronics, EPA stated that the agency plans to
gather and analyze input from a variety of stakeholders and to
incorporate the input into such a strategy. In addition, while
pointing out that the agency's partnership programs already reflect an
integrated approach, in that they address the full life cycle of
electronic products, from design through end-of-life management, EPA
acknowledged that the programs can and should be augmented and stated
that the agency is committed to doing so within the limits of
declining resources. In particular, EPA outlined a number of potential
efforts to improve the environmental attributes of electronics,
increase collection and the appropriate management of used
electronics, and better control exports. EPA also stated that the
agency is considering the need for new legislative and regulatory
authority. We acknowledge EPA's progress in developing partnership
programs to address the full life cycle of electronic products but
continue to emphasize the need for a comprehensive, written strategy
that addresses how the programs can best promote the environmentally
sound management of used electronics. Such a document has the
potential to help coordinate the efforts of the many stakeholders
associated with the management of used electronics to further promote
their environmentally sound reuse and recycling, and to more
effectively communicate the strategy to Congress and other decision
makers.
Regarding our recommendation that EPA work with other federal agencies
to finalize a legislative proposal needed to ratify the Basel
Convention, EPA commented that the agency has already begun working
with the State Department and other federal agencies to do so. EPA
added that its previous work in developing such a legislative proposal
should enable it to successfully complete this effort. We acknowledge
this work but point out that Congress will only have the opportunity
to deliberate on a tangible proposal if the effort to achieve
consensus on an administration-approved position on the matter is
accorded the priority needed.
As we 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 of
this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the
Administrator of EPA, and other interested parties. In addition, this
report will be available at no charge on GAO's 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 Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To examine the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) efforts to
facilitate the environmentally sound management of used electronics,
we reviewed solid and hazardous waste laws and regulations--including
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and EPA's rule on the
management of cathode-ray tubes (CRT)--and their applicability to used
electronics. We specifically reviewed EPA documents describing the
agency's efforts to enforce the CRT rule and to address concerns
raised in our August 2008 report on electronic waste exports,
including information on the number of EPA investigations of possible
violations of the CRT rule.[Footnote 22] We also examined publicly
available information on specific enforcement actions against
companies, companies approved to export CRTs for recycling, and
companies that have submitted notifications of exports for reuse, and
we obtained aggregate information from EPA on its enforcement efforts.
To obtain EPA's views on its efforts, we interviewed officials from
the agency's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. To examine EPA's
promotion of partnership programs, we interviewed EPA officials
responsible for implementing or representing the agency's position on
Plug-In To eCycling, the Responsible Recycling (R2) practices, and the
Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT). In addition,
we interviewed stakeholders concerned about the management of used
electronics--including environmental groups; state and local
government officials; and electronics manufacturers, retailers, and
recyclers--to obtain their views on EPA's efforts.
To examine the views of manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, state and
local governments, and other stakeholders on the state-by-state
approach to the management of used electronics, we conducted a broad
range of interviews. For each category of stakeholders, we conducted
interviews with key national-level organizations or associations with
a broad perspective on the management of used electronics across the
United States and reviewed any related policy positions or reports. To
gain further insights, we interviewed individual stakeholders in each
category of stakeholders, including state and local government
officials and other stakeholders, in five states with electronics
recycling legislation that we selected for detailed review--
California, Maine, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington. To supplement
these detailed reviews, we interviewed state and local government
officials in three states without legislation--Arizona, Florida, and
New Hampshire. For each interview, we generally discussed the
collection and recycling rates for used electronics, the convenience
of collection opportunities to consumers, efforts to ensure
environmentally sound management, and the impact of the state-by-state
approach on implementation of state electronics recycling legislation
and on stakeholders' compliance or enforcement efforts. While
recognizing that stakeholders may benefit from state legislation, such
as through an increase in business opportunities for electronics
recyclers, we specifically asked about the burden (if any) created by
the state-by-state approach. For the five states with electronics
recycling legislation, we reviewed the laws and related regulations,
as well as other documents on the implementation and outcomes of the
law, and we visited the states to conduct in-person interviews.
We encountered a number of limitations in the availability of reliable
data on the impact of the state-by-state approach on various
stakeholders. For example, the five states we selected did not have
data on collection and recycling rates prior to the effective dates of
their laws, which would be useful to quantify the impact of their
programs. Similarly, some manufacturers and other stakeholders
regulated under state laws had concerns about providing proprietary
information or did not identify compliance costs in a way that enabled
us to determine the portion of costs that stems from having to comply
with differing state requirements. Due to such limitations, we relied
predominately on stakeholders' statements regarding how they have been
impacted under the state-by-state approach. Additional information on
the stakeholders we interviewed includes the following:
* State and local government officials. For a national perspective, we
interviewed representatives of the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, the Eastern Regional
Conference of the Council of State Governments, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Governors
Association. For the five states with electronics recycling
legislation we selected for detailed review, we interviewed state
legislators or legislative staff involved in enacting the laws, state
environmental agency officials responsible for implementing the laws,
and local solid waste management officials. We selected the five
states to ensure coverage of the two basic models of state electronics
recycling legislation, a recycling fee paid by consumers and producer
responsibility, as well as the variations of the producer
responsibility model. In addition, we selected states with recycling
programs that had been in place long enough for stakeholders to
provide an assessment of the impacts of the legislation. For the three
states without electronics recycling legislation we selected for
detailed review, we conducted telephone interviews with state and
local solid waste management officials and (in Arizona and New
Hampshire) legislators who have introduced legislation or been active
in studying options for the management of used electronics. We
selected the three states to include ones that, in part, had addressed
the management of certain used electronics through other means, such
as a ban on landfill disposal or grants for voluntary recycling
efforts, and to ensure variety in terms of location and size.
* Electronics manufacturers. For a broad perspective, we interviewed
representatives of two national associations of electronics
manufacturers: the Consumer Electronics Association and the
Information Technology Industry Council. We also interviewed
representatives of a judgmental sample of nine individual
manufacturers. We selected manufacturers to interview to include a
range of sizes and business models, including manufacturers of
information technology equipment and televisions as well as companies
that no longer manufacture products covered under state laws but still
bear responsibility for recycling costs in some states. In addition to
these interviews, we reviewed manufacturers' policy positions and
other documents on the state-by-state approach to managing used
electronics or on particular state and local electronics recycling
legislation.
* Electronics retailers. We interviewed representatives of the
Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition, an association of consumer
electronics retailers, and of a judgmental sample of four national
consumer electronics retailers, including retailers that are also
considered manufacturers or collectors under some state electronics
recycling legislation. In each of the five states we selected for
detailed review, we spoke with representatives from state retail
associations, whose members include large national retailers, as well
as smaller retailers operating in the five states. We also reviewed
available documents pertaining to retailers' efforts in managing used
electronics and their policy positions on the state-by-state approach.
* Recyclers and refurbishers of used electronics. For a broad
perspective from the electronics recycling industry, we interviewed a
representative of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, many of
whose members are involved in the recycling of used electronics. In
addition, for the perspective of refurbishers, we conducted an
interview with TechSoup, a nonprofit organization that has established
a partnership with Microsoft to increase the number of personal
computers available to nonprofits, schools, and low-income families
across the globe by reducing the cost of software to refurbishers. We
also interviewed representatives of a judgmental sample of recyclers
and refurbishers encompassing a variety of sizes and business models,
including large corporations operating in multiple states as well as
nonprofit organizations or smaller entities operating in a single
state. In particular, in each of the five states with electronics
recycling legislation we selected for detailed review, we interviewed
at least one recycler operating under the state program and one
refurbisher.
* Environmental and other nonprofit organizations. We interviewed
representatives of environmental and other nonprofit organizations
that have an interest in the issue of the management of used
electronics, including the Basel Action Network, Consumers Union,
Electronics TakeBack Coalition, Product Stewardship Institute, and
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. In addition, in the five states with
electronics recycling legislation we selected for detailed review, we
interviewed representatives of state environmental organizations that
advocated for the state legislation or have been active in tracking
the implementation of the laws. For each of the environmental and
nonprofit organizations interviewed, we reviewed available documents
pertaining to their advocacy work and their views on the state-by-
state approach or particular state electronics recycling legislation.
To examine the implications of alternative national strategies to
further promote the environmentally sound management of used
electronics, we reviewed relevant existing laws relating to solid and
hazardous waste management (the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
and the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act).
In addition, we examined state laws establishing electronics recycling
programs or addressing the management of used electronics through
other means, such as a ban on landfill disposal, to identify
components of the laws that might be addressed under a national
approach. We also examined the European Union's directive on waste
electrical and electronic equipment and electronics recycling in
Canada as examples of how used electronics are managed
internationally. As part of our interviews with national-level
organizations or associations of stakeholders, as well as with
individual stakeholders, we discussed stakeholder efforts to
coordinate state electronics recycling programs and stakeholders'
policy positions on a national strategy, including their views on the
components of a national strategy, such as a mechanism for financing
the cost of recycling. Regarding alternative strategies specifically
relating to exports of used electronics, we examined ways that state
electronics recycling programs we selected for detailed review had
addressed the issue, and we interviewed stakeholders regarding current
state and EPA efforts to limit potentially harmful exports. We also
reviewed EPA documents and interviewed EPA officials regarding the
statutory changes necessary for the United States to ratify the Basel
Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous
Wastes and Their Disposal, as well as the implications of ratification
on the agency's ability to exercise greater oversight over the export
of used electronics for reuse or recycling. Finally, we reviewed EPA's
technical assistance comments on a congressional concept paper
proposing a framework for establishing a national electronics
recycling program.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2009 to July 2010 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those 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
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: State Electronics Recycling Programs:
The five states with electronics recycling laws that we selected for
detailed review--California, Maine, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington--
illustrate a range of ways of addressing elements and issues common to
the management of used electronics.[Footnote 23] For each of the
states, we describe three key elements we identified as establishing
the framework for their recycling programs: (1) the mechanism for
financing the cost of collecting and recycling used electronics, (2)
the mechanism for providing for the convenient collection of used
electronics, and (3) requirements for the environmentally sound
management of used electronics collected under the programs and the
state's enforcement of the requirements. In addition, because the
state electronics recycling programs are relatively new, we describe
developments and program changes designed to address issues
encountered during the initial implementation of the programs.
California:
California's electronics recycling law established a funding mechanism
to provide for the collection and recycling of certain video display
devices that have a screen greater than 4 inches, measured diagonally,
and that are identified by the state Department of Toxic Substances
Control as a hazardous waste when discarded.[Footnote 24] According to
state officials, the state's list of covered devices currently
includes computer monitors, laptop computers, portable DVD players,
and most televisions.
Financing Mechanism:
California is the only state identified as having an electronics
recycling law that established a system to finance collection and
recycling costs through a recycling fee paid by consumers. Effective
on January 1, 2005, retailers began collecting the fee at the time of
purchase of certain video display devices. The fee currently ranges
from $8 to $25, depending on screen size. Retailers remit the fees to
the state, and they may retain 3 percent as reimbursement for costs
associated with collection of the fee. The state, in turn, uses the
fees to reimburse collectors and recyclers of covered electronic
devices as well as for administering and educating the public about
the program. Entities must be approved by the state to be eligible to
receive collection and recycling payments. There were about 600
approved collectors and 60 approved recyclers as of October 2009. To
determine the amount paid per pound, the state periodically updates
information concerning the net costs of collection and recycling and
adjusts the statewide payment rates. To assist the state in this
effort, approved collectors and recyclers are required to submit
annual reports on their net collection and recycling costs for the
prior year. As of May 2010, the combined statewide rate for collection
and recycling was $0.39 per pound.
The administration of the program is shared by three state agencies.
The State Board of Equalization is responsible for collecting the fee
from and auditing retailers. The Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle) has overall responsibility for administering
collection and recycling payments. Specific duties of CalRecycle
include establishing the collection and recycling payment schedule to
cover the net costs of authorized collectors and recyclers; approving
applications to become an approved collector or recycler; reviewing
recycling payment claims for the appropriate collection, transfer, and
processing documentation and making payments; and addressing any
identified fraud in payment claims. Under the law, CalRecycle is also
responsible for reviewing the fee paid by consumers at least once
every 2 years and adjusting the fee to ensure sufficient revenues to
fund the recycling program. The third agency, the Department of Toxic
Substances Control, is responsible for determining whether a video
display device, when discarded or disposed of, is presumed to be a
hazardous waste under the state health and safety code and, therefore,
is a covered electronic device under the electronics recycling
legislation. In addition, the department regulates the management of
used electronics and conducts annual inspections of recyclers to
ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
Mechanism for Providing Collection Opportunities:
One of the purposes of the California law was to establish a program
that is "cost free and convenient" for consumers to return and recycle
used electronics generated in the state. To this end, the law directs
the state to establish a payment schedule that covers the net cost for
authorized collectors to operate a free and convenient system for
collection, consolidation, and transportation. State and local
government officials, as well as other state stakeholders we
interviewed, told us the law has resulted in convenient collection
opportunities. For example, a representative of the state's Regional
Council of Rural Counties said that, while it does not require
counties to provide collection opportunities, the law had resulted in
convenient collection in rural counties. Similarly, according to
Sacramento County solid waste management officials, the law has made
it profitable for the private sector to collect and recycle used
electronics and thereby has freed up county resources to pay for media
campaigns to inform the public about the law and to offer curbside
collection.
Requirements for Environmentally Sound Management:
Recyclers approved under the state's payment system for the recycling
of covered electronic devices must be inspected at least once annually
by the Department of Toxic Substances Control and be found in
conformance with the department's regulations to maintain their
approval. The department's regulations restrict certain recycling
activities--such as using water, chemicals, or external heat to
disassemble electronic devices--and specify requirements in a variety
of other areas, including training of personnel, record-keeping, and
the labeling of containers. In addition, to be eligible for a claim
within the payment system, covered devices must be dismantled in
California and the residuals generally must be sent to appropriate
recycling facilities. Hence, the program does not pay claims for any
covered devices that are exported intact. The state's electronics
recycling legislation also requires that exporters notify the
department and demonstrate that the covered electronic waste or
covered electronic devices are being exported for the purposes of
recycling or disposal; that the importation of the waste or device is
not prohibited by an applicable law in the country of destination; and
that the waste or device will be managed only at facilities whose
operations meet certain standards for environmentally sound
management. (These demonstrations are not required for exports of a
component part of a covered electronic device that is exported to an
authorized collector or recycler and that is reused or recycled into a
new electronic component.)
According to a department official responsible for implementing the
regulations, the state's ability to withhold payment for the recycling
of covered electronic devices is an effective tool for promoting
compliance with the regulations. However, the official also said that
the state lacks the authority to regulate exports (e.g., exports of
CRT glass containing lead for processing in Mexico, which, according
to the official, does not have regulations equivalent to those in
California).
Developments Since the Law's Implementation:
Key developments since the initiation of California's program in 2005
include the following adjustments to the recycling fee paid by
consumers and to the payment schedule for collection and recycling:
* Effective January 2009, CalRecycle increased the recycling fee from
an initial range of $6 to $10 to the current range of $8 to $25. As
described in the CalRecycle's January 2008 update on the program, a
continued growth in the volume of recycling payment claims resulted in
the pace of payments exceeding the flow of revenue generated by the
fee. CalRecycle adjusted the fee to avoid exhausting the fund used to
pay for the collection and recycling of used electronics.
* In 2008, CalRecycle decreased the payment schedule for combined
collection and recycling. The initial rate was $0.48 per pound, based
in part on a provisional rate established by the law, and the current
rate is $0.39 per pound. According to CalRecycle officials, the
initial payment schedule was artificially high, which benefited the
program by fostering a recycling infrastructure in the state.
CalRecycle adjusted the payment schedule on the basis of an analysis
of the net cost reports submitted by collectors and recyclers.
Maine:
Maine's electronics recycling program began in 2006 and finances the
cost of recycling televisions, computers, computer monitors, digital
picture frames, printers, and video game consoles from households.
[Footnote 25]
Financing Mechanism:
Maine's law is based on the concept of "shared responsibility,"
whereby participating municipalities generally bear the costs
associated with collection and manufacturers finance handling and
recycling costs associated with managing certain used electronics
generated by households. Participating municipalities arrange for
these used electronics to be transported to state-approved
consolidators, which count and weigh information technology products
by brand and manufacturer and determine the total weight of
televisions and video game consoles. Consolidators who are also
recyclers may then further process the used electronics; otherwise,
they send the material to recycling facilities.[Footnote 26] In either
case, consolidators generally invoice individual manufacturers for
their handling, transportation, and recycling costs. The state
approves each consolidator's fee schedule, currently set at a maximum
of $0.48 per pound for combined recovery and recycling, for use when
invoicing manufacturers. For information technology products, the
amount invoiced is based on the weight of the manufacturer's own brand
of electronics collected under the program (return share) plus a
proportional share of products for which the manufacturer cannot be
identified or is no longer in business (orphan share). In contrast,
for manufacturers of televisions and video game consoles with a
national market share that exceeds a certain minimum threshold, the
amount invoiced is calculated as the total weight collected multiplied
by the proportion of the manufacturer's national market share of sales
for those products (recycling share). Initially, Maine's law only used
return share as a basis for determining the financial responsibility
of all manufacturers. The state amended the law in 2009 to base the
financial responsibility of television manufacturers (as well as video
game consoles) on market share. The Maine Department of Environmental
Protection had recommended this change in part to address the issue of
the relatively long lifespan of televisions and the concern among long-
standing television manufacturers that, under the return share system,
new market entrants do not bear recycling costs and can therefore
offer their products at a lower price and possibly even go out of
business before their products enter the waste stream.
The Department of Environmental Protection has overall responsibility
for the electronics recycling program. The department's
responsibilities include approving consolidators as well as the fee
schedule used by consolidators in charging manufacturers, determining
the orphan share for manufacturers of information technology products,
and determining the recycling share for manufacturers of televisions
and video game consoles on the basis of national sales data. In
addition, the department is responsible for enforcing the compliance
of manufacturers whose products are sold in the state. Finally, the
department notifies retailers of noncompliant manufacturers (retailers
are prohibited from selling products of such manufacturers).
Mechanism for Providing Collection Opportunities:
One of the purposes of Maine's law is to establish a recycling system
that is convenient and minimizes the cost to consumers of electronic
products and components. In addition, manufacturers are responsible
for paying the reasonable operational costs of consolidators,
including the costs associated with ensuring that consolidation
facilities are geographically located to conveniently serve all areas
of the state as determined by the Department of Environmental
Protection. To establish convenient collection opportunities for
households, Maine's program relies on the state's existing municipal
waste collection infrastructure and provides an incentive to
municipalities to participate by giving them access to essentially
free recycling of certain covered electronics. The law allows
participating municipalities to collect used electronics at a local or
regional waste transfer station or recycling facility or through other
means, such as curbside pickup. According to a 2007 survey supported
by the department, most municipalities provide permanent collection
sites. About half of the municipalities that responded to the survey
reported that they charge end-of-life fees for accepting used
electronics from households to offset the costs associated with
collection. However, local solid waste management officials we
interviewed also told us that the program implemented under the law
enabled municipalities to reduce or eliminate fees. For example, the
Portland solid waste manager said that the program enabled the city to
stop charging residents a fee, which was approximately $20 per
television or computer monitor prior to the law. Notably, Maine law
now prohibits the disposal of CRTs in landfills and other solid waste
disposal facilities.
Requirements for Environmentally Sound Management:
Maine's law requires that recyclers provide to consolidators a sworn
certification that they meet guidelines for environmentally sound
management published by the Department of Environmental Protection.
Among other things, the guidelines stipulate that recyclers comply
with federal, state, and local laws and regulations relevant to the
handling, processing, refurbishment, and recycling of used
electronics; implement training and other measures to safeguard
occupational and environmental health and safety; and comply with
federal and international law and agreements regarding the export of
used products or materials. Other guidelines specific to exports
include a requirement that televisions and computer monitors destined
for reuse include only whole products that have been tested and
certified as being in working order or as requiring only minor repair,
and where the recipient has verified a market for the sale or donation
of the equipment.
The Department of Environmental Protection official in charge of the
program told us she has visited the facilities that recycle used
electronics collected under Maine's program, but that the department
lacks the resources and auditing expertise to ensure adherence to the
guidelines as well as the authority to audit out-of-state recyclers.
Developments Since the Law's Implementation:
Since Maine initiated its electronics recycling program, the state
made a number of changes to the law, and the Department of
Environmental Protection has suggested additional changes. Such
changes include the following:
* Scope of covered electronic devices. In 2009, Maine added several
products, including digital picture frames and printers, to the scope
of covered devices. In its 2008 report on the recycling program, the
Department of Environmental Protection had recommended adding digital
picture frames and printers for a number of reasons, including the
growing volume of such equipment in the waste stream. In its 2010
report, the department also recommended the program be expanded to
include used electronics generated by small businesses, thereby
increasing the volume of used electronics collected, providing for
more efficient transportation from collection sites, and providing for
a greater volume to recyclers as a means to drive down the per-pound
cost of recycling.
* Program administration. Beginning in July 2010, manufacturers of
covered devices sold in the state are required to pay an annual
registration fee of $3,000 to offset the state's administrative costs
associated with the program. In its January 2010 report, the
Department of Environmental Protection recommended that the state
legislature consider eliminating or reducing the fee for certain
manufacturers, such as small television manufacturers. According to
the report, an exemption from paying the fee would provide relief to
manufacturers that no longer sell or have not sold significant
quantities of covered devices in the state.
* Recycling costs. In its January 2010 report, the Department of
Environmental Protection noted that, while direct comparisons between
differing state programs are difficult, recycling costs are higher in
Maine than in other states with electronics recycling laws.
Representatives of both the Consumer Electronics Association and the
Information Technology Industry Council also told us that recycling
costs in Maine are higher because the state selects consolidators and
approves the fee schedule used by each of the consolidators to invoice
manufacturers, thereby limiting competition. To address such concerns,
the department stated its intent to take a number of administrative
actions. For example, the department plans to streamline the
permitting process for facilities that process used electronics and
thereby encourage the growth of recycling facilities in the state and
reduce the handling and shipping costs for used electronics, much of
which is currently processed out of state. The department also plans
to examine ways to increase the competitiveness of the cost approval
process for consolidators or price limits that can be imposed without
compromising the level of service currently afforded to municipalities.
Minnesota:
Minnesota initiated its program in 2007 to finance the recycling of
certain used electronics from households.[Footnote 27] Manufacturers
of video display devices (televisions, computer monitors, and laptop
computers) with a screen size that is greater than 9 inches, measured
diagonally, that are sold in the state are responsible for recycling,
including costs, and can also meet their obligations by financing the
recycling of printers, keyboards, DVD players, and certain other
electronics.
Financing Mechanism:
Minnesota's law establishes recycling targets for manufacturers
selling video display devices in the state. The targets are set at an
amount of used electronics equal to 80 percent of the weight of video
display devices sold to households during the year. (The target was 60
percent for the first program year.) Manufacturers that exceed their
targets earn recycling credits that can be used to meet their targets
in subsequent years or sold to other manufacturers. Conversely,
manufacturers that fail to meet their targets pay recycling fees on
the basis of how close they are toward meeting their obligation. State
officials told us the recycling program is based primarily on market
economics and does not require significant government involvement. In
particular, the state does not set the prices paid for recycling, and
manufacturers have flexibility in selecting collectors and recyclers
to work with. Recyclers seek to be reimbursed for their costs by
marketing and selling recycling pounds to manufacturers. According to
several stakeholders we interviewed about the state's program, this
market-based approach has contributed to lowering recycling costs in
the state.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has primary responsibility for
administering the program. The agency's responsibilities include
reviewing registrations submitted by manufacturers for completeness;
maintaining registrations submitted by collectors and recyclers; and
conducting educational outreach efforts regarding the program. The
state department of revenue reviews manufacturers' annual registration
fees and reports and, among other things, collects data needed to
support manufacturers' fee determinations. The state uses registration
fees to cover the cost of implementing the program, which may include
awarding grants to entities that provide collection and recycling
services. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has requested
proposals to provide grants for collection and recycling outside of
the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area and expects to award
several grants in 2010.
Mechanism for Providing Collection Opportunities:
Minnesota's law does not stipulate criteria for the establishment of a
statewide collection infrastructure or mandate that any entity serve
as a collector, but rather relies on the reimbursement from
manufacturers to create an incentive for the establishment of
collection opportunities. To foster the availability of collection
opportunities outside of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area,
the law allows 1˝ times the weight of covered electronic devices
collected outside of the metropolitan area to count toward
manufacturers' recycling targets. Local solid waste management
officials we interviewed described the impact of the state's
electronics recycling legislation on the convenience of collection
opportunities as dependent upon whether a county already had an
established recycling program for used electronics, with a greater
impact in counties that did not already have recycling programs.
Requirements for Environmentally Sound Management:
Minnesota's law prohibits the commercial use of prison labor to
recycle video display devices and requires that recyclers abide by
relevant federal, state, and local regulations and carry liability
insurance for environmental releases, accidents, and other
emergencies. The law does not establish additional requirements for
environmentally sound management. In addition, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency officials said that they have limited resources to
ensure that used electronics are managed responsibly, particularly
when equipment is shipped out of state, and that enforcement efforts
are largely based on self-policing by recyclers and spot checks of
larger recyclers. Two recyclers in the state with whom we spoke said
that a lack of oversight of recyclers by state authorities had
contributed to undercutting by irresponsible recyclers. Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency officials said they are seeking to promote
certification programs, such as R2 or e-Stewards®, for electronics
recyclers operating in the state.
Developments Since the Law's Implementation:
Minnesota amended its law in 2009 to make the following changes:
* The state amended the law to remove the requirement that retailers
annually report to each video display device manufacturer the number
of the manufacturer's brand of video display devices sold to
households during the previous year. Manufacturers submitted this
information to the state, which used it to determine manufacturers'
recycling targets. A representative of the Minnesota Retailers
Association said that retailers found this requirement to be a burden.
Similarly, according to the Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition,
the state's reporting requirement imposed a high cost on retailers and
increased the risk of the disclosure of proprietary sales data.
Minnesota now uses either manufacturer-provided data or national sales
data, prorated to the state's population, to determine manufacturers'
obligations.
* The state further amended the law to limit the use of recycling
credits. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency officials told us this
amendment was intended to address a "boom and bust" scenario, whereby
manufacturers financed the recycling of large amounts of used
electronics in the first program year and accumulated carry-over
credits, which they used to meet their recycling targets during the
second year. The use of credits left local governments and electronics
recyclers responsible for the cost of collecting and recycling used
electronics that exceeded manufacturers' recycling targets. As a
result, according to local solid waste management officials we
interviewed, some counties reintroduced end-of-life fees and saw an
increase in the illegal dumping of used electronics. To address such
issues and ensure that a majority of targets are met by the recycling
of newly collected material, the amended law limits the portion of a
manufacturer's target that can be met through carry-over credits to 25
percent. Prior to the amendment, the law did not limit the use of
recycling credits.
Since the implementation of Minnesota's program, several other states,
including Illinois[Footnote 28] and Wisconsin,[Footnote 29] have
incorporated the use of recycling targets into electronics recycling
legislation. Several stakeholders told us they prefer targets as they
are designed in the Illinois program. For example, a representative of
one electronics manufacturer said he expects that manufacturers will
have difficulty in meeting their targets in Minnesota in upcoming
years after recyclers have worked through the backlog of used
electronics stored in consumers' homes prior to implementation of the
state's law. In contrast, under the Illinois program, manufacturers'
targets are based in part on the total amount recycled or reused
during the prior year, such that the targets may be adjusted downward
if the amounts collected decrease. Similarly, several refurbishers of
used electronics pointed out that Minnesota's law does not allow the
refurbishment of covered electronic devices to count toward
manufacturers' recycling targets and thereby, according to some
stakeholders, may create an incentive to recycle equipment that has
been collected but is in working condition or can be refurbished. In
contrast, under Illinois' law, the weight of covered electronic
devices processed for reuse is doubled when determining whether a
manufacturer has met its recycling and reuse target, and the weight is
tripled if the refurbished equipment is donated to a public school or
nonprofit entity.
Texas:
Texas' computer equipment recycling program began in 2008 and requires
manufacturers to provide opportunities for free collection of desktop
and laptop computers, monitors not containing a tuner, and
accompanying mice and keyboards from consumers in the state.[Footnote
30] Consumers are defined as individuals who use computer equipment
purchased primarily for personal or home-business use.
Financing Mechanism:
Texas' computer equipment recycling law is based on the concept of
"individual producer responsibility," whereby manufacturers of
computer equipment are responsible for implementing a recovery plan
for collecting their own brand of used equipment from consumers. The
state's program requires that each manufacturer submit its plan to the
state and annually report the weight of computer equipment collected,
recycled, and reused. The law does not authorize manufacturer
registration fees, and manufacturers are free to select the recyclers
with whom they work and negotiate recycling rates to be paid.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has the primary
responsibility for enforcing the law. The commission's
responsibilities include providing information on the Internet about
manufacturers' recovery plans; educating consumers regarding the
collection, recycling, and reuse of computer equipment; helping to
ensure that electronics retailers do not sell the equipment of
manufacturers without recovery plans; and annually compiling
information submitted by manufacturers and issuing a report to the
state legislature. According to commission officials, manufacturers
not paying registration fees has not caused a financial burden because
the commission already had the expertise and outreach capabilities
needed to implement the law.
Mechanism for Providing Collection Opportunities:
The Texas law requires that the collection of computer equipment be
reasonably convenient and available to consumers in the state. In
addition, manufacturers' recovery plans must enable consumers to
recycle computer equipment without paying a separate fee at the time
of recycling. The law allows manufacturers to fulfill these
requirements by offering a system for returning computer equipment by
mail, establishing a physical collection site, or organizing a
collection event or by offering some combination of these or other
options. According to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
officials, most manufacturers have opted to offer a mail-back program,
and one manufacturer noted that the mail-back programs may be more
convenient for rural residents of the state than a physical collection
point. Some manufacturers have provided additional collection options.
For example, in addition to providing a mail-back option, Dell has
partnered with affiliates of Goodwill Industries in the state to
establish a physical collection infrastructure.
The local solid waste management officials we interviewed regarding
the state's computer equipment recycling law were critical of the
impact of the law on providing collection opportunities and relieving
local governments of the burden of managing used electronics. These
officials attributed the law's lack of impact to a number of factors,
including the inconvenience to consumers of manufacturers' mail-back
programs; insufficient education of consumers about recycling
opportunities by manufacturers, the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, or local governments; and manufacturers having responsibility
only for the cost of recycling computer equipment collected directly
from consumers, not for that collected by local governments (e.g.,
when consumers may be unaware of the opportunities for free
recycling). As a result, while they are not required to collect used
computer equipment, local governments bear the costs for the equipment
they collect. For example, the solid waste coordinator for one
regional council of governments said that the council continues to
provide grants to local governments for the management of used
electronics.
Requirements for Environmentally Sound Management:
The Texas electronics recycling law requires that computer equipment
collected under the law be recycled or reused in a manner that
complies with federal, state, and local law. In addition, the law
directed the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to adopt
standards for the management of used electronics developed by the
Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries, which represents electronics
recyclers, or to adopt such standards from a comparable organization.
Among other things, the standards adopted by the commission require
that recyclers prioritize refurbishment over recycling and recycling
over disposal, ensure that computer equipment is stored and processed
in a manner that minimizes the potential release of any hazardous
substance into the environment, and have a written plan for responding
to and reporting pollutant releases. Manufacturers are required to
certify that recyclers have followed the standards in recycling the
manufacturers' computer equipment.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality officials said that, under
the commission's risk-based approach to enforcement of environmental
regulations, they had not prioritized regular, scheduled enforcement
of the requirements for the environmentally sound management of used
computer equipment collected under the state's program. They said that
they would follow up on any allegations of noncompliance with the
requirements, but that they had not received any such complaints.
Several recyclers in the state confirmed that there had been minimal
oversight of recyclers by the commission and said that manufacturers
play a more active role than the commission in ensuring that the
recyclers with whom they contract adhere to requirements for
environmentally sound management.
Developments Since the Law's Implementation:
In 2009, the Texas state legislature passed a bill that would have
required that television manufacturers collect and recycle an amount
of televisions on the basis of manufacturers' market share of
equipment sold in the state. However, the bill was vetoed by the
governor, who stated that it was significantly different than the law
covering computer equipment--for example, in that the bill would
impose fees on television manufacturers and recyclers. Local solid
waste management officials we interviewed, as well as a state
environmental group that focuses on used electronics, were critical of
the governor's veto. For example, according to the environmental
group, the bill would have relieved local governments of the costs
associated with managing used televisions, and without a law
establishing a recycling program, televisions will continue to be
disposed of in landfills, which is not prohibited in Texas.
Washington:
Washington's electronics recycling law was passed in 2006, and the
program began full operation in 2009.[Footnote 31] The program covers
the costs associated with collecting, transporting, and processing
desktop and laptop computers, computer monitors, and televisions
generated by households, charities, school districts, small businesses
with fewer than 50 employees, and small governments (cities with a
population of fewer than 50,000, counties with a population fewer than
125,000, and special purpose districts).
Financing Mechanism:
Under Washington's law, manufacturers are required to finance the
collection, transportation, and recycling of certain used electronics.
The law allows manufacturers to meet this requirement by implementing
an independent, state-approved collection and recycling plan or by
participating in the default "standard plan." In addition, the law
requires that individual manufacturers register with the Department of
Ecology, the state agency responsible for administering the law, and
pay a fee to cover the department's administrative costs. The fees are
based on a sliding scale linked to a manufacturer's annual sales of
covered electronic products in the state. The specific
responsibilities of the department include reviewing the standard plan
as well as any independent plans submitted by manufacturers for the
department's approval; establishing an annual process for local
governments and local communities to report their satisfaction with
the services provided by the plans; registering manufacturers,
collectors, transporters, and processors for the program; and
enforcing the law (e.g., by issuing warnings and penalties against
manufacturers selling covered products in the state if they are not
participating in an approved plan).
The standard plan is implemented by the Washington Materials
Management and Financing Authority, a public body created by the
state's law. All manufacturers are required to be members of the
authority and the standard plan, or they can opt out of the standard
plan by gaining the state's approval for their own independent plan.
Currently, all manufacturers affected by the state's law meet their
requirements through participation in the standard plan. The
Washington Materials Management and Financing Authority assesses
individual manufacturers for collection and recycling costs, as well
as the authority's administrative costs, on the basis of a combination
of market share and return share, with the return share being based on
an annual sampling of used electronics collected under the state's
program. The authority uses the assessments paid by manufacturers to
reimburse individual collectors, transporters, and recyclers at rates
negotiated with the authority. According to the director of the
authority, the combined rate for the collection, transportation, and
recycling of used electronics, as well as administrative costs, was
$0.24 per pound in 2009. A number of stakeholders noted that the
authority has the ability to negotiate relatively low prices, in
comparison with some other state electronics recycling programs, due
to the authority's purchasing power over electronics recycling
services in the state.
Mechanism for Providing Collection Opportunities:
Washington's electronics recycling law includes a number of specific
requirements for the establishment of a convenient collection network
throughout the state, in both urban and rural areas. In particular,
the law requires that each plan provide collection service in every
county and every city or town with a population greater than 10,000.
Collection sites may include electronics recyclers and repair shops,
recyclers of other commodities, reuse organizations, charities,
retailers, government recycling sites, or other locations. Plans may
limit the number of used electronics accepted per customer per day or
per delivery at a collection site or service but are also required to
provide free processing of large quantities of used electronics
generated by small businesses, small governments, charities, and
school districts.
Local solid waste management officials told us the law has had a
positive impact on promoting the collection of used electronics in the
state. One of these officials also said that the law's implementation
has eliminated the cost burden on local government for managing used
electronics. In contrast, representatives of several manufacturers, as
well as the Consumer Electronics Association, told us that the law's
requirements for convenience are too prescriptive and have served as
an impediment for manufacturers to obtain approval for their
independent plans. Along these lines, in 2009, the Department of
Ecology rejected two independent plans submitted by manufacturers
because the department concluded that the plans did not meet the law's
convenience criteria. Department officials told us they expect the
plans to be resubmitted and approved once the manufacturers submitting
the plans demonstrated that they would be able to meet the convenience
criteria.
Requirements for Environmentally Sound Management:
The Department of Ecology established both minimum standards and
voluntary "preferred" standards for the environmentally sound
management of used electronics. Among other things, the minimum
standards require that recyclers implement an environmental, health,
and safety management system; remove any parts that contain materials
of concern, such as devices containing mercury, prior to mechanical or
thermal processing and handle them in a manner consistent with the
regulatory requirements that apply to the items; and not use prison
labor for the recycling of used electronics.
The department encourages recyclers to conform to the preferred
standards and identifies recyclers that do so on its Web site. In
addition, the Washington Materials Management and Financing Authority
made the preferred standards a requirement for all recyclers with whom
the authority contracts under the standard plan. Among other things,
the preferred standards stipulate that recyclers use only downstream
vendors that adhere to both the minimum and voluntary standards with
respect to materials of concern; ensure that recipient countries
legally accept exports of materials of concern; and, as with the
minimum standards, undergo an annual audit of the recycler's
conformance with the standards. Department of Ecology officials said
that the authority's requirement that recyclers achieve preferred
status had enabled the authority to achieve more than what the state
could legally require, particularly regarding exports.
Developments Since the Law's Implementation:
Washington amended its law in 2009 to authorize collectors in receipt
of fully functioning computers to sell or donate them as whole
products for reuse. The amendment requires that collectors not include
computers gleaned for reuse when seeking compensation under a standard
or independent plan. In addition, when taking parts from computers
submitted for compensation (i.e., for recycling) to repair other
computers for reuse, collectors must make a part-for-part exchange
with the nonfunctioning computers submitted for compensation.
According to Department of Ecology officials, the provisions
pertaining to reuse in both the department's original regulations and
the amendment are intended to prevent collectors from stripping
valuable components from used electronics for export to markets with
poor environmental standards, and sending only the scrap with no value
to the recyclers used by a standard or independent plan. Similarly, a
Washington refurbisher told us that the requirement for a part-for-
part exchange when repairing equipment is intended to address the
concern that collectors might export valuable components pulled out of
equipment and receive a higher rate of compensation than by submitting
the equipment to a recycler. According to the refurbisher, the
amendment has improved the impact of Washington's law on the ability
to refurbish and reuse equipment but has also resulted in unnecessary
work to reinstall components into equipment sent for recycling.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
Washington, D.C. 20460:
May 28, 2010:
Mr. John B. Stephenson, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
I am transmitting the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) response
to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled
Electronic Waste: Considerations for Promoting Environmentally Sound
Reuse and Recycling (GAO-10626) dated May, 2010. EPA prepared this
response pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 720.
EPA appreciates the thorough research and consideration evident in
this report. Our responses to your recommendations follow in this
letter. Also, please find attached some additional clarifications and
editorial suggestions we provide to more accurately depict various EPA
programs and efforts to address management of used electronics.
GAO Recommendation:
On page 42 of the draft report, GAO recommends that EPA undertake an
examination of the agency's voluntary programs for the management of
used electronics. The analysis should examine how the impacts of such
programs can be augmented, and should culminate in an integrated
strategy that articulates how the programs, taken together, can best
assist stakeholders in achieving environmentally responsible
management of used electronics nationwide.
EPA Response:
EPA agrees with the recommendation that we develop a strategy to
augment and further integrate our various electronics-focused
voluntary programs toward the goal of assisting in achieving
nationwide environmentally responsible management of used electronics.
We arc in the process of reaching out to a variety of stakeholders
(manufacturers, recyclers, retailers, NGOs and states) on the topic of
electronics. As we do this, we will be gathering and analyzing input
on ways to sharpen our voluntary approaches. This analysis will be
incorporated into any new strategy we develop.
Our voluntary programs already reflect an integrated approach to
electronics in that they address the full life cycle of these products:
* The EPEAT standard drives greener design of electronics to reduce
impacts at the point of manufacturing, through use, all the way to end
of life management.
* Energy Star drives design of products that consume less energy
during their useful life.
* The Plug In to eCycling program encourages greater consumer
awareness of the need to reuse, refurbish and recycle used
electronics; and works with manufacturers, retailers and others to
increase convenient and affordable outlets to drop off used
electronics.
* The Plug In program also promotes safe management of electronics by
holding manufacturer partners to high standards in choosing
electronics recyclers capable of safely managing these products. To
this end, EPA supports and will continue to push for further safe and
protective recycling efforts and encourage improvements in best
management practices for recyclers. There are existing recycling
certification programs, such as R2 and E-Steward, that EPA believes
advance environmentally safe practices and includes standards for use
in third party certification of such efforts.
* Our Cathode Ray Tube (CRTs) rule encourages recycling of CRTs and
establishes certain requirements before they can be exported to
developing countries, whether for reuse, refurbishing or recycling.
* Finally, our Federal Electronics Challenge calls upon Federal
agencies to set a national example by preferring "greener electronics"
through their purchasing programs, managing electronics in an
environmentally sensitive way during their use phase (by employing
energy saving features and extending the life of electronics) and in
managing them appropriately when agencies no longer have use for them.
We believe that only by addressing the full life cycle can our
voluntary programs result in an integrated, holistic approach - as
recommended by GAO - to improving the environmental profile of
electronics. However, there is always room for improvement.
We agree with GAO that our voluntary programs can and should be
augmented. Within the limits of declining resources, we are committed
to doing so. Beyond this. we are also looking at expanding our options
to address electronics, by considering the need for new legislative
and regulatory authority.
We are in the process of opening discussions with manufacturers.
retailers, recyclers, states, and local governments on the following:
1. How to improve the design of electronics so as to continually
substitute toxic inputs with less harmful substitutes, how to make
these products so that there is less incentive to replace them
frequently (e.g., more expandable, upgradeable) and how to make them
easier and safer to recycle at the end of their useful life. Related
to this is working with large buyers of electronics (e.g. government,
other institutions) to develop best contracting practices to reduce the
replacement/refresh schedules for certain products ” thereby extending
the life of these products and reducing the amount going into the
waste stream.
2. How to increase collection and appropriate management of used
electronics in the US. This can be done through, for example:
a. Increased and coordinated outreach to consumers, small businesses
and local governments on the need to recycle used electronics;
b. Outreach to these audiences on the need to ensure that used
electronics will he managed prudently (e.g., by working with certified
electronics recyclers or taking used electronics to drop off programs
that work with such recyclers);
c. Working with manufacturers. retailers and others on how to
encourage creation or expansion of voluntary collection/recycling
consortia, to gain economies of scale, save money, and recover more
material;
d. Working with states to find ways to harmonize registration,
reporting and other administrative requirements under existing
takeback laws, making it easier for states to implement these laws and
easier for responsible parties (e.g., manufacturers, retailers,
recyclers) to comply with these laws.
3. How to better control exports of used electronics to developing
countries. This can be done through, for example:
a. Examining options for expanding regulatory controls;
h. Examining options for expanding statutory authorities;
c. Working to expand demand for and certification to electronics
recycler best management practices (which address how to control
exports to developing countries);
d. Working with developing country partners to articulate and
demonstrate best management practices they can employ to keep unwanted
material out of their countries and/or to improve management of used
electronics within their borders.
GAO Recommendation:
On page 42 of the draft report, GAO recommends that EPA work with
other federal agencies, including the State Department and the Council
on Environmental Quality, to finalize a legislative proposal that
would be needed for ratification of the Basel Convention, with the aim
of submitting a package for Congressional consideration.
EPA Response:
EPA agrees with this recommendation. We have already begun working
with the State Department and other federal agencies to finalize a
proposed legislative package. We believe that the significant work on
legislation that has been undertaken in the past will enable us to
complete this effort successfully.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the recommendations in
this draft report If you have any questions. please contact me or have
your staff contact Mark T. Howard, EPA's GAO Liaison, at (202) 564-
1697.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Lisa Feldt, for:
Mathy Stanislaus:
Assistant Administrator:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Steve Elstein, Assistant
Director; Elizabeth Beardsley; Mark Braza; Joseph Cook; Edward Leslie;
Nelson Olhero; Alison O'Neill; and Tim Persons, Chief Scientist, made
key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] We use the term "recycling" in this report to refer to the full
range of activities to reclaim components or usable materials from
used electronic products. This term can be distinguished from the
reuse or refurbishment of used electronics, which essentially results
in the use of a product as originally intended, following any needed
repair.
[2] EPA has developed regulations under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, as amended, to control hazardous waste from the time
that it is generated until its ultimate disposal. 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et
seq. (2010); 40 C.F.R. Pt. 260 et seq. (2010).
[3] GAO, Electronic Waste: EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S.
Exports through Stronger Enforcement and More Comprehensive
Regulation, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1044]
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 28, 2008).
[4] GAO, Electronic Waste: Strengthening the Role of the Federal
Government in Encouraging Recycling and Reuse, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-47] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 10,
2005).
[5] In this report, we do not include information on state electronics
recycling legislation that, like legislation enacted by New York,
establishes collection programs specifically for wireless telephones.
Several stakeholders told us that recycling programs for wireless
devices tend to differ from those for other electronics (e.g., because
the small size of wireless devices facilitates mail-back programs).
[6] As of May 2010, EPA reported 108 one-time notifications for reuse.
As of March 2010, EPA reported 16 notifications, with acknowledgments
of consent from the receiving country, for a company to export CRTs
for recycling. These documents are to specify the total quantity of
CRTs, the destination recycling facility, and the specific time period
of up to 12 months during which the exports may occur. All 16 consents
to export came from two importing countries--Canada and the Republic
of Korea.
[7] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1044].
[8] Broken CRTs cannot be reused and, thus, may be exported only under
the procedures applicable to CRTs exported for recycling--namely, the
notice-and-consent requirement.
[9] Any electronic products that meet the criteria for solid waste,
such as when being recycled or disposed, and that also exhibit a
hazardous characteristic, such as the toxicity characteristic for
lead, are considered hazardous waste and fall within the regulations.
To date, however, EPA has promulgated specific regulations only for
CRTs, as electronic products, and has indicated in Federal Register
notices that other electronics generally do not possess hazardous
characteristics under the regulatory rubric.
[10] Similarly, circuit boards, which are found in many electronic
devices and contain mercury and other toxic substances, are subject to
a special exemption from federal hazardous waste rules. This exemption
is designed to ensure that circuit boards are treated as a valuable
commodity, rather than as a waste. Circuit boards that meet the
requirements of the exemption are not subject to any regulatory
requirements when exported for recycling.
[11] According to EPA officials, the quantity of used electronics
reported as collected for recycling by Plug-In To eCycling partners
does not include the recycling that partners are responsible for or
required to fund under state electronics recycling legislation.
[12] The Federal Electronics Challenge goals currently refer to the R2
practices as defining environmentally sound management.
[13] GAO, Federal Electronics Management: Federal Agencies Could
Improve Participation in EPA's Initiatives for Environmentally
Preferable Electronic Products, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-196T] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 27,
2009).
[14] To implement Executive Order 13423 requirements that address the
purchase, operation and maintenance, and end-of-life management of
electronic equipment, the Office of Management and Budget directed
each agency and its facilities either to become a partner in the
Federal Electronics Challenge or to implement an equivalent
electronics stewardship program that is consistent with the Federal
Electronics Challenge's recommended practices and guidelines.
[15] National Center for Electronics Recycling, A Study of the State-
by-State E-Waste Patchwork: An analysis of its economic and other
effects on industry, government and consumers (October 2006). One of
the authors of the 2006 report told us that the document overestimated
some costs (e.g., because the estimates are partially based on the
cost of California implementing a recycling fee paid by consumers,
which no other state has adopted) but underestimated other costs
(e.g., costs for manufacturer participation in state study committees
of options for electronics recycling legislation). As a result, he
said that the report provides an accurate estimate of the
inefficiencies associated with the state-by-state approach. We did not
assess the reliability of the report's estimates.
[16] We did not attempt to compare collection and recycling rates
among the five states because, in addition to states not having
collection data prior to implementation of the recycling programs,
each state's recycling legislation covers a different set of
electronic devices as well as entities, such as households and small
businesses, whose used electronics are covered. As a result,
comparisons of collection rates would not provide a clear indication
of the impact of various models of electronics recycling legislation.
[17] See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 149-M:27 (2010).
[18] The clearinghouse is modeled on a similar organization that
focuses on toxics in packaging and works to reduce costs for state
governments and the regulated community, in addition to providing
consistency to the impacted industry.
[19] The National Center for Electronics Recycling is a nonprofit
organization dedicated to the development and enhancement of a
national infrastructure for the recycling of used electronics.
[20] GAO, Regulatory Programs: Balancing Federal and State
Responsibilities for Standard Setting and Implementation, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-495] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 20,
2002).
[21] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1044].
[22] GAO, Electronic Waste: EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S.
Exports through Stronger Enforcement and More Comprehensive
Regulation, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1044]
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 28, 2008).
[23] As we have previously noted, for the purposes of this report, we
consider recycling as distinct from reuse and refurbishment. In this
appendix, however, we intend "recycling" to have the meaning given
under the relevant state law. We also note any key ways in which a
state program incorporates reuse or refurbishment.
[24] See California Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003, 2003 Cal.
Legis. Serv. Ch. 526 (S.B. 20) (West), as amended by 2004 Cal. Legis.
Serv. Ch. 863 (S.B. 50) (West), codified at Cal. Health & Safety Code
§§ 21214.9-10.2 (2010), Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 41516, 42460-86 (2010)
and others; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §§ 18660.5-18660.43 (2010).
[25] See Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 38, § 1610 (2010).
[26] Manufacturers also have the option of taking their own brands
from the consolidator and sending the material to their preferred
recycler.
[27] See Minn. Stat. §§ 115A.1310-1330 (2010).
[28] See 415 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 150/1-999 (West 2010).
[29] See 2009-2010 Wisc. Legis. Serv. Act 50 (2009 S.B. 107) (West).
[30] See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 361.951-966 (Vernon 2010);
30 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 328.131-155 (2010).
[31] See Wash. Rev. Code §§ 70.95N.010-902 (2010).
[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 Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
