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 1½ 
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 1½ 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: