In 2005 the U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled ELECTRONIC WASTE Strengthening the Role of the Federal Government in Encouraging Recycling and Reuse. The report was only one of the many stepping stones to bring Federal Government policies and activities to the level that they exist in 2017.
What GAO Found in 2005:
Advances in technology have led to rapidly increasing sales of new electronic devices. With this increase comes the dilemma of managing these products at the end of their useful lives. Some research suggests that the disposal of used electronics could cause a number of environmental problems. Research also suggests that such problems are often exacerbated by the export of used electronics to countries without protective environmental regulations.
Given that millions of used electronics become obsolete each year with only a fraction of them being recycled, GAO was asked to (1) summarize information on the volumes of, and problems associated with, used electronics; (2) examine the factors affecting their recycling and reuse; and (3) examine federal efforts to encourage recycling and reuse of these products.
GAO recommended that EPA strengthen the federal role in encouraging recycling and reuse of used electronics by (1) proposing options to the Congress for overcoming the factors deterring recycling and reuse, (2) promoting wider federal agency participation in promising EPA programs, and (3) taking steps to ensure safe handling of these products if exported. EPA agreed with most of GAO’s findings, but disagreed with the first and second recommendations.
Available estimates suggest that over 100 million computers, monitors, and televisions became obsolete each year, and this number is growing. If improperly managed, these used electronics can harm the environment and human health. Available data suggested that most used electronics are probably stored in garages, attics, or warehouses, with the potential to be recycled, reused, or disposed of in landfills, either in the United States or overseas. If disposed of in landfills, valuable resources, such as copper, gold, and aluminum, are lost for future use. Additionally, some research shows that toxic substances with known adverse health effects, such as lead, have the potential to leach from discarded electronics in landfills. Although one study suggested that this leaching does not occur in modern U.S. landfills, it appears that many used electronics are exported to countries without modern landfills or with regulations less protective of human health and the environment.
It was also found that economic factors inhibit the recycling and reuse of used electronics. Consumers generally have to pay fees and drop off their used electronics at often inconvenient locations to have them recycled or refurbished for reuse. Recyclers and refurbishers charge these fees because their costs exceed the revenue they receive from selling recycled commodities or refurbishing units. In addition to these economic factors, federal regulatory requirements provide little incentive for environmentally preferable management of used electronics. First, the governing statute, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, allows individuals and households to dispose of hazardous waste, including many used electronics, in landfills. Second, federal regulations do not provide a financing system to overcome the economic factors deterring recycling and reuse. Third, federal regulations do not prevent the exportation of used electronics to countries where disassembly takes place at far lower cost, but where disassembly practices may threaten human health and the environment. In the absence of federal actions to address these concerns, an emerging patchwork of state requirements to encourage recycling and reuse may place a substantial burden on manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers, who incur additional costs and face an uncertain regulatory landscape as a result.
In response to these challenges, EPA has spent about $2 million on several promising programs to encourage recycling and reuse of used electronics. Participation in one program—the Federal Electronics Challenge—has already led the Bonneville Power Administration to substantial cost savings through the procurement of environmentally friendly and energy efficient electronic products. To date, however, federal participation in this and other EPA electronics recycling programs had been minimal because—unlike other successful federal procurement programs (such as EPA’s and the Department of Energy’s Energy Star program)—participation is not required.
Rapid advances in technology led to increasing sales of new electronic devices, particularly televisions, computers, and computer monitors. Approximately 62 percent of U.S. households had computers in 2003, compared with only 37 percent just 6 years earlier. With this increase comes the dilemma of how to manage these products when they reach the end of their useful lives. The National Safety Council forecast that in 2003 alone, about 70 million existing computers became obsolete, but it also forecast that only 7 million were recycled. Disposal of used electronics poses a number of potential environmental problems.
For example, concerns had been raised because toxic substances such as lead, which have well-documented adverse health effects, can potentially leach from these products, especially if disposed properly. Concerns had also been raised over used electronics that are exported from the United States to countries with less stringent environmental regulations because disposal in these countries can more easily have adverse environmental and human health effects. In addition to toxic substances, computers contain precious metals, such as gold, silver, and platinum, which require substantial amounts of energy and land to extract.
These metals can often be extracted with less environmental impact from used electronics than from the environment. The U.S. Geological Survey, for instance, reported that 1 metric ton of computer scrap contains more gold than 17 tons of ore and much lower levels of harmful elements common to ores, such as arsenic, mercury, and sulfur. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Solid Waste provided regulatory oversight of the disposal of certain hazardous used electronic products. The office tightly regulates hazardous waste from generation to disposal; but also under RCRA, for other solid wastes, it promotes waste reduction, recycling, and responsible disposal through national voluntary and educational programs. Individual states must meet minimum national standards for the management of municipal solid waste in landfills, but they operate their own waste management programs, develop their own recycling and reuse programs, and are free to implement more stringent waste management policies. Given the growing number of computers and other electronic products becoming obsolete, you asked that we (1) summarize existing information on the volumes of, and problems associated with, used electronics; (2) examine the factors affecting the nation’s ability to recycle and reuse these products; and (3) examine federal efforts to encourage recycling and reuse of used electronics and determine what, if anything, can be done to improve them.
To address these issues, the GAO reviewed scientific studies and reports conducted by government agencies, nonprofits, trade organizations, and academics. They also interviewed federal, state, local, nonprofit, and industry officials, as well as academic and research organization experts. In particular, they reviewed the electronic waste legislation passed in California, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Minnesota. They visited states and localities that have implemented programs or passed legislation to responsibly manage used electronics, including California, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington.
Further, the GAO examined EPA-sponsored federal, state, and local pilot programs that attempt to encourage recycling of electronic products. In addition, to obtain the views of informed stakeholders regarding the factors that affect the nation’s ability to recycle and reuse used electronics, we conducted a survey of participants in the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) and other key stakeholders. GAO received 42 responses from our survey population of 49. The work was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, which include an assessment of data reliability and internal controls.
2005 Results in Brief
Available research suggested that the volume of used electronics is large and growing and, if improperly managed, can harm the environment and human health. While data and research are limited, some data suggest that over 100 million computers, monitors, and televisions become obsolete each year and that this amount is growing. These obsolete products can be recycled, reused, disposed of in landfills, or stored by users in places such as basements, garages, and company warehouses. Data GAO reviewed suggest that most used electronics are probably stored, and therefore have the potential to be recycled or reused, disposed of in landfills, or exported overseas. If ultimately disposed in landfills, either in the United States or overseas, valuable resources, such as copper, gold, and aluminum, are lost for future use. In addition to concerns over losing valuable resources, some research shows that certain toxic substances with known adverse health effects, such as lead, have the potential to leach into landfills. Although one study suggested that leaching is not a concern in modern U.S. landfills, it appears that many of these products end up in countries without modern landfills or environmental regulations comparable to those in the United States.
Finally, even with uncertainty surrounding the risks associated with toxic substances in used electronics, EPA had identified a number of these substances as priority toxic chemicals for reduction because they do not break down when released into the environment and can be dangerous even in small quantities.
Despite the large volume of used electronics and the valuable resources contained within them, economic and regulatory factors discouraged these products’ recycling and reuse. Specifically:
Recyclers and refurbishers charge these fees because costs associated with recycling and refurbishing outweigh the revenue received from recycled commodities or refurbished units. This point was underscored by the International Association of Electronics Recyclers, which reported that the value of commodities recovered from computer equipment (such as shredded plastic, copper, and aluminum) is only between $1.50 and $2.00 per unit.
It was further underscored by the interviews with eight electronics recyclers, who were unanimous in emphasizing that they could not cover costs without charging fees. Federal regulatory requirements also provide little incentive for environmentally preferable management of used electronics.
First, some used electronics are considered hazardous waste under RCRA, and RCRA bars entities that generate more than 220 pounds per month of hazardous waste (including some used electronics) from depositing it in landfills. However, RCRA did not bar households and entities that generate less than 220 pounds of hazardous waste per month from this practice. Consequently, since only four states currently ban disposal of used electronics in landfills, most consumers in the remaining 46 states (and the District of Columbia) are allowed to do so—and have little incentive to do otherwise. Not surprisingly, data reviewed suggest that states and localities without landfill bans have dramatically lower levels of recycling than the four states that have enacted landfill bans.
Second, federal law doid not provide a financing system to recycle used electronics. Absent a consistent financing system to make recycling less costly and more convenient for consumers, a patchwork of potentially conflicting state requirements is emerging that may ultimately place a substantial burden on recyclers, retailers, and manufacturers. The lack of a national financing mechanism has also led to an array of legislative proposals that take very different approaches to address the problem.
Third, federal regulations do not provide adequate oversight of these products when exported. This is a particular problem in the case of some developing countries, where risks to the environment and human health may be more likely because less stringent environmental regulations often do not ensure that exported used electronics—supposedly destined for reuse—are not instead being disposed of improperly. Together, these factors hinder EPA’s ability to reach its stated goal that within 10 years, it would be as convenient for consumers to take a discarded television or computer for recycling or reuse as it is to purchase a new product.
EPA had spent about $2 million on several voluntary programs to help overcome some of the factors discouraging recycling and reuse of used electronics. For example, the “Plug-In To eCycling” campaign sponsors partnerships with industry and state and local governments to make recycling used electronics less expensive and more convenient for consumers. In 2004, Plug-In To eCycling sponsored four pilot projects involving collection events at retailers such as Best Buy, Good Guys, Office Depot, and Staples, in which over 11 million pounds of used electronics were collected. Another program—the Federal Electronics Challenge—leverages U.S. government purchasing power to promote environmentally preferable management of used electronics throughout their life cycle: procurement, operation and maintenance, and end-of-life management.
Through its participation in this program, the Bonneville Power Administration has already documented cost savings associated with longer life spans for the agency’s computers and through purchases of computer monitors that contain less toxic substances and are therefore cheaper to recycle. To date, however, only 61 out of thousands of federal facilities participate in the Federal Electronics Challenge. A major reason for the limited federal participation in this and other EPA electronics recycling programs is that, unlike other successful federal procurement programs (such as EPA’s and the Department of Energy’s Energy Star program), participation is not required.
GAO recommendes that the Administrator of EPA develop a legislative proposal that addresses some of the economic and regulatory factors discouraging recycling and reuse of used electronics. In addition, we are recommending that the agency take several administrative steps to (1) increase federal agency participation in promising EPA electronics recycling programs and (2) help ensure that used electronics exported overseas are destined for reuse, as intended, and not disposed of improperly. In responding to a draft of this report, EPA generally agreed with the findings but disagreed with the recommendations that it develop a legislative proposal, and that it take additional steps to engender wider federal agency participation in promising EPA electronics recycling programs. Regarding the first of these two recommendations, EPA commented that it does not believe it is appropriate for the agency to propose options for a nationwide financing system to overcome the barriers to recycling and reuse because there is no consensus among manufacturers as to the optimal solution. GAO disagreed that this lack of consensus provides a compelling reason for EPA to abstain from acting because there are ample precedents for EPA’s involvement in addressing complex financing issues affecting solutions to key environmental problems. Furthermore, survey results show that there is overwhelming agreement that legislation will be needed to deal with used electronics and a national financing system must be a part of it.
In commenting on the recommendation to engender wider federal agency participation in its electronics recycling programs, EPA disagreed with the view that participation in the Federal Electronics Challenge is limited, noting that the 12 federal agencies participating in the program to date “represent over 80 percent of the Information Technology purchasing in the government.” The figure, however, overstates federal agency adherence to the goals of the program. Participation simply means these agencies have identified their current practices for managing electronic products and set goals to improve them. However, the participating agencies and facilities were not required to meet their goals. As a practical matter, 61 out of thousands of federal facilities participate in the program, and only 5 of these are meeting electronic product management criteria that the program’s steering committee had asked them to attain. GAO believed this track record falls short of EPA’s own goal that the federal government “lead by example” in promoting recycling, reducing the use of toxic chemicals, and conserving energy and materials in its lifecycle management of electronic products.
Few people are aware of recycling options for their old televisions and personal computers. Because of the perceived value of used electronics, some pass their used equipment to family members or friends before eventually storing these units in their attics, basements, or garages. Eventually, though, consumers need to dispose of these units in some manner. By choosing to have these products recycled, consumers ensure the recovery of resources like copper, iron, aluminum, and gold, which would otherwise be procured through less environmentally friendly practices such as mining. Likewise, consumers who choose to recycle also reduce the amount of waste entering the nation’s landfills and incinerators. Since used electronics typically contain toxic substances like lead, mercury, and cadmium, recycling or refurbishing will prevent or delay such toxic substances from entering landfills.
The Congress affirmed its commitment to reducing waste and encouraging recycling, first through enactment of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, and then again with passage of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. Both RCRA and the Pollution Prevention Act address alternatives to waste disposal. RCRA promotes the use of resource recovery, either through facilities that convert waste to energy or through recycling. To promote recycling, RCRA required EPA to develop guidelines for identifying products that are or can be produced with recovered materials. RCRA also required federal agencies to procure items that are, to the maximum extent practicable, produced with recovered materials.
The Pollution Prevention Act provided that pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled or treated in a safe manner, and disposal or other releases should be used only as a last resort. The act specified that pollution prevention can include such practices as modifying equipment, technology, and processes; redesigning products; and substituting less-toxic raw materials. Executive Order 13101, issued September 14, 1998, also affirmed the federal government’s commitment to encourage recycling by directing federal agencies to consider procuring products that, among other things, use recovered materials, can be reused, facilitate recycling, and include fewer toxic substances.
The Federal Environmental Executive, who is appointed by and reports to the President, is responsible for recommending initiatives for government-wide procurement preference programs for environmentally preferable products. EPA’s Office of Solid Waste regulates hazardous waste and nonhazardous waste, including discarded used electronics, under RCRA. RCRA established explicit hazardous waste management requirements overseen by the Office of Solid Waste, but for nonhazardous waste management, also under RCRA, the Office’s policies rely heavily on national voluntary and education programs for waste reduction that emphasize materials recycling and reuse, toxic chemical reduction, and resource conservation.
Several of these voluntary programs were tailored specifically for environmentally preferable management of used electronics. The Office of Solid Waste also collaborates with EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to conserve valuable resources and reduce wastes—particularly toxic wastes—before they are generated. These efforts are administered under the Resource Conservation Challenge, which is an institutional strategy combining the strengths of the two offices to ultimately minimize waste and toxic substances and conserve energy and resources. According to EPA, the overarching goal of the Resource Conservation Challenge is to move the nation from a waste-oriented to a life-cycle management way of thinking about resources.
In the absence of a national system, several states had enacted their own financing systems through legislation to help ensure environmentally preferable management of used electronics. For example, in 2005, California implemented an ARF on all new video display devices, such as televisions and computer monitors, sold within the state. The fee charged to consumers at the time and location of purchase and could range between $6 and $10. According to an official with the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, the revenues generated from the fee are intended to deal with a key concern—used electronics in storage, or “legacy waste.” The officials explained that while California’s recycling industry had sufficient capacity to recycle large volumes of used electronics, consumers and businesses had little incentive to take products out of their basements or warehouses to have them recycled. The state uses revenues from the fees to reimburse electronics recyclers at the rate of 48 cents per pound of used electronics recycled. The recyclers, in turn, pass on to collectors 20 cents per pound of used electronics, thereby providing an incentive for entities to make collection free and convenient for households.
The state was still in the preliminary stages of program implementation, and state officials acknowledge that they face a number of challenges. Some of these challenges underscore the difficulty of dealing with the electronic waste problem on a state-by-state basis. The officials noted, for instance, that the ARF applies only to electronics purchased in California, and that the fees are intended only for used electronics originating in the state. Implementing the program within the state’s boundaries, however, may prove difficult because the payout may attract units originating in other states. Preventing this problem, they say, requires substantial documentation for each unit, and may require a substantial enforcement effort.
While California’s ARF focuses on consumers of electronics, Maine’s approach focuses on producers through an EPR-like system. In 2004, the state passed legislation requiring computer and television manufacturers who sell products in Maine to pay for the take back and recycling of their products at end of life. Under this plan, consumers are to take their used electronics to a consolidation point, such as a transfer station, where they are sorted by original manufacturer. Each manufacturer is physically or financially responsible for transporting and recycling its products, along with a share of the products whose original manufacturer no longer exists.
According to one official with Maine’s State Planning Office, a key challenge of its EPR system is the lack of a financial incentive for consumers to take their used electronics out of storage. Additionally, consumers will still likely have to pay a fee at consolidation points. Several other states had implemented or were considering implementing financing systems for used electronics. Earlier that year, Maryland passed legislation requiring all computer manufacturers that sell computers in the state to pay $5,000 into a fund to help implement local recycling programs. For manufacturers that implement a computer take-back program in the prior year, the fee is only $500. Other states, such as Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, and Massachusetts, have allocated grants to help pay for the recycling of used electronics, and New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont are considering enacting EPR-like programs.
The differing financing systems of California and Maine, as well as those being considered by other states, suggest that in the absence of a national approach, a patchwork of potentially conflicting state requirements is developing. Further, this patchwork may be placing a substantial burden on manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers. A manufacturer in one state, for example, may have an advance recovery fee placed on its products; whereas in another state, the same manufacturer may have to take back its products and pay for recycling. Hewlett-Packard serves as one example:
A Hewlett-Packard official also told GAO that these conflicting systems involve start-up costs, which could cost over $2 million dollars per state if a new state system differs from those currently in place. Similarly, a Seattle area recycler told GAO that because of the differing state requirements and the lack of a national approach, recyclers find it difficult to invest in developing a recycling infrastructure. Specifically, he noted that without certainty about the regulatory landscape, larger recyclers will not enter the industry and invest in technologies that can reduce costs, such as has been done in some European countries where recycling used electronics is more profitable. He added that until this problem is addressed, recycling will continue to be conducted primarily by small, niche companies.
Not surprisingly, three major computer manufacturers we contacted said that while they have individual preferences for one financing mechanism or another (usually an ARF or EPR system), their main preference is to operate within a uniform national system that mandates a financing system preempting varying state requirements.
Recyclers and state and local government officials generally agreed, noting that having a system in place that covers costs and is national in scope is more important to them than their preferences for a particular system. GAO survey results substantiate these views, with over 95 percent of survey respondents indicating that national legislation should be enacted, and over 90 percent of that group stating that one of the major proposals being discussed (or a hybrid of the two) should be included, such as an ARF or EPR system.
Because of these challenges, EPA sponsored a major effort in this regard by providing the initial funding for the multi-stakeholder National Electronic Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) process. NEPSI stakeholders met between 2001 and 2004, in part, to develop a financing system to facilitate recycling and reuse of used electronics. The process ultimately dissolved in 2005, however, in large part because EPA withdrew its participation and funding.
Notwithstanding EPA’s withdrawal of its sponsorship of the NEPSI process, the agency still generally advocates financing systems for resource conservation that involve all stakeholders—consumers, manufacturers, and retailers—who benefit from resource use. Under the Resource Conservation Challenge, EPA seeks to have products designed with reuse and recycling in mind, the costs of reuse and recycling included in the price of the product, and improved mechanisms for collecting products for recovery. Further, in the Resource Conservation Challenge’s strategic plan, EPA recognizes that for some products, such as electronics, recycling is not economically sustainable. For these products, EPA supports the consideration of financing approaches that have been implemented in Japan and some European nations, in which the cost of recovering products is incorporated into the cost of buying the product; and in which incentives are provided for environmentally preferable design.
For example, Japan enacted the Home Appliances Recycling Law in 1998, which requires that retailers collect—and manufacturers and importers recycle—four types of household appliances, in which televisions are included. The law’s inclusion of televisions has encouraged the development of a television and CRT recycling industry in Japan, where substantial research has gone into the development of television dismantling and recycling technologies. Since enactment of this law, Sony, for example, has cooperated with other companies to establish 190 take-back sites and 15 recycling plants in Japan.
In Europe, the European Union (EU) enacted the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive, which established comprehensive take-back and recycling requirements for retailers, manufacturers, and importers of electrical and electronic products, including televisions, computers, and monitors. The directive requires that producers and EPA provided funding for NEPSI through a cooperative agreement with the University of Tennessee. EPA's Office of General Counsel recommended that EPA withdraw from NEPSI because discussions had, by late 2003, evolved to the point where some stakeholders were discussing jointly lobbying for federal legislation. The Office of General Counsel was concerned that EPA’s continued involvement in this dialogue (and continued funding of a grant to facilitate the dialogue) could raise questions relating to anti-lobbying restrictions applicable to EPA staff and EPA grantees.
The EU also addressed the issue of hazardous substances in discarded used electronics by requiring that six hazardous substances, including substances such as lead, mercury, and cadmium, commonly found in used electronics, be replaced by other substances by July 1, 2006.
GAO also found that oversight of exported used electronics was limited. The lack of oversight over some exported used electronics also appears to be discouraging environmentally preferable management of such products and inhibiting the devel