Background

As we have reported previously, EPA estimates that across the federal  government 10,000 computers are disposed of each week. Once these  used electronics reach the end of their original useful lives, federal  agencies have several options for disposing of them. Agencies generally  are to donate their used electronics to schools or other nonprofit  educational institutions; exchange them with other federal, state, or local  agencies; sometimes trade them with vendors to offset the costs of new  equipment; sell them—generally through the GSA’s surplus property  program, which sells surplus federal government equipment, including  used federal electronics, at public auctions; or give them to a recycler.
Federal agencies, however, are not required to track the ultimate  destination of their donated or recycled used electronic products. Instead,  agency officials generally consider this to be the recipient organization’s  responsibility. Consequently, federal agencies often have little assurance  that their used electronics are ultimately disposed of in an  environmentally responsible manner. In our prior work, we found that little  information exists, for example, on whether obsolete electronic products  are reused, stored, or disposed of in landfills. If discarded domestically  with common trash, a number of adverse environmental impacts may  result, including the potential for harmful substances such as cadmium,  lead, and mercury to enter the environment. If donated or recycled, these  products may eventually be irresponsibly exported to countries without  modern landfills and with waste management systems that are less  protective of human health and the environment than those in the United  States. For example, in our prior work we found that some U.S.  electronics recyclers—including ones that publicly tout their exemplary  environmental practices—were apparently willing to circumvent U.S.  hazardous waste export laws and export certain regulated used electronic  products to developing countries.
The federal government’s approach to ensuring environmentally  responsible management of used electronics has relied heavily on EPA’s  FEC initiative, which, among other things, encourages federal facilities  and agencies to manage used electronics in an environmentally safe way.  In addition, executive orders were issued to strengthen federal agencies’  overall environmental management practices, including environmentally  sound management of federal electronic products. The Office of  Management and Budget (OMB), the White House Council on  Environmental Quality (CEQ), and the Office of the Federal  Environmental Executive (OFEE) each play important roles in providing  leadership, oversight, and guidance to assist federal agencies with  implementing the requirements of these executive orders. More recently, an interagency task force issued the July 2011 National Strategy  for Electronics Stewardship, which is intended to lay the groundwork for  enhancing the federal government’s management of used electronics.

	Key Initiatives to Improve Federal Agencies’ Management of Used Electronic Products Have Been Launched over the Past 10 Years

Over the past decade, the executive branch has undertaken several  initiatives to improve federal agencies’ management of used electronics.  Specifically, (1) EPA has led or coordinated several improvement  initiatives and issued guidance aimed at improving the management of  used federal electronic products, (2) GSA has issued personal property  disposal guidance and instituted new requirements for electronics  recyclers it has contracted with to dispose of federal electronic products,  (3) the President has issued executive orders that established goals for  improving the management of used federal electronics, and (4) an  interagency task force issued the July 2011 National Strategy for  Electronics Stewardship, which is intended to lay the groundwork for  enhancing the federal government’s management of used electronics.

		EPA Has Led Initiatives Aimed at Improving the Management of Used Federal Electronics

EPA has led or coordinated several key improvement initiatives to assist  agencies with the management of used federal electronics, including the  FEC, the Federal Electronics Stewardship Working Group, and the  establishment of electronics recycler standards for use in certification  programs.
Federal Electronics Challenge. In 2003, EPA, along with several other  agencies, piloted the FEC.that encourages federal facilities and agencies to purchase  environmentally friendly electronic products, reduce the impacts of these  products during their use, and manage used electronics in an  environmentally safe way. To participate, executive branch agencies or   The FEC is a voluntary partnership program  their facilities must register and sign an agency pledge to become an  agency or facility FEC partner, or both. In general, agency partners are  responsible for supporting their facilities’ efforts but do not have specific  reporting requirements. Facility partners are required to submit a baseline  survey of their electronics stewardship activities when they join the  program. The survey is to include, among other things, a description of  (1) what the entity does with electronic products that are no longer used;  (2) which electronics recycling services it uses; and (3) what, if any,  measures the entity has taken to ensure that the electronic products were  recycled in an environmentally sound manner. Facility partners are also  expected to report progress annually, and apply for recognition through  FEC awards.
FEC guidance directs participants to provide recipients of donated  electronics with instructions on how to have the electronics recycled  responsibly and how to verify that responsible recycling occurs— procedures known as “downstream auditing.” When donating used  electronics, FEC instructs agencies and facilities to ensure that recipients  contact local or state environmental or solid waste agencies to obtain a  database of vendors who recycle used electronics once the equipment is  no longer useful to the recipient organization. FEC also recommends that  participating agencies and facilities instruct recipients to avoid  arrangements with recyclers that are unable or unwilling to share  references and cannot explain the final destination of the used electronics  they collect. When recycling electronics, participants are to determine  how much electronic equipment the recyclers actually recycle compared  with the amount they sell to other parties. In addition, FEC instructs  participants to physically inspect a potential recycler’s facilities. Used  electronics in trash containers, for example, may indicate that the facility  is not recycling it, and the presence of shipping containers may indicate  that the facility exports it.
To assist FEC partners, “FEC champions” are available to help regional  federal facilities with their electronics management programs. FEC  champions are EPA representatives who are selected based on  geographic representation. Champions help federal facilities become FEC  facility partners; access resources for managing electronic products,  including FEC program information, fact sheets, and limited technical  assistance; and receive recognition for improving electronics  management programs.
The Federal Electronics Stewardship Working Group. This working group  coordinates interagency efforts to promote federal electronics  stewardship. It also acts as an advisory board for the FEC program.  During the working group’s monthly meetings, federal agencies have the  opportunity to discuss best practices for implementing the FEC and other  electronics stewardship initiatives within their respective agencies. The  FEC Program Manager told us the working group meetings serve as a  primary mechanism to facilitate communication with agency management  regarding the FEC program. Most executive agencies have at least one  representative serving with the working group.
Standards for certification of recyclers. EPA has worked with the recycling  industry and other entities to promote partnership programs that address  the environmentally sound management of used electronic products. As  we reported in July 2010, EPA convened electronics manufacturers,  recyclers, and other stakeholders and provided funding to develop  Responsible Recycling (R2) practices, so that electronics recyclers could  obtain certification to show that they are voluntarily adhering to the  adopted set of best practices for environmental protection, worker health  and safety, and security practices. Certification for R2 practices became  available in late 2009. The R2 practices identify “focus materials” in used  electronic products, such as cathode-ray tubes or items containing  mercury, that warrant greater care owing to their toxicity and associated  risk if managed without the appropriate safeguards. Specifically, the  practices require that recyclers and each vendor in the recycling chain (1)  export products and components containing certain materials only to  countries that can legally accept them, (2) document the legality of such  exports, and (3) ensure that the material is being safely handled  throughout the recycling chain. R2 practices also establish a “reuse,  recover, dispose” hierarchy along the chain of custody for material  handling. These practices require recyclers to test electronics diverted for  reuse, and confirm that key functions of the unit are working before it may  be exported. Without such testing and confirmation, these used  electronics must be treated as though they are going to recycling and  may not be exported unless the R2 exporting provisions for recycling are  satisfied. Recognizing that some clients would not want their used  electronics remarketed or reused, R2 practices also require recyclers to  have systems in place to ensure that all such electronics processed can  be recycled, rather than recovered for reuse.
EPA encourages electronics recyclers to obtain certification to either R2  practices, or to e-Stewards, a separate voluntary certification program. e- Stewards was initiated by the Basel Action Network in 2008, and the first  e-Stewards-certified facilities were announced in early 2010. The length  and cost of the e-Stewards certification process depends on a facility’s  size and whether it has a documented environmental management  system in place.

		GSA Has Issued Personal Property Disposal Guidance and Instituted New Requirements for Electronics Recyclers Listed on GSA’s Contract Schedule

The authority for federal agencies to transfer research equipment, including computers,  to educational institutions and nonprofit organizations was established in law in 1992. See  15 U.S.C. § 3710(i) (2011).
The Computers for Learning program facilitates the transfer of excess federal computer  equipment to schools and educational nonprofit organizations. The program implements  Executive Order 12999, Educational Technology: Ensuring Opportunity for All Children in  the Next Century, 61 Fed. Reg. 17,227 (Apr. 19, 1996). of the property for sale would be greater than the expected sales  proceeds.
More recently, GSA has instituted new requirements for electronics  recyclers listed on the GSA Schedule. In February 2011, GSA began  requiring proof of certification under either R2 or e-Stewards for new  vendors seeking to provide recycling or disposal services for used  electronic products under GSA’s environmental services schedule.  According to GSA officials, they also identified 5 vendors, out of the 58  vendors on the schedule at that time, that were performing recycling or  disposal services for used electronic products and provided these  vendors with modified contract terms—making R2 or e-Stewards  certification within 6 months a condition for performing these services  under the GSA schedule.

		Executive Orders Issued in 2007 and 2009 Established Goals for Improving the Management of Used Federal Electronics

In January 2007, Executive Order 13423 established goals for federal  agencies to improve the management of their used electronic products.  Among other things, the executive order required that agency heads (1)  establish and implement policies to extend the useful life of agencies’  electronic equipment and (2) ensure the agency uses environmentally  sound practices with respect to the disposition of the agency’s electronic  equipment that has reached the end of its useful life. Furthermore, the  instructions for implementing the executive order, issued on March 28,  2007, called for each agency to develop and submit to OFEE by May 1,  2007, an electronics stewardship plan to implement electronics  stewardship practices for all eligible owned or leased electronic products.  Among other things, the plans were to address how agencies will ensure  that all electronic products no longer needed by an agency are reused,  donated, sold, or recycled using environmentally sound management  practices at end of life. The implementing instructions called for agencies’  plans to  comply with GSA procedures for the transfer, donation, sale, and  recycling of electronic products (discussed above), as well as any  applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations; and use national standards, best management practices, or a national  certification program for electronics recyclers.
The implementing instructions for Executive Order 13423 also directed  each agency and its facilities to participate in the FEC or to implement an  equivalent electronics stewardship program that addresses the purchase,  operation and maintenance, and end-of-life management strategies for  electronic products consistent with the FEC’s recommended practices  and guidelines.
In October 2009, Executive Order 13514 built on the previous executive  order but included slightly different goals for electronics stewardship.  Executive Order 13514 calls for agencies to develop, implement, and  annually update strategic sustainability performance plans to specify how  they intend to achieve the goals of the order. Agencies were required to  submit fiscal year 2010 plans to CEQ and OMB by June 2010. Executive  Order 13514, however, did not supersede or revoke the earlier executive  order, and that order’s goals and requirements remain in effect.

		The National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship Aims to Improve the Federal Government’s Management of Used Electronics

In July 2011, an interagency task force,GSA, issued the National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship, which  describes goals, action items, and projects that are intended to lay the  groundwork for enhancing the federal government’s management of used  electronic products, among other things. The strategy assigns primary  responsibility for overseeing or carrying out most of the projects to either  EPA or GSA. Most of the projects are scheduled for completion from  summer 2011 through spring 2013. Among other things, the strategy  directs GSA to issue   co-chaired by CEQ, EPA, and  through interagency collaboration and with public input, a  comprehensive and governmentwide policy on used federal electronic  products that maximizes reuse, clears data and information stored on  used equipment, and ensures that all federal electronic products are  processed by certified recyclers; and  revised reporting guidance to improve federal agencies’ tracking of  used federal electronic products throughout their life cycle and to post  comprehensive data on Data.gov and other publicly accessible  websites.
The strategy also recommends that the federal government  require and enable recipients of used federal equipment that has been  sold, transferred, or donated for reuse to use certified recyclers and  follow other environmentally sound practices to the greatest extent  possible; and encourage electronics manufacturers to expand their product take- back programs, and use certified recyclers as a minimum standard in  those programs by expanding the use of manufacturer take-back  agreements in federal electronics purchase, rental, and service  contracts.

	The Management of Used Federal Electronics Has Improved and Opportunities Exist for Further Improvements, but Challenges Remain

According to our review of agency documents and discussions with  agency officials, federal agencies have made some progress to improve  their management of used electronic products, as measured by greater  participation in the FEC and an increase in certified electronics recyclers,  but opportunities exist to expand their efforts. In addition, challenges  remain that may impede agencies’ progress toward further improving their  management of used federal electronics, including in the tracking and  reporting of data on the disposition of used federal electronics, in  clarifying agencies’ responsibility for used electronics sold through  auctions, and in clarifying definitions for key terms and reconciling  differences between the executive orders.

		FEC Participation Has Grown, and Opportunities Exist to Increase Participation

Since we first reported on the FEC in November 2005, participation has  grown from 12 agencies and 61 individual facilities to 19 agencies and  253 individual facilities, as of September 2011. However, participation still  represents only about one-third of the federal workforce and, in some  cases, participation means that an agency has identified its current  practices for managing electronic products and set goals to improve them  but has not reported on progress toward achieving these goals as  required. Specifically, only a little more than half of the agencies and  facilities that were registered as FEC partners submitted an annual  accomplishment report in 2010 to demonstrate the agency or facility’s  progress in electronics stewardship; these reports are a key component  of actively participating as a partner. Because FEC participation is  voluntary, EPA officials said EPA has no authority to require agencies to  report on their progress. As a result, the extent to which agencies that do  not report progress are reaching their goals is unknown. However, the  FEC program manager told us that with a recent change in policy, FEC  facility partners that do not submit their fiscal year 2011 annual reporting  form by January 31, 2012, will be considered inactive. An FEC official  stated that despite increased efforts to market the program, some  agencies find the FEC’s reporting requirements to be time-consuming.
For the five agencies we reviewed, participation in FEC varied.  Specifically:
DOD participates in the FEC as an agency partner, but the majority of  its installations or facilities do not participate. According to EPA data,  16 of DOD’s approximately 5,000 installations participate in the FEC.  DOD officials told us that they are conducting outreach to encourage  installations to participate but that some installations may not  participate because officials believe that the registration process is too  rigorous and burdensome.
NASA centers are allowed to participate in the FEC, but they are not  required to do so because other agency initiatives accomplish the  same goals, according to agency officials. Three of NASA’s 10  centers participate in the FEC.
HUD does not participate in the FEC. We found that agency officials  did not understand the FEC participation requirements. HUD’s  electronics stewardship plan states that HUD participates in the FEC,  but an EPA official, who is responsible for the FEC program, told us  that HUD never registered to become a partner—which involves  submitting a baseline survey of the agency’s electronics stewardship  activities. In our discussions with HUD officials, we found that they  were not aware of the FEC registration or reporting requirements and  continued to believe that the agency was participating.
DOE officials promote FEC participation, submit annual  accomplishment reports, and actively participate in the FEC awards  program. According to agency officials, over a 6-year period, 23 DOE  facilities have won FEC awards, with many winning multiple times. All  but two DOE facilities participate.
Education participates in the FEC as an agency and facility partner.
However, because it centrally manages the purchasing and  disposition of electronics, Education submits annual accomplishment  reports for the agency as a whole.
For those agencies or facilities that actively participate in the FEC,  participation can provide federal officials with the information and  resources needed to provide greater assurance that their used  electronics are disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner,  according to EPA documents. For the five agencies we reviewed, officials  at agencies or facilities that actively participated in the FEC said that the  FEC provided invaluable support. For example, according to DOD  officials at one installation, the information sharing that is facilitated  through the FEC is one of the biggest benefits of participation—when  faced with a problem, the FEC can provide information from other  agencies that have faced comparable problems. Similarly, Education  officials told us that membership in Federal Electronics Stewardship  Working Group was very helpful. In addition, DOE officials said that they  have had much success with the FEC program and that the FEC awards  program has motivated many DOE facilities to participate in electronics  recycling.

		The Number of Certified Recyclers Has Grown and Opportunities Exist for Agencies to Increase Their Use

Since the R2 and e-Stewards certification processes were made available  in 2009 and 2010, respectively, the number of certified recyclers in the  United States has grown greatly. From September 2010 to September  2011, the number of electronics recycling facilities certified to the R2  standard increased from 15 to 122 and the number of facilities certified to  the e-Stewards standard grew from 6 to 40. Figure 1 shows the locations  of the electronics recycling facilities in the United States that have  obtained third-party certification as of September 30, 2011.
The increased number of certified recyclers should make it easier for  agencies to locate recyclers that will, among other things, ensure that any  harmful materials are being safely handled throughout the recycling  chain. For the five agencies we reviewed, almost no certified recyclers  were used, and in most cases agency officials either misidentified a  recycler’s certification status or indicated that they did not know the  recycler’s certification status. According to our analysis of the disposition  information these agencies provided, of the 25 electronics recycling  companies that the five agencies reported using in fiscal year 2010, only  one was certified by either R2 or e-Stewards for all locations where the  agency used it as of September 30, 2010, and agencies were correct in  identifying whether or not their recyclers were certified in only four  cases.
The confusion regarding electronics recyclers’ certification status could  stem in part from the absence of clear guidance. The implementing  instructions for Executive Order 13423 direct agencies to use national  standards, best management practices, or a national certification program  for recyclers. To date, however, none of the oversight agencies—OMB,  CEQ, and OFEE—have provided agencies with clear guidance specifying  whether R2 or e-Stewards, the two existing certification programs, qualify  as “national certification programs for recyclers” under the implementing  instructions.
In an effort to address this issue, according to the National Strategy for  Electronics Stewardship, EPA and GSA are to take steps to address the  need for well-defined requirements for those certification programs that  federal agencies will rely upon. Specifically, EPA, in consultation with  GSA and other relevant agencies, is to develop a baseline set of  electronics recycling criteria to ensure, among other things, that all  downstream handlers of used electronics manage these materials in a  way that protects the environment, public health, and worker safety. EPA  is also to initiate a study of the current electronics certification programs  to evaluate the strength of their audits of downstream facilities. According  to the national strategy, as part of its effort to establish a comprehensive  and governmentwide policy on used federal electronic products, GSA will  consider the baseline set of criteria, the results of the study of current  certification programs, and other requirements and considerations in  determining which certification programs satisfy the governmentwide  requirement to use certified recyclers. Although the strategy calls for GSA  to, with public input, issue a revised policy and propose changes to the  FMR, it is unclear if GSA is on track to do this by February 2012, given  that it has not issued a public draft, nor conducted a public comment or  other public input process. Similarly it is unclear when, if, or how GSA’s  revised policy component regarding certified recyclers will be  incorporated into the FMR. Moreover, it is unclear what mechanism GSA  will use to issue the revised policy prior to its inclusion in the FMR, as the  policy may not be in conformance with the current FMR. In addition, the  national strategy does not specify if or how EPA and GSA will routinely  update other federal agencies on the status of their efforts to implement  the national strategy’s recommendations.

		The Tracking and Reporting of Data on the Disposition of Used Electronics Presents Challenges

Currently, due to challenges associated with the tracking and reporting of  used federal electronics, the ultimate disposition of these electronics is  unknown—making it difficult to measure the effectiveness of Executive  Orders 13423 and 13514, which were aimed at improving the  management of used federal electronics and ensuring the proper disposal  of electronics that have reached the end of their useful life. The National  Strategy for Electronics Stewardship acknowledges the challenges  associated with tracking and reporting the disposition of used federal  electronics and proposes some solutions for improving the data that  agencies report to GSA. Under the national strategy, GSA is to streamline  and standardize reporting through the annual Report of Non-Federal  Recipientselectronic products leaving federal ownership, and the recipients of these  products. It is unclear, however, what electronics the new reporting  requirements will cover. The national strategy suggests that the annual  Report of Non-Federal Recipients will be expanded to include the  reporting of the disposition of electronic products to all recipients.  Currently, the report includes only property donated to such nonfederal  recipients as schools and state and local governments, and therefore  does not include the disposition of significant quantities of electronics.   to gather data on the type, quantity, and intended use of  If GSA intends to use this report to capture agencies’ data, it is unclear  how the report will improve the quality of the limited data GSA currently  receives. GSA officials told us that while the agency currently collects  disposition data from agencies through its GSAXcess database,  GSAXcess is not an accountable property system; therefore, data validation is limited.agencies have not submitted reports to GSA on exchange/sale  transactions and property furnished to nonfederal recipients, as currently  required, or have not included all of the required information—thus  presenting data challenges as GSA seeks to carry out its oversight and  management responsibilities.
According to a GSA bulletin, a number of executive  The data challenges are further complicated by the fact that individual  agency procedures for tracking electronics are not consistent. Agencies  typically record the acquisition of electronics as individual units, such as  desktop or laptop computers, and continue to track these electronics as  individual units while in use at the agency. However, when agencies  dispose of these same electronics, they may use a different method for  tracking them. For example, rather than tracking the disposition of used  electronic products as individual units, agencies may aggregate a number  of similar items into a single line item or they may report them by weight.  In addition, a single agency may use different metrics for different types of  disposition. For example, DLA, a DOD acquisition and disposition agency,  tracks electronic products sent to recyclers in pounds and electronic  products disposed of through other means—such as donated to schools  or transferred to other agencies—by individual unit. Because some  electronics are tracked and reported as line items and some are recorded  in pounds, it is not possible to compare the extent to which the agency  relies on one disposition method over another. For the five agencies we  reviewed, data provided to us on the disposition of electronic products  were similarly inconsistent, which hampered our efforts to accurately  assess the extent to which electronic products procured by these federal  agencies were disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.

		Challenges Remain in Clarifying Agencies’ Responsibility for Used Electronics Sold through Auctions

GSA’s personal property disposition procedures do not clarify agency  responsibilities for tracking or placing contract conditions on the ultimate  disposition of used electronics if they are sold through auctions. As we  reported in August 2008, some electronics recyclers in the United  States—including those that have purchased government electronics sold  through auction—appeared willing to export regulated electronics  illegally.
We identified two auction disposal methods—those used by GSA and by  DOD—that could result in used federal electronics being handled in an  environmentally risky manner. Specifically, under the GSA auction process,  registered participants can bid electronically on items within specific time  frames. To participate, potential buyers register with GSA by providing  information about themselves, such as name, address, and payment  information, before they can bid on items, according to GSA officials.  However, GSA officials told us that they do not evaluate the information  obtained from buyers to determine whether they are brokers or resellers  who might potentially export these used products to other countries where  they may not be handled in an environmentally sound or safe manner.  Moreover, GSA officials stated that the agency does not have enforcement  authority after these items are sold to the general public. They told us that if  GSA is made aware of any inappropriate activity or violations of the terms  of the sale, it will refer the information to the GSA Inspector General for  further investigation. According to agency documentation, GSA’s online  auction procedures include standard sales terms and conditions, special  security notifications, and export control clauses. However, none of the  terms, conditions, or clauses included in GSA’s auction procedures are   are  aimed at ensuring that (1) electronics containing certain materials exported only to countries that can legally accept them,document the legality of such exports, and (3) the material is being safely  handled throughout the recycling chain.
Unlike GSA, DOD is not directly involved in the auction process but  instead sells its used electronics to a private company, which then resells  the used electronics through its web-based auction process. According to  DOD officials, DOD’s responsibility for tracking its used electronics ends  once it passes to the contractor—Government Liquidation. DOD officials  said that Government Liquidation has its own terms and conditions that  bidders must adhere to once they purchase the used electronics. As with  GSA auctions, the terms and conditions included in the Government  Liquidation auctions are not aimed at ensuring that used federal  electronics are exported only to countries that that can legally accept  them. In our review of these auction websites, we found that the  overwhelming majority of used electronic products are sold in bulk, which  would indicate that they are being sold to brokers or resellers, not  individual consumers.
The National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship seeks to address the  problems associated with used federal electronics sold through auction.  According to the strategy, the electronics stewardship policy that GSA is to  establish will prohibit the sale of nonfunctional electronics through public  auction except to third-party certified recyclers and refurbishers. Functional  electronics are to be directed through the existing hierarchy of transfer,  donation, and sale. It is unclear, however, how this policy will work in  practice. Currently, agencies sell electronics in mixed lots of potentially  functional and nonfunctional equipment. For example, officials at one  agency said that it was not cost effective to test items to ensure that they  are functional; therefore, items are sold through GSA “as is” with no implied  warranty. These agency officials said that they combine items in sales lots  that will bring the most return to the federal government. In addition, we  found that electronics listed on the Government Liquidation and GSA  auction websites are frequently marketed as “tested to power-up only,” or  with disclaimers such as “condition of the property is not warranted.” Under  the national strategy, it is unclear whether electronics characterized in this  way would qualify as “functional.” In addition, the national strategy does not  provide clear and detailed criteria to assist federal agencies in bundling  functional and nonfunctional electronics for sale exclusively to certified  recyclers or refurbishers, distinguishing between functional and  nonfunctional electronics by conducting specific tests, and labeling  electronic products. Moreover, if federal agencies sell used functional  electronic products through auctions, neither the agency nor the auction  entities are required to impose conditions or to perform due diligence by  conducting auditing to determine whether all downstream reusers of such  products follow environmentally sound end-of-life practices.
In contrast, the European Union has detailed guidance for determining  the functionality of electrical and electronic equipment, as part of  distinguishing whether the equipment is considered waste in the context  of import-export rules. The guidance states that the tests required to  determine functionality depend on the type of electronics, but generally,  completion of a visual inspection without testing functionality is unlikely to  be sufficient for most types of electronics; it also states that a functionality  test of the key functions is sufficient. The guidance also identifies defects  that materially affect functionality and would therefore cause an item to be  considered “waste” if, for example, the equipment did not turn on, perform  internal set-up routines, or conduct self-checks. As discussed  previously, R2 practices establish a similar “reuse, recover, dispose”  hierarchy along the chain of custody for material handling and require  recyclers to test electronics diverted for reuse, and confirm that key  functions of the unit are working before it may be exported.

		Challenges Remain in Defining Key Terms and in Clarifying Differences between the Executive Orders

We found that key terms concerning electronics have not been defined  and that differences between the executive orders have not been  clarified. In particular:
Key terms not defined. Key terms such as “electronic product” and  “environmentally sound practices” are not explicitly defined in the  executive orders, the guidance provided to agencies for implementing  the executive orders, or the National Strategy for Electronics  Stewardship. Consequently, each of the agencies we reviewed used  its own definition of electronic products to report progress in  implementing policies for electronics stewardship. For example, DOE  defines electronic products as printers, desktop computers, notebook  computers, and monitors; DOD, Education, HUD, and NASA use  broader definitions that include servers, routers, and switches; cell  phones and musical instruments; and refrigerators. Moreover, without  a clear definition of what constitutes an environmentally sound  practice, agencies are free to dispose of their used electronics  through online auctions or other means that provide little assurance  that (1) these electronics are exported only to countries that can  legally accept them, (2) recyclers document the legality of such  exports, and (3) the material is being safely handled throughout the  recycling chain.
Differences between the executive orders have not been clarified.
CEQ has not issued implementing instructions regarding electronics  stewardship for Executive Order 13514, which was signed in 2009,  and CEQ, OMB, and OFEE have not harmonized the electronics  stewardship requirements contained in executive orders 13423 and  13514. For example, under Executive Order 13423, the requirement  to use environmentally sound practices applies to electronic  equipment that has “reached the end of its useful life,” whereas  Executive Order 13514 includes “all agency excess or surplus  electronic products,” and the difference between these terms has not  been clarified. In addition, the implementing instructions for Executive  Order 13423 direct agencies to ensure that contracts for leased  electronic equipment incorporate language that requires that at the  end of the lease period, the equipment is reused, donated, sold, or  recycled using environmentally sound management practices. This  directive is not included in Executive Order 13514 nor in the guidance  provided to agencies for preparing their strategic sustainability  performance plan that is to be used under Executive Order 13514.  Officials from these oversight agencies told us that they have  informed federal agencies that electronics stewardship plans under  Executive Order 13423 can be incorporated by reference into their  strategic sustainability performance plans to satisfy certain  requirements for Executive Order 13514. Or alternatively, strategic  sustainability performance plans may be used in lieu of separate  electronics stewardship plans. However, CEQ, OMB, and OFEE have  not addressed differences or updated the implementing instructions  for Executive Order 13423.

	Conclusions

Federal initiatives to improve the management of agencies’ used  electronics—including the FEC, certification for recyclers, personal  property disposal guidance, the executive orders, and the National  Strategy for Electronics Stewardship—have sought to assist federal  agencies in the handling of used electronic products. And progress has  been made. More agencies and facilities are participating in the FEC, and  a growing number of recyclers have received third-party certification.  However, opportunities exist to increase the breadth and depth of  agencies’ participation in the FEC and to expand the use of certified  electronics recyclers.
Federal agencies also face challenges that may impede their progress  toward improving their management of used federal electronics.  Specifically, 2 years have elapsed since Executive Order 13514 required  CEQ to issue implementing instructions. In the absence of such  instructions, agencies do not have definitions for key terms such as  “electronic products” and “environmentally sound practices,” and the  guidance for implementing the executive orders provides inconsistent  information on what procedures an agency should follow when  implementing environmentally sound practices. In addition,  inconsistencies between Executive Orders 13514 and 13423 have yet to  be addressed; without doing so, CEQ lacks assurance that agencies are  meeting electronics stewardship requirements of both orders, given that  CEQ and OMB permit agencies to comply using either an electronics  stewardship plan under Executive Order 13423 or a strategic  sustainability performance plan under Executive Order 13514.  Furthermore, without consistent tracking and reporting of the disposition  of used federal electronics, there is no mechanism to measure the  effectiveness of federal policies aimed at ensuring the proper disposal of  electronics that have reached the end of their useful life.
The recently issued National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship seeks  to advance federal agencies’ efforts to manage used electronics.  However, it is unclear whether it will fully address challenges that impede  environmentally sound management of used federal electronics.  Furthermore, it is doubtful whether the strategy will be effective without a  mechanism for routinely keeping agencies and the public apprised of its  progress toward establishing a governmentwide policy on used federal  electronics—particularly with respect to use of third-party national  certification for electronics recyclers—so that agencies have a clear  understanding of their responsibilities and other interested parties are  apprised of agencies’ progress toward completing actions identified in the  strategy. Currently, the strategy does not state how agencies will be kept  informed of implementation efforts. In addition, the strategy lays out an  approach for ensuring that federal agencies dispose of nonfunctional  electronics in a sound manner, but it does not provide clear and detailed  criteria to assist federal agencies in bundling functional and nonfunctional  equipment for sale exclusively to certified recyclers and refurbishers and  distinguishing between functional and nonfunctional electronics by  conducting specific tests and labeling electronic products. Finally, if  federal agencies sell used functional electronic products through  auctions, neither the agency nor the auction entities are required to  perform due diligence by conducting auditing to determine whether all  downstream reusers of such products follow environmentally sound end- of-life practices.

	Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve federal electronics stewardship, we are making the following  four recommendations.
To support federal agencies’ efforts to improve electronics stewardship,  we recommend that the Director of the White House Council on  Environmental Quality, in collaboration with the Director of the Office of  Management and Budget, and the Administrator of the General Services  Administration collaborate on developing and issuing implementing  instructions for Executive Order 13514 that define key terms such as “electronic products” and “environmentally  sound practices;” address inconsistencies between this executive  order and Executive Order 13423; and as appropriate, provide clear  direction on required agency actions under the national strategy; and  require consistent information tracking and reporting on the  disposition of used electronics among agencies.
To provide transparency on progress toward completing the actions  identified in the National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship, we  recommend that the Director of the White House Council on  Environmental Quality, the Administrator of EPA, and the Administrator of  GSA provide quarterly status updates on a publicly accessible website.
To ensure that electronic products procured by federal agencies are  appropriately managed, we recommend that GSA include measures in its  policy to ensure that all electronics sold through auction are appropriately  managed once they reach the end of their useful lives. Such measures  could include bundling functional and nonfunctional equipment for sale exclusively  to certified recyclers, who would be responsible for determining the  best use of the equipment under the “reuse, recover, dispose”  hierarchy of management; or  if agencies or GSA are to be responsible for screening electronics for  auction and distinguishing between functional and nonfunctional  equipment, providing clear and detailed criteria for doing so, such as specific  testing and labeling; and ensuring that purchasers or recipients of functional electronic  products sold through government auctions use certified recyclers  or perform due diligence and conduct downstream auditing.

	Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to OMB, CEQ, GSA, and EPA for  review and comment. In addition, we provided DOD, DOE, Education,  HUD, and NASA with excerpts of the draft report that pertained to each  agency and incorporated technical comments received as appropriate. In  written comments, which are reproduced in appendix II, EPA generally  concurred with our recommendations. OMB, CEQ, and GSA did not  provide written comments to include in our report. Instead, in e-mails  received on February 1, January 19, and January 17, 2012, from the  agencies’ respective liaisons, OMB, CEQ, and GSA generally concurred  with our recommendations. Even with their general concurrences, in  some instances, the agencies proposed alternative approaches for  executing the recommendations. In the e-mail from its liaison, OMB  concurred with the comments in the e-mail from CEQ’s liaison but did not  provide additional comments of its own.
In response to our recommendation that CEQ, in collaboration with OMB  and GSA, issue implementing instructions for Executive Order 13514 that  define key terms; require consistent information tracking and reporting;  and provide clear direction on required agency actions under the national  strategy, CEQ stated that it would reserve its decision regarding our  recommendation until after GSA issues its comprehensive  governmentwide policy on electronic stewardship. Specifically, CEQ  stated that GSA’s policy would address the issues we identified with  regard to unclear definitions and inconsistent tracking and reporting of  electronics but was silent on how it would provide clear direction on  required agency actions under the national strategy. GAO believes it is  imperative for CEQ to issue implementing instructions along with GSA’s  issuance of its policy. Without such instructions, agencies will lack clarity  on required agency actions under the national strategy and whether  adhering to the GSA policy is necessary and/or sufficient for  implementing the executive order. Moreover, it remains unclear what  mechanism GSA will use to issue its revised policy prior to its inclusion in  the FMR, to the extent the current FMR does not conform with the new  policy. Concerning this issue, GSA stated that it will publish guidance  documents concurrent with proposing changes to the FMR. However, as  GSA intends to issue guidance documents, which are not legally binding  on agencies, as well as regulations, which are, it will be important for  CEQ to issue implementing instructions that indicate which actions in the  guidance documents, as well as any other actions beyond those in the  FMR, are necessary to comply with the executive order.
In addition, as we recommended, CEQ, EPA, and GSA agreed that they  would update a publicly accessible website on the status of progress  toward completing the actions identified in the National Strategy for  Electronics Stewardship.  CEQ stated that progress reporting would be  accomplished by GSA and GSA agreed to provide status updates at least  quarterly. However, in its written comments, EPA requested that, instead  of quarterly status updates, we revise our recommendation to require  status updates as significant progress is made or key milestones are met.
EPA stated that due to the nature of some of the work the agencies have  committed to as part of the national strategy, it may not be appropriate to  report to the general public on a routine basis. We did not revise the  recommendation and are not recommending such disclosure. Instead, we  are recommending that the agencies provide a quarterly status update  that characterizes the progress made toward achieving each action item  or project. For example, one action item in the national strategy directed  the Federal Electronics Stewardship Working Group to recommend to  CEQ by November 18, 2011, metrics and other reporting tools to  measure agencies’ progress in implementing the revised Federal  Electronics Stewardship Policy. It would be helpful to have updated  information on whether the working group has made its recommendation  to CEQ and when CEQ will announce the new metrics and reporting  tools. Currently, such information is not publicly available. In fact, as of  February 8, 2012, more than 6 months after the policy and benchmarks  were issued, no updates have been provided on publicly accessible  websites.
With regard to our recommendation that GSA include measures in its  electronic stewardship policy to ensure that all electronics sold through  auction are appropriately managed once they reach the end of their  useful lives, in the e-mail received from its liaison, GSA noted that the  agency is working toward this goal. Specifically, GSA stated that it is  working toward including measures to (1) bundle all equipment for sale to  certified recyclers, who then determine proper reuse or recycling, or (2)  provide agencies with clear, detailed criteria to distinguish between  functional and nonfunctional electronics and ensure that purchasers or  recipients of federal electronics use certified recyclers or perform  downstream auditing, while also noting that GSA has limited authority to  require recipients of used federal electronics to recycle them once  ownership has transferred to those recipients.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution for 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries of  Defense, Education, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development; the  Administrators of EPA, GSA, and NASA; the Director of OMB; the Chair  of the White House CEQ; the Federal Environmental Executive;  appropriate congressional committees; and other interested parties. The  report also will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of the report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives for this report were to examine (1) key initiatives aimed   at improving the management of used federal electronics and   (2) improvements resulting from these initiatives and challenges that  impede progress toward improving the management of used federal  electronics, if any.
To identify initiatives aimed at improving the management of used federal  electronics, we reviewed guidance and other documents describing the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiatives related to the Federal  Electronics Challenge (FEC), the Federal Electronics Stewardship  Working Group, and Responsible Recycling (R2) practices. We analyzed  the requirements for electronic products contained in the applicable  executive orders and implementing instructions that make up the federal  policy framework; the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which governs the  process through which the federal government acquires goods and  services; the Federal Management Regulation (FMR), which, among  other things, regulates the disposal of federal personal property, including  electronics; and the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Personal  Property Disposal Guide, which serves as an index and quick-reference  guide as it relates to personal property management provisions in the  FMR; and other relevant electronics stewardship guidance. We also  reviewed the July 2011 National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship.
To identify improvements resulting from federal initiatives to improve  management of used federal electronics and challenges that impede  progress, we selected a nonprobability sample of five federal agencies— the departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), Education  (Education), and Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and the  National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)—to examine how  the federal policy framework is carried out in those agencies. We selected  DOD, DOE, and NASA because they each participated to some extent in  the FEC program and purchased large amounts of electronic products— ranking first, eighth, and tenth, respectively, in terms of overall federal  agency information technology spending in fiscal year 2010. We selected  Education because, according to the FEC program manager, the agency  actively participates in the FEC and centrally manages its electronics  procurement and disposal functions. We selected HUD because the  agency was not participating in the FEC. We used FEC participation as a  selection criterion because we hoped to include agencies with a range of  experience with managing used electronics in an environmentally safe  way. Because the selection of agencies was based on a nonprobability  sample, the information we obtained is not generalizable to all federal  agencies. However, because the nonprobability sample consists of a  cross-section of agencies of different sizes and levels of participation in  the FEC, the evaluation of these agencies provides relevant examples of  different procurement and disposition methods for electronics. For these  five agencies we also collected and reviewed fiscal year 2010 strategic  sustainability performance plans. We also conducted semistructured  interviews with officials from the Office of Management and Budget  (OMB), the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the  Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE), and EPA to  discuss their respective roles in assessing agency performance and  managing the FEC and other federal initiatives for electronics  stewardship. In some cases, we followed up the interviews with additional  questions, and on two occasions, CEQ provided us with written  responses to some of our questions on the roles of OMB, CEQ, and  OFEE and other issues on federal electronics stewardship, such as how  OMB and CEQ decide on whether an agency’s program is equivalent to  the FEC. In addition, at GSA, we conducted semistructured interviews  with officials on the agency’s policies and procedures for the transfer,  donation, sale, and recycling of electronic products.
To determine the extent to which agencies used various disposition  methods (i.e., reuse, donation, and sale) we analyzed governmentwide  GSA data from GSAXCess, Exchange Sale, and Non-Federal Recipients  reports for fiscal year 2010. We designed and implemented a data  collection instrument to collect agency-specific disposition data for fiscal  years 2009 and 2010 from the five agencies selected for our  nonprobability sample. We encountered a number of limitations in  obtaining reliable data. For example, GSA officials acknowledged that  GSA does not verify the data that it collects from other agencies. The five  selected agencies that we collected data from also did not have  consistent definitions of electronics and sometimes reported inconsistent  information or used inconsistent methods of tracking the disposition of  used electronics. For example, DOD tracks some items by weight and  other items by line item. We attempted to resolve inconsistencies in the  data provided through this effort through follow-up efforts with the five  agencies in which we discussed how they attempted to collect the data  we requested and related challenges and limitations. Based on these  conversations, we determined that the data were not sufficiently reliable  for the purposes of reporting on amounts of electronics disposed of by the  five agencies and we did not use information collected in the data  collection instrument on the extent to which agencies used various  disposition methods.
We also visited the Kennedy Space Center, in Cape Canaveral, Florida,  and Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Aviation in Richmond, Virginia, to  discuss the procurement and disposition of electronic products. We  selected Kennedy Space Center because it is designated as NASA’s  Principal Center for Recycling and Sustainable Acquisition. We selected  DLA Aviation in Richmond, Virginia, because of its role in disposing of  excess property received from the military services through DLA  Disposition. We also visited a UNICOR recycling facility located in  Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, as well as two private electronics recycling  facilities located in Tampa, Florida. We selected these facilities because  of their role in electronics recycling at federal agencies. At these facilities,  we interviewed officials about the procedures involved in recycling used  federal electronic products and observed the electronics recycling  process to learn how electronics are safely disassembled and, in some  cases, processed for reuse.
To assess the extent to which the July 2011 National Strategy for  Electronics Stewardship addresses any challenges that may impede  participation in electronics stewardship initiatives, we examined key  provisions of the strategy, such as dividing functional and nonfunctional  electronics, and compared these provisions with existing policies for  electronics stewardship. In response to our request for information on  electronics stewardship, FEC program’s manager, officials within each of  the five agencies, and seven champions for the FEC program provided  information on the challenges that may affect agency participation in  electronics stewardship initiatives. In addition, we interviewed officials with the R2 and e-Stewards recycler certification programs,Electronics TakeBack Coalition, and an electronics recycler to determine  the extent to which recyclers in the United States have obtained  certification and to discuss their views about the capacity of certified  electronics recyclers located in the United States.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2010 to January 2012  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.

Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contact

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Diane LoFaro, Assistant Director;  Elizabeth Beardsley; Pamela Davidson; Stephanie Gaines; Deborah  Ortega; Ilga Semeiks; Carol Herrnstadt Shulman; and Vasiliki  Theodoropoulos contributed to this report.

Related GAO Products

Green Information Technology: Agencies Have Taken Steps to  Implement Requirements, but Additional Guidance on Measuring  Performance Needed. GAO-11-638. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2011.
Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete Inventories and  Plans to Achieve Expected Savings. GAO-11-565. Washington, D.C.:   July 19, 2011.
Electronic Waste: Considerations for Promoting Environmentally Sound  Reuse and Recycling. GAO-10-626. Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2010.
Federal Electronics Management: Federal Agencies Could Improve  Participation in EPA’s Initiatives for Environmentally Preferable Electronic  Products. GAO-10-196T. Washington, D.C.: October 27, 2009.
Electronic Waste: EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S. Exports  through Stronger Enforcement and More Comprehensive Regulation.  GAO-08-1044. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2008.
Electronic Waste: Strengthening the Role of the Federal Government in  Encouraging Recycling and Reuse. GAO-06-47. Washington, D.C.:  November 10, 2005.
Electronic Waste: Observations on the Role of the Federal Government in  Encouraging Recycling and Reuse. GAO-05-937T. Washington, D.C.:  July 26, 2005.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that across the federal government 10,000 computers are discarded each week. Once these used electronics reach the end of their original useful lives, federal agencies have several options for disposing of them. Agencies generally can donate their reusable electronics to schools; give them to a recycler; exchange them with other federal, state, or local agencies; or sell them through selected public auctions, including auctions sponsored by the General Services Administration (GSA). As the worlds largest purchaser of information technology, the U.S. government, through its disposition practices, has substantial leverage to influence domestic recycling and disposal practices. GAO was asked to examine (1) key initiatives aimed at improving the management of used federal electronics and (2) improvements resulting from these initiatives and challenges that impede progress, if any. To do this, GAO evaluated federal guidance and policy, as well as guidance and initiatives at five selected agencies. GAO selected agencies based on, among other things, the amount of electronics purchased.

What GAO Found

Over the past decade, the executive branch has taken steps to improve the management of used federal electronics. Notably, in 2003, EPA helped to pilot the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC)a voluntary partnership program that encourages federal facilities and agencies to purchase environmentally friendly electronic products, reduce the impacts of these products during their use, and manage used electronics in an environmentally safe way. EPA also led an effort and provided initial funding to develop third-party certification so that electronics recyclers could show that they are voluntarily adhering to an adopted set of best practices for environmental protection, worker health and safety, and security practices. In 2006, GSA issued its Personal Property Disposal Guide to assist agencies in understanding the hierarchy for disposing of excess personal property, including used electronic products: reutilization, donation, sale, and abandonment or destruction. In 2007 and 2009, executive orders were issued that, among other things, established improvement goals and directed agencies to develop and implement improvement plans for the management of used electronics. The Office of Management and Budget, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive each play important roles in providing leadership, oversight, and guidance to assist federal agencies with implementing the requirements of these executive orders. To lay the groundwork for enhancing the federal governments management of used electronic products, an interagency task force issued the July 2011 National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship. The strategy, which describes goals, action items, and projects, assigns primary responsibility for overseeing or carrying out most of the projects to either EPA or GSA.
Federal agencies have made some progress to improve their management of used electronic products, as measured by greater participation in the FEC and an increase in certified electronics recyclers, but opportunities exist to expand their efforts. For instance, agency participation in the FEC represents only about one-third of the federal workforce. GAO identified challenges with the tracking and reporting on the disposition of federal electronic equipment. For the five agencies GAO reviewed (Departments of Defense, Energy, Education, and Housing and Urban Development and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration), data provided on the disposition of electronic products were inconsistent, which hampered GAOs efforts to accurately assess the extent to which electronic products procured by federal agencies are disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. Challenges associated with clarifying agencies responsibility for used electronics sold through auctions also remain. Currently, neither the agency nor the auction entities are required to determine whether purchasers follow environmentally sound end-of-life practices. Not having controls over the ultimate disposition of electronics sold through these auctions creates opportunities for buyers to purchase federal electronics and export them to countries with less stringent environmental and health standards. Other challenges that may impede progress toward improving federal agencies management of used electronics include defining key terms such as electronic product and environmentally sound practices, as each agency uses its own definition of electronic products to report progress in implementing policies for electronics stewardship.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other things, that the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Management and Budget, and GSA take actions to require consistent tracking and reporting of used electronics and ensure appropriate management of electronics sold at auction. Each agency concurred with GAOs recommendations but, in some instances, proposed alternatives for executing the recommendations.