U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

37–447 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–988

ELECTRONIC WASTE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

SUPERFUND AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 26, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate
(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

ANDREW WHEELER, Majority Staff Director 

KEN CONNOLLY, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 26, 2005

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 3

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 2

Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 5

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 42

Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota ...................... 1

WITNESSES 

Davis, Sheila, executive director, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition ....................... 27

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 87

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 93

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 88

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 92

Dunne, Thomas P., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ................. 14

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 50

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 49

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 54

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 54

Goss, Richard, director of Environmental Affairs, Electronic Industries

Alliance ................................................................................................................. 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 113

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 118

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 114

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 116

Hickle, Garth T., principal planner, Minnesota Office of Environmental

Assistance ............................................................................................................. 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 85

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 85

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 87

Slesinger, Scott, vice president for Government Affairs, Environmental Technology Council ...................................................................................................... 32

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 102

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 111

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 109

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 112

Stephenson, John B., Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54
Page

IV

Stephenson, John B., Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office—Continued

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 65

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 65

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 66

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 66

Talent, Hon. James, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ............................ 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44

Thompson, Hon. Mike, U.S. Representative from the State of California .......... 10

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45

Vitelli, Michael, senior vice president, Consumer Electronics and Product 

Management, Best Buy Company, Inc. .............................................................. 29

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 95

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 102

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 101

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 101

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon .................................. 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letter, from Gallagher, Dawn R., Commissioner, Maine Department of Environmental Protection to Senators Thune and Boxer ......................................... 163

Report, SB20, Determination of regulated elements in discarded laptop computers, LCD monitors, Plasma TVs and LCD TVs ............................................ 164

Statements: 

Basel Action Network, Seattle, WA ................................................................ 124

Cassel, Scott, executive director, Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. ........ 161

Consumer Electronics Association .................................................................. 130

Isaac, David, director, Government and Public Policy on Behalf of Hewlett—Packard Company (HP) ....................................................................... 118

Retail Industry Leaders Association ............................................................... 123

Sheehan, Bill, Ph.D., director, Product Policy Institute ................................ 132
(1)

ELECTRONIC WASTE 

TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John Thune (chairman of the 

subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Thune, Inhofe, Boxer and Jeffords. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. The hearing will come to order. 

I want to welcome our panelists and say good afternoon. 

We are here this afternoon to hear testimony from various stakeholders concerning an issue that has been receiving an increased 

amount of attention as various States begin to grapple with the 

disposal of obsolete, electronic devices. Not only is the topic new to 

this committee but it also marks my first hearing as subcommittee 

chairman. As this hearing gets underway, I want to thank my fellow subcommittee members for joining me today and look forward 

to working with them in the future regarding this and other issues 

under our subcommittee’s purview. 

According to the Consumer Electronics Association, Americans 

own some 2 billion electronic products, about 24 products per 

household. Though e-waste constitutes less than 1.5 percent of municipal solid waste, it is piling up at three times the rate of other 

household trash according to the EPA. Like many American families, I am sure that there are a majority of folks in the hearing 

room today who have older televisions or computers sitting around 

their homes because they just don’t know what to do with them. 

While some interest groups claim that electronic waste such as 

TVs, computers and computer monitors pose a significant risk to 

human health due to the presence of toxins such as lead, mercury 

and cadmium, I look forward to hearing more from the EPA and 

other witnesses about the risk if any that electronics pose to the 

general public when disposed of in municipal landfills. 

While it is currently possible for older electronics to be recycled 

in hopes of recovering precious metals such as gold, copper, aluminum and platinum, the latest estimates from the Environmental 

Protection Agency show that consumers only recycle roughly 10 

percent of all electronics. The remaining 90 percent of used con-
2

sumer electronics are in storage, disposed of in landfills or incinerators or exported for reuse or recycling. 

I also look forward to hearing from our third panel which represents various stakeholders from the retail, manufacturing, recycling and environmental sectors. Particularly, I am interested in 

learning more about what each of our witnesses think of the 

emerging patchwork of States’ e-waste initiatives and what it 

means to not only the future of collection and recycling but also 

what impact the differing State e-waste initiatives mean to the 

U.S. economy and the competitive position of the U.S. electronics 

industry. 

Before turning to our first panel, I would like to recognize Senator Boxer, the Ranking Member of our subcommittee for her opening statement. As many of you may know, California has placed a 

ban on electronics from the landfill and has created its own statewide program regarding e-waste. As I discovered in preparation for 

this hearing, it seems this issue is very similar to layers of an 

onion, the more you learn, the more complex it becomes. 

I would be happy to yield to the Senator from California, Senator 

Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator, for holding this 

hearing and I am very grateful to our colleagues on our first panel 

and look forward to their remarks. 

I would like to read an opening statement. It will last around 5 

minutes. Is that OK? 

Senator THUNE. That is fine. 

Senator BOXER. I see that the chairman of the full committee is 

here. I am very happy to see you, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. Would you mind yielding to me for just a moment? 

Senator BOXER. No, I would not mind. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

We are this close to finishing up our highway bill. 

Senator BOXER. I had that feeling when I looked at your face. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. So I cannot spend a lot of time here but I wanted to come by and just briefly say, first of all, congratulations to 

Senator Thune. This is your first chairmanship and your first 

meeting of your chairmanship and there is no more important subcommittee than the one you have. Being the home of the most devastating of all superfund sites, Tar Creek, it is one I am very sensitive to the issues before this committee. 

I would say this is a very significant issue and you are diving 

into a very complicated issue at this time. I know that you and 

Senator Boxer will be able to handle this. I applaud both of you for 

giving it your attention. 

I would ask unanimous consent that my formal statement be 

made a part of the record at this point. 

Senator THUNE. Without objection. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
3

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

I would like to take a moment to congratulate Subcommittee Chairman Thune on 

his first hearing. Senator Thune has already demonstrated a great ability to consider legislation and balance the interests of diverse groups of stakeholders. I am 

confident that as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management, he will lead on several important issues facing our Nation. 

I must say, Mr. Chairman, you are certainly diving right into a big issue with 

today’s hearing. The issue of electronics waste and recycling has become one that 

a lot of people talk about but have had difficulty in defining what the problems are 

much less potential solutions. 

Various interest groups and European Nations have been pushing for laws restricting electronics waste and require recycling. A handful of States have passed 

or are contemplating legislation that adopts differing regulatory approaches. 

Enacting environmental regulations cost money, and the subject of funding various e-waste and recycling programs is one of the bedrock issues of today’s hearing. 

In reviewing the various approaches and responses from individual stakeholders one 

thing is clear: the issue of electronics waste and recycling has tremendous impacts 

on the competitiveness of companies. 

The electronics industry is one of the most price sensitive, and shifting compliance 

costs may have serious consequences that could jeopardize a business’s future. Congress should take care in proposing laws that may pick winners and losers. 

Upon assuming the Chairmanship of the Environment Committee I pledged to 

focus on well grounded science as a benchmark for regulations. In applying that 

standard here, I am concerned with considering the best approach given the potential benefits versus the costs. 

To my knowledge, EPA is unaware of a single instance where toxins from electronics have leeched from a landfill. I am not suggesting that people must be injured 

before Congress or the Agency should act, however, I firmly believe that regulations 

should not be imposed for the sake of imposing regulations based upon the precautionary principle. 

Further, Americans enjoy their electronics and domestic businesses have prospered as a result. However, dictating technology or increasing the costs of popular 

consumer goods based on circumstances still being studied may have a stifling effect 

on the highly competitive and global electronics sector. 

This is the first hearing the Environment and Public Works Committee has ever 

held on electronics waste and the first hearing for Subcommittee Chairman Thune. 

I am confident that he will review and balance all of the points of view in considering this very complex issue. I look forward to working with him.

Senator THUNE. We thank the chairman for joining us and the 

best of luck with the Highway bill, something in which we are all 

very interested. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Inhofe, get it done. I know you will get it done. If anyone 

can do this, you can. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Each day more than 3,000 tons of electronic 

products are discarded. Every year, 50 million computers become 

obsolete. This waste from electronic products makes up an ever-increasing share of our Nation’s total amount of solid waste. Even 

though it is going to be complicated, Mr. Chairman, I think you 

have struck a nerve because this is an important issue for us to 

get a handle on. 

This electronic waste is not like normal food scraps that every 

American throws out. Waste from electronic products can be very 

toxic. Let me use TVs as an example. There are an estimated 287 

million analog TVs in our Country. Each TV like each computer 
4

monitor contains an average of 4 pounds of lead. If you do the 

math, you are talking about a lot of lead. 

We are quickly moving into the digital age and many people in 

the very near future will switch to digital TV sets. I serve on the 

Commerce Committee where we are looking at that issue, the move 

to digital and how to make it go faster. Over time, if 90 percent 

of the analog TVs are thrown out, our landfills could be burdened 

with more than 1 billion pounds of lead, just from TVs. 

Lead is not the only hazardous substance from electronic products. Electronic waste also contains heavy metals which my colleague has talked about, cadmium, arsenic and mercury. Unless 

disposed of properly, these substances can damage almost every 

system in the human body. We know about these products and we 

know about these heavy metals. 

Municipal landfills are meant to hold trash, not extremely toxic 

material. Hazardous substances from crushed glass and other electronic debris can leak from landfills and threaten the nearby 

groundwater. The toxic substances in electronic wastes are known 

or suspected of causing cancer and birth defects. We know that 

lead can lower the IQs of children and damage their hearing. The 

toxic waste in these products can also damage the lungs, the liver, 

the kidneys and injure the human endocrine, cardiac, skeletal and 

nervous systems. 

As my colleague from South Dakota, the chairman of this subcommittee pointed out, California has been one of the leading 

States in dealing with the problem, perhaps because we have a 

high concern for environment and also because we have such a 

large tech industry and frankly, a tech industry that has really 

been aware and sensitive to these problems. 

Whatever the reason, California encourages recycling of e-products. The State has established a fee-based system that promotes 

the collection and recycling of cathode ray tubes. The State has also 

banned the disposal of cathode ray tubes in municipal landfills recognizing that many facilities may not be able to protect human 

health from toxins that can leach from such landfills. California 

has also established a program that requires retailers to take back 

cell phones for recycling. 

I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses starting with 

our esteemed colleagues and from people who are in California and 

other States trying to deal with this. Unfortunately, throughout 

most of the Country, the steps that California has taken have not 

been taken and much of this dangerous waste ends up in municipal 

landfills or is even shipped overseas for someone else to deal with 

our problems. 

I think it is really important. This is a silent problem and we 

can’t let these wastes silently seep into our drinking water supplies 

and then suddenly note an outbreak of some horrible problem with 

our children who as you know I always say are our most vulnerable, pregnant women, infants and children. That is kind of the 

place where we see it first. We cannot wait that long, Mr. Chairman. So my deepest thanks go to you for this hearing and I hope 

we can meet these challenges in a bipartisan way. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
5

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank you for holding a subcommittee hearing on such an important topic. 

Each day, more than 3,000 tons of electronic products are discarded. Every year, 

50 million computers become obsolete. This waste from electronic products makes 

up an ever-increasing share of our Nation’s total amount of solid waste. But, this 

electronic waste is not like the normal food scraps that every American throws out. 

Waste from electronic products can be very toxic. 

Let me use TVs as an example. There are an estimated 287 million analog TVs 

in our country. Each TV, like each computer monitor, contains an average of four 

pounds of lead. We are quickly moving into the digital age in TV. And, many people 

in the very near future will switch to digital TV sets. Over time, if 90 percent of 

the analog TVs are thrown out, our landfills could be burdened with more than 1 

billion pounds of lead, just from TVs. 

Lead is not the only hazardous substance from electronic products. Electronic 

waste also contains heavy metals such as cadmium, arsenic, and mercury. 

Unless disposed of properly, these substances can damage almost every system in 

the human body. 

Municipal landfills are meant to hold trash, not extremely toxic material. Hazardous substances from crushed glass and other electronic debris can leak from 

landfills and threaten nearby groundwater. 

The toxic substances in electronic waste are known or suspected of causing cancer 

and birth defects. We know that lead can lower the IQs of children and damage 

their hearing. The toxic waste in these products can also damage the lungs, liver, 

and kidneys and injure the human endocrine, cardiac, skeletal, and nervous systems. 

California has been one of the leading States in dealing with the problem—perhaps because we have such a high concern for our environment, perhaps because 

we have such a large tech industry, or perhaps both. Whatever the reason, California encourages recycling of electronic products. 

The state has established a fee-based system that promotes the collection and recycling of cathode ray tubes. The state has also banned the disposal of cathode ray 

tubes in municipal landfills, recognizing that many facilities may not be able to protect human health from toxins that can leach from such landfills. 

California has also established a program that requires retailers to take back cell 

phones for recycling. 

I look forward to hearing from one of our witnesses today, Ms. Sheila Davis, Executive Director of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, and other witnesses about the 

recycling program in California and other States. 

Unfortunately, throughout most of the country, these steps have not been taken 

and much of this dangerous waste ends up in municipal landfills or is shipped overseas. 

We must not ship our problems to other countries or allow them to silently seep 

into our drinking water supplies. We must meet the challenge before us.

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

We have been joined by the Ranking Member of the full committee, Senator Jeffords from Vermont. Would you like to make an 

opening statement, Senator Jeffords? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator JEFFORDS. Yes, I would. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this general oversight 

hearing for electronic waste. 

Computers, televisions and other electronic products have enriched our lives in a multitude of ways. They have also created a 

new problem, how to appropriately manage these products once 

they reach the end of their useful life. The sheer volume of electronic waste is staggering. Each year an estimated 220 tons of com-
6

puters and other electronic wastes are dumped in landfills or incinerated in the United States. 

It is estimated that almost 50 million computers and monitors 

and approximately 20 million televisions became obsolete in the 

year 2003. The challenge of properly managing this much scrap is 

compounded by the presence of harmful toxins. EPA confirms that 

electronic scrap often qualifies as ‘‘hazardous waste’’ because it 

fails the Agency’s toxicity test. 

Each computer and the monitor contain an average of 4 to 8 

pounds of lead, making computer monitors and televisions the 

greatest source of lead in municipal waste. The greatest source of 

mercury in these landfills is from batteries, switches and printed 

wiring boards. Likewise, the leading source of cadmium is the rechargeable nickel-cadmium battery found in the top computers. 

From a resource conservation perspective, it is far better to reuse 

and recycle these materials rather than discarding them. For instance, the U.S. Geological Survey reports 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. 

However, in 2003, only 10 percent of consumer electronics were 

recycled in the United States. The remaining 90 percent were 

stored, disposed of in landfills or incinerators or exported for use 

and recycling. 

In the absence of a national solution, a patchwork of differing 

State requirements is emerging. Four States have banned landfill 

disposal by cathode ray tubes and three States have passed electronic waste legislation; 26 other States reportedly are considering 

electronic waste legislation. 

Some retailers and manufacturers have created voluntarily recycling programs to deal with the problem. This patchwork of State 

regulation and limited industry involvement is not sufficient to address the expected growth in electronic waste. There is also concern 

that it could place unnecessary costs on U.S. manufacturers if 

forced to comply with these inconsistent State regulations. 

For these reasons, a national program is needed to provide incentives for the greater collection and proper recycling of electronic 

waste. The key question is how to finance the development of the 

infrastructure needed to address this looming problem. A variety of 

options have been proposed ranging from an advanced recovery fee 

on the sale of new equipment to a requirement that manufacturers 

take back their own equipment. 

Senators Wyden and Talent have suggested an innovative alternative approach that uses tax incentives to encourage greater recycling. I was pleased to work with Senator Wyden in a similar recycling tax incentive in the Senator Energy bill. That provision would 

create a 15 percent tax credit for the purpose of equipment used 

to process or sort recycled materials including electronic waste. 

While modest, this provision is a first step toward building an electronic waste recycling infrastructure. 

I look forward to hearing the expert testimony today from the 

EPA, industry and other interested stakeholders and their views on 

how to develop, fund and administer a national electronic waste recycling program. I hope to be able to work with you and other 
7

members of the subcommittee on bipartisan legislation that would 

help build the infrastructure to mitigate the environmental impacts 

from electronic waste disposal and to maximize the resource recovery to be gained by greater electronic waste recycling. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF VERMONT

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this general oversight hearing on electronic 

waste. 

Computers, televisions and other electronic products have enriched our lives in a 

multitude of ways. They have also created a new problem: how to properly manage 

these products once they reach the end of their useful life. 

The sheer volume of electronic waste is staggering. Each year, an estimated 220 

tons of computers and other electronic waste are dumped in landfills or incinerated 

in the United States. It is estimated that almost 50 million computers and monitors 

and approximately 20 million televisions became obsolete in 2003. 

The challenge of properly managing this much scrap is compounded by the presence of harmful toxins. EPA confirms that electronic scrap often qualifies as ‘‘hazardous waste’’ because it fails the Agency’s toxicity test. Each computer and monitor 

contains an average of 4 to 8 pounds of lead, making computer monitors and televisions the greatest source of lead in municipal landfills. The greatest source of mercury in these landfills is from batteries, switches, and printed wiring boards. Likewise, the leading source of cadmium is from rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries 

found in laptop computers. 

From a resource conservation perspective, it is far better to reuse and recycle 

these materials rather than discard them. For instance, the U.S. Geological Survey 

reports 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. However, in 2003, only 10 percent of consumer electronics were 

recycled in the United States. The remaining 90 percent were stored, disposed of 

in landfills or incinerators, or exported for reuse or recycling. 

In the absence of a national solution, a patchwork of differing State requirements 

is emerging. Four States have banned landfill disposal of cathode ray tubes and 

three States have passed electronic waste legislation. Twenty six other States reportedly are considering electronic waste legislation. Some retailers and manufacturers have created voluntary recycling programs to deal with this problem. This 

patchwork of State regulation and limited industry involvement is not sufficient to 

address the expected growth in electronic waste. I’m also concerned that it could 

place unnecessary costs on U.S. manufacturers if forced to comply with inconsistent 

State regulations. 

For these reasons, a national program is needed to provide incentives for the 

greater collection and proper recycling of electronic waste. The key question is how 

to finance the development of the infrastructure needed to address this looming 

problem. A variety of options have been proposed, ranging from an advance recovery 

fee on the sale of new equipment to a requirement that manufacturers take back 

their own equipment. Senators Wyden and Talent have suggested an innovative alternative approach that uses tax incentives to encourage greater recycling. 

I was pleased to work with Senator Wyden on a similar recycling tax incentive 

in the Senate Energy bill. The provision would create a 15 percent tax credit for 

the purchase of equipment used to process or sort recycled materials, including electronic waste. While modest, this provision is a first step toward building an electronic waste recycling infrastructure. 

I look forward to hearing the expert testimony today from EPA, industry and 

other interested stakeholders on their views on how to develop, fund, and administer a national electronic waste recycling program. I hope to be able to work with 

you and other members of this subcommittee on bipartisan legislation that would 

help build the infrastructure to mitigate the environmental impacts from electronic 

waste disposal and to maximize the resource recovery to be gained by greater electronic waste recycling.

Senator THUNE. I thank the Senator from Vermont. 

I want to recognize our panel of distinguished colleagues. When 

Senators Wyden and Talent first approached me about doing a 
8

hearing on e-waste, I had to figure out exactly what it was they 

were referring to. I had heard of e-mail and e-commerce and I 

guess it makes sense that we have e-waste. It is an issue that I 

think more and more people in this Country can now identify with. 

There are a lot of us that it becomes very personal when you have 

a computer that is outdated and can’t figure out what to do with 

it. Frankly, there is a patchwork of different State initiatives out 

there. 

I had the conversation with some of our colleagues on the House 

side who had a hearing on this recently and said, we have a lot 

discussed about the problem, but we didn’t have much come out in 

the form of solutions. I am hopeful that on the Senate side, you will 

have something more in the form of solutions. 

Senators Wyden and Talent have introduced legislation that is a 

tax credit proposal. I want to give them great credit for taking the 

initiative to come up with something that attempts to provide incentives for people to figure out how to use and recycle many of 

these products. 

We will hear as well from our colleague from the House side, 

Mike Thompson as well, but I want to start first with our Senate 

colleagues. Senator Wyden, Senator Talent informs me that you are 

the real guy spearheading this so you get to go first. We would love 

to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. We are a bipartisan team and I will just tell you 

that we are supposed to be discouraging gratuitous filibusters 

around here, so if I could just have my statement put in the record, 

let me perhaps make a few comments. Then I will turn it over to 

our friend, Jim Talent. 

This really is a day of firsts and congratulations to you on your 

first hearing. This is the first time we have ever had a hearing on 

electronic trash, No. 1. Second, we have never had a bipartisan bill 

before and third, this is really a first in terms of a different approach. Senator Boxer is dead right, our States have done a variety 

of work in this area and have tried to be innovative. 

It has always involved one of two things, either up front fees 

which I think will hurt consumers and make it hard to get them 

interested or slapping manufacturers with more taxes. Senator Talent and I have said that there really is an interest in jump starting 

a national approach. We use a tax credit approach, $8 per unit tax 

credit for companies that recycle significant numbers of display 

screens, a $15 tax credit for consumers. 

The first question is how do you do something like this when you 

have a big deficit. We have said that we would envision doing 

something like this for about 3 years to try to jump start a national 

policy in this area. It seems to me that if we don’t, what we are 

going to do is see States and localities put in place a crazy quilt 

of laws and regulations which we will eventually have to try to sort 

out. 

Senator Jeffords and I have talked about it for years. We did get 

a baby step in the right direction in terms of the tax credit for e-
9

waste recycling equipment in the Senate bill and we are optimistic 

that will be signed by the President. 

Senator Talent and I do think what is important now is that 

there is a national interest in terms of recycling electronic trash 

and not just sort of sitting around and waiting for this kind of hazardous stew of toxic e-waste to accumulate in landfills across the 

Country. 

The last point that I would make, and Senator Boxer touched on 

this as well, is with respect to digital television, that on a bipartisan basis in the Senate we have finally begun to look at ways to 

ensure that we are always advancing the next set of technology. In 

effect, what you use one year is going to be obsolete the next and 

people will, in effect, be looking at that new round of products. So 

this problem is only going to grow exponentially. 

I was really struck by the story a few days ago in the New York 

Times that talked about computers being so infected with spyware 

and adware that they are on life support and rather than try to 

debug computers, people essentially chuck them. Nobody really 

talked about spyware and adware very long ago. Senator Boxer, 

myself, Senator Burns and others have been working on this but 

the fact of the matter is that was a problem nobody envisioned just 

a few years ago and now all of a sudden the New York Times is 

running front page stories on why people are chucking their computers because they can’t debug their system and will just say 

what the heck, let us get the next one. 

We are very hopeful that on a bipartisan basis we can work to 

put less e-waste in the landfills and more in the recycling bin. We 

acknowledge the good work that is being done by States and localities around the Country but it is the view of Senator Talent and 

myself that if we don’t get a national policy in place, particularly 

to jump start the effort to come up with a uniform set of incentives, 

4 or 5 years down the road, we are essentially going to be trying 

to wade through another kind of morass. In that case, it will be a 

hodgepodge of inconsistent rules and regulations and our work will 

be that much more difficult. 

We thank you for the chance to come and work with you and 

Senator Boxer and Senator Jeffords on this. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Senator Wyden, for your testimony 

and for your thoughtful approach and looking beyond just identifying and defining the problem but actually coming up with something tangible, specific proposal that would help address it. 

We will yield to your colleague, Senator Talent. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES TALENT, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator TALENT. When Senator Wyden approached me about 

this, I really thought he had a good idea. I am happy to be his wing 

man on this idea. 

I don’t want to talk a long time about the problem because I 

think we all understand that. I do think it is important to keep in 

mind that if we don’t do something we are really going to be overwhelmed by this. Everyone just needs to think of their own buying 

habits and their family’s buying habits and think of the number of 

old computers and TVs that we are accumulating. We are going to 
10

start running out of rooms in our attics, garages and basements 

and have to get rid of them. 

I think the advantage of this approach is that it will provide a 

boost through the Tax Code for creation across the Country of a recycling system that will be uniform in the sense that this is a national incentive, it may adapt a little bit from place to place and 

we can get this into place. Consumers can get used to dealing with 

it, can see the benefits they get from it. Once that is in place, it 

will be easier for us to move to a different system of financing it 

if we want to do that. 

The problem with collecting up-front fees is the hassle with it, 

the resentment people have and they don’t know really what they 

are getting for the money they are paying. They are going to pay 

it whether you hit them directly or hit the manufacturer, it will get 

passed through to them. This way we get a system going and people can see it is working and get satisfied with it. Then we can figure out longer term how you want to finance it. 

I really like this idea, although obviously the subcommittee and 

the committee are going to have to work on this and massage this 

a lot because we have introduced this as kind of a starting point 

but we understand there is a ways to go with it. 

Senator THUNE. Senator Talent. 

We are also joined this afternoon by Congressman Mike Thompson from the State of California, a colleague from the House side 

who is also keenly interested in this issue. Congressman Thompson, we would love to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE THOMPSON, REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Congratulations on your first subcommittee hearing. I am glad to 

be a part of it. 

I would like to go a step further than my two friends and Senate 

colleagues. I would like to suggest we make this a bicameral as 

well as a bipartisan solution. 

I first introduced legislation 3 or 4 years ago on this issue trying 

to raise the profile because as everyone has recognized, it is a very 

serious problem. I will admit that my solution, my bill has the upfront fee, a point of sale fee. The idea was to get some startup 

money and let EPA take that money and spend it in the form of 

grants to anyone, public or private sector, who came up with a good 

program to deal with this problem. 

For the record, please know that I am not married to that solution. I just think it is important that first, everybody recognizes the 

problem and then we all sit down and figure out the solution. 

There are proponents for both the point of sale fee, there are proponents for the tax approach. There is also a new suggestion that 

we combine them and start with a point of sale collection so we can 

get the program started and then move to a tax type of solution 

to get it going and then as I think Senator Wyden said, phase it 

out altogether once it got up and going, but it is a problem. 

You mentioned the landfill problem, the public safety problem 

with the heavy metals going into the environment and some folks 

are taking these components overseas and disassembling them 
11

with child labor and discarding the bad stuff into the environment 

somewhere else but exposing kids to the problem. You mentioned 

the storage problem and said you have been confronted with this. 

Everybody is confronted with this. 

The life expectancy of a computer today is so short that we out 

use their abilities and stick them in a closet someplace. I have had 

business people tell me that they actually have warehouse space in 

their businesses designated for storage for these computers because 

they have no place to put them. 

The issue of States, I think Senator Jeffords mentioned there are 

three States, Maryland, Maine and California that already have 

programs. There are 26 other States currently considering legislation to put a program on the books. This could create such a mess 

not only for consumers but for manufacturers and for retailers as 

well. 

All of this is just a bit more pressure that I believe should bring 

us to figure out the solution. In the House, we started a bipartisan 

working group with four of us who have taken this on as a major 

priority. Of the four of us, I think there are two or three who have 

bills but we would very much like to extend it, as I mentioned, 

make it a bicameral issue and figure out what that solution will 

be because hopefully we can move away from the issue of e-waste 

which suggests that this is waste we dispose of and move it toward 

e-scrap which may suggest that we can reuse or recycle these, or 

at least dispose of them in a proper manner. 

I commend you for having this hearing and hopefully we can all 

come together and figure out what the solution is. Anyone who is 

at all honest will admit there is a problem. As mentioned before, 

the difficulty is finding that solution. I hope I am able to be a part 

of figuring that out. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement I will submit. 

Senator THUNE. Without objection, we will have that placed in 

the record and again, thank you for your leadership on the House 

side on this issue. Frankly, I guess I am somewhat surprised it 

hasn’t been dealt with sooner. There are stockpiles of computers, 

televisions and all kinds of electronic devices out there I am sure 

piling up in peoples’ homes, garages and other places. So it is very 

timely and important that we get into this issue today. 

We don’t want to keep you all very long, but a question for Senators Talent and Wyden. On your legislation, why is it that you 

give the tax credit to ‘‘certified’’ recyclers? 

Senator WYDEN. I think whenever you are trying to use scarce 

resources, particularly in the Tax Code I saw what a battle it was 

just to get the incentive for the purchase of equipment, you have 

to draw the line somewhere. We thought that made the most sense 

in terms of scarce dollars. 

Senator Talent and I were saying, there would be a variety of 

ways to complement our bill. Say you wanted to have diminimus 

up front kind of charge so people had some skin in the game in 

terms of recycling, something like that could be looked at. We essentially made the definition because we thought that was the best 

use of scarce dollars. 

Senator TALENT. There have been a lot of incidents of illegal 

dumps and recycling centers around the Country, basically fraudu-
12

lent outfits that advertise themselves as recycling centers and take 

the computers, get some money from people and dump it. We had 

an incident of that in Missouri. So the idea here is to have some 

kind of a process where you can certify that the recycling center 

is up to standards before they are eligible for the tax credit. That 

is the most obvious way of doing it. 

Senator THUNE. Senator Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. I would commend you on that. It is really key 

because otherwise we will have these little businesses spring up 

which, as you say, are just a front to collect some money and don’t 

do the job. So thank you for that. 

Senator Wyden, since you, according to Jim Talent, came up with 

this idea of the tax credit first, do we know because we have these 

deficits, what the cost will be here because we are going to lose 

money from the Treasury, so what does this add to the deficit? 

Senator WYDEN. We think it might be $300 million to $400 million. We obviously have to kind of crunch the numbers in terms of 

how much recycling would be done. There will obviously be definitions and the like, but it strikes me, and this is the heart of what 

we are trying to do, we are not saying put a tax credit in place in 

perpetuity. We are saying look at it for a relatively short period of 

time and we think if you even capped it somewhere in the vicinity 

of $300-$400 million, you could with a sharp pencil say that would 

be a good investment. 

Senator BOXER. I want to ask the whole panel a question. I sometimes think we under estimate the people out there. People hate 

taxes, let us face it, but if they know there is a dedicated tax, a 

dedicated fee, they feel very differently about it, at least the calls 

that I read. So if it was $2 a product and plus you did a tax credit 

in combination, are you willing to look at that with us because I 

fear if it is $300 million to $400 million a year, you are talking real 

bucks over time. We just don’t have it, so I am just wondering if 

you would be willing to work with us. 

As Mike Thompson said, and he is a very pragmatic legislator, 

maybe there is a way we could do some combination thing where 

the consumers pay but not to a point where they are upset about 

it. For example, the airport fee, a lot of people were scared after 

9/11, how can we ask people to pay a security fee? Let me just tell 

you, people in California who travel across the Country all the time 

are happy to do it if they know it is going for security. 

If this was drawn in such a way, would you be open to working 

with us? I even know if Senator Thune is interested in this. I am 

just saying for myself, I think the more avenues we have to explore 

so we don’t come to our colleagues with a big hole in the deficit. 

Senator TALENT. If I was in your position, the position of the 

Ranking Member, I wouldn’t rule out anything. My own sense of 

it is that you are right, that if people have an assurance they know 

what the money is going for and have assurance it is taking care 

of a real problem, they would be more open to that. The question 

is how do you give them that assurance, how do you get a system 

up and running first. 

You are also right, I think, in believing people may be ahead of 

us on this issue because everybody has to deal with this. Every 

time you walk by one of the old computers in your garage or some-
13

thing, you say to yourself, what am I going to do with that, it is 

just taking up space. 

I think this is a basis for discussion and we would like to continue being a part of it. I was saying to Senator Wyden I see the 

stirrings of an E-Waste Caucus here beginning on a bicameral 

basis. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator WYDEN. I think that is a very good point. It was just our 

concern that if you are trying to build this ethic to recycle these 

electronic products rather than chuck them, you just want to make 

sure that the first thing people don’t see is a huge batch of new 

taxes. I think if it is an effort where the Federal Government is 

going to be a partner in trying to set up the national infrastructure 

and say to people, we want you to have some skin in the game too, 

there will be some charges, I think something like that ought to be 

on the table. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks. 

Senator THUNE. Senator Jeffords? 

Senator JEFFORDS. What about some way that we could get 

money put into whatever we were using and then a refund to get 

people to buy it back? 

Senator WYDEN. Probably too logical for government. I think all 

those kinds of things ought to be on the table as well. Jim touched 

on this at the outset. You have to figure out a way as people begin 

to get acclimated to these kinds of priorities and say look at all this 

stuff we are going to have, you have to make sure that it is user 

friendly and there isn’t a lot of confusion about how it is set up. 

I think that is attractive too. 

Senator TALENT. The only concern I would have and I am sure 

your other panels will have a lot of comments on these various alternatives, we ought to try and set it up so the system is as simple 

as possible so the incentive is consumer buys and consumer takes 

to the recycling center rather than takes back to a store and they 

then take to a recycling center. I wouldn’t rule out anything at this 

stage. 

It is music to my ears to hear there is resolution on the part of 

the leaders of the committee to address the problem. I think this 

hearing is a good first start. I hope you take these ideas and put 

them all together in a bill. The longer we take to do something, I 

think we are all in agreement, the harder it is going to be when 

we finally do something. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you. 

Senator THUNE. One final question. You ended up at $15 on your 

individual and $8 for a small business. How did you come up with 

the number? 

Senator WYDEN. You can see, Chairman Thune, the list of people 

that endorsed the legislation. We essentially pulled together this 

environmental and industry coalition. For example, the $8 credit 

should go to companies that recycle at least a significant number 

of screens, again because you are trying to draw the line. Certified 

recyclers are going to be the priority in terms of focal point for entering the system. 

The credit for the companies was built on the idea there should 

be a significant number of display screens or computer systems 
14

that a company used per year but this was a judgment essentially 

that we came to by talking to that support group, the coalition of 

consumers and business leaders. If we are lucky to go that kind of 

route, we ought to be consulting with them more to try to refine 

what is that target point that will make it attractive for people to 

do this and incorporate some of the ideas that we touched on here 

about whether individuals ought to have to pay something. 

Senator THUNE. Very good. Thank you all very much. 

We have heard from our first panel on some proposals. Thank 

you Senators, thank you, Congressman Thompson. We will call our 

second panel. We will have an opportunity to hear from EPA and 

others if there is a problem out there that needs to be addressed. 

We look forward to hearing their testimony. 

I want to welcome our second panel. As part of that panel, we 

have Thomas Dunne, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; John Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and 

Environment, U.S. Government and Accountability Office; and 

Garth Hickle, principal planner, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, one of the four States that I think has taken 

steps or put in place some sort of comprehensive approach to dealing with the issue of electronic waste. 

We will start on my left with Administrator Dunne. 

Before we begin, let me say we are going to adhere to the 5-

minute rule. So if you will confine your oral remarks to 5 minutes 

and any additional information you want to present, we will make 

sure it gets put into the record. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. DUNNE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY 

RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. DUNNE. Good afternoon. 

As you said, my name is Tom Dunne, and I am the Acting Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response. I am pleased to appear today to discuss how EPA is addressing electronic issues including management, reuse and recycling. I will summarize my testimony but ask the written statement be submitted for the record. 

Senator THUNE. Without objection. 

Mr. DUNNE. EPA believes that more emphasis needs to be placed 

on conservation and recovery in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act known as RCRA. To that end, EPA launched a Resource 

Conservation Challenge in the year 2002. Arguably, the best way 

to manage waste is to eliminate it by designing products and processes that minimize waste, by collecting waste products and 

reusing them and by using input materials more efficiently. 

EPA has been involved with the improvement of electronics design and recovery for a number of years. This involvement was 

prompted by several EPA concerns including the increased growth 

of electronic wastes, the potential for exposure to substances of concern contained in some discarded electronics if they were not properly managed and the lack of a convenient, affordable, electronics 

reuse and recycling infrastructure. 
15

Electronic waste is an increasing portion of the municipal solid 

waste stream, although it contributes less than 2 percent of municipal solid waste. EPA estimates that in 2003, approximately 10 percent of consumer electronics was dismantled and recycled domestically. The remaining 90 percent of discarded consumer electronics 

was stored, reused or refurbished, exported or disposed of in landfills or incinerators. 

Discarded electronic products contain a number of substances 

that cause concern if improperly managed, including lead from 

cathode ray tubes and mercury in flat panel displays. While used 

electronic products do not pose a human health or environmental 

threat at this time, it makes good sense to reuse and recycle these 

products to bring about better materials management, create more 

jobs and economic activity and to promote greater resource conservation. 

EPA is currently engaged in a series of partnerships with manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, State and local governments, nonprofit organizations and other Federal agencies to encourage the 

improved design of electronic products, help develop an infrastructure for the collection and reuse and recycling of discarded electronics and to encourage the environmentally safe recycling of used 

electronics. 

For example, EPA funded and participated in a process with electronic manufacturers, government technology purchasers and other 

organizations to develop the electronic product environmental assessment tool called EPEAT. EPEAT will help large technology 

purchasers identify electronic products that are designed in a more 

environmentally friendly manner and it is expected that EPEAT 

will be operating in 2006 when manufacturers who meet their criteria will be able to certify their products. 

The initial electronic products eligible for EPEAT certification 

will be desktop computers, laptops and monitors. In addition, EPA 

has entered into a voluntary partnership with a number of electronic manufacturers, retailers and State and local governments to 

develop the Plug-In To eCycling. The aim of this initiative is to 

raise the public awareness of electronics recycling and to increase 

recycling opportunities. 

In the first 2 years of the initiative, more than 45 million pounds 

of unwanted electronic products were recycled by Plug-In partners. 

Further, EPA launched several pilot projects last year with manufacturers, retailers and local governments to provide consumer electronics recycling. The pilots resulted in more than 11 million 

pounds of reused electronics and were collected in retail stores including New England area Staples, Seattle area Good Guys and all 

of the Office Depot locations. 

EPA has also partnered with the Federal Environmental Executive and several other Federal agencies to launch the Federal Electronics Challenge or FEC. The U.S. Federal Government is the 

largest bulk purchaser of electronics products in the world. In fiscal 

year 2005, the Federal Government will invest roughly $60 billion 

in information technology equipment and services. That represents 

about 7 percent of worldwide purchases. Therefore, it is fitting that 

the Federal Government lead by example. 
16

The FEC is a voluntary partnership of Federal agencies that 

have committed to develop a more sustainable environmental stewardship of electronic products. Twelve Federal agencies have signed 

a Memorandum of Understanding on electronics management 

which will help increase reuse and recycling. These agencies represent roughly 83 percent of the Government’s information technology purchasing power. 

Finally, EPA continues to work with a wide range of stakeholders to further encourage the reuse and recycling of electronic 

products. Last spring, the agency hosted a national electronics 

meeting attended by representatives from industry, government 

and non-profit organizations to discuss electronics management 

issues. 

As a result of these meetings, a collaborative strategy is being 

developed that included the development of a certification program 

for electronic recyclers, a development of a nationwide electronics 

recycling data repository and piloting a private, multi-state organization to help support electronics recycling in the Pacific Northwest. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my summary of some of the efforts 

to encourage electronics management, reuse and recycling and certainly, I would be happy to answer any questions you or other subcommittee members may have. 

Senator THUNE. Next is Mr. Stephenson from the Government 

and Accountability Office which has prepared an analysis of this 

subject at least in draft form. I was one of the requesters of that 

as was Senator Boxer. I understand you will be coming out with 

a final draft some time this fall. I appreciate the work you have 

put into it already in terms of finding out the state of play out 

there with respect to this issue and some of the things being proposed. 

Mr. Stephenson. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL 

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Thank you. It is a pleasure for us to be here 

to discuss our ongoing work for this subcommittee on the growing 

problem of used consumer electronics, primarily computers, monitors and televisions but in the future maybe other types of consumer electronics. 

As you know, rapid advancements in technologies have led to increasing sales in electronics but with this increase comes the dilemma of how to manage products that have reached the end of 

their useful lives. Recycling and reuse have great potential to help 

deal with this dilemma but there are also significant challenges. 

Today, I will summarize our work to date on one, existing information on the volumes of and problems associated with used electronics and two, factors affecting the Nation’s ability to recycle and 

reuse these electronics. 

To address these issues, we are currently surveying key stakeholders including manufacturers, retailers, trade associations, recyclers, environmentalists and State and local governments. To date, 

41 of the 53 surveyed participants have responded. We are also vis-
17

iting States and localities that have implemented programs or 

passed legislation to manage used electronics. 

Available estimates strongly suggest that the amount of used 

electronics is large and growing and that if improperly managed, 

can harm the environment and human health. Over 100 million 

computers, monitors and televisions become obsolete each year and 

most are probably being stored in places like basements, garages 

and warehouses. So the opportunity is to act now. 

The question is what will happen to these units that can be recycled and reused but might also be disposed of in landfills or exported for recycle or reuse overseas. Standard regulatory tests 

show that some toxic substances with known adverse health effects 

have the potential to leach from discarded electronics into landfills. 

As has been mentioned, the CRT tube can contain as much as 

4 to 8 pounds of lead. Some suggest that because modern U.S. 

landfills are designed with liners and other safety precautions, 

leaching into the environment is not a major problem. However, 

about 70 percent of heavy metals in landfills currently come from 

discarded electronics and studies on the long term effects are limited. 

In addition, many used electronics end up in countries without 

modern landfills or with considerably less protective environmental 

regulations. Moreover, if these electronics are simply discarded in 

landfills, valuable resources such as copper, gold and aluminum are 

lost for future use. 

For a perspective, the U.S. Geological Survey has reported that 

one metric ton of computer circuit boards contains between 40 and 

800 times the concentration of gold contained in gold ore and 30 

to 40 times the concentration of copper while containing much 

lower levels of harmful elements common to such ores. Despite the 

clear advantages, less than 10 percent of electronic waste is currently being recycled. 

So, what is the problem? The cost along with limited regulatory 

requirements or incentives discourage recycling and reuse. Consumers generally have to pay fees ranging from $10-$27 per unit 

and drop off their used electronics at often inconvenient locations 

to have their used electronics recycled or refurbished for reuse. 

Such economic factors are compounded by Federal regulatory requirements that provide little incentive for environmentally preferable management of used electronics. 

EPA regulates hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act but lacks the authority to require environmentally preferable management of used electronics through recycling and reuse or to establish a mandatory national approach such 

as a disposal ban or financing schemes. As a result, all of its efforts 

are voluntary. 

In the absence of a national framework for dealing with this 

problem, a patchwork of potentially conflicting State requirements, 

albeit good in their own right, create some problems. Manufacturers in one State, for instance, may have an advance recovery fee 

placed on their products but the same manufacturers may have to 

take back their products and pay for recycling in another. 

This patchwork may be placing a substantial burden on manufacturers, retailers, recyclers and stakeholders. It is worth noting 
18

that several European countries have established disposal bans 

and they have been in place for some time and that the EU has 

a financing plan proposal. 

In light of all this activity, it is not surprising that 97 percent 

of our survey respondents to date have told us that some type of 

national legislation is needed to deal with this growing problem. As 

we conclude our work, we will be further examining ongoing efforts 

among the States to deal with this growing problem, the various 

legislative solutions that have been proposed to create a uniform 

national approach, and options the Federal Government can pursue 

to encourage recycling and reuse of electronics. 

Thank you. That concludes my statement. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you. 

Mr. Hickle is with the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. We welcome you here today and look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF GARTH HICKLE, PRINCIPAL PLANNER, 

MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE 

Mr. HICKLE. My name is Garth Hickle with the Office of Environmental Assistance, a division of the Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today 

and share Minnesota’s experience for the management of waste 

electronics. Given the State, legislative and programmatic attention 

devoted to this issue over the past 5 years, congressional attention 

is an important step forward to address this complex issue. 

The Office of Environmental Assistance began to address this 

issue in 1995 at the request of our State legislature in response to 

concerns regarding the growing presence of discarded electronic 

products in the waste stream and the potential environmental impacts of an electronics disposal. While there is debate regarding the 

actual long term environmental impacts from disposing of waste 

electronics in landfills, Minnesota has framed the issue as one of 

resource conservation and the promotion of economic development 

opportunities created by the collection and de-manufacturing of old 

electronic products. 

The environmental benefits, energy savings and job creation from 

promoting waste as a resource have guided our thinking as to the 

rationale for the collection and recycling of waste electronics. It is 

Minnesota’s intent to ensure that residents have convenient access 

to collection opportunities and that the infrastructure is sufficient 

to discourage illegal dumping, abandonment of collected products 

and the export of waste electronics to nations with less stringent 

environmental standards. 

Since 1997, the OEA has facilitated a number of demonstration 

projects for the collection of waste electronics with participation 

from manufacturers, local government and recyclers. Partnerships 

with individual manufacturers and retailers such as Best Buy and 

Target, both Minnesota-based companies, have served to model 

various collection options and assess costs. The OEA has also participated in several efforts to bring parties together to implement 

comprehensive programs both at the State and national level. 

We actively participated in the National Electronic Product Stewardship Initiative. While NEPSI did not arrive at a consensus re-
19

garding how a national program should be financed, the stakeholders did agree on the need for several important elements of a 

national program, including a broad scope of products beyond just 

televisions and monitors, the need for performance goals and funding for local collection activities, environmentally sound management standards and a third party organization to implement a program. 

The Minnesota Legislature has also considered legislation for 

waste electronics each year since 2002. The proposals have ranged 

from advance recycling fees similar to the program enacted by SB–

20 in California to the producer responsibility approach implemented in Maine. The different business models and perspectives 

within the industry that prevented a national approach from 

emerging from NEPSI have also stymied passage of a State program in Minnesota. 

Following the 2004 Minnesota legislative session, the OEA initiated another consultation process with significant participation 

from stakeholders to identify expectations for a program in Minnesota. The expectations include offering convenient collection options for residents that address a broad scope of products and track 

the purchasing and disposal habits of consumers utilizing existing 

infrastructure and providing incentives for collection, ensuring accountability for collection and recycling by identified parties, promoting environmentally sound management and providing incentives for design for the environment. 

As well, we identified support in private management to the extent possible to reduce government involvement in management of 

the program as a key principle. Last, financing the program without relying on end of life fees or local government funding. While 

developed for Minnesota, the expectations listed above will also be 

relevant for a comprehensive national program. 

This subcommittee will certainly hear from manufacturers, retailers and others on the preference for a national approach for 

business reasons to avoid a patchwork of State programs. A Federal approach will also address some of the concerns faced by State 

government grappling with this issue. From the perspective of 

State government and consumers, a Federal approach may provide 

a consistent standard and eliminate regional disparities. 

For instance, in 2003 Minnesota enacted a disposal ban for cathode ray tube containing products, televisions and computer monitors that is now slated for implementation in 2006. This ban 

raised a concern among neighboring States, South Dakota, North 

Dakota, Wisconsin and Iowa that televisions and monitors from 

Minnesota would be transported across Minnesota’s border for disposal. 

A Federal framework would also eliminate the impact upon border sales if, for instance, one State enacted a consumer fee-based 

program while a neighbor State did not. A national program might 

also greatly simplify administrative responsibilities such as compliance reporting and public education. 

If comprehensive national legislation is contemplated, a step 

Minnesota supports, it is important to consider the following: 

adopting an approach that engages all the players along the product chain from manufacturers to local government to share respon-
20

sibility for funding and operating a program and such an approach 

would result in a more effective that provides incentives for more 

environmentally friendly products in the future but will not place 

significant additional burden on government. 

Legislation should also contain a financing mechanism that recognizes the different business models within the electronics industry and provides flexibility to implement tailored collection activities. A framework should be established so that products can be 

added or deleted as the technology and consumer purchasing habits 

evolve and finally, adopting performance standards and mechanisms for evaluating progress. 

If a comprehensive national program is not adopted, there are 

still several steps the Federal Government could undertake to support the collection and recycling of discarded electronic products including performing data collection and analysis, ensuring a consistent regulatory environment to support reuse and recycling of 

discarded products, developing clear standards for environmentally 

sound management that impose restrictions on the export of waste 

electronics to countries with less stringent environmental standards and finally, engaging in research and analysis regarding innovative partnerships to manage the program. 

It is important to acknowledge that USEPA and others have 

projects underway to address some of these issues. USEPA in particular deserves significant recognition for the resources and staff 

that have been devoted to this issue over the past several years. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward 

to addressing any questions you may have. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Hickle. 

I will advise my colleagues who are here we will try and adhere 

to 5-minute rounds for us as well and the additional questions we 

have, we can submit for the record. 

Mr. Dunne, I would like to direct a question to you. First, because Congress has exempted household waste such as TVs and 

computers from the Hazardous Waste Rules, are there any particular concerns that EPA has when it comes to handling this particular waste stream? 

Mr. DUNNE. You have to be vigilant in terms of what you are 

doing. Even with the exemption, we have to be careful about sham 

recyclers creeping up. Senator Talent mentioned there was a case 

in Missouri and there were some other cases but there are always 

people who will go outside the realm. 

We feel so far based on data that we have, which are not necessarily complete, even though a cathode ray tube may not meet 

the TCLP test, it doesn’t necessarily create an environmental problem as long as the landfill is properly lined and has a leachate system in place; they would be able to catch it. 

However, I think we have to continue to study this. We have a 

study done by the Solid Waste Association of North America that 

has not been able to trace any concerns so far. They represent municipal solid waste organizations in their cities. There has been 

some research and study which we sponsored at the University of 

Florida that so far suggests there is not contamination but I do 

think we don’t have enough data in this Country to jump to the 

conclusion that it will never occur. Right now, I don’t think there 
21

is any data that we have seen and been able to analyze to say 

there is an environmental problem right now. 

Senator THUNE. Are you aware, under existing landfill permitting regulations, of any instances in which toxins from electronics 

have led to human exposure? 

Mr. DUNNE. I am not aware of any particular case. There could 

be but I am not aware. I want to remind you of something. We do 

have the subtitle (c) part of RCRA and there is a structure in place 

which this committee helped to pass in about 1976, I believe. It is 

run by the Federal Government and the States. We can always fall 

back, if there is a hazardous waste problem through corrective action under subtitle (c), so we couldn’t have just a voluntary program without the basis of the regulatory program in place right 

now. 

Senator THUNE. Mr. Stephenson, during the course of GAO’s 

work, have you come across any estimates as America transitions 

to HDTV about how that might increase the number of televisions 

that could end up in landfills? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. No, because converter boxes will likely be used 

to make old TVs HDTV compatible, we don’t think that there will 

necessarily be a spike in the number of TVs that appear as waste. 

But, you have to remember that even the plasma screens that are 

replacing those old CRT tubes have mercury in them. So you have 

to consider all forms of electronic wastes. 

The real problem is that without a landfill ban, people are not 

incentivized to do anything with their computers. The fact that 

most have done nothing with them sort of exemplifies that. It is 

easy to put an old computer on your curb but if you have a landfill 

ban, you can’t do that. We think that should be an integral part 

of any legislation or national program that is considered. The 

States that have landfill bans have exponentially more recycling 

and reuse than those that don’t. 

Senator THUNE. Did I hear you say, Mr. Dunne, that if there was 

a determination made by EPA that these materials were hazardous 

that under subtitle (c), you would have the authority to enact regulations? 

Mr. DUNNE. I said that if it is causing contamination in a particular landfill, we and the States who run most of the program, 

the operational side, could fall back on subtitle (c). It isn’t whether 

there is lead in a material, we know there is and there is a significant amount of lead going into landfills. That is one of our concerns, the volume of this. That is why we are dealing with this as 

a separate issue rather than straight municipal landfills. 

Senator THUNE. My time has about expired. I have a question I 

would like to address to Mr. Hickle, but I will yield now to the Senator from California. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Dunne, I thought you said this isn’t so much 

of a problem on the cathode ray tubes, so I want to ask you a question. Do you agree with this, ‘‘Toxicity characteristics of cathode 

ray tubes above the toxicity characteristic regulatory level of 5 mg 

per liter that is used to classify lead containing waste is hazardous’’? 

Mr. DUNNE. I think so but when you ask it very specifically like 

that, I would have to go back and find out the exact answer. 
22

Senator BOXER. What I read to you was EPA. That is what EPA 

says, that it is a problem. 

Mr. DUNNE. I think what you have to do is quantify the problem. 

A tube by itself may have these characteristics, but whether or not 

it presents an environmental problem put into a qualified landfill 

doesn’t represent a health or environmental problem as far as we 

know today. 

Senator BOXER. I am confused because in 2002, and I ask unanimous consent to place this in the record, EPA makes the case that 

we do this rule. 

[The referenced document not received at the time of print.] 

Mr. DUNNE. The rule is under development right now, the cathode ray tube. 

Senator BOXER. I know that. Do you know when it started to be 

considered? Do you know what year? 

Mr. DUNNE. My guess is back in the 1990’s. 

Senator BOXER. It was 1998, that is 7 years. Picking up from 

your demeanor and your comments on this, I don’t sense you are 

particularly interested in moving this through. Is there anything 

you can tell me in terms of the EPA’s intention? Do you have an 

EPA decision on when you are going to finish this regulation and 

promulgate it? 

Mr. DUNNE. It is going through review right now, Senator. I 

would assume in the next few months, there would be some determination in terms of what rule will be published. 

Senator BOXER. In a few months, you will have a determination 

on? 

Mr. DUNNE. On the cathode ray tube rule. 

Senator BOXER. So in a few months, you won’t have the final 

version of the rule but you will know if you are going to have a 

rule? 

Mr. DUNNE. Yes and it could be published shortly. 

Senator BOXER. What could be published? 

Mr. DUNNE. The rule on cathode ray tubes. 

Senator BOXER. Do you expect that to happen? 

Mr. DUNNE. It is very possible. 

Senator BOXER. Can you give me an approximate date? 

Mr. DUNNE. I don’t control the calendar in terms of when it goes 

to reviews. 

Senator BOXER. Who does? 

Mr. DUNNE. The interagency review process takes time and the 

Office of Management and Budget reviews it. 

Senator BOXER. The value of leaded glass recently dipped to 

minus $200 per ton. This change reflects a shift in the consumer 

preference for different technologies. Doesn’t this drop in value 

eliminate EPA’s rationale for exempting cathode ray tubes from 

hazardous waste regulations as a ‘‘valuable commodity’’? 

Mr. DUNNE. I don’t think so. 

Senator BOXER. Do you still think it is valuable? 

Mr. DUNNE. I think it is valuable in the sense that we want to 

be able to regulate only those things that create a real environmental threat. I don’t think that we have to gauge every rule on 

today’s market share. 
23

Senator BOXER. But that wasn’t the question. I understand what 

you are saying. You want to make sure that it is an environmental 

threat before you regulate it. I understand that. I appreciate that, 

but that is not the question. One of the reasons for the rationale 

for exempting cathode ray tubes in the past has been that it has 

been deemed a valuable commodity. Isn’t that rationale gone now 

given what I told you about the value, putting aside the risks? 

Mr. DUNNE. I don’t think what I have seen so far of the evaluation done by staff is that there is some cost benefit analysis if it 

has to be done with every rule and it seems to me there is probably 

some benefit to exemption. 

Senator BOXER. Because? 

Mr. DUNNE. Because there is still value in the marketplace. 

Senator BOXER. I told you it is minus $200. 

Mr. DUNNE. It still may have value. I don’t know. 

Senator BOXER. I will follow up with some written questions. 

That makes no sense. I was an economics major, what do I know. 

I don’t understand something having such great value when it 

doesn’t have any value, has a minus value, but we will get into 

that later. 

To finish my last question, then I might ask for a second round, 

we know that cathode ray tubes can leach four times the amount 

of lead as material that is regulated as a hazardous waste. I just 

read EPA’s own words on that. The EPA’s Inspector General recently noted that EPA is testing other types of electronic wastes for 

their hazardous characteristics. What types of electronic material 

has EPA tested for its hazardous characteristics and what were the 

results? 

Mr. DUNNE. I will have to get you that for the record, Senator. 

I am sorry, I can’t answer that right now. 

Senator BOXER. In October 2003, EPA proposed a rule that could 

deregulate up to 3 billion pounds of hazardous waste including 

used circuit boards. Among other problems, EPA’s proposed rule 

would allow hazardous waste to be shipped on public roads without 

any tracking documents. Can you please tell me the status of that 

proposed rulemaking? 

Mr. DUNNE. I believe it is still under development and I don’t 

have a timeframe in terms of when the regulation would come out 

but we can give you an approximation when we go back to the office. 

Senator BOXER. I would like that answer in writing. We will propound our unanswered questions. 

Thank you. 

Senator THUNE. Senator Jeffords? 

Senator JEFFORDS. I have heard from numerous industry groups 

concerned about the emerging patchwork of conflicting State and 

local rules governing electronic waste disposal. Do you agree that 

the Federal legislation is needed to build a national infrastructure 

to encourage electronic waste recycling or does EPA have the tools 

it needs to do the job? 

Mr. DUNNE. I think it has been pointed out by GAO that we 

don’t have mandatory authority or regulatory authority. We have 

been meeting with industry and other people as I mentioned in my 

testimony. I am not too sure what Federal standards or a program 
24

would look like at this particular point. It was interesting to hear 

the two Senators and the Congressman who have two different approaches. That is fine and there may be many other approaches. 

It is a matter of which one do you test that is going to make some 

sense. 

We haven’t taken a position because I don’t think we have 

enough knowledge and information but we do recognize the problem in terms of the collection of electronic material and also the 

marketplace condition of electronic material in terms of making it 

more efficient. It may well be in the future that as you consider 

this, you will have enough ideas and we will be able to aid you if 

it is going to be a Federal system. 

Senator JEFFORDS. In my service of the Country in the Navy, I 

traveled around the world and I found when we went into Asian 

countries, they seemed to have a great facility for taking equipment and understanding them and modeling them and taking our 

secrets and improving on them. Do you find when you do travel 

that the European and Asian nations are somehow ahead of us, 

stealing information from us and getting better equipment? 

Mr. DUNNE. I am not fortunate enough as a Government official 

to get to travel outside this Country, so I am not sure I am an expert on that. Certainly the European Union has advanced some 

laws and some regulations based on part of California’s law. That 

is going to change some of the way our manufacturers who are 

international producers, not just for the United States, in terms of 

how they produce. Certainly there are lessons to be learned I suspect from watching what the European Union is doing. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Hickle, any comments? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Some of the countries, Japan, the Netherlands, 

Switzerland, are leaders in the recycling of electronics. They have 

had programs in place since 1998, so I think they are a little bit 

ahead of us on this. The EU and certain countries in Europe have 

bans on landfills and the EU is proposing a financing option that 

largely puts a lot of the onus on the producer of the consumer electronics to be responsible for end-of-life disposal. 

We think, as the Senators said before, all options ought to be on 

the table at this point. Our stakeholders seem to think that some 

sort of a hybrid option possibly with an up-front fee combined with 

manufacturer responsibilities might be the way to go. Each approach one has pros and cons and that is part of what we will be 

evaluating as we complete our study for the subcommittee. 

I agree with Senator Boxer that in general, if people know what the fee is going to be used for, $6-$10 is not a lot to pay at the 

point of sale to build a fund to handle recycling and reuse later. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Mr. Hickle? 

Mr. HICKLE. Senator Jeffords, in addition to the developments in 

the European Union, I think it is also important to look at the step 

forward that Canada has taken. Alberta currently has a program 

in place right now for e-waste and there are proposals on the table 

in Ontario, Nova Scotia, Sasketchwan and I believe British Columbia as well. I think largely in Europe, many of the countries in Asia 

and now in Canada, they have been able to address this problem 

in a fairly comprehensive fashion. 

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you. 
25

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Senator Jeffords. 

We will indulge the members and ask a few more questions. I 

have a couple here and I think Senator Boxer does as well. 

Mr. Hickle, as a Senator from a State that borders Minnesota, 

I appreciate hearing how your State has worked to address this 

issue. Because you prohibit CRT tubes from being disposed in landfills, I thought your perspective would be helpful to the committee 

as we learn more about the challenges the individual States are 

facing. 

Since it seems funding is the greatest challenge for implementation of your e-recycling program, where do you see your legislature 

heading on that? You mentioned in your testimony some things 

that they have been reviewing and looked at in the past. Are they 

coming to any consensus on that? 

Mr. HICKLE. Senator Thune, we have been deadlocked on this 

issue for 4 years. As I mentioned, the competing industry visions 

of how any waste system should be financed has been very much 

in play in Minnesota, so there has not been resolution to this point. 

I am hoping that in the upcoming legislative session, the legislators 

will be able to look at what I think Mr. Stephenson referenced as 

a hybrid option that potentially combines some sort of fee-based 

and producer responsibility program as one package. There is a legislative task force that is being convened to address this issue in 

the interim, so I am really excited we will be able to see a break 

through on this next year. 

Senator THUNE. Senator Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Dunne, have you seen the EPA Inspector 

General report dated September 1, 2004? 

Mr. DUNNE. I don’t think I have read it. 

Senator BOXER. It is titled, ‘‘Multiple Actions Taken to Address 

Electronic Waste but EPA Needs to Provide Clear National Direction.’’ I would ask unanimous consent that we just put the summary in the record today, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator THUNE. Without objection. 

[The referenced document not received at the time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. It is just very clear what your own Inspector 

General is telling you. I guess if you haven’t read it, you wouldn’t 

know, but one of the things is finalize the CRT rule as soon as possible and hopefully you are doing that; define your e-waste program, your goals, your performance measures, communicate them 

to stakeholders, just about five of these. I would like to get this to 

you. 

EPA’s Plug-In To eCycling Program is a voluntary partnership to 

increase electronics recycling. The IG reported that several stakeholders involved with recycling electronics didn’t understand the 

purpose of the program or weren’t even aware of it. What steps is 

EPA taking to clearly define the program’s goals and to increase 

awareness of the program? 

Mr. DUNNE. Senator, we are in the stage where we are completing a strategy in terms of municipal solid waste and some others including electronics. I was out in Las Vegas to the Consumer 

Electronics Products Show and there were other governmental officials there and I believe there are 21 partners involved in that who 

have been involved in recycling, some jointly, some on their own 
26

and we want to give recognition and encouragement to some others. 

I haven’t read that report thoroughly enough I guess to understand, if I understood what you said, how somebody could participate in the program and not know what it is about. If that is what 

it said, it seems very strange. Maybe they interviewed the wrong 

person in the company. I am not too sure, so I would have to take 

a look at the analysis done on that because I really don’t know. 

Senator BOXER. I would think if the Inspector General is doing 

a good job he wouldn’t just talk to one person. I think they would 

go out and interview a number of companies to see whether or not 

they heard of this program. I guess my feedback to you is this is 

a year old or so. 

I hope you would look into it because that seems to be a sad situation when you are doing a program to help people understand 

they should recycle and they say, we don’t even know about the 

program. It just sounds like you are doing it but you are not really 

putting any effort behind it maybe or the Inspector General maybe 

did a terrible job on this report which you indicated maybe he 

talked to the wrong person. Just accept the fact that the IG has 

made this very important evaluation. 

I think you should take it as a criticism you should take in a 

good way and say maybe we are not doing enough, let me get back 

to you, Senator, let me see, because I think rather than be defensive and say, they only asked one person, maybe the truth is there 

is a good program out there in the EPA but you are not doing 

enough to publicize it. That would be my reaction. 

Mr. DUNNE. I am not going to question the competency of the Inspector General’s Office on this. I mentioned in my testimony that 

we had an electronics conference not too many months ago and 200 

people showed up. A number of them came from this particular 

program. 

I find it difficult that any company or city would lend their name 

to something and say they don’t know about it, so I would have to 

go back and analyze what the Inspector General really did to come 

up with that conclusion. I just haven’t seen it. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Let me ask you one more thing. The EPA 

Inspector General recently concluded that the United States is 

‘‘lagging behind international e-waste efforts,’’ which you alluded to 

when you talked about some of the things Europe is doing. The IG 

highlighted international laws that require manufacturers to take 

financial responsibility for recycling consumer electronic products 

and to reduce the use of six toxic chemicals in these products. 

Here is what I think is interesting. Maybe you are prepared and 

maybe you want to get back to me but here in the United States, 

we have the Pollution Prevention Act. It establishes a national policy that ‘‘pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source 

whenever feasible.’’ I guess my question is, why hasn’t the EPA 

used its authorities under the Pollution Prevention Act to require 

e-waste pollution prevention activities? 

Mr. DUNNE. We are tied in to Pollution Prevention but I don’t 

think, as I said before, that products are produced for international 

consumption, not just consumption in the United States, so it 
27

would be very difficult for us alone to do that under the Pollution 

Prevention Act. 

I do understand that one of our goals is to reduce the number 

of materials and reduce and reuse materials. It just makes sense 

to us economically. We wouldn’t be putting this kind of manpower 

and effort behind it like my colleague from Minnesota, if we didn’t 

think this was a worthwhile effort. 

Senator BOXER. I see my time has run out. That is fine. I look 

forward to your written responses. 

But Mr. Chairman, I think we have a lot of good advice here 

from the Inspector General, from the GAO, some of Mr. Dunne’s 

comments were helpful, some weren’t but some were, and I think 

we have struck something here. My own view just from listening 

is maybe this issue just hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves and 

maybe we can jump start it. I just want to thank ever member of 

the panel for answering the questions. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you all very much. 

We will move to our third panel. On this panel we have: Ms. 

Sheila Davis, executive director, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition; 

Mike Vitelli, senior vice president, Consumer Electronics and Product Management, Best Buy Company, Inc.; Scott Slesinger, vice 

president for Government Affairs, Environmental Technology 

Council; and Richard Goss, director of Environmental Affairs, Electronic Industries Alliance. 

Ms. Davis, if you would like to lead off, we would love to hear 

from you. 

STATEMENT OF SHEILA DAVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

SILICON VALLEY TOXICS COALITION 

Ms. DAVIS. I am Sheila Davis, executive director of Silicon Valley 

Toxics Coalition. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak 

to you today about a very important issue, electronic waste. 

The problem with electronic waste in the United States is becoming critical. Discarded computers and other electronic products are 

the fastest growing part of the waste stream as we heard earlier. 

These produces contain a lengthy list of toxic chemicals as well. 

They also cause serious health problems which we know. 

Less than 10 percent of discarded computers are currently being 

recycled, with the remainder getting stockpiled or improperly disposed of; 50 to 80 percent of e-waste collected for recycling is actually being exported to Asian countries which have no infrastructure 

to accommodate the hazardous properties of e-waste. Due to horrific working conditions and no labor standards in many other developing countries where e-waste is sent, women and children are 

often directly exposed to lead and other hazardous materials when 

dismantling electronic products to recover the few valuable parts 

for resale. 

I don’t know if you received a copy of the photo that was submitted earlier, but Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition as well as the 

Basil Action Network actually went to China several years ago to 

see what was happening with the materials and there is a video 

as well as photos. The photo submitted earlier is a photo of a 

woman squatting on the ground surrounded by e-waste and she 

has a hammer and a baron cathode ray tube which is the inner 
28

part of the monitor and she is trying to knock off the copper in the 

back. 

[The referenced document can be found on page 87.] 

It says, here in the photo, you will see a woman who is working 

on dismantling. She is in Guiyu, China. You see that she has no 

protective equipment whatsoever, yet she is about to smash a cathode ray tube from a computer monitor in order to remove the copper-laden yoke at the end of the funnel. 

The glass is laden with lead but the biggest hazard the woman 

faces is inhalation of the highly toxic phosphor dust coating inside 

the CRT. The monitor glass is later dumped in irrigation canals 

and along the river where it leaches lead into the groundwater. 

The groundwater in Guiyu is completely contaminated to the point 

where fresh water is trucked in constantly for drinking purposes. 

Why does the computer that I turn in at my local recycler event 

in California end up in China at this woman’s workplace? Why 

didn’t my computer get dismantled and recycled here in the United 

States like I thought it would? 

The answer is that the market for recycling e-waste here doesn’t 

exist. The recycled materials used in these products are so toxic, 

it is very expensive to recycle them. There are some good recyclers 

who are actually trying to recycle products as extensively as technology allows but this requires manual processing and protecting 

workers from exposure to the toxic chemicals is very expensive. 

The economics just don’t work for most recyclers so they look for 

the cheaper, low road solutions and cream off the parts for which 

there are local markets and ship the rest across the ocean to become someone else’s problem or they use low wage prison labor in 

the United States for disassembly which further undermines the 

chances for a healthy recycling market in this Country. 

How do we fix this problem? We think the solution is to create 

incentives for the market system to work here. We need to do two 

things to make that happen. First, we need the products to be easier to recycle. The economics of recycling will never work unless 

these products are easier and therefore, cheaper to recycle. Part of 

that means using less toxic materials and part of that means designing them so that they are more easily disassembled for recycling without relying on prison labor or women and children in 

China. 

Here is an example of what I mean by designing for recycling. 

For example, a local to California representative of a printer manufacturer told me a discouraging story about recycling at his company. He said that designers worked with the recyclers and found 

that if they simply added a part that was less than a dollar, a component part, to the new line of printers, it would make the printer 

easier to disassemble and cheaper to recycle but the design team 

was told not to include the part because there is no guarantee that 

the printer would be recycled. So the added cost could not be justified. Here the producer was not motivated to change the design because they were not concerned about the recycling end of life for 

their product. 

The second thing we need to do is to get the producer to take responsibility for the product at the end of the product’s life so they 

do have this incentive. If the producer, and here I mean manufac-
29

turers and brand owners, have no connection to or responsibility 

for their products at disposal time, then what incentive do they 

have to modify their design for better recycling or even better reuse 

for their products? The answer is none. They have no incentive to 

do anything different. 

What if companies did have responsibility for taking back their 

products for recycling? What if that was just a normal part of operation, that each company had to recycle a significant portion of its 

own products each year? They would simply build these take back 

and recycling costs into their products’ pricing structure. 

To be competitive and to cut the recycling costs, they would innovate, redesign and end up with computers that were cheaper to recycle. Less toxic materials would be used so recycling would be 

easier and cheaper and there would be no reason to even think 

about having perhaps taxpayers pay to solve some of these problems. The market would really work better and work for us. 

This legislation we are encouraging our lawmakers to adopt, this 

legislative approach I should say is a call to producer responsibility 

and this is far reaching and it is probably more complex than we 

can go into today in testimony here, but we think it is the only solution that will correct the market forces that currently send my 

computer and yours too into landfills or to a village in China or 

into prisons. 

My message here today is this is a big picture problem that really calls for big picture solutions. It won’t be solved just by the tax 

credits or just by a front end fee paid at point of sale. I encourage 

you as lawmakers to seek the kinds of changes that will actually 

make the market take care of the problem of electronic waste. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Ms. Davis. 

Mr. Vitelli. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL VITELLI, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

CONSUMER ELECTRONICS AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT, 

BEST BUY COMPANY, INC. 

Mr. VITELLI. I am Michael Vitelli, senior vice president of Consumer Electronics at Best Buy. I am here today on behalf of the 

Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition. This is my first committee hearing also. CERC appreciates the opportunity to provide 

the views of the consumer electronics and general retail industry 

concerning the need for a national approach to handling electronic 

devices at the end of their life. We look forward to working with 

you and members of this committee to identify the best means of 

developing a national solution for electronic device recycling. 

Best Buy is the Country’s leading consumer electronics retailer 

with close to 700 stores in 49 States and nearly 100,000 employees. 

The company started back in 1966 with a single store in St. Paul, 

Minnesota and we continue to operate our headquarters in the 

Twin Cities today. In addition to our products and services offerings, Best Buy is also known for our commitment to our communities, providing volunteer support, financial resources and leadership on many issues but especially on the use of innovative technology to improve learning opportunities for children. 

Best Buy is also actively concerned with the issue of electronic 

waste. In 2001, we launched a series of recycling events to provide 
30

a simple and convenient program for recycling electronics that protects the environment while raising awareness of recycling options. 

Through these events, Best Buy has helped consumers nationwide 

recycle over 2.5 million pounds of electronics in an environmentally 

responsible way since the program began. We also offer the ability 

to recycle cell phones, ink cartridges and rechargeable batteries 

year round in all of our U.S. stores. 

CERC is a national coalition representing consumer electronics 

retail businesses and associations that operate in all 50 States and 

worldwide. Joining Best Buy in CERC are Circuit City, Radio 

Shack, Wal-Mart, Target, the North American Retail Dealers Association and the Retail Industry Leaders Association. Our goal at 

CERC is to educate, advocate and instill continued consumer and 

market confidence in consumer electronics policy issues. 

The most important point I want to make here today is that the 

Country needs a national solution to the issue of electronic waste. 

In the first half of 2005 alone, 30 States and local legislators saw 

more than 50 separate bills introduced on this issue including an 

e-waste measure introduced and still active in New York City. So 

50 differing and potentially conflicting approaches will be administratively unreasonable and infeasible for manufacturers and retailers alike and will not lead to a comprehensive and efficient electronics waste management system for our Nation. 

While retailers have a limited role in the life cycle of the product 

we sell, consumer electronics retailers realize we have a responsibility in working with interested stakeholders, retailers, manufacturers, distributors, recyclers, public interest groups, charitable organizations, State and local governments and indeed our consumers themselves all have a role in advocating for the development of a successful, national electronics waste management system. 

Both consumer electronics and general retailers unanimously 

support a shared responsibility approach to handling electronic devices at the end of their life cycle. While other stakeholders have 

yet to reach a broad consensus, consumer electronics and general 

retailers, including their national and State federations, have come 

together. CERC drafted a consensus legislative position paper supporting a producer responsibility model based upon internal discussions, industry wide and meetings with policymakers. 

Since issuing this position paper, CERC has been working with 

and recruiting broad, across industry support among other interested stakeholders including environmental groups, recyclers, State 

legislators and manufacturers. Our members oppose a point of sale, 

advance recovery fee system at the State level because we know 

from firsthand experience that such an ARF will not accomplish its 

goals. It is an administrative burden for all parties and while it 

guarantees a new revenue source for Government, it does not guarantee there is an effective recycling system put in place or that the 

fees are adequate to support that system. In addition, such a program provides no incentive for the design of more environmentally 

friendly products and fails to take advantage of market forces to 

reduce the cost of recycling over time. 

While retailers and others believe that the producer responsibility approach is the most fair, least burdensome and perhaps the 
31

most easily managed model, we have also looked upon the TalentWyden Electronic Waste Recycling Promotion and Consumer Protection Act that would provide that limited tax credit to recyclers 

and to consumers as an excellent model that could jump start a national capitalization of e-waste recycling. 

Even without State or Federal laws governing management of 

electronic waste, the private sector, manufacturers and retailers, 

working with qualified recyclers, are fully supportive of a shared 

responsibility approach as evidenced through the numerous voluntary initiatives that collect and recycle today. CERC members 

and other consumer electronics retailers and manufacturers have 

participated in such EPA programs as the Plug-In To eCycling Outreach Campaign which works to increase the number of electronics 

devices collected and safely recycled in the United States. Partners 

in this EPA program have included manufacturers like Panasonic, 

Sharp, Sony, JVC, Lexmark, Dell, Intel, retailers like our company, 

Best Buy, as well as Staples and Office Depot and approximately 

two dozen State and local governments. 

More than 26.4 million pounds of electronics were collected in the 

first 10 months of this national program alone. In addition, a number of retailers and manufacturers have taken part in other voluntary programs to encourage greater recycling. As I mentioned 

earlier, Best Buy actively provides recycling options for our customers and our recycling events. 

We had an overwhelming response to one in our headquarters in 

Minnesota over a month ago that drew record crowds and we had 

2,900 cars and collected over 250,000 pounds in just 2 days. Another event is scheduled next week at our Mira Mesa, CA store and 

we are very excited to be partnering with HP and Sony in this 

event. 

We all realize that voluntary programs cannot fully handle or 

solve the end of life issues involving consumer electronics and 

CERC strongly believes that a comprehensive, nationwide approach 

to the matter of electronics is the ultimate solution. We further believe that a successful national system can be established without 

imposing fees at point of sale, without having to create a new complex administrative structure, and without mandates that discourage innovation. That is why the Talent and Wyden Act seemed to 

many of us a cost efficient and potentially successful national program. We urge you to consider this proposal as a viable and creative opportunity to deal with electronics at the end of their lives. 

The members of CERC together with consumer electronics, general retailers and their trade associations throughout the United 

States want to be constructive and contributing partners with lawmakers, manufacturers and others in dealing with these end of life 

cycle consumer electronics products. We cannot, however, afford to 

let individual States, individual cities and counties establish the 

wrong programs and impose inconsistent mandates on retailers 

and manufacturers and create confusion about the appropriate 

ways to handle electronics at the end of their life. 

We appreciate the holding of this hearing and encourage Congress in general and this committee in particular to work toward 

a national solution on electronics waste management. We pledge to 
32

work hard with you in arriving at a fair, viable and effective approach. 

Thank you. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Vitelli. 

Mr. Slesinger. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT SLESINGER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY 

COUNCIL 

Mr. SLESINGER. My name is Scott Slesinger and I am vice president for Governmental Affairs of the Environmental Technology 

Council. I want to thank the committee for requesting our views on 

the issues of e-waste. Our Council represents environmental service 

companies that recycle hazardous materials including e-waste and 

solvents. We also represent hazardous waste facilities permitted 

under RCRA. 

Similar to the lead shielding used to protect dental patients during x-rays, the amount of lead in computers is significant but is a 

crucial component that protects the user from radiation emitting 

from the tube. Without toxic metals, disposal in a sanitary landfill 

would be a safe and available option, however, these facilities are 

not operated to protect the environment from the leaching of the 

volumes and types of lead that would be placed in these facilities. 

In some communities, if you put a computer curbside in a garbage bag, it will be crushed, then incinerated and the lead and 

other contaminants will go into the air. Newer flat panel monitors 

do not use lead and glass but use mercury to operate efficiently. 

If computers are hazardous toxic waste under the law, why are 

they being disposed of in non-hazardous waste landfills and incinerators? Congress exempted households and certain small generators from the hazardous waste regulatory regime. The belief at the 

time was that the volume of toxic waste from households would be 

minor and not a threat to the environment. 

When communities became aware of the volume of lead being 

placed in their sanitary landfills, they grew concerned. About a 

quarter of the States passed laws treating CRTs as universal 

waste. Universal waste rules are clear and simple standards for 

managing widely distributed hazardous waste as compared to the 

more burdensome requirements intended for factories and similar 

facilities. 

Essentially, the universal waste rules are a middle ground between the household rules which exempt waste from controls and 

the full RCRA subtitle (c) hazardous waste standards. EPA is establishing universal waste rules for items such as mercury thermostats and flourescent lamps. 

An EPA advisory group that included State, Federal, environmental and industry officials recommended to EPA that CRTs be 

regulated as universal waste to ensure responsible recycling. However, we have learned that instead of requiring universal waste 

protections, EPA plans to finalize the rules that essentially deregulate these waste if sent to a domestic, unregulated recycler. EPA’s 

proposed exemption from RCRA for CRT glass if followed by the 

States would represent a regrettable rollback in environmental protection. 
33

We believe that other electronic waste including computer hardware and cell phones should also be regulated under the universal 

waste rules instead of the normal hazardous waste rules. Those 

who may argue that deregulation will lead to more recycling may 

be right but such unregulated recycling will inevitably lead to improper recycling, taxpayer financed cleanups and public cynicism of 

recycling. Those costs would dwarf the benefits of a possible chance 

of some increase for recycling. 

The risks are not imaginary as Senator Talent mentioned a facility in Missouri. At a State convention of hazardous waste officials 

in 2002, State regulators described the recycling industry as a low 

profit, risky business with high turnover rates and inadequate insurance. The State regulators cited cases where low cost recyclers 

were merely sham operations who collected waste fees with no intention of doing any recycling. Many of these facilities have gone 

belly up leaving contaminated sites for States to clean up. 

Despite EPA’s proposed approach, many generators of computer 

waste want recyclers to have some certification, a good housekeeping seal of approval. EPA responded by establishing fairly good 

guidelines in the document, Plug-In To eCycling, Guidelines for 

Materials Management. However, these guidelines are only voluntary and their effectiveness as opposed to the promulgated University Waste Standards is unconvincing. 

Many of our customers send computers to us for handling because our companies are protected. For instance, our member companies and legitimate competitors track the waste, train our employees, prepare spill prevention plans and hold environmental and 

closure insurance. 

Under the proposed EPA CRT rule, our companies and competitors would not need to meet any of those requirements. Unregulated companies would be subject to RCRA only if they spill the 

hazardous waste on the ground but it is hard to imagine how that 

would become known. It would be difficult if not impossible for regulated entities to compete in such a system. 

Today with commodity prices high, there have been many new 

businesses trying to make profits out of e-waste. When the price of 

the valuable components inevitably turns, these unregulated recyclers may fail and leave the taxpayer to clean up the toxic remains. 

We believe that whatever legal regime is established for recycling, 

the rule should require them to have financial assurance for closure, environmental liability insurance, employee training and 

some minimal waste tracking so consumers can be assured their 

discarded computers are managed properly. 

The goal should not be to increase recycling, the goal should be 

responsible recycling that conserves resources, saves energy and 

enhances the environment. 

Thank you and I look forward to any questions you may have. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Slesinger. 

Mr. Goss. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD GOSS, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES ALLIANCE 

Mr. GOSS. My name is Richard Goss. I am the director of Environmental Affairs for the Electronic Industries Alliance, EIA. EIA 
34

is the leading advocate for the $400 billion U.S. high tech and electronic industries. Our 1,300 member companies provide products 

and services ranging from microscopic electronic components to 

State of the art defense, space and industry high tech systems, as 

well as the full range of telecommunications, information technology and consumer electronics products. 

EIA appreciates the opportunity to provide the views of our 

membership concerning the end of life management of our products. We commend the subcommittee for holding this hearing and 

advancing the dialog on this important issue. We would also like 

to thank Senator Wyden and Senator Talent for their efforts and 

leadership in this area. 

EIA and our member companies support the safe and appropriate recycling of used electronics products to help meet the important environmental goal of increasing resource conservation and 

recovery. As manufacturers, we recognize that we are a key partner in the process and we will continue to work with Congress, 

Federal agencies, the States and involved stakeholders to address 

this challenge. 

The ongoing commitment of our member companies to product 

stewardship, environmental design and recycling can best be demonstrated by a listing of some of our industry’s concrete achievements. Through a combination of direct corporate efforts and innovative partnerships, including USEPA’s Plug-In To eCycling Campaign, EIA member companies have been involved in the proper recovery and management of well over 1 million tons of used electronics products, well over 2 billion pounds. 

In addition, EIA member companies use significant quantities of 

recycled materials including glass, metals and plastics in new generations of their products. EIA member companies are on target to 

be in compliance with the European Union directive on the restriction of hazardous substances, the Ross Directive, which will take 

effect on July 1, 2006. Since electronics products are manufactured 

for global sale and distribution, U.S. consumers will have broad access to products that comply with the new EU requirements. 

As a result of our members’ longstanding dedication to product 

stewardship and technological innovation, the electronics industry 

continues to achieve significant and sustained environmental 

progress throughout the entire product life cycle, from design 

through beneficial use to end of life. On the whole, every year our 

products become more energy efficient, use fewer materials of potential environmental concern and become easier to upgrade, disassemble and recycle. 

EIA is currently compiling a record of member company achievements in the areas of product stewardship and design for the environment and we will be happy to share this document with the 

subcommittee once it is completed. 

In summary, we support electronics recycling as a way to conserve and reclaim resources. However, this is a complex challenge 

that will require the coordinated efforts of all the key stakeholders 

to resolve. Given the complex nature of the challenge, EIA supports 

efforts to establish a viable recycling infrastructure in which all the 

major stakeholders, manufacturers, government retailers, non-gov-
35

ernmental organizations and recyclers participate based on the 

unique expertise and capabilities. 

The combined goal of these institutional stakeholders should be 

to develop a recycling infrastructure that is convenient for the residential consumer. Implementing a system based on principles of 

shared responsibility will increase the efficient collection of electronics and ensure economies of scale by taking advantage of existing infrastructure. 

EIA supports equitable, flexible and cost efficient solutions that 

encourage the proper management of used electronics while limiting additional cost to the public for these popular products. EIA 

also believes that it is essential to consider the science related to 

electronics products as part of any public policy discussion regarding recycling. 

Certain compounds are present in electronics products such as 

lead and mercury that provide clear safety performance and energy 

and efficiency benefits. These compounds should be appropriately 

managed at the end of the life. USEPA shares this view and has 

consistently stated the used electronic products when properly 

managed do not represent a human health or environmental concern. 

The agency considers electronics recycling as fundamentally a 

solid waste mangement and resource conservation issue. Likewise 

our member companies recognize that reusing and recycling electronics at the end of the life is the most environmentally preferable 

option and we support reasonable efforts to develop the recycling 

infrastructure. 

As you know, three States have already enacted three very disparate statutes which address electronics recycling. Numerous 

other States and even some localities have either developed special 

regulations for handling of used electronics or are actively considering their own electronics recycling legislation. These approaches 

often include significant variations in terms of financing mechanisms, the scope of covered products, the roles and responsibilities 

of key participants and the overall regulatory structure. 

Industry and other stakeholders are rightly concerned that potential confusion of State recycling laws and regulations will prove 

costly, inefficient and perplexing. There is clearly a role for the 

Federal Government to play in bringing national consistency to this 

emerging field. Federal action can help promote the safe and environmentally sound recycling by creating a streamlined and uniform 

regulatory framework that removes artificial barriers and instead 

encourages the free flow of used products for proper management. 

Specific steps include: establishing consistent regulatory definitions of key terms and strictly defining the scope of covered products through the application of fixed criteria; considering the establishment of a flexible third party organization that can help with 

roles such as data reporting, compliance and financing; ensuring 

broad consistency in labeling product information and regulatory 

reporting requirements; and assessing whether additional recycling 

regulations or standards are necessary to ensure the safe and environmentally sound management of used electronics. 

EIA and our member companies stand ready to work with the 

subcommittee on these and other initiatives. 
36

Thank you again for the opportunity to share industry’s position 

on this important issue and I would be pleased to respond to any 

questions. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Goss. 

I am now going to turn to Senator Boxer for questions. 

Senator BOXER. I know that is a favor to me because I have a 

4:30 I have to attend but this has been a terrific panel. I do appreciate all of your. Every one of you has made a tremendous contribution at least to this Senator’s understanding of this. 

Mr. Vitelli, thank you for what you do to recycle these products, 

take these products back. I guess what I am interested in is what 

you do with them once you get them? 

Mr. VITELLI. We work with qualified recyclers in the various 

States that we do that and with the manufacturers who participate 

with us. In some cases, they are the ones taking the product to the 

right place. 

Senator BOXER. So you don’t send them to China? 

Mr. VITELLI. No, we do not. In fact, our RFQs with recyclers we 

work this, one of the key things in there is the fact the product will 

be recycled in the United States. 

Senator BOXER. I am glad. That makes me very proud of what 

you are doing. 

I was on a local county board years ago in the days we didn’t 

think about recycling anything, paper, plastic, definitely not plastic, aluminum cans and we realized that there could be a profit in 

this. I am wondering whether you in this effort break even on this, 

make money, do you lose money? What do you think at the end of 

the day? 

Mr. VITELLI. You mentioned it earlier. There is not a tremendous 

profit in this, you are actually paying for the removal of waste. 

Senator BOXER. So it is a cost? 

Mr. VITELLI. It is a cost literally and it is going to be a function 

of who ends up paying for the cost. 

Senator BOXER. I think that is really important. You are doing 

the responsible thing and it is costing you something. You are getting goodwill out of it, getting people into the store. That is very 

good but still I think we need to consider that there needs to be 

a more equitable type of system. 

Ms. Davis, thank you so much for sending us this photo. The 

chairman and I were looking at this photo of the woman not really 

having a clue of what she is doing here, with no protective clothing 

or anything like that. How widespread a problem is the export of 

electronic waste to countries that lack adequate environmental protections? 

Ms. DAVIS. There is an estimate of about 80 percent of the materials that are accumulated in the United States are exported. 

Senator BOXER. Who are the major exporters? 

Ms. DAVIS. They are basically companies that are sometimes 

front men for recyclers. If you give your product to or drop it off 

at a recycle, they might collect it but will put it in a shipping container, give it to a broker and the broker will ship it overseas. That 

is where most of the waste ends up. 

Senator BOXER. Let me understand this. People go to a recycle? 

Ms. DAVIS. Go to a local recycle. 
37

Senator BOXER. Do they pay them the fee to take the computer? 

Ms. DAVIS. It depends on what State you are in. Most States 

don’t have a fee. 

Senator BOXER. So what is in it for this person? 

Ms. DAVIS. The recycler will cream off the good computer, so 

some of the computers can be reused, they will take some of the 

valuable metals, some of the valuable chips and the rest is basically waste. The monitors basically do have some valuable parts 

like copper but it is very hard to recovery. 

Senator BOXER. They pay the broker out of their profits to get 

the stuff out? 

Ms. DAVIS. It depends. Sometimes the broker will actually pay 

them up to 2 cents a pound or so. 

Senator BOXER. You say 80 percent of the waste is winding up 

in these countries? 

Ms. DAVIS. It is estimated 80 percent but I don’t think anyone 

in this Country is actually keeping track. 

Senator BOXER. I think this is amazing, Mr. Chairman. With all 

we do for good will, this is something we need to look at, what is 

happening. 

Scott, thank you for being here. EPA acknowledges that cathode 

ray tubes can leach four times the amount of lead as regulated hazardous waste. We got that out of the EPA today. It is in their rule. 

Electronic waste can also contain mercury, cadmium and other 

toxic substances. However, EPA has stated that municipal landfill 

standards are sufficiently protective to hold electronic waste. Do 

you agree with that? 

Mr. SLESINGER. No. I think it is clear it fails EPA’s test for what 

should not go into a municipal landfill. A similar test used by the 

State of California also failed the test. All landfills are different. It 

tries to mimic the average landfill. Certain landfills will probably 

leak more than others but if it is a hazardous waste and it is coming from Best Buy, Dell or a computer company, it can’t go there. 

If it isn’t recycled, it should go to a hazardous waste landfill. 

Hazardous waste landfills don’t just put it with regular garbage 

and dump it into the landfill, they encapsulate it with a plastic and 

then use a reagent that goes around the material four inches thick 

that makes it so what was in there, lead, mercury, doesn’t leach 

out and then it is put into a landfill. Then it is much more protected. 

Senator BOXER. Let me understand. Right now, there is no EPA 

rule to stop it from going to municipal landfills? 

Mr. SLESINGER. Not exactly. The EPA rule generally says if you 

have a waste and it fails the EPA test, in this case for lead, which 

it fails, it should go to a hazardous waste landfill. A lot of the 

major manufacturers and retailers do send to our facilities for either recycling or for disposal. Most companies would rather have 

it recycled. We try to recycle as much as possible. In fact, today we 

are recycling all the hazardous materials in the computers but 

have to landfill the non-hazardous plastics and others because 

there is no market for those materials. 

Senator BOXER. Is there any rule of the EPA that these products 

have to go to a hazardous landfill? 

Mr. SLESINGER. Yes. 
38

Senator BOXER. There is a rule. So they can’t show up in municipal landfills? 

Mr. SLESINGER. Unless it is a household which is exempt or a 

small quantity generator who is exempt. 

Senator BOXER. But household is exempt? 

Mr. SLESINGER. That is correct. 

Senator BOXER. That is a lot. We are talking here, looking at the 

TV sets, many millions of these TVs. How many did you say? 

Ms. DAVIS. Two hundred and eighty-seven million. 

Senator BOXER. Two hundred and eighty-seven million analog 

TVs, if everyone just takes it to a municipal landfill, that is a lot 

of dangerous waste in municipal landfills. 

Mr. SLESINGER. The alternative is if somebody does a pick up 

like a manufacturer or retailer, then it would go into the hazardous 

waste stream. 

Senator BOXER. That is why what Mr. Vitelli is doing is so responsible because he is making a point to try to do that. 

I am going to ask one last quick question to you, Mr. Goss, because the whole panel is so good and you have so much information. 

I wanted to ask you about your member companies that are complying now with the European Union requirements. To what extent 

will Europe’s requirements provide your member companies with a 

system that we could duplicate here and that you could duplicate 

here in the United States? Is it onerous over there or are you 

learning ways to live with what they are recommending? 

Mr. GOSS. You are referring to the electrical waste? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Mr. GOSS. The jury would still be out on that. The directive has 

not been implemented yet. It is scheduled to go into effect in August of this year. Several companies, the United Kingdom, France, 

have had difficulties in terms of transposing the directive so far 

and we are waiting to see exactly how it works in practice. 

Senator BOXER. Transposing it from the law into pragmatic 

rules? 

Mr. GOSS. My understanding also is that in numerous countries 

they have yet to set down the regulations and the registration requirements. 

Senator BOXER. Couldn’t it just be done by the European Union 

or be different for each? 

Mr. GOSS. I am not an expert on the we approach but I believe 

each country has certain registration and regulatory requirements 

but we can certainly check on that. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Goss, would you keep the chairman and me 

informed as to how it is going over there, if it is a total nightmare 

or if they are coming up with ideas that we could look at? 

Mr. GOSS. We certainly will and in fact, we will keep a close eye 

on it because we are interested to see how it works in practice once 

it is implemented. 

Senator BOXER. I think it is good for all of us. Again, I want to 

thank you, Mr. Chairman and our terrific panel. Thank you all. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. I would echo what 

the Senator from California said. I think you have been a very enlightening and informative panel. Hearing about what is happening 
39

out there and some of the good things that companies like Best 

Buy are doing is encouraging to hear. 

Hopefully it gives us a bit of an idea and perspective on what we 

might or might not be able to do in terms of a national solution, 

if that is something we decide is necessary based upon the data collected about the risks associated with the stream currently heading 

into these landfills and will probably only increase in the future as 

we dump more and more of these, particularly the older television 

sets. 

Mr. Goss, I want to ask you during Ms. Davis’ remarks, she mentioned the needs to make products easier to disassemble and I 

think if you look at the General Accountability Office’s study it also 

points out that 50 percent of the cost recycling is in the labor and 

the companies currently doing that, it becomes almost prohibitive 

at times depending on the value of some of those materials to recycle. 

How would a requirement to make those products easier to disassemble impact the durability of the electronics consumers buy 

today? How would that affect the quality and the workmanship and 

all that? It is in the GAO study, and I don’t have it in front of me, 

but talked about $1 per screw or something like. HP spent a $1 in 

additional design costs to reduce a number of different screws in 

each computer and would save Niranda, which does these 

disassemblies, $4 cost. Do you sacrifice something in terms of durability and quality? 

Mr. GOSS. I would have to check with some of my individual 

member companies on that. Certainly there are a lot of advances 

that our companies have made and as I said in the compilation we 

are going to be sharing with the subcommittee some of those and 

be detailed in terms of the advances we made, in terms of designing for ease of upgrading and recyclability and reuse. I can get 

some specific information for you on that. I would imagine there 

are probably several innovations out there right now that would 

allow products to be recycled easier without compromising any of 

the performance. 

The other point I would make is that we will be dealing with recyclers as we do to find out the break down and exactly what 

makes it easier for them to recycle because as manufacturers, we 

know how to put the products together but we need that knowledge 

base and what makes it easier for them on their end to disassemble 

it. 

One related point is the transportation costs for the materials I 

think are far and away the largest single bulk of the cost involved 

with recycling. 

Senator THUNE. Were members of your organization members of 

this NEPSI group in 2001? 

Mr. GOSS. Yes, we were. 

Senator THUNE. I guess the industries would prefer a national 

framework so that you don’t have to comply or deal a patchwork 

of State requirements but it sounds like the consensus reached as 

a result of those meetings was they couldn’t come to a consensus 

on what a national system or framework might look like. At least 

that was what I was told, that in 2005 those efforts dissolved because the stakeholders couldn’t reach agreement. 
40

Could you explain some of the market competitiveness issues 

that have prevented your association from being able to advance a 

consensus position on what a national framework might look like? 

Mr. GOSS. Certainly. The first point I will make is that our industry as a whole, all the companies recognize the importance of 

this issue and that we are a key player in this issue. For us, it is 

not a question of whether we should be involved in recycling, that 

question has already been answered in the affirmative. 

The question is how to finance it. Based on different companies 

with different product lines, different sales and distribution models 

and experiences in the market, there are some very market differences in terms of what they see as a fair and equitable approach 

to this recycling challenge. 

We went through well over a year of intimate industry discussions to try to come to a consensus on this. It was a lot of commitment to try to come up with something everyone could agree with. 

Those discussions are still ongoing. We still have hope we will be 

able to reach a consensus industry position on this but for right 

now, there are marked differences of opinion in terms of what the 

different players believe is fair and how it works to competitive advantage. 

Senator THUNE. Mr. Slesinger, GAO’s testimony talked about the 

amount of precious metals found in computers and other electronics. Why don’t we see a larger U.S. business interest in recovering some of those precious metals like gold and copper, aluminum and platinum found in some of those products? 

Mr. SLESINGER. The reason has to do mostly with labor costs. 

There might be a little bit of gold in some computers but finding 

it is very costly. EPA testified last week they thought recyclers 

were getting $1-$2 worth of valuable product out of a computer 

which they had to charge $15 to take apart. In fact, the metal 

prices are such that for instance today, if we send the glass to a 

glass company that makes new leaded glass, it doesn’t cost us anything for them to take it and we don’t get anything from it. 

What we find the most profitable part of a computer is if we can 

get a computer that is newly discarded, its hard disk or particular 

chips or other parts of it may have a resale value and that is really 

the value. An efficient way to mining for the gold has not been 

shown yet. 

Senator THUNE. Mr. Vitelli, if I were wanting to drop off an old 

computer I have sitting in my closet, how does your collection program work? There is a Best Buy on 41st Street in Sioux Falls, SD. 

Do I just take it down there? How does that work? 

Mr. VITELLI. Currently, the programs we are doing have been 

voluntary with the manufacturer in a particular city or a particular 

State, so there isn’t a comprehensive recycling program for computers today. We would actually look to whatever that particular 

city or State program may or may not be at that time, but there 

isn’t a comprehensive here is what you do nationally or that particular store now. 

Senator THUNE. So it is sort of State to State, store to store, so 

to speak. 

Mr. VITELLI. More voluntary versus anything else. 
41

Senator THUNE. I have a question or two for Ms. Davis dealing 

with the issue raised earlier about extended producer liability 

which I think you suggested needs to happen. You mentioned in an 

attempt to reduce the amount of e-waste in the future, manufacturers need to have more responsibility for their products at disposal 

time which is one solution some of the States have implemented, 

some have front end fees, some have held the manufacturer responsible. 

If you didn’t have a Federal mandate of extended producer responsibility, how would you see the Federal Government doing it? 

Would you have to impose a national mandate or is there another 

way of accomplishing the same objective I guess is the question I 

am asking? 

Ms. DAVIS. There would have to be some type of Federal law that 

would level the playing field for all the manufacturers to actually 

take some responsibility for their product at the end of life. That 

could mean there could be a third party, as Mr. Goss suggested, 

that can actually set up a system that would take back the products and set up some type of standards for the manufacturers to 

abide by and the manufacturers would pay into that third party in 

order to have their products recycled or they can go directly back 

to the manufacturer. For example, when you purchase a computer, 

you should be able to return your old computer and that manufacturer would take responsibility and recycle it for you. 

Senator THUNE. If you create a third party, you have to figure 

out a way to finance, correct? In any of these scenarios, you are 

talking about some sort of way of paying for this. Manufacturers 

probably aren’t going to volunteer, are they? 

Ms. DAVIS. No. I guess if they were going to volunteer, they 

would be doing it now but there would have to be some type of regulation or laws or framework put in place that would allow them 

to operate as a third party or operate with a third party and pay 

into it, I imagine. 

Senator THUNE. Somebody mentioned today there ought to be a 

way of doing this without a front end fee or something like that, 

but it seems to me if the responsibility is placed upon the manufacturer, the producer, the producer or the manufacturer is going to 

pass it on to the retailer, the retailer is going to pass it on to the 

consumer. 

At some point, somebody is going to pay for this process unless 

there is enough incentive in the recycling side of it to encourage 

people and that is where I am kind of coming back to the TalentWyden bill, if in fact that creates enough incentive for either individual consumer buyers of these products or certified retailers to 

get in the business of recycling these products? 

Ms. DAVIS. If the manufacturers were responsible for paying the 

cost of recycling, then they would have to find innovative ways to 

change the design and drive down the costs just as they find innovative ways to manufacture the product to drive down the cost 

without hopefully sacrificing labor and so forth or labor standards. 

But if there were some type of incentives, whether it is a liability, 

some type of government incentives around recycle content or some 

type of tax break around research and development, those could be 

built into the framework. 
42

But I think the bottom line is that manufacturers, for the most 

part, need to incorporate the cost or internalize the cost for the recycling and for the end of life. That way they have some bottom 

line incentive to actually figure out how to do it cheaper. 

For example, in California where there is a front end, the manufacturers aren’t involved at all, they have no incentive to redesign 

their products, so people in California could basically pay for now 

$5, $6 or $10 and the fee will probably go up and not down over 

the years to recycle their products. 

Senator THUNE. Mr. Goss? 

Mr. GOSS. I would say in terms of the design for environment, 

clearly the Ross directive goes into effect in the EU next July but 

the point I would make is that our member companies have been 

innovating in design for environment and product sustainability for 

years on a voluntary basis and have made some wonderful technological innovations in terms of design. This is not something that 

has only come about due to several directives or State laws or what 

have you. We are certainly designing more for upgrading, for recycling, for reuse and will continue to do so because it is part of what 

the public and consumers demand. 

Senator THUNE. As a consumer, we want you all to make those 

upgrades but to get the prices down. 

Mr. GOSS. We will do our best. 

Ms. DAVIS. I would like to note that I think the Ross directive 

with the restriction on hazardous substances in the EU as well as 

a redirective really truly has driven the manufacturers to change 

their practices. I think some of the manufacturers have done it on 

their own but again unless there is a level playing field for manufacturers, they are simply not going to be able to invest and manufacture products and stay competitive. 

Senator THUNE. I want to thank you all very much for your testimony and for the light you have shed on the subject. It is not something that Congress has dealt with in the past. Clearly the States 

are beginning to deal with it. I think this is a way of defining and 

quantifying the problem, if there is a problem, and then trying to 

figure out what is the best way to come up with a solution. 

That is the challenge we are going to face but certainly your testimony and presentations today will add a lot to the body of evidence to say as we move forward we will need to come up with solutions. 

Thank you very much for your testimony. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF FRANK LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing and giving us an opportunity 

to learn more about this issue. 

When I was a boy, my family was poor. We weren’t ashamed of it, because everybody we knew was in the same boat. 

When people don’t have a lot, they make the most of what they do have. That’s 

what people did when I was growing up. 

If something could be used, it didn’t get thrown away. Nobody could afford to 

waste anything. 

During World War II, Americans saved tin foil and tires so the aluminum and 

rubber could be reused. 
43

This was not only frugal—it aided the war effort and made our Nation stronger. 

Today Americans own two billion electronic products—which works out to about 

25 items for every single household. 

On an individual basis, many Americans can probably afford to toss out these 

products when they become obsolete. 

But as a society, we can’t afford to do that. The environmental costs are simply 

too high. 

Computers and televisions contain significant amounts of lead, mercury and other 

hazardous substances. 

Tossing old computers into landfills creates tons of lead and mercury waste. 

In fact, some experts predict one billion pounds of lead from electronics could 

enter our landfills in the next decade. 

This would pose a serious threat of toxic runoff—and it would ultimately be an 

expensive problem to clean up. 

We dispose of about twelve million computers every year. These fill up a lot of 

landfills. And in populated areas like New Jersey, landfill space is limited. 

There is a better way. 

Instead of throwing away these products, we should retrieve and reuse the resources that are salvageable. 

Electronics are currently the fastest growing part of the waste stream, but fewer 

than 10 percent of old electronics products are recycled. 

That has to change. Mr. Chairman, it is simply wasteful to continue throwing 

away old products that contain resources we could re-use. 

Congress needs to join with the producers of these products in leading the way 

for change. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Mr. Chairman, America is a computer-dependent society. I’m willing to bet that 

before coming to this hearing, almost every person in this room used a computer 

to write a document, to check e-mail, or to read the news. Yet as much as we depend on our computers, we seldom think about what they’re made of. Let me tell 

you. 

The desktop computer in your office right now contains about 14 pounds of plastic, 

4 pounds of lead, 8.5 pounds of aluminum, more than 12 pounds of iron, half a 

pound of nickel and lesser amounts of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, titanium, zinc, 

beryllium and gold. There’s mercury in LCD and gas plasma screens, lead in monitors and circuit boards, cadmium in chip resistors and semiconductors and heavy 

metals in CPUs. And every year, millions of newly obsolete computers—and televisions, and other electronic trash or e-waste—are discarded to the tune of 2.2 million tons. Those 2.2 million tons of e-trash are the equivalent of 219 Boeing 737 jetliners. If handled improperly, this hazardous stew of toxic e-waste can poison water 

supplies, people and the environment. But there is a better way. 

Today, barely one in 10 computers gets recycled or reused. Compare that to old 

cars: 94 percent go to scrap yards where useable parts are reclaimed, and the rest 

of the material is shredded, compacted and recycled into appliances, cars and other 

products. 

Senator Talent and I believe that the United States can put less e-waste in the 

landfill and more in the recycling bin. We have proposed S. 510, a pro-consumer, 

pro-environment and pro-technology bill to jumpstart a nationwide recycling infrastructure for electronic waste. Our bipartisan approach is the first to rely on incentives, rather than upfront fees or end-of-life penalties, to deal with electronic waste. 

Our legislation offers incentives to consumers and small businesses to get their old 

computers and laptops out of the closet and into the e-waste stream. Our legislation 

offers manufacturers, retailers and recyclers incentives to recycle e-waste. The bill 

has the support of retailers, electronics manufacturers, and environmental recyclers. 

Specifically, our legislation would: 

Establish an $8 per unit tax credit for companies that recycle at least 5,000 display screens or computer system units per year; 

Establish a $15 tax credit for consumers who recycle their old computers and TVs, 

provided they use qualified recyclers; 

Prohibit the disposal in a municipal solid waste landfill of any electronic equipment with a display screen larger than 4 inches or any computer system unit, beginning 3 years after the bill passes if EPA finds that the majority of U.S. households 

have reasonable access to e-waste recycling; 
44

Modify EPA’s universal waste rule to classify screens and system units as ‘‘universal wastes’’ to allow for easier collection, processing, transportation and recycling; 

Require Federal executive agencies to recycle or reuse their display screens and 

CPUs; and 

Direct EPA to recommend to Congress the feasibility of establishing a nationwide 

e-waste recycling program that would preempt any state plan within 1 year. 

We do not claim to have a monopoly on the wisdom for how e-waste should be 

recycled, and so the tax credit is limited to 3 years. Our goal is to get a recycling 

infrastructure launched, and in the meantime, have EPA look at various options, 

at what various states are doing and come up with recommendations for Congress 

for a nationwide e-waste recycling plan. 

The bill recognizes that states like California have already put a plan in place, 

and that many other states, like Oregon, are moving in that direction. But if every 

state and hundreds of municipalities and counties take different paths to solve the 

e-waste problem, the country will end up with a hodge podge of rules and regulations. Companies and consumers who are keen on doing the right thing will be confused, innovation will be stifled and not a lot of recycling would get done. One nationwide program seems to make the most sense. 

Last week the New York Times carried a story about computers so infected with 

spyware and adware that they are on life support. Rather than going through the 

painstaking process of debugging them, consumers opt to toss them out and pay several hundred dollars for a new one. Unless some miracle cure is found, the spyware 

plague is not going away anytime soon, and the number of discarded computers will 

grow. 

Then there’s the transition to digital television, which could pull the plug on analog television sets in 21 million American households. The hand-over of the old analog channels could take place in the next 4–5 years. Unless the U.S. gets serious 

about recycling electronic trash, what is going to happen to all those old tv sets? 

It is not very often Congress has the chance to get a jumpstart on solving a problem. This is one place where a bipartisan effort can make a real difference. I look 

forward to working with you to get a nationwide electronic waste recycling program 

launched. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES TALENT, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

I would like to thank Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Boxer for holding 

this important hearing on electronic waste, the first of its kind in the Senate. 

There are roughly 50 million computers and 20 million televisions disposed of 

every year, some are illegally dumped, some are recycled, and others are just 

thrown away with the garbage. Computer monitors and televisions are a potential 

threat to our environment since they contain four to eight pounds of lead as well 

as other harmful materials. Because it’s not always convenient to recycle computers, 

TVs and their parts, a lot of people store them in their basements, attics and backyards or just throw them away. According to the EPA, U.S. households have an average of two to three computers and televisions that they are not using in storage. 

That’s about 70 million computers and televisions nationwide sitting around, collecting dust and potentially harming the environment. 

One of the largest illegal computer dumps was located in Rolla, Missouri. Someone was running an illegal computer recycling business out of a rented building on 

the property. Instead of properly disposing of the computers, the man collected over 

15,000 monitors and dumped them. Cleaning up this illegal dump cost Missouri taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

To avoid these types of hazardous and costly situations, Senator Wyden and I 

have introduced legislation that creates the first-ever nationwide infrastructure to 

deal with e-waste. The ‘‘Electronic Waste Recycling Promotion and Consumer Protection Act’’ (S. 510) gives tax credits to consumers as well as to manufacturers, and 

retailers for recycling old or unwanted computers and TVs. Importantly, this tax 

credit is completely voluntary. If folks don’t want to recycle their old TVs and computers, they don’t have to and there will be no penalty, which is where the law is 

now. 

Here’s how the legislation works: There is a $15 credit, which is a one-time deal 

for people like you and me that may have a computer or TV in our basements. To 

get the credit, you must submit with your tax return proof that the recycling was 

done by a qualified recycler. 

There is also a small business credit, which operates like this: An $8 credit is 

available to anyone who collects no less than 5,000 TVs or computers in a given year 

and proves that they are recycled by qualified recyclers. They just have to submit 
45

with their tax returns a record of who recycled the computer or TV and where it 

ended up. 

We want to encourage people to do the right thing and recycle by developing a 

national solution, which is most desirable in the long run to avoid manufacturers 

and retailers from dealing with a patchwork of 50 different state laws. This legislation will also help domestic manufacturing as companies will use the tons of recycled materials to make new computers and other electrical and industrial products. 

Further, it is pro-consumer since folks will have an incentive to recycle an old 

computer or TV and take the tax credit or use the money toward the purchase of 

new technology. Presently, consumers are actually discouraged from recycling ewaste since the garbage collector doesn’t always collect it, folks don’t know how to 

otherwise dispose of it, or manufacturers charge fees to recycle the technology. This 

bill helps move us in the right direction by providing people with incentives, rather 

than disincentives, to be environmentally responsible. 

I am pleased that we are working with a broad business and environmental coalition support this common sense, pro-business, pro-technology and pro-environment 

solution to e-waste. In particular, I want to thank the Missouri Recycling Association and its 163 individual and business members for endorsing this first-ever Federal electronics recycling bill. 

Thank you for letting me join you today to discuss this pro-job, pro-technology and 

pro-environment legislation. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE THOMPSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me here today to comment briefly on 

electronic waste or ‘‘e-waste’’. I appreciate Chairman Thune and Ranking Member 

Boxer allowing me to be a part of this hearing on the subject of e-waste, an issue 

with which I’ve been involved since I first came to Congress. 

Electronic devices are becoming smaller and lighter, but they also are creating an 

ever-growing environmental and waste disposal problem. That’s because it’s often 

cheaper and more convenient to buy a new PC or cell phone than to upgrade an 

old one. 

Today, the average lifespan of a computer is only 2 years and Americans are disposing of 3,000 tons of computers each day. Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, recently estimated that the typical household could expect to discard 

approximately 68 electronic items over the next 20 years including: 20 cell phones, 

10 computers, 7 TVs, 7 VCRs or DVD players and several answering machines, 

printers and CD players. 

While e-waste contains a number of valuable materials that are recoverable including aluminum, gold, silver and other metals, it also contains a witches’ brew of 

toxic material such as lead, mercury and cadmium. If not properly disposed of these 

toxic materials can cause health and environmental problems. For example, the 

glass of a typical computer monitor contains six pounds of lead. When this glass is 

crushed in a landfill, the lead is released into the environment. 

There’s a Native American proverb about stewardship, which says: ‘‘We don’t inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.’’ To give you an 

idea of the potential legacy we are leaving future generations, the National Safety 

Council has projected that approximately 300 million computers are obsolete. If all 

300 million units were discarded, this would involve nearly 1 billion pounds of lead, 

2 million pounds of cadmium and 400,000 pounds of mercury. 

Residents in my District are stalwart stewards of the environment, recycling a 

healthy amount of e-waste compared to other parts of the country. Last year alone, 

Napa County collected 214 tons of e-waste, approximately 3 pounds for each of the 

County’s 136,000 residents. In comparison, Boston collected 330 tons and San Diego 

collected 270 tons. 

But while Napa is tackling the problem of e-waste at a local level, we’ve done little to address the problem on a national scale. Some retailers and manufacturers 

have created voluntary recycling programs, but they are too small in scope to have 

a significant impact on the e-waste stream. Without a national recycling infrastructure consumers and businesses today are left with few choices for getting rid of their 

old computers, cell phones and other electronic devices. Most people shove them in 

a spare closet or corner and wait. When people do try to dispose of their e-waste 

responsibly, all too often it is shipped overseas. There, it and its toxins can land 

in riverbeds or in the hands of unprotected workers. 

The buildup of e-waste on the local and state level has led California, Maine and 

Maryland to implement their own e-waste laws—each very different from the oth-
46

ers. Twenty-six additional states are also considering e-waste legislation. As states 

continue to develop their own approaches the need for a Federal solution only 

grows. Without Federal action both consumers and businesses will have to contend 

with an unmanageable patchwork of state laws. 

My colleagues—Representatives Louise Slaughter (D–NY), Randy ‘‘Duke’’ 

Cunningham (R–CA) and Mary Bono (R–CA) and I formed the bipartisan congressional E–Waste Working Group with the objective of investigating possible Federal 

e-waste solutions and educating Members of Congress about the issue. At our first 

event, a forum entitled, ‘‘E–Waste: Is a National Approach Necessary?’’ we invited 

all stakeholders, including consumers, manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, environmentalists and nonprofits. All agreed on the value of a national approach to e-waste. 

Again, I thank the subcommittee for bringing much needed attention to this issue 

and to gathering expert testimony on the problem of e-waste. I—and other members 

of the E–Waste. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. DUNNE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF

SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Thomas Dunne, Deputy 

Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response at 

EPA. Thank you for inviting me to appear today to discuss electronics waste and 

EPA’s interest in electronics product design and recycling. In 2002, we set in motion 

a plan of action to renew the emphasis on resource conservation in the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). At least since 1976, RCRA has included 

among its purposes a goal to reverse the trend of ‘‘millions of tons of recoverable 

material which could be used [being] needlessly buried each year.’’

Today, the RCC has become a national program, challenging all of us to promote 

recycling and reuse of materials and to conserve resources and energy. One key area 

of focus is electronics. 

The use of electronic equipment has grown substantially in recent years. According to the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), Americans own some 2 billion 

electronic products about 25 products per household. Electronics sales grew by 11 

percent in 2004, and the same growth is expected again this year. 

WHY WE CARE ABOUT ELECTRONICS AT EPA: 

EPA has been actively involved in helping to improve the design and recovery of 

electronics for more than 8 years now. Our interest in electronics stems from three 

primary concerns: 

(1) the rapid growth and change in this product sector, leading to a constant 

stream of changing offerings and wide array of obsolete and discarded products 

needing an appropriate response; 

(2) substances of concern present in many products which can cause problematic 

exposures during manufacturing, recycling or disposal if not properly managed—the 

presence of these constituents has sparked the search for workable substitutes and 

development of better management practices; and 

(3) the desire to help encourage development of a convenient and affordable reuse/

recycling infrastructure for electronics, with an initial emphasis on TVs and PCs. 

HERE I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME ILLUSTRATIVE FACTS

1. Increasing volume of electronic waste.—Consumer Electronics including TVs 

and other video equipment, audio equipment and personal computers, printers and 

assorted peripherals—make up about 1.5 percent of the municipal solid waste 

stream (2003 Figures). This is a small, but growing percent of the waste stream. 

Consumer electronics have increased as a percent of municipal solid waste in each 

of the last few years that EPA has compiled data. 

2. Recycling is limited.—EPA’s latest estimates are that in 2003 approximately 10 

percent of consumer electronics were recycled domestically, up slightly over previous 

years. The remaining 90 percent of used consumer electronics are in storage, disposed of in landfills or incinerators, or exported for reuse or recycling. EPA is now 

taking a closer look at the fate of all electronics waste such that the Agency can 

better account for the amount of electronic waste stored, disposed, or exported. But 

anecdotal information suggests that nontrivial amounts of consumer electronics are 

in storage or exported, rather than going to disposal in landfills. 

3. Substances of concern in electronics.—While industry is making progress in 

making its products with less toxic materials, many products may contain sub-
47

stances of concern such as lead, mercury and/or cadmium. For example, older cathode ray tubes (monitors) in TVs and PCs contain on average 4lbs of lead, although 

there are lower amounts of lead in newer CRTs. These constituents do not present 

risks to users while the product is in use; indeed, they are there for a good reason. 

Lead shields users from electromagnetic fields generated while the monitor is operating. Mercury is used in backlights in flat panel displays to conserve energy. But 

the presence of these materials means that some electronic equipment may present 

a risk if not properly managed. 

WHAT WE ARE DOING ABOUT ELECTRONICS

We are engaged in several broad scale partnerships with manufacturers, retailers, 

other Federal agencies, state and local governments, recyclers, non-government organizations (NGO’s) and others to encourage and reward greener design of electronic products, to help develop the infrastructure for collection and reuse/recycling 

of discarded electronics, and to promote environmentally safe recycling of used electronics. I’d like to give you a little more detail about each of these efforts. 

GREENING DESIGN OF ELECTRONICS

EPEAT.—EPA funded and participated in a multi-stakeholder and consensusbased process, involving electronics manufacturers, large government IT purchasers, 

NGO’s and others, to develop the Electronics Product Environmental Assessment 

Tool (EPEAT). It was created to meet growing demand by large institutional purchasers for a means to readily distinguish greener electronic products in the marketplace. EPEAT is modeled on other environmental rating tools like the LEED’s Green 

Building Rating system. It is expected to gain wide acceptance in purchases of information technology equipment by Federal and state government—and eventually by 

other large institutional purchasers of IT equipment. 

The EPEAT rating system establishes performance criteria in eight categories of 

product performance, including reduction or elimination of environmentally sensitive materials; design for end of life; life cycle extension; energy conservation; and 

end of life management. 

The multi-stakeholder team that developed EPEAT has reached agreement on the 

main criteria that will be recognized for environmental performance. Now, the tool 

is being readied for use; as part of this effort, a third party organization will be selected to host and manage the tool. The aim is to have the EPEAT system up and 

running by December 2005 or January 2006—at which time manufacturers will be 

able to certify their products to the EPEAT requirements and purchasers will be 

able to find EPEAT certified products in the marketplace. The first EPEAT certified 

products will be desktop computers, laptops and monitors. 

Energy Star.—EPA recently made its best known brand, the Energy Star label, 

available for external power adapters that meet EPA’s newly established energy efficiency guidelines. Power adapters, also known as external power supplies, recharge 

or power many electronic products—cell phones, digital cameras, answering machines, camcorders, personal digital assistants (PDA’s), MP3 players, and a host of 

other electronics and appliances. As many as 1.5 billion power adapters are currently used in the United States—about five for every American. 

Total electricity flowing through external and internal power supplies in the U.S. 

is about 207 billion kWh/year. This equals about $17 billion a year, or 6 percent 

of the national electric bill. More efficient adapters have the potential to save more 

than 5 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) of energy per year in this country and prevent 

the release of more than 4 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions. This is the 

equivalent of taking 800,000 cars off the road. 

On average, Energy Star-qualified power adapters will be 35 percent more efficient. 

EPA is promoting the most efficient adapters since they are commonly bundled 

with so many of today’s most popular consumer electronic and information technology products. 

Design for the Environment (DfE).—Over the years, EPA’s DfE program has 

worked numerous times with the electronics industry to help green the manufacturing of electronics as well as electronics products themselves. DfE has worked 

with the industry on ways to green the manufacture of printed wiring boards, assessed the life cycle impacts of CRTs and flat panel displays and has also recently 

assessed the life cycle impacts of tin-lead and lead-free solders used in electronics. 

One important ongoing project in this DfE realm is the joint government industry 

search for substitutes for tin-lead solder that have acceptable engineering performance and environmental attributes. 
48

The DfE Lead Free Solder Partnership is providing the opportunity to mitigate 

current and future risks by assisting the electronics industry to identify alternative 

lead free solders that are less toxic, and that pose the fewest risks over their life 

cycle. The draft final life cycle assessment report for the tin lead and alternative 

solders is available now for public review. 

(2) Encouraging reuse and recycling, rather than disposal, at product end of life 

Plug-In To eCycling—Plug In To eCycling is a voluntary partnership to increase 

awareness of the importance of recycling electronics and to increase opportunities 

to do so in the United States. Through Plug In, EPA has partnered with 21 manufacturers and retailers of consumer electronics as well as 26 governments to provide 

greater access to electronics recycling for Americans. In the first 2 years, the Plug 

In program has seen the recycling of 45.5 million pounds of unwanted electronics 

by program partners—all of whom have agreed to rely on recyclers who meet or exceed EPA’s ‘‘Guidelines for Materials Management,’’ EPA’s voluntary guidelines for 

safe electronics recycling. 

Last year, we launched a number of pilot programs with manufacturers, retailers 

and local governments to create more compelling opportunities for consumers to 

drop off our old electronics. These pilots succeeded in collecting over 11 million 

pounds of used electronics and demonstrating that, when the circumstances are 

right, retail collection can be a successful model: 

• The Staples pilot in New England collected over 115,000 pounds in testing instore collection and ‘‘reverse distribution’’ making use of Staples existing distribution network. In this pilot, trucks dropping off new equipment at Staples stores removed electronics that had been dropped off and took them to Staples distribution 

centers rather than leaving the stores with the trucks empty. 

• The Good Guys pilot in the Seattle area collected over 4,000 TVs—double the 

quantity expected—by offering in-store take back and a low fee for drop-off countered by a purchase rebate. 

• Office Depot and Hewlett-Packard worked together to offer free in-store 

takeback of consumer electronics in all 850 Office Depot stores for a limited time 

period. It resulted in 10.5 million pounds collected, more than 441 tractor trailer 

loads. 

We believe these and other pilots sponsored by industry, states, and recyclers are 

generating critical data which will inform policymaking on electronics recycling. 

These pilots have proved crucial to testing out what works, what doesn’t, where collaboration is possible and where it is not, what kinds of opportunities really get the 

attention of the consumer and what kind of material the consumer wants to recycle. 

And very importantly, what it costs to get electronics from the consumer into responsible recycling. 

Federal Electronics Challenge—The Federal Government is a large purchaser of 

IT products. To help the Federal Government lead by example the Federal Environmental Executive and the EPA launched the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC). 

The FEC is a voluntary partnership program designed to help Federal agencies become leaders in promoting sustainable environmental stewardship of their electronic 

assets. As FEC Partners, Federal agencies agree to set and work toward goals in 

one or more of the three electronics life cycle phases—acquisition & procurement; 

operations & maintenance; and end-of-life management. As of this month, the FEC 

has 54 partners representing facilities from 12 Federal agencies. All 12 Federal 

agencies are signatories to a national Memorandum of Understanding on Electronics 

Management and, in total, represent about 83 percent of the Federal Government’s 

IT purchasing power. 

Recent National Electronics Meeting.—Last spring, EPA hosted a National Electronics Meeting to take stock of where we are with our electronics programs and 

talk with stakeholders about what else is needed. The goal of the meeting was to 

identify collaborative strategies that will contribute to effective management of used 

electronics across the country. Nearly 200 representatives from industry, government, and the non profit community participated in this meeting. 

A few of the collaborative strategies being developed include the following: 

• Developing standards for environmentally safe electronics recyclers and a process for certifying these recyclers. EPA plans to take a leadership role in convening 

stakeholders to develop such standards. 

• Further development of a centralized data repository for electronics recycling to 

collect nationwide market data/share by manufacturers and provide information and 

status on national, state and local e-waste initiatives (provides data on waste, geographic summaries and process/implementation data). This effort is being chaired 

by the National Center for Electronics Recycling (NCER) in partnership with EPA 

and other interested parties. 
49

• Piloting a private multi-state Third-Party Organization (TPO) to support electronics recycling efforts in the Pacific Northwest. This project will explore how a 

multi-state TPO could assume responsibilities on behalf of manufacturers, like contracting for recycling services across state lines. This effort is being chaired by the 

NCER and the WA Department of Ecology with eight electronics manufacturers. 

Even if the key collaborations noted above are implemented, there will remain 

some gaps in needed infrastructure. In the course of developing, implementing, and 

sharing information related to key infrastructure-related collaborations, EPA looks 

forward to working with stakeholders to identify and plan to address other infrastructure-related efforts. 

EPA WILL WORK WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS MOVING FORWARD

EPA has been working with a wide range of stakeholders in a variety of forums, 

both domestically and, as appropriate, internationally. This approach has worked 

well, and we expect to continue to follow it in partnership with other Federal agencies such as the Commerce Department and with the Federal Environmental Executive. 

CONCLUSION

I hope that I have given you a sense of EPA’s electronics goals and how we work 

with partners throughout the product chain to achieve shared responsibility for a 

greener, recovery-oriented product cycle. 

RESPONSES BY THOMAS DUNNE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. The subject of electronics recycling is very broad and not all electronics are created equally. Some stakeholders point out the differences in addressing a console television versus a mobile telephone. The wireless industry has a voluntary program—would you agree that they are contributing to the proper management of wireless products? 

Response. The cell phone industry has developed programs to make sure wireless 

products find their way back into appropriate reuse or recycling programs when 

they are discarded. A lot of manufacturers, service providers, and retailers of cell 

phones recognize their responsibility in helping to ensure safe recycling and are acting on it. We hope that the successes we’ve seen to date with cell phone recovery 

spearheaded by retailers, manufacturers and non-profits will continue and that 

these players will continue to build on their outreach efforts so that eventually all 

cell phones will be recovered and recycled back into useful products.

Question 2. Has EPA taken steps to facilitate the safe and cost effective recycling 

of end-of-line electronic equipment? 

Response. EPA has been involved with the improvement of electronics design and 

recovery for a number of years now. EPA is engaged in a series of partnerships with 

manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, state and local governments, non-profit and 

other organizations, and other Federal agencies to encourage the improved design 

of electronic products, help develop the infrastructure for the collection and reuse 

or recycling of discarded electronics, and encourage the environmentally safe recycling of used electronics. 

For example, EPA funded and participated in a process with electronics manufacturers, government technology purchasers, and other organizations to develop the 

Electronics Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT). EPEAT will help 

large technology purchasers identify electronics products that are designed in a 

more environmental friendly manner. More environmentally friendly electronics include products that are designed to be more easily and cost-effectively recycled. It 

is expected that EPEAT will be operating before the end of 2006 when manufacturers that meet EPEAT criteria will be able to certify their products. The initial electronic products eligible for EPEAT certification will be desktop computers, laptops, 

and monitors. 

In addition, EPA has entered into a voluntary partnership with numerous electronics manufacturers, retailers, and state and local governments to develop the 

Plug-In To eCycling initiative. The aim of this initiative is to raise public awareness 

on electronics recycling and to increase recycling opportunities. 

In the first 2 years of Plug-In, more than 45 million pounds of unwanted electronics products were recycled by Plug-In partners. EPA launched several pilot programs under the Plug-In banner last year with manufacturers, retailers and local 

governments to provide consumer electronics recycling opportunities. The pilots resulted in collection of more than 11 million pounds of used electronics at retail 
50

stores, including New England area Staples, Seattle area Good Guys, and all Office 

Depot locations. All of this is helping to encourage growth of the electronics recycling infrastructure. 

To help make sure that as electronics recycling opportunities increase, human 

health and the environment are also protected, we have issued voluntary safe recycling guidelines. These guidelines, issued under the Plug-In program, establish safe 

management practices for electronics recyclers. 

EPA has also partnered with the Federal Environmental Executive and several 

other Federal agencies to launch the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC). Given 

that the Federal government is such a large purchaser of information technology 

products, it is fitting that we lead by example. The FEC is a voluntary partnership 

of Federal agencies that have committed to develop a more sustainable environmental stewardship of their electronic products. Twelve Federal agencies have 

signed a Memorandum of Understanding on electronics management, which represents roughly 83 percent of the government’s information technology purchasing 

power. Among the key goals of the FEC are to help promote further expansion of 

the electronics recycling infrastructure and safe recycling practices. 

Finally, EPA continues to work with a wide range of stakeholders to further encourage the reuse and recycling of electronics products. Last Spring, the Agency 

hosted a National Electronics Meeting attended by representatives from industry, 

governments, and non-profit organizations to discuss electronics management 

issues. As a result of the meeting, collaborative strategies are being developed that 

include the development of a certification program for electronics recyclers, the development of a nation-wide electronics recycling data repository, and piloting a private multi-state manufacturer-led organization to help support electronics recycling 

efforts in the Pacific Northwest. 

RESPONSES BY THOMAS DUNNE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. Cathode ray tubes used in most televisions can leach significant quantities of lead into a landfill. The EPA’s Inspector General (IG) recently criticized 

EPA’s failure to finalize a rule stating how the agency would regulate these tubes. 

EPA began this rulemaking in 1998. When will EPA finalize its rulemaking on cathode ray tubes? 

Response. First, we should clarify that many waste cathode ray tubes (CRTs) are 

currently regulated as hazardous waste under RCRA if they are being discarded. 

That is, the vast majority of color CRTs will exceed the criteria in the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) regulation for lead (5 mg/l, in the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure Test (TCLP) test; see 40 CFR 261.24), and so would be classified as 

RCRA hazardous on this basis (see Musson, et al., 2000, Jang and Townsend 2003, 

and Townsend et al., 2004). Large quantity generators of color TVs bound for disposal would be required to dispose of these materials in hazardous waste landfills 

or hazardous waste incinerators. The rulemaking that you reference in your question would not change this. 

Most monochrome CRTs would not qualify as hazardous waste under the TCLP 

test for lead, but there are relatively few monochrome CRTs produced any more. 

Color CRTS that would not be regulated as hazardous include those generated by 

households and conditionally exempt small quantity generators of hazardous waste 

(less than 100 kg/month of all hazardous waste). These may be disposed in municipal solid waste landfills under current RCRA regulations, as would all other types 

of hazardous waste generated by households and conditionally exempt small quantity generators. 

As to the premise in your question that cathode ray tubes leach significant quantities of lead into landfills, EPA believes that the disposal of electronics—including 

those that qualify as household hazardous waste—in municipal solid waste (MSW) 

landfills is protective of human health and the environment if that disposal occurs 

in properly managed municipal solid waste landfills. 

In 1991, EPA updated the MSW landfill criteria to ensure that these landfills will 

be protective of human health and the environment, even if they accept household 

hazardous waste or conditionally exempt hazardous waste. Recent studies indicate 

that landfill leachate from properly designed and operated MSW landfills is unlikely 

to cause drinking water contamination due to low levels of metals present in the 

leachate from these landfills, and due to leachate collection and treatment systems. 

There is ongoing research being undertaken by the University of Florida to further 

assess the effects of electronics waste in MSW landfills. 
51

With respect to your specific question, the final rule on CRTs is currently undergoing interagency review and until this review is completed, we cannot say with certainty when the rule will be finalized.

Question 2. The value of leaded glass recently dipped to minus $200 per ton. This 

change reflects a shift in the consumer preference for different technologies, among 

other factors. Doesn’t this drop in value affect EPA’s rationale for exempting cathode ray tubes from hazardous waste regulations as a ‘‘valuable commodity’’? 

Response. EPA has no data indicating that leaded glass has the negative economic 

value mentioned in your question. In fact, according to very recent conversations 

with a glass processor, leaded glass sent for recycling to make new cathode ray 

tubes is worth at least $100 per ton. Although this figure is lower than it was when 

EPA proposed its CRT rule in 2002, it is still significant. In addition, CRT glass 

processors have recently stated that demand for leaded glass is still very high, and 

that the market for new CRTs in other countries is strong. We note that recycled 

leaded glass is necessary to make new CRT glass; raw materials such as silica are 

not considered an adequate substitute. 

In contrast, processors who send leaded glass to lead smelters must pay the 

smelter approximately $140 per ton to accept the lead. The smelter then uses the 

glass as fluxing material and as lead feedstock. Broken glass from CRTs resembles 

industrial sand in composition and can therefore serve as a substitute for this sand 

in the fluxing process. The sand is inexpensive. CRT glass manufacturers have 

stricter quality standards than lead smelters for the type of material that they can 

accept. 

Further evidence of the economic value of CRT glass is demonstrated by the cost 

savings realized by CRT glass manufacturers and lead smelters when using processed CRT glass. The use of processed CRT glass cullet benefits the manufacturer 

in several ways, such as improving heat transfer and melting characteristics in the 

furnaces, lowering energy consumption, and maintaining or improving the quality 

of the final product.

Question 3. Toxicity tests have shown that cathode ray tubes can leach four times 

the amount of lead as material that is regulated as a hazardous wastes. The EPA’s 

IG recently noted that EPA is testing other types of electronic waste for their hazardous characteristics. What types of electronic material has EPA tested for its hazardous characteristics or plans to test for such characteristics? 

Response. EPA has funded studies by researchers at the University of Florida at 

Gainesville on the RCRA status of a variety of waste electronics devices (see Townsend, et al., 2004). These include (excluding CRTs): Computer CPUs, Laptop computers, Cell phones, Computer printers, Keyboards, Computer Mice, TV Remote controls, Smoke Detectors

Question 4. What are the results of any tests that EPA has already conducted? 

Response. From Townsend 2004: 

CPUs: 1 out of 22 computer CPUs tested using the TCLP exceeded the lead TC 

level of 5 mg/l, having 6.0 mg/l lead in the test leachate. 

Keyboards: No keyboards (0/3) failed the TCLP. 

Mice: All mice tested (15/15) failed the TC for lead using the TCLP. 

Laptops: 6 out of 6 laptops tested failed the TC using the TCLP. 

Remote controls: All remotes (4 out of 4 tested) failed the TC for lead using the 

TCLP. 

Smoke detectors: Most (8 out of nine 9 tested) failed the TC for lead using the 

TCLP. 

Cell Phones: 28 out of 38 individual cell phones tested exceeded the TC for lead 

using the TCLP. The average lead in test leachate overall for cell phones was 20 

mg/l. However, there was wide variability in the leach test results by brand and 

model, and the results ranged from zero to 65 mg/l lead in the test leachate. 

Circuit boards: Many electronic devices fail the TC regulatory value for lead because lead is used in the printed wire boards (PWB), or circuit boards, which are 

part of these devices. In Jang and Townsend (2003), PWBs were leached using the 

TCLP, and lead exceeded the TC value, with an average of 162 mg/l. In Townsend 

(2004), PWBs tested with TCLP averaged 151 mg/l lead in the test leachate (3 samples). 

References to studies cited: 

Musson, S., Jang Y., Townsend, T., and Chung, I. ‘‘Characterization of Lead 

Leachability from Cathode Ray Tubes Using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure’’ Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 4376–4381. 
52

Townsend, T., Vann, K., Mutha, S., Pearson, B., Jang, Y.,Musson, S., and Jordan, 

A. (2004). ‘‘RCRA Toxicity Characterization of Computer CPUs and Other Discarded 

Electronic Devices’’ July 15 2004. Funded by U.S. EPA Regions 4 & 5. Unpublished. 

Jang , Y., and Townsend, T. (2003) ‘‘Leaching of Lead from Computer Printed 

Wire Boards and Cathode Ray Tubes by Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Leachates’’ 

Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 4778–4784. 

Townsend, T. (2003). ‘‘Leachability of Printed Wire Boards Containing Leaded and 

Lead-Free Solder’’. November 5, 2003. Funded by U.S. EPA/OPPTS. Unpublished.

Question 5. In October 2003, EPA proposed a rule that could deregulate up to 3 

billion pounds of hazardous waste, including used circuit boards. Among other problems, EPA’s proposed rule would allow hazardous wastes to be shipped on public 

roads without any tracking documents. Can you please tell me the status of this 

proposed rulemaking? 

Response. This proposed rule would modify the definition of solid waste to promote increased recycling. EPA is currently evaluating the numerous and varied public comments received in response to our proposal. We are developing a broad range 

of options for the final rule, and we anticipate that EPA management will select 

preferred options by the end of this year. We currently expect to publish a final rule 

in November 2006. However, if the Agency believes it needs to re-propose all or 

parts of the proposal, we would expect to finalize that by the Winter of 2008. EPA 

would not support regulatory approaches that would allow unsafe management of 

hazardous wastes under the guise of recycling.

Question 6. EPA’s ‘‘Plug-In to eCycling’’ program is a voluntary partnership to increase electronics recycling. The IG reported that several stakeholders involved with 

recycling electronics did not understand the purpose of this program or were not 

even aware of it. What steps is EPA taking to clearly define the program’s goals 

and to increase awareness of the program? 

Response. Electronics recycling is one of the key pillars of EPA’s Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC)—a major initiative undertaken by EPA’s Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response as well as the Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics to place more emphasis on toxics reduction and materials recovery. These 

two offices have developed an RCC Action Plan that addresses electronics. 

Long before we developed the RCC Action Plan for electronics, EPA had clear 

goals with respect to our electronics programs and our electronics projects were designed to align with these goals. See page 14 of the IG’s final report. 

Despite the fact that numerous well-known retailers and manufacturers signed on 

as early supporters and participants of EPA’s Plug-In to eCycling program (examples include Dell, Sony, Panasonic and Best Buy), purportedly, others that the IG 

spoke with were not aware of the program. Therefore, EPA has undertaken efforts 

to increase its communication of the Agency’s electronics goals and programs. 

In particular, EPA has worked hard to give greater visibility to the Plug-In goals. 

These goals are to: 

• Work with partners to inform the public about the importance of electronics 

reuse and recycling and give them information about how to reuse or recycle their 

outgrown/unwanted electronics. 

• Increase opportunities for Americans to safely recycle their electronics and to 

promote shared responsibility for safe electronics recycling by facilitating partnerships with communities, electronics manufacturers, and retailers. 

• Establish pilot projects to test innovative approaches to safe electronics recycling. 

Since the release of the IG report, EPA has done the following to give higher visibility to these goals: 

(1) More visibly presented the program goals on the Plug-In website; 

(2) Incorporated program goals, partners, and partner accomplishments into 

speeches by senior EPA officials, presentations at conferences, and materials and 

discussions at stakeholder meetings; 

(3) Developed more public education materials that are disseminated at conferences, trade shows, and meetings. EPA partners also disseminate these materials 

at their recycling events, trade shows and meetings; 

(4) Discussed the purpose of the Plug-In program and highlighted retailer-based 

Plug-In pilots in press advisories and shared the results of pilots through press releases and postings on EPA and partner websites; 

(5) Highlighted the goals of Plug-In and partner accomplishments in media events 

at CES 2005; 

(6) Highlighted the goals of Plug-In at the EPA National Electronics Meeting held 

in March 2005; 
53

(7) Launched multi-stakeholder collaborative efforts aimed at increasing public 

awareness on how to donate outgrown computers and overcome hindrances to reuse 

like concerns regarding data security; and 

(8) Required all partners to contribute to public outreach goals by completing education and outreach initiatives regarding electronics recycling.

Question 7. The EPA’s IG recently concluded that the United States is ‘‘lagging 

behind international e-waste efforts.’’ The IG highlighted laws in the European 

Union that require manufacturers to take financial responsibility for recycling their 

consumer electronic products and to reduce the use of six toxic chemicals in these 

products. Here in the United States, the Pollution Prevention Act establishes a national policy that ‘‘pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever 

feasible.’’

Why hasn’t the EPA used it authorities under the Pollution Prevention Act to require pollution prevention activities and manufacturer responsibility with electronic 

waste similar to the European Union’s policies? 

Response. The Pollution Prevention Act does not give EPA the authority to require pollution prevention activities or impose manufacturer responsibility. Under 

the Pollution Prevention Act, EPA is authorized to encourage voluntary approaches 

to pollution prevention. Voluntary measures we are undertaking to help support pollution prevention for electronics include the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT), Federal Electronics Challenge, Plug-In to eCycling and the 

Design for the Environment program’s work on lead-free solder. 

It is true that the U.S. does not have Federal substance bans for electronics similar to those that will soon take effect in Europe. Most electronic products are manufactured for a worldwide market; thus manufacturers generally need to design their 

products to the most stringent design standards in effect wherever they are. According to many industry observers, many, if not most, electronics sold in the U.S. will 

meet the EU design requirements simply because most manufacturers will not be 

making a separate product for the U.S. market. California recently adopted substance bans essentially identical to those of the EU for selected electronic products. 

It is anticipated that these California requirements will capture any covered electronics that are made for a strictly U.S. market.

Question 8. EPA’s EPEAT program seeks to develop criteria for judging electronics 

products that are designed to be environmentally friendly. The EPEAT program will 

allow manufacturers to self-select whether they meet all of the criteria to qualify 

for a bronze, silver of gold label. 

Will EPA or a third party audit the representations made by manufacturers, or 

merely rely on data submitted by manufacturers? 

Response. A credible verification process for product declarations is one of the 

most critical aspects for long-term EPEAT success. Purchasers and the environmental community must have confidence that the claims of manufacturers are accurate. 

However, the stakeholders in the development of EPEAT, which include manufacturers, federal and state and local procurement officials, environmental organizations, recyclers, and others, agreed that, given the very short time-to-market characteristic of the electronic marketplace, it is impractical to use a third-party process 

to pre-verify each product claim before that claim can be used by the manufacturer. 

EPEAT therefore relies on manufacturer self-declaration that is backed up by a 

multi-tiered verification process. 

The first tier in verification is the signing of a legal agreement with each manufacturer that wishes to declare products to the EPEAT standard. This must be 

signed by a high-level, responsible company manager, and will spell out, in an enforceable manner, the commitments of the company and the consequences of failing 

to meet those commitments. 

Second, for each manufacturer, product self-declarations will be monitored to assure that they are being entered correctly. This is not a verification of accuracy, but 

declarations will be double checked by the EPEAT host organization. (The process 

of identifying a host organization for the EPEAT tool is now underway; it is expected that a host organization will be chosen later this year.) In product declarations, manufacturers are required to have ready for review specified data that supports the claim for each criterion. 

Then on an annual basis, products will be selected for spot checks by the EPEAT 

host organization—a thorough verification of accuracy. Products will be randomly 

selected and, if questions or challenges have been raised by users of the system, specific products will be targeted. The number of spot checks will be variable, depending on the need to assure EPEAT credibility. 
54

The process for administering and performing spot checks will use Qualified 

Verifiers, who have been properly trained and certified. The spot checks will include 

a review of the data that will be provided by the manufacturer, and will include 

product testing or other procedures as necessary. The spot check of factual findings 

will be brought to a Technical Verification Committee of independent, technical experts to pass judgment. 

The EPEAT host organization will take any outstanding problems to the manufacturer to be explained or resolved. If a resolution cannot be achieved, termination of 

the declaration of the product in question will be undertaken. If multiple problems 

of this nature should occur, the manufacturer’s ability to declare to EPEAT may be 

terminated. All these procedures will have been spelled out in the original agreement with the manufacturer. 

RESPONSE BY THOMAS DUNNE TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM

SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question. There have been numerous reports about unsafe recycling of electronic 

waste in China, exposing children and workers to hazardous materials from computers that were exported from the U.S. Will EPA’s upcoming rule on cathode ray 

tubes address this problem by either banning the export of electronic waste or requiring exporters to verify that electronic waste sent overseas to be recycled will be 

properly handled to protect against harm to human health and the environment? 

What is the status of this rulemaking and when is it expected to be published as 

a final rule? 

Response. In response to our proposed rule, EPA received many comments about 

CRTs exported for recycling. We thoroughly evaluated all of these comments when 

developing our final rule, and examined all relevant options. The final rule, which 

is currently undergoing interagency review, will discuss the comments received and 

describe the final approach adopted, including responding to the comments that 

were submitted. 

RESPONSE BY THOMAS DUNNE TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM

SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question. As you know, CRTs may contain up to 10 lbs. or more of leaded glass. 

Are you planning to issue a ‘‘universal waste rule’’ for CRT glass to control this toxic 

metal? If not, why not? 

Response. In June, 2002, EPA proposed an exclusion from the definition of solid 

waste for CRTs and CRT glass sent for recycling. The purpose of this rule is to encourage more reuse, recycling, and better management of this rapidly growing waste 

stream, while at the same time ensure that these materials are safely managed. The 

Agency believed that this regulatory exclusion was preferable to including CRTs in 

the universal waste rule because, in our view, these materials resemble commodities 

more than wastes when sent for reuse or recycling. Therefore, some of the requirements of the universal waste rule (e.g., notification and tracking) did not seem appropriate. However, we note that the management conditions of our proposed exclusion are very similar to the general conditions of the universal waste rule. Both sets 

of conditions would minimize the release of toxic constituents during storage and 

transport. With that said, the Agency did describe in the proposal and specifically 

requested comment on an alternative approach that would regulate CRT’s and CRT 

glass sent for recycling under the universal waste rule, instead of excluding them 

from the definition of solid waste. The Agency received many comments on this ‘‘request for comment’’ which have been carefully evaluated and considered in the draft 

final rule, which is currently undergoing interagency review. 

Finally, our proposed rule would not streamline RCRA requirements for CRTs 

that are hazardous and sent for disposal. Under the proposed rule, CRTs that are 

hazardous and sent to landfills or incinerators would still be subject to existing requirements, including use of the hazardous waste manifest. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work to date on the issues surrounding the growing volume of used electronics accumulating in the nation’s basements, attics, and landfills. Rapid advancements in technology have led to increas-
55

1For the purposes of our study, used electronics includes computers, computer monitors, and 

televisions that have reached the end of their original useful life. 

ing 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 come to the end of their useful 

lives. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that in 2003 

alone, about 50 million existing computers became obsolete, but one estimate forecast that less than 6 million were recycled. 

Disposal of used electronics creates potential problems that can be averted 

through recycling or reuse. For example, concerns have been raised because toxic 

substances such as lead, which have well-documented adverse health effects, can potentially leach from used electronics. Concerns have also been raised over used electronics that are exported from the United States to countries with less stringent environmental regulations. In addition, computers contain precious metals, such as 

gold, silver, and platinum, that 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, reports 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. 

In this context, you and several other Members of the Congress asked. that we 

address, a number of issues surrounding this problem. Specifically, we were asked 

to (1) summarize existing information on the volumes of, and problems associated 

with, used electronics and (2) examine the factors. affecting the nation’s ability to 

recycle and reuse electronics when such products have reached the end of their useful lives. 

To address these issues, we are examining studies that provide nationwide estimates on the amount of used electronics,1 as well as federal and state government 

studies (including those by EPA and task forces in Oregon and Washington), industry and interest group studies, and local studies (including municipal solid waste 

characterization studies) that discuss the problems associated with used electronics. 

We are also visiting states and localities that have implemented programs or passed 

legislation to responsibly manage used electronics, including California, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington. In addition, we are surveying 

participants in the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative and other 

key stakeholders, which include key stakeholders from Federal, State, and local governments, environmental organizations, recyclers, retailers, equipment manufacturers, and academicians. To date, we have received responses from 41 of the 53 survey 

participants. We are also comparing current government and industry practices 

with existing practices for promoting recycling in other industries, such as bottleand can-recycling programs and the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation 

program. Further, we are examining EPA-sponsored Federal, State, and local pilot 

programs that attempt to encourage recycling of electronic products. Our work is 

being done in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, 

which include an assessment of data reliability and internal controls. 

We are here to present our preliminary observations on these issues. We will report the final results of our study and any recommendations we may develop at a 

later date. In summary: • Available estimates suggest that the volume of used electronics is large and 

growing and that 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 either recycled, reused, disposed 

of in landfills, or stored by users in places such as basements, garages, and company 

warehouses. Available data suggest that most used electronics are probably stored. 

These units have the potential to be recycled and reused, disposed of in landfills, 

or exported for recycling and reuse 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. Additionally, standard regulatory tests show that 

some toxic substances with known adverse health effects, such as lead, have the potential to leach into landfills. Although one study suggests 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 the environmental regulations comparable to 

the United States. • Both economic and regulatory factors discourage recycling and reuse of used 

electronics: 
56

• 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. Consumers in Snohomish County, WA, for instance, may have to travel more than 

an hour to the nearest drop-off location, which then charges between $10 and 

$27 per unit depending on the type and size of the product. Consumers in the 

Portland, OR area, pay one local recycler 50 cents per pound to have their used 

computers recycled, which is about $28 for an average-sized desktop computer. 

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 our interviews with eight electronics recyclers, who were unanimous in emphasizing that they could not cover costs without charging fees. 

• Federal regulatory requirements provide little incentive for environmentally 

preferable management of used electronics. The governing statute, the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, bars entities that dispose of more than 220 

pounds of hazardous waste per month from depositing hazardous waste (including some used electronics) in landfills. However, RCRA does not prohibit households and entities that generate less than 220 pounds of hazardous waste per 

month from sending hazardous waste to municipal landfills. Consequently, since 

only four states currently ban disposal of used electronics in their trash or local 

landfill, 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, available data suggest that states and localities that do not have landfill 

bans have dramatically lower levels of recycling than the four states that have 

enacted landfill bans. In addition, federal regulations provide for neither a financing system for responsible management of used electronics, nor oversight 

of these products when exported—a particular problem in the case of some developing countries, where risks to the environment and human health may be 

more likely because of less stringent environmental regulations. 

In the absence of a national approach, a patchwork of potentially conflicting state 

requirements is developing. This patchwork may be placing a substantial burden on 

recyclers, refurbishers, and other stakeholders. As we conclude our work, we will be 

examining the implications of our findings for the ongoing efforts among the states 

to deal with the problem, for the various legislative solutions that have been proposed to create a uniform national approach, and for options the federal government 

can pursue to encourage recycling and reuse of used electronics. 

BACKGROUND

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 requires federal agencies to procure items that are, 

to the maximum extent practicable, produced with recovered materials. The Pollution Prevention Act provides 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. It 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 on September 14, 
57

2 National Safety Council, Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report May 

1999. These estimates are based on major assumptions, as well as responses from only 38 percent of sampled companies. Although, the study supports the existence of a large and growing 

problem, the precise estimates should be used with caution. 3 International Association of Electronics Recyclers, IAER Electronics Recycling Industry Report 2003. These estimates are based on major assumptions, as well as responses from only 20 

percent of sampled companies. Although the study supports the existence of a large and growing 

problem, the precise estimates should be used with caution. 

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. 

Nonetheless, while large-quantity generators, such as businesses, schools, and 

government agencies, must treat some used electronics as hazardous waste due to 

the relatively high level of toxic substances, it is not illegal for households or for 

small quantity generators—non-household entities disposing of less than 220 pounds 

per month—to dispose of used electronics in landfills in most states. Under RCRA, 

household hazardous wastes, including used electronics, may be disposed of at municipal solid waste landfills. However, some states have begun imposing more stringent disposal requirements for used electronics. For example, because of concerns 

regarding the potential environmental and health effects of leaded glass in cathode 

ray tubes (CRTs), California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Minnesota recently banned 

them from disposal in municipal landfills. 

As national awareness of potential problems associated with the disposal of used 

electronics has grown, EPA has taken steps to encourage recycling of used electronics. For instance, EPA, together with electronics manufacturers, retailers, and 

recyclers, sponsored several pilot programs in 2004 to measure the success of convenient collection options for used electronics. Other recent EPA efforts, such as the 

Federal Electronics Challenge and the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) program, attempt to leverage U.S. Government procurement 

power to drive environmentally preferable design for electronic products. Finally, 

through the establishment of the National Electronic Product Stewardship Initiative 

(NEPSI) in 2001, EPA established a voluntary, multi-stakeholder initiative to reach 

consensus on a national approach to encourage recycling of used electronics. This 

voluntary effort ultimately dissolved in 2005 without agreement, however, because 

stakeholders could not reach consensus on a nationwide financing system. 

VOLUME OF USED ELECTRONICS AND THE PROBLEMS THEY POSE

The information we have reviewed to date suggests strongly that the volume of 

used electronics is large and growing. For example, in a 1999 study, the National 

Safety Council forecast that almost 100 million computers and monitors would become obsolete in 2003-a three-fold increase over the 33 million obsolete computers 

and monitors in 1997.2 Additionally, a 2003 International Association of Electronics 

Recyclers report estimated that 20 million televisions become obsolete each year—

a number that is expected to increase as CRT technology is replaced by new technologies such as plasma screens.3

Thus far, it appears that relatively few units have found their way into either 

landfills or recycling centers. Available EPA data indicate that less than 4 million 

monitors and 8 million televisions are disposed of annually in U.S. landfills-only a 

fraction of the amount estimated to become obsolete annually, according to EPA. Additionally, the 1999 National Safety Council report forecast that only 19 million 

computers, monitors, and televisions would be recycled in 2005. Hence, the gap between the enormous quantity of units that are obsolete (or becoming obsolete), and 

the quantity either in landfills or sent to recycling centers, suggests that most used 

electronics are still in storage-such as attics, basements, and garages-and that their 

ultimate fate is still not certain, or have been exported for recycling and reuse overseas. 

Conventional disposal of used electronics in landfills raises two primary concerns, 

according to research we reviewed: the loss of natural resources and the potential 

release of toxic substances in the environment. By disposing of these products in 

landfills or incinerators, valuable resources are lost for future use. For example, 

computers typically contain precious metals, such as gold, silver, palladium, and 

platinum, as well as other useful metals like aluminum and copper. Further, the 

U.S. Geological Survey reports that one metric ton of computer circuit boards contains between 40 and 800 times the concentration of gold contained in gold ore and 

30 to 40 times the concentration of copper, while containing much lower levels of 
58

4 Bleiwas, Donald and Kelly, Thomas, Obsolete Computers, ‘‘Gold Mines,’’or High-Tech Trash? 

Resource Recovery From Recycling (Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey, 2001). Because we 

have not yet reviewed this study, this data should be used with caution. 5The United Nations University is a think tank for the United Nations and is not a degree 

granting university. 6Townsend, Timothy, et al, Characterization of Lead Leachability from Cathode Ray Tubes 

Using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. (University of Florida, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences: 2000). Because we have not yet reviewed this study, these 

estimates should be used with caution. 7Solid Waste Association of North America, The Effectiveness of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Controlling Releases of Heavy Metals to the Environment (2004). Because we have not 

yet reviewed this study, this data should be used with caution. 8Over 70 percent of the survey respondents felt that existing collection options for recycling 

used electronics were inconvenient for households. 

harmful elements common to ores, such as arsenic, mercury, and sulfur.4 The research we have thus far reviewed also suggests that the energy saved by recycling 

and reusing used electronics is significant-the author of one report by the United 

Nations University states that perhaps as much as 80 percent of the energy used 

in a computer’s life can be saved through reuse instead of producing a new unit 

from raw materials.5

Regarding the issue of toxicity, the research we have reviewed to date is unclear 

on the extent to which toxic substances may leach from used electronics in landfills. 

On one hand, according to a standard regulatory test RCRA requires to determine 

whether a solid waste is hazardous and subject to federal regulation, lead (a substance with known adverse health affects) leaches from some used electronics under 

laboratory conditions. Tests conducted at the University of Florida indicate that lead 

leachate from computer monitors and televisions with cathode ray tubes exceeds the 

regulatory limit and, as a result, could be considered hazardous waste under 

RCRA.6 On the other hand, the study’s author told us that these findings are not 

necessarily predictive of what could occur in a modern landfill. Furthermore, a report by the Solid Waste Association of North America suggests that while the 

amount of lead from used electronics appears to be increasing in municipal solid 

waste landfills, these landfills provide safe management of used electronics without 

exceeding toxicity limits that have been established to protect human health and 

the environment.7

ECONOMIC AND REGULATORY FACTORS DETER RECYCLING AND REUSE

OF USED ELECTRONICS

The costs associated with recycling and reuse, along with limited regulatory requirements or incentives, discourage environmentally preferable management of 

used electronics. Generally, consumers have to pay fees and take their used electronics to often inconvenient locations to have them recycled or refurbished for 

reuse. Recyclers and refurbishers charge fees to cover the costs of their operations. 

In most states, consumers have an easier and cheaper alternative—they can take 

them to the local landfill. These easy and inexpensive alternatives help explain why 

so little recycling of used electronics has thus far taken place in the United States. 

This economic reality, together with federal regulations that do little to preclude disposal of used electronics along with other wastes, have led a growing number of 

states to enact their own laws to encourage environmentally preferable management 

of these products. 

Cost and Consumer Inconvenience Discourage Recycling and Reuse of Used Electronics 

Consumers who seek to recycle or donate their used electronics for reuse generally 

pay a fee and face inconvenient drop-off locations. Unlike their efforts for other solid 

waste management and recycling programs, most local governments do not provide 

curbside collection for recycling of used electronics because it is too expensive. Instead, some localities offer used electronics collection services, for a fee, at local 

waste transfer stations. These localities send consumers’ used electronics to recyclers for processing. For example, transfer stations in Snohomish County, WA, 

charge consumers between $10 and $27 per unit for collecting used electronics and 

transporting them to recyclers. Moreover, such transfer stations are generally not 

conveniently located, and rural residents, such as those in Snohomish County, may 

need to drive more than an hour to get to the nearest drop-off station.8 In some localities, consumers can also take their used electronics directly to a recycler, where 

they are typically charged a fee. In the Portland, OR area, for instance, one recycler 

charges consumers 50 cents per pound to recycle computers, monitors, and tele-
59

9This point is further underscored by our interviews with 8 electronics recyclers, who were 

unanimous in emphasizing that they could not cover costs without charging fees. 10 Boon, J.E., Isaacs, J.A., and Gupta, S.M. ‘‘Economic Sensitivity for End of Life Planning and 

Processing of Personal Computers.’’ Journal of Electronics Manufacturing (Vol. 11, 81–93, 2002). 

Because we have not yet reviewed this study, this data should be used with caution. 

visions, which means it costs the consumer about $28 to recycle an average-sized 

desktop computer system. 

Recyclers charge these fees to cover the costs they incur when disassembling used 

electronics, processing the components, and refining the commodities for resale. As 

noted in a 2003 report by the International Association of Electronics Recyclers, 

most recyclers and refurbishers in the United States cannot recoup their expenses 

from the resale of recycled commodities or refurbished units. The report, which compiled data from more than 60 recyclers in North America, stated that the costs associated with recycling are greater than the revenue received from reselling recycled 

commodities, and that fees are needed to cover the difference. Furthermore, the report states 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.9

The costs associated with recycling make it unprofitable (without charging fees) 

for several reasons. First, recycling used electronics is labor intensive-the equipment 

must be separated into its component parts, including the plastic housing, copper 

wires, metals (e.g., gold, silver, and aluminum), and circuit boards, as well as parts 

that can be easily reused or resold, like hard drives and CD-ROM drives. Officials 

with Noranda Recycling Inc., which recycles used electronics for Hewlett-Packard, 

told us that over 50 percent of their total costs for recycling are labor costs involved 

in disassembly, even though they operate some of the most technologically advanced 

equipment available. Labor costs are high, in part, because electronic products are 

not always designed to facilitate recycling at their end of life. For instance, a Hewlett-Packard official told us 30 different screws must be removed to take out one 

lithium battery when disassembling a Hewlett-Packard computer for recycling. According to this official, if Hewlett-Packard spent $1 in added design costs to reduce 

the number of different screws in each computer, it would save Noranda approximately $4 in its disassembly costs. 

Second, to obtain sellable commodities, the resulting metal and plastic ‘‘scrap’’ 

must be further processed to obtain shredded plastic, aluminum, copper, gold, and 

other recyclable materials. Processing in this fashion typically involves multimilliondollar machinery. According to officials with one international electronics recycling 

company, processing costs are high, in part, because this sophisticated machinery 

is being used to process the relatively limited supply of used electronics being recycled in the United States. The firm’s officials noted that in Europe, by contrast, 

where manufacturers are required to take financial responsibility for the disposal 

of their products, the increased supply of recyclable electronics has decreased the 

firm’s per-unit processing costs and increased the profitability of recycling used electronics. 

Finally, recyclers incur additional expenses when handling and disposing of toxic 

components (such as batteries) and toxic constituents (such as lead), which are all 

commonly found in used electronics. These expenses include removing the toxic components and constituents from the product, as well as handling and processing them 

as hazardous material. Once separated from the product, these wastes are considered hazardous wastes and are subject to more stringent RCRA requirements governing their transportation, storage, and disposal. CRTs from computer monitors 

and televisions are particularly expensive to dispose of because they contain large 

volumes of leaded glass, which must be handled and disposed of as a hazardous 

waste. Since CRT manufacturing is declining in the United States, some recyclers 

send their CRT glass to a lead smelter in Missouri that charges recyclers for their 

CRT glass. A study on the economics of recycling personal computers found that the 

cost associated with disposing of CRT monitors substantially reduces a recycler’s net 

revenue.10

Refurbishers charge similar fees to cover the costs involved in guaranteeing data 

security by ‘‘wiping’’ hard drives, upgrading systems, installing software, and testing 

equipment. A program manager for a nonprofit technology assistance provider told 

us that it generally costs about $100 to refurbish a Pentium III computer system, 

plus an additional licensing fee of about $80 for an operating system. 

To encourage used electronics recycling, EPA sponsored pilot programs that addressed the cost and inconvenience issues. Office Depot and Hewlett-Packard, for example, partnered to provide free take-back of used electronics at Office Depot retail 

stores. Collected used electronics were sent to Hewlett-Packard facilities for recy-
60

11The landfill bans in Maine and Minnesota take full effect in 2006. 

cling. Over a 3-month period, nearly 215,000 computers, monitors, and televisions 

were collected and recycled. EPA officials told us that the pilot program showed the 

extent to which recycling can be encouraged by making it inexpensive and convenient to the consumer. 

Federal Regulatory Framework Governing Used Electronics Provides Little Incentive 

for Recycling or Reuse 

The lack of economic incentives promoting recycling and reuse of electronics is 

compounded by the absence of federal provisions that either encourage recycling, or 

preclude their disposal in landfills. Specifically, current federal laws and regulations 

(1) allow hazardous used electronics in municipal landfills, (2) do not provide for a 

financing system to support recycling, and (3) do little to preclude electronic products generated in the United States from being exported and subsequently threatening human health and the environment overseas. While several promising federal 

initiatives supporting electronics recycling have been launched, their voluntary nature makes their success uncertain. 

Hazardous Used Electronics Are Allowed in Municipal Landfills 

Regulation of used electronics at the federal level falls under RCRA Subtitle C, 

which was established to ensure that hazardous waste is managed in a manner that 

is protective of human health and the environment. However, households and small 

quantity generators are exempt from many RCRA regulations, thus allowing them 

to deposit their used electronics in municipal solid waste landfills—even though 

cathode ray tubes in computer monitors and televisions, and potentially circuit 

boards in computers, exhibit characteristics of hazardous waste. EPA’s Office of 

Solid Waste regulates hazardous waste under RCRA, but it lacks the authority to 

require environmentally preferable management of used electronics through recycling and reuse or to establish a mandatory national approach, such as a disposal 

ban. As a result, all of the office’s efforts with regard to the recycling of used electronics are voluntary. 

In response to RCRA’s exemption for household hazardous waste and the growing 

volume of obsolete electronics within their boundaries, four states-California, Maine, 

Massachusetts, and Minnesota-recently banned from landfills some used electronics.11 Our preliminary work suggests that such bans have contributed to a higher degree of recycling than in states where disposal in solid waste landfills is allowed. In San Ramon, CA, for instance, a 1-day collection event for television monitors yielded 24,000 units. In contrast, in Richmond, Virginia, a metropolitan area 

4 times the size of San Ramon but without a landfill ban, a similar collection event 

(organized by the same electronics recycler as in San Ramon) only yielded about 

6,000 monitors. This difference in yield is consistent with assessments of California 

and Massachusetts officials, who all told us that their states have seen substantial 

increases in used electronics recycling. One international electronics recycler, for instance, set up recycling facilities in the San Francisco area in 2003 because of the 

large volume of used electronics that were no longer being disposed of in landfills. 

In Massachusetts, an official with the Department of Environmental Protection told 

us that six businesses dedicated to electronics recycling were created following the 

enactment of a landfill ban. Finally, about 75 percent of the survey respondents to 

date said that a national disposal ban should be enacted to overcome the economic 

and regulatory factors that discourage recycling and reuse of used electronics. 

Experts Believe a National Financing System is Needed to Support Recycling 

Given the inherent economic disincentives to recycle used electronics, we found 

widespread agreement among our survey respondents and others we contacted that 

the establishment of some type of financing system is critical to making recycling 

and reuse sufficiently inexpensive and convenient to attract the participation of consumers. For instance, almost 90 percent of survey respondents believe that either 

an advanced recycling fee (ARF), extended producer responsibility (EPR), or a hybrid of the two should be implemented if national solution is instituted. Yet despite 

broad agreement in principle, participants in the recent multi-stakeholder NEPSI 

process, particularly those in the computer and television industries, did not reach 

agreement on a uniform, nationwide financing system after several years of meetings. 

In the absence of a national system, several states have 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 with-
61

12 An official with the Maryland Department of Environment estimated that anywhere from 

40 to 200 computer manufacturers might be required to pay the fee. He cited one estimate that 

the fee will provide the state with about $400,000 to use toward recycling used electronics. 

in the state. The fee is charged to consumers at the time and location of purchase, 

and can 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 for used electronics 

had sufficient capacity to recycle large volumes, consumers and large-quantity generators 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 20 cents per pound to collectors of used electronics, thereby providing an incentive for entities to make collection free and convenient for 

households. 

The state is 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 

boundary, however, may prove difficult because the payout for used electronics 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. 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 their end of life-a strategy referred to as EPR. 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 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: they must still take their products to a consolidation point, and will still likely 

have to pay a fee. 

Several other states, as well as some countries, have implemented or are considering implementing financing systems for used electronics. Earlier this 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.12

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 manufacturer take-back programs. In 

Europe, the European Union implemented the Waste Electrical and Electronic 

Equipment Management Regulations in July 2004, which requires producers of electronic products to be financially responsible for the recycling or reuse of their products at end of life. In our final report, we will provide a more complete examination 

of various strategies for financing environmentally preferable management of used 

electronics. 

Oversight of Exhorted Used Electronics Is Limited 

The lack of oversight over exports of used electronics could also discourage environmentally preferable management of used electronics. In the United States, businesses, schools, government agencies, and other organizations, as well as households, face multiple options for their used electronics. In some instances, organizations and recyclers receive e-mails from brokers, who typically have partners in 

Asia, willing to pay them for their used electronics, regardless of whether they can 

be reused. For example, one broker requests up to 50,000 used monitors per month 

and does not require the monitors to be tested. Another broker specifically requests 

nonworking monitors and wanted to fill at least 10 containers, which equals anywhere from 6,000 to 11,000 units, depending on their size. One Seattle area recycler 

said that brokers such as these are probably not handling the units in environmentally preferable ways once the units are exported. Even so, one business we contacted said it regularly receives e-mail requests such as these. 

Companies export used electronics because the largest markets for reused computers and computer parts are overseas, according to an EPA official. Likewise, de-
62

13 Congressional Research Service, Recycling Computers and Electronic Equipment: Legislative and Regulatory Approaches for ‘‘E–Waste,’’ (Washington, D.C.: 2003). 14The following are generally not classified as solid wastes under RCRA: Used electronics for 

reuse, whole circuit boards, shredded circuit boards, if free of certain hazardous materials, metal 

from used electronics, and scrap metal. 15The Basel Action Network is an environmental group that works to prevent the trade of 

toxic wastes from developed countries to developing countries. The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition is an environmental group that works to prevent environmental and human health problems caused by the electronics industry. 

mand is high for recycled commodities, which can be processed more cheaply due, 

in part, to lower, wages and less stringent environmental requirements. Also, unlike 

their counterparts in some other developed countries, the U.S. officials have permitted the export of hazardous used electronics, such as CRT monitors and televisions, if the exporter asserts that the equipment is destined for reuse. While some 

environmental groups have called for a ban on exports of used electronics, the Congressional Research Service noted that such a ban would cut recyclers off from 

many of the markets able to reuse the materials.13

However, few safeguards are in place to ensure that exported used electronics are 

indeed destined for reuse.14 Used electronics that are destined for reuse are not considered to be waste subject to RCRA export regulations. Instead, such electronics 

are considered to be commodities, which means that they can be exported with little 

or no documentation, notification, and oversight. Nonetheless, instances have been 

recently documented in which environmental and human health threats have resulted from the less-regulated disassembly and disposal of United States-generated 

used electronics overseas. For example, a 2002 documentary by the Basel Action 

Network and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition videotaped egregious disassembly practices in China that involved open burning of wire to recover copper, open acid baths 

for separating precious metals, and human exposure to lead and other hazardous 

materials.15 Without the ability to track the exported units to importing countries, 

or to audit companies exporting used electronics, it is difficult to verify that exported used electronics are actually destined for reuse, or that they are ultimately 

managed responsibly once they leave U.S. shores. As our work continues, we will 

further examine the extent of the problems associated with irresponsible management of used electronics overseas. 

Opportunities Exist for Federal Initiatives to Enhance Electronics Recycling 

The federal government has taken some steps to affirm its commitment to encourage recycling of used electronics through the implementation of two voluntary programs sponsored by EPA. The Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC) and the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) both leverage U.S. Government purchasing power to promote environmentally preferable management of electronic products from procurement through end of life. For example: • The FEC program challenges federal agencies and facilities to procure environmentally preferable electronic products, extend the lifespan of these products, and, 

expand markets for recycling and recovered materials by recycling them at their end 

of life. The FEC provides guidance on environmentally preferable attributes of electronic products information, on operating and maintaining them in an energy-efficient manner, and on options for recycling or reusing them at the end of their useful 

lives. To date, 11 federal agencies and 26 individual federal facilities participate in 

the FEC to some extent. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) recently documented cost savings associated with its FEC participation. BPA noted, for example, 

that the program extended the lifespan of its personal computers from 3 to 4 years. 

With over 500 computers procured each year at an annual cost of more than 

$500,000, a BPA official told us extending computer life spans could generate substantial savings. Additionally, BPA decided to procure new flat-screen monitors instead of CRT monitors, reducing both hazardous waste tonnage and end of life recycling costs. According to BPA, it expects to save at least $153 per monitor over each 

monitor’s life. • The EPEAT program promotes environmentally preferable management of electronics by allowing large purchasers, such as government agencies, to compare and 

select laptop computers, desktop computers, and monitors with environmentally 

preferable attributes. For example, EPEAT evaluates an electronic product’s design 

for energy conservation, reduced toxicity, extended lifespan, and end of life recycling, among other things. EPEAT’s three-tier system—bronze, silver, and gold—

provides purchasers with the flexibility to select equipment that meets the minimum performance criteria, or to give preference to products with more environmental attributes. For manufacturers, EPEAT provides flexibility to choose which 

optional criteria they would like to meet to achieve higher levels of EPEAT quali-
63

fication. EPA expects EPEAT to be instituted in 2006, and products with higher environmental ratings could receive preferred consideration in federal procurement decisions. 

While we will continue to examine the FEC and EPEAT programs in greater detail, including how stakeholders say they might be improved, our preliminary work 

suggests that the federal government can build on these initiatives by using its purchasing power to lead markets for electronic products in environmentally friendly 

directions. In fact, there is ample precedent for such a strategy, perhaps most notably in EPA’s and the Department of Energy’s Energy Star program. In that program, the federal government partners with industry to offer businesses and consumers energy-efficient products that ultimately save money and protect the environment. According to EPA, in 2004 alone, Energy Star products helped save approximately $10 billion in energy costs and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by an 

amount equivalent to that produced by 20 million automobiles. Part of Energy Star’s 

success can be attributed to federal actions, particularly those outlined in two executive orders that required federal agencies to purchase products equipped with Energy Star features. Since the federal government will spend over $60 billion on information technology products in fiscal year 2005, including televisions, computers, 

and computer monitors, it could go beyond the voluntary and limited FEC and 

EPEAT programs by broadening the programs’ scope and requiring agency participation in, or adherence to, some of the programs’ key practices. As with the Energy 

Star program, such actions may lead to cost savings and greater environmental protection. Of particular note, over 80 percent of the survey respondents to date said 

that Federal Government procurement criteria along the lines of FEC and EPEAT 

should be required, and about 95 percent of the survey respondents to date said that 

such procurement criteria would encourage environmentally preferable product design, as well as recycling and reuse. 

OBSERVATIONS ON FEDERAL ACTIONS TO ENCOURAGE RECYCLING AND

REUSE OF USED ELECTRONICS

In our future work, we will continue to examine factors affecting recycling in 

greater detail, and the diverse efforts by individual states and others to deal with 

these issues. It is becoming clear, though, that in the absence of a national approach, a patchwork of potentially conflicting state requirements is developing, and 

that this patchwork may be placing a substantial burden on recyclers, refurbishers, 

and other stakeholders. 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. Further, a retailer may have to set up a system in one state to collect fees on specific products 

and, at the same time, set up a different system in another state to take back a 

particular manufacturer’s product. Hence, manufacturers we contacted said that 

while they had their preferences regarding, for instance, an ARF or EPR system, 

their main preference is to operate within a uniform national system that mandates 

a financing mechanism that preempts varying state requirements. Our preliminary 

survey results substantiate these views, with over 90 percent of survey respondents 

indicating that national legislation should be enacted and, if so, almost 90 percent 

believe a financing mechanism should be included. 

Our future work will also discuss some of the options—both legislative and administrative—being considered to encourage environmentally preferable management of 

used electronics at a national level. Frequently cited options include disposal bans, 

consumer education programs, a variety of financing systems, export restrictions, 

and federal government procurement requirements. These options may offer suggestions for a uniform national approach and what aspects should be considered. Additionally, an examination of EPA’s voluntary programs—the FEC and EPEAT—may 

shed light on other, more effective options available to the federal government that 

can save money over electronic products’ life cycle; enhance environmental protection; drive markets for environmentally preferable product design; and establish a 

recycling infrastructure and markets for recycled commodities. 

Finally, with rapid advances in technology, particularly in consumer electronics, 

new products are reaching.the marketplace with remarkable speed. Consequently, 

our future work will also examine the implications of these newer generations of 

electronics entering the nation’s waste stream. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of this Subcommittee may have at 

this time.
64
65

RESPONSE BY JOHN STEPHENSON TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM

SENATOR INHOFE

Question. GAO’s report recognizes that there is potential for contamination from 

electronics if they are not managed properly. What specific examples of mismanagement that led to contamination has GAO found? 

Response. Instances of improper management of used electronics have been documented overseas, for example, by the Basel Action Network and the Silicon Valley 

Toxics Coalition. Their findings were confirmed in an investigation conducted by the 

San Jose Mercury News. These efforts documented practices in China that involved 

open burning of plastic computer casings, open acid baths for separating precious 

metals, and human exposure to lead and other hazardous materials. Of note, GAO 

is not aware of any contamination from used electronics in the United States. 

RESPONSES BY JOHN STEPHENSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. Your written testimony states that a ‘‘lack of oversight over exports 

could [] discourage environmentally preferable management of used electronics.’’

Could you please elaborate on this finding, and in particular its potential effects 

for domestic markets of recycled products? 

Response. Some businesses in developing countries with less stringent environmental and human health standards will disassemble used electronics and extract 

valuable materials without paying the cost of proper worker and environmental protection. As a result, many of these products will ‘‘flow’’ to these countries and potentially expose workers and citizens to hazardous substances. Further, the U.S. recycling infrastructure will be at a competitive disadvantage when compared to these 

less-responsible overseas operations. In fact, only 22 percent of GAO’s survey respondents believe that the export of non-working equipment—which many experts 

believe is the equipment most often handled irresponsibly—should be allowed. Oversight, such as ‘‘downstream’’ tracking or notification requirements to importing 

countries, could help ensure that United States-generated used electronics are only 

exported to responsible entities overseas.

Question 2. The GAO examined EPA’s EPEAT program, which establishes criteria 

for judging electronic products that are designed in an environmentally-sensitive 

fashion. 

Could you please describe how federal and state governments can best promote 

this type of program to reduce the use of toxic material and increase the recycling 

rate of electronic products? 

Response. Federal and state governments could require electronic products they 

procure to meet some level of EPEAT criteria—bronze, silver, or gold. Additionally, 

preference could be given to electronic products that meet higher levels of EPEAT 

criteria.

Question 3. California and three other states currently have bans on the disposal 

of cathode ray tubes in municipal land fills. 

Please describe the effect of such bans on the recycling rate for electronic waste. 

Response. Interviews with state government officials in California and Massachusetts, as well as large, international recyclers, suggest that landfill bans on used 

electronics substantially increase the amount of used electronics available for recycling. For example, In San Ramon, CA, a 1-day collection even for CRT television 

monitors yielded 24,000 units. In contrast, in Richmond, Virginia, a metropolitan 

area 4 times the size of San Ramon but without a landfill ban, a similar collection 

event (organized by the same electronics recycler as in San Ramon) only yielded 

about 6,000 monitors.

Question 4. Your written testimony suggests that the costs of taking electronic 

waste apart to recover valuable material can negatively impact some recycling. 

Do you think that manufacturers can facilitate the recycling of electronic products 

by redesigning their products to be more easily recycled? 

Are any manufacturers currently undertaking such redesign initiatives? 

Response. Several manufactures have modified their electronics to ease disassembly at end-of-life. For example, Hewlett-Packard designed its DeskJet 6540 

printer to snap together so that it could be easily disassembled for recycling. Dell 

has also taken strides in product design to ease disassembly at end of life. These 

efforts are voluntary, however, and to date there has been little economic or regulatory incentive for manufacturers to design their products for end of life recycling. 

European regulations, such as the WEEE directive, are helping to drive manufacturers of consumer electronics in this direction. 
66

RESPONSES BY JOHN STEPHENSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question 1. How much is known about whether toxics and heavy metals can leach 

from electronic units discarded in landfills to possibly contaminate groundwater? 

Response. Regarding the issue of toxicity, the research we have reviewed to date 

is unclear on the extent to which toxic substances may leach from used electronics 

in landfills. On one hand, standard regulatory tests required by RCRA to determine 

whether a solid waste is hazardous and subject to federal regulation show that lead, 

as substance with known adverse health affects, leaches from some used electronics 

under laboratory conditions. On the other hand, the author of this study told GAO 

that these findings are not necessarily predictive of what could occur in a modern 

landfill. Further, a report by the Solid Waste Association of North America suggests 

that while the amount of lead from used electronics appears to be increasing in 

lined municipal solid waste landfills, these landfills provide safe management of 

used electronics without exceeding toxicity limits that have been established to protect human health and the environment. Overall, however, research on the longterm effects of used electronics in landfills is limited, in part because many of them 

are fairly new products.

Question 2. Does the GAO have a viewpoint on whether ‘‘producer take backs’’ or 

financing mechanisms such as fees, are most effective? 

Response. At this time, the effectiveness of either an advanced recovery fee (ARF) 

or extended producer responsibility (EPR) system is difficult to determine because 

the only examples—California’s ARF system and Maine’s EPR system—are in the 

beginning stages of implementation. Overall, the effectiveness of these state systems 

might not necessarily predict their success on a national level because California 

and Maine adopted them, in part, to address each state’s unique challenges. California, for example, has a robust recycling infrastructure capable of handling large 

volumes of used electronics; and, there was evidence that California citizens had 

millions of units of historic e-waste in storage. Therefore, California enacted an ARF 

to provide immediate funding to handle this waste. Maine, on the other hand, has 

a waste management infrastructure capable of collecting e-waste at consolidation 

points, but they have a very limited recycling infrastructure. Additionally, state officials wanted to ensure that future electronic products were produced with fewer 

toxic substances and designed for recycling. As a result, Maine enacted an EPR system to ensure that recycling of e-waste occurs without over-burdening limited recycling resources and to provide electronics manufacturers to design products in environmentally preferable ways in the future. 

Recognizing each state’s unique waste challenges and concerns, participants in 

the NEPSI process appeared to be advocating a hybrid ARF/EPR approach before 

the process was dissolved earlier this year. Supporters of this approach viewed it 

as a way of dealing with both (1) the need to recycle used electronics in storage (as 

emphasized in the California approach), and (2) the need to encourage more environmentally-friendly design while at the same time addressing future used electronics (as emphasized in the Maine approach). We will be examining this and other 

approaches in greater detail during the remainder of our work.

Question 3. I am a proponent of the ‘‘cradle to cradle’’ philosophy which would reduce waste, protect the environment, and stimulate the economy. Could EPA do 

more to move industries closer to a ‘‘cradle to cradle’’ management system? 

Response. Through its voluntary partnerships with industry under the Resource 

Conservation Challenge, EPA has sponsored numerous pilot projects to make recycling used electronics inexpensive and convenient. While EPA has other ‘‘tools’’ at 

its disposal, we are working with them to determine what EPA can do to help reduce the level of toxic substances in electronics are to facilitate recycling and reuse 

at these products’ end of life. 

RESPONSES BY JOHN STEPHENSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. Mr. Stephenson, based on research conducted by GAO so far, do you 

have a recommendation on which of the following systems is the most effective to 

promote the recycling of used electronics: manufacturer take back or an advanced 

recycling fee levied at the time of purchase by the manufacturer? 

California and Maine adopted their respective ARF and EPR systems, in part, to 

address each state’s unique challenges, such as their individual waste management 

and recycling infrastructures, but the effectiveness of these state systems is not yet 

known and might not necessarily predict success on a national level. California, for 
67

example, has a robust recycling infrastructure capable of handling large volumes of 

used electronics, and there was evidence that California citizens had millions of 

units of historic e-waste in storage. Therefore, California enacted an ARF to provide 

immediate funding to handle this waste. Maine, on the other hand, has a waste 

management infrastructure capable of collecting e-waste at consolidation points, but 

they have a very limited recycling infrastructure. Additionally, state officials wanted 

to ensure that future electronic products were produced with fewer toxic substances 

and designed for recycling. As a result, Maine enacted an EPR system to ensure 

that recycling of e-waste occurs without over-burdening limited recycling resources 

and to provide electronics manufacturers to design products in environmentally 

preferable ways in the future. 

Recognizing each state’s unique waste challenges and concerns, participants in 

the NEPSI process appeared to be advocating a hybrid ARF/EPR approach before 

the process was dissolved earlier this year. Supporters of this approach viewed it 

as a way of dealing with both (1) the need to recycle used electronics in storage (as 

emphasized in the California approach), and (2) the need to encourage more environmentally-friendly design while at the same time addressing future used electronics (as emphasized in the Maine approach). We will be examining this and other 

approaches in greater detail during the remainder of our work.

Question 2. Mr. Stephenson, you testified that several states have banned cathode 

ray tubes and other used electronics from landfill disposal. How has this impacted 

the electronic waste recycling rates in those states and would you recommend a national landfill ban? 

Response. Interviews with state government officials in California and Massachusetts, as well as large, international recyclers, suggest that landfill bans on used 

electronics substantially increase the amount of used electronics available for recycling. For example, In San Ramon, CA, a 1-day collection even for CRT television 

monitors yielded 24,000 units. In contrast, in Richmond, Virginia, a metropolitan 

area 4 times the size of San Ramon but without a landfill ban, a similar collection 

event (organized by the same electronics recycler as in San Ramon) only yielded 

about 6,000 monitors. While a landfill ban appears to have been a key component 

to the success of recycling in these states and localities, at this time there limited 

controls over exports and illegal dumping—both of which may increase if a nationwide landfill ban were imposed—and there is no national financing mechanism to 

ensure that used electronics are recycled or reused. As a result, the ultimate effectiveness of a national landfill ban on used electronics is uncertain. 

STATEMENT OF GARTH T. HICKLE, PRINCIPAL PLANNER, MINNESOTA OFFICE OF

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Chair and members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Garth Hickle and I am with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today and share Minnesota’s 

experience with the management of waste electronics. Given the state legislative 

and programmatic attention devoted to this issue over the past 5 years, congressional attention is an important step toward addressing this complex issue. 

The Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance began to address this issue in 

1995 at the request of our state legislature in response to concerns regarding the 

growing presence of discarded electronic products in the waste stream and the potential environmental impacts of electronics disposal. 

While there is debate regarding the actual long-term environmental impacts from 

disposing of waste electronics in landfills, Minnesota has framed the issue as one 

of resource conservation and the promotion of economic development opportunities 

created by the collection and de-manufacturing of old electronic products. The environmental benefits, energy savings, and job creation from promoting ‘‘waste as a resource’’ have guided our thinking as to the rationale for the collection and recycling 

of waste electronics. It is Minnesota’s intent to ensure that residents have convenient access to collection opportunities, and that the infrastructure is sufficient to discourage illegal dumping, abandonment of collected products, and the export of waste 

electronics to nations with less-stringent environmental standards. 

Since 1997, the OEA has facilitated a number of demonstration projects for the 

collection of waste electronics with participation from manufacturers, local government, and recyclers. Partnerships with individual manufacturers and retailers 

served to model various collection options and assess costs. 

The OEA also participated in several efforts to bring parties together to implement comprehensive programs, both at the state level and nationally. The Office 

convened a multi-stakeholder cathode ray tube (CRT) task force in 1999, and ac-
68

tively participated in the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative 

(NEPSI). While NEPSI did not arrive at a consensus regarding how a national program should be financed, the stakeholders did agree on the need for several important elements of a national program: including a broad scope of products beyond just 

televisions and monitors; performance goals; funding for local collection activities; 

environmentally sound management standards; and a third-party organization to 

implement a program. 

The Minnesota Legislature has considered legislation for waste electronics each 

year since 2002. The proposals have ranged from advance recycling fees similar to 

the program enacted by SB 20 in California to the shared-responsibility approach 

implemented in Maine. The differing business models and perspectives within the 

industry that prevented a national approach from emerging from NEPSI have also 

stymied passage of a state program in Minnesota. 

Following the 2004 Minnesota legislative session, the OEA initiated another consultation process, with significant participation from stakeholders, to identify expectations for a program in Minnesota. As part of that effort, the OEA identified the 

following elements for an effective state program: 

• Offering convenient collection options for residents that address a broad scope 

of products and track purchasing and disposal habits. 

• Utilizing existing infrastructure and providing incentives for collection. 

• Ensuring accountability for collection and recycling by identified parties. 

• Promoting environmentally sound management. 

• Providing incentives for design for the environment. 

• Supporting private management, to the extent possible, to reduce government 

involvement in the program. 

• Financing the program without relying on end-of-life fees or local government 

funding. 

While developed for Minnesota, the expectations listed above will also be relevant 

for a comprehensive national program. 

This Subcommittee will certainly hear from manufacturers and retailers on the 

preference for a national approach for business reasons to avoid a patchwork of 

state programs. A federal approach will also address some concerns faced by state 

governments grappling with this issue. 

From the perspective of state government and consumers, a federal approach may 

provide a consistent standard and eliminate regional disparities. For instance, in 

2003 Minnesota enacted a disposal ban for cathode ray tube containing products, 

now slated for implementation in 2006. This ban raised a concern among neighboring states, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wisconsin and Iowa, that televisions 

and monitors from Minnesota would be transported across the Minnesota’s border 

for disposal. A federal framework would eliminate the impact upon border sales if, 

for instance, one state enacted a consumer-fee-based program while a neighbor state 

did not. A national program may also greatly simplify administrative responsibilities such as compliance, reporting, and public education. 

If comprehensive national legislation is contemplated-a step Minnesota supportsit is important to consider the following: 

• Adopting an approach that engages all of the players along the product 

chainmanufacturers, retailers, and local government, among others-to share responsibility for funding and operating a program. Such an approach will result in a more 

effective system that provides incentives for more environmentally friendly products 

in the future, but will not place significant additional burdens on government. Legislation should contain a financing mechanism that recognizes the differing business 

models within the electronics industry and provide 

• Establishing a framework so that products can be added or deleted as the technology and consumer purchasing habits evolve. 

• Adopting performance standards and mechanisms for evaluating progress. 

However, even if a comprehensive national program is not adopted, there are several steps that the federal government could undertake to support the collection and 

recycling of discarded electronic products, including: 

• Performing data collection and analysis that tracks the sales of new products 

and recycling and disposal of waste electronics. 

• Ensuring a consistent regulatory environment to support the reuse and recycling of discarded products. 

• Developing clear standards for environmentally sound management that impose 

restrictions on the export of waste electronics to countries with less stringent environmental standards. 

• Engaging in research and analysis regarding innovative partnerships to manage 

the program. 
69

It is important to acknowledge that U.S. EPA and others have projects underway 

to address some of these issues. U.S. EPA deserves significant recognition for the 

resources and staff that have been devoted to this issue over the past several years 

including, among others, the support for NEPSI and grants for collection pilots. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to addressing any questions you may have.
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85

RESPONSES BY GARTH HICKLE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. Mr. Hickle, what are the consequences for your state if Congress fails 

to enact national electronic waste legislation? 

Response. With the July 1, 2006, implementation date for the ban on the disposal 

of cathode-ray-tube-containing products looming and the expected increase in disposal due to the transition to digital television scheduled for later in the decade, 

it is necessary that a program be in place for the collection and recycling of waste 

electronics. The Minnesota Legislature is scheduled to address this issue in the 2005 

legislative session, but the prospects for enacting a comprehensive program are unclear at this time. 

If Congress does not move forward with legislation for waste electronics, Minnesota will continue to examine legislative options for e-waste and promote proper 

management of waste electronics. 

In lieu of comprehensive national legislation, Congressional action to facilitate 

harmonized state legislation may be a useful step. Such action could be the authorization of state compacts to assist with program administration and, potentially, fee 

collection and disbursement if that option is selected.

Question 2. Mr. Hickle, what prompted Minnesota to initiate its landfill ban on 

Cathode Ray Tubes and how effective has it been? Based on Minnesota’s experience, 

would you endorse a national landfill ban? 

Response. Following the deliberation of legislation to enact a comprehensive program for waste electronics during the 2003 session, the Minnesota Legislature enacted the disposal ban as a step toward restricting the disposal of CRT-containing 

products and raising public awareness of the need to recycle monitors and televisions. 

Minnesota’s disposal ban is scheduled for implementation in 2006, so it is difficult 

to assess the potential impact on the solid waste management system. A national 

ban on the disposal of CRTs and other electronic products would eliminate regional 

disparities within the solid waste management system and ensure consistency with 

the requirements for commercially generated CRTs. 

RESPONSES BY GARTH HICKLE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BOXER

Questions 1a. Minnesota has identified seven elements for an effective state recycling system for electronics. These elements include providing incentives for environmentally-safe designs of products and a financing system that does not rely on endof-life fees or local governments funding. 

What types of incentives do you think are most effective for increasing the number of products with an environmentally-safe design? 

Response. There are three principal policy tools that serve as incentives for manufacturers to increase Design for Environment (DfE) activities. The first is a financial 

obligation to collect and recycle products, ensuring feedback between design, manufacturing, and disposal. The second is restrictions and/or bans on the use of certain 

substances, such as the EU Directive on the Restrictions of Hazardous Substances 

(RoHS). Third, purchasing standards that specify DfE attributes, such as the EPA’s 

EPEAT tool, act as a marketplace driver for enhanced product design.

Question 1b. What type of recycling-promotion system do you think can most efficiently promote recycling here in the United States? 

Response. The key to an effective recycling program in the United States is clear 

guidance for consumers regarding collection options, combined with a financial incentive for collection entities to offer service. Recyclers, retailers, local government, 

and even charities have indicated an interest in establishing permanent collection 

services but require funding for sustained and adequate service. 

It is also important that manufacturers share responsibility for financing, public 

education, and in some cases direct management of the collection and recycling system.

Question 2a. One of the concerns with a lack of national standards for recycling 

consumer electronics is that some businesses do not have strong environmental 

practices. 

Have you heard of any problems with businesses accumulating electronic products 

that were not recycled? 

Response. There have been at examples of accumulation and abandonment of discarded waste electronics in Minnesota counties in recent years. In Hennepin County 

six instances of illegal dumping have occurred since 1999. The most prominent example was a company purporting to be a recycler that aggregated old computers, 
86

removed valuable components, and abandoned the remaining material in a warehouse.

Question 2b. And, if so, what are the potential problems associated with the accumulation of such waste? 

Response. Fortunately, the environmental impacts from the cases identified above 

have been minimal. However, such cases have required substantial resources from 

the county and the state to resolve the situation.

Question 3a. Your testimony refers to the need for clear standards that impose 

restrictions on the export of waste electronics to countries without strong environmental protections. 

Please describe the most important types of standards that you think are needed 

on exports to overseas recycling operations. 

Response. Due to the potential environmental and public health impacts of improper management of waste electronics, this is a critical area for attention by the 

federal government. Export should comply with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) control system that is implemented by national 

laws and regulations of OECD countries and the Basel Convention.

Question 3b. Please also describe any relevant international laws that incorporate 

such export controls. 

Response. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of 

Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal is the most relevant international treaty that 

addresses export and movement of waste electronics.

Question 4. Minnesota enacted a ban on the disposal of cathode ray tubes in 2003, 

but has delayed implementation until 2006 out of concerns voiced by surrounding 

states that Minnesota would export it electronic waste. 

What steps do other states want Minnesota to take before implementing this ban? 

Response. It is my understanding that neighboring states would prefer Minnesota 

institute a comprehensive program for managing e-waste to ensure that adequate 

collection and recycling opportunities exist within our borders. Such a program 

would include a robust public information and outreach component to inform Minnesota residents of existing collection opportunities.

Question 5. What are the best current policies for encouraging the least amount 

of hazardous substances in electronic products and the largest amount of recycling? 

Are any governments pursing such policies? If so, what is your assessment of the 

implementation of those policies? 

Response. Both the European Union and the state of California have enacted restrictions on the use of certain substances such as heavy metals (lead, mercury, 

hexavalent chromium, and cadmium) and certain flame retardants in electronic 

products, as well as instituting programs to manage waste electronics at the end 

of life. 

Several states, including Minnesota, have contemplated legislation that would 

adopt the RoHS restrictions or add additional substances to the list of restrictions 

(typically an expanded list of flame retardants). 

The RoHS restrictions do not come into force in the EU until July 1, 2006, so assessing progress toward meeting the goals is difficult.

Question 6. The Council of State Governments/Eastern Regional Conference and 

the Northeast Recycling Council are attempting to develop a consistent policy approach for e-waste recycling programs. 

Do you think the system discussed in their draft system could efficiently increase 

e-waste recycling and promote public health protections from exposure to toxic substances? 

Response. The draft policy developed by the Northeast Recycling Council and the 

Council of State Governments is an important step toward regional consistency, incorporating many of the attributes of both the advance-recycling-fee and producerresponsibility models promoted by members of the electronics industry. The manufacturer-paid fee will engage manufacturers in directly funding the system, but does 

not obligate them to establish their own collection and recycling infrastructure. This 

funding mechanism will also reduce the number of fee payers, reducing administrative and compliance responsibilities for state government. 

The financing approach will create sufficient funding to spur the development of 

an expanded collection infrastructure as has happened with the program in California. 
87

RESPONSE BY GARTH HICKLE TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR

LAUTENBERG

Question. Minnesota is one of the States with the longest records in trying to address electronic recycling. Could you give me your opinion on whether ‘‘producer 

take backs’’ or financing mechanisms are the most effective recycling method? 

Both methods of establishing a program for managing waste electronics have distinct advantages, particularly if they ensure a mechanism for funding collection activities. However, after thorough consideration of models enacted or proposed in the 

United States, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency recommended a fee-based 

system to finance the program. A fee-based program offers a level playing field and 

generally assures sufficient financial resources for implementation. As referenced 

earlier, a manufacturer-paid fee, rather than a retailer-administered fee, will reduce 

concerns with administration and compliance. 

STATEMENT OF SHEILA DAVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SILICON VALLEY TOXICS

COALITION

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members: 

I am Sheila Davis, and I am the Executive Director of the Silicon Valley Toxics 

Coalition. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the 

very important issue of electronic waste. 

The problem of electronic waste in the United States is becoming critical. Discarded computers and other electronic products are the fastest growing part of the 

waste stream. And these products contain a lengthy list of toxic chemicals, which 

cause some serious health effects when they leak out of landfills and into our 

groundwater, or are incinerated into our air. 

But less than ten percent of discarded computers are currently being recycled, 

with the remainder getting stockpiled or improperly disposed of. Fifty to eighty percent of the e-waste collected for recycling is actually being exported to Asian countries which have no infrastructure to accommodate the hazardous properties of ewaste. Due to horrific working conditions and no labor standards in many of the 

developing countries where e-waste is sent, women and children are often directly 

exposed to lead and other hazardous materials when dismantling the electronic 

products to recover the few valuable parts for resale. 

Here, in the photo shown, you will see a woman who works in one of these dismantling shops in Guiyu, China. You will see that she has no protective equipment 

whatsoever. Yet she is about to smash a cathode ray tube from a computer monitor 

in order to remove the copper laden yoke at the end of the funnel. The glass is laden 

with lead but the biggest hazard this woman faces here is the inhalation of the 

highly toxic phosphor dust coating inside this CRT. The monitor glass is later 

dumped in irrigation canals and along the river where it leaches lead into the 

groundwater. The groundwater in Guiyu is completely contaminated to the point 

where fresh water is trucked in constantly for drinking purposes.

[Photo 2001 Copyright: Basel Action Network] 

So why does the computer that I turned in, at a local ‘‘recycling’’ event in California, end up in China, at this woman’s workplace? Why didn’t my computer get 

dismantled and recycled here, like I thought it would. The answer is that the market for recycling e-waste here doesn’t work. The materials used in these products 

are so toxic, it’s very expensive to recycle them. There are some ‘‘good recyclers’’ who 
88

are actually trying to recycle the products as extensively as technology allows, but 

this requires manual processing, and protecting workers from exposure to the toxic 

chemicals is very expensive. The economics just don’t work for most recyclers. So 

they look for the cheaper, low-road solutions, and cream off the parts that there is 

a local market for, and ship the rest across the ocean to become someone else’s problem. Or they use low wage prison labor for disassembly, which further undermines 

the chances for a healthy recycling market in this country. 

So how do we fix this problem? We think the solution is to create incentives for 

the market system to work here. And we need to do two things to make that happen: 

First we need the products to be easier to recycle. The economics of recycling will 

NEVER work unless these products are easier, and therefore cheaper, to recycle. 

Part of that means using less toxic materials. Part of that means designing them 

so they are more easily disassembled for recycling, without relying. on prison labor 

or women and children in China. Here’s an example of what I mean by designing 

for easier recycling: 

A representative from a printing manufacturer told me a discouraging story about 

recycling at his company. He said that designers worked with the recyclers and 

found that if they simply added a $1.25 component part to the new line of printers 

it would make the printer easier to disassemble and cheaper to recycle. But the design team was told not to include the part because there is no guarantee that the 

printer would be recycled, so the added cost could not be justified. 

So here, the producer was not motivated to change their design because they were 

not concerned about the recycling end of their product’s life. 

So the second thing we need to do is to get the producers to take responsibility 

for their products at the end of their useful life, so that they do have this incentive. 

If the producers (and here I mean the manufacturers and brand owners) have no 

connection to, or responsibility for their products at disposal time, then what incentive do they have to modify their designs for better recycling, or even better reuse 

of their products? The answer is none—they have no incentive to do anything different. 

But what if the companies did have responsibility for taking back their products 

for recycling? What if that was just part of their normal operation, that each company had to recycle a significant portion of its old products each year? They would 

simply build these takeback and recycling costs into their pricing structure. But to 

be competitive, (and cut their recycling costs) they would innovate, redesign, and 

end up with computers that were cheaper to recycle. Less toxic materials would be 

used, so recycling would be easier and cheaper. And there would be no reason to 

even think about having to use taxpayer money to solve this problem. The market 

would work. 

So this is the legislative solution that we are encouraging our lawmakers to adopt, 

the approach that is called Producer Responsibility. Of course, this is a far reaching, 

complex solution, with many components that can’t be covered in a short testimony. 

But we think it’s the only solution that will correct the market forces that currently 

send my old computer into a landfill or to a village in China. So my message here 

today is that this is a big picture problem that calls for big picture solutions. It 

won’t be solved with partial fixes like tax breaks or making consumers pay a recycling fee. I encourage our lawmakers to seek the kinds of changes that will actually 

make the market take care of the problem of electronic waste. 

RESPONSES BY SHEILA DAVIS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. Ms. Davis, in your testimony, you advocated a Producer Responsibility 

approach to create incentives to manufacturers to consider the full life-cycle costs 

of their products and to design products that are easier to recycle. I’ve heard concerns, however, that a true producer responsibility approach is impractical. Please 

comment on whether you think it is economically feasible to overcome the logistical 

hurdles needed to collect and transport end of life products back to their original 

manufacturer for recycling? 

Response. There is no doubt that this is a complex issue, and effective solutions 

will not be simple. It will require companies to set up infrastructures (individually 

or collectively) to manage this system. But it is economically feasible, because the 

companies will incorporate their cost into their pricing structure for their products. 

If anything, it will level the playing field between companies who currently have 

a significant recycling program, and companies who are currently making no significant effort to recycle their products. All of these same companies are already implementing this system in Europe right now, in order to meet Europe’s deadline (set 
89

1Full name is Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous 

Wastes and their Disposal. (www.basel.int).The Basel Convention is a multilateral environmental agreement under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) that 

is noted for being the first international treaty that promotes environmental justice. It was designed to protect developing countries from being disproportionately burdened by hazardous 

wastes via trade, simply due to their economic status. The original treaty called for a minimization of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and national self-sufficiency in waste 

management by all countries (see www.basel.int). 

by the WEEE directive) of August 13. (And the European program is far more demanding, since it includes home appliances.) We think that many companies would 

end up funding a third-party organization (TPO) which can handle all of the logistics, contracts, etc. and benefit from economies of scale. One example of this called 

the European Recycling Platform (ERP), which is a combined effort of Sony Europe, 

Hewlett-Packard, Braun and Electrolux to collectively manage their takeback obligations across Europe. (See http://www.erp-recycling.org.)

Question 2. Ms. Davis, your testimony details the unsafe recycling of electronic 

waste in China. Do you think that the export of electronic waste should be banned? 

Response. Yes, exporting of hazardous electronic waste (see discussion below of 

relevant definitions) should be banned to China and the dozens of other developing 

countries who are not members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and 

Development OECD or the European Union (EU) for two reasons. First, exporting 

these wastes to China and these countries violates international law (1986 OECD 

Decision, discussed below). Second, developing countries like China and India have 

no effective infrastructure for handling these materials in a safe, environmentally 

sound way, so exporting our hazardous wastes knowing that this is the case constitutes a blatant form of environmental injustice. 

International Laws Around Waste Exporting.—There are two relevant international laws or treaties that address hazardous waste export: the Basel Convention 

(which the United States has not ratified) and the OECD Decision (which the 

United States ratified, but doesn’t enforce). The United States could take giant steps 

in addressing the e-waste export problems by ratifying the Basel Convention or even 

just enforcing the OECD Decision, which we are violating. Below is an explanation 

of both laws and how they would help with this problem. 

Basel Convention.—Most countries in the world (166 so far) have ratified the 

international treaty restricting the trade in hazardous wastes, known as the Basel 

Convention.1 All developed nations of the world except the United States have ratified the Basel Convention and are thus legally bound to strictly control Basel listed 

hazardous waste exports. The Basel Convention called for, at a minimum, all trade 

in hazardous wastes to be preceded by government to government notification and 

the receipt of consent. The treaty also called for guarantees of environmentally 

sound management, and a general prohibition against trade in hazardous wastes 

with non-Parties. 

Further, the Parties in 1995 have agreed to amend the treaty to include a full 

prohibition on all exports of hazardous wastes from OECD countries, EU countries, 

and Liechtenstein (totaling 37 countries) to all countries outside of that group. This 

is known as the Basel Ban Amendment which now has garnered 58 of the 62 ratifications necessary for it to enter into force. More significantly, even prior to entering 

into strict legal force, 30 of the 37 countries to which the export ban applies have 

already implemented it in their national law. 

The United States has received Senate advice and consent to ratify the original 

treaty, but has not as yet asked for the advice and consent for the Basel Ban 

Amendment. But the fact that the United States has not approved the Basel convention is a problem for two reasons: 

(1) Basel would prevent the United States from sending hazardous waste to China 

and other developing countries, and 

(2) Until the United States does ratify the Basel Convention, we can’t legally export wastes to most other ‘‘developed’’ countries, because all the Basel Parties are 

prohibited from importing hazardous wastes from the United States. This is because 

Parties are forbidden from trading with non-Parties such as the United States (Article 4, Paragraph 5), unless they have signed a special ratified a bilateral or multilateral agreement with that possesses an equivalent level of control to that of the 

Basel Convention. The only such agreements the United States has signed are the 

OECD agreements and a bilateral accord with Canada. The OECD has treaties 

binding on the United States, governing the transboundary movement of hazardous 

waste, with direct relevance to electronic waste generated here in the United States. 

Yet the United States has failed to implement many of these OECD obligations (in 
90

2Transfrontier shipments between OECD member states of cathode ray tubes (CRTs), and/

or CRT glass, for example, must in fact be controlled within the OECD as it is part of the 

‘‘amber’’ list under Council Decision C(92)39/Final, as amended by C(2001)107/Final (governing 

recycling trade in hazardous wastes between Member States). 3Major repairs are any repairs that result in the removal or replacement of hazardous materials/components as defined in the Basel Convention, www.basel.int. 4Minor repairs are any repairs that do not result in the removal or replacement of hazardous 

materials or components, as defined in the Basel Convention, www.basel.int. 

RCRA, etc.), resulting in the uncontrolled exports of our hazardous wastes to some 

of the poorest nations in the world. 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Decision.—While the 

United States has not ratified the Basel Convention and therefore is technically not 

bound by it, we have ratified and agreed to a 1986 OECD accord which would require that all exports of hazardous wastes to non-OECD countries be controlled 

similarly to what is required under the Basel Convention. However, the United 

States is failing to implement this agreement for hazardous electronic wastes. 

In 1986, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 

adopted Council Decision-Recommendation C(86)64(final)1 (OECD Decision) which 

has to do with hazardous wastes exported from the 30 developed nations who comprise the OECD. Decisions of the OECD Council are legally binding upon Member 

countries at the time of the adoption of the decision.1 Since the United States was 

a member country in 1986, the OECD Decision is legally binding on the United 

States. 

There are several elements in this OECD Decision that could address this problem of e-waste export, but none of them are actually being enforced, and the United 

States violates all four:

1. The United States should monitor and control exports, including prohibiting certain exports. (The United States has avoided restricting export of electronic waste by selecting a definition that does not define it as hazardous waste) 

2. The United States should use the same strict controls on exporting hazardous wastes to developing (non- OECD) countries as to developed (OECD) 

countries.2

3. The United States should not send hazardous wastes to non OECD countries without their consent. 

4. The Unite States should not send hazardous waste to non OECD countries 

unless they are sent to an adequate disposal facility.

Definitions of what should and shouldn’t be banned.—To be banned: The export 

of non-working or untested electronic equipment or parts containing hazardous materials, as defined internationally (see below), should most definitely be banned to 

all non-OECD/EU countries for recycling, major refurbishment3, and/or disposal. 

Also, any used electronics must be banned from going to any country that has domestic laws forbidding the import of those electronics, otherwise those U.S. exports 

result in the violation of laws in recipient countries. Further, until the United 

States ratifies the Basel Convention they should not trade in Basel-listed wastes 

with any of the 160+ countries that have ratified the Convention. To do otherwise 

violates the laws of the importing country. 

Not to be banned.—Tested working equipment going into the reuse market, or 

equipment needing minor repairs4 does not need to be banned for export, as working 

equipment is considered a product, not a waste, under international definitions. Additionally parts that are not considered hazardous such as power supplies, copper 

wires and cables, clean plastic housings etc. need not be banned from export. 

Which waste components are to be controlled (Basel listed hazardous e-wastes).—

At a minimum, cathode ray tubes (including leaded glass cullet), circuit boards 

made with lead solder, components containing beryllium or beryllium copper, items 

containing mercury, beryllium, PCBs, or the equipment that contains any of the 

above. Likewise, any electronic equipment that in any form or units needing major 

repairs that contain these materials. 

Consistent Definitions.—The United States has not harmonized its definitions of 

hazardous wastes with the global ones in use by most other nations (www.basel.int). 

U.S. law (The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) previously controlled hazardous wastes even for export, but industry succeeded in lobbying for de-listings 

from waste definitions for recycling, resulting in an ugly loophole where the United 

States in the only country in the world that does not consider electronic waste, leadacid batteries, and other known hazardous wastes from being controlled from international trade (dumping on developing countries). While this de-listing made some 

sense for domestic-only transactions, it results in a gross violation of laws in other 

countries as well as a violation of the principle of environmental justice. 
91

5 Electronic Product Assessment Tool (EPEAT) Criteria Worksheet Draft, 9–20–04

Conclusion on Export issue.—In conclusion, it is imperative that Unite States legislation finally prohibits the export to any non-OECD/EU of any electronic waste 

that is regulated under the Basel Convention and OECD treaties. At a minimum, 

this includes cathode ray tubes (including leaded glass cullet), circuit boards made 

with lead solder, mercury, beryllium, PCBs, and any wastes or units needing major 

repairs that contain these materials. 

Much more information about this issue can be found in our report ‘‘Exporting 

Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia which can be downloaded at: www.ban.org.

Question 3. If the recycling of electronic waste were profitable, more businesses 

would be doing it and waste disposal would not be as big a problem. In your opinion, 

what are the economic barriers to making recycling of electronic waste economically 

viable? 

Response. The major barrier to making recycling economically viable is that our 

solid waste infrastructures reward disposal rather than recycling. Our existing solid 

waste infrastructure was developed and engineered for the purpose of disposing of 

materials in municipal landfills. The federal government should provided leadership 

in setting standards and goals and promoting policies that support responsible ewaste recycling. The current e-waste recycling system which depends on voluntary 

standards encourages sham recycling and penalizes legitimate recyclers who pay living wages, protect their workers health and safety and invest in recycling equipment. Responsible recyclers can not financially compete with sham recyclers who 

dump or burn e-waste in developing countries or engage in dirty recycling that takes 

advantage of child labor or prison labor. Similarly, existing regulations do not reward manufacturers who pro-actively invest in product designs that facilitate recycling. 

The Federal Government has the capacity to eliminate barriers to recycling and 

support e-waste recycling industries by enacting the following policy changes. 

(1) Design for recycling. Require electronic manufacturers to incorporate the cost 

of end-of-life-management into a product’s pricing structure. Incorporating end-oflife-management into the price of the product provides incentives for manufacturers 

to invest in product designs that bring down the cost of recycling and increase the 

value of the recovered materials. This also eliminates the need for consumer recycling fees and/or government taxes that subsidize recycling businesses to recycle 

electronic products that were not designed for recycling and contain very limited 

amount of valuable materials. 

(2) Protect U.S. consumers from sham recyclers. U.S. customers recycle their products with the intention of protecting human health and the environment. The lack 

of e-waste industry standards, government monitoring and oversight defies public 

confidence in recycling and leaves well-meaning citizens vulnerable to brokers and 

‘‘front men’’ who say that they are recycling e-waste but are really exporting the ewaste overseas and dumping it in developing countries or endangering health and 

safety of entire communities by recycling in horrendous conditions. Banning the export of non-working or untested electronic equipment or parts containing hazardous 

materials (as defined in the Basel Agreement) would close the export loop hole and 

protect human health and the environment and promote consumer confidence in ewaste recycling. 

(3) Develop and enforce e-waste recycling standards. Currently there are few ewaste recycling industry standards. For example, there is not an accepted e-waste 

recycling certification or performance auditing system. There is a very limited understanding of worker exposure to hazardous materials at e-waste recycling facilities 

or the appropriate types of worker protective measures and equipment needed. 

There are no accepted ‘‘best practices’’ for demanufacturing electronics or standards 

for acceptable levels of contamination in recovered material. 

(4) Establish national e-waste recycling goals. Long-term national e-waste recycling goals are key to the development of an economically viable e-waste recycling 

industry. Thus, national recycling goals should reward electronic manufacturers 

whose products are made with materials that contain few contaminants, can be easily recycled and that retain market value. The federal government can further support the e-waste recycling industry by harmonizing national e-waste recycling goals 

with federal environmental preferable purchasing guidelines for electronics. For example, new federal purchasing guidelines will give preference to electronic products 

in which 90 percent of materials and components (by weight) are reusable or recyclable within the current infrastructure and use demonstrated technologies.5 The 
92

federal government could encourage profitable recycling industry by incorporating 

this guideline into other policies. 

(5) Federal investment in e-waste recycling research and development. A public 

investment in e-waste research and development will provide non-proprietary technology that would potentially improve and contribute to regional and national infrastructure development. 

E-waste research and development needs: 

• Work measurement studies that can be shared throughout the industry, 

• Automation of disassembly systems that reduce labor cost and protect worker 

health and safety 

• University green chemistry and materials science that helps manufacturers determine the impact of materials throughout the lifecycle of their products 

• Affordable materials separation systems that produce a clean stream of recovered materials 

• Identification of end market for recovered materials 

• Recycling facilities warehousing and inventorying systems 

• Worker health and safety studies that include health monitoring and improvements in ergonomics 

• Development of affordable plastic identification equipment 

• Open source website that posts latest studies, provides information about specific products recycling, disassembly and best practices 

• Tests and reports on prototype recycling equipment 

• Collaborate between recyclers and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) 

to overcome barriers to recycling products before the products are introduced into 

the consumer market

Question 4. What are the consequences if Congress fails to enact national electronic waste legislation? 

Response. Clearly, this is a national problem that calls for a comprehensive national solution. There are economies of scale to be gained on a national level. Sales, 

distribution and marketing patterns for these companies are national. But if Congress fails to act, the states can also pass legislation to address this problem. We 

think that because this is a complex issue, there are advantages to setting it up at 

the state level first, before trying to tackle it on a national level.

Question 5. Ms. Davis, your testimony also discusses the lack of recycling standards in China, and, as you know, there are none in this country. Would a Federal 

program to certify recyclers in the United States address your concerns and lessen 

the export of electronic waste? 

Response. The lack of recycling standards in China has nothing to do with the 

illegality of the United States shipping its hazardous e-waste there. U.S. exports of 

such waste not only violate China’s obligations under the Basel Convention, but also 

violate China’s domestic import bans on this material, and should not be occurring, 

regardless of the level of technology or standards in China. China has ratified the 

Basel Convention and its Ban Amendment, and is a non-OECD country; the United 

States has not ratified the Basel Convention, and is an OECD country. We should 

be looking to handle our own hazardous waste problems domestically rather than 

exploit weaker economies with these types of problems. This type of environmental 

injustice is not acceptable in the United States and it should not be acceptable to 

dump our wastes on the world’s poorest communities either. 

While there is a desperate need for national recycling standards here in the 

United States and in all countries, these standards will only be meaningful if those 

standards explicitly forbid that export. This is due to the fact that there will be very 

little waste to manage domestically if export is allowed, and on the other hand, it 

is impossible to enforce a standard extraterritorially, particularly in countries that 

lack the infrastructure to properly enforce or monitor such standards. 

RESPONSE BY SHEILA DAVIS TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM

SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question. Your description of women and children dismantling toxic equipment by 

hand is very disturbing—and something we must try to stop. Since it will take years 

to get a U.S. system for e-recycling in place, does the Coalition have any short-term 

recommendations for improving this situation? 

Response. One of the most important and overdue things the United States can 

do is implement the 1986 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 

(OECD) Council Decision-Recommendation C(86)64(final)1 treaty described above in 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. This is already a legal requirement 
93

of the United States. Doing this shouldn’t even be controversial. It requires no advice and consent, but just requires that Congress mandate that legislation to implement the requirement be drafted and adopted. This will have the immediate effect 

of requiring minimal controls on export and curtailing a great deal of it. It is not 

the ultimate solution, which involves passing EPR and toxic phase-out legislation, 

ratifying both the Basel Convention and the Basel Ban Amendment, but it will create a major dam against the tsunami of e-waste trade. 

RESPONSES BY SHEILA DAVIS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. What do you think the main advantages and disadvantages are of 

using market-based systems—such as product stewardship—to encourage recycling 

versus consumer-financed incentives? 

Response. There are four significant advantages to a market based solution: 

Financing shift to producers, not taxpayers.—This will be a lasting, far-reaching 

solution that doesn’t require taxpayer funds. By giving the producers the financial 

responsibility for this sytem, taxpayer money, which currently pays for most local 

recycling programs, would no longer be needed. The ARF system uses the legislature to set a specific fee on products when they are sold. But if these fees turn out 

to be inadequate to cover the costs (and the legislature has not acted to increase 

them), then either taxpayer money will make up the difference, or less recycling will 

happen. The quantities of e-waste that need recycling will continue to grow, so we 

need a solution that can easily grow with it. 

Drives more recycling.—Once the producer takeback system is in place (assuming 

it has important components like recycling goals) it will drive more recycling to 

occur because the companies will have goals to meet. The consumer advanced recycling fee (ARF) system has no real drivers to make more recycling happen. It’s simply a system to collect some fees to pay for some recycling. 

Incentive to design for the environment.—Another advantage to this system is that 

the companies who manufacture the products have an incentive to reduce the problem, by reducing the toxics in their products. While some companies are pursuing 

‘‘design for the environment’’ goals, many are not. This system would give them a 

financial incentive to do so. 

Restricts export dumping and sham recycling.—The producer takeback model includes provisions for making sure the products are actually recycled safely, not exported to third world countries. By having the producers charged with the responsibility for working with responsible recycling vendors, we can fix one of the biggest 

problems with electronics recycling in this country—illegal export. The ARF model, 

by being just a fee generation system, doesn’t alter the way things are done, just 

who pays. 

The main drawbacks of this system are: (1) its comprehensive approach makes it 

more complicated to establish, and (2) because it requires a large commitment from 

the producers, it will be resisted and challenged by industry.

Question 2. Your testimony provides vivid and disturbing details concerning the 

lack of public health and environmental protections at recycling operations in 

China. How widespread of a problem is the export of electronic waste to countries 

that lack adequate environmental protections? 

Response. The problem is severe and widespread, due to the sheer economics of 

the trade, and the completely unregulated export of e-waste from the United States. 

We believe that 50–80 percent of what is being collected for recycling, finds its way 

offshore to these types of conditions. Because the United States is failing to ‘control 

and monitor’ its exports of hazardous e-waste despite its OECD obligations to do so, 

there are no hard numbers indicating the exact amount going offshore. However, a 

number of environmental groups and reporters have documented numerous sites in 

China, India, Pakistan, and elsewhere. (www.ban.org, www.toxiclink.org, 

www.greenpeace.org) There are also many reports of sites in Malaysia, Indonesia, 

and Viet Nam. African and South American nations are receiving millions of cell 

phones and computers, some of it waste when it arrives, with little to no hazardous 

waste facilities to properly manage the toxic materials. Greenpeace is about to release a report documenting extremely high levels of toxins found at electronic recycling sites in China and India. Also available will be photos of labels (asset tags) 

from computers found in these 2 countries, on riverbanks, at primitive ‘recycling’ operations, and in openly discarded mountains of electronic waste. Limited health 

studies have been done on populations living amongst these toxic recycling yards 

in Guiyu, China, by both the Medical College of Shantou University, in the 

Guangdong Province of China (attached), and by Greenpeace China. 
94

It must be understood, however, that while many of these developing countries 

may claim to have (or could soon have) the technology to perform electronics recycling, their economies clearly cannot support a full array of infrastructural and 

democratic, social support systems and safety nets that should be in place to protect 

them from the dangers of recycling. For instance, they have almost no occupational 

health equipment, training, clinics, legal remedies for damages, governmental monitoring, and enforcement, of standards, etc. No doubt, if these existed, then the 

economies would be similar to developed nations; and the exploitive incentive to export would no longer exist as the waste management costs would have been fully 

internalized. Any exports to weaker economies equates to a violation of principles 

of environmental justice. It is therefore essential that the United State strategy does 

not entail finding ways to justify continued export based on exporting technological 

fixes.

Question 3. What, in your opinion, are the pressures that promote the exportation 

of e-waste to other countries? 

Response. The primary pressure to export e-waste is, without a doubt, an economic one in the absence of legislation. Exporters can (a) claim they are involved 

in recycling, (b) demand payment from consumers believing that recycling is the 

right thing to do, and (c) then get paid again at the back end by the Chinese broker 

for the raw value of the equipment sold. When there are no U.S. regulations limiting the options of export and prison labor, many waste generators will opt for 

making money off their hazardous e-waste, rather than incurring an expense to ensure that it is properly managed in ways that won’t impact citizens and the environment in any country. 

Integral to the economic pressure to export is the toxicity of this equipment. Costs 

associated with managing known hazards can be avoided if one simply decides to 

make a buck instead. With the U.S. Government freely allowing this export of toxic 

waste, there are only matters of conscience for some to contend with. It is precisely 

because of the economic incentives to do the wrong thing that nations came together 

in the 1980’s to erect a trade barrier to hazardous wastes (the Basel Convention and 

the Basel Ban Amendment). The United States remains the only developed nation 

to disregard this landmark treaty, and to continue to dump its hazardous waste on 

any country it wants.

Question 4. What level of oversight exists at the state or federal level to monitor 

and enforce protections for public health and environmental quality at overseas recycling facilities that take domestically generated e-waste? 

Response. None. U.S. State and Federal agencies have no extraterritorial jurisdiction whatsoever. Without this authority, it is impossible to claim that proper monitoring and enforcement can take place. The oversight is reduced to an honor system 

which is not adequate to ensure standards are upheld. 

As we continually must stress, with weaker economies, one cannot expect that the 

infrastructure will exist to protect the environment, workers and communities, from 

the impacts of hazardous wastes. Even if they did actually have the same infrastructure as developing countries, it is still inappropriate to burden weaker economies with disproportionate amounts of hazardous wastes or other environmental 

problems simply because they are relatively poor. This is the type of behavior which 

gives globalization it reputation as being exploitive. 

Rather than looking for ways to put band-aids on the disastrous e-waste export 

situation it is far better to work toward establishing national recycling infrastructure and providing support for it by promoting mandated recycling paid for by producers. 

The OECD treaty, however, attempts to address this issue by allowing OECD 

member countries to keep their hazardous waste within those 30 developed countries, using only environmentally sound management systems (EMS) for the hazardous wastes. The United States, an OECD member country, has the legal right 

to ship its hazardous waste to other OECD countries, if it meets the minimal requirements for prior informed consent, EMS facilities, etc. 

To this end, the OECD has developed the ‘‘Technical Guidance for the Environmentally Sound Management of Specific Waste Streams: Used and Scrap Personal 

Computers’’ This document is a set of guidelines, not requirements, that was created 

for and by the 30 OECD member countries, and only for use within the OECD. It 

is not intended as a guidance to justify exports to non-OECD countries. Therefore, 

any system set up in the United States should never suggest that OECD Guidelines 

be met in non-OECD countries.

Question 3a. What is the best way to encourage the least amount of hazardous 

substances in electronic products and the largest amount of recycling? 
95

Response. Costs of management must be internalized so that those that profit 

from the use of consumer products (both the manufacturers and the consumers) 

bear the entire costs of the products’ liabilities presented through its entire life 

cycle. This type of feedback mechanism ensures incentives for greener and greener 

design. Proper mechanisms that provide for consumer and producer responsibility 

must be promoted through legislation. It is not appropriate to allow mechanisms 

that externalize costs to taxpayers, city or local governments, utility rate payers, 

prison labor forces, or offshore communities. 

The EU passed the RoHS Directive (Reduction of Hazardous Substances) listing 

six specific materials that must be removed from new products by July 2006. Companies are redesigning their products to remove these materials, rather than be left 

out of those markets. The United States will presumably benefit from Europe’s efforts, if these redesigned products are also available to U.S. markets. The RoHS list 

of substances is only a preliminary list, and there are other materials that require 

attention, but it’s an excellent example of how chemical policy can force change in 

design. It would be easier and cheaper to recycle electronics products if they were 

not so toxic. So reducing the toxic materials, along with setting up an effective recycling infrastructure, is the best way to increase recycling

Question 3b. E-waste contains a number of heavy metals and other hazardous 

substances that can threaten public health, especially vulnerable populations. Lead 

is one such metal in abundance in e-waste. What is the state of knowledge regarding the safety of current standards for protecting children from lead exposure? 

Response. Actually with every year that passes, scientific research shows that 

lead is even more of a problem for childhood development than previously thought. 

For the last 2 years, the EPA has been readying a new lead level thresholds. It is 

likely however that no amount of lead exposure is truly safe. The impacts on children can be devastating, leaving irreparable damage to nervous system and brain 

development. The notion that lead somehow disappears once placed in a landfill is 

very shortsighted thinking. If we believe in the survival of the human species, we 

must think of very long-term leaching and exposure. Heavy metals are immortal—

they don’t have a half-life. They are with us forever. The ultimate answer for lead, 

mercury and other toxic metals is to rapidly provide incentives to design our way 

away from their continued use. This is best done through mandated extended producer responsibility and toxic use phase-outs. 

Note: The Computer TakeBack Campaign would like to mention the contributions 

by our partner organization, the Basel Action Network, in supplying answers to 

some of the recycling questions. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL VITELLI, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, BEST BUY ON BEHALF OF

THE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS RETAILERS COALITION (CERC) 

Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Boxer and members of the Committee, I am 

Michael Vitelli, Senior Vice President of Consumer Electronics of Best Buy and am 

here today on behalf of the Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition (CERC) to provide the views of CERC’s membership on the need for a national electronics management system. 

CERC very much appreciates the opportunity to provide the views of the consumer electronic and general retail industry concerning the need for a national approach to handling electronic devices at their end of life. We are also very appreciative, Mr. Chairman, of the leadership you have shown in holding this hearing 

today and providing a forum for interested stakeholders to express their views. We 

look forward to working with you and the members of this Committee to identify 

the best means of developing a national solution for electronic device recycling that 

will, obviously, have to be implemented at the local level. 

INTRODUCTION

Best Buy is the country’s leading consumer electronics retailer with close to 700 

stores in 49 of the 50 states and nearly 100,000 employees. The company started 

in 1966 with a single store in St. Paul, Minnesota and we continue to operate our 

headquarters in the Twin Cities. 

In addition to our product and service offerings, Best Buy is also known for our 

commitment to our communities, providing volunteer support, financial resources 

and leadership on many issues, but especially on the use of innovative technology 

to improve the learning opportunities for kids. We provide over 1300 scholarships 

to students entering higher education—3 scholarships in every Congressional district in the country. Our new tech program rewards schools and educators who are 

using technology to energize their lesson plans and engage students. The National 
96

Parks Foundation’s Junior Ranger program is available to kids across the country 

through the Web Ranger program sponsored by Best Buy. With Junior Achievement’s ‘‘Titan’’ business simulation game, we’ve helped harness the excitement of a 

video game to stimulate real learning. 

Best Buy has also been actively concerned with the issue of electronic waste. In 

2001, we launched a series of recycling events to provide a simple, fun and convenient program for recycling electronics that protects the environment while raising 

awareness of recycling options. Best Buy has helped consumers nation-wide recycle 

over 2.5 million pounds of electronics in an environmentally responsible way since 

the program began. In addition to recycling events, we also offer the ability to recycle cell phones, ink cartridges, and rechargeable batteries year round in all our U.S. 

stores. 

CERC is a national coalition representing small, medium and large consumer 

electronics retail businesses and associations that operate in all 50 states and worldwide. Our members, in addition to Best Buy, include Circuit City, RadioShack, WalMart, Target, the North American Retail Dealers Association and the Retail Industry Leaders Association. Our goal is to educate, advocate and instill continued consumer and market confidence in consumer electronics policy issues. 

Consumer electronics (CE) retailers throughout the United States strongly believe 

that developing an electronics management system that encourages the collection 

and recycling of electronic waste is far more preferable, desirable and efficient if it 

is handled as a federal solution implemented by local authorities, rather than dealing with a patchwork of different eWaste laws instituted by individual States. In 

the first half of 2005 alone, 30 State and local legislatures saw more than 50 separate bills introduced on this issue including an eWaste measure introduced and still 

active in New York City. A 50-by-50 approach is administratively unreasonable and 

infeasible for manufacturers and retailers alike and will not lead to a comprehensive 

and efficient electronics waste management system for our Nation. 

Retailers have a limited role in the life cycle of the products we sell. We neither 

design nor make the products, nor do we have control over what a consumer does 

once the product is purchased, and have no control on a products reuse, recycling 

or disposal. However, CE retailers realize that we have a responsibility in working 

with all the interested stakeholders. Retailers, manufacturers, distributors, recyclers, public interest groups, charitable organizations, state and local governments, 

and our customers all have a role in advocating for the development of a successful 

national electronics waste management system. 

Both CE and general retailers unanimously support a shared responsibility approach to the handling of electronic devices at the end of their life cycle. Product 

stewardship addresses the environmental impact of electronic products at all stages 

of their life cycle—from design and manufacturing to packaging and distribution to 

end-of-life management. When done correctly and fairly, it shifts the responsibility 

for end-of-life management from the public sector (government and taxpayers) alone, 

to a shared responsibility that includes the private sector (manufacturers, recyclers, 

non-profits, retailers and purchasers). The goal is to encourage environmentallyfriendly design and recycling and reduce flow to the landfills. 

Following months of internal discussion, conducting an industry-wide survey, 

holding meetings with state legislative leaders and experiencing the impact and initial results of the California advance recycling fee law, CERC drafted a consensus 

legislative position paper on electronic waste management earlier this year, which 

is attached to my written statement. While other stakeholders have yet to reach a 

broad consensus, consumer electronic and general retailers, including their national 

and state federations, have come together around a position that we believe succinctly and forthrightly lays out the issues, opportunities and obstacles involved in 

setting up a nationwide eWaste model. Since issuing this Position Paper, CERC has 

been working with and recruiting broad cross-industry support among other interested stakeholders, including environmental groups, recyclers, state legislators and 

manufacturers. 

While retailers and many others believe that the producer responsibility approach 

is the most fair, least burdensome, and most easily manageable model, we have also 

looked upon the Talent-Wyden bill (S 510) that would provide a limited tax credit 

to recyclers as an excellent conceptual model that could jump-start a national capitalization of eWaste recycling. 

While we have expressed general support for some state initiatives, such as laws 

recently passed in Maine and Maryland; and opposition to others, such as the point 

of sale advance recycling fee recently instituted in California; our purpose in testifying today is not on which state law is good or bad, efficient or administratively 

burdensome, helpful or hurtful to eWaste recycling efforts. Rather, we are here to 
97

advocate for a national approach and to highlight some very successful voluntary 

efforts that industry partners have been engaging in. 

CURRENT PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES

Even without state or federal laws governing management of electronic waste, the 

private sector—manufacturers and retailers working with qualified recyclers—has 

been fully supportive of the shared responsibility product stewardship approach 

through numerous voluntary initiatives that collect and recycle devices. These programs have included the development of a strong and meaningful educational campaign for consumers and policy makers. Best Buy and other members of CERC, as 

well as consumer electronic retailers that are not members of our organization, together with a number of manufacturers, have been actively involved in activities 

that highlight the need for conservation and how best to handle electronic devices 

at their end of life. 

There are several initiatives in place today to reduce and manage electronic waste 

both at the federal and industry levels. CERC members and other consumer electronic retailers and manufacturers have participated in such EPA programs as the 

Plug-In To eCycling outreach campaign, which works to increase the number of electronic devices collected and safely recycled in the United States and has identified 

new and creative flexible, yet more protective ways to conserve our valuable resources. Plug-In To eCycling focuses on: 

• Providing the public with information about electronics recycling and increasing 

opportunities to safely recycle old electronics; 

• Facilitating partnerships with communities, electronics retailers and manufacturers to promote shared responsibility for safe electronics recycling; and 

• Establishing pilot projects to test innovative approaches to safe electronics recycling. 

Program partners have included manufacturers like Panasonic, Sharp, Sony, JVC, 

Lexmark, Dell, Intel; retailers like our company, Best Buy, as well as Staples and 

Office Depot; and approximately two dozen state and local governments. More than 

26.4 million pounds of electronics were collected in the first ten months of this national program alone. 

In addition to the Plug-In To eCycling campaign a number of retailers and manufacturers have taken part in voluntary programs to encourage greater recycling. 

As noted in my introduction, Best Buy actively provides recycling options for our 

customers with our recycling events. We have had an overwhelming response to our 

events. In fact, the event we hosted a month ago at our corporate headquarters in 

Minnesota drew record crowds with over 2,900 cars and a collection of over 250,000 

pounds (125 tons) in just two days. This is in a county that already has a program 

in place for the recycling of electronics. Our next event is scheduled for our Mira 

Mesa, CA Best Buy store (9540 Mira Mesa Blvd, San Diego, CA) on Friday, August 

5th and Saturday, August 6th from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. We are very excited to 

be partnering with HP and Sony at this event. 

In another example, six of our Best Buy stores in the Indianapolis area served 

as recycling drop-off points for many consumer electronics items in a 2004 pilot. Accepted items included computers, monitors, printers, fax machines, televisions, 

stereos, VCRs, DVD payers and camcorders. 

In addition to Best Buy activities, a number of CE retailers and manufacturers 

have and are taking part in voluntary pilot projects. Staples, for example, sponsored 

a New England-based pilot program in cooperation with EPA’s Plug-In To eCycling 

campaign and the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) in the summer of 2004. Also 

last summer, Office Depot and HP sponsored a similar in-store electronics recycling 

pilot nationwide. Both programs accepted hardware from any manufacturer, including PCs, mice, keyboards, PDAs, monitors, flat-panel displays, laser and ink jet 

printers, scanners, all-in-one printers, digital cameras, fax machines, cell phones, 

TVs, and TV/VCR combos. This summer, Good Guys is partnering with the EPA and 

a number of electronics manufacturers to collect and recycle televisions. 

A NATIONAL ELECTRONICS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

But we all realize that voluntary programs cannot fully handle or solve the end 

of life issues surrounding electronics products. CERC strongly believes a comprehensive nationwide approach to the management of electronics is the ultimate solution. 

We further believe that a successful national system can be established without imposing fees at the point-of-sale; without having to create a new complex administrative structure; and without mandates that discourage innovation. This is why the 

Talent-Wyden ‘‘Electronic Waste Recycling Promotion and Consumer Protection Act’’ 
98

(S 510) seems to many of us as a cost-efficient and potentially successful national 

approach. We urge you and your colleagues to look at this end of life tax credit as 

a viable and creative opportunity to deal with electronics at their end of life. 

However, in the alternative, retailers support a no-fee producer responsibility system because it will provide consumers with a variety of choices and manufacturers 

with flexibility to implement electronics recycling programs that make sense—to our 

customers, government, retailers and manufacturers. 

Our Position Paper outlines the factors and components that a successful producer 

responsibility program should include: 

• Initially, any program should have a limited number of types included to insure 

an easy transition, and clear definitions of which devices are covered. 

• Making sure that any ‘take-back’ programs—if mentioned at all—remain voluntary. 

• A ‘safe harbor’ for a consumer electronics retailer that sells a product not covered under an approved management plan absent actual knowledge. 

• Programs that help educate and are easily understood by consumers. 

• A flexible system that allows manufacturers the ability to provide services to 

consumers and encourages the market to drive efficiencies and choices. 

• Encouragement to voluntary collection initiatives by manufacturers to partner 

with retailers, charities and/or local government. 

• Establishment of manufacturers’ financial responsibility based on the products 

that consumers return to the system—not fees at the point of sale or other financial 

models that do not reflect the true costs and realities of the return system. 

• The ability of manufacturers to work independently or collaborate with others 

to meet the established responsibility goals. 

Our members oppose a point of sale advance recovery fee (POSARF) system because we know from firsthand experience that such an ARF will not accomplish its 

goals, is administratively burdensome for all parties, and will only guarantee a new 

revenue source for government without guaranteeing that an effective recycling system will be put into place. In addition, such a program provides no incentive for 

the design of more environmentally-friendly products, and fails to take advantage 

of market forces to reduce the cost of recycling over time. 

The recent institution of such a fee/tax program in California has already been 

shown to be: 

• Too complicated for all parties—government, businesses and consumers—to understand and administer. 

• Incredibly costly for both governmental agencies and retailers to implement. 

• Impracticable to bring sufficient dollars down to the local level to implement 

enough local collection and disposal facilities. 

• Impossible to impose on out-of-state online/mail order retailers. 

• Impractical, by asking the government to set up a new administrative structure 

to collect the fees, to manage the program and disperse the revenue for effective recycling. 

• Impossible to know how high the taxes/fees charged to consumers needs to be 

in order to adequately fund a successful electronics device recycling program. 

In short, a POSARF—particularly given significant budget cutting at all levels of 

government—will not adequately fund an effective recycling program, and will only 

serve to confuse and burden the consumer with the imposition of new fees and perceived new taxes without any direct benefits. 

CONCLUSION

The members of the Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition, together with CE 

and general retailers and their trade associations throughout the United States, 

want to be constructive and contributing partners with law makers, manufacturers, 

public interest groups, recyclers and our customers in dealing with the end of life 

issues surrounding electronics products. We cannot, however, afford to let individual 

states and certainly individual cities and counties, establish their own programs 

that impose inconsistent mandates on retailers or manufacturers. 

We very much appreciate the holding of this hearing and encourage Congress in 

general and this Senate Committee in particular to continue to work towards a national solution to electronics waste management. We pledge to work with you in arriving at a fair, viable and effective approach. 

Thank you.
99
100
101

RESPONSE BY MICHAEL VITELLI TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question. In 2003 California passed the Electronic Waste Recovery Act which established a funding mechanism to provide for the recycling of certain electronic 

products. The goal was to eliminate these items from public landfills and provide 

an easy and convenient method of proper management. The system is funded 

through fees paid by consumers of covered electronics products at the time of purchase. The projected revenue for the first year was $60 million, and $15 million 

have already been collected. In addition, more than 13 million pounds of materials 

have been recovered for recycling in the first quarter alone. 

How much is compliance with the California system costing retailers? 

Response. Best Buy has spent nearly $1 million in California to update our pointof-sale systems, to educate our store personnel and consumers, and to ensure compliance going forward. Since these point-of-sale fees are not added to all products, 

like a sales tax often is, but rather added to only some products (and not even all 

products in a given category of products,) the cost of compliance is high. In addition, 

each time changes are made to the fees and to the list of applicable products, these 

systems must be updated, adding costs. Finally, if different states implement differing schedules of fees, the costs of compliance will increase. 

RESPONSES BY MICHAEL VITELLI TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. Mr. Vitelli, in your testimony, you advocate ‘‘a shared responsibility 

approach.’’ Please explain how such a system would work. In particular, please delineate the relative responsibilities of manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and recyclers under such a shared responsibility approach? 

Response. In the manufacturer responsibility model, manufacturers are responsible for working with consumers to properly recycle their product. This can mean 

that they provide direct recycling, work with a recycler or in some instances, fund 

a recycling system. Retailers are responsible for the education and outreach of consumers, working with manufacturers to ensure that they are carrying product from 

manufacturers who are compliant with the law. Retailers are also responsible as a 

manufacturer; if they produce private label brand products (Best Buy brands include Insignia and Dynex.) Consumers are responsible for the proper disposal of 

products and recyclers must meet environmentally sound practices when working 

with consumers and manufacturers.

Question 2. If the recycling of electronic waste were profitable, more businesses 

would be doing it and waste disposal would not be as big a problem. In your opinion, 

what are the economic barriers to making recycling of electronic waste economically 

viable? 

Response. One of the driving reasons this issue requires government action is that 

the recycling of electronic waste will probably always cost more than value of the 

residual scrap. Thus a system that provides an incentive to reduce the costs of recycling through design of the product has the greatest potential to ultimately provide 

the least cost solution to this issue. 

A complicating factor is that there is currently a significant amount of historic 

waste waiting for a solution. These products were manufactured without the expectation that they would need to be recycled. This adds a ‘‘hurdle’’ of initial cost to 

any new system. If the issue of historic waste could be handled through a different 

program than the ultimate, ongoing program, the solutions might be easier to 

achieve. The Talent-Wyden approach provides a significant incentive to tackle this 

initial cost ‘‘hurdle’’ and could help start a recycling process that ultimately does not 

need the incentives provided through the Talent-Wyden approach.

Question 3. What are the consequences for your industry if Congress fails to enact 

national electronic waste legislation? 

Response. The Consumer Electronic Retailers Coalition represents small, medium 

and large consumer electronics retail business in all 50 states and worldwide. In 

2005, 30 states contemplated 50 different pieces of legislation. Ultimate passage of 

differing solutions in each of the 50 states would present real compliance challenges 

and costs. In addition, differing solutions in each of the 50 states will cause great 

confusion for consumers. Products purchased in one state with a fee added at the 

time of sale, may need to be recycled in another state where the solution may be 

a charge at the time of recycling. 
102

1Gattuso, Washington Post, June 19, 2005, page B8. Attachment B. Response published in 

Washington Post July 2, 2005 Page A27, Attachment A. 

RESPONSES BY MICHAEL VITELLI TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. The Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition supports a national 

electronics recycling system based on making manufacturers responsibility for recycling electronic waste. What are the biggest advantages and disadvantages to this 

type of recycling system? 

Response. In the manufacturer responsibility model, manufacturers are responsible for working with consumers to properly recycle their product. This can mean 

that they provide direct recycling, work with a recycler or in some instances, or fund 

a recycling system. Under the manufacturer responsibility model, the manufacturer 

is ultimately responsible for their product at end-of-life which provides the double 

incentive to both develop environmentally-friendly products and to find the most 

cost effective ways to recycle product. Ultimately consumers will pay for recycling 

through either higher taxes, fees at the time of purchase, or additional costs included in the cost of the product by the manufacturer. Only the latter offers an economic incentive for improvements.

Question 2. Best Buy has been a leader in several, highly-successful voluntary efforts to recycle waste from electronic products. Do you think that these voluntary 

initiatives can solve our problems with recycling electronic waste, or is more needed? 

Response. Best Buy’s voluntary recycling events only provide a small solution to 

a much larger need. More industry leaders would need to join this effort in order 

for it to be effective at addressing the problem. The Talent-Wyden (S–510) could 

provide an incentive for industry to take that added step.

Question 3. What are the two or three best things that the federal government 

can do to increase the rate of recycling to both promote environmental stewardship 

and help businesses make profits? 

Response. The Talent-Wyden bill provides a good incentive to help businesses 

grow their recycling efforts. It also provides a solution to the issue of historic waste, 

which is a complicating and costly portion of the total solution. By giving manufacturers and/or retailers a tax credit to run recycling programs, it not only can help 

to create more of a base for programs, it allows manufacturers to realize their true 

costs in recycling and can help motivate manufacturers to design more environmentally-friendly products, ultimately reducing their recycling costs. 

In addition, the Federal Government could actively study this issue, thereby providing assurance to states that a federal solution may be found and potentially reducing the number of individual state actions. Many states are acting only because 

they do not see a federal action. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT SLESINGER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

My name is Scott Slesinger. I am Vice-President for Governmental Affairs of the 

Environmental Technology Council. I want to thank the Committee for requesting 

for the views of our Council on the issue of electronic or e-waste. Our council represents environmental service companies that recycle hazardous materials including 

electronic wastes and solvents. We also represent hazardous waste facilities permitted under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 

The volume of e-waste is growing, now comprising about 2 million tons a year. 

But this is a small percentage of the 236 million tons of waste that is disposed in 

our nation’s sanitary landfills. The reason that e-waste is a problem is the composition of the waste—electronic wastes such as television screens, computer screens 

and cell phones contain toxic materials including mercury, cadmium and lead. 

CHALLENGE OF E-WASTE

Despite public statements to the contrary the amount of lead in a cathode ray 

tube (CRT) is not a ‘‘trace amount.’’1 Similar to the lead shielding used to protect 

dental patients during x-rays, the amount of lead in computer is significant. A CRT 

can easily contain over 10 pounds of lead; large televisions have significantly more. 

The lead is a critical component that protects the users from radiation emitting from 

the tube. Other parts of the computer use lead in solder. Without these toxic metals, 

disposal in a sanitary landfill would be a safe and available option. However, sanitary landfills contain mostly organic food and other biodegradable acetic waste. 
103

2The Common Sense Initiative (CSI) Council Computer and Electronics Sector Subcommittee 

67 FR 40,515 col.1. 3KOLR–TV, Springfield, MO. www.recycles.org/124226366.htm 

These facilities are not operated to protect the environment from the leaching of the 

volume and types of lead that would be placed in such facilities. Newer, flat panel 

monitors do not use leaded glass, but require another toxic chemical, mercury, to 

operate efficiently. 

If computers are hazardous toxic wastes under the law, why are they being disposed in non-hazardous waste landfills? When Congress passed the hazardous waste 

law, Congress exempted households and certain small quantity generators from the 

hazardous waste regulatory regime. The belief at the time was that the volume of 

toxic wastes from households and small generators would be minor and therefore 

would not be a threat to the environment. 

RESPONSE TO THE E-WASTE PROBLEM

When communities became aware of the volumes of lead being placed in their sanitary landfills, they grew concerned. Some communities passed laws to encourage recycling and alternative waste management activities. Some banned such waste from 

landfills; others supported e-waste recycling. 

About a quarter of the states passed laws treating CRTs as universal wastes. The 

universal waste rules are clear and simple standards for managing widely distributed hazardous wastes where the full hazardous waste requirements would be overly burdensome. The intent of the universal waste rules is to get hazardous waste 

out of the sanitary waste stream but without the rigorous requirements protections 

intended for industrial process wastes at factories and similar facilities. Essentially, 

the universal waste rules are a middle-ground between the household and conditional exempt generator rules, which exempts waste from controls and the full 

RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste rules. EPA has established universal waste rules 

for items such as mercury thermostats, spent lead-acid batteries, unused pesticides, 

mercury thermostats and fluorescent lamps. An EPA advisory group that included 

state, Federal, and environmental and industry representatives2 recommended to 

EPA that CRTs be added to the universal waste program to ensure responsible recycling. However, we have learned that instead of requiring universal waste protections, EPA plans to finalize regulations that essentially deregulate these wastes if 

sent to domestic recyclers. EPA’s proposed exemption from RCRA for CRT glass, if 

followed by the states, would represent a regrettable rollback in environmental protection. 

The universal waste requirements that some states have in place for computers 

and CRTs provide for proper packaging, labeling, and tracking of shipments of CRTs 

sent and received to prevent illegal dumping and ensure legitimate recycling. The 

requirements also include notifying state regulatory officials of CRT waste management activities to allow necessary inspections and compliance. These requirements 

are appropriate and not unduly burdensome for companies engaged in the commercial collection, processing, and recycling of this type of hazardous waste. The practical and sensible approach is for EPA to apply universal waste standards to all 

CRT glass destined for recycling at the point of commercial collection. Other electronic waste, including computer hardware and cell phones should likewise be regulated under universal waste rules. The universal waste rules were promulgated for 

just this type of waste. Those who may argue that deregulation will lead to more 

recycling may be right. But such unregulated recycling will inevitably lead to improper recycling, taxpayer financed cleanups and public cynicism of recycling. These 

costs will dwarf the benefits of the possible chance of some increased recycling. 

The risks are not imaginary. At the State Hazardous Waste Conference in 2002, 

many state regulators described the recycling industry as a ‘‘low-profit, risky business’’ with high turnover rates and inadequate insurance. The state regulators cited 

cases where low cost recyclers were merely sham operations that collected wastes 

fees, with no intention of doing any recycling. Many of these facilities have since 

gone out of business leaving contaminated sites for state agencies to clean up. One 

example occurred in Phelps County, MO. According to media reports,3 The Missouri 

Department of Revenue found 15,000 abandoned computer monitors. The DNR 

found someone was running a ‘‘computer recycling’’ business out of a rented building 

on the property. The owner of the business reportedly told customers he would take 

the monitors and dispose of them properly. Instead, state investigators say the man 

took the monitors, the cash and left. Hot sun melted the plastic coverings and rain 

can cause the lead to run-off into the soil and groundwater. It cost Missouri taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to clean up the mess. By proposing to ex-
104

clude CRT glass recycling from RCRA and the universal waste rule, EPA would be 

aiding and abetting this problem. 

Despite EPA’s approach, many generators of computer wastes want recyclers to 

have some ‘‘Good Housekeeping’’ seal of approval. EPA responded by establishing 

fairly good guidelines in the document Plug-In to eCycling Guidelines for Materials 

Management. However, these Guidelines are only voluntary and their effectiveness 

as opposed to a promulgated universal waste standard is unconvincing. 

ECONOMICS OF RECYCLING

The key to e-waste recycling is economics. The first choice for the handling of ewaste, and the most economically viable alternative, is reuse of complete systems 

or individual components removed from the computer systems. Unfortunately, this 

alternative is not sufficient to accommodate the entire quantity of e-waste generated. Although donation programs are a means of providing technology to those 

that may not be able to afford it, there is a potential downside to this practice. If 

a company donates usable but outdated equipment to a school or program for low 

income individuals, the service life of that equipment is much shorter than that of 

new equipment. As such, the organization that could not afford to purchase new 

equipment is saddled with the cost of disposing the donated items when they cease 

operating. We know of one instance where a school received donated computer systems only to find that greater than 50 percent of the monitors received ceased operating within the first year. 

For those items which cannot be reused, the other alternative is to recycle ewaste. Recycling will pay for itself if the value of the commodities that can be harvested from the computer is greater than the cost associated with the labor and facilities necessary to safely separate the materials into recoverable assets. If the economics don’t work, recycling can still occur if someone—the consumer, government, 

or manufacturers pays for the recycling. Today, recyclers cost to recycle computers 

has dropped as commodity prices and useable parts prices have increased. 

There are several variables that work against a vibrant domestic e-waste recycling industry. The first is the availability of ‘‘glass to glass’’ recycling. As domestic 

manufacturers have moved operations overseas or discontinued the manufacture of 

CRT glass, the demand for leaded glass within the United States has dropped. 

When EPA proposed its CRT rule in June of 2002, the Agency determined that the 

value of leaded glass waste was $170 a ton. By January 2004, the value was minus 

$200. This economic reality created a situation where leaded glass was cheaper to 

dispose than to recycle. It also undermined EPA’s rationale in its proposed CRT rule 

that defined broken leaded glass as ‘‘commodity’’ because of its value. There is now 

a strong demand for CRT glass in Brazil and China for use in computers and televisions in those countries. However, the ultimate disposal of those CRTs after their 

second life is unlikely to be protective of the environment. A related factor is the 

price of metals on the commodities market. Most commodities do not go up with inflation as we see with the price of real estate or beer. Instead prices fluctuate wildly 

based on worldwide demand. When prices are high, inevitably there is more mining, 

recycling and use of alternatives followed by over-supply and price declines. The 

price of lead has fluctuated dramatically over the years. (Attachment C) Therefore 

any subsidy system should be flexible to accommodate the fluctuating prices of the 

metals and re-usable parts of e-waste. 

Another factor is the cost of the recycling activity. It is difficult for e-waste recyclers located in the United States to compete with other low cost foreign recyclers. 

Because the recycling of e-waste is so labor intensive, the low wages and lack of 

benefits paid in some foreign countries provide these recyclers with disproportionately lower processing cost. Processing costs are not just limited to labor costs but 

also include the costs associated with environmental compliance and providing for 

worker safety. Many of these recyclers are located in countries that do not have the 

same level of standards that exist within the United States. The Basel Action Network report on China highlights the problems that exist. To address the labor costs, 

a few states have turned to prison labor; however this has been controversial due 

to questions concerning worker protection and other health and safety standards. 

Many of our customers send computers to us for handling because our companies 

are heavily regulated. They know by our reputation and regular audits that we are 

in compliance with RCRA and state laws. For instance, we must track our waste, 

train our employees, prepare spill prevention plans and hold environmental insurance and closure insurance. Under the EPA proposed CRT rule, our competitors 

would not need to meet any of those requirements. Those companies would be subject to RCRA if they spilled hazardous waste on the ground but it is hard to imagine 
105

how that would be known. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for regulated entities to compete in such a system. 

Our companies also have policies in place which mandate appropriate due diligence is exercised in selecting proper facilities for the recycling or disposal of materials derived from e-waste, regardless of whether the company is located domestically or abroad. These customers want to be assured that the wastes will actually 

be recycled properly and that the wastes from the recycling process, if any, are handled safely and consistent with the law. 

Today, with commodities prices high, there have been many new businesses trying to make profits out of e-waste. When the price of the valuable components inevitably turns, these unregulated recyclers may fail and leave the taxpayer to clean 

up the toxic remains. We believe that whatever legal regime is established for recycling the rules should require financial assurance for closure, environmental liability 

insurance, employee training and some minimal waste tracking so consumers can 

be assured their discarded computers are managed properly. 

The Wyden-Talent bill, which we endorse, includes standards for e-waste recyclers. With protections and economic incentives, we believe e-waste recycling can expand and be a significant part of the manufacturing life cycle. Mr. Chairman, the 

goal should not simply be to increase recycling. The goal should be responsible recycling that conserves sources, saves energy and enhances the environment. 

Thank you and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
106
107
108
109

RESPONSES BY SCOTT SLESINGER TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. Mr. Slesinger, you testified that lead and other hazardous substances 

of concern present in many used electronic products may pose an environmental risk 

during recycling or disposal if not properly managed. To your knowledge, is EPA 

conducting any inspections in this area or monitoring the proper handling of electronic waste? 

Response. Unlike in the European Union, Canada and Japan, EPA does not regulate most recycling, even when the recyclers are handling hazardous materials. Only 

companies that recycle hazardous wastes and have permits for storage may be subject to inspections by EPA or a state agency. To the best of my knowledge, EPA is 

not conducting any inspections or monitoring activities with respect to the proper 

handling of electronic wastes that are recycled. 

Under our environmental laws, states are often allowed to be more protective 

than the federal government. States such as California, Maine and Washington do 

regularly inspect recyclers of computers and other hazardous discarded materials.

Question 2.If the recycling of electronic waste were profitable, more businesses 

would be doing it and waste disposal would not be as big a problem. In your opinion, 

what are the economic barriers to making recycling of electronic waste economically 

viable? 

Response. Generally, it costs more to recycle than dispose of electronic wastes. 

Unless companies and homeowners with old computers are willing to pay to have 

them recycled, an industry will not exist to serve a need not in demand. The value 

that can be mined from most discarded computers is almost always less than the 

cost of collection, handling, and separation. This is not surprising. Although computers are manufactured using some valuable metals, computers are highly valueadded products. A silicon disk may have raw materials that cost $5 but the expertise used to produce such technology makes the price of the chip hundreds of dollars. 

If the price of gold or lead doubles or drops in half, it will have little practical effect 

on the cost of the computer and only a minor impact on the economics of recycling. 

The economics of recycling are not unique to e-waste. For instance, take the case 

of paper recycling. If the price of collection, separation and de-inking newsprint is 

more expensive than the cost of virgin paper, recycled paper will not be economically 

viable unless it is subsidized. 

Therefore, the top of the waste management pyramid, reuse, is the key to economic computer recycling. If the components of a discarded computer, such as the 

hard disk, are still marketable, then it is more likely that the computer can be recycled profitably. 

Since the value of the harvestable raw materials in a computer is limited, the 

other variable is the cost of separation and handling. If computers were manufactured with reuse and disposal in mind, then the cost of separation and handling 

could be reduced. The European Union is banning certain toxic metals from computers and requiring manufacturer take-back of obsolete computers. These laws will 

encourage changes in how computers are constructed so they will be easier to recycle or dispose. The economics are not likely to change. Fees, tax incentives, manufacturer subsidies are likely to be needed to create the economic incentives to recycle 

computers. 

There are two alternatives when recycling is not economically viable. One is disposal in a municipal landfill that is allowed because of the household waste exemption. Some municipalities are enacting local laws that prohibit such disposal, however. The other alternative is disposal in a hazardous waste landfill that is built 

and operated so that toxic metals do not leach into the environment. The second 

option is the preferable environmental option if recycling of e-waste is not subsidized.

Question 3. What are the consequences for your industry if Congress fails to enact 

national electronic waste legislation? 

Response. There will continue to be a patchwork of state requirements that will 

include different funding mechanisms, different administrative requirements, different standards that will be disruptive to industry. Even today, one of the problems 

without a national approach can be seen in California, where recyclers are required 

to prove that the computers have not been shipped from other states. A national 

program that standardizes the collection, handling, and recycling system would be 

much more efficient. 

Historically, RCRA has encouraged a state-by-state approach by allowing states 

to be more protective than the federal rules. This allows states to experiment with 

different strategies to protect the environment, especially when EPA is gridlocked. 
110

For instance, some communities have taken positive steps to remove e-waste from 

their municipal wastes stream. However, this type of balkanization is wasteful and 

discourages addressing problems that are national in scope.

Question 4. Mr. Slesinger, what are the advantages of regulating the management 

of electronic waste under the Universal Waste Rule compared to no regulation of 

electronic waste at all? 

Response. The Universal Waste Rule for electronic wastes would enhance environmental protection, avoid the creation of new remediation sites, and encourage the 

development a sophisticated e-waste recycling industry that is required to comply 

with world-class environmental standards. 

Today the e-waste recycling industry is still immature. It is critical that EPA 

adopt a regulatory approach that both encourages responsible recycling and safeguards the environment. ETC member companies have already moved to the forefront of this new industry by establishing the necessary collection networks, processing capacity, and recycling facilities in many states. In doing so, the ETC companies have worked with the states to ensure that necessary safeguards are met, including employee training, tracking of shipments, secure handling, and legitimate 

recycling. 

We are concerned that EPA’s proposed rule that would not regulate CRTs as universal waste will be the death knell for this new industry. Instead of standards to 

ensure safe and responsible recycling of lead-contaminated CRT glass, EPA has proposed a rule that essentially allows anybody with a hammer and cardboard box to 

be an exempt ‘‘recycler.’’ In doing so, EPA is not only cutting off responsible companies at the knees, but it is also inevitably exposing the public to lead contamination 

from haphazard CRT recycling. 

Lead is a potent developmental neurotoxicant, and is especially harmful to children. Thus, CRTs can be hazardous and should be carefully managed by responsible 

companies according to necessary regulatory standards. For this reason, many 

states currently regulate CRT glass that is sent to a dismantler or recycler as either 

a RCRA hazardous waste or a universal waste. 

Under EPA’s CRT proposed rule, new intact CRTs and new broken CRTs sent for 

recycling would not be regulated in any way. Used intact CRTs would have an unconditional exclusion unless they are disposed. Used broken CRTs would have a conditional exclusion, provided minimum requirements such as packaging and labeling 

are met. Household CRTs, even when collected and stored in bulk for recycling by 

commercial firms, would not be subject even to the conditional standards. Processed 

glass from used CRTs sent for recycling would be subject to speculative accumulation limits. There would be no limits on speculative accumulation applied to new 

intact or new broken CRTs or used intact CRTs, but used broken CRTs would have 

speculative accumulation requirements. 

In the real world, commercial firms and state regulators will never be able to accurately keep track of whether CRTs collected for recycling are new, used, household, commercial, broken or intact (at least when initially picked up). Moreover, 

these various classifications are irrelevant to proper management and recycling of 

CRT glass. A state inspector at a collection or processing facility would never be 

able to determine whether CRT glass is subject to even the minimal standards of 

the conditional exclusion or is totally exempt from any standards depending on its 

pedigree. Sham recyclers will have a field day claiming that the CRTs piled high 

in their rented buildings and lead†leaching glass scattered around the property are 

all completely exempt from Federal waste management standards. Most importantly, commercial firms that are legitimately in the business of hazardous materials recycling, and that are willing to make the investment in proper management 

in accordance with generally-applicable standards, will simply be forced to abandon 

CRT glass recycling rather than compete with unregulated recyclers. 

The practical and sensible approach is for EPA to apply the universal waste 

standards to all CRT glass destined for recycling at the point of commercial collection. The universal waste rule was promulgated for just this type of material. CRT 

leaded glass destined for recycling is just as much a waste material as spent leadacid batteries, unused pesticides, mercury thermostats and lamps, all of which are 

subject to the universal waste standards. The CRT itself is a commodity; the leaded 

glass from a dismantled CRT is clearly a waste. Importantly, CRT glass is a waste 

material that poses a hazard because of its high leachable lead content that warrants universal waste stewardship. 

The universal waste rule applied to recyclable CRT glass would include requirements for employee training and release response that are necessary to ensure that 

the glass is collected, stored, and managed in all respects to prevent the leaching 

of lead into the environment. The universal waste requirements would also provide 
111

for proper packaging, labeling, and tracking of shipments of CRTs sent and received 

to prevent illegal dumping and ensure legitimate recycling. Most importantly, the 

universal waste rule would apply accumulation time limits to CRT glass to prevent 

speculative accumulation by sham recyclers with no intent to legitimately recycle. 

The requirements would also include notification to EPA and state regulatory officials of CRT waste management activities to allow necessary inspections and compliance. These requirements are appropriate and not unduly burdensome for companies engaged in the commercial collection, processing, and recycling of this hazardous waste.

Question 5. Mr. Slesinger, EPA has suggested that disposal of electronic waste in 

municipal landfills may not present an environmental risk, even though electronic 

waste fails the Agency’s toxicity test. Do you agree? 

Response. EPA’s suggestion is not based on any reputable research. It is nothing 

more than speculation, and it is belied by the fact that many electronic wastes, such 

as CRTs, flunk the Agency’s fundamental test for hazardous characteristics. The 

toxicity test was developed to predict what will happen if a waste is disposed in a 

municipal landfill. EPA’s ‘‘suggestion’’ hints at solving the e-waste problem by pretending it does not exist. It also moves in the opposite direction as the rest of the 

developed world. 

Please refer to the response to Senator Boxer Question No. 3 for a discussion of 

the critical differences of disposal in a municipal landfill and a hazardous landfill. 

RESPONSES BY SCOTT SLESINGER TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. Your testimony referred to an EPA’s proposed rule that would exempt 

some cathode ray tubes from hazardous waste regulations. What is the main danger 

if this rule is implemented as proposed? 

Response. The proposed rule would exempt all cathode ray tubes that are sent for 

recycling from regulation under the hazardous waste rules. The danger is that some 

companies, without the requirement for financial assurance, training of employees, 

and tracking of wastes, will mismanaged these toxic wastes causing releases and 

contaminated sites. Because recyclers will not have financial assurance for cleanup, 

the taxpayers will undoubtedly be required to pay the cost of remediation. 

By encouraging cheap, unregulated recycling, the commercial waste management 

industry, with significantly higher costs of environmental compliance, will not be 

able to compete. 

Please refer to the detailed response to Senator Jeffords Question No. 4 that details the risks of the EPA proposal.

Question 2. And, in you’re your opinion, would public health be better protected 

if cathode ray tubes are regulated as hazardous waste? 

Response. Rather than require the full panoply of RCRA requirements, we suggest 

that CRTs, like mercury thermostats and fluorescent tubes, be managed as universal waste. This would make it easier for the generators to get CRTs disposed or 

recycled without the full RCRA requirements, but require recyclers to meet some 

minimal requirements such as financial assurance for closure, employee training 

and waste tracking. 

Please refer to the more detailed answer to Senator Jeffords Question No. 4.

Question 3. EPA acknowledges that cathode ray tubes can leach four times the 

amount of lead as regulated hazardous waste. Electronic waste can also contain 

mercury, cadmium and other toxic substances. However, EPA has left open the possibility that municipal landfill standards are sufficiently protective to hold electronic 

waste. 

In your opinion, do EPA’s municipal landfill standards protect groundwater or 

other environmental values from toxic chemicals in electronic products? 

Response. No, municipal landfills do not adequately protect groundwater from 

toxic chemicals in electronic products. Municipal landfills and hazardous waste 

landfills are operated very differently. First, under RCRA rules, the employees at 

hazardous waste sites are trained to safely handle toxic materials and are properly 

equipped to protect themselves from possible contamination. Second, in a hazardous 

waste landfill e-wastes are treated to prevent the toxic contaminants from leaching 

out by being coated with an impermeable substance that hardens and covers all exposed sides of the e-waste. This leach-resistant encapsulated waste is then placed 

in the landfill cell where it will not be disturbed. As with all waste in hazardous 

waste landfills, each specific waste load is mapped so that if there is a problem the 

waste can be dug up and properly handled. All leachate from hazardous waste landfills is collected and also managed as hazardous waste. All shipments to the landfill 
112

are on trucks that are specially permitted to carry hazardous waste. Hazardous 

waste landfills are not allowed to take organic wastes. Organic wastes, such as 

paints, cleaning products, and household pesticides, are not allowed in hazardous 

waste landfills because they could promote leaching. 

Municipal landfills are operated differently. First, the wastes are much more heterogeneous including acids and liquids from regular trash. Second, because of the 

household exemption, municipal solid waste landfills are allowed to take e-wastes 

and other hazardous waste. The toxic e-waste and other garbage are not treated, 

stabilized or encapsulated. Unlike hazardous waste landfills, the wastes are commingled, crushed in the truck and mixed with the other garbage. Because of daily 

cover, e-wastes such as CRTs are likely to be repeatedly bulldozed and broken, leading to more surface area of the leaded glass being exposed causing more leaching. 

There is no way to know where the particular hazardous wastes are buried as all 

the wastes are commingled. With the acids and different bio-degradables in the garbage, and the lack of encapsulation treatment, the likelihood of lead leaching is significantly higher than in a hazardous waste landfill. Despite this, the leachate collected from an MSW landfill is not considered a hazardous waste. Although municipal and hazardous waste landfills may be constructed with similar attributes, the 

operation of hazardous waste landfills makes them more protective of the environment for disposing of toxic wastes.

Question 4. The companies that you represent are among the most heavily regulated entities that handle hazardous waste in the United States. Please describe the 

environmental and public health benefits of going to a hazardous waste landfill 

versus a municipal landfill. 

Response. Certain types of hazardous waste, such as toxic metal-bearing wastes, 

should be disposed in hazardous waste landfills. As my answer to your previous 

question indicates, hazardous waste landfills are built and operated so these substances do not leach into the environment. Our Nation uses many toxic chemicals 

that are a necessary part of the standard of living we enjoy today. With hazardous 

waste landfills, the toxic wastes of society are intended to remain safely within the 

landfill indefinitely. In many cases, states now require our companies to establish 

perpetual funds to monitor the landfill and provide the states with a source of funds 

if toxic wastes ever escape from the landfill. These specialized facilities cost more 

to operate and use, but the increase in environmental protection versus disposal in 

a municipal landfill is substantial and worth the investment.

Question 5. A company that you represent, Onyx Environmental Services, was recently approved as a ‘‘collector’’ and ‘‘recycler’’ under California’s recycling law. 

How many facilities does Onyx have in California and what types of recycling 

services does it offer? Is Onyx generally happy with California’s recycling program? 

Response. Onyx has a total of 10 facilities located throughout California. These 

include a waste-to-energy facility (Montenay Power), several 10-day transfer facilities, service centers and Industrial Service Groups. A facility in Azusa recycles the 

E-waste under SB50 within the State of California. In addition, this location recycles/reclaims thinners, solvents, mercury compounds, laboratory chemicals and other 

types of acids and caustics. 

Overall, Onyx has been pleased with the California recycling law (SB50). While 

payments to some of the recyclers have been delayed, it is often due to deficiencies 

in the paperwork process. I believe it to be very important that the State continue 

to require detailed paperwork since the real opportunity for recyclers to import covered electronics from out of State generators will continue to tempt those recyclers 

not committed to ethical standards. With that said California is leading the way and 

influencing change in other parts of the Country which inevitably will have far 

reaching effects in diverting E-waste from landfills. 

RESPONSE BY SCOTT SLESINGER TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM

SENATOR LAUTENBERG

Question. Mr. Slesinger, you probably heard my question to Mr. Dunne about 

whether EPA would issue a ‘‘universal waste rule’’ for the leaded glass in computers, in order to control this highly toxic heavy metal. Would you like to respond 

to his comments? 

Response. EPA has proposed not to regulate CRTs under the universal waste rule. 

Mr. Dunne did not indicate whether the Agency would follow that proposal in the 

final rulemaking or follow the comments of many states and our Council to regulate 

leaded CRTs as universal wastes. As I indicated in the response to the question 

above (Senator Jeffords Question No. 4), we believe that the arguments made by 
113

EPA in the proposal were seriously flawed. For instance, EPA considered leaded 

glass, broken or not, to be a commodity because the glass had a positive value and 

generators would therefore be careful and protective. However, the value of leaded 

glass is now about zero. This calls into question the entire theory of assuming that 

generators will be careful with the glass when it has no value. Second, I believe the 

interest of encouraging an e-waste recycling industry that would be protective of the 

environment would be undermined if the Agency deregulated this waste instead of 

requiring basic environmental standards for its proper handling. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD GOSS, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, ELECTRONIC

INDUSTRIES ALLIANCE

INTRODUCTION

Thank you Chairman Thune, Senator Boxer and members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Richard Goss, and I am the Director of Environmental Affairs for the 

Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA). EIA is the leading advocate for the $400 billion 

U.S. high-tech and electronics industries. Our 1,300 member companies provide 

products and services ranging from microscopic electronic components to state-ofthe-art defense, space and industry high-tech systems, as well as the full range of 

telecommunications, information technology and consumer electronics products. 

EIA appreciates the opportunity to provide the views of our membership concerning the end-of-life management of our products. We commend the Subcommittee 

for holding this hearing and advancing the dialogue on this important issue. We 

would also like to thank Senators Wyden and Talent for their efforts and leadership 

in this area. 

INDUSTRY COMMITMENT

EIA and our member companies support the safe and appropriate recycling of 

used electronics products to help meet the important environmental goal of increasing resource conservation and recovery. As manufacturers, we recognize that we are 

a key partner in the process, and we will continue to work with Congress, federal 

agencies, the states and involved stakeholders to address this challenge. 

The ongoing commitment of our member companies to product stewardship, environmental design and recycling can best be demonstrated by listing some of our industry’s concrete achievements: • Through a combination of direct corporate efforts and innovative partnerships—

including U.S. EPA’s Plug-in to eCycling campaign—EIA member companies have 

been involved in the proper recovery and management of well over one million tons 

of used electronics products. In addition, EIA member companies use significant 

quantities of recycled materials, including glass, metals and plastics, in new generations of their products. • EIA member companies are on target to be in compliance with the European 

Union Directive on the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (the RoHS Directive), 

which will take effect on July 1, 2006. Since electronics products are manufactured 

for global sale and distribution, U.S. consumers will have broad access to products 

that comply with the new EU requirements. • As a result of our members’ long-standing dedication to product stewardship 

and technological innovation, the electronics industry continues to achieve significant and sustained environmental progress throughout the entire product lifecycle: 

from design, through beneficial use, to end-of-life. On the whole, every year our 

products become more energy efficient, use fewer materials of potential environmental concern, and become easier to upgrade, disassemble and recycle. 

EIA is currently compiling a record of member-company achievements in the 

areas of product stewardship and design for the environment, and we will be happy 

to share this document with the Subcommittee once it is completed. 

In summary, we support electronics recycling as a way to conserve and reclaim 

resources. However, this is a complex challenge that will require the coordinated efforts of all the key stakeholders to resolve. 

GENERAL RECOMMENDED APPROACH

Given the complex nature of the challenge, EIA supports efforts to establish a viable recycling infrastructure in which all the major stakeholders—manufacturers, 

government, retailers, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and recyclers—participate based on their unique expertise and capabilities. The combined goal of these 

institutional stakeholders should be to develop a recycling infrastructure that is convenient for the residential consumer. Implementing a system based on principles of 
114

shared responsibility will increase the efficient collection of electronics and ensure 

economies of scale by taking advantage of existing infrastructure. EIA supports equitable, flexible and cost-efficient solutions that encourage the proper management 

of used electronics while limiting additional costs to the public for these popular 

products. 

ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION

EIA believes it is essential to consider the science related to electronics products 

as part of any public policy discussion regarding recycling. Certain compounds are 

present in electronics products, such as lead and mercury, that provide clear safety, 

performance and energy efficiency benefits. These compounds should be appropriately managed at the end of life. U.S. EPA shares this view, and has consistently 

stated that used electronics products, when properly managed, do not represent a 

human health or environmental concern. The agency considers electronics recycling 

as fundamentally a solid waste management and resource conservation issue. Likewise, our member companies recognize that reusing and recycling electronics at the 

end of life is the most environmentally preferable option, and we support reasonable 

efforts to develop the recycling infrastructure. 

SUGGESTED FEDERAL ROLE

As you know, three states have already enacted three very disparate statutes 

which address electronics recycling. Numerous other states, and even some localities, have either developed special regulations for the handling of used electronics, 

or are actively considering their own electronics recycling legislation. These approaches often include significant variations in terms of financing mechanisms, the 

scope of covered products, the roles and responsibilities of key participants, and the 

overall regulatory structure. 

Industry and other stakeholders are rightfully concerned that a potential confusion of state recycling laws and regulations will prove costly, inefficient and perplexing. There is clearly a role for the federal government to play in bringing national consistency to this emerging field. 

Federal action can help promote safe and environmentally sound recycling by creating a streamlined and uniform regulatory framework that removes artificial barriers and instead encourages the free flow of used products for proper management. 

Specific steps include: 

• Establishing consistent regulatory definitions of key terms, and strictly defining 

the scope of covered products through the application of fixed criteria; 

• Considering the establishment of a flexible third party organization that can 

help with roles such as data reporting, compliance, and financing; 

• Ensuring broad consistency in labeling, product information, and regulatory reporting requirements; and, 

• Assessing whether additional recycling regulations or standards are necessary 

to ensure the safe and environmentally sound management of used electronics. 

EIA and our member companies stand ready to work with the Subcommittee on 

these and other initiatives. Thank you again for the opportunity to share industry’s 

position on this important issue. I would be pleased to respond to any questions. 

RESPONSE BY RICHARD GOSS TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question Mr. Goss, I understand that the electronics industry would prefer the 

federal government to offer a national waste and recycling program because it is 

fearful of a patchwork of state requirements. Could you explain some of the market 

competitiveness issues that have prevented the EIA from advancing a consensus position? 

Response. First, it is important to note that our industry has successfully reached 

agreement on most of the primary elements of an electronics recycling approach. 

These elements include the following: 

• National consistency in electronics recycling—particularly a streamlined and 

uniform regulatory framework—will encourage the appropriate and efficient management of used products. 

• A viable recycling infrastructure will require that all the major stakeholders—

manufacturers, government, retailers, non-governmental organizations and recyclers—coordinate efforts and share responsibility. 

While used products can and should be appropriately managed at the end of life, 

electronics recycling is fundamentally a solid waste management and resource conservation issue. 
115

Any recycling approach should begin with a limited and defined scope of products, 

rather than attempting to cover all electronics products at once. 

Since the EIA member companies manufacture products for global sale and distribution, an approach should seek to harmonize any labeling, product information, 

and regulatory reporting requirements. 

Regulations or standards for recyclers are important in order to ensure the safe 

and environmentally sound management of used electronics. 

The one area where our members have yet to reach consensus is on a preferred 

approach for financing an electronics recycling infrastructure. Over the past months 

and years, EIA and our member companies have worked diligently to try and 

achieve a common position on funding. The difficulty that our industry faces in 

reaching consensus is directly related to the quantity and diversity of manufacturers, and to the intense competition in the marketplace. The primary products contemplated under most electronics recycling approaches—computers and televisions—

are increasingly treated by the market as commodities. Since margins are thin and 

producers depend on volume sales, any shift in the competitive playing field can 

have a direct and immediate impact on market share and the bottom line. 

The EIA member companies, which include all the global brand-name manufacturers of these products, hold divergent views on financing based in large part on 

their particular business models and corporate strategies. Specific factors include 

but are not limited to: 

• Company size 

• Number and types of product lines, and the comparative life-spans of their 

products 

• Sales and distribution methods (i.e., traditional distribution and retail channels 

versus direct-to-consumer sales) 

• Experiences and capabilities related to recycling 

• Relative market share (i.e., current market share as compared to historical market share; business sales as compared to household sales) 

Given this diversity of business models and capabilities, any particular funding 

approach may result in a competitive imbalance in this extremely competitive industry. Consequently, several of our member companies support an advanced recycling 

fee, Hewlett-Packard in particular supports producer responsibility, and other companies promote market-driven initiatives as a way to resolve the challenge. 

The competitive issues are keen enough just between the EIA member companies. 

However, concerns over fair competition are significantly heightened due to the 

presence in the market of numerous small producers and/or no-name manufacturers 

that cannot necessarily be compelled to participate in a recycling program. These 

manufacturers fall predominantly into one of two groups: (1) small foreign producers 

that sell mostly low-end units into U.S. markets; and (2) the so-called ‘‘white box’’ 

manufacturers that produce and sell generic computers at retail or remotely via 

catalogs or the internet. While individual manufacturers in these categories are usually small, they nonetheless collectively represent a noteworthy segment of the market. 

EIA member companies comply with existing state requirements, and will certainly step up and participate in any broader national system. The same cannot be 

said of ‘‘fly-by-night’’ companies that often frequently change brand names, or the 

white-box manufacturers that sell remotely. There are already serious concerns over 

whether states can effectively compel these manufacturers to play by the rules. For 

instance, the California Board of Equalization issued an opinion that it cannot impose a fee collection obligation on out-of-state retailers that have no physical presence in the state. While the state of Maine does not implement its recycling program 

until 2006, EIA members already have significant doubts over whether state officials can take effective enforcement actions against small foreign producers or 

white-box manufacturers to pay their fair share of recycling costs. 

In addition, there are also concerns over how a given financing approach will apportion responsibility for orphan products—those products coming back into the recycling system that were manufactured by companies that have since gone out of 

business and have no successor in interest. 

In summary, different business models, recycling capabilities and concerns over 

newer and non-traditional market entrants have resulted in differing opinions over 

financing. EIA and our members are continuing to ongoing commitment and concerted efforts. 
116

RESPONSES BY RICHARD GOSS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. Mr. Goss, I understand that a European Union directive requires 

manufacturers to design electronics with less toxic materials. Are there similar incentives to encourage electronics manufacturers to design their products to promote 

easy reuse and recycling? 

Response. The competitive marketplace continues to be the primary driver behind 

improvements in product design, efficiency and performance. The electronics industry continues to achieve significant and sustained environmental progress throughout the entire product lifecycle: from design, through beneficial use, to end-of-life. 

In fact, many of our companies have long-standing design-for-environment or product stewardship programs that pre-date the adoption of the European Union Directive on the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (the RoHS Directive) by several 

years. On the whole, every year our products become more energy efficient, use 

fewer materials of potential environmental concern, and become easier to upgrade, 

disassemble and recycle. This process of continuous evolution—driven by market demand and competition—can be readily observed by comparing today’s products to 

similar products that were manufactured just a few years ago. 

Given the intense competition in the consumer electronics marketplace, any manufacturing efficiencies that a company achieves can result in increased output while 

simultaneously decreasing per-unit production costs. These market-driven innovations on the production side directly translate into benefits for reuse and recycling. 

Please consider the following examples: 

1. Manufacturers have a clear incentive to streamline and simplify product assembly by, for instance, using fewer screws and connectors. Not only does this improve 

production efficiency, but it makes these products easier to service during their useful lives. It also makes these products easier to upgrade, disassemble and recycle 

at the end of life. 

2. To achieve valuable economies of scale, manufacturers are increasingly purchasing larger volumes of a single plastic, instead of smaller amounts of different 

plastics. The use of a uniform type of plastic makes these products easier and less 

expensive to recycle at the end of life. 

3. Larger and heavier products cost more to transport. Accordingly, our companies 

strive to use lighter-weight materials as they become available in order to control 

transportation costs for distribution and sale. To achieve production efficiencies and 

meet market demand, our members are also constantly innovating to create smaller 

products without sacrificing functionality or performance. Since transportation costs 

represent one of the single largest expenses associated with recycling, these ongoing 

innovations directly result in products that are less expensive to recycle. 

4. Metals and certain other compounds are present in electronics products because 

of their important safety, performance or energy efficiency characteristics. However 

using these materials can add costs to the manufacturing process, as companies 

may need to implement additional measures to ensure proper management. As technically and economically viable substitutes become available, EIA member companies have worked to reduce or eliminate the uses of these compounds. These efforts 

also facilitate the recycling of electronics products. 

In addition, EIA member companies have gained invaluable knowledge by recovering products themselves and by working with independent recyclers. Understanding the requirements for recycling also helps manufacturers factor in end of 

life management considerations into the design of new products. 

Many government and other institutional purchasers already include environmental requirements for electronics products in their procurement contracts. These 

approaches offer market incentives to those companies that can satisfy the contract 

specifications. EIA and our member companies are also cooperating with U.S. EPA, 

state governments, private entities and non-governmental organizations to standardize a list of environmental criteria that governments and other large institutional purchasers can specify when buying information technology equipment. This 

initiative, known as the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool 

(EPEAT), will provide a market reward to those companies that reduce the environmental footprint of their products throughout the entire life cycle. 

Finally, there are international standards for electronics products already in place 

or currently under consideration that focus on environmental design and recycling. 

Due to the global nature of the electronics manufacturing and distribution chain, 

international standards will be reflected in our companies’ products sold in the 

United States. These standards will also help drive improvements in reuse and recycling.

Question 2. If the recycling of electronic waste were profitable, more businesses 

would be doing it and waste disposal would not be as big a problem. In your opinion, 
117

what are the economic barriers to making recycling of electronic waste economically 

viable? 

Response. The key economic barrier to establishing a viable and self-sufficient recycling infrastructure is that the overall costs of recycling exceed the value of the 

resulting commodities (primarily glass, plastic and metals). Recycling thus represents a significant and absolute cost, leading inevitably to differing stakeholder 

perspectives over how it should be funded and by whom. 

The three major elements of an electronics recycling system are collection, transportation and the actual disassembly and recycling. The physical collection of used 

electronics represents arguably the biggest single economic barrier to recycling. 

Televisions are ubiquitous in American households, and personal computers are now 

nearly as prevalent. With hundreds of millions of these products spread out across 

urban, suburban and rural areas, collection becomes an enormous and costly 

logistical challenge. 

The vast majority of electronics products are sold through traditional distribution 

and retail channels. In general, manufacturers sell products in bulk to distributors, 

who sell them to retailers who in turn sell them to consumers. These products then 

have years of useful life, and are often re-sold, given to friends or family members, 

or donated to charities. In most cases, manufacturers do not have a direct relationship with the end user at the time of initial sale, let alone years later when the 

product is ready to be placed into the recycling stream. 

As a consequence, EIA and our member companies believe that an electronics recycling system should take advantage of the existing infrastructure rather than attempting to create a separate and costly system to collect used electronics products. 

This existing infrastructure includes municipal waste collection systems and reverse 

distribution systems that rely on established product distribution and retail channels. 

Transportation costs are another major economic barrier to establishing a self-sufficient recycling infrastructure. As noted above, previous generations of products—

particularly cathode ray tubes (CRTs)—are larger and heavier than contemporary 

devices. Loading and transporting large volumes of electronics long distances to centralized recycling facilities is costly in terms of time, labor and overhead, especially 

given the marked rise in fuel prices. Mailing back larger and heavier devices can 

be cost prohibitive. While these costs are not fixed—they would likely decrease if 

there were more recycling facilities—they can only be controlled so much and will 

remain a significant expense. 

The labor and overhead costs to conduct the actual recycling are also significant, 

and the commodities generated often suffer from low prices and a lack of consistent 

market demand. For example, as manufacturers continue to move away from CRTs 

to alternate display technologies—i.e., LCD screens, plasma screens, digital light 

processing technology—the supply of processed CRT glass has outstripped demand. 

Also, since most electronics products destined for U.S. markets are manufactured 

overseas, the recycled commodities must often be transported thousands of miles to 

be used in the next generation of products. 

In addition to the economic barriers, there are also regulatory obstacles that serve 

to artificially increase the costs of recycling. For example, the patchwork of state 

regulations on transport of certain electronic products aggravates the economic situation. As discussed in our testimony to the Subcommittee, one step to consider is 

the creation of a streamlined and nationally uniform regulatory framework for electronic products destined for recycling. This includes adoption of the proposed rule 

that allows for the movement of CRTs sent for proper recycling.

Question 3. What are the consequences for your industry if Congress fails to enact 

national electronic waste legislation? 

Response. Absent a consistent national approach to electronics recycling, manufacturers, retailers and recyclers will be confronted by an expensive, inefficient and unworkable confusion of state laws and regulations. Such a patchwork of approaches 

will impact interstate commerce and may be a barrier to certain companies participating in the markets of some smaller states. If this state-by-state pattern is allowed to continue, it will impose an enormous administrative and logistical burden 

on the system that will ultimately result in increased prices to consumers for new 

products. As detailed above, EIA member companies are already facing competition 

that is unprecedented in this industry. Federal action should strive to keep costs 

to consumers as low as possible, create a level playing field for market participants, 

and ensure that the products are being recycled in an environmentally sound manner. 
118

RESPONSE BY RICHARD GOSS TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question. Ensuring a large amount of electronic waste for recycling can reduce the 

costs of recycling as more waste is fed into the system. What steps are your member 

companies taking to promote this type of economy of scale in recyclable material? 

Response. EIA member companies have been involved in the proper recovery and 

management of well over one million tons—greater than two billion pounds—of used 

electronics products. Our companies are involved in a variety of efforts to increase 

the collection and recycling of used products. These efforts include: implementing individual recovery, refurbishment and recycling programs; participating in recycling 

partnerships with U.S. EPA, state and local governments, retailers, recyclers and 

charities; and sponsoring collection events and grants. We are also leading efforts 

to raise public awareness of the importance and benefits of recycling. In addition, 

our member companies use significant quantities of recycled materials, including 

glass, metals and plastics, in new generations of their products, thus creating demand that helps sustain markets for these materials. 

It is also important to note that, regardless of the volume of used products placed 

in the system, recycling will likely remain an overall cost. As detailed above, collection and transportation costs each represent a significant part of the overall expense. Even with greater volumes of products and the establishment of more recycling facilities, these costs will still remain fixed within a range. The value of the 

resulting commodities still won’t pay for the overall costs of collecting and recycling 

products, at least not at the present time. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID ISAAC, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC POLICY ON

BEHALF OF HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY (HP) 

On behalf of Hewlett-Packard Company (HP), I am pleased to provide this testimony on the recycling of used electronics. My name is David Isaacs, and I am Director, Government and Public Policy, based in our Washington, DC office. HP is a 

technology solutions provider to consumers, businesses and institutions globally. 

The company’s offerings span IT infrastructure, global services, business and home 

computing, and imaging and printing. More information about HP is available at 

www.hp.com. 

HP applauds Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Boxer for convening this important hearing to discuss electronic waste. Today’s hearing is a valuable first step 

in advising Members of the Senate and the public on the emerging challenge of 

managing and recycling used electronics in the United States. HP supports increased recycling to conserve natural resources and protect our environment 

through a harmonized national approach. HP calls on Congress to support a national solution to the challenge of recycling used electronics, the adoption of recycling incentives and the removal of regulatory barriers to cost-effective recycling, 

and market-based solutions to finance government recycling programs. HP believes 

that the Congress should reject attempts to impose a new tax on American consumers and to create bureaucratic recycling programs. Imposing more taxes on consumers will needlessly increase costs to the public and fail to achieve our nation’s 

recycling goals in an efficient manner. Several decades of experience in implementing environmental laws and regulations in this country have proven that environmental goals can best be achieved by providing the private sector with flexibility 

and incentives to innovate. 

As a major manufacturer of a broad range of technology products, as well as a 

leading recycler of these products, HP has a strong interest in the development of 

policies relating to electronics recycling. HP has nearly 20 years of first-hand experience in product take-back and recycling. Since 1987, HP has successfully collected 

and recycled more than 600 million pounds of used or unwanted computer-related 

equipment globally. With our vast knowledge and experience, HP’s goal is to recycle 

1 billion pounds of equipment by the end of 2007. HP encourages Congress to allow 

companies such as HP to maintain this flexibility in implementing recycling—which 

provides American companies opportunities and incentives to continue to focus on 

innovation—and efficiently achieve superior recycling results that best protect our 

nation’s natural resources for future generations. 

We wish to emphasize the following points in our testimony today: 

• A harmonized national approach to the recycling of used electronic products is 

necessary to avoid a patchwork of varying state and local requirements. 

• As first steps in the development of a national approach, Congress should adopt 

incentives for recycling, such as those set forth in the ‘‘Electronic Waste Recycling 

Promotion and Consumer Protection Act’’ (S.510); expand federal support for recycling projects; and remove regulatory impediments to recycling. 
119

• A comprehensive national approach should promote innovation and allow for 

flexible implementation to achieve recycling goals in the most efficient manner. • Congress should reject calls for new taxes on technology products and new government recycling programs. 

I. A NATIONAL APPROACH IS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE

A national solution for the recycling of used electronic products can help promote 

efficiency and avoid a patchwork of inconsistent state approaches. Electronics recycling is an emerging national challenge resulting from the growing use and enjoyment of technology products and consumer electronics throughout our society. As an 

emerging environmental challenge, the country as a whole would benefit from a national approach that enables the United States to address this issue at a relatively 

early stage in its development. Environmental challenges are too often addressed by 

the Congress after a problem already exists. This issue presents an opportunity for 

the Congress to act proactively in developing a solution to an emerging challenge. 

A patchwork has already begun to develop. Three states—California, Maine, and 

Maryland—have adopted comprehensive recycling laws for certain electronic products, but each of these laws is significantly different from the other. The most important differences are the varying methods of financing the recycling system. California has imposed a new tax on consumers to fund a bureaucratic government recycling program. In contrast, Maine has developed an innovative shared responsibility 

model in which the burdens of recycling are shared by various stakeholders. Manufacturers are required to pay for consolidation and recycling or to conduct recycling 

of their products on their own. Maryland has imposed a fee on manufacturers to 

finance computer recycling programs around the state, with the fee varying depending on whether a manufacturer offers a computer take-back program. Moreover, numerous states, and even some localities, have been and are considering proposals 

to address the management of used electronics, and we anticipate that this trend 

will continue. 

This emerging patchwork of differing state laws is adding significant new costs 

and impeding the development of an efficient nationwide infrastructure, while creating the potential for consumer confusion. A consistent national approach is necessary and appropriate. 

We recognize, however, that solid waste issues are traditionally managed by the 

states and localities. Nonetheless, a federal solution is needed in this instance not 

only to address disparate state program developments, but also because of the connection between the recycling of used electronics and the adoption of state-specific 

design standards. Several states have adopted, or are considering, mandated design 

requirements on new technology products as part of their recycling laws or other 

environmental initiatives, driven largely by concerns with environmental issues associated with disposal of used electronic products. Differing state design requirements are problematic for HP and other technology companies because our products 

are designed and manufactured for global distribution. Conflicting state design requirements can impair our ability to sell products globally, may needlessly raise 

costs, and ultimately restrict innovation in the development of new products. An effective national solution can address the concerns of the states with the disposal of 

used electronics, thereby avoiding the need for design standards at the state level 

that may balkanize the global technology marketplace. 

II. RECYCLING INCENTIVES, FEDERAL SUPPORT, AND REMOVAL OF REGULATORY IMPEDIMENTS ARE APPROPRIATE FIRST STEPS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN EFFICIENT RECYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE

To further the development of an effective recycling infrastructure for used electronics, HP believes that incentives to promote recycling are a useful first step. One 

such incentive is a tax credit for consumers to return their products for recycling 

and for manufacturers to offer recycling services to their consumers. In this regard, 

HP supports the ‘‘Electronic Waste Recycling Promotion and Consumer Protection 

Act’’ (S.510), a bipartisan bill introduced by Senator Talent and Senator Wyden. 

This bill would provide tax credits to help manufacturers, retailers, the recycling industry, and others to establish an efficient national infrastructure for the environmentally sound recycling of computers and other products and to encourage consumers to return their products for responsible recycling. These incentives can serve 

as a catalyst for voluntary, market-based solutions that avoid the need for potentially burdensome, costly mandates at the federal or state level. 

Similarly, expanded government support for pilot projects and other initiatives 

can help promote the development of an efficient recycling infrastructure for electronics. Programs such as the ‘‘Plug-In to eCycling’’ initiative of the U.S. Environ-
120

1This is a hybrid approach that combines elements of a producer responsibility system and 

the widely supported Maryland Statewide Computer Recycling Pilot Program (HB 575). A producer responsibility system enables manufacturers to assume responsibility for their products 

by establishing a recycling program. The Maryland law requires manufacturers to pay to the 

state an annual registration fee—the amount of which varies depending on whether the manufacturer offers a computer takeback program. 

mental Protection Agency have played a useful role in successfully recycling large 

volumes of products and collecting data on the nature of the issue and the range 

of approaches that can be successful. For example, during the summer of 2004 HP 

partnered with Office Depot stores nationwide on an in-store takeback program that 

collected and recycled approximately 10 million pounds of products in a manner that 

was convenient for consumers and efficient for the two companies. Another retail 

return program, in which HP participated, involving Staples stores in New England 

also proved to be successful. Continued and expanded funding for these ‘‘Plug-In to 

eCycling’’ programs can facilitate more recycling of used electronics and the development of new approaches. 

Finally, the federal government can play an important role in promoting recycling 

by removing regulatory impediments to cost-effective recycling. Under current federal and state regulations, used electronics are sometimes classified as ‘‘hazardous 

waste,’’ even though they are routinely used in our homes and offices and, when recycled, pose no risk to human health or the environment. When these used products 

are classified as hazardous waste, they become subject to burdensome and costly 

regulatory requirements associated with their collection, storage, transportation, 

and processing. Congress and the EPA should reform these regulatory requirements 

to facilitate recycling of used electronics, while continuing to protect human health 

and the environment. 

III. A NATIONAL APPROACH SHOULD PROMOTE INNOVATION AND ALLOW FOR FLEXIBLE

AND EFFICIENT IMPLEMENTATION

HP supports a comprehensive, national approach to the recycling of used electronics that allows for flexible implementation and innovative approaches that can 

achieve our recycling goals in the most efficient manner. In discussions with several 

states, we have advocated a Product Stewardship Solution that is based on implementing a market driven system for recycling CRT-containing computer monitors 

and TVs (‘‘CRT devices’’). The approach requires manufacturers to take responsibility for the recycling of a specified amount of CRT devices, either by implementing 

a recycling program to cover this specified amount or by assuming financial responsibility for this amount. It places limited responsibilities on retailers and state government and avoids creation of new taxes and government bureaucracies. It provides funds to local governments for CRT device collection, consolidation, and recycling. As a result, the approach promotes flexible and efficient implementation of 

CRT recycling. 

Under the Product Stewardship Solution, manufacturers must take responsibility 

for their ‘‘equivalent share’’ of CRT devices—including orphan CRT devices—returned by households (individual consumers and home businesses) for recycling. 

They can do this either (1) by establishing a recycling program or (2) by paying the 

state reasonable collection, consolidation, and recycling costs for their equivalent 

share.1 Manufacturers implementing a recycling program have the flexibility to design their program as they see fit, so long as they recycle their equivalent share 

in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. 

Manufacturer equivalent shares are determined annually by the state. A manufacturer’s equivalent share is that manufacturer’s portion of the annual CRT device 

waste stream. The equivalent share concept allows manufacturers that choose to 

run a recycling program to satisfy their obligations with CRT devices of any brand 

or their own brand. This approach avoids the need for brand sorting, but preserves 

the ability of manufacturers to implement recycling programs that collect only their 

own brand products. It provides an efficient recycling system with multiple options 

for consumers. 

Manufacturers will be held accountable to the state to meet their equivalent share 

obligations. This is a self-implementing performance standard keyed to a specific 

amount of CRT devices to be recycled. Thus, a manufacturer that chooses to provide 

a recycling program but fails to recycle its equivalent share has a predetermined 

payment obligation for the shortfall to the state. This system is designed to achieve 

recycling results by manufacturers, not merely to generate revenue or establish government recycling programs. 

The Product Stewardship Solution has numerous benefits and advantages compared to alternative approaches such as advance recycling taxes or fees (‘‘ARFs’’): 
121

A. Provides efficiencies through market-based solutions and the opportunity for improvements over time, thereby offering a lower cost solution to consumers 

Relies on and leverages the expertise of manufacturers to produce competitive, 

market-based solutions. Key recycling responsibilities are placed on manufacturers 

competing among themselves in the private sector, rather than on the government, 

which faces no competitive pressure. 

Provides flexibility to allow manufacturers to develop over time least-cost recycling arrangements. Manufacturers have broad flexibility to act individually or in 

partnership with others to develop recycling programs or to pay for their recycling 

responsibility. This provides manufacturers with maximum flexibility to be innovative and to work with recyclers to develop least-cost alternatives. 

Allows collection costs and responsibilities to be determined by the market. Manufacturers that choose to run recycling programs are required to recycle their equivalent share of discarded CRT devices. But no particular entity has a mandated responsibility to collect discarded CRT devices. This fosters development of cost-effective, market-driven collection methods by manufacturers, non-profits, independent 

collectors, municipal governments, and others. 

Provides consumers a broad range of collection/recycling options. Consumers may 

return their unwanted CRT devices to recycling programs offered by manufacturers 

or to any other recycling program—whichever collection/recycling option best suits 

their needs. 

B. Avoids new taxes on consumers 

The Product Stewardship Solution imposes no point-of-sale taxes on consumers. 

ARF proposals are simply a new tax on consumers to finance new government recycling programs. 

C. Places key responsibilities on manufacturers, not government, to achieve recycling 

goals, including recycling of orphan CRT devices 

Manufacturers are responsible for their contribution to the household-CRT device 

waste stream—the fundamental performance goal of a recycling program. Manufacturers are responsible for their equivalent share of CRT devices that are discarded 

each year by households, i.e., the contribution that their products make to the annual CRT device waste stream. 

Manufacturers are responsible for the orphan waste stream. This includes both 

unlabeled CRT devices and CRT devices for which the manufacturer is no longer 

in business and has no successor in interest. 

D. Places minimal responsibilities on retailers 

Retailers are not required to impose and collect new taxes and are not obligated 

to collect products. The only obligations of retailers are not to sell unlabeled and 

unregistered CRT devices and to certify annually that they checked the state CRT 

device registration website to determine if the branded CRT devices they sell are 

registered. 

E. Limits government involvement to enforcement and other necessary functions, 

avoiding the creation of new taxes and new agencies 

Requires government to perform limited administrative and enforcement functions. These limited functions will be sufficient to establish the level playing field 

that makes it possible for manufacturers to provide market based recycling solutions. Among the functions performed by government are determining annual manufacturer equivalent share obligations, enforcing the requirements of the law, and 

collecting and compiling recycling data. 

Avoids establishing new taxes and new agencies. By placing fundamental recycling responsibilities on manufacturers, there is no need for consumers to pay new 

taxes on their purchases of CRT devices or for new agencies to be created to collect 

or administer a tax. The limited government responsibilities required by the approach are designed, like the other parts of the approach, to achieve overall recycling goals efficiently. 

F. Reduces burdens on local governments by providing manufacturers with incentives 

to keep CRT devices out of the municipal waste stream and by providing a funding source for CRT device collection, consolidation, and recycling 

Provides manufacturers with incentives to keep their CRT devices out of the municipal waste stream. Manufacturers’ equivalent share obligations are based on the 

percentage of CRT devices for each manufacturer that are collected in local government recycling programs. Thus, manufacturers have incentive to keep their CRT devices out of the municipal waste stream. 
122

2Supporters of this approach refer to it as a ‘‘fee’’ and not a tax. The law generally distinguishes between ‘‘taxes’’ and ‘‘fees’’ based on whether the payment provides a public benefit (a 

tax) or a specific service (a fee). National Cable Television Assn. v. United States, 415 U.S. 336 

(1973). Because the revenue raised provides a general public benefit and not a specific service 

for the consumer paying the tax, an ARF is properly characterized as a tax. 3See http://www.ceretailers.org/cerc/CERC—Position—on—eWaste.pdf. 

Provides local governments with a funding source for CRT device collection, consolidation, and recycling. Manufacturers that elect to pay the government for their 

recycling obligation, or that are required to pay for failing to meet their equivalent 

share obligation, provide local governments with a funding source for collecting, consolidating, and recycling CRT devices. 

G. Provides the opportunity for design improvements 

Allows manufacturers to benefit from improved environmental design and innovation. Those manufacturers that collect their own brand products can benefit from 

design improvements they have made. Moreover, the system provides an incentive 

to improve product design by removing materials of concern, enhancing recyclability, 

and incorporating recycled content into their new products. 

IV. CONGRESS SHOULD REJECT NEW TAXES AS A MEANS OF FINANCING

RECYCLING PROGRAMS

California has adopted a new tax, or ‘‘advance recycling fee’’ (‘‘ARF’’), to finance 

a government recycling program, and other states are considering this approach.2

Congress should reject this approach. HP believes that a new tax on technology 

products to raise revenue for government to use for recycling is a poor way of 

achieving recycling goals. 

This new tax on consumers will raise the price of technology products and, assuming it is used for its intended purpose, establish a new government program that 

will likely result in efficient recycling solutions. There is no incentive for improvements over time—all products are subject to the same fee regardless of the cost of 

recycling that product. Manufacturers and others have little incentive to reduce 

these costs. This new tax is a one-size-fits-all approach that removes incentives for 

innovation and market-based solutions, thereby likely resulting in higher overall 

costs. Moreover, there is the risk that the funds collected by the government would 

be used for purposes other than recycling, thereby failing to address the issue. 

A tax-based approach suffers from other deficiencies, including the following: 

A Tax on Products Is Burdensome To Retailers.—The Consumer Electronics Retailers Association (‘‘CERC’’), supported by retailers such as Best Buy Co., Circuit 

City Stores, Inc., Radio Shack Corp., Sears Holdings, Target, and Wal-Mart, opposes 

an ARF because an ARF is ‘‘administratively burdensome for all parties;’’ and ‘‘too 

complicated for all parties.’’3

A Tax Finances A Large New Government Program.—A tax-based system requires 

receipt and administration of new sales taxes on consumers transmitted by likely 

thousands of retailers and distribution of the tax proceeds to hundreds of collectors 

and recyclers. The result is a large new government program with substantial administrative expenses. 

The Tax Revenues Can Be Diverted For Other Governmental Purposes.—The tax 

revenues may be diverted to finance other governmental programs. Given tight government budgets and numerous competing priorities, governments often shift spending from one area to another. Indeed, there is no way to prevent a future legislature 

from taking such action. Numerous recycling and other environmental programs 

based on special taxes or fees that are presumably dedicated to a specific purpose 

have witnessed the funds being shifted to other uses. 

A Tax System Does Not Guarantee That Any Amount of Electronic Devices Will 

Be Recycled. Although proponents of tax-based recycling systems typically call for 

achieving numeric collection goals, the proposed systems provide no mechanism for 

enforcing these goals or ensuring that any amount of electronic devices are actually 

recycled. The California ARF statute does not require that any amount of discarded 

electronic devices must be recycled. The only guaranteed outcome of these tax-based 

systems is the generation of new tax revenue for government, not the recycling of 

products. 

Collection And Administration Of Taxes By A TPO Raises Concerns of Efficiency, 

Expertise, Legality, and Accountability. Some proponents of new taxes advocate the 

formation of a ‘‘Third Party Organization’’ (TPO) to receive and administer the government-imposed taxes collected by retailers. This proposal raises concerns of efficiency, expertise, legality, and accountability: 

• The TPO duplicates functions currently performed by government agencies. 
123

• The TPO lacks the expertise of existing tax collecting agencies and is unlikely 

ever to acquire equivalent expertise. • The lack of accountability of the TPO to the government for TPO expenditures 

of public revenues raises significant legal issues. A TPO would control public tax 

revenues without congressional oversight over appropriations. • TPO proposals provide no accountability if the TPO fails to achieve recycling 

goals or fails to meet other obligations. There is no ability by the government to 

enforce against a TPO. 

An ARF Constrains Competition And Limits The Efficiencies To Be Gained From 

Competition. A new tax to fund a monopolistic recycling program fails to establish 

a competitive environment that will provide incentives for improved performance. 

Under the California ARF system, all collectors and recyclers receive a uniform rate 

of compensation set by the state. In ARF systems that depend on a TPO, the only 

possibility of competitive bidding is with a monopoly organization that sets the bid 

requirements. This is not the same as a fully functioning private market with multiple manufacturers seeking recycling services. 

V. CONCLUSION

HP supports a Product Stewardship Solution that requires manufacturers to take 

responsibility for their equivalent share of CRT devices returned for recycling by 

households, that places minimal responsibilities on retailers and state government, 

and that provides local governments with funds for CRT collection, consolidation, 

and recycling. Overall, this approach offers a more efficient and flexible way to 

achieve our recycling goals. 

HP looks forward to working with the Subcommittee and other Members of Congress on the development of a national recycling system that leverages the capabilities and expertise of manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, and others to achieve efficient and low cost opportunities for all consumers. 

STATEMENT OF THE RETAIL INDUSTRY LEADERS ASSOCIATION

The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) appreciates the opportunity to 

provide the committee with comments on the need for a national electronics management system and applauds the leadership of Chairman Thune and Ranking 

Member Boxer for holding a hearing on this important environmental issue. 

By way of background, The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) is an alliance of the world’s most successful and innovative retailer and supplier companies—

the leaders of the retail industry. RILA members represent more than $1.4 trillion 

in sales annually and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing facilities 

and distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers and suppliers have facilities in all 50 states, as well as internationally, and employ millions of workers domestically and worldwide. Through RILA, leaders in the critical disciplines of the 

retail industry work together to improve their businesses and the industry as a 

whole. The mission of RILA is to lead and serve the most successful and innovative 

retailers and suppliers through the delivery of world class education, innovation and 

advocacy. 

RILA strongly believes that a federal solution that encourages the proper collection and recycling of electronic waste is far more practical than dealing with a 

patchwork of 50 or more different ‘‘eWaste’’ laws instituted by individual states and 

localities. This year alone, 30 State and local legislatures have introduced over 50 

separate bills on this issue. It would be impractical and ineffective to expect retailers and manufacturers to comply with over 50 eWaste programs, and, if Congress 

legislates in this area, we urge it to create a strong federal preemption of state and 

local law. 

RILA also supports a ‘‘producer responsibility’’ eWaste recycling model, and is 

working with the Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition (CERC), state retail associations and other interested stakeholders in advocating this approach. A producer 

responsibility approach would make manufacturers responsible for the recycling of 

electronic devices in an efficient and cost-effective manner that fits into each individual company’s business model. This program may also include participation from 

distributors, retailers and consumers, all of which benefit from the sale of electronic 

products. A producer responsibility model, similar to those adopted in Maine and 

Maryland, provides consumers with a variety of choices and manufacturers with 

flexibility to implement practical electronics recycling programs that make sense to 

customers, government, retailers and manufacturers alike. 

A producer responsibility model also gives retailers the ability to develop voluntary recycling programs for their customers. For years, many retailers have 
124

partnered with manufacturers and certified recyclers to periodically offer recycling 

programs that encourage customers to return obsolete electronic equipment for recycling. These programs have proven to be successful and popular for all parties involved and such private sector initiatives should not only be permitted, but also encouraged through public policy. 

RILA strongly opposes eWaste policies that would mandate that retailers collect 

and/or dispose of used or unwanted electronic products. Retail stores are designed 

to make the shopping experience as enjoyable as possible for consumers. They are 

not designed to serve as collection centers, nor do they have room to store discarded 

products targeted for recycling. Retailers are highly efficient distributors of consumer products who operate on razor thin profit margins. Forcing them to play the 

role of recycling centers will add significantly to the cost of doing business. We urge 

Congress to reject mandated retailer recycling programs. 

In addition, RILA also opposes ‘‘point of sale advance recovery fee’’ (POSARF) programs such as the one adopted in California. Experience has shown that a POSARF 

does not accomplish its goals, is administratively burdensome for all parties, and 

only guarantees a new revenue source for government without guaranteeing that an 

effective recycling system will be put into place. In addition, such a program provides no incentive for the design of more environmentally friendly products, and 

fails to take advantage of market forces to reduce the cost of recycling over time. 

Finally, RILA endorses the ‘‘Electronic Waste Recycling Promotion and Consumer 

Protection Act’’ (S 510), legislation introduced earlier this year by Senators Jim Talent (R–MO) and Ron Wyden (D–OR). This bill would give consumers a one-time tax 

credit for turning in electronic equipment to a qualified recycler. It also provides 

manufacturers, retailers and qualified recyclers tax credits over a 3-year period for 

recycling a certain amount of e-waste each year. This bill appears to be a cost-efficient and potentially successful approach to jump-starting the development of a national eWaste recycling industry. RILA hopes Congress will view this tax credit as 

a viable and creative opportunity to deal with electronics at their end of life, and 

urges it to enact the bill quickly. 

RILA is dedicated to working with the Subcommittee and other Members of Congress on developing a fair and effective program for the recycling of electronic products. The fact that states and localities continue to consider their own recycling initiatives that impose inconsistent requirements on retailers and manufacturers is 

clear evidence that Congress should move quickly to develop a federal solution. 

STATEMENT OF BASEL ACTION NETWORK, SEATTLE, WA 

THE PROBLEM

Volume of e-Waste 

Gartner, Inc, a research firm, states that Americans discard 133,000 PCs daily. 

This doesn’t include televisions, cell phones, fax machines, and other electronics. 

EPA estimates that American dispose of 3 million tons of outdated or broken electronic devices annually. This fastest growing segment of the waste stream is largely 

invisible, unless one has the opportunity to visit the massive warehouses filled with 

pallets and huge boxes of monitors, central processing units, TVs, printers, etc. The 

average length of time Americans keep their computers is 18 months. Lease agreements between electronics manufacturers and their corporate/institutional customers guarantee a complete replacement of all units within agreed upon timeframes, usually 1–3 years. Where do the ‘‘old’’ ones go? We have created societies 

that thrive on, even depend on, the latest technology, generating massive volumes 

of unwanted electronics. But they are laden with toxins, and we must create legislation to safely manage these mountains of unwanted electronics without impacting 

human health or the environment in any country. 

Toxicity of e-Waste 

The sheer volume of electronic or e-waste is stunning, but it is only part of the 

problem. Electronics are made of many materials, some of them benign, and some 

of them quite toxic. Lead, mercury, beryllium, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and 

brominated flame retardants are only a few of the many toxins that comprise electronic devices. Many of the substances in electronics are on the U.S. EPA’s 1998 

‘‘Draft RCRA Waste Minimization List of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic 

Chemicals’’ (PBTs). The EPA set a national goal of reducing the amount of these 

persistent biological toxins in waste by at least half by this year, and yet the levels 

of many of them continue to rise in the environment and in body burden samples 

taken in studies. PBTs remain in the environment for a very long time without de-
125

grading, accumulating in fatty tissues of humans and animals. This results in increasing concentrations as the persistent toxins move up the food chain. They also 

readily bio-transport, moving easily through air, water and soil to places far from 

where they originated. 

For more information on toxins in electronics, see attached Greenpeace document 

entitled, ‘‘Toxic Tech: Dangerous Chemicals in Electronic Products’’, available at: 

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/toxic-tech-chemicals-in-elec 

For information on the health impacts of these toxins, go to the following 

websites: 

• Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternative (GAIA) at http://www.no-burn.org/resources/index.html#top 

• International POPs Elimination Network at http://ipen.ecn.cz/index.php?z=&l=

en&k=home 

Export of e-Waste 

Largely unregulated in the United States, this massive volume of hazardous material is being managed in a myriad of ways, including landfilling it, illegally dumping it, sending it to federal penitentiaries where prisoners disassemble it, or to private sector recyclers who manually disassemble or mechanically shred the end-oflife electronics. But currently the most lucrative ‘solution’ to this toxic waste problem is to export it to developing countries that are in need of materials to manufacture the world’s trinkets and tools. The lack of regulation and complete absence of 

control of these exports result in U.S. hazardous e-waste flowing to developing countries where impoverished or displaced communities, desperate for work of any kind, 

suffer the profound effects of recycling hazardous e-waste, dramatically impacting 

human health and the environment. These communities are faced with the choice 

between poverty or poison, and frequently choose to accept the developed world’s unknown toxins in exchange for food on the table and schools for their children. Please 

view our 23-minute film, ‘‘Exporting Harm: The High Tech Trashing of Asia’’, documenting the toxic recycling of U.S. e-waste in China (available from Grant Cope in 

Senator Boxer’s office). 

In our film and report by the same name, (http://www.ban.org/E-waste/

technotrashfinalcomp.pdf) we document some of these impacts on the region called 

Guiyu, in the Guangdong Province in SE China. Here, families live and work in 

yards where they use primitive and toxic techniques to dismantle and process ewaste primarily from the US, but also from Japan and other developed Nations. For 

example, they remove and sell the copper yokes from the back of the cathode ray 

tubes (picture tubes), then throw the leaded glass into their former irrigation 

ditches, which brought water to rice patties until about 8 or 9 years ago, when they 

found they could make a little more money by scavenging materials from e-waste. 

Each monitor tube has 6-8 pounds of lead. 

Without any protection from lead fumes, mostly women and girls heat circuit 

boards over open pools of molten lead-tin solder, plucking individual circuits from 

the heated boards. 

The loosened chips are then sorted for re-sale or to be sent to acid chemical strippers to recover gold from the chips. These acid operations are located on riverbanks 

out of town, where they heat a mixture of 75 percent pure hydrochloric acid and 

25 percent pure nitric acid to dissolve tiny amounts of gold from the chips. Then 

the workers dump the pure acids and dissolved heavy metals directly into the rivers. The water table in the Guiyu region is so toxic that hundreds of vendors truck 

in water from another town on a daily basis. Our samples of river water and sediments revealed some extraordinary test results for 18 different heavy metals and 

elements, available on page 47 (Annex II) and page 48 (Annex III) of the Exporting 

Harm report (linked above). One water sample yielded a lead level that was 2400 

times higher than the World Health Organization’s limit for lead in drinking water. 

Page 14 displays a photograph of computer asset tags found on computers in 

China—computers from the United States, including a State of California medical 

facility, the L.A. Unified School District, the City of Los Angeles. 

Other neighborhoods in Guiyu sort small computer wires by day, and burn them 

by night in open fires. These copper wires have a PVC sheathing, which creates 

dioxins and furans—some of the most toxic substances known to humankind—when 

melted at low temperatures. Dioxins have no smell or taste; they are invisible 

threats. 

Volume of e-Waste Exported 

No one knows the amount of electronic waste being exported from the US; this 

fact in itself is important, as it indicates the sheer irresponsibility of the United 

States (unlike most other countries) in controlling and monitoring its exports of haz-
126

1 Article 4, paragraph 2(d) and 2(b) respectively; www.basel.int 

ardous e-wastes, frequently in violation of laws in recipient countries. [To see the 

Auststralian Government’s ‘‘Criteria for the Export and Import of Used Electronic 

Equipment’’, go to http://www.deh.gov.au/settlements/publications/chemicals/hazardous-waste/electronic-paper.html] 

The fact is electronic waste is leaving the United States by ocean-going container 

loads daily. Anecdotal reports from U.S. recyclers indicate that, of all the electronics 

collected in the United States by recyclers, 80 percent-90 percent of it goes offshore. 

Aggressive buyers from Asia, particularly China, are purchasing as much as electronic waste as they possibly can, with ‘‘toxins along for the ride’’, in order to obtain 

copper, aluminum, steel and precious metals at lower costs than if they mine and 

smelt primary ore in their countries. Because the United States has failed to implement its legally binding obligations to control and monitor its exports of hazardous 

wastes (see below), these massive volumes of toxic e-waste are exported anywhere 

in the world, frequently in violation of laws in recipient countries, and many times 

with horrific impacts. 

Even if the United States had the political will to oversee it exports of toxic waste 

to poor countries, there are no harmonized tariff codes (used to document international trade) that distinguish between waste and new electronics. Because of this, 

there is currently no customs information on e-waste available. 

Why is e-Waste Being Exported 

The United States is the only developed country not to ratify the ‘‘Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their 

Disposal’’ (Basel Convention). 165 Nations, however, are a Party to this Convention, 

and apply Basel restrictions and definitions of hazardous wastes when it comes to 

exports and imports of such. Despite the United States refusal to respect the Basel 

laws and definitions that govern most of the rest of the world’s trade in hazardous 

waste, the United States has ratified a multi-lateral agreement governing trade in 

hazardous wastes between the 30 Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD) countries, but has failed to implement its legally binding obligations. (More details below.) 

Without any controls on the export of hazardous e-waste, the resulting free-forall is based on pure profitability, regardless of toxic impacts or violation of laws in 

recipient countries. In this country, the sheer economics of the waste trade, without 

restrictions, are a powerful incentive to do the wrong thing. Waste generators and/

or their recyclers are faced with a choice: either pay to have their unwanted electronics properly managed, or be paid by brokers who whisk them away to developing countries. For some, it’s a simple choice between an expense or revenue, and 

when it involves a lucrative way to get rid of toxic materials, many make this 

choice. Other individuals, corporations and institutions who have concerns about 

data security, liability for improper hazardous waste disposal, and even impacts on 

citizens in developing countries, make better choices. But these choices about how 

to manage this hazardous waste stream should not be completely left up to individuals and corporations. The U.S. Government must join the global community and 

ensure that all citizens of the world are protected from U.S. toxic electronic wastes. 

One might argue that importing countries should ‘just say no’ to toxic U.S. ewaste, but in so many developing countries, the lack of environmental laws, poor 

enforcement, the need for raw materials for manufacturing and the jobs that come 

along with it, and widespread corruption result in open ports for toxic waste shipments. It is more difficult for any Nation to control its imports than its exports, as 

the United States found out after September 11th. As called for in the Basel Convention, each Nation must be responsible for controlling and monitoring its exports 

of hazardous wastes. Decontaminate the wastes in developed nations, keeping jobs 

here, and then send the clean commodities any where in the world. 

U.S. vs. International Laws Pertaining to e-Waste 

The Basel Convention is a multilateral environmental agreement under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) that is noted for being 

the first international treaty that promotes environmental justice. It was designed 

to protect developing countries from being disproportionately burdened by hazardous wastes via trade, simply due to their economic status. The original treaty 

called for a minimization of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and national self-sufficiency in waste management by all countries.1 In 1995, by consensus 

vote, the Basel Convention banned the export of hazardous wastes for any reason 

from European Union (EU) or Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
127

2 An organization representing the interests of 30 developed nations; www.oecd.org 

3Decision III/1 of the Basel Convention 

4Decision-Recommendation of the Council on Exports of Hazardous Wastes from the OECD 

Area, 5 June 1986, C(88)90(Final) see http://www.oecd.org. Note that Decision-Recommendations include both Decisions and Recommendations. 5Art. 5(a), OECD Convention, see http://www.oecd.org. 

6See http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00029000/M00029772.pdf 

ment (OECD)2 countries to all other countries, and proposed this ban as an amendment to the Convention. This is known as the Basel Ban Amendment.3 Although 

this amendment is still acquiring the necessary ratifications to enter into strict legal 

force globally, it has already been implemented by many of the nations that have 

ratified it, including the entire European Union. 

The United States signed the Basel Convention in 1989 but has to date failed to 

ratify it. There are only three countries that signed and never ratified. These countries are Afghanistan, Haiti, and the United States. 

Indeed, the United States is the only developed country in the world that has not 

ratified the Basel Convention. Furthermore, because the United States has created 

exemptions from controls in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

for wastes deemed recyclable, we are now the only developed country in the world 

that allows electronic waste to flow uncontrolled as a toxic tide out of our borders. 

Every week, hundreds of container loads of hazardous electronic waste flow across 

U.S. borders to disproportionately burden foreign communities. This is not legal in 

any other developed country. The irony of this is that the United States is where 

the concept of ‘‘environmental justice’’ was born. Environmental Justice Executive 

Order 12898 requires that each federal agency include environmental justice as part 

of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities 

on people of color and low-income populations in the United States and its territories. The U.S. Office of International Affairs’ 2004 Environmental Justice Action 

Plan states, ‘‘OIA’s senior leaders are committed to the principles of environmental 

justice both at home and abroad.’’

If the toxic impacts on these communities were not a big enough affront, it must 

be understood that this policy of ‘‘free trade in toxic waste’’ is actually illegal in the 

United States and promotes illegal activity in developing countries globally. The 

OECD has treaties binding on the United States, governing the transboundary 

movement of hazardous waste, and the United States turns a blind eye to these legally binding obligations. Indeed, the United States is in direct violation of one of 

these OECD treaties. 

In 1986, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 

adopted Council Decision-Recommendation C(86)64(final)4 (OECD Decision) which 

has to do with hazardous wastes exported from the 30 developed nations who comprise the OECD. Decisions of the OECD Council are legally binding upon Member 

countries at the time of the adoption of the decision.5 Since the United States was 

a member country in 1986, the OECD Decision is legally binding on the United 

States. Some of the more pertinent OECD Decision elements that the United States 

agreed to implement are as follows: 

i. ‘‘Monitor and control exports of hazardous wastes to a final destination which 

is outside the OECD area; and for this purpose shall ensure that their competent 

authorities are empowered to prohibit such exports in appropriate instances;’’

Reality in the United States today.—U.S. competent authorities are empowered to 

forbid only some of their exports but remarkably do not consider lead-acid batteries, 

electronic wastes and other OECD-defined hazardous wastes to be hazardous waste. 

This is illegal when they are exported. The United States has failed to harmonize 

its definitions of hazardous wastes with those in the OECD regime. 

ii. ‘‘Apply no less strict controls on transfrontier movements of hazardous wastes 

involving non-member countries than they would on movements involving only 

Member countries;’’

Reality in the United States today. Transfrontier shipments between OECD member States of cathode ray tubes (CRTs), and/or CRT glass, for example, must in fact 

be controlled within the OECD as it is part of the ‘‘amber’’ list under Council Decision C(92)39/Final, as amended by (2001)107/Final6 (governing recycling trade in 

hazardous wastes between Member States). Thus, in fact, the United States is violating this provision. 

iii. ‘‘Prohibit movements of hazardous wastes to a final destination in a non-Member country without the consent of that country and the prior notification to any 

transit countries of the proposed movements;’’
128

7OECD Council Decision C(88)90(final), see http://www.olis.oecd.org/horizontal/oecdacts.nsf/

a0da5457376d5a1f412569750054d65b/eca14832de914b75c1256acb005158fb?OpenDocument 8OECD Council Decision C(94)152 (final), see http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/1994doc.nsf/linkto/

c(94)152-final 

Reality in the United States today. The United States does not require the consent 

of the receiving country for hazardous electronic waste, lead-acid batteries and other 

hazardous waste exports, as defined by the OECD, and thus, is in clear violation 

of this obligation. 

iv. ‘‘Prohibit movements of hazardous wastes to a non-Member country unless the 

wastes are directed to an adequate disposal facility in that country.’’

Reality in the United States today. The United States exercises no control, nor 

shows any concern as to whether exported hazardous wastes are destined for adequate facilities, or even whether they are recycled or simply dumped. 

U.S. vs. International Definitions of Hazardous Wastes 

It is also essential to understand that United States intentionally does not harmonize its definitions of hazardous wastes with international ones found in the 

Basel Convention and the OECD treaties. While this is acceptable for domestic only 

transactions, it creates a huge loophole and illegalities for export. Once U.S. companies load up containers with material that is designated as hazardous waste internationally, and that container gets outside of U.S. territory, it automatically falls 

under the umbrella of international laws and definitions, whether we like it or not. 

The definitions applicable to the OECD C(86)64(final) that have to do with wastes 

exported from the OECD area have been amended to those found in Council Decision C(88)90(Final)7, which in turn has been amended by C(94)152(Final)8. 

The definition of hazardous waste in C(94)152(Final) calls any waste listed in a 

core, Y list of hazardous constituents to be controlled as a hazardous waste, as long 

as they possess hazardous characteristics listed in Table 5. The Y list includes lead, 

listed as Y31—‘‘Wastes having as constituents lead or lead compounds’’. Table 5 includes substances considered H11—‘‘toxic’’, H12—‘‘ecotoxic’’, and H13—‘‘capable, by 

any means, after disposal, of yielding another material, e.g. leachate, which possesses any of the characteristics listed above.’’

Because of their lead content, CRTs, circuit boards, and lead-acid batteries, etc., 

have been demonstrated to create toxic lead leachate by virtue of their failure to 

pass the Toxic Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) threshold of 5mg/l. It is 

clear that CRTs and circuit boards, as well as equipment containing CRTs, CRT 

glass, or circuit boards fall under the OECD Council Decision-Recommendation 

C(86) 64 (final) having satisfied both the list and Table 5. Other toxic materials in 

electronic waste, such as mercury, beryllium, and hexavalent chromium, are also 

designated as hazardous waste under the OECD treaty, and therefore the exports 

of e-waste with these constituents ought to be controlled and monitored. 

The United States’ claim that certain wastes are not hazardous simply because 

they are recyclable and can therefore be freely traded is not consistent with U.S. 

obligations under OECD accords. The United States currently is in direct violation 

of their OECD treaty commitments. The violation also allows for the disproportionate burdening of developing country communities with U.S. toxic e-waste. 

U.S. e-Waste Trade Violates the Laws of Importing Countries 

The export of hazardous waste without controls also violates the laws of many developing countries globally. The Basel Convention forbids any Party to the Convention (165 nations) from trading with a non-Party, without a special bilateral or multilateral agreement. Because the United States is not a Party to the Convention and 

virtually every other country in the world is, most countries cannot accept hazardous waste, as defined by the Convention, from the United States. The only exception to this rule is 30 OECD countries that have signed waste trade accords, for example, for recyclable wastes. However, any Basel country that is not an OECD 

member State (there are about 132 of these, including virtually all Asian countries 

except Japan and South Korea), cannot legally accept hazardous waste, such as ewaste, from the United States. To do so is illegal traffic with criminal sanctions applicable. 

Every day, container loads of hazardous electronic wastes are leaving the United 

States with the full knowledge of EPA, and Commerce and State Department authorities; once these container loads arrive at most importing nations’ ports, they 

are contraband. Many countries like China have made it very clear they do not want 

this hazardous waste, have passed national importation bans, and have announced 

these import bans through the formal conduit of the Basel Convention Secretariat. 

Still the U.S. EPA, Commerce and State Departments ignore these violations. Imag-
129

9 A full critique of these Guidelines is available at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/

plugin/pdf/guide.pdf 10For a full critique on the draft CRT rule see: http://www.ban.org/Library/BAN—comments—CRTrule.PDF

ine if the shoe was on the other foot, and China continued to knowingly send us 

thousands of tons of material each year that is in clear violation of our laws. 

Wouldn’t this be considered at least a diplomatic affront? 

The EPA has refused to list the countries for which imports of electronic waste 

from the United States are illegal, despite being urged at length to do so, and despite considerable recycling industry support for the notion during EPA’s development of the Plug-In to e-Cycling electronic waste recycling guidelines. Nor has the 

EPA warned U.S. recyclers that it is illegal for those 130+ countries to receive hazardous waste, including electronic waste, from the United States. Furthermore, the 

Plug-In Guidelines created definitions for electronic waste that are completely incompatible with those developed (even with the United States present and active 

in the negotiations) at the international level in the Basel Convention9. This makes 

it even more difficult for recyclers and exporters in the United States to comply with 

importing countries’ laws (which are based on international definitions). This appears to indicate a willful disregard on the part of EPA to respect those laws, and 

the principles of environmental justice upon which they are based. 

Likewise, in the drafting of the rule on managing CRTs, the EPA was roundly 

criticized for providing no controls on the export of these toxic wastes. The final rule 

is yet to be promulgated, but it is not expected that Basel-like controls will be applied to the export of CRTs or CRT glass.10

‘‘As boundaries between domestic and global environmental issues erode, environmental challenges facing the United States have become more complex. In an increasingly interconnected world, domestic environmental quality and public health 

often require global action, which in turn have economic, political, cultural, and humanitarian implications. As in the United States, the burden of a degraded environment in developing countries has been even greater to minority and low-income 

communities, often with little or no inclusion in the decision-making processes. 

‘‘The fair treatment of all people and their right to meaningful involvement in the 

environmental decision making process does not exist in many countries. OIA has 

the challenge of respecting the traditions, laws and protocols in the countries where 

we work, while encouraging environmental justice for all people.’’—Office of International Affairs’ Environmental Justice Action Plan 

Unintended Consequences of the California e-Waste Bill 

Because the financing scheme in CA SB 20/SB50 only covers display devices such 

as monitors and TVs, consumers are bringing to recyclers these items along with 

non-covered devices, such central processing units (the computer box), printers, fax 

machines, etc., and asking recyclers to also take them for free. Many recyclers in 

CA quickly learn that the only way they can avoid the expense of properly recycling 

these non-covered devices is to export them to developing countries, which generates 

more revenue for them. The net result is an increase in exports of hazardous waste 

(as defined internationally), while at the same time collecting the leaded glass tubes 

for proper recycling. 

THE SOLUTIONS

It is essential in any national legislation define the scope of products to include 

all components that are defined as hazardous waste internationally (listed above). 

In this way, legislation will not result in an increase in exports of non-covered hazardous wastes (as defined internationally). 

Control and monitor of exports is a federal jurisdiction. National legislation requiring the collection and recycling of unwanted electronics must forbid the export 

of hazardous e-waste based on U.S. OECD obligations, the Basel obligations of other 

nations, and the Basel/OECD definitions of hazardous wastes in use by almost all 

other nations besides the United States. This means that any waste electronics or 

untested or non-working electronics that contain a cathode ray tube (CRT), circuit 

boards that use lead solder, mercury, beryllium, PCBs, or any e-scrap or untested/

non-working equipment with them in them, must be kept in OECD/EU countries 

only for recycling or disposal. After decontaminating the hazardous wastes, clean 

commodities can be sold anywhere in the world. 

Provide a funding mechanism that no longer allows the United States to externalize the end-of-life costs of these toxic electronics onto citizens in developing countries, and prisoners in this country. We believe the best financing system is to require all original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to pay an advanced recycling fee 
130

(ARF) on every product sold in the United States into a non-profit, third party organization (TPO). This TPO would be responsible for managing the full participation 

of OEMs, contracting for the collection and recycling of electronics, informing the 

public about the free recycling options, and managing the funds. We do not believe 

an ARF collected at the point of retail is an acceptable solution, because this toxic 

waste problem belongs to the manufacturers, who must oversee the end-of-life management and costs. This ‘extended producer responsibility’ provides a direct financial incentive to redesign the products with fewer toxins, make them more 

upgradeable, more easily recycled. In order to provide widespread collection options 

to urban and rural citizens, collection payments can be offered to existing and new 

infrastructure (if they choose to opt into the system), including recyclers, charities, 

municipal waste collection facilities, retailers, and mail back programs with the 

manufacturers. 

Legislation must also require that adequate recycling and reuse standards are set 

to ensure that occupational and public health are protected from the many toxins 

in e-waste, and that adequate financial assurances exist to cover environmental, liability, closure, and other costs are in place. 

Hazardous e-waste must be prohibited from landfills, incinerators (including 

waste to energy incinerators), and prison recycling operations, based on definitions 

that recognize toxicity of any waste or unwanted electronic. 

Create new harmonized tariff codes for the various components of used electronics, based on international definitions of hazardous waste, and requiring a distinction between tested working used equipment vs. untested/waste equipment or 

components. 

An official enquiry must be made into the U.S. violation (documented above) of 

the 1986 OECD accord on hazardous waste exports. The United States must finally 

implement its legally-binding obligations under the OECD treaty, requiring that we:

• ‘‘Monitor and control exports of hazardous wastes to a final destination 

which is outside the OECD area; and for this purpose shall ensure that their 

competent authorities are empowered to prohibit such exports in appropriate instances;’’

• ‘‘Apply no less strict controls on transfrontier movements of hazardous wastes 

involving non-member countries than they would on movements involving only 

Member countries;’’

• ‘‘Prohibit movements of hazardous wastes to a final destination in a nonMember country without the consent of that country and the prior notification 

to any transit countries of the proposed movements;’’

• ‘‘Prohibit movements of hazardous wastes to a non-Member country unless 

the wastes are directed to an adequate disposal facility in that country.’’

STATEMENT OF THE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION

INTRODUCTION

The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) thanks Chairman Thune and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present its views on electronic 

waste. 

CEA represents more than 2,000 companies involved in the design, development, 

manufacturing, distribution and integration of audio, video, in-vehicle electronics, 

wireless and landline communication, information technology, home networking, 

multimedia and accessory products, as well as related services that are sold through 

consumer channels. CEA also produces the nation’s largest annual event, the International Consumer Electronics Show. 

By extending information and entertainment to everyone—regardless of income or 

geographic location—our products have improved lives and changed the world. 

Meanwhile, America stands as the global leader in innovation, ingenuity and creativity. 

In addition, the competition and falling prices characteristic of our industry continue to confer benefits to consumers. As our products become increasingly affordable, it is often more economical for consumers to replace a product with a new one 

rather than repair older equipment. 

While these displaced products may have reached the end of their lives or be outof-date, they are definitely too valuable to be completely discarded. Most consumer 

electronics products contain valuable materials such as precious metals, plastics and 

other raw materials that can be resold in the commodities market by recyclers. 

Moreover, used, working computers can find use in thousands of schools, charities 
131

and public agencies committed to training people with disabilities, students at risk 

and economically disadvantaged Americans. 

In fact, CEA recently joined eBay’s Rethink Initiative, which brings together leading technology companies, government agencies, environmental groups and millions 

of eBay users to confront the problem of electronic waste (e-waste). Rethink’s members offer consumer education via comprehensive information on options available 

to reuse or responsibly recycle, as well as disposition tools such as assisted selling, 

convenient local drop-off, trade-in programs and charity donations. 

CEA SUPPORTS A NATIONAL APPROACH TO E-WASTE MANAGEMENT

The Consumer Electronics Association strongly supports the development of a national framework for e-waste management. The current de-facto system for e-waste 

is an evolving patchwork of state-by-state approaches. This conflicting, ad-hoc approach imposes unnecessary burdens on technology companies and consumers alike. 

E-waste is a national issue that should have a national solution. 

A national end-of-use framework would apportion responsibility and ensure a 

level playing field among stakeholders, while promoting a widespread and adequately financed e-waste solution. 

In addition to the development of a national e-waste framework, CEA believes the 

following elements are worthy of consideration: 

1. Tax Credits 

The federal government should support states choosing to rely on effective market-based solutions. Federal tax credits can enable manufacturers, recyclers, and retailers to offer recycling services in those states. Tax credits also may enable stakeholders in other electronics sectors to offer recycling services or to develop markets 

for recycled products. Tax credits should be available to all stakeholders involved 

in the end-of-life infrastructure, including retailers to help defray costs in those 

states adopting visible fee-based systems. 

2. Fostering Design for Environment 

The principal responsibility of manufacturers of display devices lies in product design. CEA supports the creation of reasonable federal procurement policies based on 

environmental criteria. The market power of the government can play a significant 

role in providing a direct sales-based incentive to manufacturers. States can augment this by adopting federal environmentally sensitive procurement guidelines, increasing the market and the incentive for manufacturers. Federal and state governments will capture cost-savings through reduced energy usage and other advantages 

offered by these products. 

3. A National Recycling Third-Party Organization 

States considering advanced recovery fee or ‘‘ARF’’-based systems may opt to select a third-party organization (‘‘TPO’’) to collect and administer recycling funds. 

CEA will support the creation of a national TPO, both to assist states considering 

a TPO system and to provide a national clearinghouse for consistent product scope 

to ensure stable harmonization of state-level systems. A national TPO should include manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers in its governance structure. TPO creation and availability to states can serve as a further incentive to create state-level 

systems complementing a national solution. If additional federal authority to enable 

to harmonization is required, CEA will work with the U.S. Congress as appropriate 

to put that authority in place. 

4. Ensuring a Level Playing Field Through Federal Policy 

The role of the federal government lies primarily in ensuring a level playing field 

nationally for recycling stakeholders complying with state-level recycling systems. 

The federal government should put measures in place that enable states to ensure 

a level competitive playing field for in-state retailers with Internet and out-of-state 

retailers. CEA supports any required additional federal authority to ensure interstate compliance with state-level market-based or visible fee-based systems. 

CONCLUSION

Finding a solution to this public policy challenge is a priority for CEA. As we continue to make strides in eco-friendly design initiatives, lead the consumer electronics industry on environmental issues and be a part of the effort to educate consumers about e-recycling, CEA hopes to work with Congress and all interested parties to reach a common-sense, national solution that makes recycling as convenient 

as possible for all Americans. 
132

STATEMENT OF BILL SHEEHAN, PH.D., DIRECTOR, PRODUCT POLICY INSTITUTE

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the Senate Subcommittee 

on Superfund and Waste Management hearing on the problem of electronic waste 

disposal. The Product Policy Institute is an independent nonpartisan research and 

education organization that focuses on the link between production and consumption, on the one hand, and waste generation and disposal, on the other, in order 

to promote public policies that encourage sustainable practices. We believe that the 

policy approach of extending producer responsibility for end of life management of 

electronic waste offers the most effective solution to the problem of electronic waste 

management, because it relies on market forces and incentivizes fundamental solutions upstream at the design stage.. 

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy principle to promote total life 

cycle environmental improvement of product systems by extending the responsibilities of the manufacturer of the product to various parts of the entire life cycle of 

the product, and especially to the take-back, recycling and final disposal of the product. EPR policies shift part, or all, of the responsibility for the end-of-life management of products and packaging from tax payers and waste management authorities 

to those who design the products and packaging—the manufacturers. Manufacturers 

have the largest opportunities to reduce lifecycle environmental and health impacts, 

because the design phase of the product chain is the most critical to reducing waste. 

Moreover, local public authorities do not have the resources to safely manage ewaste. 

EPR policies appeal to both conservative and liberal political perspectives. From 

a fiscal conservative perspective, EPR makes sense because it gets waste management off the tax base and it is based on the notion that the market will drive programs that are more efficient than government managed programs. Those of a more 

liberal bent support EPR because they believe that producers should have responsibility for pollution prevention. In several European countries and Canadian provinces, EPR regulations have been implemented, maintained or strengthened by conservative governments. 

In our opinion, the most critical step in solving the ‘‘e-waste problem’’ using the 

market-based approach is establishing optimal roles for government and industry. 

The key is to ensure that government’s role is focused on setting performance standards in the public interest and enforcing agreed outcomes that create a level playing 

field. When correctly designed and implemented, EPR policies can provide an alternative both to traditional bureaucratized command-and-control mode of environmental regulation, on the one hand, and to radical deregulation and privatization, 

on the other. Such policies allow regulated parties and other affected groups a greater share in shaping the rules under which they operate and permits a certain degree 

of self-regulation. 

In North America, this approach is best developed in the Canadian province of 

British Columbia, where regulations allow brand-owners to develop their own EPR 

programs for a range of products, as long as they meet approval of the province. 

Targeted products never come through the municipal waste management system. 

British Columbia has applied this approach to beverage containers and household 

hazardous waste products, and is expected to shortly include electronic waste in the 

system. 

Maine’s e-waste law comes closest to EPR in the United States. Maine’s law 

leaves significant collection responsibility to the municipalities, but overall Maine’s 

approach is a strong step forward in the right direction. 

We append to these comments a checklist of elements for effective EPR programs 

developed from a variety of sources. These are intended to apply to a range of products and packaging beyond electronic waste, but were developed with electronics in 

mind. We note several elements here. 

• A key objective is to transfer costs of product waste management from taxpayers to producers and users, so that more efficient designs are rewarded in the 

market. Thus, tax credits alone are unlikely to solve the problem of e-waste. 

• Competition is critical to making a market-based system work. Consequently, 

individual producers should be clearly assigned responsibility for results, even if 

given a choice to join a collective, third-party recovery system. Legislating a thirdparty monopoly is dangerous, as is direct government participation in managing 

such third party organizations. If government shares governance of such organizations, it becomes too easy to blame government for inefficiencies and failures. 

• Bans on landfill disposal and other inappropriate forms of disposal like incineration and exporting to countries with inadequate safety regulations are essential to 

effective EPR programs. If these options are available to producers, there is little 

incentive to recycle responsibly. 
133

We believe that advanced fees charged to consumers may be appropriate in the 

short term as a fair way of dealing with historical waste. But fees do nothing to 

influence product design, so should not persist beyond the initial period. 

We also append to these comments a recent report by the Product Policy Institute 

comparing the development of EPR policies in the United States and Canada. Canada is instructive to look at. Canadians have progressed beyond debating whether 

EPR is a good idea, to figuring out how to implement it. Besides being our neighbor, 

Canada displays a diversity of EPR models being tested at the provincial level. 

Thank you for taking up the critical issue of electronic waste management. We 

hope these comments are useful in your deliberations.
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161

STATEMENT OF SCOTT CASSEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP

INSTITUTE, INC. 

COMMENTS RELATED TO NEPSI 

Since the first multi-stakeholder NEPSI discussions in April 2001, significant 

progress has been made. PSI believes that the results of this multi-stakeholder dialogue, involving numerous meetings and conference calls, should be acknowledged 

and built upon, as even more stakeholders have become interested since NEPSI. PSI 

would like to emphasize that NEPSI participants agreed on the following: 

1. Electronic wastes present an environmental problem.—None of the participants—including manufacturers and government officials—considered landfilling 

and incinerating these products as viable management solutions. Participants understood that we do not want to bury lead and other heavy metals for future generations to dig up, that the disposal of electronic equipment is akin to throwing jobs, 

resources, and economic value into the garbage can, and that environmental problems can result from improper management. In addition, much solid waste disposal 

is accomplished through incineration in waste-to-energy plants; the inclusion of electronic waste in the feedstock increases the emissions of toxics into our air. 

2. NEPSI’s goal should be to develop a national solution.—In the February 26, 

2004, NEPSI Compromise Resolution, which PSI helped negotiate, participants 

agreed to the following: ‘‘it is the desire of the NEPSI group to establish a national 

system to collect, transport and process consumer electronics in a manner that is 

protective of human health and the environment, and one that is economically sustainable and market driven.’’ State governments have been forced to develop their 

own legislation primarily because the electronics manufacturers have been split on 

the type of system needed to finance and manage electronic wastes. 

3. The cost of managing electronic wastes should be included in the purchase price 

of a new product.—At the start of the NEPSI dialogue, manufacturers argued that 

all taxpayers should cover the cost of managing electronic wastes, and that government programs, funded by taxes, should be increased to pay for waste management 

programs. This was a non-starter for government agency officials. Industry officials 

then proposed that consumers be charged ‘‘end-of-life’’ fees to be assessed when a 

consumer returned an item for recycling. Again, government agency officials considered this solution a non-starter, since fees discourage recycling and encourage illegal 

dumping. Finally, industry officials agreed to some type of ‘‘front-end financing system’’ that would include the cost to manage the product at its end-of-life in the purchase price of the product. It is on this single point—the type of front-end financing 

system—that manufacturers have been unable to agree. 

4. The Scope of Products to be covered by an agreement was agreed to as follows:

• TV/TV Monitors (cathode ray tubes [CRTs] and flat panels). 

• Stand-alone computer CRT and flat panel monitors greater than 9 inches. 

• Laptop/notebook computers. 

• Computer Processing Units (CPUs). 

• Small peripherals (mice, keyboards, cables, speakers) 

• Consumer desktop devices (printers and multifunction devices). 

5. The financing system should be a ‘‘hybrid’’—starting with an ‘‘advanced recycling fee’’ (ARF) and transitioning to a type of ‘‘cost internalization,’’ in which the 

end-of-life management costs are included in the product purchase price, but invisible to the consumer (e.g., not a specified and visible fee). While all government 

NEPSI participants supported this system as a compromise to their preferred system, there were several other stakeholders who dissented. Government officials believe there is great merit in a system that internalizes all the system costs. However, recognizing that such a proposal was a non-starter for industry in NEPSI, 

agencies agreed to start with an ARF to pump quick funds into the development 

of badly needed infrastructure, then transition to an internalized financing system 

based on set criteria. 

6. The Hybrid system should allow for an equivalent alternative system. The 

NEPSI resolution allows for a flexible alternative system that would permit individual manufacturer responsibility if a company could provide a level of service that 

is equivalent to the ‘‘base level of service’’ that the NEPSI group believed was needed for an effective collection and processing infrastructure. 

7. Standards are needed for electronics recyclers.—The NEPSI group supported the 

creation of recycling standards to ensure the ‘‘environmentally sound management’’ 

of electronic wastes. 

In addition to the above agreements among the multi-stakeholder NEPSI group, 

PSI was able to develop a consensus among the state and local government participants as to their legislative preferences on several other issues. 
162

• Use a non-profit entity to manage system finances.—Government officials supported the development of an industry-led non-profit that would collect and disburse 

funds to pay for the collection, reuse, and recycling of electronic equipment. This organization could also contract for collection and recycling services, submit reports 

on system performance, and perform other administrative functions. These non-profit entities already operate in Canada and Europe to enhance the efficiency of product management systems. In addition, government agencies researched legal precedents that allowed private entities to manage funds created by a government program. • Develop performance measures for collection and recycling.— Agencies believe 

that the group’s focus should be on system performance, and that the logistics 

should be the role of the private sector, which has greater incentive to reduce costs. 

Government agencies believe that its role should be to establish performance goals, 

with multi-stakeholder input. • Disposal bans should be preceded by a recycling infrastructure.— While disposal bans will help to create a market for recycling, they will create consumer frustration and enforcement concerns if there is no alternative to disposal. Disposal 

bans, however, work well when a recycling infrastructure is in place. 

COMMENTS RELATED TO S. 510

With regard to S. 510, PSI welcomes the opportunity that the introduction of this 

bill gives to consider interim measures to improve the national system for recycling 

used electronics. Provisions within the bill that PSI considers valuable include:

1. Federal government agencies should ensure that federally procured electronics equipment is recycled. PSI suggests that government agencies develop 

purchasing specifications that include the cost of recycling unwanted electronics 

equipment in the purchase price of new equipment. 

2. Requiring electronics recyclers to be certified according to standards that will 

promote environmental protection. 

3. Preceding a disposal ban by an adequate recycling infrastructure. 

4. Determining how national legislation can be consistent with the intent of current state electronics recycling laws.

Provisions that PSI believes require additional consideration include the following: 

1. Although the proposed study will have significant value, the study of endof-life fees should acknowledge the experience gained in the last 5 years of electronics collections, much of which was financed by such fees. End-of-life fees 

may play a minor role in a comprehensive collection and processing infrastructure, but as a general policy, they discourage recycling and encourage illegal 

dumping. While some consumers will be more than happy to pay such a fee, 

this is not a strategy to reach the levels of recycling needed to make a true environmental difference. 

2. Some PSI members believe that tax credits could be an interim measure, or 

a supplement to a comprehensive system, and that they could only help an ailing electronics recycling infrastructure. However, many of our members are concerned that all taxpayers would finance tax credits for electronics waste management, and not just those who use the product. These members believe that 

it is not fair for all taxpayers to pay an equal share of the costs when some 

taxpayers use, and benefit from, more or higher quality electronic equipment 

than others. Tax credits will not provide an incentive for manufacturers to 

change their product design or find ways to reduce the end-of-life management 

cost of their products. In addition, these tax credits will not go to local governments, which are most burdened financially by waste management, but to recyclers. 

State and local government agencies in NEPSI preferred that all potential collectors of electronic equipment be eligible to receive a set ‘‘incentive payment’’ 

based on the unit or weight of material collected. Such a payment would directly cover their costs, and would provide an incentive for retailers, charities, 

and other entities to contribute to the collection infrastructure so that the burden did not fall completely on local government. Further, this approach would 

be more convenient to consumers, who would have multiple points at which 

they could drop off equipment. We would not expect many consumers to save 

their receipts for a $15 tax credit. 

3. PSI would like to consider the best ways to encourage reuse in the context 

of the legislation. 

Let me again express PSI’s appreciation to the Committee for spending the time 

necessary to understand this complex environmental issue, and to take action to-
163

ward resolving electronics waste management issues. I would urge the Committee 

to take advantage of the discussions that have already taken place and use them 

as a springboard for new ideas so that we can truly find a workable national solution that is amenable to all key stakeholders. Now that there are three state laws 

pertaining to electronics waste management, we need to work together to find a national law that will integrate these systems into a strong national electronics management system. 

MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 

July 28, 2005. 

Hon. JOHN THUNE, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management, 

Senate Environment and Public Works, 

Washington, DC.

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, Ranking Member, 

Senate Environment and Public Works, 

Washington, DC.

Re: Testimony for hearing on electronic waste issues

Dear SENATORS: Thank you for recognizing that the disposal of electronic waste 

represents an unconscionable waste of resources and creates an unnecessary risk to 

human health and the environment. Our challenge is to create public policy that 

achieves appropriate recycling of electronic waste in an efficient and cost effective 

way. 

The State of Maine was the second state to adopt an electronic waste law. Maine’s 

program is a first-in-the-nation system in which responsibility for a comprehensive 

recycling program is shared by consumers, the public sector; and the private sector. 

It shifts away from the presumption that government alone is responsible for endof-life management of solid wastes from households by assigning manufacturers direct responsibility for ensuring electronic waste is appropriately recycled. 

Our experience in working with stakeholders to design and implement Maine’s 

system has been very positive. Manufacturers and recyclers understand that the 

more responsibility and authority they are given to manage the recycling of their 

products, the more opportunity they have to develop innovations in product design, 

collection and recycling systems that can lead to financial gains. 

The Maine program is a system that is fair and flexible while adhering to high 

environmental standards. It clearly defines roles, establishes accountability and provides incentives for private sector innovation and for ‘‘Smart Production’’, i.e., environmentally sustainable production without the need for a new, extensive public 

sector bureaucracy to manage the system. 

If you choose to establish a national program, it should not be more costly to the 

consumer than any of the existing state programs. A national program that assigns 

end-of-life product responsibility to the manufacturers will reward ‘‘green design’’ 

and environmentally-sustainable production processes. Such producer responsibility 

leaves the private sector with the ability to apply its strengths in innovation and 

efficient systems management to recapturing the resources that are currently wasted every time an electronic product is thrown away instead of recycled, and it can 

do this without creating a new layer of bureaucracy. 

One positive step that the federal government can take to support current State 

e-waste programs and to lay a strong foundation for any future national program 

is to adopt an import ban on products from overseas manufacturers that are noncompliant with electronic waste laws in the United States. This would level the 

playing field for U.S. manufacturers, against whom states can readily take enforcement action, while provide significant incentive to comply to foreign manufacturers 

with no physical presence in the United States. 

Once again, thank you for understanding that our current e-waste management 

problem presents us with a great opportunity to effectively recoup wasted resources 

and prevent environmental degradation through application of ‘‘Smart Production’’ 

principles and appropriate end-of-life management. 

Sincerely, 

DAWN R. GALLAGHER, 

Commissioner.
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206

Æ