f

 

 

 

   

       

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Improved Information 

Could Better Enable EPA to 

Manage Electronic Waste 

and Enforce Regulations
 

Report No. 13-P-0298 June 21, 2013 

Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Contributors: Carolyn Copper 

 Jerri Dorsey

 Heather Drayton 

 Jeffrey Harris 

 Jee W. Kim 

 Denton Stafford 

Abbreviations 

CRT Cathode ray tube 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPEAT Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool 

E-waste Electronic waste 

FEC Federal Electronics Challenge 

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office 

GSA U.S. General Services Administration 

ICR Information Collection Request 

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPPT Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

ORCR Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

ORD Office of Research and Development 

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

R2 Responsible Recycling Practices 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

SMM Sustainable Materials Management 

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

Cover photo: Discarded devices such as (from left) cellular phones, computers, and circuit 

boards found in electronics are commonly referred to as E-waste. (EPA photos) 

Hotline 

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods: 

email: OIG_Hotline@epa.gov write: EPA Inspector General Hotline 

phone: 

fax: 

1-888-546-8740 

202-566-2599 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mail code 2431T 

online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm Washington, DC 20460 
 

 

 

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 13-P-0298 

June 21, 2013 Office of Inspector General 

At a Glance
 

Why We Did This Review 

The purpose of this review was 

to determine whether the 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) has information 

of sufficient quality to assess 

the adequacy of its electronic 

waste (E-waste) management 

and the effectiveness of its 

enforcement policies, to assure 

that public health is protected. 

E-waste is the fastest growing 

domestic waste stream. 

It includes devices such as 

computers, televisions, and cell 

phones. E-waste contains toxic 

materials that pose hazards to 

human health and the 

environment if not properly 

disposed or recycled. 

E-waste also contains valuable 

materials. EPA encourages 

reuse and recycling of 

electronics over land-filling and 

incineration. To that end, EPA 

manages E-waste via federal 

regulations, voluntary 

partnership programs, and 

support of third-party recycler 

certification programs. 

This report addresses the 

following EPA’s Goals or 

Cross-Cutting Strategies 

 Cleaning up communities 

and advancing sustainable 

development. 

 Enforcing environmental 

laws. 

For further information, contact 

our Office of Congressional and 

Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391. 

The full report is at: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2013/ 

20130621-13-P-0298.pdf 

Improved Information Could Better Enable EPA to 

Manage Electronic Waste and Enforce Regulations 

What We Found 

EPA does not have adequate information to ensure effective E-waste 

management and enforcement to protect public health and conserve valuable 

resources. For example, EPA manages E-waste without a consistent approach 

for defining E-waste. This hampers EPA’s ability to effectively collect relevant 

information and set goals. Further, EPA lacks complete information on E-waste 

disposition, which hinders the effective use of its resources. 

EPA enforcement is hampered by the lack of complete information on cathode 

ray tube (CRT) exporters in the United States. This incomplete information 

hinders EPA’s ability to set enforcement targets for the CRT Rule. EPA also does 

not have a practical process to determine the hazardous nature of non-CRT 

waste. Potentially toxic E-waste could be disposed in municipal landfills or 

incinerated without potential hazards being identified as required. Further, EPA 

advocates certified E-waste recyclers but has limited knowledge of the extent of 

compliance by certified recyclers with federal environmental regulations. 

In addition, EPA staff stated that E-waste management and enforcement are 

hampered by federal information collection restrictions and a lack of resources. 

 Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions 

We recommend that EPA: (1) develop a consistent approach for defining E-waste 

and identifying information to manage the E-waste universe; (2) develop a 

practical process to address hazards of non-CRT E-waste that ensures that this 

waste is managed in an environmentally sustainable manner; (3) evaluate 

implementation of the certification programs for used electronics; (4) evaluate 

resource needs for E-waste management; (5) evaluate methods for gathering the 

information needed to set CRT Rule enforcement targets such as the use of 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Section 3007 information request 

letters to identify CRT exporters. 

EPA concurred with all recommendations, but we consider these 

recommendations unresolved pending receipt of planned corrective actions and 

completion dates.

 Noteworthy Achievements 

EPA helped create the Responsible Recycling Practices certification body and 

created voluntary E-waste programs. EPA amended the CRT Rule to better track 

E-waste, and inspected facilities identified by the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office as “willing to violate” the CRT Rule. EPA also participated in the task force 

that released the National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship in July 2011. 
 

 

 

 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

June 21, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT:	 Improved Information Could Better Enable EPA to 

Manage Electronic Waste and Enforce Regulations 

Report No. 13-P-0298 

FROM:	 Arthur A. Elkins Jr. 

TO:	 Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

This is a report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems 

the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of 

the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. This report contains five 

recommendations that the EPA agreed to. These recommendations are considered unresolved pending 

our receipt of EPA’s corrective action plan and estimated completion dates. 

Action Required 

For all recommendations, you are required to provide corrective actions and planned completion dates 

within 60 days of report issuance. We have no objections to the further release of this report to the 

public. We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Assistant Inspector General 

for Program Evaluation Carolyn Copper at (202) 566-0829 or copper.carolyn@epa.gov; or Acting 

Director for Toxics, Chemical Management, and Pollution Prevention Jerri Dorsey at (919) 541-3601 or 

dorsey.jerri@epa.gov. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Improved Information Could Better Enable EPA to 13-P-0298 

Manage Electronic Waste and Enforce Regulations 

Table of Contents 

Chapters 

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1

 Purpose ....................................................................................................... 1 

Background ................................................................................................. 1 

 Prior Reports ............................................................................................... 6 

 Noteworthy Achievements ........................................................................... 6 

 Scope and Methodology .............................................................................. 7 

2 Improved Information Could Better Enable EPA to 

Manage E-Waste and Enforce E-Waste Regulations ...................................... 9
 

EPA Needs a Consistent Approach to Defining E-Waste to Collect

 Relevant Information and Set Management Goals ............................ 9 

EPA Needs Complete Information on National E-Waste Disposition 

 to Better Direct Its Limited Resources ............................................... 11 

EPA Needs Information on Domestic CRT Exporter Universe to 

 Target CRT Rule Enforcement Inspections ....................................... 13 

EPA Needs a Practical Process to Characterize the Hazards of 

 Non-CRT Electronics to Ensure Proper Disposal of 

 Hazardous E-Waste ......................................................................... 14 

EPA Needs Information on Compliance of Recycling Industry to 

 Support Its Advocacy of Certified Recyclers .................................... 15 

Conclusions................................................................................................. 17 

Recommendations ...................................................................................... 18 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation ...................................................... 18 

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits.............................. 20 

Appendices 

A Agency Response and OIG Comments............................................................ 21 

B Distribution ......................................................................................................... 33 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 1

Introduction 

Purpose 

This report addresses the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 

efforts to promote proper management of end-of-life electronic waste (E-waste). 

We sought to determine whether EPA has information of sufficient quality to 

assess both the adequacy of its management of E-waste and the effectiveness of 

its enforcement policies to assure that public health is protected. 

Background 

Disposal of End of Life Electronic Devices Presents Concerns 

The use of electronic products has grown substantially over the past two decades. 

According to the Congressional Research Service, E-waste refers to obsolete, 

broken, or irreparable electronic devices. E-waste is the fastest growing category 

of solid waste in the United States. EPA estimates that the United States generated 

2.37 million tons of E-waste in 2009. Of that amount, 75 percent was disposed in 

landfills or incinerated. Table 1 illustrates the disposal and recycling figures for 

three key electronic devices in 2009. 

Table 1: Management of used and end-of-life electronics in 2009 (millions of units) 

Ready for end-of-life 

management Disposed 

Collected for 

recycling 

Rate of collection 

for recycling 

Computers 47.4 29.4 18 38% 

TVs 27.2 22.7 4.6 17% 

Mobile Devices 141 129 11.7 8% 

Source: EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). 

Electronic devices are constantly evolving in design and contain varying amounts 

of plastics, glass, and toxic materials.1

 Electronics also contain precious metals 

such as gold and rare earth metals.2 An opportunity for valuable resource 

conservation is lost when these devices are disposed of in landfills or incinerated. 

Further, EPA has serious concerns about unsafe handling of E-waste in 

developing countries that result in harm to human health and the environment. For 

1

 Electronic devices may contain the following potentially toxic metals: antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium,
 

cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium.

2 Rare earth metals and their compounds comprise 17 periodic elements. Due to their unique physical and chemical 

properties they are becoming widely used in electronics. Examples include europium (used in liquid crystal displays
 

and fluorescent lighting), yttrium (used in color television and computer monitors), and terbium (phosphors for
 

lighting and display). 

13-P-0298 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

example, open-air burning and acid baths are being used to recover valuable 

materials from electronic components. This exposes workers and communities to 

harmful substances. There are also problems with toxic materials leaching into the 

environment. These practices can expose workers and communities to high levels 

of contaminants such as lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic. Such exposures can 

lead to irreversible health effects, including cancers, miscarriages, neurological 

damage and diminished intelligence. 

According to an EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) report,3 

domestically, “a concern exists that e-waste may leach toxic chemicals into the 

leachate of lined landfills or contaminate groundwater near unlined landfills.” 

A Congressional Research Service Report4

 noted that concerns about E-waste 

landfill disposal have led federal and state governments to encourage recycling. 

While there is no federal law requiring the recycling of E-waste, 25 states have 

passed legislation mandating statewide E-waste recycling.5

 Eighteen of those 

states have determined which type of electronics to ban from state landfills or 

incinerators and have completely banned disposal of these electronics in landfills 

or incinerators. 

In 2010, the President established the Interagency Task Force on Electronics 

Stewardship to enhance the sustainable management of electronics throughout the 

product lifecycle. The task force released the National Strategy for Electronics 

Stewardship (National Strategy) in July 2011 with multiple action items under 

four main goals. National Strategy is a priority-setting document for the federal 

government and EPA made commitments as part of the strategy. These 

commitments are governing the EPA activities and resources available for used 

electronics. The strategy goals aim to protect human health and the environment 

from the potentially harmful effects associated with the improper handling and 

disposal of electronic devices. 

EPA’s Management of E-Waste 

The basis for EPA’s E-waste management is the Agency’s solid waste management 

hierarchy (see figure 1). This hierarchy ranks the most environmentally sound 

methods for municipal solid waste. Source reduction (including reuse) is the most 

preferred method, followed by recycling, energy recovery, and treatment and 

disposal. EPA’s main objective in its management of E-waste, based on the 

hierarchy, is to encourage the use of more environmentally sound methods for 

dealing with discarded electronics. 

3 EPA ORD Report, USEPA Region/ORD Workshop on Emerging Pollutants, p. 26 (2003). 

4

 Congressional Research Service Report, Managing Electronic Waste: Issues with Exporting E-Waste, p. 4 (2010).
 5

 Twenty-five states have passed various forms of producer responsibility or take-back legislation; however, in most 

instances, the laws require that the producer (or importer) of the electronic product offer or finance take-back 

opportunities to their customers in the regulated states. 

13-P-0298 2 
 

 

 

Figure 1: EPA solid waste management hierarchy 

Source: EPA OSWER. 

In support of this hierarchy, EPA enforces regulations, and encourages 

participation in E-waste voluntary programs and the use of third-party certified 

recycling companies. We detail each of these in the following sections. 

EPA’s Regulation of E-Waste 

EPA regulates the management and disposal of E-waste through Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authority.6 As part of the RCRA 

regulatory program, EPA also issued a specific rule to manage cathode ray tubes 

(CRTs) after testing confirmed they contained lead above regulatory limits. 

7 

RCRA 

A RCRA goal is to ensure that hazardous wastes are managed in a manner that is 

protective of human health and the environment.8 As part of this goal, hazardous 

waste cannot be disposed in municipal solid waste landfills and other nonhazardous waste landfills. If waste is listed as hazardous waste or has hazardous 

characteristics9

 and is not otherwise exempt or excluded from RCRA, the waste is 

considered RCRA hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes must be treated and 

disposed in EPA-approved hazardous waste landfills that have more regulatory 

controls than municipal solid waste landfills. Wastes that are hazardous solely 

because they have a hazardous characteristic may be considered non-hazardous 

and disposed in a municipal landfill after they have been treated to decharacterize 

them and meet other waste treatment requirements. 

6 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq. 

7 71 Fed. Reg. 42927- 949, (July 28, 2006) (codified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 261.39 – 261.41). RCRA Toxicity 

Characterization of Computer CPUs and Other Discarded Electronic Devices (2004), available at 

www.ees.ufl.edu/homepp/townsend/Research/ElectronicLeaching/default.asp. 8 42 U.S.C. § 6902(a)(4).
 9

 There are four hazardous waste characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity. 

13-P-0298 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

E-waste is regulated as a RCRA hazardous waste when a non-household waste 

generator disposes of used electronics that exhibit a hazardous characteristic at a 

quantity more than 220 pounds per month.10 E-waste can be hazardous or nonhazardous, leading to different EPA management approaches. E-waste is 

considered hazardous by RCRA when a waste generator has knowledge that 

discarded waste is hazardous or the waste tests hazardous for a characteristic.11 

Under the federal regulations, electronic devices can be disposed in municipal 

landfills if they are considered non-hazardous or the devices are otherwise exempt 

or excluded from RCRA. 

CRT Rule 

Used CRTs are the only electronic devices specifically regulated as hazardous 

waste.12 CRTs are the video display component of computers and television 

monitors.13 Many CRTs from color monitors exceed EPA’s Toxicity 

Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) regulatory limit for lead content.14 

Therefore, RCRA controls CRT end-of-life management, including export.15 

EPA’s CRT Rule went into effect in 2007. The rule’s purpose is to encourage the 

recycling of used CRTs and CRT glass by conditionally excluding recycled CRTs 

from full RCRA hazardous waste management requirements.16 The rule created 

alternative management requirements for CRT tubes and glass being recycled, 

and applies to CRT exporters and recyclers in the United States.17 The rule 

requires CRT exporters and recyclers in the United States to comply with existing 

hazardous waste notice and consent requirements and additional hazardous waste 

management regulations for CRT tubes and glass.18 Domestic CRT recyclers must 

follow packaging, labeling, and storage requirements.19 

10 Household and conditionally exempt small quantity generators (generators < 220 lbs per month) are generating
 

hazardous waste if their waste expresses a hazardous characteristic (such as exceeding a toxicity characteristic 

regulatory value); however, they have been excluded from having to manage those materials in a hazardous waste 

landfill. See 40 C.F.R part 261 Subpart C; 40 C.F.R § 261.4(b)(1); 40 C.F.R §261.5(a); and 40 C.F.R §262.11. 11 It is the generators’ duty to determine whether they have a hazardous waste. 

12 There is a body of evidence to show that the CRT exceeds the toxicity characteristic regulatory limit for lead. 

However, if the CRTs are recycled under the required conditions they are excluded from the definition of solid 

and, therefore, hazardous waste. 

13 71 Fed. Reg. 42928 (July 28, 2006). 14 CRTs also contain cadmium and mercury. 71 Fed. Reg. 42930 (July 28, 2006). 15 71 Fed. Reg. 42949 (July 28, 2006). 16 71 Fed. Reg. 42928 (July 28, 2006). 

17 Id. 18 40 C.F.R. § 261.39 – 261.41. 

19 40 C.F.R. § 261.39. Also, on March 15, 2012, EPA proposed a rule change to better track exports of CRTs for 

reuse and recycling. 77 Fed. Reg. 15336- 343 (March 15, 2012). 

13-P-0298 4 
 

 

 

EPA’s Voluntary Programs 

EPA established a number of voluntary programs and initiatives to address the 

solid waste management hierarchy for E-waste.20 These efforts encourage federal 

agencies to purchase greener electronics and manage used electronics in an 

environmentally safe manner. Specifically, voluntary programs include the Federal 

Electronics Challenge (FEC) and the Federal Green Challenge under the Agency’s 

Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) Electronics Challenge. EPA also 

provides technical support for the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment 

Tool (EPEAT). EPEAT was developed using an EPA grant and is managed by a 

third party called the Green Electronics Council. The EPEAT program aims to 

reduce the amount of E-waste that needs to be reused, recycled, or managed while 

reducing the amount of toxic material found in electronics waste. EPEAT aids 

purchasers in buying the greenest equipment by informing purchasers of the 

electronic products’ environmental criteria.21 

Third Party Certifications 

EPA encourages recyclers to be certified by one of two electronics recycling 

certifications. The two available certification programs are Responsible Recycling 

Practices (R2) and e-Stewards. EPA relies on third parties to ensure that domestic 

recyclers adhere to certification standards. The certifications share common 

elements that promote responsible used electronic recycling. Both programs set 

best management practices for safe electronic device recycling. EPA convened a 

3-year multi-stakeholder process to develop the R2 standard. The Basel Action 

Network, a non-profit organization, created the e-Stewards certification. 

Roles of EPA Offices in Managing the Hierarchy 

Multiple EPA offices are responsible for managing E-waste under the solid waste 

management hierarchy: 

	 Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR), within OSWER, 

develops E-waste policy. ORCR also manages the Federal Green 

Challenge component of the SMM Electronics Challenge. 

	 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) enforces 

compliance with the CRT Rule. OECA also provides assistance, 

monitoring, and enforcing compliance with RCRA hazardous waste 

regulations by inspecting regulated facilities. 

	 Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), within the Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, manages the national voluntary 

programs (e.g., FEC and technical support for EPEAT) with a focus on 

pollution prevention and federal environmental stewardship practices. 

20 EPA’s E-waste voluntary programs were developed prior to the development of the National Strategy. 

21 The current National Strategy seeks to encourage consumer purchasing of EPEAT products and development of 

new EPEAT standards for non-EPEAT products. 

13-P-0298 5 
 

 

 

                     

         

               

                             

 ORD works with EPA’s program and regional offices to develop research 

plans for E-waste studies. 

 EPA regional offices support and implement the E-waste strategies of the 

above headquarters offices. 

Prior Reports 

A prior EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) report evaluated EPA’s various 

E-waste projects and their outcomes. Report No. 2004-P-00028, Multiple Actions 

Taken to Address Electronic Waste, But EPA Needs to Provide Clear National 

Direction, was issued September 1, 2004. This report noted that EPA 

implemented or participated in many projects that enhanced the general awareness 

of E-waste issues. However, EPA lacked a clear set of program goals and 

measures of effect. We concluded that due to incomplete actions related to 

E-waste, EPA could not ensure that it was effectively addressing the human 

health and environmental risks associated with E-waste. Additionally, EPA had 

not adequately defined the information required to characterize the E-waste 

problem or track progress. 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) also evaluated EPA’s 

management of E-waste in several reports. These reports covered various EPA 

E-waste issues, including EPA’s voluntary programs, CRT Rule enforcement, and 

the FEC.22 

Noteworthy Achievements 

Since the 2004 OIG report, EPA provided funding to and facilitated R2 

development with electronics stakeholders. EPA launched EPEAT and FEC. EPA 

issued the final CRT Rule in 2006. In March 2012, EPA proposed a CRT Rule 

amendment to enhance the ability of tracking CRT exports. 

Following publication of a GAO 2008 report, EPA Needs to Better Control 

Harmful U.S. Exports through Stronger Enforcement and More Comprehensive 

Regulation, EPA obtained the names of the 43 companies that GAO identified in 

its report as “willing to violate the hazardous waste regulations.” OECA worked 

with the regions to investigate all 43 listed companies and took formal or informal 

enforcement actions as needed. 

In 2010, EPA Regions 8, 9, and 10, with OECA coordination, participated in a 

cargo inspection exercise with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s 

22 GAO report, Electronic Waste: Strengthening the Role of the Federal Government in Encouraging Recycling 

and Reuse 14 (2005); GAO report, Electronic Waste: EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S. Exports through

Stronger Enforcement and More Comprehensive Regulation (2008); GAO report, Electronic Waste:

Considerations for Promoting Environmentally Sound Reuse and Recycling (2010); and GAO report, Actions

Needed to Provide Assurance That Used Federal Electronics Are Disposed of in an Environmentally Responsible

Manner (2012).

13-P-0298 6 
 

 

Customs and Border Protection. The exercise involved inspecting electronic cargo 

at the seaports in EPA regions. This was part of the International Network for 

Environmental Compliance and Enforcement’s Seaport Environmental Security 

Network’s international hazardous waste inspection efforts. This exercise resulted 

in finding CRT Rule violations in Region 9. In 2012, as part of the Seaport 

Network’s second inspection project, EPA and Customs and Border Protection 

conducted targeted, joint inspections of electronic cargo at a Region 9 seaport, 

also with OECA coordination. Two additional Customs and Border Protection 

violations involving CRT exports were identified for enforcement action. The 

international network and its partners, including EPA, have plans to undertake 

additional cargo inspections at different domestic seaports. 

EPA, with the Council on Environmental Quality and the U.S. General Services 

Administration (GSA), co-chaired and actively participated in the national task 

force that released the National Strategy in July 2011. The strategy goals aim to 

protect human health and the environment from the potentially harmful effects 

associated with the improper handling and disposal of electronic devices. 

In 2012, EPA evolved the Plug-In to e-Cycling program to the SMM Electronics 

Challenge. The objectives of this challenge are to challenge manufacturers and 

retailers to voluntarily commit to sending 100 percent of used electronics 

collected for reuse and recycling to third party certified recyclers, increase the 

total amount of used electronics collected for reuse and recycling, and be 

transparent about their efforts by publically posting collection information and 

data. 

Scope and Methodology 

We performed our evaluation from May 2011 to October 2012 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that 

we plan and perform the evaluation to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence. 

Further, this evidence must provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions. The evidence obtained during this evaluation provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our objectives. 

The scope of this evaluation included EPA’s E-waste voluntary programs and 

OECA’s RCRA enforcement efforts. Additionally, ORD’s role with E-waste 

research was analyzed to understand its function in contributing to needed science 

information. 

To address our objective, we reviewed and analyzed relevant federal regulations, 

guidance, appropriations information, public comments, and presentations. Our 

evaluation of the National Strategy and its action items is limited to their potential 

role in addressing the findings detailed in this report on EPA’s management of 

E-waste. We reviewed state electronic waste and producer responsibility 

regulations. We also conducted a literature review of applicable congressional 

13-P-0298 7 
 

 

 

testimonies, proposed legislative changes, and research articles. We reviewed 

prior E-waste evaluation reports from GAO and EPA OIG. We also examined 

international policies that regulate E-waste. 

During this evaluation, we interviewed program directors and staff from EPA’s 

OECA, OPPT, ORCR, ORD, Office of Air and Radiation,23 and Office of 

International and Tribal Affairs. We interviewed program directors and staff in 

EPA Regions 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10.24 We interviewed program directors and staff 

from the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency. We also met with representatives from 

UNICOR,25 the Information Technology Industry Council, and the Institute of 

Scrap Recycling Industries to gain their insights on EPA’s E-waste management. 

We reviewed and analyzed documents provided to us at these meetings and 

documents received from OIG information requests. We also reviewed certified 

recycling facilities’ inspection information in the Agency’s Enforcement and 

Compliance Online database. 

23 ORCR and the Office of Air and Radiation are responsible for E-waste incineration/combustion issues. ORCR is 

in charge of hazardous waste incineration; Office of Air and Radiation is in charge of municipal solid waste 

incineration.
 24 EPA regional offices were selected based on ORCR/OECA recommendations. 25 “UNICOR” is the trade name for Federal Prison Industries, Inc. 

13-P-0298 8 
 

 

 

Chapter 2

Improved Information Could Better Enable EPA to 

Manage E-Waste and Enforce E-Waste Regulations 

Improved information could better enable EPA to manage E-waste and enforce 

E-waste regulations. EPA does not have a uniform definition of E-waste and 

adequate information on E-waste disposition. EPA’s lack of a uniform and 

consistent approach to defining E-waste hampers the Agency’s ability to 

effectively collect relevant disposal information and set management goals for 

E-waste recycling and reuse. With more accurate and comprehensive information, 

EPA could better direct its limited resources to the greatest needs of E-waste end 

of life management. Additionally, EPA lacks complete information on CRT 

exporters in the United States to help set enforcement targets for the CRT Rule. 

EPA also does not have a practical process to characterize the hazardous nature of 

non-CRT waste. Potentially toxic E-waste is disposed in municipal landfills or 

incinerated without having the hazards identified as required by RCRA. EPA also 

advocates that E-waste be processed by certified E-waste recyclers but has limited 

knowledge of the extent of compliance by certified recyclers with federal 

environmental regulations. 

EPA Needs a Consistent Approach to Defining E-Waste to Collect 

Relevant Information and Set Management Goals 

EPA does not have a uniform definition of E-waste or a comprehensive list of 

electronics that are categorized as E-waste. Further, the National Strategy does 

not seek to address the lack of a clear and consistent definition. EPA states that 

defining E-waste is difficult and not practical. The OIG concludes that a 

consistent approach to defining E-waste, such as a baseline definition or a list of 

devices, is necessary to properly characterize the size and composition of the 

E-waste universe. A consistent approach to defining E-waste would also serve to 

identify the information needed to effectively manage the risks from E-waste. 

For example, for each activity defining E-waste, EPA could include consistent 

categories such as types of devices, scarce resources contained, or potential for 

toxicity. However, EPA defines and lists E-waste differently in each of its 

programs and initiatives, including the National Strategy. The variance in 

definitions hampers EPA’s overall ability to effectively collect relevant 

information and set goals to manage the program. Without a clear and consistent 

management universe, EPA is unable to direct its limited resources toward 

developing goals and program activities to address program needs. The Agency’s 

2009 roadmap report for future materials management, Sustainable Materials 

Management: The Road Ahead, discussed the critical need to establish the 

universe when creating a materials management strategy analytical framework. 

EPA has not established the universe for its E-waste management strategy. 

13-P-0298 9 
 

 

 

According to ORCR staff, electronics technology and composition are constantly 

evolving. These changes make defining E-waste difficult and not practical. Staff 

stated that the Agency develops official legal definitions when specific terms are 

included in regulations, such as hazardous waste listings. Since there is no current 

or proposed federal hazardous waste listing for E-waste,26 EPA has not seen the 

need to define E-waste broadly. 

ORCR staff expressed concern that a set definition is not flexible enough to adapt 

to technological changes. The staff said that new electronics emerge on the 

market and contain components not previously included in an official definition. 

Under RCRA, hazards from used electronics can be identified as they occur. On 

the other hand a hazardous waste listing is a static snapshot in time and would 

need to be frequently updated to incorporate any new hazardous waste electronics 

that are generated. ORCR staff explained that each program or initiative defines 

E-waste uniquely to deal with technology changes and shifts in consumer 

demand. This approach has resulted in numerous Agency E-waste definitions that 

vary greatly in scope. For example, the National Strategy contains the following 

broad statement: 

For the purposes of this document, however, the Task Force 

considers ‘e-waste’ as subset of ‘used electronics.’ Used electronics 

can be reused, refurbished, and recycled, and can be a source of 

valuable parts and/or raw materials (e.g., gold, copper, glass), which 

can be returned to the supply chain to reduce overall waste. 

In contrast, OPPT defines electronics more specifically for the purposes of the 

FEC. OPPT targets common office electronics, such as desktop and laptop 

computers for the FEC. At an EPA headquarters “E-cycling” event in April 2012, 

39 separate electronic products were listed as “acceptable materials” for 

E-cycling. This product list had not been incorporated into an official or 

commonly utilized Agency definition. 

The electronics recycler certifications have two different definitions of what 

constitutes E-waste. Both programs used approaches to defining E-waste that 

allow for flexibility with the evolving nature of electronics. R2 lists specific 

equipment and uses a future provision to deal with the issue of evolving 

technology. R2 includes “any other or new (future) types of equipment that are 

designed primarily to store or convey information electronically, and any new 

accessories to such equipment.” A future provision is one option for EPA to 

address their concern of technological advancement. The other certification body, 

e-Stewards, addresses the challenge of evolving technology by focusing on the 

constituents contained in products. e-Stewards also makes a distinction between 

hazardous and non-hazardous E-waste. 

26 The CRT Rule is the only federal E-waste-specific regulation. The rule applies to CRTs only and not to other 

electronic products; while CRT is defined in the rule, E-waste is not. 

13-P-0298 10 
 

 

EPA Needs Complete Information on National E-Waste Disposition to 

Better Direct Its Limited Resources 

The 2004 OIG report on E-waste concluded that EPA lacked complete national 

information. According to this report, the E-waste information collected was not 

adequate to support management decisions. In response to the 2004 OIG report 

recommendation regarding the volume of E-waste disposed in municipal solid 

waste landfills, EPA issued end-of-life information in a report titled Electronics 

Waste Management in the United States Through 2009. However, 8 years later, 

the finding remains the same despite EPA’s efforts to address the OIG 

recommendation. EPA lacks accurate and comprehensive information on the 

volume of E-waste disposed, including information on municipal solid waste 

landfills and also on the volume of E-waste recycled, in order to gather electronic 

disposal data. Without such information, EPA cannot track the progress of its 

efforts to support its waste management hierarchy goal of promoting E-waste 

recycling and reuse over disposal. EPA is therefore unable to identify areas of 

greatest need to direct its limited resources. The National Strategy does not fully 

address this information limitation. 

EPA acknowledged in the 2009 report that “there is a need for improved and 

consistent reporting of electronic products collection and recycling . . . to develop 

a clearer picture” of the United States’ used electronics end-of-life management. 

Additional stakeholder collaboration, research, and information gathering is 

necessary to address the existing information gap of representative and 

comprehensive information concerning national figures for residential and 

commercial use patterns, life span of electronic devices, and recycling collection 

quantities. Further, the National Strategy echoes the 2009 EPA report by stating 

that information on electronic device end-of-life disposition—such as disposal, 

reuse, and recycling volume—would be useful “to determine the most effective 

approaches to collection, recycling and reuse” but “there is little information 

available.” 

EPA’s 2009 report made the caveat that the lack of concrete information for the use 

and management of end-of-life electronics limited the report findings. In particular, 

EPA extrapolated the only available information, consisting of eight states and 

representing 29 percent of the United States population, to estimate the total 

quantity of electronic devices collected for recycling from residential sources 

nationally in 2009. EPA also relied on surveys of recyclers to determine the amount 

of electronic products collected from commercial sources. In the 2009 EPA report, 

the Agency determined the national figure based on survey responses of only seven 

recyclers.27 A Region 4 staff member asserted that the information in the report 

may be accurate but is limited information and not comprehensive. 

27 EPA does not know the universe of non-certified recyclers. As of May 7, 2012, R2 had 202 certified facilities and 

e-Stewards had 31 certified facilities. 

13-P-0298 11 
 

 

 

 

While implementation of the National Strategy is EPA’s current E-waste priority, 

it does not fully address the limitations that impede EPA’s effectiveness in 

gathering domestic E-waste information. According to EPA staff, the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

requirements and lack of resources hinder the Agency’s information gathering 

activities. The PRA28 requires agencies to justify any collection of information 

from the public. Agencies must describe the information to be collected, provide a 

reason for why the information is needed, and estimate the time and cost for the 

public to answer the request. Agencies are required to obtain OMB approval for 

each information collection request (ICR) used. 

EPA staff from both the voluntary and enforcement programs indicated that the 

PRA was a challenge to their E-waste information collection efforts. The current 

ICR in place allows EPA to collect E-waste information only from its program 

partners. All other information collection efforts would be subject to PRA’s 

“collection of information” requirement. This requires OMB to pre-approve 

Agency information requests from 10 or more non-federal entities. EPA is thus 

limited to surveying nine non-federal entities. If EPA plans to gather information 

from 10 or more non-federal entities, the Agency will first need to apply for an 

ICR. According to ORCR staff, programs determine whether to seek an ICR 

based on need and whether they have a strong justification. In some cases, the 

willingness of management to pursue the ICR is a factor. Deterrents can range 

from lack of resources to the knowledge or perception that it would be too 

difficult to seek an ICR and successfully get OMB approval. EPA E-waste 

programs have only requested one ICR and it has been in place since 2008. 

EPA’s lack of staff and resources devoted to the E-waste program further limits 

the Agency’s ability to effectively gather E-waste information. ORCR staff said 

the Agency’s involvement in addressing numerous National Strategy action items 

has added to their work but additional resources were not provided. 

In addition to lacking complete national information on E-waste disposition, EPA 

is not taking full advantage of information from Agency-sponsored research. 

Many EPA E-waste staff we spoke to were not familiar with relevant research that 

the Agency has conducted on various E-waste issues (including the research 

highlighted in the bullets below). We found that even ORD staff were not aware 

of any of the E-waste research sponsored by ORD prior to 2011. Staff also said 

that ORD had not done research on the disposal of end-of-life electronics. 

Contrary to this claim, we presented EPA with excerpts from ORD’s 2007–2012 

Multi-Year Plan for the land research program that included the following 

E-waste issues: 

28 The PRA established the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB to provide central Agency 

leadership and coordinate government-wide efforts to reduce unnecessary paperwork burden and improve the 

management of information resources. 

13-P-0298 12 
 

 

 

 Pilot proposal to evaluate toxic constituents in electronic waste. 

 Preliminary assessment of research needs for electronics wastes sampling. 

 A joint ORD and OSWER (National Electronics Team) preparation of 

E-waste disposal white paper. 

ORD staff said that their responsibility did not include E-waste until they received 

funding in the 2011 budget to look into E-waste. We concluded, based on this 

statement and the general lack of awareness of E-waste research by most staff we 

spoke with, that EPA has not incorporated information from past E-waste research 

to better its programs. 

Agency-sponsored research on E-waste is not stored in a central repository and 

can be difficult to find for Agency staff. We found several E-waste-related 

research documents in different websites. We were unable to find certain studies 

identified in ORD’s list of projects. 

EPA Needs Information on Domestic CRT Exporter Universe to Target 

CRT Rule Enforcement Inspections 

OECA does not have adequate information on the number of CRT exporters in 

the United States to help them set enforcement targets for the CRT Rule. EPA 

used the list of domestic exporters identified in the 2008 GAO report to identify 

enforcement targets as part of EPA national enforcement initiatives.29 However, 

the Agency has not developed up-to-date targets and relevant goals since that 

initial effort. OECA staff said there are challenges in identifying the universe of 

exporters. One challenge was that many exporters are “fly-by-night” (transient) 

businesses. Other exporters go out of business or change names. Another 

challenge is that EPA is only aware of exporters that are abiding by the CRT Rule 

because EPA does not have the resources to identify all possible exporters. 

According to Agency staff, EPA’s enforcement of E-waste is limited by its 

staffing and funding levels. Regional staff said their mode of operation is more 

reactive than proactive. Regional staff also stated that they do not have the budget 

to proactively seek out CRT Rule violators. This lack of resources is why regional 

staff focus on responding only to tips and complaints concerning potential CRT 

Rule violations reported by the public and other stakeholders. Region 10 staff said 

they would like to address E-waste issues in locations that are far from the 

regional office but lack funds. 

As a result of these limitations, EPA does not establish enforcement targets for the 

CRT Rule. Thus, the Agency cannot measure the results of its CRT Rule 

enforcement. EPA proposed a rule change in March 2012 for the current CRT 

Rule to increase EPA’s ability to obtain more shipment information from 

29 GAO developed the list of targets by conducting undercover work posing as foreign buyers of broken CRTs and 

identifying 43 U.S. exporters willing to ship broken CRTs in violation of the CRT Rule. 

13-P-0298 13 
 

 

 

 

exporters. However, OECA staff said the proposed changes will not improve the 

current limitations for domestic exporter universe information. Therefore, the lack 

of available information will continue to be an issue for CRT Rule enforcement. 

Regional Best Practice: Use of RCRA Information Request Letters to 

Identify CRT Exporters 

Some EPA regions are implementing actions we consider a best practice. Under 

the provisions of RCRA Section 3007(a),30 EPA may require persons who handle 

or have handled hazardous waste to provide information relating to such wastes. 

Several EPA regional offices use RCRA 3007 information request letters to 

identify exporters of CRTs. Regional offices seek information concerning CRT 

shipments to countries outside the United States. Of the regions we visited, 

Regions 4, 9, and 10 utilize this technique. Region 9 was the most successful in 

having several recyclers respond. Region 9 stated that they also visit recycling 

facilities if they do not respond to the information request letters. 

EPA Needs a Practical Process to Characterize the Hazards of 

Non-CRT Electronics to Ensure Proper Disposal of Hazardous E-Waste 

EPA does not have a practical process for determining the hazardous 

characteristics of non-CRT E-waste.31 As such, EPA lacks information on the 

potential hazard characteristics of non-CRT E-waste sent to landfills by 

generators. Potentially toxic E-waste is disposed in municipal landfills or 

incinerated without having the hazards identified as required by RCRA. The lack 

of available information limits the effectiveness of EPA’s existing enforcement 

efforts. According to Agency staff, the RCRA-required TCLP32 is not practical 

for E-waste because it is costly and time consuming.33 Thus, generators of 

E-waste are not testing with TCLP. Also, the Agency is not monitoring, 

identifying, and enforcing improper non-CRT E-waste disposal. 

It is difficult to conduct a TCLP on E-waste because the procedure requires small 

particles for a representative sample. Further, electronic devices are large, bulky, 

and heterogeneous with respect to locations of toxic elements. There are also 

complications associated with the variability in testing results among similar 

devices. For example, hazardous characteristics can differ for an electronic device 

from the same manufacturer if the device was made in different years. 

30 42 U.S.C. § 6927(a) 31 CRTs are the only electronic devices where TCLP laboratory data were available for EPA to make a hazardous 

determination. Other devices tested in an EPA-sponsored study include laptops, printers, televisions, cell phones, 

remote controls, and computer mice. Each of these devices exceeded toxicity characteristic levels in at least one test. 

However, EPA’s opinion is that it has not reached the rulemaking threshold of available laboratory data for such
 

devices.
 32 When establishing RCRA, Congress authorized EPA to establish criteria that characterize wastes by identifying
 

potential hazards to human health and the environment (40 C.F.R. § 262.11(c)(1)). Accordingly, one of the tests 

EPA designed was the TCLP. This test was intended to predict leaching potential of wastes when mismanaged. 33 TCLP can take several days and cost as much as $3,000 for a full analysis. 

13-P-0298 14 
 

Nonetheless, some electronic devices test hazardous under TCLP. For example, 

TCLP of circuit boards indicate that circuit board lead levels exceed the RCRA 

regulatory limit of 5.0 milligrams per liter. 

The identification, characterization, and handling of the regulated waste stream 

are the central goals of OECA’s RCRA Compliance Monitoring Strategy. Under 

RCRA, generators are required to determine whether their solid waste is 

hazardous. This can be accomplished by either testing the waste or applying their 

knowledge of the materials or processes used. In contrast, E-waste generators are 

currently not testing electronics as part of the hazardous waste characterization 

due to the high cost and time resources. Further, EPA is not enforcing its RCRA 

authority in this area when warranted and it is not independently testing electronic 

devices to be able to verify generator determinations. Currently, if the device is 

not a CRT, EPA does not have the information to challenge the generator’s 

position of the device being hazardous or non-hazardous. Therefore, EPA does 

not have a practical process to validate generators’ non-hazardous waste claims. 

E-waste generators will likely continue to not test until EPA or another authority 

enforces and/or mandates this requirement. This gap in enforcement leads to 

uncertainty on the potential hazards of generator-discarded E-waste in landfills. 

In reference to the findings in the 2004 OIG report, EPA stated that the Agency is 

in the process of assessing the appropriateness of TCLP to non-CRT electronic 

devices. ORCR staff stated that their office, along with ORD, did research 

alternative leach testing approaches. However, these approaches would not solve 

the challenges that exist when applying the TCLP to electronics (i.e., these newly 

developed tests are just as expensive and time consuming as TCLP). OECA staff 

said that they have not made any rulemaking requests. However, the staff would 

like EPA to develop a more practical procedure for identifying hazards in 

electronics. To reduce the uncertainty regarding used electronics’ hazardous waste 

determination status, EPA should develop a more practical waste characterization 

process for non-CRT electronics. This would permit enforcement staff to conduct 

proper enforcement of the RCRA requirement. 

EPA Needs Information on Compliance of Recycling Industry to 

Support Its Advocacy of Certified Recyclers 

EPA encourages E-waste recycling companies to receive certification. In addition, 

the National Strategy has a goal of ensuring that the federal government leads by 

example. One action item to achieve that goal is to establish a comprehensive 

government-wide policy on used federal electronics that ensures all federal 

electronics are processed by certified recyclers. However, the Agency does not 

know whether certified recyclers comply with the certifying organizations’ 

standards that align with federal regulations. 

EPA encourages electronics recyclers to receive certification by either R2 or 

e-Stewards. Companies voluntarily submit to these independent certifications. 

13-P-0298 15 
 

 

 

 

 

The standards serve as an important control in the electronics recycling process. 

Both certifying bodies have their own audit processes. However, EPA does not 

have a routine practice of independently auditing recycling facilities for RCRA 

compliance.34 Both certification programs require that facilities comply with all 

federal and state environmental, health, and safety regulations, including RCRA 

hazardous waste disposal and record keeping provisions. EPA regional staff 

expressed concerns with the certification programs inspecting for these 

provisions. Staff from Region 10 characterized EPA’s reliance on the certification 

programs as a “challenge.” Region 10 staff explained that they did not know 

whether the certification organizations were reviewing the recyclers’ compliance. 

Region 7 staff would not recommend some certified recyclers because of poor 

housekeeping practices which are violations of RCRA standards. This staff also 

knew of recyclers that were compliant with standards but, due to the high costs of 

obtaining a certification, were not certified. 

The National Strategy emphasizes the use of certified recyclers for all federal 

electronics. As part of the on-going National Strategy effort, EPA, in 

collaboration with GSA and the applicable accreditation board, will review the 

need to initiate a study of the implementation of the currently used electronics 

certification programs. This review will also evaluate such aspects as 

vigorousness of facility and downstream audits, consistency and frequency of 

audits, and auditor training. The implementation study applies only to recyclers 

that federal agencies utilize and will be used to assist in determining which 

certification programs to use. During this review, EPA plans to participate as an 

observer and accompany GSA on facility visits. Any recommendations will go to 

the accreditation board or third-party certifier. 

This planned upcoming review of the certification programs associated with the 

National Strategy should provide some level of assurance that certified recyclers 

are complying with federal regulations. However, the National Strategy review 

will not address federal regulatory compliance issues at certified facilities that 

arise outside this limited review. EPA should include certified recyclers in its 

RCRA inspection work plans to ensure that they are complying with federal 

regulations. Otherwise, EPA has no assurance the certified recyclers abide by R2 

or e-Stewards recycling standards’ requirement that recyclers comply with all 

applicable environmental, health, and safety regulations. As a result, EPA risks 

recommending certified recyclers that may fail to adhere to federal environmental 

regulations, which may ultimately harm human health and the environment. 

34 Of the 233 recycling facilities that R2 and e-Stewards have certified, EPA has inspected 10 R2 facilities and zero 

e-Stewards facilities (10 inspections equals 4 percent of total certified recyclers) as part of RCRA inspection. These 

are not “audits” of recycling certification standards but RCRA hazardous waste inspections of facilities. Six of the 

10 facilities inspected did not comply with RCRA. The analysis numbers represent OIG’s review performed on 

May 4, 2012 (R2) and May 7, 2012 (e-Stewards). As of October 26, 2012, 342 electronics recycling facilities have 

been certified by one or both of the certification programs. 

13-P-0298 16 
 

Additionally, EPA lacks information on the size and compliance status of 

non-certified recyclers. EPA’s focus in managing E-waste is to encourage 

recycling. However, the Agency does not have information about the E-waste sent 

to the recyclers. EPA Region 4 staff said many of the facilities inspected have 

RCRA violations. In one case, regional staff found six mason jars (70 pounds) of 

mercury inside the facility. The staff in Region 4 believe that, based on their 

inspections, improper recycling of E-waste is a domestic environmental problem. 

EPA needs to target electronic recyclers in the RCRA inspections to ensure that 

non-certified recyclers are adhering to federal regulations. 

Regional Best Practice: Targeted Inspections of Electronic Facilities 

EPA Regions 4 and 7 target electronic recycling facilities as an enforcement 

priority. Region 4 found RCRA violations during inspections. Region 4 planned 

to focus on E-waste enforcement in 2011, and the region did carry this focus over 

to 2012. According to Region 4’s E-Waste Inspection/Enforcement Strategy, the 

region proposed to inspect at least 10 E-waste collection facilities. These 

inspections led to finding RCRA violations at several facilities in 2011. 

Additionally, Region 4 identifies “downstream recyclers” based on its inspections 

of targeted facilities. The region’s inspection of several downstream recyclers has 

resulted in the discovery of RCRA violations. Region 4 staff noted they find the 

worst violators when they look “downstream” from the initial targeted recycler. 

Region 7 is targeting the electronics recycling facilities in its RCRA inspections 

to identify recyclers who may be exporting CRTs without notifying EPA. 

Region 7 staff said that the region reviews the results of inspections, including the 

violations found. Based on this review, Region 7 revises inspection plans for the 

following year. If inspections find no violations in the electronics sector, the 

region will look at a different sector for the following year. The region can also 

conduct compliance outreach based on violations. Region 7 staff stated that they 

are inspecting the region’s recycling contractor with the purpose of assuring that 

their contractor is RCRA compliant. 

Conclusions 

EPA has limited information and resources to ensure effective management and 

enforcement of the fastest growing waste stream in the country. EPA has made 

several advancements in recent years. However, if more comprehensive measures 

are not taken, EPA’s ability to manage this complex issue will continue to be 

limited. 

13-P-0298 17 
 

 

 

 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response: 

1. Develop a consistent approach for defining E-waste to set the conditions 

for goal setting and tracking. Identify and gather information to manage 

the goals and, if necessary, submit an ICR request to OMB. 

2. Develop a more practical process to address the hazards of non-CRT 

electronic waste that ensures that this waste is managed in an 

environmentally sustainable manner. 

3. Evaluate the implementation of currently used electronics certification 

programs as detailed in the National Strategy. If necessary, conduct RCRA 

inspections (for federal regulations only) of certified recyclers 

accordingly. 

4. Evaluate resource needs for E-waste management and direct available 

additional resources as needed. 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance: 

5. Evaluate methods for gathering the information necessary to set CRT rule 

enforcement targets such as the use of RCRA 3007 information request 

letters to identify CRT exporters. 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

OSWER concurred with recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4, and OECA concurred 

with recommendation 5. These recommendations are unresolved pending receipt 

of corrective actions and completion dates. 

OSWER responded at the exit conference that development of a uniform 

definition (recommendation 1) is not feasible at this time but reiterated the agency 

comments that the agency will continue to define for each individual program. 

At a subsequent meeting, the OIG presented modified recommendation language 

to facilitate the Agency in considering a more consistent approach to defining 

E-waste for its various programs. OSWER agreed to the modified 

recommendation. We consider this recommendation unresolved pending receipt 

of corrective actions and completion dates. 

OSWER disagreed with recommendation 2 in its initial response and to OIG’s 

modified recommendation language at a subsequent meeting because any 

drawbacks that the TCLP may have with testing the leachability of waste 

13-P-0298 18 
 

 

electronics would also apply to any alternative testing procedures and processes, 

including alternative leaching processes that could be used. The OIG accepted 

OSWER’s proposed revision to recommendation 2.We consider this 

recommendation unresolved pending receipt of corrective actions about 

OSWER’s ability to monitor, identify, and ensure proper disposal of non-CRT 

E-waste disposal, including completion dates. 

OECA disagreed with the OIG’s initial recommendation 5 because the current 

regulatory requirements and proposed modifications to the CRT rule will deem 

additional information gathering efforts unnecessary. The OIG presented 

modified recommendation language to facilitate the Agency in evaluating 

methods for gathering information necessary for setting CRT Rule enforcement 

targets. OECA concurred with the modified recommendation. We consider this 

recommendation unresolved pending corrective actions and estimated completion 

dates. 

The OIG deleted recommendation 6 which recommended that OECA evaluate 

E-waste enforcement resource needs and direct available resources as needed. 

This decision was based on the OIG’s review of OECA’s response to the draft 

report stating that it does not have the resources to maintain any initiatives that 

target E-waste exporters. OECA staff explained that they allocate resources and 

staff to priority enforcement issues. Currently, E-waste enforcement is not a 

priority. The OIG accepted the response. 

We made changes to the report as appropriate. The Agency’s complete response, 

along with the OIG’s evaluation, is in appendix A. 

13-P-0298 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Planned 

Completion Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed-To 

Amount 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

Develop a consistent approach for 

defining E-waste to set the conditions 

for goal setting and tracking. Identify 

and gather information to manage the 

goals and, if necessary, submit an ICR 

request to OMB. 

Develop a more practical process to 

address the hazards of non-CRT 

electronic waste that ensures that this 

waste is managed in an 

environmentally sustainable manner. 

Evaluate the implementation of the 

currently used electronics certification 

programs as detailed in the National 

Strategy. If necessary, conduct RCRA 

inspections (for federal regulations 

only) of certified recyclers accordingly. 

Evaluate resource needs for E-waste 

management and direct available 

additional resources as needed. 

Evaluate methods for gathering the 

information necessary to set CRT rule 

enforcement targets such as the use of 

RCRA 3007 information request letters 

to identify CRT exporters. 

U 

U 

U 

U 

U 

Assistant Administrator for 

Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

Assistant Administrator for 

Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

Assistant Administrator for 

Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

Assistant Administrator for 

Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending 

C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed 

U = recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress 

13-P-0298 20 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A 

Agency Response and OIG Comments 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT:	 Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report No. OPE-FY11-0015: 

Improved Information Could Better Enable EPA to Manage Electronic Waste and 

Enforce Regulations, dated October 9, 2012 

FROM:	 Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

TO:	 Carolyn Copper 

Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the draft report 

Improved Information Could Better Enable EPA to Manage Electronic Waste and Enforce 

Regulations, dated October 9, 2012. Improving the management of electronics and the 

enforcement of relevant regulations in the United States is an EPA priority. 

For those report recommendations with which the Agency agrees, we have provided a 

description of ongoing actions that respond to the recommendations. For those report 

recommendations with which the Agency does not agree, we have explained our position. For 

your consideration, we have included a Technical Comments Attachment to supplement this 

response. 

Significance of the National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship 

As you know, EPA co-led, with the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ), the development of the National Strategy for Electronics 

Stewardship. The National Strategy, released July 20, 2011, carries out the Administration’s 

intentions by identifying a leadership role for the U.S. Government, creating incentives for the 

design of greener electronics and increased domestic electronics recycling, and promoting more 

responsible management of used electronics with U.S. trade partners. It contains four 

overarching goals: 

1.	 Build Incentives for Design of Greener Electronics, and Enhance Science, Research and 

Technology Development in the U.S.; 

2.	 Ensure that the Federal Government Leads by Example; 

13-P-0298 21 
 

 

3.	 Increase Safe and Effective Management and Handling of Used Electronics in the U.S.; 

and 

4.	 Reduce Harm from U.S. Exports of e-Waste and Improve Safe Handling of Used 

Electronics in Developing Countries. 

The National Strategy resulted from extensive collaboration among 16 Federal departments and 

agencies, as well as consultation with stakeholders from the electronics, retail, and recycling 

industries, environmental organizations, state and local governments, and concerned citizens. As 

a strategic document, it identifies areas where we lack sufficient information and data, and where 

more efforts in the electronics product lifecycle are needed. EPA committed publically to a 

significant number of key projects, programs and initiatives as a result of the intensive and 

thoughtful cross-government and cross-sectors deliberations that took place in developing the 

National Strategy. Many of EPA’s commitments require input and collaboration across the 

government and with a broad set of stakeholders. 

The National Strategy represents the Federal Government’s plan for improving electronics 

stewardship in the United States and as such, it is EPA’s roadmap for actions. EPA noted to the 

OIG the significance of the National Strategy as a priority setting document and the fact that the 

commitments EPA made as a consequence of the National Strategy are governing the activities 

and resources available for used electronics. However, the draft OIG report does not reflect a 

proper appreciation of the National Strategy’s significance in this regard. 

OIG Response: OIG added language to the report that highlights the fact that the National 

Strategy is a priority setting document and is currently governing the activities and resources 

available for electronics. However, the focus of the evaluation was on existing Agency 

electronic programs and regulations and the information used in these programs to manage to 

established goals and targets of programs. As stated in the report, our review of the National 

Strategy was limited to its potential impacts on existing programs, regulations, and the 

collection of management information. Further, the National Strategy is focused primarily on 

federal agencies’ activities whereas the OIG evaluation was focused on EPA’s national 

management of E-waste. It is the conclusion of the OIG that the National Strategy and the 

Agency’s role in “key projects, programs, and initiatives” will not adequately address the 

deficiencies in management information detailed in this report regarding EPA’s role in the 

national management of E-waste. Notably, the National Strategy: (1) does not seek to address 

the Agency’s lack of a uniform definition, (2) echoes the Agency’s 2011 report titled, 

“Electronics Waste Management in the United States Through 2009” in stating that end-of-life 

disposition of used electronics information would be useful but little information is available, 

and (3) does not contain specific goals to increase EPA’s effectiveness in gathering domestic 

E-waste information. 

We appreciate the OIG’s recognition of EPA’s achievements in their report. EPA successfully 

implemented the Plug-In to e-Cycling program in 2004 and evolved the program to the 

Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) Electronics Challenge. EPA worked with 

stakeholders to develop a voluntary industry standard and certification program for electronics 

recyclers. Currently, there are two accredited certification programs for the electronics recycling 

industry: the Responsible Recycling Practices (R2) and the e-Stewards® programs. EPA 

13-P-0298 22 
 

continues to support safer and more protective recycling by encouraging use of accredited thirdparty electronic recycling certification programs. The Agency issued the final Cathode Ray Tube 

(CRT) regulation in 2006 and in 2012 proposed a CRT rule amendment to enhance the ability to 

track CRT exports. Just recently, EPA launched the national SMM Electronics Challenge. The 

objective of this challenge is to raise the bar on responsible management of used electronics by 

challenging manufacturers and retailers to voluntarily commit to sending 100% of used 

electronics collected for reuse and recycling to third party certified recyclers; increasing the total 

amount of used electronics collected for reuse and recycling; and, being transparent about their 

efforts by publically posting collection information and data. 

OIG Response: The OIG incorporated the above points that were effective after the 2004 

OIG report that were not already included in other areas of the report into the Noteworthy 

Achievements section of the report, such as the launch of the SMM Electronics Challenge. 

This response also provides comments on topics that are incompletely or inaccurately discussed 

and addressed in the draft report, including waste management policies in the U.S., the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and supporting regulations, and the existence of 

collaboration across EPA programs beyond RCRA on other aspects of electronics management. 

For example, the draft report states that “Domestically, E-waste in landfills can pose potential 

environmental risks when toxic chemicals from discarded electronics leach into groundwater” 

(p-2), even though EPA shared with the OIG supporting information that shows landfilling waste 

electronics in a well-managed, modern landfill is not expected to pose a risk to groundwater. 

Further, the draft report states that “Concerns about E-waste landfill disposal have led federal 

and state governments to encourage recycling” (p-2). As noted previously, EPA believes 

disposal in a compliant landfill is protective of human health and the environment and is not the 

reason that the Federal government encourages recycling of used electronics. 

OIG Response: The OIG amended the final report to attribute the above statements to an EPA 

report and a congressional report, respectively. 

As the OIG itself acknowledges on p.2 of the report, EPA’s Solid Waste Management Hierarchy 

prioritizes the most environmentally sound methods for municipal solid waste management with 

source reduction, reuse and recycling being preferred over disposal. Electronic products are 

made from valuable resources and highly engineered materials, including metals, plastics, and 

glass that have significant recycling potential. Reusing and recycling electronics conserves our 

natural resources and avoids air and water pollution, as well as greenhouse gas emissions that are 

caused during extraction and manufacturing of virgin materials. 

It would also be appropriate for the OIG to further discuss and recognize the importance of the 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response’s (OSWER’s) and the Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention’s (OSCPP’s) collaboration on the Electronic Product 

Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) due to its importance in source reduction. OSWER 

contributes expertise on electronics design specific to: easy and safe disassembly, producing less 

waste, using recycled content, using less packaging, and ensuring proper end-of life 

management. This collaboration is critical because EPEAT reduces the amount of electronics 

13-P-0298 23 
 

 

 

waste that needs to be reused, recycled or managed while reducing the amount of toxic material 

found in electronics waste. 

OIG Response: The OIG included the statement on EPEAT’s effects in the background 

section. 

The draft report appears to reflect some misunderstandings of the RCRA regulatory programs 

(Subtitle C and Subtitle D), and the way these programs address risks posed by different types of 

waste generally. The identification of wastes as either hazardous or non-hazardous is a key 

element to determining which program these wastes will be managed under. Therefore, it is 

important to have a clear understanding of how EPA defines hazardous waste (e.g., listed vs. 

characteristic) and also how risks are managed under both Subtitle C and Subtitle D. For 

example, the hazardous waste regulatory program has identified waste CRTs and printed circuit 

boards as nearly always expressing a hazardous characteristic, and thus these wastes are 

regulated as hazardous when disposed. Many other types of used electronics may not meet the 

definition of hazardous waste, but are nonetheless managed at non-hazardous solid waste 

disposal facilities, which as stated previously, are protective of human health and the 

environment. 

OIG Response: The OIG finding is specific to non-CRT electronics and it relates to the Agency’s 

statement above: “Many other types of used electronics may not meet the definition of hazardous 

waste, but are nonetheless managed at non-hazardous solid waste disposal facilities.” As the 

Agency states, non-CRT electronics may not meet the definition of hazardous waste; however the 

OIG was also told, and studies indicate, that some electronics may meet the definition. The OIG 

concludes that there is uncertainty regarding the hazardous characteristic of non-CRT electronic 

waste. Based on the response above, EPA is allowing non-CRT E-wastes to be disposed of in 

non-hazardous solid waste disposal facilities without requiring testing or review of “generator 

knowledge.” Per RCRA (see 40 CFR § 261), a generator of waste is required to make a 

determination as to whether its waste is hazardous, using either testing or its knowledge of the 

waste. The OIG concludes that the hazard characteristic determination requirement of RCRA is 

not being applied to non-CRT electronics because TCLP is not a practical test for electronics. 

The OIG recommended that EPA include certified recyclers in RCRA inspection plans if 

certification compliance issues arise based on EPA’s evaluation of certification programs. 

However, OIG is confusing the certification bodies’ role for ensuring that their voluntary 

certification standards are met with EPA’s independent enforcement role in cases where 

violations of RCRA have occurred at a recycling facility. Although EPA participated in the 

development of the practices and environmental standards that are found in one of the electronics 

recycler certification programs in the U.S. today, these are not EPA programs but programs that 

are run by private organizations.35 As such, it is the role of the third party organization or 

certifying body to audit and certify the electronics recycling facility, and to ensure continuous 

35 The two certification programs are: (1) the e-Stewards® certification program which was created and is run by the 

Basel Action Network, a private non-profit organization; and (2) the Responsible Recycling Practices (R2) which is 

run by R2 Solutions, also a private non-profit organization. 

13-P-0298 24 
 

conformance to these practices and standards. Conformance to the standards, however, does not 

relieve recyclers of their RCRA or other federal, state, or local legal obligations. Should EPA 

learn of potential RCRA violations, EPA will investigate the alleged violations and take 

appropriate enforcement action, as necessary. EPA Regions and states inspect electronics 

recycling facilities, which may or may not be certified, and as appropriate will take enforcement 

actions if a violation is discovered. EPA realizes that these certification programs are not the 

only answer to ensuring proper electronics management, but we expect that they will raise the 

environmental floor for the electronics recycling industry as a whole. EPA plans to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the implementation of the certification programs. Additionally, EPA continues 

to work with the certification programs to encourage the continual improvement of electronics 

recycling practices and standards. 

OIG Response: The OIG clarified the findings/recommendation language in the report to state 

that based on the findings of the planned National Strategy review of the certification programs, 

if necessary, EPA will plan RCRA inspections (for federal regulations only) of certified recyclers 

accordingly. The OIG has documented articles detailing violations of certification standards as 

well as federal standards by certified recyclers. The OIG concludes that given the federal initiative 

to utilize only certified recycling facilities and recent accounts of violating certified recyclers, 

EPA minimizes risk and increases effectiveness of its E-waste management by including certified 

recyclers in their inspections. 

Finally, it is unclear why certain conclusions in the report are drawn as there are no references 

cited. It would be helpful to the reader if the OIG provided a bibliography containing the reports, 

publications, transcripts and information that they used to draw their conclusions. (Note: See 

Technical Comments Attachment for further discussion of these comments, as well as other 

comments.) 

OIG Response: The OIG draws its conclusions in part, from the information provided by the 

Agency during the course of our review. Chapter 1 provides the purpose and background, and 

discusses how we conducted our work and the criteria we relied upon. This report provides our 

findings and conclusions that address our objectives for performing the evaluation. 

EPA Comments on individual recommendations in draft report 

Recommendation #1: Define e-waste to set the conditions for goal setting and tracking. 

Identify and gather information to manage the goals, and, if necessary, submit an ICR 

request to OMB. 

EPA Response: 

EPA agrees that we should define, in the context of individual actions, what used electronics is 

considered by that action, as appropriate. 

13-P-0298 25 
 

We appreciate the OIG’s suggestion that EPA develop a single definition of used electronics. 

EPA and the other agencies that participated in the development of the National Strategy for 

Electronics Stewardship collectively considered this issue and were unable to come up with a 

meaningful definition that would not quickly become obsolete due to the changing nature of 

electronic devices and frequent introduction of new and unique products. Even without the single 

definition of used electronics, agencies were able to set goals, identify projects and set tracking 

mechanisms for progress. We do agree that for each used electronics action, program or data 

gathering effort that we first identify the types of electronics that will be included in the effort 

and any rationale for the decision. 

We agree that information on used electronics is important and we currently gather appropriate 

information as part of our municipal solid waste characterization report and as part of our 

efforts surrounding certified electronics recycling that allows the Agency to manage our goals. 

In addition, we already make information that we have on exports of CRTs publically available. 

Once results from the three export flows projects being conducted under the National Strategy 

are released (see discussion below), we will assess the information and incorporate that 

information into our reports and decision-making, as appropriate. We will submit an ICR 

request to OMB as appropriate and necessary, but have not done so to date. 

Since 2005, we have collected and published information about the disposition and end-of life 

management of electronics collected for recycling and we intend to continue to provide this 

information to the public. In 2005, based on recommendations from the OIG, we developed two 

approaches for collecting a set of baseline end-of-life electronics data. This work led to the July 

2008 release of a baseline data report. We released an updated report entitled Electronics Waste 

Management in the United States through 2009 (November 2010). Although EPA acknowledged 

in that report that it extrapolated available information to provide national estimates, we believe 

that the report generally reflects the state of electronics waste in the United States nationally. We 

intend to continue to collect this type of information and incorporate it into EPA’s Municipal 

Solid Waste Characterization Report. 

In addition, we already post data specific to CRTs exported for recycling and reuse on our 

website and have proposed revisions to the CRT rule that will further enhance our knowledge of 

CRT exports. 

The National Strategy recognized that the U.S. government lacks information on the amount of 

used electronics that are exported. Consequently, under the National Strategy, there are three 

ongoing projects that will help to better characterize the flow of used electronics from the United 

States. Specifically: 

 U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has launched a study that gathers information 

from electronics recyclers on what they export and to where; 

 EPA, through the organization Solving the E-waste Problem (StEP), is supporting efforts to 

characterize transboundary flows of used electronics; and 

 EPA, through the Commission of Environmental Cooperation, is supporting efforts to 

characterize the flow of electronics from North America. 

13-P-0298 26 
 

 

OIG Response: OIG understands the Agency’s explanation of the complexities of defining E-waste 

or used electronics (which we also detail in the report). However, the OIG continues to conclude that 

a uniform definition would allow the Agency to fully identify the universe and ensure effective 

E-waste management to protect public health and conserve valuable resources. The OIG 

acknowledges the Agency’s response that development of a uniform definition is not feasible at this 

time. The OIG held a subsequent meeting with the Agency to discuss modified recommendation 

language to facilitate the Agency in considering a more consistent approach to defining E-waste for 

its various programs. A consistent approach for defining E-waste would serve as a clear means to set 

and track goals as well as the basis for necessary information collection. To assist the Agency in this 

effort, the report detailed methodologies used by the recycler certification bodies in defining E-waste. 

These entities deal with the same complex issues described above. The OIG requests that the Agency 

provide estimated timeframes for completion. The Agency concurred with the modified 

recommendation at the subsequent meeting. 

The OIG accepts the Agency’s response to the portions of the recommendation regarding identifying 

and gathering information and utilizing the ICR when necessary. We consider this recommendation 

unresolved pending corrective actions for all parts of the recommendation and estimated completion 

dates, and the responsible party/office. 

Recommendation # 2: Develop a more practical characterization procedure for non-CRT 

electronics. 

EPA Response: 

We disagree with this recommendation. We believe that the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure (TCLP) is an appropriate way to evaluate the potential hazards of e-waste under 

plausible domestic disposal conditions (i.e., landfilling). Any drawbacks that the TCLP may have 

with testing the leachability of waste electronics would also apply to any alternative testing 

procedure, including alternative leaching procedures that could be used. We also believe that 

development of a broad hazardous waste listing for waste electronics under RCRA would not be 

supported by currently available data. 

EPA evaluated the appropriateness of the TCLP test in the report entitled RCRA Toxicity 

Characterization of Computer CPUs and Other Discarded Electronic Devices (July 15, 2004), 

prepared by Dr. Timothy Townsend. Later work by Dr. Townsend showed that use of lead-free 

solders would significantly reduce the lead leaching potential of printed circuit boards used in 

electronic devices (Townsend et al, 2008). While we acknowledge that the TCLP test has some 

drawbacks in the case of debris-like waste, such as electronics, the same drawbacks would apply 

to other testing procedures that could be used to characterize used electronics, such as alternative 

leaching procedures or testing for the total content of particular metals. Electronics waste is 

highly heterogeneous and there are a large number of different types and models of waste 

electronic products collected for management at any time. In addition, the suite of devices 

available for sale can change rapidly over time (e.g., cell phone turnover is often every 2 years). 

13-P-0298 27 
 

 

 

 

 

We do not plan to require generators to test in order to determine the regulatory status of waste 

electronics when testing is not required for other types of wastes36 (the Agency considered and 

rejected this general approach; see 55 FR 11829-30; March 29, 1990); rather, under the RCRA 

regulations, the generator may use either testing or knowledge of the materials or processes 

involved in generating the waste to make the determination. (See 40 CFR 262.11). 

Development of a hazardous waste listing under RCRA would also be problematic. It would 

need to be based on the same type of data described above, with the same issues about e-waste 

heterogeneity and change over time. Based on the data we currently have, used electronics 

broadly defined (exclusive of CRTs and printed circuit boards) are unlikely to fail the Toxicity 

Characteristic regulatory test or exhibit any of the other hazardous waste characteristics, and are 

unlikely to pose risks to human health and the environment when disposed using plausible U.S. 

domestic waste management practices. Also, because of regulation in the European Union and 

the successful voluntary consensus EPEAT standard, the expected trend is that over time more 

electronics enter end-of life containing less of the known toxins than in the past. 

Finally, while the risks from potentially unsafe recycling practices in developing nations are real, 

RCRA regulations must be based on risks posed by plausible management at disposal facilities 

within the United States. 

OIG Response: The OIG acknowledges the waste characterization difficulties associated with 

non-CRT E-waste. As the Agency states above, non-CRT electronics are “unlikely to fail the 

Toxicity Characteristic regulatory test”; however, research studies demonstrate that some electronics 

may indeed fail the test. The OIG concludes that there is uncertainty regarding the hazardous 

characteristics of non-CRT electronic waste. EPA is allowing non-CRT E-wastes to be disposed of 

in non-hazardous solid waste disposal facilities without requiring a test or review of “generator 

knowledge.” Per RCRA (see 40 CFR 261), a generator of waste is required to make a determination 

as to whether its waste is hazardous, using either testing or its knowledge of the waste. The OIG 

concludes that the hazard characteristic determination requirement of RCRA is not being applied to 

non-CRT electronics because TCLP is not a practical test for electronics. The OIG understands from 

the Agency responses that developing a more practical laboratory procedure at this time is not 

feasible. The OIG held a subsequent meeting with the Agency to discuss modified recommendation 

language to facilitate the Agency in considering a broader approach to achieving RCRA 

requirements. The Agency disagreed with the modified language at the meeting, stating that any 

drawbacks that the TCLP may have with testing the leachability of waste electronics would also 

apply to any alternative testing process, including alternative leaching processes that could be used. 

OIG accepts the Agency’s proposed revision to recommendation 2. We consider this 

recommendation unresolved pending receipt of corrective actions about EPA’s ability to monitor, 

identify, and ensure proper disposal of non-CRT E-waste, including completion dates. 

36 We would note that the Agency could not mandate a testing requirement without going through a rulemaking. 

13-P-0298 28 
 

Recommendation #3: Evaluate the implementation of the currently used electronics 

certification programs as detailed in the National Strategy. If certification compliance 

issues arise after this review, include certified recyclers in RCRA inspection work plans to 

ensure that they are complying with federal regulations. 

EPA Response: 

We agree with the recommendation that we evaluate the implementation of the currently used 

certification programs as detailed in the National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship. 

To meet our obligations and commitments under the National Strategy, EPA is working with 

GSA and the applicable accreditation board to conduct a study of the implementation of the 

current used electronics certification programs. This review will evaluate various aspects of the 

certification programs: vigorousness of facility and downstream audits; consistency and 

frequency of audits and auditor training. The results of the study will be used to inform the 

Federal Government’s policy on management of its used electronics. 

We believe the portion of the recommendation that states that if certification compliance issues 

arise after this review, include certified recyclers in RCRA inspection work plans to ensure that 

they are complying with federal regulations is not reflective of EPA’s existing policy, and thus, 

do not support. 

The OIG has inappropriately merged two issues: conformance to the voluntary practices and 

standards established under the certification recycling programs and compliance with federal 

regulation. Conformance to electronics recycler certification standards does not relieve recyclers 

of used electronics of their RCRA or other federal, state, or local legal obligations, nor does 

conformance to voluntary standards obviate the responsibility of regulatory authorities to 

conduct RCRA inspections. 

Should EPA learn of potential violations of RCRA legal requirements, EPA will investigate the 

alleged violations and take appropriate enforcement action, as necessary. EPA Regions and states 

continue to inspect electronics recycling facilities that may or may not be certified, and take 

enforcement actions as appropriate. 

Since the electronics recycler certification practices and standards are voluntary and are not EPA 

standards, EPA does not audit or certify facilities for conformance with the certification 

standards and, therefore, is not responsible for decisions related to certification status. 

Determining if a facility is in conformance with a standard is the responsibility of the certifying 

body (CB). The CB also investigates complaints against certified facilities. The severity of the 

complaint determines whether the CB suspends certification or whether the company loses 

certification completely. 

13-P-0298 29 
 

 

OIG Response: The OIG accepts the Agency’s response to the part of the recommendation 

regarding evaluating the implementation of the current certification programs. We consider this 

part of the recommendation unresolved pending estimated completion dates. 

The OIG understands the difference between conformance with voluntary practices and 

compliance with regulation. However, the OIG still concludes that certified recycling facilities 

should be included in RCRA inspection work plans. The OIG documented accounts where 

certified recyclers were found to be violating both certification standards and federal regulations. 

The OIG concludes that given the federal initiative to utilize only certified recycling facilities and 

recent accounts of violating certified recyclers, it is in the best interest of EPA to include certified 

recyclers in their inspections. 

Regarding the second part of the recommendation, the OIG will clarify the language in the report 

to state that based on the findings of the planned National Strategy review of the certification 

programs, if necessary, EPA will plan RCRA inspections (for federal regulations only) of 

certified recyclers accordingly. We consider this part of the recommendation unresolved pending 

the inclusion of proposed alternatives to this part of the recommendation, estimated completion 

dates, and the responsible party/office. 

Recommendation #4: Evaluate resource needs for e-waste management and direct 

available additional resources as needed. 

EPA Response: 

We agree with the recommendation to evaluate resource needs for e-waste management and 

direct available additional resources as needed. 

We will continue to set priorities for responding to action items under the National Strategy 

considering available resources. 

OIG Response: The OIG accepts the Agency’s response to this recommendation to evaluate 

resource needs for E-waste management. We consider this recommendation unresolved pending 

the inclusion of estimated completion dates. 

Recommendation #5: Enforce the CRT Rule in a more proactive manner by gathering the 

information necessary to set CRT rule enforcement targets. 

EPA Response: 

We disagree with the recommendation to enforce the CRT Rule in a more proactive manner by 

gathering the information necessary to set CRT rule enforcement targets. 

13-P-0298 30 
 

 

 

Given the current regulatory requirements and the fact that EPA has proposed to modify the CRT 

rule to gather additional information37, EPA does not believe it is necessary to undertake any 

additional data gathering efforts. The regulations at 40 C.F.R. §261.41 require companies that 

export used CRTs for recycling or reuse to submit written notifications to EPA Regional 

Administrators and Regional Import-Export Coordinators. As of September 2012, 136 

companies have notified EPA of their intent to export CRTs for reuse; six companies have 

notified of their intent to recycle (one company has notified for both reuse and recycling). In 

total, there are 141 companies that have notified of their intent to export CRTs for reuse or to 

recycle. This information can be found on EPA’s website, under Export Requirements for 

Cathode Ray Tubes: http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/international/crts/reuse.htm 

As the OIG previously noted, EPA launched a two year focused enforcement effort directed at 

CRT exports. Between 2008 and 2010, EPA opened over 125 investigations against electronic 

waste recyclers. All EPA Regions participated in this effort and conducted 91 inspections and 

identified violations at 19 facilities. As also noted in your report, Regions 4 and 7 maintained an 

enforcement priority targeting electronic recycling facilities in 2011 and into 2012. EPA has a 

well-established compliance monitoring and enforcement program for all RCRA requirements 

and we now include the CRT requirements in that program. As part of this overall RCRA 

compliance monitoring and enforcement program, Regions and states continue to inspect 

electronics recycling facilities, which may or may not be certified, and bring appropriate 

enforcement actions each year. Regions also continue to respond to any tips received regarding 

shipments of CRTs and to investigate these facilities as appropriate. The Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Assistance (OECA) maintains the expertise developed during the initial focus 

effort on electronics recyclers and continues to assist the Regions in developing new cases. 

OIG Response: The OIG acknowledges the past efforts of the Agency with CRT Rule 

enforcement. The OIG concludes that based on enforcement results of EPA regions that the 

OIG visited in this evaluation, enforcement work still remains for the CRT Rule. The OIG also 

acknowledges the modifications made to the CRT Rule to gather additional information. As 

detailed in the report, some EPA staff we interviewed do not believe that the modifications will 

assist in gaining a better understanding of the CRT exporter universe to help set enforcement 

targets. 

The OIG concludes that the Agency needs to evaluate methods for gathering the information 

necessary to set CRT Rule enforcement targets such as the use of RCRA 3007 information 

request letters to identify CRT exporters. The OIG presented modified recommendation 

language to facilitate the Agency in evaluating information gathering methods. OECA 

concurred with the modified recommendation. We consider this recommendation unresolved 

pending corrective actions and estimated completion dates. 

Recommendation #6: Evaluate resource needs for e-waste enforcement and direct available 

additional resources as needed.
 

EPA Response:
 

37 The proposed CRT rule also proposed revisions of certain export provisions to better track exports of CRTs for reuse and 

recycling, 

13-P-0298 31 
 

We disagree with the recommendation to evaluate resource needs for e-waste enforcement and 

direct available additional resources as needed. 

Since the CRT enforcement effort was initiated in 2008, EPA’s enforcement resources have 

declined. EPA, therefore, cannot maintain an initiative solely targeted at electronic waste 

exporters. Instead, EPA will continue to inspect electronics recyclers as part of its routine 

compliance monitoring and enforcement efforts to address the universe of RCRA-regulated 

facilities. 

OECA continues to share regional questions/challenges of cases about used electronics on 

monthly teleconferences with the Regions, as well as at annual meetings of import/export 

regional coordinators. OECA has also provided the regions with a template for a RCRA 3007 

information request letter; this was noted in your report as a “Regional Best Practice.” 

OIG Response: The OIG acknowledges EPA’s resource constraints with respect to an 

enforcement initiative targeted solely on CRT exporters. In a subsequent meeting, OECA staff 

also explained that resources and staff are directed to address priority enforcement issues. 

E-waste enforcement is not a priority issue area for OECA currently. The OIG accepts EPA’s 

response and will delete this recommendation. 

Contact information 

If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Suzanne Rudzinski, Director, 

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery at (703)-308-8895. 

Attachment 

13-P-0298 32 
 

Appendix B 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator 

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education 

Deputy Assistant Administrators for Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

13-P-0298 33