United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Asia, the 

Pacific, and the Global Environment, 

Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of 

Representatives

ELECTRONIC WASTE

Harmful U.S. Exports Flow 

Virtually Unrestricted 

Because of Minimal EPA 

Enforcement and Narrow 

Regulation 

Statement of John B. Stephenson, Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:00 a.m. EDT

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

 

GAO-08-1166T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 17, 2008

ELECTRONIC WASTE

Harmful U.S. Exports Flow Virtually Unrestricted 

Because of Minimal EPA Enforcement and Narrow 

Highlights of GAO-08-1166T, a testimony Regulation 

before the Subcommittee on Asia, the 

Pacific, and the Global Environment, 

Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of 

Representatives 

Increasingly, U.S. consumers are 

recycling their old electronics to 

prevent the environmental harm 

that can come from disposal. 

Concerns have grown, however,

that some U.S. companies are 

exporting these items to developing

countries, where unsafe recycling

practices can damage health and 

the environment. Items with

cathode-ray tubes (CRTs) are 

particularly harmful because they

contain lead, a known toxin. As a 

result, in January 2007, EPA began 

regulating the export of CRTs 

under a rule requiring companies to

notify EPA before exporting CRTs. 

GAO’s August 2008 report 

examined (1) the fate of exported

used electronics, (2) the 

effectiveness of regulatory controls

over the export of these devices, 

and (3) options to strengthen

federal regulation of exported used 

electronics. Among other things,

GAO reviewed waste management

surveys in developing countries, 

monitored e-commerce Web sites, 

and posed as foreign Internet

buyers of broken CRTs. 

What GAO Recommends

In its August 2008 report, GAO 

recommended that EPA 

(1) develop a systematic plan to

implement and enforce the CRT 

rule and (2) develop options to

broaden its authority to address the 

export of other potentially harmful 

used electronic items. EPA

expressed significant reservations 

with GAO’s findings and 

recommendations. GAO maintains,

however, that they are fair and well 

supported. 

Some exported used electronics are handled responsibly in countries with 

effective regulatory controls and by companies with advanced technologies, 

but a substantial amount ends up in countries where disposal practices can 

harm workers and the environment. Recent surveys taken on behalf of the 

United Nations found that used electronics exported from the United States to

many Asian countries are dismantled using methods like open-air incineration 

and acid baths to extract metals such as copper and gold. Over 3 months, GAO

observed thousands of requests for these items on e-commerce Web sites—

mostly from Asian countries such as China and India but also from Africa.

U.S. hazardous waste regulations have not deterred exports of potentially 

hazardous used electronics, primarily for the following reasons: 

• Existing EPA regulations focus only on CRTs. Other exported used 

electronics flow virtually unrestricted, even to countries where they can 

be mismanaged, in large part because relevant U.S. hazardous waste 

regulations assess only how products will react in unlined U.S. landfills. 

• Companies easily circumvent EPA’s CRT rule. Posing as foreign buyers 

of broken CRTs in Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, and other countries, GAO 

found 43 U.S. companies that expressed willingness to export such CRTs. 

Some of the companies, including ones that publicly tout their exemplary 

environmental practices, were willing to export CRTs in apparent 

violation of the CRT rule. GAO provided EPA with the names of these 

companies at EPA’s request. 

• EPA’s enforcement is lacking. Since the CRT rule took effect in January 

2007, Hong Kong officials intercepted and returned to U.S. ports 26 

containers of illegally exported CRTs. EPA has since penalized one 

violator, and then only long after the shipment was identified by GAO. 

EPA officials acknowledged CRT rule compliance problems but said that 

given the rule’s relative newness, they were focusing on educating the 

regulated community. This explanation, however, is undermined by GAO’s 

observation of the apparent willingness by many companies to violate the 

rule, even by those aware of it. Finally, EPA has done little to ascertain the 

extent of noncompliance, and EPA officials told us that they have neither 

plans nor a timetable to develop an enforcement program. 

Beyond enforcing the CRT rule, EPA can take steps to ensure that the larger 

universe of potentially harmful electronic devices—such as computers, 

printers, and cell phones—are exported in a manner that does not harm health 

or the environment. Among the options GAO has raised are (1) expanding 

hazardous waste regulations to cover other exported used electronics; 

(2) submitting a legislative package to Congress for ratifying the Basel 

Convention, an international regime governing the import and export of

hazardous wastes; and (3) working with Customs and Border Protection and 

other agencies to improve identification and tracking of exported used 

electronics. Options like these could help make U.S. export controls more 

consistent with those of other industrialized countries. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-1166T. 

For more information, contact John

Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or

stephensonj@gao.gov. 
Electronic Waste Exports

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our recent findings regarding 

exports of electronic waste from the United States and the effectiveness of 

regulatory controls over export practices. According to the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Americans removed more than 300 million 

electronic devices from their households in 2006. Toxic substances, such 

as lead, in electronics are well known to harm people’s health, and when 

electronics are disposed of improperly, these substances can leach from 

discarded devices into the surrounding environment. As a result, when 

U.S. consumers purchase new devices, such as computers, monitors, 

televisions, and cell phones, they are increasingly paying electronics 

recyclers to recycle their old ones. 

Since one person’s trash is often another person’s treasure, a thriving 

international trade has emerged in used electronics, largely from 

industrialized to developing countries. As the export of these items has 

continued, however, concerns have mounted that not all recycling is 

conducted responsibly, particularly in developing countries, and that some 

U.S. recyclers and exporters may be at fault. Environmental groups have 

alleged that imported used electronics that cannot be repaired are often 

recycled in developing countries by crude and inefficient means and with 

virtually no human health or environmental protection. Products with 

cathode-ray tubes (CRTs), such as televisions and computer monitors, can 

be especially harmful to humans and the environment. Accordingly, in the 

United States, used CRTs are the only electronic devices regulated as 

hazardous waste and whose export is specifically controlled by EPA. 

Internationally, the Basel Convention, an outgrowth of the United Nations 

Environment Programme, in 1989 established an international legal regime 

governing the export and import of hazardous wastes for disposal. 

Our testimony, which is based on our recent report on electronic waste 

exports,1

 addresses (1) the fate of exported used electronics, (2) the 

effectiveness of regulatory controls over the export of used electronics 

from the United States, and (3) opportunities for strengthening the federal

role in regulating used electronics exports. 

 1

GAO, Electronic Waste: EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S. Exports through

Stronger Enforcement and More Comprehensive Regulation, GAO-08-1044 (Washington,

D.C.: Aug. 28, 2008). 

Page 1 GAO-08-1166T 
While some exported used electronics can be handled responsibly in 

countries with effective regulatory regimes and by companies with 

advanced technologies, a substantial amount ends up in countries such as 

China and India, where they are often handled and disposed of unsafely. 

Recent surveys conducted on behalf of the United Nations Environment 

Programme found that used electronics imported from the United States 

are dismantled in many developing countries under unsafe conditions. 

Other investigations have corroborated disassembly practices in some 

Asian countries involving the open-air burning of wire to recover copper 

and open acid baths for separating metals, exposing people to lead and 

other hazardous materials. In particular, as China’s growing economy has 

driven its demand for raw materials, the country appears to be relying on 

the inexpensive labor and lax environmental controls reported in other 

countries in the region (such as Indonesia and Cambodia) to help meet its 

demand. Whereas used electronics exported to Asian countries are often 

unsafely recycled, such items are exported to West African countries 

primarily for reuse. Many units are in fact exported broken, however, and 

some U.S. companies appear to mix broken units with shipments of 

working units. The nonworking units are often dumped and left for 

scavengers. 

Summary 

Current U.S. regulatory controls do little to stem the export of potentially 

hazardous used electronics, primarily for the following reasons: 

• Narrow scope of regulatory control. U.S. hazardous waste regulations do 

not consider most used electronic products such as computers, printers, 

and cell phones as hazardous, even though they can be mismanaged

overseas and can cause serious health and environmental problems. Under 

U.S. law, only exports of CRTs are regulated as hazardous waste. 

• Regulatory controls easily circumvented. Despite adoption of a CRT rule 

in 2006, the export of CRTs from the United States in apparent violation of 

the rule seems widespread. Posing as fictitious buyers from Hong Kong, 

India, Pakistan, Singapore, and Vietnam, among other countries, we found 

43 electronics recyclers in the United States who were willing to export to 

us broken, untested, or nonworking CRTs under conditions that would 

appear to violate the CRT rule.2

 EPA records show that none of the 

recyclers willing to sell to us had filed proper notifications of their intent 

 2

Three others indicated that they do not export broken CRTs, and 7 others asked for more 

information about our fictitious identities, such as phone numbers, a Web site, or what we

intended to do with the broken CRTs. 

Page 2 GAO-08-1166T Electronic Waste Exports
Electronic Waste Exports

to export CRTs for recycling as is required by the CRT rule for actual 

shipments.3

 Some of these seemingly noncompliant companies actively 

cultivate an environmentally responsible public image; at least 3 of them 

held Earth Day 2008 electronics recycling events.

• EPA has done little to enforce the CRT rule. EPA has taken few steps to 

enforce the CRT rule. Since the rule took effect in January 2007, for 

example, Hong Kong has intercepted and returned to the United States 26

shipping containers of used CRT monitors because, Hong Kong officials 

said, these exports violated Hong Kong’s hazardous waste import laws. 

Under the CRT rule, these shipments are considered illegal hazardous 

waste exports because the U.S. exporter did not notify EPA. Such 

exporters could be subject to administrative or criminal penalties. 

Nonetheless, EPA did not issue its first administrative penalty complaint 

against a company for potentially illegal CRT shipments until July 2008, 

and this penalty came as a result of a problem we identified. EPA 

acknowledges the existence of compliance problems with its CRT rule, but 

the agency has done little to ascertain the extent of noncompliance. 

Moreover, Enforcement and Compliance Assurance officials told us that 

they have no plans and no timetable for developing the basic components 

of an enforcement strategy, such as enforcement targets, monitoring, 

follow-up of suspected violations, and prosecution. 

Beyond enforcing its own CRT rule, EPA can also take steps to ensure that 

the larger universe of potentially harmful electronics—possibly including

computers, flat-panel monitors, and cell phones—are also exported in a 

manner that does not contribute to human health and environmental harm 

overseas. Among the available options—which could make U.S. export 

controls more consistent with international norms—is to propose 

amending RCRA regulations to include exports of a broader range of used 

electronics posing health or environmental risks when disassembled or 

reclaimed. Additionally, EPA could enhance U.S. control over the export 

of used electronics by submitting a legislative package to Congress to 

complete ratification of the Basel Convention and by working with 

Customs and Border Protection and the International Trade Commission 

to improve identification and tracking of exported used electronics. 

 3

As of June 2008, 25 companies have submitted 47 notices for export of CRTs for recycling 

to EPA. These companies informed EPA that they intended to responsibly recycle CRTs at 

facilities in Brazil, Canada, Korea, Malaysia, and Mexico. 

Page 3 GAO-08-1166T 
In issuing its final CRT rule in July 2006, EPA obtained information that 

prompted the agency to assert that “[CRTs] are sometimes managed so 

carelessly [overseas] that they pose possible human health and 

environmental risks from such practices as open burning, land disposal, 

and dumping into rivers.” As a result, for nearly 2 years, CRT exporters 

have been required to notify the appropriate EPA regional office when the 

items are destined for reuse. 

When CRTs are exported for recycling, the exporter must first notify 

EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance in Washington,

D.C., which then obtains consent from the importing country. The written 

acknowledgment of the importing country’s consent, which EPA then 

sends to the exporter, must accompany the shipment. If these conditions

are not met, the CRTs are considered hazardous waste subject to full 

RCRA regulation because they typically fail EPA’s tests for toxicity.4

Implementation of the CRT rule is a shared responsibility between EPA’s 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Used electronic devices other 

than CRTs do not generally qualify as hazardous waste under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as amended (RCRA), which is the 

statute governing hazardous waste handling and disposal. 

The Basel Convention has been ratified by 170 countries, including 

virtually all industrialized countries except the United States. It stipulates 

that a country may ship hazardous waste only after receiving prior written 

consent from the receiving country. Additionally, exports of hazardous 

waste can occur only under the following circumstances: (1) if the 

exporting country does not have sufficient disposal capacity and (2) if the 

Background 

 4

U.S. exporters of hazardous wastes must comply with all applicable domestic laws and 

regulations, which include regulations under RCRA. In general, a U.S. exporter must 

prepare and submit certain documents. Before a shipment proceeds, an exporter must

submit to EPA headquarters a notification of intent to export, describing the type and 

amount of waste, its itinerary, the number of shipments expected, and the period during 

which shipments will occur. EPA forwards this notification to the government(s) of all 

concerned countries. The government of the importing country must consent to the

shipment before it may proceed. While a shipment is in transit, an exporter must attach a

hazardous waste manifest to the shipment, along with the acknowledgment of consent

from the importing and transit countries. Finally, an exporter must file an annual report

with EPA headquarters summarizing the exporter’s shipments for the previous calendar 

year. 

Page 4 GAO-08-1166T Electronic Waste Exports
Electronic Waste Exports

exporting country does not have disposal sites that can dispose of the 

waste in an environmentally sound manner.5

Some exported used electronics can be handled responsibly in countries 

with effective regulatory regimes and by companies with advanced 

technologies. A substantial quantity, however, ends up in countries where 

the items are handled and disposed of in a manner that threatens human 

health and the environment. 

Certain developed countries have regulatory regimes that require safe 

handling and disposal of used electronics. Member states of the European

Union, for example, must comply with the Waste Electrical and Electronic

Equipment Directive of 2002, which established comprehensive take-back 

and recycling requirements involving retailers, manufacturers, and 

importers of electrical and electronic products. The directive requires 

member countries to ensure that producers and importers finance the 

separate collection, treatment, recovery, and environmentally sound 

disposal of “waste electronics,” either on their own or through collective 

systems financed by themselves and other members of the industry. 

European Union countries are also parties to the Basel Convention. The 

aim of the convention is to protect human health and the environment 

from the adverse effects caused by the export of hazardous wastes, 

especially to developing countries, where the risk of unsafe hazardous 

waste management is often higher. As part of European Union countries’ 

implementation of the Basel Convention, hazardous wastes intended for 

disposal generally cannot be shipped to developing countries. 

Some companies located in developing countries also appear to safely 

recycle and dispose of used electronics using advanced technologies. 

Samsung Corning, for example, operates a plant in Malaysia that recycles 

CRT glass and manufactures new CRT televisions, which can contain as 

much as 50 percent recycled glass content. Samsung Corning’s contractor

in the United States has coordinated with approximately 40 U.S. recyclers 

Used Electronics Are 

Exported Worldwide 

and Often Handled 

and Disposed of 

Unsafely 

Some Exported Used 

Electronics Appear to Be 

Handled Responsibly 

 5

The Basel Convention also prohibits movement of waste between parties and non-parties,

except when these movements occur under an equivalent bilateral or multilateral 

agreement. The bilateral or multilateral agreements must provide an equally sound 

management structure for transboundary movements of waste. 

Page 5 GAO-08-1166T 
Electronic Waste Exports

for the export of CRT glass. According to the contractor, about 250 

shipping containers, totaling about 4,000 tons of CRT glass, leave the 

United States for the Malaysian facility each month. Malaysia’s regulatory 

regime helps ensure safe recycling and disposal practices for CRTs; these 

products may be exported to Malaysia only if they meet certain safety 

conditions, according to Malaysian environmental protection officials. 

Significant demand exists for used electronics from the United States, 

particularly in developing countries. In a search of one Internet ecommerce site, we observed brokers from around the world place 2,234 

requests to purchase LCD monitors. On the same site, we found 430 

requests for central processing units and 665 for used computers. In an 

extensive search of two Internet e-commerce sites over a 3-month period, 

we observed brokers in developing countries make 230 requests for 

CRTs—seeking about 7.5 million units. Brokers in developing countries 

represented over 60 percent of all requests we observed. Over 75 percent 

of the requests made by brokers were for $10 or less per unit, and almost 

half offered $5 or less. Low prices (under $10 per unit) indicate a high

likelihood that these items will ultimately be handled and disposed of 

unsafely. About 70 percent of the requests that came from developing 

countries were from Asia, with China and India posting by far the largest 

number; the remaining requests came largely from Africa (see fig. 1). 

Significant Demand Exists 

for Exported Used 

Electronics, and Many 

Countries Receiving These 

Items Lack the Capacity to 

Safely Handle and Dispose 

of Them 

Page 6 GAO-08-1166T 
Electronic Waste Exports

Figure 1: Developing Countries Requesting CRTs on Two Internet E-commerce Web Sites, February 2008 to May 2008 

Hong Kong a

Singapore

Ten highest number of requests

Placed requests

Transshipment points

North

Pacific

Ocean

Indian Ocean

South

Atlantic

Ocean

Source: GAO analysis of two Internet-e-commerce sites.

China

Russia

India

Pakistan

Afganistan

Taiwan

Philippines

Egypt

South

Africa

Algeria

Morocco

Tunisia

Albania

Moldova

Ukraine

Nigeria

Zambia

Ghana

Vietnam

Thailand

Burma

Bangladesh

Sri Lanka

Malaysia

Indonesia

UAE

The Gambia

Botswana Zimbabwe

Ethiopia

Kenya

Iran

Syria

Jordan

Note: The information presented in figure 1 assumes that buyers do not post fictitious country names.

It also assumes no double-counting of requests. Hong Kong and Singapore are the two 

transshipment points. Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China. Requests were also 

placed in Aruba, Peru, and Venezuela. 

Unlike the United States, many foreign countries, particularly those in the 

developing world, do not have the landfill capacity and regulatory controls 

to ensure safe handling and disposal of used electronics. According to 

surveys made on behalf of the United Nations Environment Programme, 

large quantities of used electronic items are imported by developing 

countries, particularly in Southeast Asia, where they are improperly 

handled and, in some cases, informally recycled in “backyard” operations 

involving open-air burning of copper wire and acid baths to recover 

valuable metals. 

Page 7 GAO-08-1166T 
Electronic Waste Exports

China and Hong Kong. China’s fast-growing economy drives the nation’s 

demand for raw materials, and one way that this demand is met is by 

importing used electronic products, according to a 2005 report by the 

Basel Convention Regional Centre in China.6

 Chinese and Japanese 

researchers told us that most of these devices are likely to be shipped 

through Hong Kong. Once in China, most disassembly happens “by hand,” 

according to the 2005 report, where workers use primitive means in 

workshops of seven or eight employees. In one city, the report found that 

more than 300 groups were active in electronic waste recovery efforts. 

Open burning and acid baths to recover metals are commonplace, and the

residual toxic waste from such operations is simply discarded, allowing 

pollutants to seep into the ground and water.7

Indonesia. In March 2007, Indonesian officials reported that used 

electronics are imported from the United States for re-export to China, 

Hong Kong, and Taiwan, and the lack of effective environmental controls 

make unsafe recycling commonplace.8

 According to these officials, 

electronics recycling activities occur in east Java in an industrial estate 

and on Batam Island (near Singapore) in a “special bounded zone” exempt 

from government regulation. Recyclers at these facilities dismantle, crush, 

and melt used electronics. Most of the waste recycled on Batam Island is 

hazardous and would otherwise be more expensive to handle in “legal” 

facilities outside the special bounded zone, according to Indonesian 

officials. 

Cambodia. According to Cambodian environmental officials, the primary 

electronic devices for sale consist mostly of secondhand material 

 6

Asia-Pacific Regional Centre for Hazardous Waste Management Training and Technology 

Transfer, Report on the Survey of the Import and the Environmentally Sound

Management of Electronic Wastes in the Asia-Pacific Region, December 2005. The Basel 

Convention has a network of 14 regional centers that assist party countries in controlling 

the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes. 

7

Recent studies have highlighted the dangers of working and living near these facilities, 

particularly for children. For example, a study conducted by a Chinese medical school and 

published in 2007 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that children in

Guiyu had lead levels in their blood that were more than 50 percent higher than the limit 

for lead exposure set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United 

States. Xia Huo et al., “Elevated Blood Lead Levels of Children in Guiyu, an Electronic 

Waste Recycling Town in China,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 115, no. July 7, 

2007. 

8

Regional Workshop on the Environmentally Sound Management of E-Wastes, Siem Reap,

Cambodia, March 13-15, 2007.

Page 8 GAO-08-1166T 
Electronic Waste Exports

imported from the United States, the European Union, China, and other 

Southeast Asian countries. Unrepairable electronic products are often 

disposed of in municipal waste sites that are not designed to contain 

hazardous materials. Some scavengers in Cambodia—including children—

often work directly for scrap yards, collecting material for as little as $1 a

day. At the scrap yards, material is sorted, and metals are exported abroad

for recycling. Items that lack value are often dumped and sometimes 

burned (see fig. 2). 

Figure 2: Open Dump Site for Electronic Waste in Cambodia

Source: Basel Convention Regional Centre in China.

Page 9 GAO-08-1166T 
Electronic Waste Exports

India. In 2004, the environmental group Toxics Link documented 

containers of computer waste labeled as mixed electronics scrap imported 

from the United States through the port of Chennai. According to Toxics 

Link, more than 10,000 people—again, including children—work in the 

“informal” recycling industry in Delhi alone, breaking equipment; using 

acid baths; and openly burning wires and plastic casings to reclaim gold, 

copper, and other commodities. 

Western Africa. In contrast to the situation in many Asian countries, 

used electronics exported to West African countries are intended for 

reuse. Businesses importing used computers, for example, can sell 

functional units for as little as $100, well below the cost of a new 

computer, bringing technology within the reach of more people, according 

to one African computer importer. Some U.S. recyclers, however, mix 

broken units with working units in shipments to Africa, and the 

nonworking units are often dumped and left for scavengers. Accepting 

“junk” equipment is often part of the “arrangement” U.S. recyclers make 

with African importers, according to a used computer importer in Senegal.

Negotiating the amount of working versus broken equipment is routinely 

part of the agreement, and this importer told us that even if he receives a 

shipment of up to 40 percent “junk,” he can still make a profit. Often, the 

“junk” computers are dumped in the countryside and burned, he 

explained.

Current EPA regulations for hazardous waste have not prevented the 

export of potentially hazardous used electronics. Most used electronics 

can be legally exported from the United States with no restrictions; EPA 

controls only the export of used CRTs under its CRT rule, yet we observed 

widespread willingness to engage in activities that would appear to violate 

the CRT rule. Further, EPA has done little to determine the extent of 

noncompliance with the rule and even less to deter such noncompliance.

U.S. Exports of 

Potentially Harmful 

Used Electronics 

Flow Virtually 

Unrestricted 

Existing Regulation 

Focuses Only on CRTs 

Current EPA hazardous waste regulations control only the export of a 

narrow segment of used electronics (CRTs), therefore allowing 

unrestricted export of nearly all others.9

 Besides CRTs, most other types of 

 9

As of June 2008, 25 companies have submitted to EPA 47 notices for export of CRTs for 

recycling. These companies informed EPA that they intended to responsibly recycle CRTs 

at facilities in Brazil, Canada, Korea, Malaysia, and Mexico. 

Page 10 GAO-08-1166T 
Electronic Waste Exports

exported used electronics can be mismanaged and cause serious health 

and environmental problems overseas. These products, however, are 

generally not considered “hazardous” under EPA’s regulatory definition. 

Consequently, exporters can ship most types of used electronic products, 

such as computers, printers, and cell phones, without restriction. Under 

RCRA regulations, waste products are designated as “hazardous” 

according to the extent to which they will leach toxins if disposed of in 

unlined landfills. The tests used to make such a designation do not 

account for the potential for toxic exposure when items are disassembled 

or handled differently, such as by burning, as they often are outside the 

United States, particularly in developing countries. 

Companies Exporting 

Nonworking CRTs Can 

Easily Circumvent EPA’s 

Regulatory Controls

The limited regulation that exists over used electronics exports from the 

United States—namely, the CRT rule—is largely ineffectual because EPA’s 

implementation of it has frequently failed to deter companies from illegally

exporting these items from the United States. When we posed as foreign 

buyers looking for nonworking CRT monitors, 43 U.S. companies that 

responded to our fictitious requests were willing to export nonworking 

CRTs to us, in apparent violation of the CRT rule.10 Many of these 

companies also actively promote an environmentally responsible public 

image, with 3 holding Earth Day 2008 electronics-recycling events. For 

example: 

• A sales representative for a large electronics recycler in New Jersey said 

that he was not aware of the CRT rule and was not the right person to 

speak to about this issue. This same individual, however, told our fictitious

buyer from Hong Kong not to worry about U.S. laws’ holding up export of

untested CRT monitors. He explained that “it’s the laws at [the port of 

Hong Kong] that you have to find out about.” 

• A recycler from Missouri states on its Web site that it is an organization 

“dedicated to keeping old discarded computer equipment from entering 

America’s landfills.” This company, however, offered to sell a containerload of CRT monitors to our fictitious broker in Hong Kong, offering us a 

10 percent discount because we were new buyers. 

 10Six others requested more information about our purchase offer; 2 indicated they would

sell us only working CRTs; and 3 others said they would not do business with us because 

they did not export nonworking CRTs. 

Page 11 GAO-08-1166T 
Electronic Waste Exports

• A representative of an electronics-recycling company in Colorado told us 

that the company does not export CRTs, instead asserting that all CRTs 

are recycled in-house and that the CRT rule therefore does not apply. This

same person offered to sell 1,500 CRT monitors and 1,200 CRT 

televisions— which were ready for immediate shipment-to our fictitious 

broker in Hong Kong. 

• A representative of an electronics-recycling company in Washington State 

told us that all of its CRT monitors are sent to its shredding facility in 

Oregon. A sales associate at the company, however, offered to sell 4 

containers of CRT monitors (approximately 3,200 units) in April 2008 and 

another 20 containers (approximately 16,000 units) in June 2008 to our 

fictitious broker in Hong Kong. 

• A Maryland electronics recycler charges $10 to $30 for CRT monitors to 

cover its “responsible, domestic recycling costs,” stating that its mission is 

to be globally responsible. Yet when we posed as a buyer in Singapore, the 

Chief Operating Officer asked what price we were paying for untested, asis CRT monitors, suggesting that he was interested in selling the items to 

us. 

Of note, at least two electronics recyclers that responded to our fictitious

foreign brokers have purchased used state-government surplus CRT 

monitors from two auction Web sites, indicating that government CRTs 

may be among those offered for sale to overseas brokers. 

Our investigation revealed little inclination on EPA’s part to enforce the 

CRT rule. Since the rule took effect in January 2007, for example, Hong 

Kong’s Environmental Protection Department and its Customs 

Department have worked together to intercept and return 26 containers of 

“waste” CRT monitors to the United States. In each instance, the U.S. 

exporters neither notified EPA nor received consent from Hong Kong. An

official from Hong Kong’s Environmental Protection Department stated 

that his agency would not grant consent for importing such items because

under Hong Kong regulations it is illegal to import CRTs from the United 

States. From January to July 2008, we provided EPA’s Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance with current information we 

received from Hong Kong’s Environmental Protection Department, which 

included information on six shipments (10 40-foot containers) of waste 

CRTs intercepted and returned to the United States during this period, one 

of which was returned from Hong Kong multiple times. 

EPA Has Done Little to 

Enforce the CRT Rule 

Page 12 GAO-08-1166T 
A Tale of Three Containers

Three containers were shipped across the 

Pacific Ocean four times before EPA 

initiated enforcement action. Hong Kong’s

Environmental Protection Department 

notified GAO of three 40-foot containers of 

CRT monitors that had been inspected in 

Hong Kong and returned to the Port of 

Los Angeles because they contained 

“waste” CRT monitors, which are illegal for 

import into Hong Kong. EPA records

indicate that the U.S. exporter had not 

notified EPA. GAO notified EPA’s Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

that the containers were still at the Port of 

Los Angeles. After sitting at the port for 11 

more days, the three 40-foot containers

were loaded onto another cargo ship and 

re-exported to Hong Kong. An EPA Office 

of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance official explained to GAO that the 

original shipper had placed the CRT 

monitors in the containers “by mistake” 

and that the company had voluntarily 

removed the CRT monitors before 

re-exporting the containers to Hong Kong. 

About 3 weeks later, Hong Kong’s

Environmental Protection Department 

intercepted the containers a second time 

and verified that the three containers still 

contained the same “waste” CRT 

monitors. They were returned again to the 

Port of Los Angeles, at which time EPA 

detained the containers and arranged for 

their inspection. The result of EPA’s

investigation is pending. According to an 

EPA inspector, the shipper had simply 

changed the name of his business to a

fictitious company and re-exported the 

containers after they had originally been 

returned from Hong Kong.

In one instance, we asked U.S. Customs and Border Protection to detain a 

container that was intercepted in Hong Kong and returned to the United 

States in February 2008. We viewed the contents of this container at the

Port of Long Beach, California. We observed hundreds of CRT computer 

monitors stacked haphazardly, some with cracked plastic cases and 

broken glass tubes. We received photographic evidence showing that this 

illegal shipment of CRT monitors originated from the Denver metropolitan 

area. According to a third-party source, these monitors came from an 

electronics recycler in Colorado, which claims to hold 20 to 30 community 

recycling events each year for homeowners’ associations, city 

governments, and property managers. The company’s Web site also states

that “many domestic recycling companies ship e-waste to China, where it 

ends up harming the environment and the population. With [this 

company], your e-waste is recycled properly, right here in the United 

States, not simply dumped on somebody else.” 

In at least one case, EPA chose not to physically inspect and detain a 

container that was intercepted and returned to the United States by Hong

Kong, even though EPA acknowledged that the container likely contained

broken CRTs. In this case, referring to a container returning to the Port of

Tacoma in April 2008, EPA asked a Customs and Border Patrol officer not 

to detain the container on its behalf. Although EPA acknowledged that the 

container included used CRTs that may be in broken or unstable 

condition, the agency concluded that an inspection of the container was 

not necessary to address the apparent noncompliance. Upon consultation 

with EPA, Customs and Border Protection released the container, which

was re-exported to Hong Kong. We do not know if Hong Kong’s 

Environmental Protection Department again intercepted the container. 

EPA’s deputy director for Civil Enforcement stated that EPA intended to 

initiate contact with the responsible party for this shipment. The outcome 

of EPA’s investigation was pending at the time of our report in August. 

The Director of EPA’s Hazardous Waste Identification Division 

acknowledged in an e-mail to EPA’s RCRA regional directors, “[I] expect 

there has been considerable noncompliance with the [CRT] rule’s 

notification provision.” Nonetheless, the Deputy Director of the agency’s 

Office of Civil Enforcementtold us that EPA’s initial efforts to address 

noncompliance have been aimed at education and outreach. He explained 

that given the rule’s relative newness, the regulated community must first 

be made aware of the rule’s requirements. 

We believe that EPA’s contention, that a focus on enforcement should 

await the effects of an education program, has not been substantiated by 

Page 13 GAO-08-1166T Electronic Waste Exports
Electronic Waste Exports

the facts. This view implies that violations to date have resulted largely

from unawareness of the rule and not from willful disregard for it. This 

implication, however, has clearly not been borne out. With very little 

effort, we were able to observe substantial willingness to engage in 

activities that would appear to violate the CRT rule—including instances 

where the exporters were aware of the CRT rule—by simply monitoring ecommerce Web sites and conducting limited follow-up. EPA, on the other 

hand, has done little to ascertain the extent of noncompliance with the 

CRT rule. In the absence of such an effort, it has set no enforcement 

targets, conducted no monitoring, and taken only one action against a 

violator of the rule. Moreover, the agency has not taken the initial steps 

necessary to develop a program for identifying and prosecuting exporters 

who do not notify the agency when shipping CRTs overseas for recycling

or reuse, nor does it have plans to develop such a program. 

Even if there were total compliance with the CRT rule, the effect would 

reach only a small percentage of all potentially harmful used electronics 

exported from the United States. Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

guidance states that if an environmental problem would not be solved if 

100 percent compliance were achieved within the regulated community, 

then modification of regulations or other initiatives may be necessary.11 As 

we have shown, such a gap exists with respect to used electronics that do 

not meet the current U.S. regulatory definition of hazardous waste. More 

comprehensive regulation of used electronics exports could narrow this 

gap. Options in this regard include, but are not limited to, (1) amending 

RCRA regulations to include exports of used electronics posing health or 

environmental risks when disassembled or reclaimed, to expand the scope 

of the CRT rule, and/or to revise the regulatory definition of hazardous 

waste, (2) submitting a legislative package to Congress for ratifying the 

Basel Convention, and (3) working with Customs and Border Protection 

and with the International Trade Commission to improve identification 

and tracking of exported used electronics. 

EPA Has Several 

Options That Would 

Strengthen the 

Federal Role in 

Reducing Harmful 

Exports of Used 

Electronics 

• Amend RCRA Regulations. EPA could amend RCRA regulations to 

cover exports of used electronics where risks exist to human health or the 

environment when reclaimed for reuse or recycling, an action that—if 

implemented—could bring U.S. export controls more in line with those of 

 11EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Guide for Addressing 

Environmental Problems: Using a Strategic Approach (Washington, D.C., March 2007).

Page 14 GAO-08-1166T 
Electronic Waste Exports

other industrialized countries. For example, EPA could revise the 

definition of “hazardous” in its RCRA regulations to encompass certain 

used products that can pose risks upon disassembly or reclamation, 

including desktop computers, laptop computers, printers, and cell phones. 

Currently, many electronics contain toxic constituents in small quantities 

yet do not come within the regulatory definition of “hazardous” because 

these substances do not leach from the electronic products at unsafe 

amounts under tests simulating disposal in a landfill. As long as the 

regulatory definition of “hazardous” does not include such used products,

they will not be subject to any of RCRA’s export provisions, such as notice 

and consent, and the burden for identifying and controlling the flow of 

such products will remain solely with the receiving country. 

• U.S. Ratification of the Basel Convention. U.S. regulations contain no

provisions for addressing situations when a waste is not classified as 

hazardous under U.S. law but is so classified—with its trade restricted or 

prohibited—under an importing country’s law. The effect is that the 

importing country bears the full burden of identifying and intercepting 

such materials, without the benefit of U.S. cooperation as the export 

country. By contrast, the Basel Convention on the Control of 

Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal—

effectively the international standard for hazardous wastes shipped for 

disposal or recycling—provides for cooperation between exporting and 

importing countries. For example, the convention requires that exporting

countries stop shipments of waste if they have reason to believe that the 

waste will not be handled in an environmentally sound manner, as well 

prohibit exports to countries that have prohibited import of that type of

waste. The Basel Convention also established a prior notice-and-consent 

system for such wastes. While the U.S. has an existing notice-and-consent

system, the Basel Convention and the U.S. system have significant 

distinctions. 

For the United States to become a party to the Basel Convention, Congress 

would need to enact implementing legislation giving a U.S. agency, such as

EPA, the authority to enforce the Convention’s provisions domestically.12

 12The United States Ambassador to the United Nations signed the Basel Convention on

March 21, 1990. The United States Senate gave consent to ratification in 1992 (138 

Congressional Record 12291-92). The State Department has advised the Senate that it will 

not ratify the convention prior to the enactment of implementing legislation. (Ratification 

occurs when a country submits its documents of ratification to the Secretariat). Thus, the

next step in ratification would be Congressional passage of implementing legislation, 

followed by presentation to the President. 

Page 15 GAO-08-1166T 
Electronic Waste Exports

Passage of such legislation would complete the prerequisites to 

ratification and, in effect, would make the United States party to the Basel 

Convention. Although the EPA had developed a legislative package that, if

signed into law, would give EPA the statutory authorities it needs to fulfill 

the requirements of the Basel Convention, the legislative package has to

date not been submitted to Congress. According to EPA Solid Waste 

officials, the agency has not submitted the legislative package to Congress 

because, at present, it has other priorities for Congressional attention.. 

• Improve Tracking of Exported Used Electronics. The U.S. 

government has adopted the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as the basic 

system for tracking exports for duty, quota, and statistical purposes. At 

present, the schedule’s codes do not enable identification of used 

electronics, nor do they distinguish between whether such electronics are 

being exported for recycling or reuse. Through identification of potentially

illegal shipments of CRTs, we observed that shippers described used 

electronic exports as “mixed plastics” and “scrap metals.” Customs 

regulations require that U.S. exporters use the 7-digit international 

standard code that most closely describes the contents of a container, but 

no such code exists for used electronics. U.S. exporters can use 8- or 10-

digit codes, which helps Customs and Border Patrol officials track more 

specific product types. Adding more detailed codes to the schedule could 

assist other countries in controlling used electronics exported from the 

United States. For example, a country such as China, which reports it has 

tried to ban all imports of used electronics, could use the codes as listed 

on the shipper’s export declaration accompanying the shipment to select 

shipments for inspection and potential rejection at the border. Further, 

such codes could facilitate basic statistical tracking of such exports, 

including by type, price, and receiving country, among others. 

Because of EPA’s enforcement and regulatory shortcomings, we 

recommended in our August 2008 report that EPA (1) develop a systematic 

plan to enforce the CRT rule and (2) develop options to broaden its 

regulatory authority to address the export of other potentially harmful 

used electronics. In its comments, EPA expressed significant reservations

with GAO’s findings and recommendations. We maintain, however, that 

the recommendations are fair and well supported, and that a commitment 

on EPA’s part to address these issues is appropriate. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to

respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may 

have. 

Page 16 GAO-08-1166T 
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 

512-3841. Steve Elstein, Assistant Director; Nathan Anderson; Elizabeth 

Beardsley; Mark Braza; Ellen Chu; Paul Kazemersky; and Arvin Wu also 

made key contributions to this statement. 

Page 17 GAO-08-1166T Electronic Waste Exports

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(361009) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, DC 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER