United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives 

ELECTRONIC WASTE

EPA Needs to Better 

Control Harmful U.S. 

Exports through 

Stronger Enforcement 

and More 

Comprehensive 

Regulation 

August 2008 

 

GAO-08-1044 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

August 2008

ELECTRONIC WASTE

EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S. Exports

through Stronger Enforcement and More 

Highlights of GAO-08-1044, a report to the Comprehensive Regulation 

Chairman, 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 cause health and 

environmental problems. Items 

with cathode-ray tubes (CRT) are 

particularly harmful because they 

can contain 4 pounds of lead, a 

known toxin. To prevent this 

practice, since January 2007 EPA 

began regulating the export of 

CRTs under its CRT rule, which 

requires companies to notify EPA 

before exporting CRTs. 

In this context, GAO 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 

buyers of broken CRTs. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends 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. 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 quantity ends up in countries where disposal practices are 

unsafe to workers and dangerous to the environment. Recent surveys made on 

behalf of the United Nations found that used electronics exported from the 

United States to many Asian countries are dismantled under unsafe 

conditions, using methods like open-air incineration and acid baths to extract 

metals such as copper and gold. GAO observed thousands of requests for 

these items on e-commerce Web sites during a 3-month period—mostly from 

Asian countries such as China and India but also from some in 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 the CRT rule. GAO posed as foreign buyers 

of broken CRTs in Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, and other countries, and 43 

U.S. companies expressed willingness to export these items. 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 had been identified by GAO. EPA 

officials acknowledged compliance problems with its CRT rule but said that 

given the rule’s relative newness, their focus was on educating the regulated 

community. This reasoning appears misplaced, however, given GAO’s 

observation of exporters willing to engage in apparent violations of the CRT 

rule, including some who are aware of the rule. Finally, EPA has done little 

to ascertain the extent of noncompliance, and EPA officials said 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 raised by GAO 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 such as 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-08-1044. 

For more information, contact John 

Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or 

stephensonj@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 9 

Used Electronics Are Exported Worldwide and Often Handled and 

Disposed of Unsafely 14 

U.S. Exports of Potentially Harmful Used Electronics Flow 

Virtually Unrestricted 21 

EPA Has Several Options That Would Strengthen the Federal Role 

in Reducing Harmful Exports of Used Electronics 31 

Conclusions 39 

Recommendations for Executive Action 40 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 41 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 45 

Appendix II Comments from the Environmental Protection 

Agency 48 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 62

Figures 

Figure 1: Toxic Substances Contained in a Central Processing Unit 

and CRT Monitor 12 

Figure 2: Developing Countries Requesting CRTs on Two Internet 

E-commerce Web Sites, February 2008 to May 2008 17 

Figure 3: Three Stages of Electronics Dismantling and Disposal in 

Indonesia 19 

Figure 4: Open Dump Site for Electronic Waste in Cambodia 20 

Figure 5: Broken CRT Monitors from an Illegal Shipment of Used 

CRTs 28 

Page i GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Abbreviations 

CRT cathode-ray tube 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

LCD liquid-crystal display 

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

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. 

Page ii GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

August 28, 2008 

The Honorable Howard L. Berman 

Chairman 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

In recent years, consumers have grown more aware that tossing their old 

electronic devices into the trash can produce undesirable, and unintended, 

consequences. Toxic substances contained in used electronics—such as 

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

disposed of improperly, they 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—who routinely assure them 

that the used items will not end up in a landfill—to handle 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. Functional secondhand computers 

exported from the United States to Africa, for example, can be purchased 

for less than 1/10th the cost of a new one, a practice referred to as bridging 

the “digital divide.” 

As the export of used electronics 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. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

Americans removed more than 300 million electronic devices from their 

households in 2006. As alleged in recent years by environmental groups, 

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. One report by two such groups 

asserted that most of the used electronics handled in this manner 

originated in North America.1

 

1

Basel Action Network and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Exporting Harm: The HighTech Trashing of Asia (Seattle, Washington, and San Jose, California, Feb. 25, 2002). 

Page 1 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Products with cathode-ray tubes (CRT), such as televisions and computer 

monitors, can be especially harmful to humans and the environment. CRTs 

contain copper—a commodity in high demand, in part because its price 

has increased threefold over the last several years—but also 4 pounds of 

lead, a toxin that can delay neurological development. Accordingly, used 

CRTs are the only electronic device regulated as hazardous waste and 

whose export is specifically controlled by EPA.2

 The agency’s July 2006 

CRT rule required that, starting in January 2007, CRT exporters file a 

notification of export with EPA. For CRTs exported for reuse, the rule 

requires the exporter to notify EPA of intent to export CRTs for reuse or 

repair. Further, for CRTs exported for recycling, exporters must obtain 

consent from the importing country for shipment.3

 If these conditions are 

not met, CRTs, which would likely fail EPA tests for toxicity, would be 

considered hazardous waste. 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 

 

2

Circuit boards (removed from any product) are also regulated under RCRA. Circuit boards 

intended to be disposed of, recycled, or reclaimed would come under the definition of 

hazardous waste. EPA regulations, however, provide a conditional exclusion from the 

hazardous waste definition for circuit boards that are shredded for recycling after removal 

of certain hazardous components and an exemption from the definition for whole circuit 

boards to be recycled, which are considered scrap metal. These circuit boards are not 

subject to any regulatory requirements when exported. Any exported circuit boards 

intended for disposal must comply with notice-and-consent requirements. Beyond CRTs 

and circuit boards, any other used electronics that qualify as “hazardous” under RCRA 

regulations would be subject to export provisions; EPA has stated repeatedly, however, 

that to its knowledge, other types of electronics do not fail its threshold toxicity test and 

thus are not currently regulated. 

3

The CRT rule requires that any exporter of CRTs for recycling (which includes 

reclamation and other processing) must notify EPA at least 60 days prior to the intended 

shipment, and that the shipment be accompanied by and conform with an acknowledgment 

of consent, provided by EPA, that documents the importing country’s consent. Any 

exporter of intact CRTs for reuse (which includes use after repair or refurbishment) must 

send EPA a one-time notification and maintain business records demonstrating that each 

shipment will be reused. Thus, broken CRTs (which cannot be reused and can only be 

recycled) that lack or fail to conform with an acknowledgment of consent would be in 

violation of the CRT rule and therefore regulated as hazardous waste. A shipment of 

broken CRTs falsely represented as intact CRTs for reuse would likewise be considered 

hazardous waste, since any shipment of broken CRTs (excluding processed CRT glass) is 

required to have and to conform with an acknowledgment (whether shipped for recycling 

under the CRT rule or as hazardous waste for disposal). Used CRTs generated by 

households are subject to the CRT rule when a recycler or collector mixes them with CRTs 

from other sources (e.g., businesses or government entities). 

Page 2 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
amended (RCRA), which is the statute governing hazardous waste 

handling and disposal. 

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. Ratified by 170 

countries—including virtually all industrialized countries except the 

United States—the Basel Convention stipulates that a country may ship 

hazardous waste only after receiving prior written consent from the 

receiving country. Although not a ratifying member of the Basel 

Convention, the United States is a member of the Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and therefore has 

agreed to be bound by OECD Council decisions.4

 A 1986 decision imposes 

general obligations on members concerning exports of hazardous wastes 

to non-OECD countries (in part because of concerns over the effectiveness 

of developing countries’ regulatory regimes) and prohibits exports unless 

the wastes are sent to an adequate disposal facility.5

 A 1992 decision 

established a notice-and-consent process for hazardous waste recovery 

among OECD members; this decision has been implemented by the United 

States in RCRA provisions.6

 In 2001, because a majority of its members are 

also parties to the Basel Convention, the OECD Council changed its waste 

classifications, including which products are considered hazardous 

wastes, to harmonize with those of the Basel Convention. While the 2001 

decision does not require changes to the scope of hazardous wastes 

regulated in the United States, it does require adoption of the classification 

system to facilitate coordination among exporting and importing 

 

4

Since 1961, the OECD has provided a setting where governments compare policy 

experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practices, and coordinate 

domestic and international policies, particularly in the areas of trade, environment, 

agriculture, technology, and taxation. 

5

OECD Council, On Exports of Hazardous Wastes from OECD Area, DecisionRecommendation C(86)64/Final (June 5, 1986). The decision recommends that member 

countries implement it by requiring exporters of hazardous waste to non-OECD countries 

to provide the exporting country with documentation that the proposed disposal operation 

will be performed in an environmentally sound manner and that the proposed disposal 

facility may, under the importing country’s laws and regulations, dispose of the exported 

wastes. 

6

OECD Council, Concerning the Control of Transfrontier Movements of Wastes Destined 

for Recovery Operations, Decision C(92)39/Final (Mar. 30, 1992). 

Page 3 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
countries. Although the United States has agreed to be bound by the 

OECD decision, the United States has not yet implemented it.7,8

As electronic devices are purchased with increasing frequency—along 

with the coming transition from analog to digital signals for televisions, 

making CRT technology obsolete—the prospect looms that many more 

used electronic devices will be discarded in the near future. In addition, a 

growing number of state laws prohibit discarding used electronics in 

landfills, in part because of the toxic substances contained within them. 

The increase in landfill bans could cause U.S. exports to increase 

significantly. In this context, this report examines (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. 

To answer these questions, we reviewed pertinent EPA documents; 

interviewed EPA, State Department, and Customs and Border Protection 

officials; and conducted several Internet-based exercises, such as 

monitoring Internet e-commerce sites and posing as foreign buyers of 

nonworking CRTs. Specifically, we conducted the following work: 

• To examine the fate of used electronics, we obtained and analyzed Basel 

Convention surveys and reports on electronic waste disposal in Cambodia, 

China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka. We also interviewed a West 

African computer importer and officials with Hong Kong’s Environmental 

Protection Department. As part of our monitoring of Internet e-commerce 

sites, we documented information on global demand for CRTs, the 

location of the demand, the volume requested, the price offered, and 

whether working or nonworking equipment was sought. 

• To examine regulatory control over used electronics exported from the 

United States, we interviewed EPA officials to obtain information on 

EPA’s enforcement of the CRT rule and what, if any, enforcement 

challenges existed. We posed as overseas and domestic scrap brokers with 

a clear intent to purchase and export untested, nonworking, or broken 

 

7

OECD Council, On the Control of Transboundary Movements of Wastes Destined for 

Recovery Operations, Decision C(2001)107/ Final (June 14, 2001) as amended by Decision 

C(2004)20 (March 9, 2004), which replaces Decision C(92)39/Final. 

8

EPA submitted proposed changes to RCRA regulations to the Office of Management and 

Budget on May 8, 2008, and EPA officials anticipated issuing a proposed rule in the Federal 

Register by mid-November 2008. 

Page 4 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
CRTs—items that are not likely to be recycled in an environmentally 

responsible manner. We e-mailed 343 solicitations to electronics recyclers 

and trading companies in the United States, including members of the 

International Association of Electronics Recyclers;9

 of these, 64 

responded.10 During the 3-month period from mid-February to mid-May 

2008, we also monitored two Internet sites that facilitate trade in 

electronic products, among other goods. 

• To examine opportunities for strengthening the federal role in regulating 

used electronics exports, we obtained and analyzed documentation on 

EPA’s authority to regulate exported used electronics. In addition, we 

examined other countries’ approaches to governing exported used 

electronics. We also obtained and analyzed EPA Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response and Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance documentation on the implications of expanding EPA’s 

authority to regulate these items. 

We found the data we obtained on Internet e-commerce Web sites to be 

adequate to conclude that significant demand exists for exported used 

electronics. Appendix I describes our scope and methodology in greater 

detail. We conducted our review from October 2007 through July 2008 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. These 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the evidence we 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

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. 

These countries often lack the capacity to safely handle and dispose of 

Results in Brief 

 

9

The International Association of Electronics Recyclers is a trade association that 

represents the electronics recycling industry. Its stated priority is to promote high 

standards of environmental quality and regulatory compliance, as well as high-quality 

business practices. 

10It is not possible to determine why the other 279 companies did not respond to our offers 

from fictitious foreign brokers. It is likely that many of our e-mails did not reach recipients 

because of spam-mail filters. 

Page 5 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
used electronics if the units are not in reusable condition when received, 

and the countries’ extremely low labor costs and the reported lack of 

effective environmental controls make unsafe recycling commonplace. 

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 health 

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. These practices expose 

people to lead and other hazardous materials. China, in particular, has 

been at the center of much of the world’s attention regarding electronic 

waste export issues since 2002, when environmental groups first exposed 

egregious electronics-recycling and disposal practices in Guiyu and other 

areas in southeastern China. As China’s growing economy has driven its 

demand for raw materials, China appears to have come to also rely 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 

recycled, such items are exported to West African countries primarily for 

reuse. Many units are 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. 

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. law allows the unfettered export 

of nearly all types of used electronic devices. 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. Instead, under U.S. law, only exports of CRTs are regulated as 

hazardous waste. 

• Regulatory controls easily circumvented. The export of CRTs from the 

United States in apparent violation of the CRT rule seems widespread, 

despite adoption of the CRT rule in 2006. 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 which would appear to violate the CRT rule. Three other 

companies indicated they do not export broken CRTs, and 7 others asked 

for more information about our fictitious identities, such as phone 

Page 6 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
numbers, a Web site, or what we intended to do with the broken CRTs. 

EPA records show that none of the recyclers willing to sell to us had filed 

proper notifications of their intent to export CRTs for recycling, as 

required by the CRT rule for such shipments.11 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 these exports violated 

Hong Kong’s hazardous waste import laws, Hong Kong officials said. 

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. The 

agency can take action and seek criminal penalties of up to $50,000 per 

day of violation and imprisonment of up to 2 years against exporters who 

knowingly violate the CRT rule’s notice-and-consent requirements.12

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 

agency enforcement officials told us that given the rule’s relative newness, 

the regulated community must first be made aware of the requirements. 

This explanation, however, is undermined by the instances we found 

where companies that indicated a willingness to engage in activities that 

would likely violate the CRT rule also indicated an awareness of the rule. 

Finally, EPA has done little to ascertain the extent of noncompliance, and 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance officials told us 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 

 

11As 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. 

12To establish such a criminal violation in these circumstances, EPA would need to prove 

that (1) the party exported CRTs, (2) the party did not notify EPA as required by the CRT 

rule, and (3) the party knowingly failed to notify EPA. 

Page 7 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
computers, flat-panel monitors, and cell phones, among other items—are 

also exported in a manner that does not contribute to human health and 

environmental harm overseas. EPA’s adoption of the CRT rule shows that 

the agency recognized that while certain CRTs—those being reused—may 

not need to be considered hazardous waste within U.S. borders, regulatory 

control was needed to ensure that, when exported, they are not ultimately 

discarded in a manner that poses a health and environmental hazard 

outside U.S. borders. Among the options available to EPA to deal with this 

larger universe of exported used electronics—options that could make 

U.S. export controls more consistent with international norms—is to 

propose amending RCRA regulations to include exports of used 

electronics posing health or environmental risks when disassembled or 

reclaimed, such as by expanding the scope of the CRT rule and revising 

the regulatory definition of hazardous waste. Additionally, EPA could 

(1) submit a legislative package to Congress for ratifying the Basel 

Convention, (2) work with Customs and Border Protection and the 

International Trade Commission to improve identification and tracking of 

exported used electronics, and (3) update RCRA regulations to reflect U.S. 

obligations under OECD. 

To help ensure that EPA provides a deterrent to potentially illegal exports 

of CRT monitors and televisions, we are recommending that the 

Administrator, EPA, develop a timetable for implementing an enforcement 

plan for the CRT rule. We also recommend that EPA evaluate options to 

regulate other exported used electronics, which could include expanding 

the scope of the CRT rule and collaborating with other federal agencies to 

improve tracking of exported used electronics. In addition, determining 

whether to ratify international treaties is a policy decision that rests with 

Congress and the President; we therefore recommend that EPA submit to 

Congress a legislative package to complete ratification of the Basel 

Convention, so Congress can deliberate whether and to what extent the 

United States should have additional controls over the export of used 

electronic items that may threaten human health and the environment 

when disassembled overseas. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, EPA generally disagreed with our 

recommendations, stating, among other things, that (1) it did not want to 

build an “extensive compliance monitoring and enforcement program” 

around the CRT rule or any other individual provision of its broader RCRA 

program and (2) it preferred nonregulatory, voluntary approaches to 

address the problems discussed in this report. First, we disagree that an 

extensive program would be required to develop the basic components of 

an enforcement deterrent, such as enforcement targets and a plan for 

Page 8 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
compliance monitoring, following up on suspected violations, and 

prosecuting violators. Second, our findings cast serious doubt about the 

effectiveness of a strategy that relies almost entirely on voluntary 

approaches. Overall, we believe that nothing in EPA’s comments changes 

the reality that the United States’ regulatory coverage of exported used 

electronics is among the narrowest in the industrialized world and that the 

little regulation that does exist has been enforced to only a minor degree. 

EPA’s comments and our response are included in appendix II. 

Consumers and businesses may hesitate to discard obsolete electronic 

devices because the devices may still function and have value. Users 

generally have to pay fees, however, to have their used electronics 

recycled or refurbished domestically. Recyclers and refurbishers charge 

these fees because costs associated with recycling and refurbishing 

outweigh the revenue received from recycled commodities or refurbished 

units. 

The costs associated with recycling often make it unprofitable without 

charging fees for several reasons. First, recycling used electronics is labor 

intensive: the equipment must be separated into its component parts, 

including the plastic housing, copper wires, metals (e.g., gold, silver, and 

aluminum), and circuit boards, as well as parts that can be easily reused or 

resold, like hard drives and CD-ROM drives. Second, to obtain salable 

commodities, metal and plastic “scrap” must be further processed to 

obtain shredded plastic, aluminum, copper, gold, and other recyclable 

materials, and such processing typically involves multimillion-dollar 

machinery. Finally, recyclers incur additional expenses when handling and 

disposing of some toxic components (such as mercury-containing lamps). 

In contrast, selling these items for export can bring in revenue. According 

to EPA, a vast majority of used electronics (including their component 

parts and commodities) donated for reuse or recycling are exported, both 

responsibly and irresponsibly.13 Responsible recyclers often test used 

Background 

 

13In addition to the location of markets for reusable and recyclable electronics, a number of 

reasons lead U.S. companies to export used products, including waste. Often, the nearest 

waste management facility capable of handling a particular waste stream may be just over 

the international border from the point of generation. In other cases, a facility in another 

country may specialize in treating, disposing of, or recycling a particular waste. Such a 

facility may be one of a kind, or it may present a more environmentally sound management 

solution for the waste. In some cases, hazardous wastes constitute “raw” material for 

industrial and manufacturing processes in many developing countries where natural 

resources are scarce or nonexistent. In addition, using hazardous wastes is often preferable 

to natural resource extraction or hazardous waste disposal. 

Page 9 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
electronics to determine which components can be reused, then separate 

the remaining materials into their component parts and commodities 

before exporting. Recyclers like these have told us that they operate at a 

competitive disadvantage against companies that export whole, untested 

units. 

Exporting used electronics from the United States brings important 

benefits. For example, export leads to viable and productive secondhand 

use of electronic devices in developing countries—a practice known as 

“bridging the digital divide”—where they can be purchased for 1/10th the 

price of a new unit and contribute significantly to the operations of 

schools, small businesses, and government agencies. Moreover, extending 

the life cycle of electronic products prevents substantial environmental 

damage. A United Nations University study found that the manufacturing 

phase takes up 80 percent of the natural resources used during the life 

cycle of computers, so extending the lifetime of computers provides an 

important environmental service. 

In addition, strong demand exists overseas to recycle the raw materials 

contained within electronic devices. State-of-the-art recycling facilities in 

developed countries, such as Belgium, can extract precious metals and 

salable commodities. Recycling in this fashion also provides an important 

environmental benefit: Metals can often be extracted from used 

electronics with less environmental impact than from mining. The U.S. 

Geological Survey, for instance, reports that 1 metric ton of computer 

scrap contains more gold than 17 metric tons of ore and much lower levels 

of harmful elements common to ores, such as arsenic, mercury, and sulfur. 

In recent years, concerns have been raised because toxic substances such 

as lead, which have well-documented adverse health effects, can 

potentially leach from discarded electronic products, especially if 

disposed of improperly. Nearly all the substances of concern in an 

electronic appliance are in solid, nondispersible form, so there is no cause 

for concern with respect to human exposure or release into the 

environment through normal contact. Instead, human health and 

environmental concerns related to the presence of these substances arise 

if the equipment is improperly disassembled or incinerated. EPA has 

identified lead, mercury, and cadmium (which are typically found in 

computers or monitors) as priority toxic chemicals for reduction. 

According to EPA, these toxic substances do not break down when 

released into the environment and can be dangerous, even in small 

quantities (see fig. 1). 

Page 10 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
[This page intentionally left blank] 

Page 11 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Figure 1: Toxic Substances Contained in a Central Processing Unit and CRT Monitor 

Lead

CRTs contain up to 4 pounds of lead, and 

circuit boards also contain some of this

metal. Lead is toxic and can delay 

neurological development in children and 

cause other adverse health effects in 

adults. Lead can leach out of CRT glass

and circuit boards disposed of in landfills, 

or it can be released into the environment 

by inceneration.

Brominated flame retardants

Found in plastic casings of personal 

computers, CRT monitors, and circuit 

boards, brominated flame retardants can 

persist in the environment and accumulate 

in living organisms, where they may cause 

liver and thyroid toxicity. They can be 

released into the environment when 

computer parts are shredded or heated.

CRT monitors may also contain antimony, 

barium oxide, and phosphors, which could 

cause human health and environmental 

concerns if improperly managed.

CRT

Plastic casing

Circuit boards

Key contaminants

Page 12 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Cadmium

Small amounts of this highly toxic metal 

are in electronic contacts and switches. 

Cadmium persists in the environment and 

accumulates in living organisms. It may be 

released into the environment by heat and 

incineration.

Computer central processing units may 

also contain beryllium and lithium, which 

could cause human health and environmental concerns if improperly managed.

Plastic casing

Connectors

 Circuit boards 

Key contaminants

Sources: EPA and GAO analysis of Basel Convention technical guidelines.

Page 13 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
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. 

Used Electronics Are 

Exported Worldwide 

and Often Handled 

and Disposed of 

Unsafely 

Some Exported Used 

Electronics Appear to Be 

Handled Responsibly 

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 cannot be shipped to non-OECD countries. Exports of waste 

occur only under the following circumstances: (1) if the exporting country 

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

does not have disposal sites that can dispose of the waste in an 

environmentally sound manner, and (3) if the wastes are required as a raw 

material for recycling or recovery industries in the importing country.14

In addition to being governed by comprehensive regulatory controls, some 

companies in European Union countries use advanced technologies to 

recycle used electronics. For example, the recycler Umicore, according to 

its own documents, operates a state-of-the-art facility in Belgium, where it 

 

14The Basel Convention also prohibits movement of waste between parties and nonparties 

to the convention, 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 14 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
uses advanced technologies and processes to extract precious metals from 

circuit boards and responsibly handles waste by-products. Umicore 

samples electronic scrap to determine the presence of hazardous 

materials. The company then captures hazardous materials, such as 

cadmium and mercury, in the extraction process and disposes of them in 

an environmentally sound manner, state company documents. Over 95 

percent of the electronic items that Umicore recycles become new 

electronic products, and many of the remnants are recycled into 

construction materials. 

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 not only 

recycles CRT glass but also manufactures new CRT televisions containing 

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

contractor in the United States has coordinated with approximately 40 

U.S. recyclers 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 conditions, according to Malaysian environmental protection 

officials. If local facilities lack the capacity or ability to safely carry out 

recycling activities, the government of Malaysia will not allow companies 

to import CRTs from the United States, according to a Malaysian 

government document. In addition, officials with the country’s Department 

of Environment and Department of Customs have said CRTs cannot be 

legally imported from other countries if destined for final disposal. 

Many Countries Receiving 

Used Electronics Lack the 

Capacity to Safely Handle 

and Dispose of Them 

While the United States has the landfill and institutional capacity to 

provide safe handling and disposal of used electronics domestically, many 

foreign countries, particularly those in the developing world, do not. 

According to surveys made on behalf of the United Nations Environment 

Programme, many developing countries lack the infrastructure to safely 

manage waste, including hazardous waste. These surveys found that 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 openair burning of copper wire and acid baths to recover valuable metals. 

Upon importation, brokers, recyclers, and refurbishment companies in 

some developing countries examine items to determine how they can be 

Page 15 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
used most profitably. According to individuals familiar with the 

international electronics industry, to maximize profit, working units are 

resold, repairable products are refurbished, and broken units are 

disassembled into component parts for further reclamation. Reusable 

electronics—those that can be directly resold or easily refurbished—

generally have the highest value and are sold in retail shops in some 

developing countries. For nonworking or otherwise broken units, workers 

disassemble those that cannot be resold into their component parts, 

generally by hand. After disassembly, metals and plastics are recovered 

from the component parts, using methods that may lead to pollution and 

contamination. For instance, in some cases, workers burn the plastic 

coating off wires to recover copper and submerge circuit boards in open 

acid baths to extract gold and other metals. Unsalvageable computer parts 

are often burned in the open air. 

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 liquid-crystal display (LCD) screens. On the same 

site, we found 430 requests for central processing units and 665 requests 

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 about 7.5 million used CRTs. Brokers in developing 

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

75 percent of the brokers’ requests offered $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 came from developing countries 

in Asia, with China and India posting the largest number by far; the 

remaining requests came largely from Africa (see fig. 2). 

Page 16 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Figure 2: 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

a

The information presented in figure 2 assumes that buyers do not post fictitious country names. It 

also assumes that there is no double counting of requests. Hong Kong is a special administrative 

region of China. Requests were also placed in Aruba, Peru, and Venezuela. 

China has received global attention over electronic waste export issues 

since 2002, when environmental groups exposed “egregious” electronicsrecycling and disposal practices in the city of Guiyu and elsewhere in 

southeastern China. 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 

China and Hong Kong Define 

the Used Electronics Trade in 

Southeast Asia 

Page 17 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Basel Convention Regional Centre in China.15 The report concluded that 

Chinese importers and foreign exporters (including ones in the United 

States and Japan) could easily evade China’s import and export controls, 

resulting in potentially hazardous electronic devices entering the country 

illegally for disassembly and recycling. 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.16 In Guiyu, the study found, 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 sources. 

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. The study also found that lead levels among children in 

Guiyu were also more than 50 percent higher than among children in a 

neighboring village where used electronics were not dismantled. 

At a 2007 conference in Beijing, Chinese environmental protection officials 

acknowledged that the country lagged behind developed countries in its 

ability to ensure safe reuse, recycling, and disposal of hazardous wastes 

such as used electronics. 

 

15Asia-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 (2005). The Basel 

Convention Regional Centre in China, the publisher of this report, is one of 14 regional 

centers that assist party countries in controlling the transboundary movement of hazardous 

wastes. 

16Hand dismantling has many positive benefits: more reusable components can be obtained, 

and the value of the extracted materials is higher because of less contamination. Hand 

dismantling is the predominant method of recycling in the United States. 

Page 18 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
While much of the export of used electronics to date has focused on 

China, awareness of electronic-waste-recycling and disposal problems in 

other Asian countries has grown in recent years. As a reflection of this 

growing awareness, eight Asian countries met in Cambodia in March 2007 

to discuss electronic waste management issues. At the conference, 

Indonesian officials disclosed 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. 

As an archipelago, Indonesia has hundreds of seaports, which are nearly 

impossible to monitor, according to the environmental officials. 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. Photographs from the presentation show 

workers dismantling electronics by hand, with low-value components 

discarded haphazardly (see fig. 3). 

Other Asian Countries Import 

Used Electronics for Recycling 

and Reuse 

Figure 3: Three Stages of Electronics Dismantling and Disposal in Indonesia 

Source: 2007 Regional Workshop for the Environmentally Sound Management of E-Wastes.

Cambodian environmental protection officials described similar human 

health and environmental harm associated with unsafe disassembly of 

used electronics in Cambodia. These officials stated that refurbishment 

and reuse activities are more prevalent in their country than recycling. 

According to Cambodian environmental officials, the primary electronic 

devices for sale consist mostly of secondhand material imported from the 

United States, the European Union, China, and other Southeast Asian 

countries. According to the Basel Convention Regional Centre in China’s 

2005 report, although used electronics are imported primarily for resale, 

some “rudimentary” recycling activities also take place. Unrepairable 

Page 19 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
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. Materials that lack 

value are often dumped and sometimes burned (see fig. 4). 

Figure 4: Open Dump Site for Electronic Waste in Cambodia 

Source: Basel Convention Regional Centre in China.

In India, which also receives used electronics from the United States, 

many parts of the country cannot safely handle these devices. 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—including children—work in the “informal” recycling industry in 

Page 20 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Delhi alone, breaking equipment, using acid baths, and openly burning 

wires and plastic casings to reclaim gold, copper, and other commodities. 

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. Recycling is not as prevalent in West Africa as it is in Southeast 

Asia, in part because West Africa is farther from markets where recycled 

commodities are sought. In addition, shipping costs to Africa are 

considerably higher than to Hong Kong and Southeast Asian countries. 

One recycler told us that rates from the United States to West Africa range 

from $4,000 to $7,000 per 20-foot container—considerably more expensive 

than the $750 it costs to ship 40-foot containers from the United States to 

Hong Kong. 

Used Electronics Are Exported 

to Western Africa Primarily for 

Reuse 

Some U.S. recyclers 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. In addition, in 2007, an official with the Basel 

Convention Regional Centre for Africa for Training and Technology 

Transfer noted, on the basis of his experience that a high proportion of the 

units that arrive in Nigeria are unusable, that used electronics are rarely 

tested for functionality before export to developing countries like those in 

Africa. 

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 

Page 21 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
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.17 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.18 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. 

Existing Regulation 

Focuses Only on CRTs 

Besides CRTs, most other types of 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 

 

17EPA issued a special regulation for CRTs because, the agency stated, the products are 

hazardous waste under RCRA regulations as they typically fail EPA’s tests for toxicity. EPA 

also stated that the principal goal of this regulation was to promote the reuse and recycling 

of CRTs. 

18U.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 governments 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 22 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
which they will leach toxins if disposed of in unlined landfills.19 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. 

In contrast, the European Union’s hazardous waste rules govern the 

export of nearly all types of used electronics, generally requiring that 

exporters notify relevant environmental protection agencies and receive 

consent from importing countries. In addition, the European Union has 

banned the export of hazardous materials contained within waste 

electronic and electrical equipment to non-OECD countries.20

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 apparently has not deterred 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.21 According to EPA 

records, as of July 2008, only 1 of these 43 companies submitted a 

 

19EPA regulations pursuant to RCRA state that a solid waste is a hazardous waste if it 

exhibits one or more of the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity 

or if it is specifically listed as a hazardous waste (e.g., certain industrial wastes and pure 

chemicals). The hazardous characteristic most relevant to electronics is toxicity. By EPA 

regulation, toxicity is measured by a lab procedure called the toxicity characteristic 

leaching procedure, which predicts whether a particular waste is likely to leach toxic 

chemicals into groundwater at dangerous levels. A waste would fail—and be regulated as 

hazardous waste—if the leachate from the test exceeded specified levels of a toxic 

contaminant. Because many used electronics feature constituents such as plastic housing 

that are not prone to leach toxics, they are unlikely to exceed the concentrations because 

the test is performed on the entire product, not separately on its potentially toxic 

constituents. 

20Despite this export ban, a 2006 European Union report estimates that since 

implementation of the ban, a small number of exporters have shipped over 2 million 

computer monitors and 1 million televisions out of the European Union, ostensibly for 

reuse; many of these items were probably for dismantling under unsafe conditions. 

21Six others requested more information about our purchase offer; two indicated they 

would sell us only working CRTs; and three said they would not do business with us 

because they did not export nonworking CRTs. 

Page 23 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
notification for recycling as required by the CRT rule.22 The company that 

submitted the notification for recycling, however, informed EPA that it 

intended to export CRTs to Malaysia for recycling, whereas our fictitious 

request was for exports to Hong Kong. Moreover, as of July 2008, the 

government of Malaysia has not consented to CRT imports from this 

company. 

We reached employees with 18 of the 43 companies and interviewed them 

about the effect of the CRT rule on their business. In some cases, 

employees claimed that their companies do not export CRTs, even though 

we received contradictory information from e-mails they sent to our 

fictitious foreign brokers, as shown by the following examples: 

• A regional manager for a trading company in California stated that he was 

not aware of CRT rule notification requirements, but his company does 

not export CRTs. In an e-mail to our fictitious broker in Pakistan, however, 

he offered to sell “as-is” CRT monitors. In addition, his company offered 

900 as-is CRT monitors, some with power cords cut, on a Chinese ecommerce Web site. 

• 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.”23

 

22The 43 may represent the tip of an iceberg for a number of reasons. For example, over a 3-

month period, we observed more than 50 U.S companies selling nearly 1.3 million CRTs on 

two Internet e-commerce trade sites. In addition, according to California State officials 

knowledgeable about the electronics-recycling industry, the electronics-recycling 

community is “tight-knit” and tends to operate only within long-standing, established 

relationships. They said that established players do not need to advertise on Web sites for 

new leads and would therefore be invisible to us. 

23We continue to receive requests from this company, including one from July 2008, seeking 

a buyer for 60 40-foot containers of used televisions “available now,” or around 48,000 used 

televisions. On a Chinese e-commerce Web site, this company states that it has “a 

continuous supply of used monitors” and currently has over 200,000 nonworking CRT 

monitors for sale. On its own Web site, this company claims that it is a “leader in CRT 

recycling” and it “satisfies all state and federal requirements regarding proper disposal of 

toxic/hazardous electronic waste,” as well as ensuring that “100 percent of the electronic 

waste we receive is reused or responsibly recycled.” 

Page 24 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
• A representative of an electronics-recycling company in Colorado told us 

that the company does not export CRTs; instead, all CRTs are recycled inhouse, so the CRT rule 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 representative of a metal-recycling company in Illinois told us that the 

CRT rule does not apply to this company because it sends all of its CRT 

glass to a lead smelter in the United States. In response to an e-mail 

inquiry to ship nonworking and untested CRT monitors to Southeast Asia, 

however, this person wrote back, “What are you paying for the monitors? 

Let me know and I’ll give you an inventory count.” 

We were unable to interview the other 25 companies that indicated a 

desire to export CRTs to our fictitious foreign brokers, although some of 

them showed a willingness to knowingly export CRTs in apparent 

violation of the CRT rule. For example, an electronics recycler in Utah 

who offered to sell five containers of used CRTs stated in an e-mail that he 

had had “no problems with the CRT rule so far.” He offered to mix the 

broken materials at the back of the containers, which implies he is aware 

that it is illegal to export broken CRTs without consent. In addition, a 

computer wholesaler in Wisconsin offered to sell two containers (900 

units per container), telling us that the CRT rule will definitely not affect 

shipment: “We ship these overseas all the time,” he wrote. 

Many of the companies that responded to our fictitious foreign brokers, 

particularly the electronics recyclers, actively promote an environmentally 

responsible public image. Nearly all of the electronic recyclers claimed to 

be environmentally friendly, with at least 17 of these companies citing on 

their Web sites the hazards of improper disposal of used electronics 

equipment. At least 3 of these recyclers held Earth Day 2008 electronicsrecycling events. Some of the electronics recyclers accept used CRTs at no 

charge, while others charge the consumer, ostensibly to cover recycling 

expenses. One Maryland electronics recycler, for instance, charges from 

$10 to $30 for CRT monitors, depending on size, to cover its “responsible, 

domestic recycling costs.” In fact, the company’s Web site states that its 

Page 25 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
mission is to be globally responsible and asserts that it sends its monitors 

to domestic glass-to-glass recycling facilities. Yet when we posed as a 

buyer in Singapore, the Chief Operating Officer of this company asked 

what price we were paying for untested, as-is CRT monitors, suggesting 

that he was interested in selling CRTs to us. Another 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 container-load of CRT 

monitors to our fictitious broker in Hong Kong, offering us a 10 percent 

discount because we were new buyers. 

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. One of these sites was GovDeals.com, a Web 

site that posts surplus equipment from state and local government 

agencies, indicating that government CRTs may be among those offered 

for sale to overseas brokers. In our review of one auction site’s records for 

sales of surplus electronics between May 2007 and May 2008, a New York 

electronics recycler made four purchases of used electronics from the 

New York state Office of General Services, including 221 CRT monitors. In 

response to our fictitious Hong Kong broker’s inquiry on the availability of 

nonworking CRT monitors, this company replied, “Yes. Many. What is your 

best price?” In February 2008, a Georgia electronics recycler purchased 

two lots of computer monitors from the state of Alabama’s Surplus 

Property Division on GovDeals.com, one lot of 100 CRT monitors for $45 

and another lot of 155 CRT monitors for $366. This company was also 

ready to send three container-loads of a mix of untested CRT monitors to 

our fictitious broker in India. For an additional $400, this company offered 

to “hand stuff” the container to increase the load from about 850 monitors 

per container to between 1,100 and 1,200 monitors per container. 

EPA has done little to enforce the CRT rule. Since the rule took effect in 

January 2007, 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 

EPA Has Done Little to 

Enforce the CRT Rule 

Page 26 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
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. 

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 (see fig. 5).24

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.

 

24California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control sent investigators to inspect the 

containers and, upon inspection, pursued administrative penalties against the shipper for 

potentially violating California’s hazardous waste storage and transportation laws. The 

outcome of California’s action against the shipper was pending as of August 2008. Like all 

states, however, California does not have authority over exports. 

Page 27 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Figure 5: Broken CRT Monitors from an Illegal Shipment of Used CRTs 

Source: GAO.

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.” 

Page 28 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
The director of EPA’s Waste and Chemical Enforcement Division 

explained that inspections to determine compliance with environmental 

laws are labor intensive because inspectors must spend time planning and 

preparing before each inspection occurs. After an inspection, inspectors 

must spend time analyzing any information collected, drafting an 

inspection report, and determining necessary follow-up actions. Given the 

number of regulated facilities and competing priority demands, the 

director said, EPA must “carefully plan” how it directs its inspection 

resources. 

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, according to an Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance regional manager: 

EPA has reason to believe that this container includes used CRTs that may be in broken or 

unstable condition. Since CRTs typically contain hazardous constituents, I recommend that 

the contents of the container should not be opened or disturbed unless appropriate 

precautions have been taken to protect individuals handling the materials and to prevent 

the materials from being released to the environment. 

EPA concluded that an inspection of the container was not necessary to 

address the apparent noncompliance. Customs and Border Protection 

inspected the container and provided information to EPA about the 

container’s contents and the identity of the shipper. 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. 

The Deputy Director of EPA’s Office of Civil Enforcement told us that 

EPA’s enforcement of the CRT rule relies primarily on tips and complaints. 

As of August 2008, EPA reported having 10 ongoing investigations of 

potentially illegal CRT shipments based on such complaints (7 of which 

appeared to be from us.) As a result of its investigations, in July 2008, EPA 

issued its first administrative penalty complaint against a California 

company we identified, seeking the maximum civil penalty of $32,500. In 

the view of one recycler, who had expressed willingness to sell 

Page 29 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
nonworking CRTs to our fictitious broker from Singapore, “If EPA 

whacked some [exporters], then they would comply with the rule.” 

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 rule’s notification 

provision.” The Deputy Director of the agency’s Office of Civil 

Enforcement, however, told 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.25 His statement is consistent 

with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance’s Guide for 

Addressing Environmental Problems, which states that the regulated 

community should be aware of and understand the regulations that apply 

to it and have the means of achieving compliance with those 

requirements.26

We believe that EPA’s explanation that it needs to focus on education and 

outreach is insufficient. The explanation that an enforcement deterrent 

should await the effects of an education program implies that violations to 

date have resulted largely from unawareness of the rule and not from 

willful disregard for it. This implication has clearly not been borne out. 

With 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 e-commerce 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 

 

25EPA advised the public as early as 2001 that CRTs were generally regulated as hazardous 

waste because they typically fail the toxicity test. EPA officials told us, however, that 

before the CRT rule, the agency had not made its regulatory policy on CRT exports clear. 

26The agency’s May 2006 communication plan for the CRT rule states that EPA would notify 

its regional offices, state hazardous waste directors, the press, environmental groups, and 

relevant associations. It is unclear, however, the extent to which these efforts have focused 

on educating the regulated community about the need to notify EPA when exporting used 

CRTs. For example, an internal EPA document from March 2008—20 months after 

adoption of the rule—states that “the agency still needs to develop a strategy for educating 

the regulated community about CRT rule notification requirements.” One electronics 

recycler, for instance, told us that he has “not seen any effort to publicize the rule besides 

seeing it in print, which is in contrast to EPA’s previous [outreach] efforts.” 

Page 30 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
against a violator of the rule.27 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, and it does not have plans to develop such 

a program. The deputy director of EPA’s Office of Civil Enforcement 

explained that there is no “hard and fast” rule on how long EPA is going to 

rely on outreach as its primary tool for the CRT rule or when the agency 

will use its enforcement resources to deter noncompliance. He added that 

enforcement of the CRT rule is one of the office’s many responsibilities, 

but it is not among its highest enforcement priorities. 

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.28 It 

adds that if “gaps” exist in the regulatory structure and opportunities exist 

for filling these gaps, voluntary initiatives, new regulations, or 

combinations of multiple approaches may be needed to fill these gaps. As 

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

EPA Has Several 

Options That Would 

Strengthen the 

Federal Role in 

Reducing Harmful 

Exports of Used 

Electronics 

 

27RCRA provides EPA with broad authorities to collect information and to inspect facilities 

to investigate suspected violations, as well as to evaluate compliance. EPA has the 

authority to contact exporters who have notified the agency, when appropriate, to ask for 

verification that the CRTs are exported for reuse instead of recycling or disposal. These 

persons must keep copies of normal business records demonstrating that each shipment of 

exported CRTs will be reused, and this documentation must be retained for 3 years from 

the date the CRTs were exported. For any past or present violation, EPA may issue an 

administrative enforcement order assessing a penalty of up to $32,500 per day or requiring 

compliance. Further, EPA may submit a civil judicial referral to the Department of Justice. 

RCRA also provides for criminal penalties for knowing violations; if an exporter of CRTs 

knowingly fails to file a notification—or if the CRTs were intended to be or actually were 

discarded and the exporter did not obtain an acknowledgment—then the exporter may be 

subject to criminal penalties. Relevant to the CRT rule’s documentation requirements, 

criminal penalties are authorized for any person who knowingly omits material information 

or makes any false material statement or representation in any document filed, maintained, 

or used for purposes of compliance with RCRA regulations or who exports a hazardous 

waste and knowingly destroys, alters, conceals, or fails to file any document required to be 

maintained or filed. Criminal penalties also are authorized for any person who knowingly 

exports a hazardous waste without the consent of the receiving country. The criminal 

penalties may include a fine of up to $50,000 per day of violation or imprisonment of up to 

2 years. 

28EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Guide for Addressing 

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

Page 31 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
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, amending RCRA 

regulations to include exports of used electronics posing health or 

environmental risks when disassembled or reclaimed, expanding the 

scope of the CRT rule, and revising the regulatory definition of hazardous 

waste. In addition, EPA has options to enhance U.S. control over the 

export of used electronics: It could submit a legislative package to 

Congress for ratifying the Basel Convention, work with Customs and 

Border Protection and with the International Trade Commission to 

improve identification and tracking of exported used electronics, and 

update RCRA regulations to reflect U.S. obligations under OECD 

decisions. 

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 amendment that—if implemented—could bring U.S. 

export controls more in line with those of 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. Compelling evidence shows, however, 

that when exported, many of these used electronics are disassembled in a 

way that results in human and environmental exposure to toxic 

components. 

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. A revised definition or new rule for other used electronics could 

be developed to effectively cover only exports while conditionally 

exempting domestic activity from substantive requirements, if EPA 

determines that such conditions along with other approaches—such as 

voluntary initiatives and existing regulatory controls on recycling 

facilities—provide adequate domestic protection of health and the 

environment. 

Page 32 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
If EPA expanded the scope of used electronics subject to RCRA export 

rules, it could consider requiring exporters of such products for reuse—

not just those for recycling—to notify EPA. The rationale for regulating 

used electronics destined for reuse with at least a notification requirement 

would be the same as for the CRT rule. In the preamble to the final CRT 

rule, for instance, EPA explained that it obtained compelling evidence 

showing that exported CRTs often are not handled as valuable 

commodities in foreign countries. Used and unused intact CRTs are 

identical in appearance; consequently, it would be difficult to distinguish 

between intact CRTs destined for recycling (including disassembly and 

reclamation) and those for reuse. This same difficulty characterizes other 

used electronic products, such as desktop computers, laptop computers, 

flat panel monitors, and cell phones, which can look identical whether 

functional or broken. 

Moreover, EPA could examine its authority to modify its regulations so 

that regulated used electronics—when shipped for reuse and 

indistinguishable from those shipped for recycling—would be subject to 

the same control procedures as when shipped for recycling. Currently, 

exporters of CRTs for reuse or repair are required to notify EPA of their 

intent to export CRTs, whereas exporters of CRTs for recycling are 

required to notify EPA and to obtain consent from the importing country. 

Thus, although exporters of CRTs for reuse have a lesser requirement than 

those exporting CRTs for recycling, the former need only assert that the 

products are reusable or repairable, and the products can be visually 

indistinguishable. Regulating used electronics exported for reuse in this 

manner, however, would likely create an “overwhelming” number of 

notice-and-consent requests for EPA to handle each month, according to 

EPA officials, and could be successfully managed only with additional 

resources. 

Revising RCRA regulations to more comprehensively cover used 

electronics for export could help ensure that they are handled as 

commodities and, if necessary, disposed of safely. Once regulated as 

hazardous wastes, such used electronics would be subject to RCRA’s 

existing export provisions. Revising RCRA regulations would require one 

or more rule makings, which could take several years to implement. 

Page 33 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
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 an 

exporting country stop shipments of waste if it has reason to believe that 

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

as an obligation to prohibit exports to countries that have prohibited the 

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 its system have 

significant distinctions. According to EPA’s International and 

Transportation Branch Chief, U.S. ratification of the Basel Convention has 

five key implications: 

Provide Congress with a 

Legislative Package for 

U.S. Ratification of the 

Basel Convention 

• Scope of waste. The Basel Convention has a much broader definition of 

“controlled” waste than the current RCRA regulatory definition. In 

contrast to the United States, which, to encourage recycling and reuse, has 

numerous conditional exclusions and exemptions to the definition of 

waste, the Basel Convention considers a broader range of items as waste. 

In addition, unlike the United States and OECD, the Basel Convention 

defines hazardous waste in terms of intrinsic hazards; therefore, a product 

is potentially hazardous even when it contains very small amounts of toxic 

substances, as is the case with cell phones and other electronic devices.29

• Notice-and-consent process. If the United States ratified the Basel 

Convention, an exporter would typically need to work through EPA to 

obtain written consent from the importing country before exporting 

material to a country that considered this material to be hazardous waste. 

U.S. law provides a notice-and-consent process for regulated hazardous 

waste exports; if the United States ratified the Basel Convention, the 

number of products requiring notice and consent would likely increase. 

 

29Under the Basel Convention, a country may use its own national definition of hazardous 

waste. If a country prohibits import of a hazardous waste, other countries must prohibit or 

not permit exports of such wastes to that country. 

Page 34 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
• Environmentally sound waste management. The Basel Convention 

imposes a requirement on the exporting country to ensure that the wastes 

will be handled and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. 

Implementing this provision would require EPA to make this 

determination, which could involve evaluating overseas facilities. EPA has 

already developed a plan to determine environmental soundness in this 

fashion, but actual implementation will likely require additional resources. 

• Understanding importing countries’ laws. U.S. ratification of the Basel 

Convention would impose on the United States a greater obligation to 

understand the hazardous waste laws of foreign countries to determine 

what materials U.S. exporters cannot export to other countries. Exporting 

countries must prohibit or not allow exports to countries that have 

informed the Basel Secretariat of an import prohibition. 

• Take-back provisions. The Basel Convention requires that if an export of 

hazardous waste is refused by the importing country or facility, the 

exporting country must take it back. At present, EPA lacks the legal 

authority or the implementing regulations to take back waste, according to 

EPA officials. For example, from 1998 through 2001, Pyramid Chemicals 

shipped 29 containers of falsely labeled hazardous wastes, which were 

intended for Nigeria, from the United States to the Netherlands. 

Environmental protection officials in the Netherlands noticed leakage 

from some of the shipping containers and detained the shipment. Dutch 

officials cooperated with EPA, but EPA could not have the containers 

returned to the United States for proper handling. Instead, EPA had to 

work with its criminal investigative units to prosecute Pyramid Chemicals. 

According to EPA’s International and Transportation Branch Chief, EPA 

found itself in an embarrassing position. Ultimately, the containers were 

not returned; they instead had to be disposed of by Dutch officials.30 In 

proposing the implementing legislation necessary for U.S. ratification of 

the Basel Convention, EPA would seek to obtain the statutory authority to 

take back hazardous waste shipments denied by an importing country. 

Some government and industry officials have expressed concerns about 

some aspects of the Basel Convention. For example, the scrap-recycling 

 

30The owner and an affiliated company were indicted and pleaded guilty to illegally storing, 

transporting, and exporting hazardous waste. The damages imposed as part of the 

sentences (which included over $2 million in restitution and fines) covered the port 

operator’s costs for storing the hazardous wastes for 3 years, the Dutch government's cost 

in incinerating the almost 300 tons of hazardous wastes, and EPA's cost in overseeing the 

warehouse cleanup in the United States, according to EPA. 

Page 35 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
industry has mixed views about Basel ratification because of lingering 

uncertainties over the convention’s definitions of exports for recycling, 

refurbishment, and reuse. Some Basel parties argue, for example, that the 

Basel Convention regulates the international movement of used products 

for repair, refurbishment, or remanufacture. If Basel Convention parties 

decide that exports for refurbishment should be controlled in the same 

way that other exports are controlled, then, according to EPA officials, the 

agency would have to manage an “overwhelming” number of notice and 

consents. The U.S. State Department takes the position that trade of used 

products for refurbishment is not within the convention; it has also 

asserted that the current Basel system for controlling international 

shipments of hazardous waste makes trade in many used and scrap 

electronics “difficult.” The department favors alternative systems for such 

wastes under the convention. Although disagreement persists, some Basel 

parties are working together to develop interim proposals, described in the 

Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative, for managing exports for 

refurbishment under the Basel Convention. Under these proposals, the 

Basel Convention is exploring appropriate mechanisms for exports of 

mobile phones destined for the reuse and refurbishment markets. These 

proposals could serve as a model for regulating reuse and refurbishment 

exports of other potentially hazardous items. 

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.31

Passage of such legislation would complete the prerequisites to 

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

Convention. EPA informs us that the United States supports ratification of 

the Basel Convention, but to date no implementing legislation has been 

enacted. Although 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 not been 

submitted to Congress. The legislative package has not been submitted to 

Congress because, according to Solid Waste officials, the agency has other 

 

31The 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 before 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 36 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
priorities for congressional attention. These officials told us that EPA 

instead wants attention devoted to its legislative package on the 

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which is a global 

treaty to protect human health and the environment from widely 

distributed toxic chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long 

periods. 

The U.S. government has adopted the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as the 

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

While the schedule is based on an international standard, the United States 

uses more detailed categories to track goods of particular national 

interest. The U.S. International Trade Commission is responsible for the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule, while Customs and Border Protection is 

responsible for interpreting and enforcing it. 

At present, the harmonized tariff codes neither enable identification of 

used electronics nor distinguish 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 

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

digit codes, which helps Customs and Border Protection officials track 

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 

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 other data. 

Customs and Border Protection appears to have a framework in place that 

could help EPA obtain data and improve oversight of exported used 

electronics. The agency’s automated tracking systems electronically store 

information from shippers’ export declaration forms, which include tariff 

Cooperate with Other 

Federal Agencies to 

Improve Tracking of 

Exported Used Electronics 

Page 37 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
codes. These systems help Customs monitor and, if necessary, enforce the 

provisions of agreements it has with other agencies.32 For example, these 

systems are used to target high-risk outgoing shipments, such as those 

possibly containing materials that would have national security 

implications. To determine which shipments to target, Customs uses 

criteria based on those provided by the responsible agency, such as EPA 

for hazardous waste shipments. While most of Customs’ monitoring and 

enforcement efforts directed to outgoing containers occur on behalf of the 

State Department and the Department of Commerce, Customs officials 

told us that provisions are in place to monitor outgoing shipments of 

RCRA hazardous wastes and CRTs. Because Customs enforces the 

policies, directives, and regulations of other agencies, if EPA were to 

designate used electronics as hazardous waste, and tariff codes were 

developed to describe such shipments, Customs could give additional 

scrutiny to outgoing shipments of used electronic products. Moreover, 

EPA could ask for greater scrutiny of particular types of shipments. One 

Customs official stated that, to his knowledge, EPA has not requested 

Customs’ assistance to enforce RCRA hazardous waste export provisions. 

Beyond potentially using the information for enforcement, EPA could 

benefit from the data that detailed codes would generate, such as 

quantitative information not currently available about potentially 

hazardous exports, whether regulated or not. 

Although a member of OECD, the United States has not yet updated its 

RCRA regulations to reflect the 2001 OECD decision concerning 

transboundary shipments of wastes for recovery and its subsequent 2004 

amendments. Because the majority of OECD members are also Basel 

parties, the OECD decision revised waste classifications to harmonize 

them with those of the Basel Convention. The decision also altered the 

OECD notice-and-consent framework. Although the 2001 change does not 

require changes to the scope of hazardous wastes regulated in the United 

States, it does require adoption of the classification system to facilitate 

coordination among exporting and importing countries. 

EPA has acknowledged that the 2001 decision is legally binding and must 

be implemented by amending RCRA regulations. EPA told us that they 

Update RCRA Regulations 

to Reflect OECD Changes 

 

32Customs and Border Protection has existing memorandums of understanding with EPA; 

EPA, however, told us that its current coordination activities with Customs focus mainly on 

imports. 

Page 38 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
submitted proposed changes to RCRA regulations to the Office of 

Management and Budget on May 8, 2008, and EPA officials anticipate 

issuing a proposed rule in mid-November in the Federal Register. The 

proposal would revise RCRA regulations to be completely consistent with 

the 2001 OECD decision, according to EPA officials, and would give EPA 

the regulatory authority to fulfill its obligations as described in the 

decision. 

The options described above—amending RCRA regulations to broaden 

U.S. control over exported used electronics, submitting a legislative 

package to Congress for consideration to complete ratification of the 

Basel Convention, working with Customs and Border Protection and with 

the International Trade Commission to improve identification and tracking 

of exported used electronics, and updating RCRA regulations to reflect 

U.S. obligations under OECD—are just several possible options to 

strengthen the federal role in preventing exports of harmful used 

electronics. These options are not mutually exclusive, and they could be 

used together in any combination. In particular, the first three options 

could explicitly address exports to developing countries where adverse 

human health and environmental effects occur. Broadening U.S. control 

over exported used electronics, and cooperating with other federal 

agencies to improve identification and tracking of these devices, are 

actions that can be spearheaded by EPA. 

Americans have increasingly adopted the environmental tenet of “reduce, 

reuse, recycle,” but when it comes to obsolete electronics, they lack sound 

information on their disposal options. Exporting used electronics to 

support reuse and recycling ought not be discouraged. Recycling 

electronics can provide social, economic, and environmental benefits, 

both in the United States and abroad, such as providing affordable 

computers to the developing world. In recent years, however, 

irresponsible practices have come to light, prompting EPA to implement 

notification requirements for any company exporting CRTs. To date, the 

agency has established no enforcement targets, done no monitoring, 

conducted only preliminary follow-up of suspected violations, and taken 

only one enforcement action. Not only do EPA’s present enforcement 

efforts fall short, but the agency also apparently has no tangible plans to 

develop more effective ones. Until an enforcement mechanism is 

developed and effectively implemented, consumers and businesses aiming 

to be environmentally responsible with their used electronics—

particularly CRT monitors and televisions—should be skeptical of some 

companies that claim to responsibly recycle these devices. 

Conclusions 

Page 39 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Because of high demand for the metals and other resources within 

electronic products, all kinds of exported used electronics—computers, 

televisions, laptops, printers, and cell phones, among others—are 

dismantled in developing countries where local waste management 

systems are often not equipped to handle them. Despite well-documented 

health and environmental effects, EPA’s regulation of exported used 

electronics is confined only to CRTs. In stark contrast, countries that are 

party to the Basel Convention, including most members of OECD, have 

largely embraced the idea that industrialized countries should be 

responsible for ensuring the environmentally sound management of 

potentially hazardous items exported to countries that cannot guarantee 

the safety of workers who will handle them. In issuing the CRT rule, EPA 

exercised its authority to regulate exports of functional CRTs because of 

the likelihood that some will be handled unsafely and the danger that they 

pose when disassembled. Following the rationale of this rule to provide 

controls over other potentially harmful used electronics could help bring 

the United States in line with important international norms. A number of 

options could move EPA forward along these lines, such as providing 

controls over electronic products that pose health and environmental risks 

when unsafely disassembled, such as in another country, and taking steps 

to honor key international agreements. 

We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, identify a timetable for 

developing and implementing a systematic plan to enforce the CRT rule. 

This plan should include the basic elements of effective enforcement, such 

as enforcement targets, monitoring, follow-up of suspected violations, and 

prosecution. 

We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, direct the heads of 

appropriate offices to take the following two actions: 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

• Develop options on how the agency could broaden its regulations under 

existing RCRA authority to address the export of used electronic devices 

that might not be classified as hazardous waste by current U.S. regulations 

but have a high likelihood of threatening human health and the 

environment when unsafely disassembled, as often occurs overseas. 

Among the options that should be considered is expanding the scope of 

the CRT rule to cover other exported used electronics and revising the 

regulatory definition of hazardous waste. 

Page 40 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
• Cooperate with other federal agencies to improve the tracking of exported 

used electronics, which could be accomplished by implementing specific 

harmonized tariff codes for these devices. 

In addition, because determining whether to ratify international treaties is 

a policy decision that rests with Congress and the President, we 

recommend that EPA submit to Congress a legislative package for 

ratification of the Basel Convention, so Congress can deliberate whether 

and to what extent the United States should adopt additional controls over 

the export of used electronics that may threaten human health and the 

environment when disassembled overseas. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Administrator, EPA, for review 

and comment. EPA’s August 1, 2008, letter said the draft report “does not 

provide a complete or balanced picture of the agency’s electronic waste 

program” and disagreed with our recommendations to improve 

enforcement of the CRT rule and to broaden EPA’s authority to cover used 

electronics exports other than CRTs. We continue to believe that, as now 

constructed, the breadth of U.S. regulation covering exported used 

electronics is unacceptably narrow—an outlier among most industrialized 

countries in the world. We also believe that EPA’s enforcement over used 

CRT exports—the only electronic device currently covered by U.S. 

regulations—has done little to deter violations. 

The following paragraphs summarize EPA’s comments and our responses. 

In keeping with the structure of EPA’s letter, we then address the agency’s 

comments on our findings related to (1) EPA’s enforcement of the CRT 

rule, (2) EPA’s outreach to affected parties about CRT rule requirements, 

and (3) the potential expansion of regulation over exported used 

electronics. 

Overall observations. EPA wrote, “Overall, as a general matter, EPA is 

concerned that readers of the report may be misled to believe that a very 

large percentage of U.S. electronic waste is currently being reused and 

recycled globally.” The agency then cited statistics showing that “80 to 

85 percent of used electronics are disposed of domestically, primarily in 

landfills.” The wording suggests that because only 15 percent to 20 percent 

of used electronics are collected for reuse or recycling, our report 

overstates the health and environmental problems associated with 

exported used electronics. We find that this response needs to be put in 

the proper perspective. First, the document EPA references shows that 

330 million electronic products were “ready for end-of-life management” in 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 41 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
2006. Fifteen percent to 20 percent of 330 million (50 million to 66 million) 

is still a significant number—especially in light of EPA’s estimate that “a 

vast majority” of such products are exported. Second, and more important, 

it is EPA’s stated goal to significantly reduce the amount of used 

electronics going into landfills—a goal that is also pursued by a growing 

number of states that are banning the dumping of electronics in their 

landfills. Over time, the effect of these efforts can be expected to greatly 

increase the quantity of used electronics being both recycled and 

exported. Under this likely scenario, it will become that much more 

important to ensure that used electronics are handled safely and exported 

in a manner that complies with U.S. and international laws. 

EPA’s enforcement of the CRT rule. Among EPA’s most significant 

comments regarding our enforcement-related findings is its contention 

that the agency should not be asked to “build an extensive compliance 

monitoring and enforcement program” around the CRT rule or any other 

individual provision of its broader RCRA program. We believe the 

comment mischaracterizes our recommendation and the resource 

commitment that would be needed to establish a credible enforcement 

deterrent. We are not recommending that EPA establish an extensive 

program, but rather that it develop the basic enforcement components 

needed to enforce the CRT rule, such as enforcement targets and a plan 

for compliance monitoring, following up on suspected violations, and 

prosecuting violators. Moreover, we continue to believe that these actions 

are reasonable and necessary in light of (1) the substantial number of 

exporters we observed willing to export in apparent violation of the CRT 

rule and (2) EPA’s very limited enforcement of the CRT rule. In this 

connection, our work has demonstrated that much can be done to identify 

violators and deter noncompliance without an exorbitant commitment of 

resources. It took little of our time and effort, for example, to identify 

potential violators and potentially illegal shipments. Specifically, in several 

hours—rather than days—of monitoring e-commerce Web sites, we 

observed substantial willingness to engage in activities that would appear 

to violate the CRT rule. Similarly, it took only minutes to identify 

potentially illegal CRT shipments by contacting environmental protection 

officials in countries known to import these items and by working with 

Customs and Border Protection officials to detain and observe the 

shipments. 

EPA’s outreach to affected parties about CRT rule requirements. 

EPA stated that our draft report incorrectly described the agency’s 

outreach efforts as consisting of only a limited number of presentations at 

conferences and similar venues. The letter points to the agency’s CRT rule 

Page 42 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
“Communication Plan,” stating that the plan “sets forth a number of 

specific activities to reach out to the regulated community.” It further 

states that EPA “implemented this plan immediately after the rule was 

published” in July 2006. We have used the information provided by EPA to 

more fully describe what the agency states is the entire range of its 

outreach activities. That said, our characterization of EPA’s actual 

outreach efforts is based on comments we obtained from EPA program 

officials during our review and, most recently, at meetings with EPA 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and Solid Waste officials in May 

and June 2008. Moreover, although an outreach plan may have existed for 

some time, it is unclear to what extent these efforts have focused on 

educating the regulated community about the need to notify EPA when 

exporting used CRTs. For example, a March 2008, internal Office of Solid 

Waste e-mail to EPA’s RCRA division directors—prepared 20 months after 

the rule’s adoption—stated, “We expect that there has been considerable 

noncompliance with the notification provisions of the CRT rule and we are 

planning to develop [emphasis added] a strategy for reaching out to the 

regulated community and the states to educate them about the 

[notification] requirements.” Hence, the e-mail suggests that a plan for 

educating the regulated community was still needed at the time of our 

report. 

Potential expansion of regulation over exported used electronics. 

EPA disagreed with our conclusion that the regulatory framework 

governing used electronic exports was too narrowly constructed and with 

our recommendation that it broaden its regulations under existing RCRA 

authority to address the export of used electronics other than CRTs (such 

as computers and cell phones). EPA contends that it should instead 

pursue nonregulatory, voluntary approaches to address the problems 

discussed in this report, because developing options to broaden its RCRA 

regulatory authority might take years and would entail legal complexities. 

Our findings, however, cast serious doubt about the effectiveness of a 

strategy that relies almost entirely on voluntary approaches. Given the 

compliance issues and market realities we identified with just the CRT 

rule, it is not realistic to expect that sufficient control over exports of 

nonworking and potentially harmful electronic devices will be achieved 

without a credible and enforceable regulatory framework. Moreover, we 

do not believe that the time and complexities in establishing necessary 

regulatory controls over electronic waste exports is a sufficiently 

compelling reason for not doing so, particularly in light of the anticipated 

increase in potentially harmful electronic devices available for export. 

Page 43 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
EPA’s letter appears in appendix II, along with our responses. The agency 

also provided technical comments that were incorporated in our final 

report, as appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional 

committees, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 

and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others 

upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the 

GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

John B. Stephenson 

Director, Natural Resources and Environment 

Page 44 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To examine the fate of used electronics, we obtained and reviewed 

surveys from Basel Convention Regional Centres in Africa, China, and 

Southeast Asia on electronic waste disassembly and disposal practices. We 

obtained and reviewed conference proceedings and presentations from a 

regional workshop in Siem Reap, Cambodia, held from March 13 through 

15, 2007, on environmentally sound management of electronic wastes in 

Southeast Asia. We interviewed officials with Hong Kong’s Environmental 

Protection Department about imports of used electronics from the United 

States. We interviewed experts from government, industry, environmental 

groups, and academia and obtained and reviewed documents authored by 

them to learn how used electronics exported from the United States are 

managed overseas. For example, we interviewed officials with Dell on its 

overseas recycling practices and two companies that export CRT monitors 

to facilities in Southeast Asia from the United States. To learn firsthand 

about practices in Africa, we also spoke with a West African computer 

dealer who imports used computers from the United States. In addition, 

we spoke with officials from Greenpeace in China and the Basel Action 

Network in the United States. We also reviewed published scientific 

studies about the health effects of improper recycling practices in Asia. We 

interviewed a professor at Arizona State University currently conducting 

research on used electronics exports. We also attended two conferences 

on the export of used electronics, where we interviewed officials with 

Toxics Link, a nonprofit organization; academic officials from research 

institutions in China, Japan, Switzerland, and the United States; 

electronics-recycling and scrap industry officials; and officials from the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) national and regional offices. 

In addition, we monitored two e-commerce Web sites to obtain 

information on requests for used monitors, untested monitors, 

nonworking monitors, cathode-ray tubes (CRT), used CRTs, untested 

CRTs, nonworking CRTs, liquid-crystal displays (LCD), used LCDs, 

untested LCDs, nonworking LCDs, central processing units (CPU), used 

CPUs, untested CPUs, nonworking CPUs, used computers, untested 

computers, and nonworking computers. We collected information from 

these Internet sites from February 2008 to May 2008. Among the 

information we obtained were data on the volume requested, location of 

request, price, and quality of equipment sought (such as working, 

nonworking, untested, as-is, or broken). For CRTs in particular, we 

estimated the total number of units requested using conservative 

assumptions. For example, if a buyer requested one container per month, 

we estimated that 800 CRTs fit in a container and multiplied this number 

by three to obtain an estimated request of 2,400 monitors for the 3-month 

period. 

Page 45 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To determine the effectiveness of regulatory controls over used 

electronics exported from the United States, we took several approaches. 

First, we interviewed EPA officials and reviewed key documents. For 

example, we interviewed officials in the Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, and the Office of Civil Enforcement to determine what 

challenges exist to implementing EPA’s CRT rule. We also reviewed EPA’s 

CRT rule and hazardous waste export provisions of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, and its 

implementing regulations. Finally, we reviewed EPA’s Hazardous Waste 

Civil Enforcement Response Policy and the Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance’s Guide for Addressing Environmental Problems. 

Second, we posed as buyers of CRTs from India, Indonesia, Hong Kong, 

Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam. We also 

posed as a United States-based broker working for a fictitious company in 

Hong Kong. Using these identities, we e-mailed 343 U.S. companies, 

including members or affiliates of an electronics recyclers’ association and 

other companies that posted CRT “sell” offers on the e-commerce Web 

sites we monitored. From these companies, we requested CRT monitors 

that were unlikely to be reused (untested, nonworking, and broken CRTs), 

clearly destined for export, and could be supplied in less than the 60-day 

time period for export notifications under the CRT rule. Of the 64 firms 

that responded to our requests, 43 expressed a willingness to export. 

Among the other 21 companies that responded, 3 stated that they did not 

export broken CRT monitors; 7 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; and the remaining 11 provided 

various responses, such as offering broken CRT monitors from Canada, 

currently not having CRT monitors in inventory, offering working 

televisions, or offering Pentium IV motherboards. Of the 43 companies that 

expressed a willingness to export, we reached 18 in separate interviews 

and asked employees about their knowledge of the CRT rule and their 

perspectives on its effect on their business. We obtained notifications for 

CRT exports for recycling from EPA’s Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, and from EPA’s regional offices, we obtained 

notifications to export CRTs for reuse. We used this information to 

determine whether the U.S. companies that responded to our fictitious 

foreign buyers had previously filed a notification for export with EPA. 

Third, we obtained information from Hong Kong’s Environmental 

Protection Department on shipments of used CRTs that the department 

had intercepted and returned to the United States because, according to 

Page 46 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

the officials, the shipments violated Hong Kong’s hazardous waste import 

laws. For the shipments that occurred during our review, we referred the 

information to EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

On one occasion, we personally viewed one of these shipments at the Port 

of Long Beach, California, with the assistance of Customs and Border 

Protection officials. 

To examine options for strengthening the federal role in regulating used 

electronics exports, we interviewed EPA officials in the Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response and the Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance about the implications of (1) expanding the scope 

of the CRT rule to cover other exported used electronics, (2) submitting to 

Congress a legislative package for ratification of the Basel Convention, 

and (3) updating RCRA regulations to reflect a key 2002 decision by the 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. We 

interviewed Customs and Border Protection officials about the 

implications of working with EPA to improve tracking of exported used 

electronics. We also examined the regulatory regimes of European Union 

countries pertaining to hazardous waste exports. 

We found the data we obtained on e-commerce Web sites to be adequate 

to conclude that a significant demand exists for exported used electronics. 

We conducted our review from October 2007 through July 2008 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. These 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the evidence we 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

Page 47 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix II: Comments from the Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 

See comment 1. 

See comment 2. 

Page 48 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

See comment 3. 

See comment 4. 

See comment 5. 

See comment 6. 

Page 49 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

See comment 7. 

See comment 8. 

See comment 9. 

See comment 10. 

Page 50 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

See comment 11. 

Page 51 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

See comment 12. 

See comment 13. 

Page 52 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

See comment 14. 

See comment 15. 

Page 53 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Page 54 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

The following are GAO’s comments on the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s letter dated August 1, 2008. 

1. EPA’s statement incorrectly characterizes our recommendation in 

asserting that the recommendation calls on EPA “to develop a separate 

program for compliance monitoring and enforcement of the CRT rule.” 

Rather, the recommendation asks EPA to “identify a timetable for 

developing and implementing a systematic plan to enforce the CRT 

rule,” which would “include the basic elements of effective 

enforcement such as enforcement targets, monitoring, follow-up of 

suspected violations, and prosecution.” We do not see why such basic 

elements could not be developed within the context of the overall 

RCRA enforcement program. In any case, our May 2008 meeting with 

EPA officials to discuss preliminary findings made it apparent that a 

strategy for enforcing the rule was needed. Specifically, we were told 

at that time that the agency had not begun to consider how it would 

enforce the rule (it also did not have a time frame for doing so) 

because it was still emphasizing outreach to the regulated community. 

We continue to believe that without the minimal elements of a formal 

enforcement strategy, it will be difficult to determine whether the 

single penalty EPA has levied to date is an isolated action or part of an 

overall strategy to deter noncompliance. 

GAO Comments 

2. EPA stated that our report should “put into proper perspective the 

amount of used electronics now being reused or recycled,” noting that 

“80-85 percent is disposed of domestically, primarily in landfills.” 

EPA’s comment implies that because only 15 percent to 20 percent of 

used electronics are collected for reuse or recycling (since the other 80 

percent to 85 percent is primarily disposed of in landfills), we 

overstate the human health and environmental problems associated 

with exported used electronics. We find that this response needs to be 

put in the proper perspective. First, the document EPA references 

shows that 330 million computer products were “ready for end-of-life 

management” in 2006. Fifteen to 20 percent of 330 million is not an 

insignificant number—especially in light of EPA’s acknowledgment 

that “a vast majority” of such products are exported. Second, and more 

important, it is EPA’s stated goal to significantly reduce the 80 percent 

to 85 percent of used electronics going to landfills—a goal that is also 

pursued by a growing number of states enacting bans on disposing of 

used electronics in landfills. Over time, the effect of these efforts can 

be expected to greatly increase the quantity of used electronics being 

both recycled and exported—but especially exported, given the 

relatively greater profitability of that alternative. Under this likely 

Page 55 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

scenario, it will become that much more important to ensure that 

exported used electronics are handled safely. 

3. We did not delete the word enforcement from the title, as suggested by 

EPA, given the state of present CRT rule enforcement. We did, 

however, broaden and clarify our title to reflect our findings beyond 

enforcement, particularly the limited scope of U.S. regulation. The title 

now reads, Electronic Waste: EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful 

U.S. Exports through Stronger Enforcement and More 

Comprehensive Regulation.

4. This paragraph restates what we believe to be a misinterpretation of 

our recommendation. EPA’s comment implies we are recommending 

that the agency build an extensive compliance monitoring and 

enforcement program for the CRT rule. To the contrary, we are 

recommending that the agency take reasonable steps to establish a 

credible enforcement deterrent—such as developing enforcement 

targets and plans for monitoring, following up on suspected violations, 

and prosecuting violators. We continue to believe that these actions 

are necessary and appropriate in light of what we observed, including 

exporters willing to engage in apparent violations despite awareness of 

the CRT rule. We believe our own work demonstrates that much can 

be done to identify violators and deter noncompliance without 

establishing the “extensive compliance monitoring and enforcement 

program” that EPA describes. In particular, little effort was required on 

our part to identify potential violators and potentially illegal 

shipments. In just several hours of monitoring of e-commerce Web 

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

activities that would appear to violate the CRT rule. Additionally, in 

only minutes, we were able to identify 26 potentially illegal CRT 

shipments by simply e-mailing environmental protection officials in 

countries where such imports are known to occur. While collecting 

evidence to establish a violation would take additional efforts, our 

experience suggests that obtaining leads is relatively simple. 

5. We acknowledge EPA’s response to the violations we identified, but 

also note that 2 years after the CRT rule’s implementation, the agency 

has demonstrated little effort to identify noncompliance on its own. 

We would note further that the only administrative penalty EPA has 

issued to date was on July 31, 2008, more than 5 months after we 

identified that violation for the agency in February 2008. Thus, while 

we acknowledge this action, we continue to believe that until EPA 

adopts the basic elements of an enforcement strategy, it will remain 

unclear whether this single penalty was an isolated action—that, in 

Page 56 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

turn, is unlikely to deter future violations—or part of an emerging 

enforcement strategy. 

We also acknowledge EPA’s claim that it is “planning a number of 

inspections to take place this year,” and see this as a positive 

development if it is part of an overall strategy to ensure greater 

compliance as part of a formal, written plan. 

6. EPA notes that for most RCRA regulations, it shares its compliance 

monitoring and enforcement authorities with the states. We 

acknowledge that this practice is common among RCRA and other 

environmental programs, but, as agency officials told us on May 28, 

2008, states do not have authority over export provisions. Hence, the 

states’ lack of jurisdiction over this particular issue amplifies the 

importance of EPA’s role. 

7. EPA’s letter states that the agency “uses a variety of means to collect 

evidence, including working with Customs and Border Protection to 

obtain information and issuing information request letters to exporters 

or other potentially liable companies or individuals.” EPA does, in fact, 

have two memorandums of understanding with Customs and Border 

Protection to promote information sharing and enforcement of 

environmental laws. The memorandum on information sharing 

addresses imports only. The memorandum on enforcement of 

environmental laws is intended to ensure the timely coordination, 

communication, and cooperation necessary to process violations of 

environmental regulations as they relate to exports and imports. 

During our May 28 meeting with EPA officials, they told us they had 

worked with Customs and Border Protection only on imports of 

potentially hazardous waste, not exports. 

8. We applaud EPA’s issuance of the administrative penalty on July 31 

but, as noted above, believe this action should be part of an emerging 

enforcement strategy and not an isolated instance. We also note that 

we had identified this particular shipment as a potentially illegal 

export of CRT monitors 5 months earlier, after we were told by Hong 

Kong authorities that it was being returned to the United States as an 

illegal shipment of used electronics. On February 20, 2008, we 

informed EPA of the shipment and asked Customs and Border 

Protection to detain it. We viewed the container’s contents on 

February 27, 2008, and observed hundreds of CRT computer monitors 

stacked haphazardly, some with cracked plastic cases and broken 

glass tubes. EPA completed its action 5 months later. 

Page 57 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

9. The EPA comment suggests it is waiting for information from us. In 

fact, an Office of Solid Waste official told us EPA already has this 

information. In January 2008, when we began to uncover potentially 

illegal shipments of CRTs where the exporter failed to provide proper 

notice, we also began to provide this information to EPA. EPA implies 

that it asked us for information on all shipments mentioned in our 

draft report. During a June 2008 meeting with the agency, however, 

EPA officials asked us to verify only the information we obtained on 

the shipments we identified during our review. EPA did not ask us for 

information on the containers that were returned before our review 

began (although this information would have been easy for EPA to 

obtain from Hong Kong environmental protection officials). We 

understand that EPA has since obtained this information. 

10. EPA’s comment suggests that the agency was not aware of the 

potential illegality of the three containers until they had been shipped 

to Hong Kong for the second time. We find this suggestion puzzling 

since we provided EPA with information on these containers when 

they were returned from Hong Kong the first time. We had several 

telephone conversations and sent numerous e-mails to EPA staff in the 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Before the three 

containers were re-exported to Hong Kong, about 4 weeks after being 

returned to the Port of Los Angeles, a director in EPA’s Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance e-mailed us, stating that the 

exporting company had contacted Customs and Border Protection and 

intended to remove the monitors before shipping the containers back 

to Hong Kong. As we note in our report, the exporter did not remove 

the monitors. In fact, according to an Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance investigator, the exporter merely changed his 

company’s name and re-exported the used CRTs. 

11. Our characterization of EPA’s outreach efforts was based on 

(1) interviews during two meetings with EPA officials in May and June 

2008, and (2) an internal EPA document from March 2008—20 months 

after adoption of the rule—stating that “the agency still needed to 

develop a strategy for educating the regulated community about CRT 

rule notification requirements.” In our final report, we have 

nonetheless used the information provided by EPA to more fully 

describe what the agency states is the entire range of its outreach 

activities. For example, the agency’s communication plan for the CRT 

rule states that EPA is to notify its regional offices, state hazardous 

waste directors, the press, environmental groups, and relevant 

associations. 

Page 58 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

12. EPA contends that because developing options to broaden the 

agency’s regulations under existing RCRA authority might take several 

years and require addressing legal complexities, the agency should 

instead pursue nonregulatory, voluntary approaches. We disagree. 

First, as EPA’s experience has shown, voluntary programs can also 

take years to implement—and in some cases may never attain effective 

broad coverage since in a voluntary scheme, the agency has no 

enforcement recourse against reluctant participants. Second, given the 

widespread willingness to export in apparent violation of EPA’s one 

existing electronics export regulation (the CRT rule), including some 

exporters’ admitting knowledge of the rule, we do not assume that the 

industry will voluntarily agree to adopt and adhere to broader, 

meaningful export controls in the absence of a broader, better 

enforced regulatory framework. 

13. Among the factors EPA cites as drawbacks to the regulatory options 

we identified are possible “legal questions that would limit [EPA’s] 

authority or would need to be resolved” involving the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) and RCRA. We believe these 

concerns are not well founded. With respect to the applicability of the 

OSH Act, EPA states that many of the concerns our report identified 

relate to worker safety risks, which in the United States are regulated 

under the OSH Act by another agency. Although EPA’s statement is 

correct as far as it goes, it does not explain why the other risks our 

report identified—risks to the environment—cannot be regulated by 

EPA under RCRA in the ways we have suggested. We note that the 

OSH Act focuses solely on workplace safety, including controlling 

exposures to hazardous materials, while RCRA grants EPA broad 

authorities to regulate management of hazardous waste to protect 

human health and the environment. Many of the improper 

management practices we have cited pose a risk both to workers’ 

health and to the environment (e.g., via related releases of gases and 

liquids and potential dumping of materials without value). Because 

RCRA and the OSH Act regulate different aspects of the same toxic 

substances, applicable OSH Act regulations may be an appropriate 

consideration in crafting a RCRA approach to used electronics. As a 

part of developing options on how the agency can broaden its RCRA 

regulations to address used electronic devices, EPA should address 

any legal issues it may identify involving the OSH Act. 

With respect to EPA’s suggestion that a regulatory program to include 

additional used electronics “may also raise legal questions since RCRA 

does not apply extraterritorially,” we are not suggesting that EPA apply 

RCRA extraterritorially. We recommend that EPA develop options to 

Page 59 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

address management of used electronics under existing RCRA 

authority, including RCRA’s existing subtitle C export provisions, 

which apply to parties in the United States, on the basis of conditions 

in the United States. These provisions control exports by imposing 

requirements, such as notice and consent, upon parties in the United 

States who are exporting regulated wastes. Our recommendation 

would expand the scope of the regulated wastes subject to existing 

export provisions, not extend the geographical application of the 

export provisions themselves. The basis for this expansion of the 

scope of regulated wastes subject to export provisions is EPA’s 

existing broad legal authority under RCRA. Thus, we are not 

suggesting that EPA “define a waste as hazardous based on another 

country’s management scheme.” Although our rationale for our 

recommendation acknowledges the risks to health and the 

environment that can occur when these items are exported, as 

documented in this report, it also involves concerns about domestic 

management, which fall squarely within EPA’s RCRA authorities.1

 We 

believe EPA has authority to regulate at least some used electronics on 

the basis of potential domestic mismanagement. While RCRA provides 

EPA with broad authority and significant flexibility in its regulatory 

approaches, EPA should address any legal issues it may identify as 

part of developing options on how the agency can broaden its RCRA 

regulations to address used electronic devices. If, after studying the 

options that we discuss herein, EPA concludes it needs additional 

authority to implement its preferred approach, then the agency should 

seek such authority. 

14. Our statement is accurate as written. But to avoid any implication that 

our OCED responsibilities require the United States to modify its 

hazardous waste determinations to comport with those contained in 

the Basel Convention, we have added the following sentence: “While 

the 2001 change does not require changes to the scope of hazardous 

wastes regulated in the United States, it does require adoption of the 

 

1

See, for example, GAO, Electronic Waste: Strengthening the Role of the Federal 

Government in Encouraging Recycling and Reuse, GAO-06-47 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 10, 

2005). 

Page 60 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

classification system to facilitate coordination among exporting and 

importing countries.” 

15. We added footnotes as requested, noting that EPA has stated that it 

intends in the fall of 2008 to propose regulatory amendments to 

implement the 2001 OECD decision. 

Page 61 GAO-08-1044 Electronic Waste Exports 
Appendix III: GAO

A

 Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 62 GAO-08-1044 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Steve Elstein, Assistant 

Director; Nathan Anderson; Elizabeth Beardsley; Mark A. Braza; Ellen W. 

Chu; Michael Derr; Paul Kazemersky; David Stikkers; and Arvin Wu made 

key contributions to this report. Also contributing to the report were Lydia 

Araya and Katherine Raheb. 

 Electronic Waste Exports 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(360890) 
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