Electronic Waste: Considerations for Promoting Environmentally Sound Reuse and Recycling
Published: 2010-07-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Low recycling rates for used televisions, computers, and other electronics result in the loss of valuable resources, and electronic waste exports risk harming human health and the environment in countries that lack safe recycling and disposal capacity. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the management of used electronics that qualify as hazardous waste and promotes voluntary efforts among electronics manufacturers, recyclers, and other stakeholders. However, in the absence of a comprehensive national approach, a growing number of states have enacted electronics recycling laws, raising concerns about a patchwork of state requirements. In this context, GAO examined (1) EPA's efforts to facilitate environmentally sound used electronics management, (2) the views of various stakeholders on the state-by-state approach, and (3) considerations to further promote environmentally sound management. GAO reviewed EPA documents, interviewed EPA officials, and interviewed stakeholders in five states with electronics recycling legislation.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: EPA's efforts to facilitate the environmentally sound management of used electronics consist largely of (1) enforcing its rule for the recycling and exporting of cathode-ray tubes (CRT), which contain significant quantities of lead, and (2) an array of partnership programs that encourage voluntary efforts among manufacturers and other stakeholders. EPA has improved enforcement of export provisions of its CRT rule, but issues related to exports remain. In particular, EPA does not specifically regulate the export of many other electronic devices, such as cell phones, which typically are not within the regulatory definition of hazardous waste despite containing some toxic substances. In addition, the impact of EPA's partnership programs is limited or uncertain, and EPA has not systematically analyzed the programs to determine how their impact could be augmented. The views of stakeholders on the state-by-state approach to managing used electronics have been shaped by the increasing number of states with electronics recycling legislation. To varying degrees, the entities typically regulated under the state laws--electronics manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers--consider the increasing number of state laws to be a compliance burden. In contrast, in the five states GAO visited, state and local solid waste management officials expressed overall support for states taking a lead role in the absence of a national approach. The officials attributed their varying levels of satisfaction more to the design and implementation of individual state recycling programs, rather than to the state-by-state approach. Options to further promote the environmentally sound management of used electronics involve a number of policy considerations and encompass many variations, which generally range from a continued reliance on state recycling programs to the establishment of federal standards via legislation. The first approach provides the greatest degree of flexibility to states, but does not address stakeholder concerns that the state-by-state approach is a compliance burden or will leave some states without electronics recycling programs. Moreover, EPA does not have a plan for coordinating its efforts with state recycling programs or articulating how EPA's partnership programs can best assist stakeholders to achieve the environmentally sound management of used electronics. Under the second approach, a primary policy issue is the degree to which federal standards would allow for stricter state standards, thereby providing states with flexibility but also potentially worsening the compliance burden from the standpoint of regulated entities. As a component of any approach, a greater federal regulatory role over exports could address limitations on the authority of states to regulate exports. GAO previously recommended that EPA submit to Congress a legislative proposal for ratification of the Basel Convention, a multilateral environmental agreement that aims to protect against the adverse effects resulting from transboundary movements of hazardous waste. EPA officials told GAO that the agency had developed a legislative proposal under previous administrations but had not finalized a proposal with other federal agencies.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Administrator, EPA, (1) examine how EPA's partnership programs could be improved to contribute more effectively to used electronics management and (2) work with other federal agencies to finalize a legislative proposal on ratification of the Basel Convention for congressional consideration. EPA agreed with the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Each year, consumers purchase millions of electronic devices, such as  televisions, computers, and cell phones, and are faced with what to do  with their used electronics. Recycling can recover a variety of materials,  including precious metals, and many electronics can be reused or contain  reusable components. Yet, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and  industry data show that tens of millions of used electronics are thrown  away each year. Moreover, because used electronics often contain toxic  substances, such as lead and mercury, their end-of-life management raises  concerns about the potential adverse impacts on human health and the  environment, particularly when used electronics are exported to countries  that lack a safe recycling and disposal capacity.
The management of used electronics may be subject to a combination of  federal and state regulations as well as nonregulatory, or voluntary,  efforts. At the federal level, EPA regulates the handling and disposal of  used electronics that qualify as hazardous waste, such as those that fail  EPA’s tests for toxicity. In particular, items with cathode-ray tubes (CRT),  such as older televisions and computer monitors, contain significant  quantities of lead. EPA also works with electronics manufacturers,  retailers, and recyclers; state governments; environmental groups; and  other stakeholders under partnership programs that seek to ensure the  environmentally sound management of used electronics. At the state level,  numerous states have enacted laws establishing electronics collection and  recycling programs, including mechanisms for funding the cost of  recycling. As of June 2010, 23 states had enacted some type of electronics  recycling legislation. Other states have banned certain electronics from  landfills or funded voluntary recycling efforts. Such efforts have increased  recycling opportunities for consumers but raised concerns about the  growth of a patchwork of state requirements.
In this context, GAO examined (1) EPA’s current efforts to facilitate the  environmentally sound management of used electronics; (2) the views of  manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, state and local governments, and other  stakeholders on the current state-by-state approach to the management of  used electronics; and (3) considerations for further promoting the  environmentally sound management of used electronics.
To address these objectives, we reviewed EPA documents and interviewed  EPA officials regarding efforts to promote the environmentally sound  management of used electronics. We also interviewed representatives of  an array of national organizations of stakeholders affected by or  concerned with management of used electronics, including manufacturers,  retailers, recyclers, state and local governments, and environmental  groups. To gain insights into the impact of state electronics recycling laws,  we studied in detail the programs in five states—California, Maine,  Minnesota, Texas, and Washington. We selected states to represent a  range of models for financing recycling programs. In addition, we selected  states with recycling programs that had been in place long enough for  stakeholders to provide an assessment of the impacts of the legislation. In  each state, we interviewed representatives of state and local governments,  collectors and recyclers of used electronics that operate under the state  program as well as refurbishers of used electronics, state retail  associations, and state environmental groups. During these interviews, we  generally discussed the impact of state legislation on collection rates for  used electronics, convenience of disposal options for consumers, and  environmentally sound management of electronics collected under the  state programs. We also obtained stakeholders’ views on options to further  promote the environmentally sound management of used electronics.  While recognizing that stakeholders may benefit from state legislation,  such as through an increase in business opportunities for electronics  recyclers, we specifically asked about the burden (if any) created by the  state-by-state approach.
We encountered a number of limitations in the availability of reliable data  on the impact of the state-by-state approach on various stakeholders. For  example, the five states we selected did not have data on collection and  recycling rates prior to the effective dates of their laws, which would be  useful to quantify the impact of their programs. Similarly, some  manufacturers and other stakeholders regulated under state laws had  concerns about providing us with proprietary information or did not  identify compliance costs in a way that enabled us to determine the  portion of costs that stems from having to comply with differing state  requirements. Due to such limitations, we relied predominately on  stakeholders’ statements regarding how they have been impacted under  the state-by-state approach. Appendix I contains detailed information on  the scope and methodology of this report.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2009 to July 2010 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The management of used electronics presents a number of environmental  and health concerns. EPA estimates that only 15 to 20 percent of used  electronics (by weight) are collected for reuse and recycling, and that the  remainder of collected materials is primarily sent to U.S. landfills. While a  survey conducted by the consumer electronics industry suggests that  EPA’s data may underestimate the recycling rate, the industry survey  confirms that the number of used electronics thrown away each year is in  the tens of millions. As a result, valuable resources contained in  electronics, including copper, gold, and aluminum, are lost for future use.  Additionally, while modern landfills are designed to prevent leaking of  toxic substances and contamination of groundwater, research shows that  some types of electronics have the potential to leach toxic substances with  known adverse health effects. Used electronics may also be exported for  recycling or disposal. In August 2008, we reported that, while such exports  can be handled responsibly in countries with effective regulatory regimes  and by companies with advanced technologies, a substantial amount ends  up in countries that lack the capacity to safely recycle and dispose of used  electronics.
We also have previously reported on the economic and other factors that  inhibit recycling and reuse. For example, many recyclers charge fees  because their costs exceed the revenue they receive from selling recycled  commodities or refurbishing units. Household electronics, in particular,  are typically older and more difficult to refurbish and resell, and, thus, may  have less value than those from large institutions. In most states, it is  easier and cheaper for consumers to dispose of household electronics at a  local landfill. Moreover, as EPA and others have noted, the domestic  infrastructure to recycle used electronics is limited, and the major markets  for both recycled commodities and reusable equipment are overseas.
The United States does not have a comprehensive national approach for  the reuse and recycling of used electronics, and previous efforts to  establish a national approach have been unsuccessful. Under the National  Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative, a key previous effort that was  initially funded by EPA, stakeholders met between 2001 and 2004, in part  to develop a financing system to facilitate reuse and recycling.  Stakeholders included representatives of federal, state, and local  governments; electronics manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers; and  environmental organizations. Yet despite broad agreement in principle,  stakeholders in the process did not reach agreement on a uniform,  nationwide financing system. For example, they did not reach agreement  on a uniform system that would address the unique issues related to  televisions, which have longer life spans and cost more to recycle than  computers. In the absence of a national approach, some states have since  addressed the management of used electronics through legislation or other  means, and other stakeholders are engaged in a variety of voluntary  efforts.
subsections: section_title: State Electronics Recycling Legislation
paragraphs: In the 9 years that have passed since stakeholders initiated the National  Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative in an ultimately unsuccessful  attempt to develop a national financing system to facilitate the reuse and  recycling of used electronics, 23 states have enacted some form of  electronics recycling legislation. For example, some of these state laws  established an electronics collection and recycling program and a  mechanism for funding the cost of recycling (see fig. 1).
The state laws represent a range of options for financing the cost of  recycling and also differ in other respects, such as the scope of electronic  devices covered under the recycling programs, with televisions, laptop  computers, and computer monitors frequently among the covered  electronic devices. Similarly, while the state laws generally cover used  electronics generated by households, some laws also cover used  electronics generated by small businesses, charities, and other entities.
Five of the states—California, Maine, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington— represent some of the key differences in financing mechanisms. California  was early to enact legislation and is the only state to require that  electronics retailers collect a recycling fee from consumers at the time of  purchase of a new electronic product covered under the law. These fees  are deposited into a fund managed by the state and used to pay for the  collection and recycling of used electronics.
In contrast, the other four states have enacted legislation making  manufacturers selling products in their jurisdictions responsible for  recycling or for some or all of the recycling costs. Such laws are based on  the concept of “producer responsibility” but implement the concept in  different ways. In Maine, state-approved consolidators of covered used  electronics bill individual manufacturers, with the amount billed for  particular electronics being based in part either on the manufacturer’s  market share of products sold or on the share of used electronics  collected under the state’s program. Under the Minnesota law,  manufacturers either must meet recycling targets by arranging and paying  for the collection and recycling of an amount in weight based on a  percentage of their sales or must pay recycling fees. Texas requires that  manufacturers establish convenient “take-back” programs for their own  brands of equipment. Finally, the Washington law requires that  manufacturers establish and fund collection services that meet certain  criteria for convenience, as well as transportation and recycling services.  Table 1 summarizes the key characteristics of the electronics recycling  legislation in these five states.
section_title: Other State and Voluntary Efforts
paragraphs: As of June 2010, the remaining 27 states had not enacted legislation to  establish electronics recycling programs. In some of these states,  legislation concerning electronics recycling has been proposed, and some  state legislatures have established commissions to study options for the  management of used electronics. In addition, some of these states, as well  as some of the states with recycling legislation, have banned certain used  electronics, such as CRTs, from landfills. In states with no mechanism to  finance the cost of recycling, some local governments that offer recycling  bear the recycling costs and others charge fees to consumers. Also, some  states have funded voluntary recycling efforts, such as collection events or  related efforts organized by local governments. For example, Florida has  provided grants to counties in the state to foster the development of an  electronics recycling infrastructure.
A variety of entities offer used electronics collection services, either for a  fee or at no charge. Localities may organize collection events or collect  used electronics at waste transfer stations. A number of electronics  manufacturers and retailers support collection events and offer other  services. For example, Best Buy offers free recycling of its own branded  products and drop-off opportunities for other products at a charge that is  offset by a store coupon of the same value; Dell and Goodwill Industries  have established a partnership to provide free collection services at many  Goodwill donation centers; and a number of electronics manufacturers  collect used electronics through mail-back services offered to consumers.  Some manufacturers and retailers also have made voluntary commitments  to manage used electronics in an environmentally sound manner and to  restrict exports of used electronics that they collect for recycling.
section_title: EPA Has Contributed to the Sounder Management of Used Electronics, but Its Results Are Limited or Uncertain
paragraphs: EPA has taken some notable steps to augment its enforcement of  regulations on exports of CRTs for recycling, but the export of other used  electronics remains largely unregulated. In addition, the effect of EPA’s  partnership programs on the management of used electronics, although  positive, is limited or uncertain.
subsections: section_title: EPA Has Improved Its Enforcement of CRT Export Regulations, but the Export of Other Used Electronics Remains Largely Unregulated
paragraphs: To encourage the recycling and reuse of used CRTs, EPA amended its  hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act by establishing streamlined management requirements. If  certain conditions are met, the regulations exclude CRTs from the  definition of solid waste and thereby from the regulations that apply to the  management of hazardous waste. The conditions include a requirement  that exporters of used CRTs for recycling notify EPA of an intended  export before the shipments are scheduled to leave the United States and  obtain consent from the importing country. In contrast, exporters of used,  intact CRTs for reuse (as opposed to recycling) may submit a one-time  notification to EPA and are not required to obtain consent from the  importing country. The export provisions of the CRT rule became  effective in January 2007.
We reported in August 2008 that some companies had appeared to have  easily circumvented the CRT rule, and that EPA had done little to enforce  it. In particular, we posed as foreign buyers of broken CRTs, and 43 U.S.  companies expressed a willingness to export these items. Some of the  companies, including ones that publicly touted their exemplary  environmental practices, were willing to export CRTs in apparent violation  of the CRT rule. Despite the apparently widespread potential for  violations, EPA did not issue its first administrative penalty complaint  against a company for potentially illegal shipments until the rule had been  in effect for 1½ years, and that penalty came as a result of a problem we  had identified. In response to our prior report, EPA officials acknowledged  some instances of noncompliance with the CRT rule but stated that, given  the rule’s relative newness, their focus was on educating the regulated  community.
Since our prior report’s issuance, however, EPA has initiated  investigations and taken several enforcement actions against companies  that have violated the notice-and-consent requirement for export of CRTs  for recycling. For example, in December 2009, the agency issued an order  seeking penalties of up to $37,500 per day to a company that failed to  properly manage a shipment of waste CRTs. According to EPA, the  company did not provide appropriate notice to the agency or to China, the  receiving country, where customs authorities rejected the shipment.  Similarly, in December 2009, EPA announced that two companies that  failed to notify the agency or receive written consent from China of a  shipment of waste CRTs for recycling entered agreements with EPA, with  one company agreeing to pay a fine of over $21,000.
Despite steps to strengthen enforcement of the CRT rule, issues related to  CRT exports and to exports of other used electronics remain. First, as we  reported in August 2008, exports of CRTs for reuse in developing countries  have sometimes included broken units that are instead dumped. EPA’s  CRT rule does not allow such exports and requires that exporters keep  copies of normal business records, such as contracts, demonstrating that  each shipment of exported CRTs will be reused. However, the rule does  not require exporters to test used equipment to verify that it is functional.  Moreover, according to EPA, the agency has focused its investigations  under the CRT rule on companies that have failed to provide export  notifications altogether. In contrast, the agency has not yet conducted any  follow-up on notifications of exports for reuse to protect against the  dumping of nonworking CRTs in developing countries by ensuring that the  CRTs companies are exporting are, in fact, suitable for reuse.
Second, CRTs are the only electronic devices specifically regulated as  hazardous waste under EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  regulations. Many other electronic devices, however, contain small  amounts of toxic substances, and according to EPA, recent studies have  shown that certain used electronics other than CRTs, such as some cell  phones, sometime exceed the act’s regulatory criteria for toxicity when  evaluated using hazardous waste test protocols. Finally, because one of  the purposes of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is to  promote reuse and recovery, EPA’s rules under the act exclude used  electronics and disassembled component parts that are exported for reuse  from the definition of “solid waste” and, therefore, from hazardous waste  export requirements, regardless of whether the used electronics exceed  the toxicity characteristic regulatory criteria.
section_title: EPA’s Partnership Programs Have Had a Positive but Limited Effect
paragraphs: EPA has worked with electronics manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, state  governments, environmental groups, and other stakeholders to promote  partnership programs that address the environmentally sound  management of used electronics. In addition, EPA comanages a program  to encourage federal agencies and facilities to purchase environmentally  preferable electronics and manage used electronics in an environmentally  sound manner. Key programs include the following:    Responsible Recycling practices. EPA convened electronics  manufacturers, recyclers, and other stakeholders and provided funding to  develop the Responsible Recycling (R2) practices, with the intent that  electronics recyclers could obtain certification that they are voluntarily  adhering to environmental, worker health and safety, and security  practices. Certification to the R2 practices became available in late 2009.  According to EPA officials, the R2 practices represent a significant  accomplishment in that they provide a means for electronics recyclers to  be recognized for voluntary commitments that, according to EPA, go  beyond what the agency is able to legally require. The R2 practices identify  “focus materials” in used electronics, such as CRTs or items containing  mercury, that warrant greater care due to their toxicity or other potential  adverse health or environmental effects when managed without the  appropriate safeguards. The practices specify that recyclers (and each  vendor in the recycling chain) export equipment and components  containing focus materials only to countries that legally accept them. The  practices also specify that recyclers document the legality of such exports.  Upon request by exporters, EPA has agreed to help obtain documentation  from foreign governments regarding whether focus materials can be  legally imported into their country.
Plug-In To eCycling. To promote opportunities for individuals to donate  or recycle their used consumer electronics, EPA began to partner with  electronics manufacturers, retailers, and mobile service providers in 2003.  Under the Plug-In To eCycling program, partners commit to ensuring that  the electronics refurbishers and recyclers they use follow guidelines  developed by EPA for the protection of human health and the  environment. Among other things, the current guidelines call for  minimizing incineration and landfill disposal and for ensuring that exports  comply with requirements in importing countries. According to EPA,   Plug-In To eCycling partners have collected and recycled steadily  increasing quantities of used electronics, and some partners have  expanded the collection opportunities they offer to consumers (e.g., from  occasional events to permanent locations).
Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool. Developed under a  grant from EPA and launched in 2006, the Electronic Product  Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) helps purchasers select and  compare computers and monitors on the basis of their environmental  attributes. EPEAT evaluates electronic products against a set of required  and optional criteria in a number of categories, including end-of-life  management. To qualify for registration under EPEAT, the sale of all  covered products to institutions must include the option to purchase a  take-back or recycling service that meets EPA’s Plug-In To eCycling  recycling guidelines. Auditing of recycling services against the guidelines  is an optional criterion. Currently, EPA is participating with other  stakeholders in the development of additional standards covering  televisions and imaging equipment, such as copiers and printers.
Federal Electronics Challenge. To promote the responsible management  of electronic products in the federal government, EPA comanages the  Federal Electronics Challenge, a program to encourage federal agencies  and facilities to purchase environmentally preferable electronic  equipment, operate the equipment in an energy-efficient way, and manage  used electronics in an environmentally sound manner. According to EPA,  partners reported in 2009 that 96 percent of the computer desktops,  laptops, and monitors they purchased or leased were EPEAT-registered,  and that 83 percent of the electronics they took out of service were reused  or recycled. One of the national goals of the Federal Electronics Challenge  for 2010 is that 95 percent of the eligible electronic equipment purchased  or leased by partnering agencies and facilities be registered under EPEAT.  Another goal is that 100 percent of the non-reusable electronic equipment  disposed of by partners be recycled using environmentally sound  management practices.
While EPA and other stakeholders have contributed to progress in the  partnership programs, the impact of the programs on the management of  used electronics is limited or uncertain. For example, the Plug-In To  eCycling program does not (1) include a mechanism to verify that partners  adhere to their commitment to manage used electronics in accordance  with EPA’s guidelines for the protection of human health and the  environment or (2) confirm the quantity of used electronics collected  under the program.
In addition, because the development of electronics purchasing and  recycling standards is ongoing or only recently completed, it is too soon to  determine how the standards will affect the management of used  electronics collected from consumers. EPA officials told us that the  agency lacks the authority to require electronics recyclers to adhere to the  R2 practices, since most electronics are not hazardous waste under  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations. EPA participated in  the development of the practices through a process open to a range of  stakeholders concerned with the management of used electronics. Two  environmental groups that participated in the process withdrew their  support because the R2 practices failed to address their concerns (e.g.,  about the export of used electronics). As a result, one of the groups, the  Basel Action Network, spearheaded the development of another standard  (i.e., e-Stewards®) under which electronics recyclers may be certified on a  voluntary basis. EPA is currently considering whether and how to  reference such recycler certification standards in other programs, such as  Plug-In To eCycling.
Furthermore, EPEAT currently focuses on electronic products sold to  institutions but not to individual consumers. In particular, the requirement  that manufacturers of EPEAT-registered computers and monitors offer a  take-back or recycling service to institutional purchasers does not  currently apply to sales to individual consumers. According to an EPA  official participating in development of the standards, EPA and other  stakeholders plan to begin work in 2010 on expanding the standard for  computer equipment into the consumer marketplace, and stakeholders are  still discussing whether the new EPEAT standards for imaging equipment  and televisions, which will cover electronics sold to individual consumers,  will include a required or optional criterion for take back of such  electronics.
In October 2009, we reported that an increasing number of federal  agencies and facilities has joined the Federal Electronics Challenge, but  we also identified opportunities for higher levels of participation and  noted that agencies and facilities that participate do not maximize the  environmental benefits that can be achieved. We reported, for example,  that agencies and facilities representing almost two-thirds of the federal  workforce were not program partners, and that only two partners had  reported to EPA that they managed electronic products in accordance  with the goals for all three life-cycle phases—procurement, operation, and  disposal. We concluded that the federal government, which purchases  billions of dollars worth of information technology equipment and services  annually, has the opportunity to leverage its substantial market power to  enhance recycling infrastructures and stimulate markets for  environmentally preferable electronic products by broadening and  deepening agency and facility participation in the Federal Electronics  Challenge. However, EPA has not systematically analyzed the agency’s  partnership programs, such as the Federal Electronics Challenge, to  determine whether the impact of each program could be augmented.
section_title: Stakeholders’ Views on the State-by-State Approach to Managing Used Electronics Vary Widely
paragraphs: To varying degrees, the entities regulated under the state electronics  recycling laws—electronics manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers— consider the increasing number of laws to be a compliance burden. In  contrast, in the five states we visited, state and local solid waste  management officials expressed varying levels of satisfaction with  individual state recycling programs, which they attributed more to the  design and implementation of the programs, rather than to any burden  caused by the state-by-state approach. (See app. II for a description of key  elements of the electronics recycling programs in the five states.)
subsections: section_title: Manufacturers, Retailers, and Recyclers View the State-by-State Approach as a Compliance Burden to Varying Degrees
paragraphs: Electronics manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers described various ways  in which they are affected by the current state-by-state approach toward  the management of used electronics, with manufacturers expressing the  greatest concern about the lack of uniformity.
subsections: section_title: Manufacturers
paragraphs: The scope of manufacturers regulated under state electronics recycling  laws, as well as how states define “manufacturer,” varies by state. The  laws apply to both multinational corporations as well as small companies  whose products may not be sold in every state and, depending on the law,  to manufacturers of both information technology equipment and  televisions. In some states, such as Maine and Washington, the number of  regulated manufacturers is over 100.
Because most state electronics recycling laws are based on the producer  responsibility model, these laws, by design, assign manufacturers  significant responsibility for financing and, in some states, for arranging  the collection and recycling of used electronics. As a result, the two  electronics manufacturer associations we interviewed, as well as eight of  the nine individual manufacturers, told us that the state-by-state approach  represents a significant compliance burden. The individual manufacturer  that did not consider the state-by-state approach to be a significant burden  explained that the company is not currently manufacturing covered  electronic devices (specifically televisions) and, therefore, does not have  responsibilities under most of the state laws.
Depending on the specific provisions of state laws, examples of the  duplicative requirements that individual manufacturers described as  burdensome included paying annual registration fees to multiple state  governments, submitting multiple reports to state environmental agencies,  reviewing and paying invoices submitted by multiple recyclers, and  conducting legal analyses of state laws to determine the responsibilities  placed on manufacturers. A representative of a manufacturer of  information technology equipment said that, due to the time needed to  ensure compliance with differing state laws, the company cannot spend  time on related activities, such as finding ways to reduce the cost of  complying with the state laws or ensuring that electronics are recycled in  an environmentally sound manner.
Representatives of one manufacturer noted that even states with similar  versions of producer responsibility legislation differ in terms of specific  requirements, such as the scope of covered electronic devices, registration  and reporting deadlines, and the types of information to be submitted. As a  result, they said that they needed to conduct separate compliance efforts  for each state, rather than implement a single compliance program. A few  manufacturers also told us that their current compliance costs are in the  millions of dollars and are increasing as more states enact electronics  recycling legislation. For example, a Sony representative said that he  expects the amount the company spends in 2010 to comply with the  requirements in states with producer responsibility laws to increase  almost sevenfold over the amount spent in 2008.
While the producer responsibility model is based on the assumption that  manufacturers pass along the cost of recycling to consumers in the form of  higher prices, the electronics manufacturer associations, as well as  individual manufacturers, described inefficiencies and higher costs  created by the state-by-state approach that they said could be reduced  through a uniform national approach. For example, the Consumer  Electronics Association cited a 2006 report, which the association helped  fund, on the costs that could be avoided under a hypothetical, single  national approach. The report estimated that, with 20 different state  programs, manufacturers would spend an additional $41 million each year,  and that the total additional annual costs among all stakeholders— including manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, and state governments— would be about $125 million.
Both the Consumer Electronics Association, most of whose members the  association considers to be small electronics manufacturers, as well as the  Information Technology Industry Council, which represents large  manufacturers, told us that some provisions of state laws—such as  registration fees that do not take into account the number of covered  electronic devices sold in a state—can create a disproportionate burden  on small manufacturers. For example, Maine’s law imposes a $3,000  annual registration fee on all manufacturers, regardless of size or sales  volume. One small manufacturer told us that Maryland’s initial registration  fee of $10,000 exceeded the company’s $200 profits from sales in the state.  The manufacturer said that, if all 50 states imposed such fees, the  company would not remain in business. Similarly, the need to analyze  differing requirements in each state law requires staff resources that,  unlike their larger counterparts, small manufacturers may lack.
Despite the costs of complying with state electronics recycling legislation,  representatives of the two electronics manufacturer associations we  interviewed, as well as most of the individual manufacturers, told us that  state laws based on the producer responsibility model have not led to the  design of electronic products that are less toxic and more recyclable,  which some states cite as one of the purposes for making manufacturers  responsible for the management of used electronics. Manufacturers cited  the following reasons for the lack of an impact on product design:  the inability of manufacturers to anticipate how recycling practices and  technologies may develop over time and incorporate those developments  into the design of products that may be discarded only after years of use;   some producer responsibility laws, such as in Minnesota and Washington,  making individual manufacturers responsible for recycling not their own  products but a general category of devices, including those designed by  other manufacturers; and the greater impact of other factors on product design, such as consumer  demand and the use by institutional purchasers of EPEAT to select and  compare electronic devices on the basis of their environmental attributes.
section_title: Retailers
paragraphs: Retailers generally affected by state electronics recycling laws include  national chains as well as small electronics shops. Some retailers, such as  Best Buy, sell their own brand of covered electronic devices and are also  classified as manufacturers under certain states’ laws. As an example of  the number of retailers covered under the laws, information from the state  of California indicates that over 15,000 retailers have registered to collect  the state’s recycling fee, and state officials estimated that large retailers  collect 80 percent of the revenues.
While the requirements imposed by state electronics recycling legislation  on retailers typically are less extensive than the requirements pertaining to  manufacturers, representatives of national and state retail associations we  interviewed, as well as individual electronics retailers, described ways that  the state-by-state approach creates a compliance burden. For example,  according to the Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition, certain state  requirements, such as prohibitions on selling the products of electronics  manufacturers that have not complied with a state’s law, are difficult for  large retailers to implement since they do not use state-specific networks  for distributing products to their stores. Rather, electronic products are  developed, marketed, and sold on a national and even global basis.
Similarly, representatives of the Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition,  as well as the majority of individual retailers and state retail associations  in the five states we visited, told us that state “point-of-sale” requirements  to collect a fee (in California) or distribute information on recycling when  consumers purchase an electronic product represents a burden (e.g., many  retailers operate their point-of-sale systems out of a centralized location  yet are required to meet differing requirements in each state). Some  retailers also expressed concern that states have difficulty in enforcing  requirements on Internet retailers and, as a result, that businesses with a  physical presence in the state are disadvantaged. This point is supported  by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, which has  indicated that the department lacks sufficient staff to ensure that retailers  that sell exclusively on the Internet comply with the sales ban on products  from noncompliant manufacturers.
Retailers also expressed concerns over specific provisions of individual  state laws. For example, representatives of the California Retailers  Association said their members consider the state’s requirement to collect  a recycling fee at the point of sale and remit the fee to the state to be  particularly burdensome, even though the law allows retailers to retain   3 percent of the fee as reimbursement for their costs. One retailer  explained that collecting the fee also generates resentment against the  retailer among customers who are unaware of the state’s recycling law.  Similarly, according to the Minnesota Retailers Association, retailers  found it challenging to gather and report accurate sales data required to  calculate manufacturer recycling targets under the state’s law. In response  to concerns over collecting and reporting sales data, Minnesota amended  its law to eliminate this requirement and to use national sales data instead.
Retailers that sell their own brand of covered electronic devices and are  classified as manufacturers under a particular state’s law must meet all  requirements imposed on either type of entity. Similarly, Best Buy and  other retailers that offer customers a take-back service for used  electronics are considered authorized collectors under some state  programs and, as a result, are subject to additional registration and  reporting requirements. Best Buy officials told us they face unique  challenges under the state-by-state approach because they participate in  programs as a retailer; a manufacturer; and, in some cases, a collector. For  example, the officials cited 47 annual reporting and registration deadlines  to comply with requirements imposed on manufacturers, 19 annual  reporting or review dates associated with retailer requirements, and 6  annual reporting or registration dates associated with collector  requirements.
section_title: Recyclers
paragraphs: Electronics recyclers range from large multinational corporations to small  entities with a location in one state and encompass a range of business  models. For example, some recyclers focus on “asset disposition”—that is,  providing data destruction and computer refurbishment services to  businesses and large institutions—and other recyclers focus on recovering  valuable commodities, such as precious metals. The use of “downstream”  vendors to process various components separated from electronics is  common, and many of the downstream entities, such as those that recycle  glass from CRTs, are located overseas. Numerous nonprofit organizations  refurbish used computers for use by schools, low-income families, and  other nonprofit organizations both in the United States and overseas.
The degree to which the recyclers we interviewed expressed concerns  about the state-by-state approach varied. While state laws have established  differing registration, reporting, and record-keeping requirements for  recyclers and, where specified, different methods of payment for the cost  of recycling or collection, some recyclers said they are not generally  impacted by such differences (e.g., they operate in only one state with  electronics recycling legislation or they can cope with differing state  requirements for environmentally sound management by adhering to the  most stringent requirements). One recycler even pointed out that the  existence of various state laws can create business opportunities. In  particular, rather than attempt to develop their own programs to comply  with differing state requirements, manufacturers may decide to contract  with recyclers that may have greater familiarity with the provisions of  different laws.
In contrast, other recyclers expressed concern over the burden of meeting  the requirements of differing state laws. Due to the differences among  state laws and the programs as implemented, these recyclers may have to  carry out different tasks in each state to be reimbursed, such as counting  and sorting covered electronic devices by brand and invoicing individual  manufacturers; marketing and selling the amount of used electronics they  have processed to manufacturers that must meet recycling targets; and, in  California, submitting recycling payment claims to the state government.  One recycler told us that the differences among state laws create a  disincentive for establishing operations in other states, while another  mentioned how small variations among state laws can significantly affect a  recycler’s capacity to do business in a state. Another recycler added that  the state-by-state approach hinders the processing of large volumes of  used electronics from households and the ability to generate economies of  scale that would reduce recycling costs.
Almost all of the electronics recyclers we interviewed, including those in  each of the five states we studied in detail, told us that they are concerned  about the ability of irresponsible recyclers to easily enter and undercut the  market by charging low prices without processing the material in an  environmentally sound manner. While such undercutting might persist  even under a national approach to managing used electronics, the  recyclers identified a number of factors in the state-by-state approach that  magnify the problem, including their perception of a lack of enforcement  by state environmental agencies. In addition, according to recyclers in  California and Washington, some recyclers export—rather than  domestically recycle—electronic devices not covered under the state laws,  which is less costly and thereby gives them a competitive advantage over  recyclers that do not engage in exports, even where legal.
Some recyclers and refurbishers of used electronics told us that state laws  foster recycling at the expense of reuse, even though refurbishment and  reuse is viewed by EPA as being more environmentally friendly than  recycling. Specifically, according to these stakeholders, some state  programs focus on collecting and recycling used electronics but not  refurbishing them, thereby creating a financial incentive to recycle used  electronics that could otherwise be refurbished and reused. For example,  in Minnesota, only the amount in weight of collected used electronics that  is recycled counts toward manufacturers’ performance targets. According  to one refurbisher in the state, this provision leads to the recycling of  equipment that is in working condition and reusable. Similarly, California  pays for the cost of collecting and recycling used electronics but not for  refurbishment. In contrast, according to a Texas affiliate of Goodwill  Industries that recycles and refurbishes used electronics, the state’s law  promotes reuse of used electronics. For example, by requiring that  manufacturers establish take-back programs but not setting recycling  targets, the Texas law avoids creating an incentive to recycle used  electronics that can be refurbished.
section_title: State and Local Governments Are Mainly Concerned with the Success of Their Individual Recycling Programs
paragraphs: In the five states that we selected for detailed review, state and local  government officials expressed varying levels of satisfaction with their  electronics recycling laws. In addition, while some state and local  governments had participated in the National Electronics Product  Stewardship Initiative in an attempt to develop a national financing system  for electronics reuse and recycling, the state and local officials we  interviewed generally said that the state-by-state approach had not  hindered the successful implementation of electronics recycling programs  in their jurisdictions. Rather, they attributed their level of satisfaction to  the design of the programs, such as the degree to which the programs  provide a financing source for collecting and recycling used electronics  and the effectiveness of efforts to educate consumers.
None of the five states had statewide data on collection rates prior to  implementation of the electronics recycling programs to quantify the  impact of the laws, but state and local officials provided a variety of  anecdotal information to illustrate the laws’ impact, such as collection  rates in local communities and trends in the dumping of used electronics  on roadsides and other areas. Moreover, the experiences described by  state and local officials in the five states illustrate that both general  financing models—producer responsibility and a recycling fee paid by  consumers—are viable and have the potential to ensure convenient  collection opportunities.
Local solid waste management officials in the five states we visited  expressed varying levels of satisfaction with state electronics recycling  legislation in terms of reducing their burden of managing used electronics.  On one hand, local officials in Washington told us that the state’s law  requiring that manufacturers establish a convenient collection network for  the recycling of used electronics has been successful in increasing  collection opportunities and relieving local governments of recycling  costs. Similarly, local officials in California said the state’s use of a  recycling fee for reimbursing collection and recycling costs had relieved  their governments of the burden of managing used electronics by making  it profitable for the private sector to provide collection and recycling  services. On the other hand, according to local solid waste management  officials in Texas, the lack of specific criteria in the provision of the state’s  law requiring that manufacturers collect their own brands of used  computer equipment limited the law’s impact on increasing the  convenience of collection opportunities. In addition, the officials said the  state government had not done enough to educate residents about the law.  As a result, they said that local governments were still bearing the burden  of managing used computer equipment.
State and local solid waste management officials we interviewed from  three states without electronics recycling legislation also expressed  varying levels of satisfaction with their voluntary efforts to promote  recycling under the state-by-state approach to managing used electronics.  For example, a county hazardous waste coordinator in Florida said the  county used funding from the state to establish an electronics recycling  program that is self-sustaining and free to households, but he also said that  the state-by-state approach is cumbersome. Similarly, Florida state  officials said that every state county has recycling opportunities, although  collection could be more convenient. A representative of the Association  of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials said that,  without a mechanism to finance the cost of recycling used electronics,  local governments that provide recycling opportunities may be bearing the  cost of providing such services, which can impose a financial burden on  communities. In addition, while most of the state and local officials we  interviewed from states without legislation said that the state-by-state  approach does not represent a burden, Arizona state officials pointed out  an increased burden of ensuring the environmentally sound management  of used electronics collected in a neighboring state (California) and  shipped to their state, since California has an electronic waste law, but  Arizona does not.
While state environmental officials we interviewed agreed that the burden  of the state-by-state approach falls primarily on the regulated industries,  they also acknowledged a number of aspects of the state-by-state  approach that limit or complicate their own efforts, including the  following:    The need to ensure that state programs do not pay for the recycling of  used electronics from out of state. In California, where the state  reimburses recyclers $0.39 per pound for the cost of collecting and  recycling covered electronic devices, state environmental officials said  that they have regularly denied 2 to 5 percent of the claims submitted by  recyclers due to problems with documentation, and that some portion of  the denied claims likely represents fraudulent claims for the recycling of  used electronics collected from other states. To prevent the recycling fee  paid by consumers in the state from being used to finance the cost of  recycling used electronics from other states, California requires that  collectors of used electronics (other than local governments or their  agents) maintain a log that includes the name and address of persons who  discard covered electronic devices, and the state checks the logs to ensure  that it pays only for the recycling of devices generated within the state.  California state officials responsible for implementing the electronics  recycling legislation said that the time spent on ensuring this requirement  is met is a significant contributor to their workload. State and local  government officials in other states we visited also acknowledged the  potential for their programs to finance the recycling of used electronics  collected from out of state, but these officials did not consider the  problem to be widespread or difficult to address. For example, a Maine  official said that, as a standard practice, waste collection facilities in the  state check the residency of individuals, including when the facilities  collect used electronics for recycling.
Ability to ensure compliance with state requirements for  environmentally sound management. State environmental officials in the  five states we visited described varying levels of oversight to ensure the  environmentally sound management of used electronics collected under  their programs. For example, California conducts annual inspections of  recyclers approved under the state program. Among other things, the  state’s inspection checklist covers the packaging and labeling of electronic  devices, the training of personnel on how to handle waste, the tracking of  waste shipments, and the procedures and protective equipment needed to  manage the hazards associated with the treatment of electronic devices. In  contrast, citing limited resources, officials in Minnesota said they rely on  spot checks of large recyclers, and officials in Texas said they have  prioritized regular, scheduled enforcement of other environmental  regulations over the requirements adopted by the state for the recycling of  electronics. Even in California, state officials said that their ability to  ensure the environmentally sound management of waste shipped out of  state is limited because, while covered devices must be dismantled in  California to be eligible for a claim within the state’s payment system,  residuals from the in-state dismantling and treatment of covered devices  may be shipped out of state. Intact but noncovered electronic devices are  not subject to the California program and hence may also be shipped out  of state. The problem is exacerbated because many of the “downstream”  vendors used to process materials separated from electronics are located  overseas, which further limits the ability of state officials to ensure that  recyclers are conducting due diligence on downstream vendors and that  the materials are being managed in an environmentally sound manner.  (See app. II for additional information on the requirements for  environmentally sound management in the five states we studied in detail.)
section_title: Environmental Groups Cited the Accomplishments of State Electronics Recycling Programs but Acknowledged Limitations in States’ Ability to Address Exports
paragraphs: In each of the five states we visited, state environmental nonprofit  organizations either advocated for the enactment of state electronics  recycling legislation or have been active in tracking the implementation of  the laws. In addition, a number of groups advocate on issues related to the  management of used electronics on a national or international basis. For  example, the Electronics TakeBack Coalition, which includes a number of  nonprofit organizations, advocates for producer responsibility as a policy  for promoting responsible recycling in the electronics industry, and the  Basel Action Network works in opposition to exports of toxic wastes to  developing counties.
Like state and local government officials in the five states we visited, state  environmental groups we interviewed described the design of the state  recycling programs, rather than the state-by-state approach, as the primary  factor in the success of the programs. Representatives of the state  environmental groups in four of the five states—California, Maine,  Minnesota, and Washington—said that they considered their state program  to have been successful in providing convenient collection opportunities  and in increasing the collection rates of used electronics. For example,  citing a 2007 survey of Maine municipalities, a representative of the  Natural Resources Council of Maine said that the collection opportunities  under the state program are more convenient than anticipated, although  convenience could be improved for some state residents. Similarly, a  representative of Californians Against Waste said that the state’s recycling  fee had resulted in convenient collection opportunities and in steadily  increasing collection rates, and that a recycling fee paid by consumers is  no less effective than the producer responsibility model in promoting the  collection of used electronics.
In contrast, echoing the results of a 2009 survey conducted by the  organization, a Texas Campaign for the Environment representative said  that the state’s law had not had a significant impact on the collection and  recycling of used electronics, because both consumers and local solid  waste management officials are unaware of the opportunities  manufacturers are to provide under the law for the free collection and  recycling of electronics discarded by households. In addition, the  organization is critical of the fact that the Texas law does not cover  televisions, and that the governor vetoed a bill that would have made  television manufacturers responsible for recycling, including costs.
Some environmental groups pointed out that, in and of itself, the ability of  a state program to improve collection rates does not necessarily ensure  that used electronics will be recycled in an environmentally sound  manner. Key issues raised by environmental groups as complicating the  effectiveness of state programs included a lack of adequate requirements  for the environmentally sound management of used electronics or  requirements that differ among states, limited state resources or oversight  to ensure compliance with the requirements, and a lack of authority to  address concerns about exports. For example, a representative of the  Basel Action Network said that provisions in state laws regarding exports,  such as those in California, could be challenged on constitutional grounds  since the Constitution generally gives the federal government the authority  to regulate commerce with foreign nations, thereby limiting states’  authorities to do so.
section_title: Options for Promoting the Environmentally Sound Management of Used Electronics Involve Basic Policy Considerations
paragraphs: Options to further promote the environmentally sound management of  used electronics involve a number of basic policy considerations and  encompass many variations. For the purposes of this report, we examined  two endpoints on the spectrum of variations: (1) a continued reliance on  state recycling programs supplemented by EPA’s partnership programs  and (2) the establishment of federal standards for state electronics  recycling programs. Further federal regulation of electronic waste exports  is a potential component of either of these two approaches.
subsections: section_title: Continued Reliance on State Recycling Programs Supplemented by EPA’s Partnership Programs
paragraphs: Under a national approach for managing used electronics on the basis of a  continuation of the current state-by-state approach, EPA’s partnership  programs, such as Plug-In To eCycling, would supplement state efforts.  Most used electronics would continue to be managed as solid waste under  the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, with a limited federal role.  For example, beyond its establishment of minimum standards for solid  waste landfills, EPA is authorized to provide technical assistance to state  and local governments for the development of solid waste management  plans and to develop suggested guidelines for solid waste management.
EPA’s partnership programs can supplement state recycling efforts in a  variety of ways. For example, Minnesota state environmental officials told  us that they hope to incorporate the R2 practices into the state’s standards  for the environmentally sound management of used electronics. However,  as we have previously noted, the impact of the EPA’s promotion of  partnership programs on the management of used electronics is limited or  uncertain. Moreover, EPA does not have a plan for coordinating its efforts  with state electronics recycling programs or for articulating how EPA’s  partnership programs, taken together, can best assist stakeholders to  achieve the environmentally sound management of used electronics. For  example, while partnership programs such as Plug-In To eCycling can  complement state programs, EPA does not have a plan for leveraging such  programs to promote recycling opportunities in states without electronics  recycling legislation.
subsections: section_title: Key Implications of a Continuation of the State-by- State Approach
paragraphs: Among the key implications of a continuation of the state-by-state  approach are a greater flexibility for states and a continuation of a  patchwork of state recycling efforts, including some states with no  electronics recycling requirements.
Greater flexibility for states. This approach provides states with the  greatest degree of flexibility to engage in recycling efforts that suit their  particular needs and circumstances, whether through legislation or other  mechanisms, such as grants for local communities. For example,  according to local solid waste management officials in Texas, which has  enacted electronics recycling legislation, the state has not banned the  disposal of electronics in landfills, and the officials pointed to factors,  such as the state’s landfill capacity, that would work against a landfill ban.  In contrast, New Hampshire, which has limited landfill capacity, has  banned the disposal of certain electronics in landfills but has not enacted a  law that finances the recycling of used electronics. The state’s solid  waste management official told us that the state’s approach had been  successful in diverting a large amount of used electronics from disposal in  landfills, and an official with the state’s municipal association told us that  residents of the state accept that they must pay fees to cover the cost of  waste disposal services, including electronics recycling. A state-by-state  approach also allows for innovations among states in enacting electronics  recycling legislation. For example, a representative of the Electronics  TakeBack Coalition told us that state electronics recycling legislation can  be effective in providing convenient collection opportunities and in  increasing collection and recycling rates, but that more time is needed to  be able to assess the impact of the state programs. The representative  described the state programs as laboratories for testing variations in the  models on which the programs are based, such as the use of recycling  targets in the producer responsibility model, and for allowing the most  effective variations to be identified.
A continuation of the patchwork of state recycling efforts. While the  state-by-state approach may provide states with greater regulatory  flexibility, it does not address the concerns of manufacturers and other  stakeholders who consider the state-by-state approach to be a significant  compliance burden. The compliance burden may actually worsen as more  states enact laws (e.g., the number of registration and reporting  requirements imposed on manufacturers may increase). One manufacturer  pointed out that, while some states have modeled their laws on those in  other states, even in such cases, states may make changes to the model in  ways that limit any efficiency from the similarities among multiple laws. In  addition to creating a compliance burden, the state-by-state approach does  not ensure a baseline in terms of promoting the environmentally sound  reuse and recycling of used electronics, not only in states without  electronics recycling legislation but also in states with legislation. For  example, unlike some other state electronics recycling legislation, the  Texas law does not require manufacturers to finance the recycling of  televisions, which may require a cost incentive for recycling, since the cost  of managing the leaded glass from televisions with CRTs may exceed the  value of materials recycled from used equipment. Furthermore, the  requirements for the environmentally sound management of used  electronics vary among states, and state environmental agencies engage in  varying levels of oversight to ensure environmentally sound management.  For example, according to the state solid waste management official in  New Hampshire, budget constraints prevent the state from being able to  track what happens to used electronics after they are collected.
section_title: Stakeholder Efforts to Ease the Compliance Burden of the State-by-State Approach
paragraphs: Various stakeholder efforts are under way to help coordinate state  programs and relieve the compliance burden, although some stakeholders  have pointed to limitations of such efforts. In particular, in January 2010, a  number of state environmental agencies and electronics manufacturers,  retailers, and recyclers helped form the Electronics Recycling  Coordination Clearinghouse, a forum for coordination and information  exchange among the state and local agencies that are implementing  electronics recycling laws and all impacted stakeholders. Examples of  activities planned under the clearinghouse include collecting and  maintaining data on collection volumes and creating a centralized location  for receiving and processing manufacturer registrations and reports  required under state laws. Other examples of stakeholder efforts to ease  the compliance burden include the formation of the Electronic  Manufacturers Recycling Management Company, a consortium of  manufacturers that collaborate to develop recycling programs in states  with electronics recycling legislation. In addition, individual states have  made changes to their recycling programs’ legislation after identifying  provisions in their laws that created unnecessary burdens for particular  stakeholders. For example, Minnesota amended its law to remove the  requirement that retailers annually report to each manufacturer the  number of the manufacturer’s covered electronic devices sold to  households in the state—a requirement that retailers found particularly  burdensome.
A number of stakeholders, however, including members of the Electronics  Recycling Coordination Clearinghouse, have pointed to limitations of  stakeholder efforts to coordinate state electronics recycling programs.  According to representatives of the Consumer Electronics Association,  concerns over federal antitrust provisions limit cooperation among  manufacturers for the purpose of facilitating compliance with the state  laws. For example, cooperation among manufacturers trying to minimize  the cost of compliance would raise concerns among electronics recyclers  about price-fixing. Similarly, the executive director of the National Center  for Electronics Recycling, which manages the Electronics Recycling  Coordination Clearinghouse, told us states are unlikely to make changes to  harmonize basic elements of state laws that currently differ, such as the  scope of covered electronic devices and the definitions of terms such as  “manufacturer.”
section_title: Establishment of Federal Standards for Electronics Recycling Programs
paragraphs: Under a national strategy based on the establishment of federal standards  for state electronics recycling programs, federal legislation would be  required. For the purpose of analysis, we assumed that the legislation  would establish federal standards and provide for their implementation— for example, through a cooperative federalism approach whereby states  could opt to assume responsibility for the standards or leave  implementation to EPA, through incentives for states to develop  complying programs, or through a combination of these options. Within  this alternative, there are many issues that would need to be addressed. A  primary issue of concern to many stakeholders is the degree to which the  federal government would (1) establish minimum standards, allowing  states to adopt stricter standards (thereby providing states with flexibility  but also potentially increasing the compliance burden from the standpoint  of regulated entities), or (2) establish fixed standards. Further issues  include whether federal standards would focus on the elements of state  electronics recycling laws that are potentially less controversial and have a  likelihood of achieving efficiencies—such as data collection and  manufacturer reporting and registration—or would focus on all of the  elements, building on lessons learned from the various states.
subsections: section_title: Issue of Establishing Minimum Federal Standards versus Fixed Federal Standards
paragraphs: An overriding issue of concern to many stakeholders is the degree to  which federal standards would be established as minimum standards,  fixed standards, or some combination of the two. In this context, we have  assumed that either minimum or fixed standards would, by definition,  preempt less stringent state laws and lead to the establishment of  programs in states that have not enacted electronics recycling legislation.  Minimum standards would be intended to ensure that programs in every  state met baseline requirements established by the federal government,  while allowing flexibility to states that have enacted legislation meeting  the minimum standards to continue with existing programs, some of  which are well-established. In contrast, under fixed federal standards,  states would not be able to establish standards either stricter or more  lenient than the federal standards. Thus, fixed standards would offer  relatively little flexibility, although states would still have regulatory  authority in areas not covered by the federal standards.
As we have previously reported, minimum standards are often designed  to provide a baseline in areas such as environmental protection, vehicle  safety, and working conditions. For example, a national approach based  on minimum standards would be consistent with the authority given to  EPA to regulate hazardous waste management under the Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act, which allows for state requirements that  are more stringent than those imposed by EPA. Such a strategy can be an  option when the national objective requires that common minimum  standards be in place in every state, but stricter state standards are  workable. Conversely, fixed standards are an option when stricter state  standards are not workable. For example, to provide national uniformity  and thereby facilitate the increased collection and recycling of certain  batteries, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management  Act does not allow states the option of establishing more stringent  regulations regarding collection, storage, and transportation, although  states can adopt and enforce standards for the recycling and disposal of  such batteries that are more stringent than existing federal standards  under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Most manufacturers we interviewed told us they prefer fixed federal  standards over minimum standards. For example, these manufacturers are  concerned that many states would opt to exceed the minimum federal  standards, leaving manufacturers responsible for complying with differing  requirements, not only in the states that have electronics recycling  legislation but also in the states currently without legislation. In contrast,  most state government officials and environmental groups we interviewed  told us that they would prefer minimum federal standards over fixed  federal standards as a national approach for the management of used  electronics. In addition, a representative of the National Conference of  State Legislatures told us that the organization generally opposes federal  preemption but accepts that in the area of environmental policy, the  federal government often sets minimum standards. According to the  representative, even if federal requirements were of a high standard, states  may want the option to impose tougher standards if the need arises.  Similarly, some legislative and executive branch officials in states with  electronics recycling legislation expressed concern that federal standards  for electronics recycling would be of a low standard. As a result, the  officials said they want to preserve the ability of states to impose more  stringent requirements.
To help address manufacturer concerns about a continuation of the state- by-state approach under minimum standards, the federal government  could encourage states not to exceed those standards. For example,  establishing minimum standards that are relatively stringent might reduce  the incentive for states to enact or maintain stricter requirements.
Consistent with this view, some of the state electronics recycling laws,  including those in four of the five states we studied in detail, contain  provisions for discontinuing the state program if a federal law takes effect  that meets specified conditions (e.g., establishing an equivalent national  program).
section_title: Other Issues to Consider in Establishing Federal Standards
paragraphs: Based on our review of state electronics recycling legislation and  discussions with stakeholders regarding a national strategy for the  management of used electronics, we identified a range of issues that  would need to be considered and could be addressed as part of the  establishment of federal standards for state electronics recycling  programs, including the following issues:  The financing of recycling costs. A potential element in federal  standards for state electronics recycling programs would be a mechanism  for financing the cost of recycling. For example, representatives of the  Consumer Electronics Association told us they support a national  approach with a single financing mechanism. Similarly, the California and  Washington laws stipulate that their programs be discontinued if a federal  law takes effect that establishes a national program, but only if the federal  law provides a financing mechanism for the collection and recycling of all  electronic devices covered under their respective laws. While there are  differences among their views, most stakeholders we interviewed,  including some manufacturers, said they would prefer that any federal  standards be based on some form of the producer responsibility model  rather than on a recycling fee paid by consumers because, for example,  they consider the producer responsibility model more efficient to  implement in comparison with the resources devoted to collecting a  recycling fee and reimbursing recyclers. Even California state government  officials, who were generally pleased with what has been accomplished  under the state’s recycling fee and payment model, expressed openness to  the producer responsibility model. The level of support for producer  responsibility represents a shift in the views of some manufacturers. In  particular, representatives of the Information Technology Industry Council  told us that television manufacturers previously supported a recycling fee  paid by consumers because of the frequent turnover of television  manufacturers and the problem of assigning recycling costs for legacy  equipment whose original manufacturer is no longer in business, no longer  makes televisions, or otherwise cannot be determined. According to the  council, with only one state having enacted legislation based on a  recycling fee, television and other manufacturers now support the  producer responsibility model.
The allocation of costs and responsibilities among stakeholders.  Even under a producer responsibility model, stakeholders other than  manufacturers would participate in the implementation of state  electronics recycling legislation, and the costs of collecting and recycling  used electronics can be assigned in different ways. For example, while  they support the producer responsibility model, Information Technology  Industry Council representatives have proposed that the model be based  on “shared responsibility,” whereby various entities that profit from the  sale of electronic devices—including electronics distributors, retailers,  and other stakeholders—all contribute to the cost of collection and  recycling. In a variation of the concept of shared responsibility, under  Maine’s electronics recycling legislation participating local governments  generally bear collection costs and manufacturers finance recycling costs.  The way in which costs and responsibilities are allocated can also create  inequities from the standpoint of certain stakeholders. For example,  certain manufacturers may pay more or less than others depending on  whether recycling costs are based on the weight of a manufacturer’s own  brand of electronics collected for recycling (return share) or on the  amount of a manufacturer’s new products sold (market share). Under a  return share system, long-standing manufacturers bear a greater  proportion of the costs in comparison with newer manufacturers with  fewer used electronics in the waste stream. In contrast, a market share  system can result in newer manufacturers with a large market share  financing the recycling of products produced by their competitors.
The division of federal and state responsibilities for  implementation and enforcement. Federal standards can be  implemented directly by a federal agency, by the states with some degree  of federal oversight, or through state implementation in some states and  direct federal implementation in others. For example, EPA develops  hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act and has encouraged states to assume primary responsibility  for implementation and enforcement through state adoption of the  regulations, while EPA retains independent enforcement authority.  Regarding used electronics, the division of responsibilities among the  federal and state governments would have a direct bearing on EPA’s  resource requirements. EPA has previously cautioned that assigning  responsibilities to the agency—such as for registration of electronics  manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers; collection of registration fees;  approval of manufacturer recycling programs; and authorization of parallel  state programs for electronics recycling—would be costly and time- consuming to implement. Similarly, a representative of the National  Conference of State Legislatures said the organization would oppose any  federal requirements that do not provide a source of funding to states for  implementing the requirements, and a representative of the National  Governors Association pointed out that states not currently having  electronics recycling legislation would express concern about the  administrative costs of implementing an electronics recycling program.
Determination of the scope of covered electronic devices.  Stakeholders have cited a variety of criteria for determining the scope of  electronic devices covered by state recycling laws. For example, some  stakeholders have cited the growing volume of used electronics in  comparison with limited landfill capacity or the presence of toxic  substances in many electronics. In contrast, other stakeholders have  argued that cell phones and other mobile devices, which may contain toxic  substances, should not be included with other used electronics (e.g.,  mobile devices can be easily collected through mail-back programs). As  yet another alternative, stakeholders have cited the loss of valuable  resources, such as precious metals, when used electronics are disposed in  landfills, as well as the environmental benefits of extending the life of used  electronics through refurbishment, as a key consideration in electronics  recycling legislation. An issue closely related to the scope of covered  electronic devices is the scope of entities whose used electronics are  covered under programs for financing the cost of recycling. The state  electronics recycling laws typically include used electronics from  households, but some states also include other entities, such as small  businesses and nonprofit organizations that may otherwise need to pay a  fee to recycle used electronics in an environmentally sound manner, while  California’s law is nontargeted and includes any user of a covered  electronic device located within the state.
section_title: Further Federal Regulation of Exports Is a Potential Component of Either Approach to Managing Used Electronics
paragraphs: In doing our work, we found that a potential component of either  approach that we discuss for managing used electronics is a greater  federal regulatory role over exports to (1) facilitate coordination with  other countries to reduce the possibility of unsafe recycling or dumping  and (2) address the limitations on the authority of states to regulate  exports. Assuming a continuation of the factors that contribute to exports,  such as a limited domestic infrastructure to recycle used electronics, an  increase in collection rates resulting from electronics recycling laws,  either at the state or federal level, is likely to lead to a corresponding  increase in exports, absent any federal restrictions. While, as we have  previously noted, exports can be handled responsibly in countries with  effective regulatory regimes and by companies with advanced  technologies, some of the increase in exports may end up in countries that  lack safe recycling and disposal capacity.
Exports of used electronics are subject to a range of state requirements  and guidelines in the five states we visited. Nevertheless, many of the state  officials we interviewed expressed support for federal action to limit  harmful exports because, for example, states lack adequate authority and  resources to address concerns about exports. Washington state officials  noted that their governor vetoed a provision of the state’s electronic waste  legislation that addressed exports of electronics collected under the  program because of concerns about the state’s lack of authority to prohibit  such exports. The governor instead called for federal legislation  prohibiting the export of hazardous waste to countries that are not  prepared to manage the waste. In addition, under “preferred standards”  established by the state, recyclers can be contractually obligated to ensure  that countries legally accept any imports of materials of concern.  Washington state officials told us that establishing preferred standards  helped the state partially address concerns about used electronics exports,  notwithstanding potential limitations on the state’s authority, but that  further federal regulation of exports would still be helpful.
In our August 2008 report, we made two recommendations to EPA to  strengthen the federal role in reducing harmful exports. First, we  recommended that EPA consider ways to broaden its regulations under  existing Resource Conservation and Recovery Act authority to address the  export of used electronic devices that might not be classified as hazardous  waste by current U.S. regulations but might threaten human health and the  environment when unsafely disassembled overseas. For example, we  suggested that EPA consider expanding the scope of the CRT rule to cover  other exported used electronics and revising the regulatory definition of  hazardous waste. Citing the time and legal complexities involved in  broadening its regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery  Act, EPA disagreed with our recommendation and instead expressed the  agency’s support for addressing concerns about exports of used  electronics through nonregulatory, voluntary approaches. However, EPA  officials told us that the agency is taking another look at its existing  authorities to regulate exports of other used electronics.
Second, we recommended that the agency submit to Congress a legislative  package for ratification of the Basel Convention on the Control of  Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, a  multilateral environmental agreement that aims to protect against the  adverse effects resulting from transboundary movements of hazardous  waste. Under the convention’s definition, a broader range of materials  could be considered potentially hazardous, including some electronic  devices. While the Senate provided its advice and consent to ratification in  1992, successive administrations have not submitted draft legislation to  Congress giving EPA the necessary statutory authorities to implement the  convention’s requirements in order to complete the ratification process.  EPA officials explained that these needed additional authorities include,  among others, the authority to control the scope of wastes covered by the  Basel Convention, the authority to halt exports of hazardous waste if the  agency believes they will not be handled in an environmentally sound  manner, and the authority to take back shipments that cannot be handled  in an environmentally sound manner in the importing country. EPA  officials told us that the agency had developed a legislative proposal on  more than one occasion under previous administrations but did not  finalize any proposal with other federal agencies. According to these  officials, finalizing the proposal requires coordination with a number of  agencies, including the Department of State and the White House Council  on Environmental Quality, which coordinates federal environmental  efforts in the development of environmental policies and initiatives.
In May 2010, the current EPA Administrator called for legislative changes  to address exports and for taking steps toward ratification of the Basel  Convention. EPA officials have also cited a number of benefits of ratifying  the Basel Convention, such as the ability to fully participate in convention  decisions on issues related to the environmentally sound management of  used electronics. For example, according to EPA officials, upcoming  convention decisions on guidelines for environmentally sound  refurbishment and repair will impact parties’ export of used electronics  for reuse, which is regarded by refurbishers as environmentally preferable  to recycling but also raises concerns about the dumping of used  electronics in developing countries. Basel Convention working groups on  environmentally sound management are open to a range of participants  that do not represent parties to the convention, including EPA, electronics  manufacturers, electronics recyclers and refurbishers, and environmental  groups. However, given that the United States is a signatory but not a party  to the convention, the United States does not participate in the final  decisions on issues such as environmentally sound management. EPA  officials said they anticipate a number of such decisions in the next few  years, especially regarding the transboundary movement of used and end- of-life electronics.
According to EPA officials, a greater federal regulatory role over exports  resulting from ratification of the Basel Convention would require an  increase in EPA’s programmatic and enforcement resources, such as  additional staff. The additional resources would be needed to enable the  Administrator to determine whether proposed exports will be conducted  in an environmentally sound manner and to implement the Basel  Convention’s notice-and-consent requirement. Moreover, the European  Union’s experience under the waste electrical and electronic equipment  directive, which contains an obligation for waste equipment to be treated  in ways that avoid environmental harm, demonstrates the need to couple  the regulation of exports with enforcement efforts. A European  Commission report estimated that 50 percent of waste equipment that is  collected is probably not being treated in line with the directive’s  objectives and requirements, and that a large volume of waste may be  illegally shipped to developing countries, where it is dumped or recycled  in ways that are dangerous to human health and the environment.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Broad agreement exists among key stakeholders that reusing and  recycling electronics in an environmentally sound manner has substantial  advantages over disposing of them in landfills or exporting them to  developing countries in a manner that threatens human health and the  environment. There has been much debate over the best way to promote  environmentally sound reuse and recycling, however, and any national  approach may entail particular advantages and disadvantages for  stakeholders. While empirical information about the experiences of states  and other stakeholders in their efforts to manage used electronics can  inform this debate, the question of a national approach revolves around  policy issues, such as how to balance the need to ensure that recycling  occurs nationwide as well as industry’s interests in a uniform, national  approach with states’ prerogatives to tailor used electronics management  toward their individual needs and preferences. In the end, these larger  policy issues are matters for negotiation among the concerned parties and  for decision making by Congress and the administration.
At the same time, there are a number of beneficial actions that the federal  government is already taking that, as currently devised, do not require the  effort and implications of new legislation, but rather would complement  any of the broader strategies that policymakers might ultimately endorse.  In particular, EPA’s collaborative efforts—including Plug-In To eCycling,  the R2 practices, EPEAT, and the Federal Electronics Challenge—have  demonstrated considerable potential and, in some cases, quantifiable  benefits. However, these programs’ achievements have been limited or  uncertain, and EPA has not systematically analyzed the programs to  determine whether their impact could be augmented. Moreover, EPA has  not developed an integrated strategy that articulates how the programs,  taken together, can best assist stakeholders to achieve the  environmentally responsible management of used electronics.
A key issue of national significance to the management of used electronics  is how to address exports—an issue that, according to many stakeholders,  would most appropriately be addressed at the federal level. EPA has taken  useful steps by developing a legislative package for ratification of the  Basel Convention, as we recommended in 2008. However, EPA has not yet  worked with other agencies, including the State Department and the  Council on Environmental Quality, to finalize a proposal for the  administration to provide to Congress for review and consideration. While  there are unresolved issues regarding the environmentally sound  management of used electronics under the Basel Convention, providing  Congress with a legislative package for ratification could provide a basis  for further deliberation and, perhaps, resolution of such issues.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Administrator of EPA undertake an examination  of the agency’s partnership programs for the management of used  electronics. The analysis should examine how the impacts of such  programs can be augmented, and should culminate in an integrated  strategy that articulates how the programs, taken together, can best assist  stakeholders in achieving the environmentally responsible management of  used electronics nationwide.
In addition, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA work with other  federal agencies, including the State Department and the Council on  Environmental Quality, to finalize a legislative proposal that would be  needed for ratification of the Basel Convention, with the aim of submitting  a package for congressional consideration.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to EPA for review and comment. A letter  containing EPA’s comments is reproduced in appendix III. EPA agreed  with both of our recommendations and also provided additional  clarifications and editorial suggestions, which we have incorporated into  the report as appropriate.
Regarding our recommendation for an examination of the agency’s  partnership programs culminating in an integrated strategy for the  management of used electronics, EPA stated that the agency plans to  gather and analyze input from a variety of stakeholders and to incorporate  the input into such a strategy. In addition, while pointing out that the  agency’s partnership programs already reflect an integrated approach, in  that they address the full life cycle of electronic products, from design  through end-of-life management, EPA acknowledged that the programs  can and should be augmented and stated that the agency is committed to  doing so within the limits of declining resources. In particular, EPA  outlined a number of potential efforts to improve the environmental  attributes of electronics, increase collection and the appropriate  management of used electronics, and better control exports. EPA also  stated that the agency is considering the need for new legislative and  regulatory authority. We acknowledge EPA’s progress in developing  partnership programs to address the full life cycle of electronic products  but continue to emphasize the need for a comprehensive, written strategy  that addresses how the programs can best promote the environmentally  sound management of used electronics. Such a document has the potential  to help coordinate the efforts of the many stakeholders associated with  the management of used electronics to further promote their  environmentally sound reuse and recycling, and to more effectively  communicate the strategy to Congress and other decision makers.
Regarding our recommendation that EPA work with other federal agencies  to finalize a legislative proposal needed to ratify the Basel Convention,  EPA commented that the agency has already begun working with the State  Department and other federal agencies to do so. EPA added that its  previous work in developing such a legislative proposal should enable it to  successfully complete this effort. We acknowledge this work but point out  that Congress will only have the opportunity to deliberate on a tangible  proposal if the effort to achieve consensus on an administration-approved  position on the matter is accorded the priority needed.
As we 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 of this report to the  appropriate congressional committees, the Administrator of EPA, and  other interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no  charge on GAO’s 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 Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To examine the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to  facilitate the environmentally sound management of used electronics, we  reviewed solid and hazardous waste laws and regulations—including the  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and EPA’s rule on the  management of cathode-ray tubes (CRT)—and their applicability to used  electronics. We specifically reviewed EPA documents describing the  agency’s efforts to enforce the CRT rule and to address concerns raised in  our August 2008 report on electronic waste exports, including information  on the number of EPA investigations of possible violations of the CRT  rule. We also examined publicly available information on specific  enforcement actions against companies, companies approved to export  CRTs for recycling, and companies that have submitted notifications of  exports for reuse, and we obtained aggregate information from EPA on its  enforcement efforts. To obtain EPA’s views on its efforts, we interviewed  officials from the agency’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance  Assurance and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. To  examine EPA’s promotion of partnership programs, we interviewed EPA  officials responsible for implementing or representing the agency’s  position on Plug-In To eCycling, the Responsible Recycling (R2) practices,  and the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT). In  addition, we interviewed stakeholders concerned about the management  of used electronics—including environmental groups; state and local  government officials; and electronics manufacturers, retailers, and  recyclers—to obtain their views on EPA’s efforts.
To examine the views of manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, state and  local governments, and other stakeholders on the state-by-state approach  to the management of used electronics, we conducted a broad range of  interviews. For each category of stakeholders, we conducted interviews  with key national-level organizations or associations with a broad  perspective on the management of used electronics across the United  States and reviewed any related policy positions or reports. To gain  further insights, we interviewed individual stakeholders in each category  of stakeholders, including state and local government officials and other  stakeholders, in five states with electronics recycling legislation that we  selected for detailed review—California, Maine, Minnesota, Texas, and  Washington. To supplement these detailed reviews, we interviewed state  and local government officials in three states without legislation—Arizona,  Florida, and New Hampshire. For each interview, we generally discussed  the collection and recycling rates for used electronics, the convenience of  collection opportunities to consumers, efforts to ensure environmentally  sound management, and the impact of the state-by-state approach on  implementation of state electronics recycling legislation and on  stakeholders’ compliance or enforcement efforts. While recognizing that  stakeholders may benefit from state legislation, such as through an  increase in business opportunities for electronics recyclers, we  specifically asked about the burden (if any) created by the state-by-state  approach. For the five states with electronics recycling legislation, we  reviewed the laws and related regulations, as well as other documents on  the implementation and outcomes of the law, and we visited the states to  conduct in-person interviews.
We encountered a number of limitations in the availability of reliable data  on the impact of the state-by-state approach on various stakeholders. For  example, the five states we selected did not have data on collection and  recycling rates prior to the effective dates of their laws, which would be  useful to quantify the impact of their programs. Similarly, some  manufacturers and other stakeholders regulated under state laws had  concerns about providing proprietary information or did not identify  compliance costs in a way that enabled us to determine the portion of  costs that stems from having to comply with differing state requirements.  Due to such limitations, we relied predominately on stakeholders’  statements regarding how they have been impacted under the state-by- state approach. Additional information on the stakeholders we  interviewed includes the following:    State and local government officials. For a national perspective, we  interviewed representatives of the Association of State and Territorial  Solid Waste Management Officials, the Eastern Regional Conference of the  Council of State Governments, the National Conference of State  Legislatures, and the National Governors Association. For the five states  with electronics recycling legislation we selected for detailed review, we  interviewed state legislators or legislative staff involved in enacting the  laws, state environmental agency officials responsible for implementing  the laws, and local solid waste management officials. We selected the five  states to ensure coverage of the two basic models of state electronics  recycling legislation, a recycling fee paid by consumers and producer  responsibility, as well as the variations of the producer responsibility  model. In addition, we selected states with recycling programs that had  been in place long enough for stakeholders to provide an assessment of  the impacts of the legislation. For the three states without electronics  recycling legislation we selected for detailed review, we conducted  telephone interviews with state and local solid waste management officials  and (in Arizona and New Hampshire) legislators who have introduced  legislation or been active in studying options for the management of used  electronics. We selected the three states to include ones that, in part, had  addressed the management of certain used electronics through other  means, such as a ban on landfill disposal or grants for voluntary recycling  efforts, and to ensure variety in terms of location and size.
Electronics manufacturers. For a broad perspective, we interviewed  representatives of two national associations of electronics manufacturers:  the Consumer Electronics Association and the Information Technology  Industry Council. We also interviewed representatives of a judgmental  sample of nine individual manufacturers. We selected manufacturers to  interview to include a range of sizes and business models, including  manufacturers of information technology equipment and televisions as  well as companies that no longer manufacture products covered under  state laws but still bear responsibility for recycling costs in some states. In  addition to these interviews, we reviewed manufacturers’ policy positions  and other documents on the state-by-state approach to managing used  electronics or on particular state and local electronics recycling  legislation.
Electronics retailers. We interviewed representatives of the Consumer  Electronics Retailers Coalition, an association of consumer electronics  retailers, and of a judgmental sample of four national consumer  electronics retailers, including retailers that are also considered  manufacturers or collectors under some state electronics recycling  legislation. In each of the five states we selected for detailed review, we  spoke with representatives from state retail associations, whose members  include large national retailers, as well as smaller retailers operating in the  five states. We also reviewed available documents pertaining to retailers’  efforts in managing used electronics and their policy positions on the  state-by-state approach.
Recyclers and refurbishers of used electronics. For a broad perspective  from the electronics recycling industry, we interviewed a representative of  the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, many of whose members are  involved in the recycling of used electronics. In addition, for the  perspective of refurbishers, we conducted an interview with TechSoup, a  nonprofit organization that has established a partnership with Microsoft to  increase the number of personal computers available to nonprofits,  schools, and low-income families across the globe by reducing the cost of  software to refurbishers. We also interviewed representatives of a  judgmental sample of recyclers and refurbishers encompassing a variety of  sizes and business models, including large corporations operating in  multiple states as well as nonprofit organizations or smaller entities  operating in a single state. In particular, in each of the five states with  electronics recycling legislation we selected for detailed review, we  interviewed at least one recycler operating under the state program and  one refurbisher.
Environmental and other nonprofit organizations. We interviewed  representatives of environmental and other nonprofit organizations that  have an interest in the issue of the management of used electronics,  including the Basel Action Network, Consumers Union, Electronics  TakeBack Coalition, Product Stewardship Institute, and Silicon Valley  Toxics Coalition. In addition, in the five states with electronics recycling  legislation we selected for detailed review, we interviewed representatives  of state environmental organizations that advocated for the state  legislation or have been active in tracking the implementation of the laws.  For each of the environmental and nonprofit organizations interviewed,  we reviewed available documents pertaining to their advocacy work and  their views on the state-by-state approach or particular state electronics  recycling legislation.
To examine the implications of alternative national strategies to further  promote the environmentally sound management of used electronics, we  reviewed relevant existing laws relating to solid and hazardous waste  management (the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the  Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act). In  addition, we examined state laws establishing electronics recycling  programs or addressing the management of used electronics through other  means, such as a ban on landfill disposal, to identify components of the  laws that might be addressed under a national approach. We also  examined the European Union’s directive on waste electrical and  electronic equipment and electronics recycling in Canada as examples of  how used electronics are managed internationally. As part of our  interviews with national-level organizations or associations of  stakeholders, as well as with individual stakeholders, we discussed  stakeholder efforts to coordinate state electronics recycling programs and  stakeholders’ policy positions on a national strategy, including their views  on the components of a national strategy, such as a mechanism for  financing the cost of recycling. Regarding alternative strategies specifically  relating to exports of used electronics, we examined ways that state  electronics recycling programs we selected for detailed review had  addressed the issue, and we interviewed stakeholders regarding current  state and EPA efforts to limit potentially harmful exports. We also  reviewed EPA documents and interviewed EPA officials regarding the  statutory changes necessary for the United States to ratify the Basel  Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous  Wastes and Their Disposal, as well as the implications of ratification on  the agency’s ability to exercise greater oversight over the export of used  electronics for reuse or recycling. Finally, we reviewed EPA’s technical  assistance comments on a congressional concept paper proposing a  framework for establishing a national electronics recycling program.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2009 to July 2010 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: State Electronics Recycling Programs
paragraphs: The five states with electronics recycling laws that we selected for  detailed review—California, Maine, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington— illustrate a range of ways of addressing elements and issues common to  the management of used electronics. For each of the states, we describe  three key elements we identified as establishing the framework for their  recycling programs: (1) the mechanism for financing the cost of collecting  and recycling used electronics, (2) the mechanism for providing for the  convenient collection of used electronics, and (3) requirements for the  environmentally sound management of used electronics collected under  the programs and the state’s enforcement of the requirements. In addition,  because the state electronics recycling programs are relatively new, we  describe developments and program changes designed to address issues  encountered during the initial implementation of the programs.
subsections: section_title: California
paragraphs: California’s electronics recycling law established a funding mechanism to  provide for the collection and recycling of certain video display devices  that have a screen greater than 4 inches, measured diagonally, and that are  identified by the state Department of Toxic Substances Control as a  hazardous waste when discarded. According to state officials, the state’s  list of covered devices currently includes computer monitors, laptop  computers, portable DVD players, and most televisions.
subsections: section_title: Financing Mechanism
paragraphs: California is the only state identified as having an electronics recycling law  that established a system to finance collection and recycling costs through  a recycling fee paid by consumers. Effective on January 1, 2005, retailers  began collecting the fee at the time of purchase of certain video display  devices. The fee currently ranges from $8 to $25, depending on screen size.  Retailers remit the fees to the state, and they may retain 3 percent as  reimbursement for costs associated with collection of the fee. The state, in  turn, uses the fees to reimburse collectors and recyclers of covered  electronic devices as well as for administering and educating the public  about the program. Entities must be approved by the state to be eligible to  receive collection and recycling payments. There were about 600 approved  collectors and 60 approved recyclers as of October 2009. To determine the  amount paid per pound, the state periodically updates information  concerning the net costs of collection and recycling and adjusts the  statewide payment rates. To assist the state in this effort, approved  collectors and recyclers are required to submit annual reports on their net  collection and recycling costs for the prior year. As of May 2010, the  combined statewide rate for collection and recycling was $0.39 per pound.
The administration of the program is shared by three state agencies. The  State Board of Equalization is responsible for collecting the fee from and  auditing retailers. The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery  (CalRecycle) has overall responsibility for administering collection and  recycling payments. Specific duties of CalRecycle include establishing the  collection and recycling payment schedule to cover the net costs of  authorized collectors and recyclers; approving applications to become an  approved collector or recycler; reviewing recycling payment claims for the  appropriate collection, transfer, and processing documentation and  making payments; and addressing any identified fraud in payment claims.  Under the law, CalRecycle is also responsible for reviewing the fee paid by  consumers at least once every 2 years and adjusting the fee to ensure  sufficient revenues to fund the recycling program. The third agency, the  Department of Toxic Substances Control, is responsible for determining  whether a video display device, when discarded or disposed of, is  presumed to be a hazardous waste under the state health and safety code  and, therefore, is a covered electronic device under the electronics  recycling legislation. In addition, the department regulates the  management of used electronics and conducts annual inspections of  recyclers to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
section_title: Mechanism for Providing Collection Opportunities
paragraphs: One of the purposes of the California law was to establish a program that  is “cost free and convenient” for consumers to return and recycle used  electronics generated in the state. To this end, the law directs the state to  establish a payment schedule that covers the net cost for authorized  collectors to operate a free and convenient system for collection,  consolidation, and transportation. State and local government officials, as  well as other state stakeholders we interviewed, told us the law has  resulted in convenient collection opportunities. For example, a  representative of the state’s Regional Council of Rural Counties said that,  while it does not require counties to provide collection opportunities, the  law had resulted in convenient collection in rural counties. Similarly,  according to Sacramento County solid waste management officials, the  law has made it profitable for the private sector to collect and recycle used  electronics and thereby has freed up county resources to pay for media  campaigns to inform the public about the law and to offer curbside  collection.
section_title: Requirements for Environmentally Sound Management
paragraphs: Recyclers approved under the state’s payment system for the recycling of  covered electronic devices must be inspected at least once annually by the  Department of Toxic Substances Control and be found in conformance  with the department’s regulations to maintain their approval. The  department’s regulations restrict certain recycling activities—such as  using water, chemicals, or external heat to disassemble electronic  devices—and specify requirements in a variety of other areas, including  training of personnel, record-keeping, and the labeling of containers. In  addition, to be eligible for a claim within the payment system, covered  devices must be dismantled in California and the residuals generally must  be sent to appropriate recycling facilities. Hence, the program does not  pay claims for any covered devices that are exported intact. The state’s  electronics recycling legislation also requires that exporters notify the  department and demonstrate that the covered electronic waste or covered  electronic devices are being exported for the purposes of recycling or  disposal; that the importation of the waste or device is not prohibited by  an applicable law in the country of destination; and that the waste or  device will be managed only at facilities whose operations meet certain  standards for environmentally sound management. (These demonstrations  are not required for exports of a component part of a covered electronic  device that is exported to an authorized collector or recycler and that is  reused or recycled into a new electronic component.)
According to a department official responsible for implementing the  regulations, the state’s ability to withhold payment for the recycling of  covered electronic devices is an effective tool for promoting compliance  with the regulations. However, the official also said that the state lacks the  authority to regulate exports (e.g., exports of CRT glass containing lead  for processing in Mexico, which, according to the official, does not have  regulations equivalent to those in California).
section_title: Developments Since the Law’s Implementation
paragraphs: Key developments since the initiation of California’s program in 2005  include the following adjustments to the recycling fee paid by consumers  and to the payment schedule for collection and recycling:    Effective January 2009, CalRecycle increased the recycling fee from an  initial range of $6 to $10 to the current range of $8 to $25. As described in  the CalRecycle’s January 2008 update on the program, a continued growth  in the volume of recycling payment claims resulted in the pace of  payments exceeding the flow of revenue generated by the fee. CalRecycle  adjusted the fee to avoid exhausting the fund used to pay for the collection  and recycling of used electronics.
In 2008, CalRecycle decreased the payment schedule for combined  collection and recycling. The initial rate was $0.48 per pound, based in part  on a provisional rate established by the law, and the current rate is $0.39  per pound. According to CalRecycle officials, the initial payment schedule  was artificially high, which benefited the program by fostering a recycling  infrastructure in the state. CalRecycle adjusted the payment schedule on  the basis of an analysis of the net cost reports submitted by collectors and  recyclers.
section_title: Maine
paragraphs: Maine’s electronics recycling program began in 2006 and finances the cost  of recycling televisions, computers, computer monitors, digital picture  frames, printers, and video game consoles from households.
subsections: section_title: Financing Mechanism
paragraphs: Maine’s law is based on the concept of “shared responsibility,” whereby  participating municipalities generally bear the costs associated with  collection and manufacturers finance handling and recycling costs  associated with managing certain used electronics generated by  households. Participating municipalities arrange for these used electronics  to be transported to state-approved consolidators, which count and weigh  information technology products by brand and manufacturer and  determine the total weight of televisions and video game consoles.  Consolidators who are also recyclers may then further process the used  electronics; otherwise, they send the material to recycling facilities. In  either case, consolidators generally invoice individual manufacturers for  their handling, transportation, and recycling costs. The state approves  each consolidator’s fee schedule, currently set at a maximum of $0.48 per  pound for combined recovery and recycling, for use when invoicing  manufacturers. For information technology products, the amount invoiced  is based on the weight of the manufacturer’s own brand of electronics  collected under the program (return share) plus a proportional share of  products for which the manufacturer cannot be identified or is no longer  in business (orphan share). In contrast, for manufacturers of televisions  and video game consoles with a national market share that exceeds a  certain minimum threshold, the amount invoiced is calculated as the total  weight collected multiplied by the proportion of the manufacturer’s  national market share of sales for those products (recycling share).  Initially, Maine’s law only used return share as a basis for determining the  financial responsibility of all manufacturers. The state amended the law in  2009 to base the financial responsibility of television manufacturers   (as well as video game consoles) on market share. The Maine Department  of Environmental Protection had recommended this change in part to  address the issue of the relatively long lifespan of televisions and the  concern among long-standing television manufacturers that, under the  return share system, new market entrants do not bear recycling costs and  can therefore offer their products at a lower price and possibly even go  out of business before their products enter the waste stream.
The Department of Environmental Protection has overall responsibility for  the electronics recycling program. The department’s responsibilities  include approving consolidators as well as the fee schedule used by  consolidators in charging manufacturers, determining the orphan share for  manufacturers of information technology products, and determining the  recycling share for manufacturers of televisions and video game consoles  on the basis of national sales data. In addition, the department is  responsible for enforcing the compliance of manufacturers whose  products are sold in the state. Finally, the department notifies retailers of  noncompliant manufacturers (retailers are prohibited from selling  products of such manufacturers).
section_title: Mechanism for Providing Collection Opportunities
paragraphs: One of the purposes of Maine’s law is to establish a recycling system that  is convenient and minimizes the cost to consumers of electronic products  and components. In addition, manufacturers are responsible for paying the  reasonable operational costs of consolidators, including the costs  associated with ensuring that consolidation facilities are geographically  located to conveniently serve all areas of the state as determined by the  Department of Environmental Protection. To establish convenient  collection opportunities for households, Maine’s program relies on the  state’s existing municipal waste collection infrastructure and provides an  incentive to municipalities to participate by giving them access to  essentially free recycling of certain covered electronics. The law allows  participating municipalities to collect used electronics at a local or  regional waste transfer station or recycling facility or through other  means, such as curbside pickup. According to a 2007 survey supported by  the department, most municipalities provide permanent collection sites.  About half of the municipalities that responded to the survey reported that  they charge end-of-life fees for accepting used electronics from  households to offset the costs associated with collection. However, local  solid waste management officials we interviewed also told us that the  program implemented under the law enabled municipalities to reduce or  eliminate fees. For example, the Portland solid waste manager said that  the program enabled the city to stop charging residents a fee, which was  approximately $20 per television or computer monitor prior to the law.  Notably, Maine law now prohibits the disposal of CRTs in landfills and  other solid waste disposal facilities.
section_title: Requirements for Environmentally Sound Management
paragraphs: Maine’s law requires that recyclers provide to consolidators a sworn  certification that they meet guidelines for environmentally sound  management published by the Department of Environmental Protection.  Among other things, the guidelines stipulate that recyclers comply with  federal, state, and local laws and regulations relevant to the handling,  processing, refurbishment, and recycling of used electronics; implement  training and other measures to safeguard occupational and environmental  health and safety; and comply with federal and international law and  agreements regarding the export of used products or materials. Other  guidelines specific to exports include a requirement that televisions and  computer monitors destined for reuse include only whole products that  have been tested and certified as being in working order or as requiring  only minor repair, and where the recipient has verified a market for the  sale or donation of the equipment.
The Department of Environmental Protection official in charge of the  program told us she has visited the facilities that recycle used electronics  collected under Maine’s program, but that the department lacks the  resources and auditing expertise to ensure adherence to the guidelines as  well as the authority to audit out-of-state recyclers.
section_title: Developments Since the Law’s Implementation
paragraphs: Since Maine initiated its electronics recycling program, the state made a  number of changes to the law, and the Department of Environmental  Protection has suggested additional changes. Such changes include the  following:    Scope of covered electronic devices. In 2009, Maine added several  products, including digital picture frames and printers, to the scope of  covered devices. In its 2008 report on the recycling program, the  Department of Environmental Protection had recommended adding digital  picture frames and printers for a number of reasons, including the growing  volume of such equipment in the waste stream. In its 2010 report, the  department also recommended the program be expanded to include used  electronics generated by small businesses, thereby increasing the volume  of used electronics collected, providing for more efficient transportation  from collection sites, and providing for a greater volume to recyclers as a  means to drive down the per-pound cost of recycling.
Program administration. Beginning in July 2010, manufacturers of  covered devices sold in the state are required to pay an annual registration  fee of $3,000 to offset the state’s administrative costs associated with the  program. In its January 2010 report, the Department of Environmental  Protection recommended that the state legislature consider eliminating or  reducing the fee for certain manufacturers, such as small television  manufacturers. According to the report, an exemption from paying the fee  would provide relief to manufacturers that no longer sell or have not sold  significant quantities of covered devices in the state.
Recycling costs. In its January 2010 report, the Department of  Environmental Protection noted that, while direct comparisons between  differing state programs are difficult, recycling costs are higher in Maine  than in other states with electronics recycling laws. Representatives of  both the Consumer Electronics Association and the Information  Technology Industry Council also told us that recycling costs in Maine are  higher because the state selects consolidators and approves the fee  schedule used by each of the consolidators to invoice manufacturers,  thereby limiting competition. To address such concerns, the department  stated its intent to take a number of administrative actions. For example,  the department plans to streamline the permitting process for facilities  that process used electronics and thereby encourage the growth of  recycling facilities in the state and reduce the handling and shipping costs  for used electronics, much of which is currently processed out of state.  The department also plans to examine ways to increase the  competitiveness of the cost approval process for consolidators or price  limits that can be imposed without compromising the level of service  currently afforded to municipalities.
section_title: Minnesota
paragraphs: Minnesota initiated its program in 2007 to finance the recycling of certain  used electronics from households. Manufacturers of video display devices  (televisions, computer monitors, and laptop computers) with a screen size  that is greater than 9 inches, measured diagonally, that are sold in the state  are responsible for recycling, including costs, and can also meet their  obligations by financing the recycling of printers, keyboards, DVD players,  and certain other electronics.
subsections: section_title: Financing Mechanism
paragraphs: Minnesota’s law establishes recycling targets for manufacturers selling  video display devices in the state. The targets are set at an amount of used  electronics equal to 80 percent of the weight of video display devices sold  to households during the year. (The target was 60 percent for the first  program year.) Manufacturers that exceed their targets earn recycling  credits that can be used to meet their targets in subsequent years or sold  to other manufacturers. Conversely, manufacturers that fail to meet their  targets pay recycling fees on the basis of how close they are toward  meeting their obligation. State officials told us the recycling program is  based primarily on market economics and does not require significant  government involvement. In particular, the state does not set the prices  paid for recycling, and manufacturers have flexibility in selecting  collectors and recyclers to work with. Recyclers seek to be reimbursed for  their costs by marketing and selling recycling pounds to manufacturers.  According to several stakeholders we interviewed about the state’s  program, this market-based approach has contributed to lowering  recycling costs in the state.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has primary responsibility for  administering the program. The agency’s responsibilities include reviewing  registrations submitted by manufacturers for completeness; maintaining  registrations submitted by collectors and recyclers; and conducting  educational outreach efforts regarding the program. The state department  of revenue reviews manufacturers’ annual registration fees and reports  and, among other things, collects data needed to support manufacturers’  fee determinations. The state uses registration fees to cover the cost of  implementing the program, which may include awarding grants to entities  that provide collection and recycling services. The Minnesota Pollution  Control Agency has requested proposals to provide grants for collection  and recycling outside of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area and  expects to award several grants in 2010.
section_title: Mechanism for Providing Collection Opportunities
paragraphs: Minnesota’s law does not stipulate criteria for the establishment of a  statewide collection infrastructure or mandate that any entity serve as a  collector, but rather relies on the reimbursement from manufacturers to  create an incentive for the establishment of collection opportunities. To  foster the availability of collection opportunities outside of the  Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, the law allows 1½ times the  weight of covered electronic devices collected outside of the metropolitan  area to count toward manufacturers’ recycling targets. Local solid waste  management officials we interviewed described the impact of the state’s  electronics recycling legislation on the convenience of collection  opportunities as dependent upon whether a county already had an  established recycling program for used electronics, with a greater impact  in counties that did not already have recycling programs.
section_title: Requirements for Environmentally Sound Management
paragraphs: Minnesota’s law prohibits the commercial use of prison labor to recycle  video display devices and requires that recyclers abide by relevant federal,  state, and local regulations and carry liability insurance for environmental  releases, accidents, and other emergencies. The law does not establish  additional requirements for environmentally sound management. In  addition, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency officials said that they have  limited resources to ensure that used electronics are managed responsibly,  particularly when equipment is shipped out of state, and that enforcement  efforts are largely based on self-policing by recyclers and spot checks of  larger recyclers. Two recyclers in the state with whom we spoke said that  a lack of oversight of recyclers by state authorities had contributed to  undercutting by irresponsible recyclers. Minnesota Pollution Control  Agency officials said they are seeking to promote certification programs,  such as R2 or e-Stewards®, for electronics recyclers operating in the state.
section_title: Developments Since the Law’s Implementation
paragraphs: Minnesota amended its law in 2009 to make the following changes:    The state amended the law to remove the requirement that retailers  annually report to each video display device manufacturer the number of  the manufacturer’s brand of video display devices sold to households  during the previous year. Manufacturers submitted this information to the  state, which used it to determine manufacturers’ recycling targets. A  representative of the Minnesota Retailers Association said that retailers  found this requirement to be a burden. Similarly, according to the  Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition, the state’s reporting  requirement imposed a high cost on retailers and increased the risk of the  disclosure of proprietary sales data. Minnesota now uses either  manufacturer-provided data or national sales data, prorated to the state’s  population, to determine manufacturers’ obligations.
The state further amended the law to limit the use of recycling credits.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency officials told us this amendment was  intended to address a “boom and bust” scenario, whereby manufacturers  financed the recycling of large amounts of used electronics in the first  program year and accumulated carry-over credits, which they used to  meet their recycling targets during the second year. The use of credits left  local governments and electronics recyclers responsible for the cost of  collecting and recycling used electronics that exceeded manufacturers’  recycling targets. As a result, according to local solid waste management  officials we interviewed, some counties reintroduced end-of-life fees and  saw an increase in the illegal dumping of used electronics. To address  such issues and ensure that a majority of targets are met by the recycling  of newly collected material, the amended law limits the portion of a  manufacturer’s target that can be met through carry-over credits to   25 percent. Prior to the amendment, the law did not limit the use of  recycling credits.
Since the implementation of Minnesota’s program, several other states,  including Illinois and Wisconsin, have incorporated the use of recycling  targets into electronics recycling legislation. Several stakeholders told us  they prefer targets as they are designed in the Illinois program. For  example, a representative of one electronics manufacturer said he expects  that manufacturers will have difficulty in meeting their targets in  Minnesota in upcoming years after recyclers have worked through the  backlog of used electronics stored in consumers’ homes prior to  implementation of the state’s law. In contrast, under the Illinois program,  manufacturers’ targets are based in part on the total amount recycled or  reused during the prior year, such that the targets may be adjusted  downward if the amounts collected decrease. Similarly, several  refurbishers of used electronics pointed out that Minnesota’s law does not  allow the refurbishment of covered electronic devices to count toward  manufacturers’ recycling targets and thereby, according to some  stakeholders, may create an incentive to recycle equipment that has been  collected but is in working condition or can be refurbished. In contrast,  under Illinois’ law, the weight of covered electronic devices processed for  reuse is doubled when determining whether a manufacturer has met its  recycling and reuse target, and the weight is tripled if the refurbished  equipment is donated to a public school or nonprofit entity.
section_title: Texas
paragraphs: Texas’ computer equipment recycling program began in 2008 and requires  manufacturers to provide opportunities for free collection of desktop and  laptop computers, monitors not containing a tuner, and accompanying  mice and keyboards from consumers in the state. Consumers are defined  as individuals who use computer equipment purchased primarily for  personal or home-business use.
subsections: section_title: Financing Mechanism
paragraphs: Texas’ computer equipment recycling law is based on the concept of  “individual producer responsibility,” whereby manufacturers of computer  equipment are responsible for implementing a recovery plan for collecting  their own brand of used equipment from consumers. The state’s program  requires that each manufacturer submit its plan to the state and annually  report the weight of computer equipment collected, recycled, and reused.  The law does not authorize manufacturer registration fees, and  manufacturers are free to select the recyclers with whom they work and  negotiate recycling rates to be paid.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has the primary  responsibility for enforcing the law. The commission’s responsibilities  include providing information on the Internet about manufacturers’  recovery plans; educating consumers regarding the collection, recycling,  and reuse of computer equipment; helping to ensure that electronics  retailers do not sell the equipment of manufacturers without recovery  plans; and annually compiling information submitted by manufacturers  and issuing a report to the state legislature. According to commission  officials, manufacturers not paying registration fees has not caused a  financial burden because the commission already had the expertise and  outreach capabilities needed to implement the law.
section_title: Mechanism for Providing Collection Opportunities
paragraphs: The Texas law requires that the collection of computer equipment be  reasonably convenient and available to consumers in the state. In addition,  manufacturers’ recovery plans must enable consumers to recycle  computer equipment without paying a separate fee at the time of recycling.  The law allows manufacturers to fulfill these requirements by offering a  system for returning computer equipment by mail, establishing a physical  collection site, or organizing a collection event or by offering some  combination of these or other options. According to Texas Commission on  Environmental Quality officials, most manufacturers have opted to offer a  mail-back program, and one manufacturer noted that the mail-back  programs may be more convenient for rural residents of the state than a  physical collection point. Some manufacturers have provided additional  collection options. For example, in addition to providing a mail-back  option, Dell has partnered with affiliates of Goodwill Industries in the state  to establish a physical collection infrastructure.
The local solid waste management officials we interviewed regarding the  state’s computer equipment recycling law were critical of the impact of the  law on providing collection opportunities and relieving local governments  of the burden of managing used electronics. These officials attributed the  law’s lack of impact to a number of factors, including the inconvenience to  consumers of manufacturers’ mail-back programs; insufficient education  of consumers about recycling opportunities by manufacturers, the Texas  Commission on Environmental Quality, or local governments; and  manufacturers having responsibility only for the cost of recycling  computer equipment collected directly from consumers, not for that  collected by local governments (e.g., when consumers may be unaware of  the opportunities for free recycling). As a result, while they are not  required to collect used computer equipment, local governments bear the  costs for the equipment they collect. For example, the solid waste  coordinator for one regional council of governments said that the council  continues to provide grants to local governments for the management of  used electronics.
section_title: Requirements for Environmentally Sound Management
paragraphs: The Texas electronics recycling law requires that computer equipment  collected under the law be recycled or reused in a manner that complies  with federal, state, and local law. In addition, the law directed the Texas  Commission on Environmental Quality to adopt standards for the  management of used electronics developed by the Institute for Scrap  Recycling Industries, which represents electronics recyclers, or to adopt  such standards from a comparable organization. Among other things, the  standards adopted by the commission require that recyclers prioritize  refurbishment over recycling and recycling over disposal, ensure that  computer equipment is stored and processed in a manner that minimizes  the potential release of any hazardous substance into the environment,  and have a written plan for responding to and reporting pollutant releases.  Manufacturers are required to certify that recyclers have followed the  standards in recycling the manufacturers’ computer equipment.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality officials said that, under the  commission’s risk-based approach to enforcement of environmental  regulations, they had not prioritized regular, scheduled enforcement of the  requirements for the environmentally sound management of used  computer equipment collected under the state’s program. They said that  they would follow up on any allegations of noncompliance with the  requirements, but that they had not received any such complaints. Several  recyclers in the state confirmed that there had been minimal oversight of  recyclers by the commission and said that manufacturers play a more  active role than the commission in ensuring that the recyclers with whom  they contract adhere to requirements for environmentally sound  management.
section_title: Developments Since the Law’s Implementation
paragraphs: In 2009, the Texas state legislature passed a bill that would have required  that television manufacturers collect and recycle an amount of televisions  on the basis of manufacturers’ market share of equipment sold in the state.  However, the bill was vetoed by the governor, who stated that it was  significantly different than the law covering computer equipment—for  example, in that the bill would impose fees on television manufacturers  and recyclers. Local solid waste management officials we interviewed, as  well as a state environmental group that focuses on used electronics, were  critical of the governor’s veto. For example, according to the  environmental group, the bill would have relieved local governments of  the costs associated with managing used televisions, and without a law  establishing a recycling program, televisions will continue to be disposed  of in landfills, which is not prohibited in Texas.
section_title: Washington
paragraphs: Washington’s electronics recycling law was passed in 2006, and the  program began full operation in 2009. The program covers the costs  associated with collecting, transporting, and processing desktop and  laptop computers, computer monitors, and televisions generated by  households, charities, school districts, small businesses with fewer than   50 employees, and small governments (cities with a population of fewer  than 50,000, counties with a population fewer than 125,000, and special  purpose districts).
subsections: section_title: Financing Mechanism
paragraphs: Under Washington’s law, manufacturers are required to finance the  collection, transportation, and recycling of certain used electronics. The  law allows manufacturers to meet this requirement by implementing an  independent, state-approved collection and recycling plan or by  participating in the default “standard plan.” In addition, the law requires  that individual manufacturers register with the Department of Ecology, the  state agency responsible for administering the law, and pay a fee to cover  the department’s administrative costs. The fees are based on a sliding  scale linked to a manufacturer’s annual sales of covered electronic  products in the state. The specific responsibilities of the department  include reviewing the standard plan as well as any independent plans  submitted by manufacturers for the department’s approval; establishing an  annual process for local governments and local communities to report  their satisfaction with the services provided by the plans; registering  manufacturers, collectors, transporters, and processors for the program;  and enforcing the law (e.g., by issuing warnings and penalties against  manufacturers selling covered products in the state if they are not  participating in an approved plan).
The standard plan is implemented by the Washington Materials  Management and Financing Authority, a public body created by the state’s  law. All manufacturers are required to be members of the authority and  the standard plan, or they can opt out of the standard plan by gaining the  state’s approval for their own independent plan. Currently, all  manufacturers affected by the state’s law meet their requirements through  participation in the standard plan. The Washington Materials Management  and Financing Authority assesses individual manufacturers for collection  and recycling costs, as well as the authority’s administrative costs, on the  basis of a combination of market share and return share, with the return  share being based on an annual sampling of used electronics collected  under the state’s program. The authority uses the assessments paid by  manufacturers to reimburse individual collectors, transporters, and  recyclers at rates negotiated with the authority. According to the director  of the authority, the combined rate for the collection, transportation, and  recycling of used electronics, as well as administrative costs, was $0.24 per  pound in 2009. A number of stakeholders noted that the authority has the  ability to negotiate relatively low prices, in comparison with some other  state electronics recycling programs, due to the authority’s purchasing  power over electronics recycling services in the state.
section_title: Mechanism for Providing Collection Opportunities
paragraphs: Washington’s electronics recycling law includes a number of specific  requirements for the establishment of a convenient collection network  throughout the state, in both urban and rural areas. In particular, the law  requires that each plan provide collection service in every county and  every city or town with a population greater than 10,000. Collection sites  may include electronics recyclers and repair shops, recyclers of other  commodities, reuse organizations, charities, retailers, government  recycling sites, or other locations. Plans may limit the number of used  electronics accepted per customer per day or per delivery at a collection  site or service but are also required to provide free processing of large  quantities of used electronics generated by small businesses, small  governments, charities, and school districts.
Local solid waste management officials told us the law has had a positive  impact on promoting the collection of used electronics in the state. One of  these officials also said that the law’s implementation has eliminated the  cost burden on local government for managing used electronics. In  contrast, representatives of several manufacturers, as well as the  Consumer Electronics Association, told us that the law’s requirements for  convenience are too prescriptive and have served as an impediment for  manufacturers to obtain approval for their independent plans. Along these  lines, in 2009, the Department of Ecology rejected two independent plans  submitted by manufacturers because the department concluded that the  plans did not meet the law’s convenience criteria. Department officials  told us they expect the plans to be resubmitted and approved once the  manufacturers submitting the plans demonstrated that they would be able  to meet the convenience criteria.
section_title: Requirements for Environmentally Sound Management
paragraphs: The Department of Ecology established both minimum standards and  voluntary “preferred” standards for the environmentally sound  management of used electronics. Among other things, the minimum  standards require that recyclers implement an environmental, health, and  safety management system; remove any parts that contain materials of  concern, such as devices containing mercury, prior to mechanical or  thermal processing and handle them in a manner consistent with the  regulatory requirements that apply to the items; and not use prison labor  for the recycling of used electronics.
The department encourages recyclers to conform to the preferred  standards and identifies recyclers that do so on its Web site. In addition,  the Washington Materials Management and Financing Authority made the  preferred standards a requirement for all recyclers with whom the  authority contracts under the standard plan. Among other things, the  preferred standards stipulate that recyclers use only downstream vendors  that adhere to both the minimum and voluntary standards with respect to  materials of concern; ensure that recipient countries legally accept exports  of materials of concern; and, as with the minimum standards, undergo an  annual audit of the recycler’s conformance with the standards.  Department of Ecology officials said that the authority’s requirement that  recyclers achieve preferred status had enabled the authority to achieve  more than what the state could legally require, particularly regarding  exports.
section_title: Developments Since the Law’s Implementation
paragraphs: Washington amended its law in 2009 to authorize collectors in receipt of  fully functioning computers to sell or donate them as whole products for  reuse. The amendment requires that collectors not include computers  gleaned for reuse when seeking compensation under a standard or  independent plan. In addition, when taking parts from computers  submitted for compensation (i.e., for recycling) to repair other computers  for reuse, collectors must make a part-for-part exchange with the  nonfunctioning computers submitted for compensation.
According to Department of Ecology officials, the provisions pertaining to  reuse in both the department’s original regulations and the amendment are  intended to prevent collectors from stripping valuable components from  used electronics for export to markets with poor environmental standards,  and sending only the scrap with no value to the recyclers used by a  standard or independent plan. Similarly, a Washington refurbisher told us  that the requirement for a part-for-part exchange when repairing  equipment is intended to address the concern that collectors might export  valuable components pulled out of equipment and receive a higher rate of  compensation than by submitting the equipment to a recycler. According  to the refurbisher, the amendment has improved the impact of  Washington’s law on the ability to refurbish and reuse equipment but has  also resulted in unnecessary work to reinstall components into equipment  sent for recycling.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Steve Elstein, Assistant Director;  Elizabeth Beardsley; Mark Braza; Joseph Cook; Edward Leslie; Nelson  Olhero; Alison O’Neill; and Tim Persons, Chief Scientist, made key  contributions to this report.