Electronic Waste: EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S.	 
Exports through Stronger Enforcement and More Comprehensive	 
Regulation (28-AUG-08, GAO-08-1044).				 
                                                                 
Increasingly, U.S. consumers are recycling their old electronics 
to prevent the environmental harm that can come from disposal.	 
Concerns have grown, however, that some U.S. companies are	 
exporting these items to developing countries, where unsafe	 
recycling practices can cause health and environmental problems. 
Items with cathode-ray tubes (CRT) are particularly harmful	 
because they can contain 4 pounds of lead, a known toxin. To	 
prevent this practice, since January 2007 EPA began regulating	 
the export of CRTs under its CRT rule, which requires companies  
to notify EPA before exporting CRTs. In this context, GAO	 
examined (1) the fate of exported used electronics, (2) the	 
effectiveness of regulatory controls over the export of these	 
devices, and (3) options to strengthen federal regulation of	 
exported used electronics. Among other things, GAO reviewed waste
management surveys in developing countries, monitored e-commerce 
Web sites, and posed as foreign buyers of broken CRTs.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-1044					        
    ACCNO:   A83862						        
  TITLE:     Electronic Waste: EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful    
U.S. Exports through Stronger Enforcement and More Comprehensive 
Regulation							 
     DATE:   08/28/2008 
  SUBJECT:   E-waste						 
	     Electronic equipment				 
	     Electronics recycling				 
	     Environmental law					 
	     Environmental monitoring				 
	     Environmental policies				 
	     Environmental protection				 
	     Export regulation					 
	     Exporting						 
	     Federal regulations				 
	     Hazardous substances				 
	     Hazardous wastes					 
	     Health hazards					 
	     Internal controls					 
	     International trade regulation			 
	     Noncompliance					 
	     Recycling						 
	     Restrictive trade practices			 
	     Risk management					 
	     Safety						 
	     Waste disposal					 
	     Waste management					 
	     Foreign countries					 
	     Policies and procedures				 
	     Cathode-Ray Tubes (CRT)				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-1044

   

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

August 2008: 

Electronic Waste: 

EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S. Exports through Stronger 
Enforcement and More Comprehensive Regulation: 

GAO-08-1044: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-1044, a report to the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Increasingly, U.S. consumers are recycling their old electronics to 
prevent the environmental harm that can come from disposal. Concerns 
have grown, however, that some U.S. companies are exporting these items 
to developing countries, where unsafe recycling practices can cause 
health and environmental problems. Items with cathode-ray tubes (CRT) 
are particularly harmful because they can contain 4 pounds of lead, a 
known toxin. To prevent this practice, since January 2007 EPA began 
regulating the export of CRTs under its CRT rule, which requires 
companies to notify EPA before exporting CRTs. 

In this context, GAO examined (1) the fate of exported used 
electronics, (2) the effectiveness of regulatory controls over the 
export of these devices, and (3) options to strengthen federal 
regulation of exported used electronics. Among other things, GAO 
reviewed waste management surveys in developing countries, monitored e-
commerce Web sites, and posed as foreign buyers of broken CRTs. 

What GAO Found: 

Some exported used electronics are handled responsibly in countries 
with effective regulatory controls and by companies with advanced 
technologies, but a substantial quantity ends up in countries where 
disposal practices are unsafe to workers and dangerous to the 
environment. Recent surveys made on behalf of the United Nations found 
that used electronics exported from the United States to many Asian 
countries are dismantled under unsafe conditions, using methods like 
open-air incineration and acid baths to extract metals such as copper 
and gold. GAO observed thousands of requests for these items on e-
commerce Web sites during a 3-month periodï¿½mostly from Asian countries 
such as China and India but also from some in Africa. 

U.S. hazardous waste regulations have not deterred exports of 
potentially hazardous used electronics, primarily for the following 
reasons: 

* Existing EPA regulations focus only on CRTs. Other exported used 
electronics flow virtually unrestrictedï¿½even to countries where they 
can be mismanagedï¿½in large part because relevant U.S. hazardous waste 
regulations assess only how products will react in unlined U.S. 
landfills. 

* Companies easily circumvent the CRT rule. GAO posed as foreign buyers 
of broken CRTs in Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, and other countries, and 
43 U.S. companies expressed willingness to export these items. Some of 
the companies, including ones that publicly tout their exemplary 
environmental practices, were willing to export CRTs in apparent 
violation of the CRT rule. GAO provided EPA with the names of these 
companies at EPAï¿½s request. 

* EPAï¿½s enforcement is lacking. Since the CRT rule took effect in 
January 2007, Hong Kong officials intercepted and returned to U.S. 
ports 26 containers of illegally exported CRTs. EPA has since penalized 
one violator, and then only long after the shipment had been identified 
by GAO. EPA officials acknowledged compliance problems with its CRT 
rule but said that given the ruleï¿½s relative newness, their focus was 
on educating the regulated community. This reasoning appears misplaced, 
however, given GAOï¿½s observation of exporters willing to engage in 
apparent violations of the CRT rule, including some who are aware of 
the rule. Finally, EPA has done little to ascertain the extent of 
noncompliance, and EPA officials said they have neither plans nor a 
timetable to develop an enforcement program. 

Beyond enforcing the CRT rule, EPA can take steps to ensure that the 
larger universe of potentially harmful electronic devicesï¿½such as 
computers, printers, and cell phonesï¿½are exported in a manner that does 
not harm health or the environment. Among the options raised by GAO are 
(1) expanding hazardous waste regulations to cover other exported used 
electronics; (2) submitting a legislative package to Congress for 
ratifying the Basel Convention, an international regime governing the 
import and export of hazardous wastes; and (3) working with Customs and 
Border Protection and other agencies to improve identification and 
tracking of exported used electronics. Options such as these could help 
make U.S. export controls more consistent with those of other 
industrialized countries. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that EPA (1) develop a systematic plan to enforce the 
CRT rule and (2) develop options to broaden its regulatory authority to 
address the export of other potentially harmful used electronics. In 
its comments, EPA expressed significant reservations with GAOï¿½s 
findings and recommendations. GAO maintains, however, that they are 
fair and well supported. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1044]. For more 
information, contact John Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or 
[email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Used Electronics Are Exported Worldwide and Often Handled and Disposed 
of Unsafely: 

U.S. Exports of Potentially Harmful Used Electronics Flow Virtually 
Unrestricted: 

EPA Has Several Options That Would Strengthen the Federal Role in 
Reducing Harmful Exports of Used Electronics: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Toxic Substances Contained in a Central Processing Unit and 
CRT Monitor: 

Figure 2: Developing Countries Requesting CRTs on Two Internet E- 
commerce Web Sites, February 2008 to May 2008: 

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

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

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

Abbreviations: 

CRT: cathode-ray tube: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

LCD: liquid-crystal display: 

OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: 

RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

August 28, 2008: 

The Honorable Howard L. Berman: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Foreign Affairs: 
House of Representatives: 

In recent years, consumers have grown more aware that tossing their old 
electronic devices into the trash can produce undesirable, and 
unintended, consequences. Toxic substances contained in used 
electronics--such as lead--are well known to harm people's health, and 
when electronics are disposed of improperly, they can leach from 
discarded devices into the surrounding environment. As a result, when 
U.S. consumers purchase new devices, such as computers, monitors, 
televisions, and cell phones, they are increasingly paying electronics 
recyclers--who routinely assure them that the used items will not end 
up in a landfill--to handle their old ones. Since one person's trash is 
often another person's treasure, a thriving international trade has 
emerged in used electronics, largely from industrialized to developing 
countries. Functional secondhand computers exported from the United 
States to Africa, for example, can be purchased for less than 1/10th 
the cost of a new one, a practice referred to as bridging the "digital 
divide." 

As the export of used electronics has continued, however, concerns have 
mounted that not all recycling is conducted responsibly, particularly 
in developing countries, and that some U.S. recyclers and exporters may 
be at fault. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
Americans removed more than 300 million electronic devices from their 
households in 2006. As alleged in recent years by environmental groups, 
imported used electronics that cannot be repaired are often recycled in 
developing countries by crude and inefficient means and with virtually 
no human health or environmental protection. One report by two such 
groups asserted that most of the used electronics handled in this 
manner originated in North America.[Footnote 1] 

Products with cathode-ray tubes (CRT), such as televisions and computer 
monitors, can be especially harmful to humans and the environment. CRTs 
contain copper--a commodity in high demand, in part because its price 
has increased threefold over the last several years--but also 4 pounds 
of lead, a toxin that can delay neurological development. Accordingly, 
used CRTs are the only electronic device regulated as hazardous waste 
and whose export is specifically controlled by EPA.[Footnote 2] The 
agency's July 2006 CRT rule required that, starting in January 2007, 
CRT exporters file a notification of export with EPA. For CRTs exported 
for reuse, the rule requires the exporter to notify EPA of intent to 
export CRTs for reuse or repair. Further, for CRTs exported for 
recycling, exporters must obtain consent from the importing country for 
shipment.[Footnote 3] If these conditions are not met, CRTs, which 
would likely fail EPA tests for toxicity, would be considered hazardous 
waste. Implementation of the CRT rule is a shared responsibility 
between EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the 
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Used electronic devices 
other than CRTs do not generally qualify as hazardous waste under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as amended (RCRA), which 
is the statute governing hazardous waste handling and disposal. 

The Basel Convention, an outgrowth of the United Nations Environment 
Programme, in 1989 established an international legal regime governing 
the export and import of hazardous wastes for disposal. Ratified by 170 
countries--including virtually all industrialized countries except the 
United States--the Basel Convention stipulates that a country may ship 
hazardous waste only after receiving prior written consent from the 
receiving country. Although not a ratifying member of the Basel 
Convention, the United States is a member of the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and therefore has agreed to 
be bound by OECD Council decisions.[Footnote 4] A 1986 decision imposes 
general obligations on members concerning exports of hazardous wastes 
to non-OECD countries (in part because of concerns over the 
effectiveness of developing countries' regulatory regimes) and 
prohibits exports unless the wastes are sent to an adequate disposal 
facility.[Footnote 5] A 1992 decision established a notice-and-consent 
process for hazardous waste recovery among OECD members; this decision 
has been implemented by the United States in RCRA provisions.[Footnote 
6] In 2001, because a majority of its members are also parties to the 
Basel Convention, the OECD Council changed its waste classifications, 
including which products are considered hazardous wastes, to harmonize 
with those of the Basel Convention. While the 2001 decision does not 
require changes to the scope of hazardous wastes regulated in the 
United States, it does require adoption of the classification system to 
facilitate coordination among exporting and importing countries. 
Although the United States has agreed to be bound by the OECD decision, 
the United States has not yet implemented it.[Footnote 7],[Footnote 8] 

As electronic devices are purchased with increasing frequency--along 
with the coming transition from analog to digital signals for 
televisions, making CRT technology obsolete--the prospect looms that 
many more used electronic devices will be discarded in the near future. 
In addition, a growing number of state laws prohibit discarding used 
electronics in landfills, in part because of the toxic substances 
contained within them. The increase in landfill bans could cause U.S. 
exports to increase significantly. In this context, this report 
examines (1) the fate of exported used electronics, (2) the 
effectiveness of regulatory controls over the export of used 
electronics from the United States, and (3) opportunities for 
strengthening the federal role in regulating used electronics exports. 

To answer these questions, we reviewed pertinent EPA documents; 
interviewed EPA, State Department, and Customs and Border Protection 
officials; and conducted several Internet-based exercises, such as 
monitoring Internet e-commerce sites and posing as foreign buyers of 
nonworking CRTs. Specifically, we conducted the following work: 

* To examine the fate of used electronics, we obtained and analyzed 
Basel Convention surveys and reports on electronic waste disposal in 
Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka. We also 
interviewed a West African computer importer and officials with Hong 
Kong's Environmental Protection Department. As part of our monitoring 
of Internet e-commerce sites, we documented information on global 
demand for CRTs, the location of the demand, the volume requested, the 
price offered, and whether working or nonworking equipment was sought. 

* To examine regulatory control over used electronics exported from the 
United States, we interviewed EPA officials to obtain information on 
EPA's enforcement of the CRT rule and what, if any, enforcement 
challenges existed. We posed as overseas and domestic scrap brokers 
with a clear intent to purchase and export untested, nonworking, or 
broken CRTs--items that are not likely to be recycled in an 
environmentally responsible manner. We e-mailed 343 solicitations to 
electronics recyclers and trading companies in the United States, 
including members of the International Association of Electronics 
Recyclers;[Footnote 9] of these, 64 responded.[Footnote 10] During the 
3-month period from mid-February to mid-May 2008, we also monitored two 
Internet sites that facilitate trade in electronic products, among 
other goods. 

* To examine opportunities for strengthening the federal role in 
regulating used electronics exports, we obtained and analyzed 
documentation on EPA's authority to regulate exported used electronics. 
In addition, we examined other countries' approaches to governing 
exported used electronics. We also obtained and analyzed EPA Office of 
Solid Waste and Emergency Response and Office of Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance documentation on the implications of expanding 
EPA's authority to regulate these items. 

We found the data we obtained on Internet e-commerce Web sites to be 
adequate to conclude that significant demand exists for exported used 
electronics. Appendix I describes our scope and methodology in greater 
detail. We conducted our review from October 2007 through July 2008 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. These 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the 
evidence we obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

While some exported used electronics can be handled responsibly in 
countries with effective regulatory regimes and by companies with 
advanced technologies, a substantial amount ends up in countries such 
as China and India, where they are often handled and disposed of 
unsafely. These countries often lack the capacity to safely handle and 
dispose of used electronics if the units are not in reusable condition 
when received, and the countries' extremely low labor costs and the 
reported lack of effective environmental controls make unsafe recycling 
commonplace. Recent surveys conducted on behalf of the United Nations 
Environment Programme found that used electronics imported from the 
United States are dismantled in many developing countries under unsafe 
health conditions. Other investigations have corroborated disassembly 
practices in some Asian countries involving the open-air burning of 
wire to recover copper and open acid baths for separating metals. These 
practices expose people to lead and other hazardous materials. China, 
in particular, has been at the center of much of the world's attention 
regarding electronic waste export issues since 2002, when environmental 
groups first exposed egregious electronics-recycling and disposal 
practices in Guiyu and other areas in southeastern China. As China's 
growing economy has driven its demand for raw materials, China appears 
to have come to also rely on the inexpensive labor and lax 
environmental controls reported in other countries in the region, such 
as Indonesia and Cambodia, to help meet its demand. Whereas used 
electronics exported to Asian countries are often recycled, such items 
are exported to West African countries primarily for reuse. Many units 
are exported broken, however, and some U.S. companies appear to mix 
broken units with shipments of working units. The nonworking units are 
often dumped and left for scavengers. 

Current U.S. regulatory controls do little to stem the export of 
potentially hazardous used electronics, primarily for the following 
reasons: 

* Narrow scope of regulatory control. U.S. law allows the unfettered 
export of nearly all types of used electronic devices. U.S. hazardous 
waste regulations do not consider most used electronic products, such 
as computers, printers, and cell phones, as hazardous, even though they 
can be mismanaged overseas and can cause serious health and 
environmental problems. Instead, under U.S. law, only exports of CRTs 
are regulated as hazardous waste. 

* Regulatory controls easily circumvented. The export of CRTs from the 
United States in apparent violation of the CRT rule seems widespread, 
despite adoption of the CRT rule in 2006. Posing as fictitious buyers 
from Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Singapore, and Vietnam, among other 
countries, we found 43 electronics recyclers in the United States who 
were willing to export to us broken, untested, or nonworking CRTs under 
conditions which would appear to violate the CRT rule. Three other 
companies indicated they do not export broken CRTs, and 7 others asked 
for more information about our fictitious identities, such as phone 
numbers, a Web site, or what we intended to do with the broken CRTs. 
EPA records show that none of the recyclers willing to sell to us had 
filed proper notifications of their intent to export CRTs for 
recycling, as required by the CRT rule for such shipments.[Footnote 11] 
Some of these seemingly noncompliant companies actively cultivate an 
environmentally responsible public image; at least 3 of them held Earth 
Day 2008 electronics-recycling events. 

* EPA has done little to enforce the CRT rule. EPA has taken few steps 
to enforce the CRT rule. Since the rule took effect in January 2007, 
for example, Hong Kong has intercepted and returned to the United 
States 26 shipping containers of used CRT monitors because these 
exports violated Hong Kong's hazardous waste import laws, Hong Kong 
officials said. Under the CRT rule, these shipments are considered 
illegal hazardous waste exports because the U.S. exporter did not 
notify EPA. Such exporters could be subject to administrative or 
criminal penalties. The agency can take action and seek criminal 
penalties of up to $50,000 per day of violation and imprisonment of up 
to 2 years against exporters who knowingly violate the CRT rule's 
notice-and-consent requirements.[Footnote 12] Nonetheless, EPA did not 
issue its first administrative penalty complaint against a company for 
potentially illegal CRT shipments until July 2008, and this penalty 
came as a result of a problem we identified. EPA acknowledges the 
existence of compliance problems with its CRT rule, but agency 
enforcement officials told us that given the rule's relative newness, 
the regulated community must first be made aware of the requirements. 
This explanation, however, is undermined by the instances we found 
where companies that indicated a willingness to engage in activities 
that would likely violate the CRT rule also indicated an awareness of 
the rule. Finally, EPA has done little to ascertain the extent of 
noncompliance, and Enforcement and Compliance Assurance officials told 
us they have no plans and no timetable for developing the basic 
components of an enforcement strategy, such as enforcement targets, 
monitoring, follow-up of suspected violations, and prosecution. 

Beyond enforcing its own CRT rule, EPA can also take steps to ensure 
that the larger universe of potentially harmful electronics--possibly 
including computers, flat-panel monitors, and cell phones, among other 
items--are also exported in a manner that does not contribute to human 
health and environmental harm overseas. EPA's adoption of the CRT rule 
shows that the agency recognized that while certain CRTs--those being 
reused--may not need to be considered hazardous waste within U.S. 
borders, regulatory control was needed to ensure that, when exported, 
they are not ultimately discarded in a manner that poses a health and 
environmental hazard outside U.S. borders. Among the options available 
to EPA to deal with this larger universe of exported used electronics-
-options that could make U.S. export controls more consistent with 
international norms--is to propose amending RCRA regulations to include 
exports of used electronics posing health or environmental risks when 
disassembled or reclaimed, such as by expanding the scope of the CRT 
rule and revising the regulatory definition of hazardous waste. 
Additionally, EPA could (1) submit a legislative package to Congress 
for ratifying the Basel Convention, (2) work with Customs and Border 
Protection and the International Trade Commission to improve 
identification and tracking of exported used electronics, and (3) 
update RCRA regulations to reflect U.S. obligations under OECD. 

To help ensure that EPA provides a deterrent to potentially illegal 
exports of CRT monitors and televisions, we are recommending that the 
Administrator, EPA, develop a timetable for implementing an enforcement 
plan for the CRT rule. We also recommend that EPA evaluate options to 
regulate other exported used electronics, which could include expanding 
the scope of the CRT rule and collaborating with other federal agencies 
to improve tracking of exported used electronics. In addition, 
determining whether to ratify international treaties is a policy 
decision that rests with Congress and the President; we therefore 
recommend that EPA submit to Congress a legislative package to complete 
ratification of the Basel Convention, so Congress can deliberate 
whether and to what extent the United States should have additional 
controls over the export of used electronic items that may threaten 
human health and the environment when disassembled overseas. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, EPA generally disagreed with 
our recommendations, stating, among other things, that (1) it did not 
want to build an "extensive compliance monitoring and enforcement 
program" around the CRT rule or any other individual provision of its 
broader RCRA program and (2) it preferred nonregulatory, voluntary 
approaches to address the problems discussed in this report. First, we 
disagree that an extensive program would be required to develop the 
basic components of an enforcement deterrent, such as enforcement 
targets and a plan for compliance monitoring, following up on suspected 
violations, and prosecuting violators. Second, our findings cast 
serious doubt about the effectiveness of a strategy that relies almost 
entirely on voluntary approaches. Overall, we believe that nothing in 
EPA's comments changes the reality that the United States' regulatory 
coverage of exported used electronics is among the narrowest in the 
industrialized world and that the little regulation that does exist has 
been enforced to only a minor degree. EPA's comments and our response 
are included in appendix II. 

Background: 

Consumers and businesses may hesitate to discard obsolete electronic 
devices because the devices may still function and have value. Users 
generally have to pay fees, however, to have their used electronics 
recycled or refurbished domestically. Recyclers and refurbishers charge 
these fees because costs associated with recycling and refurbishing 
outweigh the revenue received from recycled commodities or refurbished 
units. 

The costs associated with recycling often make it unprofitable without 
charging fees for several reasons. First, recycling used electronics is 
labor intensive: the equipment must be separated into its component 
parts, including the plastic housing, copper wires, metals (e.g., gold, 
silver, and aluminum), and circuit boards, as well as parts that can be 
easily reused or resold, like hard drives and CD-ROM drives. Second, to 
obtain salable commodities, metal and plastic "scrap" must be further 
processed to obtain shredded plastic, aluminum, copper, gold, and other 
recyclable materials, and such processing typically involves 
multimillion-dollar machinery. Finally, recyclers incur additional 
expenses when handling and disposing of some toxic components (such as 
mercury-containing lamps). In contrast, selling these items for export 
can bring in revenue. According to EPA, a vast majority of used 
electronics (including their component parts and commodities) donated 
for reuse or recycling are exported, both responsibly and 
irresponsibly.[Footnote 13] Responsible recyclers often test used 
electronics to determine which components can be reused, then separate 
the remaining materials into their component parts and commodities 
before exporting. Recyclers like these have told us that they operate 
at a competitive disadvantage against companies that export whole, 
untested units. 

Exporting used electronics from the United States brings important 
benefits. For example, export leads to viable and productive secondhand 
use of electronic devices in developing countries--a practice known as 
"bridging the digital divide"--where they can be purchased for 1/10th 
the price of a new unit and contribute significantly to the operations 
of schools, small businesses, and government agencies. Moreover, 
extending the life cycle of electronic products prevents substantial 
environmental damage. A United Nations University study found that the 
manufacturing phase takes up 80 percent of the natural resources used 
during the life cycle of computers, so extending the lifetime of 
computers provides an important environmental service. 

In addition, strong demand exists overseas to recycle the raw materials 
contained within electronic devices. State-of-the-art recycling 
facilities in developed countries, such as Belgium, can extract 
precious metals and salable commodities. Recycling in this fashion also 
provides an important environmental benefit: Metals can often be 
extracted from used electronics with less environmental impact than 
from mining. The U.S. Geological Survey, for instance, reports that 1 
metric ton of computer scrap contains more gold than 17 metric tons of 
ore and much lower levels of harmful elements common to ores, such as 
arsenic, mercury, and sulfur. 

In recent years, concerns have been raised because toxic substances 
such as lead, which have well-documented adverse health effects, can 
potentially leach from discarded electronic products, especially if 
disposed of improperly. Nearly all the substances of concern in an 
electronic appliance are in solid, nondispersible form, so there is no 
cause for concern with respect to human exposure or release into the 
environment through normal contact. Instead, human health and 
environmental concerns related to the presence of these substances 
arise if the equipment is improperly disassembled or incinerated. EPA 
has identified lead, mercury, and cadmium (which are typically found in 
computers or monitors) as priority toxic chemicals for reduction. 
According to EPA, these toxic substances do not break down when 
released into the environment and can be dangerous, even in small 
quantities (see fig. 1). 

[This page intentionally left blank] 

Figure 1: Toxic Substances Contained in a Central Processing Unit and 
CRT Monitor: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of a CPU and monitor, indicating key 
contaminants and their locations, as follows: 

Key contaminant: Lead: 
CRTs contain up to 4 pounds of lead, and circuit boards also contain 
some of this metal. Lead is toxic and can delay neurological 
development in children and cause other adverse health effects in 
adults. Lead can leach out of CRT glass and circuit boards disposed of 
in landfills, or it can be released into the environment by 
incineration.
Locations: CRT; monitor circuit boards; CPU circuit boards. 

Key contaminant: Brominated flame retardants: 
Found in plastic casings of personal computers, CRT monitors, and 
circuit boards, brominated flame retardants can persist in the 
environment and accumulate in living organisms, where they may cause 
liver and thyroid toxicity. They can be released into the environment 
when computer parts are shredded or heated.CRT monitors may also 
contain antimony, barium oxide, and phosphors, which could cause human 
health and environmental concerns if improperly managed.
Locations: Plastic casings of monitor and CPU; Monitor and CPU circuit 
boards. 

Key contaminant: Cadmium; 
Small amounts of this highly toxic metal are in electronic contacts and 
switches. Cadmium persists in the environment and accumulates in living 
organisms. It may be released into the environment by heat and 
incineration.Computer central processing units may also contain 
beryllium and lithium, which could cause human health and environ-
mental concerns if improperly managed.
Locations: connectors within CPU. 

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

[End of figure] 

Used Electronics Are Exported Worldwide and Often Handled and Disposed 
of Unsafely: 

Some exported used electronics can be handled responsibly in countries 
with effective regulatory regimes and by companies with advanced 
technologies. A substantial quantity, however, ends up in countries 
where the items are handled and disposed of in a manner that threatens 
human health and the environment. 

Some Exported Used Electronics Appear to Be Handled Responsibly: 

Certain developed countries have regulatory regimes that require safe 
handling and disposal of used electronics. Member states of the 
European Union, for example, must comply with the Waste Electrical and 
Electronic Equipment Directive of 2002, which established comprehensive 
take-back and recycling requirements involving retailers, 
manufacturers, and importers of electrical and electronic products. The 
directive requires member countries to ensure that producers and 
importers finance the separate collection, treatment, recovery, and 
environmentally sound disposal of "waste electronics," either on their 
own or through collective systems financed by themselves and other 
members of the industry. 

European Union countries are also parties to the Basel Convention. The 
aim of the convention is to protect human health and the environment 
from the adverse effects caused by the export of hazardous wastes, 
especially to developing countries, where the risk of unsafe hazardous 
waste management is often higher. As part of European Union countries' 
implementation of the Basel Convention, hazardous wastes intended for 
disposal cannot be shipped to non-OECD countries. Exports of waste 
occur only under the following circumstances: (1) if the exporting 
country does not have sufficient disposal capacity, (2) if the 
exporting country does not have disposal sites that can dispose of the 
waste in an environmentally sound manner, and (3) if the wastes are 
required as a raw material for recycling or recovery industries in the 
importing country.[Footnote 14] 

In addition to being governed by comprehensive regulatory controls, 
some companies in European Union countries use advanced technologies to 
recycle used electronics. For example, the recycler Umicore, according 
to its own documents, operates a state-of-the-art facility in Belgium, 
where it uses advanced technologies and processes to extract precious 
metals from circuit boards and responsibly handles waste by-products. 
Umicore samples electronic scrap to determine the presence of hazardous 
materials. The company then captures hazardous materials, such as 
cadmium and mercury, in the extraction process and disposes of them in 
an environmentally sound manner, state company documents. Over 95 
percent of the electronic items that Umicore recycles become new 
electronic products, and many of the remnants are recycled into 
construction materials. 

Some companies located in developing countries also appear to safely 
recycle and dispose of used electronics using advanced technologies. 
Samsung Corning, for example, operates a plant in Malaysia that not 
only recycles CRT glass but also manufactures new CRT televisions 
containing as much as 50 percent recycled-glass content. Samsung 
Corning's contractor in the United States has coordinated with 
approximately 40 U.S. recyclers for the export of CRT glass. According 
to the contractor, about 250 shipping containers, totaling about 4,000 
tons of CRT glass, leave the United States for the Malaysian facility 
each month. Malaysia's regulatory regime helps ensure safe recycling 
and disposal practices for CRTs; these products may be exported to 
Malaysia only if they meet certain conditions, according to Malaysian 
environmental protection officials. If local facilities lack the 
capacity or ability to safely carry out recycling activities, the 
government of Malaysia will not allow companies to import CRTs from the 
United States, according to a Malaysian government document. In 
addition, officials with the country's Department of Environment and 
Department of Customs have said CRTs cannot be legally imported from 
other countries if destined for final disposal. 

Many Countries Receiving Used Electronics Lack the Capacity to Safely 
Handle and Dispose of Them: 

While the United States has the landfill and institutional capacity to 
provide safe handling and disposal of used electronics domestically, 
many foreign countries, particularly those in the developing world, do 
not. According to surveys made on behalf of the United Nations 
Environment Programme, many developing countries lack the 
infrastructure to safely manage waste, including hazardous waste. These 
surveys found that large quantities of used electronic items are 
imported by developing countries, particularly in Southeast Asia, where 
they are improperly handled and, in some cases, informally recycled in 
"backyard" operations involving open-air burning of copper wire and 
acid baths to recover valuable metals. 

Upon importation, brokers, recyclers, and refurbishment companies in 
some developing countries examine items to determine how they can be 
used most profitably. According to individuals familiar with the 
international electronics industry, to maximize profit, working units 
are resold, repairable products are refurbished, and broken units are 
disassembled into component parts for further reclamation. Reusable 
electronics--those that can be directly resold or easily refurbished-- 
generally have the highest value and are sold in retail shops in some 
developing countries. For nonworking or otherwise broken units, workers 
disassemble those that cannot be resold into their component parts, 
generally by hand. After disassembly, metals and plastics are recovered 
from the component parts, using methods that may lead to pollution and 
contamination. For instance, in some cases, workers burn the plastic 
coating off wires to recover copper and submerge circuit boards in open 
acid baths to extract gold and other metals. Unsalvageable computer 
parts are often burned in the open air. 

Significant demand exists for used electronics from the United States, 
particularly in developing countries. In a search of one Internet e- 
commerce site, we observed brokers from around the world place 2,234 
requests to purchase liquid-crystal display (LCD) screens. On the same 
site, we found 430 requests for central processing units and 665 
requests for used computers. In an extensive search of two Internet e- 
commerce sites over a 3-month period, we observed brokers in developing 
countries make 230 requests for about 7.5 million used CRTs. Brokers in 
developing countries represented over 60 percent of all requests we 
observed. Over 75 percent of the brokers' requests offered $10 or less 
per unit, and almost half offered $5 or less. Low prices (under $10 per 
unit) indicate a high likelihood that these items will ultimately be 
handled and disposed of unsafely. About 70 percent of the requests came 
from developing countries in Asia, with China and India posting the 
largest number by far; the remaining requests came largely from Africa 
(see fig. 2). 

Figure 2: Developing Countries Requesting CRTs on Two Internet E- 
commerce Web Sites, February 2008 to May 2008: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a map of the world depicting developing countries 
requesting CRTs on two internet e-commerce web sites, February 2008 to 
May 2008: 

Ten highest requests: 
Bangladesh; 
China; 
Egypt; 
Hong Kong; 
India; 
Malaysia; 
Pakistan; 
Sri Lanka; 
United Arab Emirates; 
Vietnam; 

Placed requests: 
Afghanistan; 
Albania; 
Algeria; 
Botswana; 
Burma; 
Ethiopia; 
Ghana; 
Indonesia; 
Iran; 
Jordan; 
Kenya; 
Moldova; 
Morocco; 
Nigeria; 
Philippines; 
Singapore; 
South Africa; 
Syria; 
Taiwan; 
Thailand; 
Tunisia; 
Ukraine; 
Zambia; 
Zimbabwe. 

Transshipment points: 
Hong Kong; 
Singapore. 

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

The information presented in figure 2 assumes that buyers do not post 
fictitious country names. It also assumes that there is no double 
counting of requests. Hong Kong is a special administrative region of 
China. Requests were also placed in Aruba, Peru, and Venezuela. 

[End of figure] 

China and Hong Kong Define the Used Electronics Trade in Southeast 
Asia: 

China has received global attention over electronic waste export issues 
since 2002, when environmental groups exposed "egregious" electronics- 
recycling and disposal practices in the city of Guiyu and elsewhere in 
southeastern China. China's fast-growing economy drives the nation's 
demand for raw materials, and one way that this demand is met is by 
importing used electronic products, according to a 2005 report by the 
Basel Convention Regional Centre in China.[Footnote 15] The report 
concluded that Chinese importers and foreign exporters (including ones 
in the United States and Japan) could easily evade China's import and 
export controls, resulting in potentially hazardous electronic devices 
entering the country illegally for disassembly and recycling. Chinese 
and Japanese researchers told us that most of these devices are likely 
to be shipped through Hong Kong. 

Once in China, most disassembly happens "by hand," according to the 
2005 report, where workers use primitive means in workshops of seven or 
eight employees.[Footnote 16] In Guiyu, the study found, more than 300 
groups were active in electronic waste recovery efforts. Open burning 
and acid baths to recover metals are commonplace, and the residual 
toxic waste from such operations is simply discarded, allowing 
pollutants to seep into the ground and water sources. 

Recent studies have highlighted the dangers of working and living near 
these facilities, particularly for children. For example, a study 
conducted by a Chinese medical school and published in 2007 in the 
journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that children in Guiyu 
had lead levels in their blood that were more than 50 percent higher 
than the limit for lead exposure set by the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention in the United States. The study also found that lead 
levels among children in Guiyu were also more than 50 percent higher 
than among children in a neighboring village where used electronics 
were not dismantled. 

At a 2007 conference in Beijing, Chinese environmental protection 
officials acknowledged that the country lagged behind developed 
countries in its ability to ensure safe reuse, recycling, and disposal 
of hazardous wastes such as used electronics. 

Other Asian Countries Import Used Electronics for Recycling and Reuse: 

While much of the export of used electronics to date has focused on 
China, awareness of electronic-waste-recycling and disposal problems in 
other Asian countries has grown in recent years. As a reflection of 
this growing awareness, eight Asian countries met in Cambodia in March 
2007 to discuss electronic waste management issues. At the conference, 
Indonesian officials disclosed that used electronics are imported from 
the United States for re-export to China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, and 
the lack of effective environmental controls make unsafe recycling 
commonplace. As an archipelago, Indonesia has hundreds of seaports, 
which are nearly impossible to monitor, according to the environmental 
officials. According to these officials, electronics-recycling 
activities occur in east Java in an industrial estate and on Batam 
Island (near Singapore) in a "special bounded zone" exempt from 
government regulation. Recyclers at these facilities dismantle, crush, 
and melt used electronics. Most of the waste recycled on Batam Island 
is hazardous and would otherwise be more expensive to handle in "legal" 
facilities outside the special bounded zone, according to Indonesian 
officials. Photographs from the presentation show workers dismantling 
electronics by hand, with low-value components discarded haphazardly 
(see fig. 3). 

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

[See PDF for image] 

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

[End of figure] 

Cambodian environmental protection officials described similar human 
health and environmental harm associated with unsafe disassembly of 
used electronics in Cambodia. These officials stated that refurbishment 
and reuse activities are more prevalent in their country than 
recycling. According to Cambodian environmental officials, the primary 
electronic devices for sale consist mostly of secondhand material 
imported from the United States, the European Union, China, and other 
Southeast Asian countries. According to the Basel Convention Regional 
Centre in China's 2005 report, although used electronics are imported 
primarily for resale, some "rudimentary" recycling activities also take 
place. Unrepairable electronic products are often disposed of in 
municipal waste sites that are not designed to contain hazardous 
materials. Some scavengers in Cambodia, including children, often work 
directly for scrap yards, collecting material for as little as $1 a 
day. At the scrap yards, material is sorted, and metals are exported 
abroad for recycling. Materials that lack value are often dumped and 
sometimes burned (see fig. 4). 

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

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Basel Convention Regional Centre in China. 

[End of figure] 

In India, which also receives used electronics from the United States, 
many parts of the country cannot safely handle these devices. In 2004, 
the environmental group Toxics Link documented containers of computer 
waste labeled as mixed electronics scrap imported from the United 
States through the port of Chennai. According to Toxics Link, more than 
10,000 people--including children--work in the "informal" recycling 
industry in Delhi alone, breaking equipment, using acid baths, and 
openly burning wires and plastic casings to reclaim gold, copper, and 
other commodities. 

Used Electronics Are Exported to Western Africa Primarily for Reuse: 

In contrast to the situation in many Asian countries, used electronics 
exported to West African countries are intended for reuse. Businesses 
importing used computers, for example, can sell functional units for as 
little as $100, well below the cost of a new computer, bringing 
technology within the reach of more people, according to one African 
computer importer. Recycling is not as prevalent in West Africa as it 
is in Southeast Asia, in part because West Africa is farther from 
markets where recycled commodities are sought. In addition, shipping 
costs to Africa are considerably higher than to Hong Kong and Southeast 
Asian countries. One recycler told us that rates from the United States 
to West Africa range from $4,000 to $7,000 per 20-foot container-- 
considerably more expensive than the $750 it costs to ship 40-foot 
containers from the United States to Hong Kong. 

Some U.S. recyclers mix broken units with working units in shipments to 
Africa, and the nonworking units are often dumped and left for 
scavengers. Accepting "junk" equipment is often part of the 
"arrangement" U.S. recyclers make with African importers, according to 
a used computer importer in Senegal. Negotiating the amount of working 
versus broken equipment is routinely part of the agreement, and this 
importer told us that even if he receives a shipment of up to 40 
percent "junk," he can still make a profit. Often, the "junk" computers 
are dumped in the countryside and burned, he explained. In addition, in 
2007, an official with the Basel Convention Regional Centre for Africa 
for Training and Technology Transfer noted, on the basis of his 
experience that a high proportion of the units that arrive in Nigeria 
are unusable, that used electronics are rarely tested for functionality 
before export to developing countries like those in Africa. 

U.S. Exports of Potentially Harmful Used Electronics Flow Virtually 
Unrestricted: 

Current EPA regulations for hazardous waste have not prevented the 
export of potentially hazardous used electronics. Most used electronics 
can be legally exported from the United States with no restrictions; 
EPA controls only the export of used CRTs under its CRT rule, yet we 
observed widespread willingness to engage in activities that would 
appear to violate the CRT rule. Further, EPA has done little to 
determine the extent of noncompliance with the rule and even less to 
deter such noncompliance. 

Existing Regulation Focuses Only on CRTs: 

Current EPA hazardous waste regulations control only the export of a 
narrow segment of used electronics--CRTs--therefore allowing 
unrestricted export of nearly all others.[Footnote 17] In issuing its 
final CRT rule in July 2006, EPA obtained information that prompted the 
agency to assert that "[CRTs] are sometimes managed so carelessly 
[overseas] that they pose possible human health and environmental risks 
from such practices as open burning, land disposal, and dumping into 
rivers." As a result, for nearly 2 years, CRT exporters have been 
required to notify the appropriate EPA regional office when the items 
are destined for reuse. When CRTs are exported for recycling, the 
exporter must first notify EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance in Washington, D.C., which then obtains consent from the 
importing country. The written acknowledgment of the importing 
country's consent, which EPA then sends to the exporter, must accompany 
the shipment. If these conditions are not met, the CRTs are considered 
hazardous waste subject to full RCRA regulation because they typically 
fail EPA's tests for toxicity.[Footnote 18] As of June 2008, 25 
companies have submitted to EPA 47 notices for export of CRTs for 
recycling. These companies informed EPA that they intended to 
responsibly recycle CRTs at facilities in Brazil, Canada, Korea, 
Malaysia, and Mexico. 

Besides CRTs, most other types of exported used electronics can be 
mismanaged and cause serious health and environmental problems 
overseas. These products, however, are generally not considered 
"hazardous" under EPA's regulatory definition. Consequently, exporters 
can ship most types of used electronic products, such as computers, 
printers, and cell phones, without restriction. Under RCRA regulations, 
waste products are designated as "hazardous" according to the extent to 
which they will leach toxins if disposed of in unlined landfills. 
[Footnote 19] The tests used to make such a designation do not account 
for the potential for toxic exposure when items are disassembled or 
handled differently, such as by burning, as they often are outside the 
United States, particularly in developing countries. 

In contrast, the European Union's hazardous waste rules govern the 
export of nearly all types of used electronics, generally requiring 
that exporters notify relevant environmental protection agencies and 
receive consent from importing countries. In addition, the European 
Union has banned the export of hazardous materials contained within 
waste electronic and electrical equipment to non-OECD countries. 
[Footnote 20] 

Companies Exporting Nonworking CRTs Can Easily Circumvent EPA's 
Regulatory Controls: 

The limited regulation that exists over used electronics exports from 
the United States--namely, the CRT rule--is largely ineffectual because 
EPA's implementation of it apparently has not deterred companies from 
illegally exporting these items from the United States. When we posed 
as foreign buyers looking for nonworking CRT monitors, 43 U.S. 
companies that responded to our fictitious requests were willing to 
export nonworking CRTs to us, in apparent violation of the CRT rule. 
[Footnote 21] According to EPA records, as of July 2008, only 1 of 
these 43 companies submitted a notification for recycling as required 
by the CRT rule.[Footnote 22] The company that submitted the 
notification for recycling, however, informed EPA that it intended to 
export CRTs to Malaysia for recycling, whereas our fictitious request 
was for exports to Hong Kong. Moreover, as of July 2008, the government 
of Malaysia has not consented to CRT imports from this company. 

We reached employees with 18 of the 43 companies and interviewed them 
about the effect of the CRT rule on their business. In some cases, 
employees claimed that their companies do not export CRTs, even though 
we received contradictory information from e-mails they sent to our 
fictitious foreign brokers, as shown by the following examples: 

* A regional manager for a trading company in California stated that he 
was not aware of CRT rule notification requirements, but his company 
does not export CRTs. In an e-mail to our fictitious broker in 
Pakistan, however, he offered to sell "as-is" CRT monitors. In 
addition, his company offered 900 as-is CRT monitors, some with power 
cords cut, on a Chinese e-commerce Web site. 

* A sales representative for a large electronics recycler in New Jersey 
said that he was not aware of the CRT rule and was not the right person 
to speak to about this issue. This same individual, however, told our 
fictitious buyer from Hong Kong not to worry about U.S. laws' holding 
up export of untested CRT monitors. He explained that "it's the laws at 
[the port of Hong Kong] that you have to find out about."[Footnote 23] 

* A representative of an electronics-recycling company in Colorado told 
us that the company does not export CRTs; instead, all CRTs are 
recycled in-house, so the CRT rule does not apply. This same person 
offered to sell 1,500 CRT monitors and 1,200 CRT televisions, which 
were ready for immediate shipment, to our fictitious broker in Hong 
Kong. 

* A representative of an electronics-recycling company in Washington 
State told us that all of its CRT monitors are sent to its shredding 
facility in Oregon. A sales associate at the company, however, offered 
to sell 4 containers of CRT monitors (approximately 3,200 units) in 
April 2008 and another 20 containers (approximately 16,000 units) in 
June 2008 to our fictitious broker in Hong Kong. 

* A representative of a metal-recycling company in Illinois told us 
that the CRT rule does not apply to this company because it sends all 
of its CRT glass to a lead smelter in the United States. In response to 
an e-mail inquiry to ship nonworking and untested CRT monitors to 
Southeast Asia, however, this person wrote back, "What are you paying 
for the monitors? Let me know and I'll give you an inventory count." 

We were unable to interview the other 25 companies that indicated a 
desire to export CRTs to our fictitious foreign brokers, although some 
of them showed a willingness to knowingly export CRTs in apparent 
violation of the CRT rule. For example, an electronics recycler in Utah 
who offered to sell five containers of used CRTs stated in an e-mail 
that he had had "no problems with the CRT rule so far." He offered to 
mix the broken materials at the back of the containers, which implies 
he is aware that it is illegal to export broken CRTs without consent. 
In addition, a computer wholesaler in Wisconsin offered to sell two 
containers (900 units per container), telling us that the CRT rule will 
definitely not affect shipment: "We ship these overseas all the time," 
he wrote. 

Many of the companies that responded to our fictitious foreign brokers, 
particularly the electronics recyclers, actively promote an 
environmentally responsible public image. Nearly all of the electronic 
recyclers claimed to be environmentally friendly, with at least 17 of 
these companies citing on their Web sites the hazards of improper 
disposal of used electronics equipment. At least 3 of these recyclers 
held Earth Day 2008 electronics-recycling events. Some of the 
electronics recyclers accept used CRTs at no charge, while others 
charge the consumer, ostensibly to cover recycling expenses. One 
Maryland electronics recycler, for instance, charges from $10 to $30 
for CRT monitors, depending on size, to cover its "responsible, 
domestic recycling costs." In fact, the company's Web site states that 
its mission is to be globally responsible and asserts that it sends its 
monitors to domestic glass-to-glass recycling facilities. Yet when we 
posed as a buyer in Singapore, the Chief Operating Officer of this 
company asked what price we were paying for untested, as-is CRT 
monitors, suggesting that he was interested in selling CRTs to us. 
Another recycler from Missouri states on its Web site that it is an 
organization "dedicated to keeping old discarded computer equipment 
from entering America's landfills." This company, however, offered to 
sell a container-load of CRT monitors to our fictitious broker in Hong 
Kong, offering us a 10 percent discount because we were new buyers. 

At least two electronics recyclers that responded to our fictitious 
foreign brokers have purchased used state-government surplus CRT 
monitors from two auction Web sites. One of these sites was 
GovDeals.com, a Web site that posts surplus equipment from state and 
local government agencies, indicating that government CRTs may be among 
those offered for sale to overseas brokers. In our review of one 
auction site's records for sales of surplus electronics between May 
2007 and May 2008, a New York electronics recycler made four purchases 
of used electronics from the New York state Office of General Services, 
including 221 CRT monitors. In response to our fictitious Hong Kong 
broker's inquiry on the availability of nonworking CRT monitors, this 
company replied, "Yes. Many. What is your best price?" In February 
2008, a Georgia electronics recycler purchased two lots of computer 
monitors from the state of Alabama's Surplus Property Division on 
GovDeals.com, one lot of 100 CRT monitors for $45 and another lot of 
155 CRT monitors for $366. This company was also ready to send three 
container-loads of a mix of untested CRT monitors to our fictitious 
broker in India. For an additional $400, this company offered to "hand 
stuff" the container to increase the load from about 850 monitors per 
container to between 1,100 and 1,200 monitors per container. 

EPA Has Done Little to Enforce the CRT Rule: 

EPA has done little to enforce the CRT rule. Since the rule took effect 
in January 2007, Hong Kong's Environmental Protection Department and 
its Customs Department have worked together to intercept and return 26 
containers of "waste" CRT monitors to the United States. In each 
instance, the U.S. exporters neither notified EPA nor received consent 
from Hong Kong. An official from Hong Kong's Environmental Protection 
Department stated that his agency would not grant consent for importing 
such items because under Hong Kong regulations, it is illegal to import 
CRTs from the United States. From January to July 2008, we provided 
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance with current 
information we received from Hong Kong's Environmental Protection 
Department, which included information on six shipments (10 40-foot 
containers) of waste CRTs intercepted and returned to the United States 
during this period, one of which was returned from Hong Kong multiple 
times. 

In one instance, we asked U.S. Customs and Border Protection to detain 
a container that was intercepted in Hong Kong and returned to the 
United States in February 2008. We viewed the contents of this 
container at the Port of Long Beach, California. We observed hundreds 
of CRT computer monitors stacked haphazardly, some with cracked plastic 
cases and broken glass tubes (see fig. 5).[Footnote 24] 

[A Tale of Three Containers: 
Three containers were shipped across the Pacific Ocean four times 
before EPA initiated enforcement action. Hong Kongï¿½s Environmental 
Protection Department notified GAO of three 40-foot containers of CRT 
monitors that had been inspected in Hong Kong and returned to the Port 
of Los Angeles because they contained ï¿½wasteï¿½ CRT monitors, which are 
illegal for import into Hong Kong. EPA records indicate that the U.S. 
exporter had not notified EPA. GAO notified EPAï¿½s Office of Enforcement 
and Compliance Assurance that the containers were still at the Port of 
Los Angeles. After sitting at the port for 11 more days, the three 40-
foot containers were loaded onto another cargo ship and re-exported to 
Hong Kong. An EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 
official explained to GAO that the original shipper had placed the CRT 
monitors in the containers ï¿½by mistakeï¿½ and that the company had 
voluntarily removed the CRT monitors before re-exporting the containers 
to Hong Kong. About 3 weeks later, Hong Kongï¿½s Environmental Protection 
Department intercepted the containers a second time and verified that 
the three containers still contained the same ï¿½wasteï¿½ CRT monitors. 
They were returned again to the Port of Los Angeles, at which time EPA 
detained the containers and arranged for their inspection. The result 
of EPAï¿½s investigation is pending. According to an EPA inspector, the 
shipper had simply changed the name of his business to a fictitious 
company and re-exported the containers after they had originally been 
returned from Hong Kong.] 

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

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

We received photographic evidence showing that this illegal shipment of 
CRT monitors originated from the Denver metropolitan area. According to 
a third-party source, these monitors came from an electronics recycler 
in Colorado, which claims to hold 20 to 30 community recycling events 
each year for homeowners' associations, city governments, and property 
managers. The company's Web site also states that "many domestic 
recycling companies ship e-waste to China, where it ends up harming the 
environment and the population. With [this company], your e-waste is 
recycled properly, right here in the United States, not simply dumped 
on somebody else." 

The director of EPA's Waste and Chemical Enforcement Division explained 
that inspections to determine compliance with environmental laws are 
labor intensive because inspectors must spend time planning and 
preparing before each inspection occurs. After an inspection, 
inspectors must spend time analyzing any information collected, 
drafting an inspection report, and determining necessary follow-up 
actions. Given the number of regulated facilities and competing 
priority demands, the director said, EPA must "carefully plan" how it 
directs its inspection resources. 

In at least one case, EPA chose not to physically inspect and detain a 
container that was intercepted and returned to the United States by 
Hong Kong, even though EPA acknowledged that the container likely 
contained broken CRTs. In this case, referring to a container returning 
to the Port of Tacoma in April 2008, EPA asked a Customs and Border 
Patrol officer not to detain the container on its behalf, according to 
an Enforcement and Compliance Assurance regional manager: 

EPA has reason to believe that this container includes used CRTs that 
may be in broken or unstable condition. Since CRTs typically contain 
hazardous constituents, I recommend that the contents of the container 
should not be opened or disturbed unless appropriate precautions have 
been taken to protect individuals handling the materials and to prevent 
the materials from being released to the environment. 

EPA concluded that an inspection of the container was not necessary to 
address the apparent noncompliance. Customs and Border Protection 
inspected the container and provided information to EPA about the 
container's contents and the identity of the shipper. Upon consultation 
with EPA, Customs and Border Protection released the container, which 
was re-exported to Hong Kong. We do not know if Hong Kong's 
Environmental Protection Department again intercepted the container. 
EPA's deputy director for Civil Enforcement stated that EPA intended to 
initiate contact with the responsible party for this shipment. The 
outcome of EPA's investigation was pending at the time of our report. 

The Deputy Director of EPA's Office of Civil Enforcement told us that 
EPA's enforcement of the CRT rule relies primarily on tips and 
complaints. As of August 2008, EPA reported having 10 ongoing 
investigations of potentially illegal CRT shipments based on such 
complaints (7 of which appeared to be from us.) As a result of its 
investigations, in July 2008, EPA issued its first administrative 
penalty complaint against a California company we identified, seeking 
the maximum civil penalty of $32,500. In the view of one recycler, who 
had expressed willingness to sell nonworking CRTs to our fictitious 
broker from Singapore, "If EPA whacked some [exporters], then they 
would comply with the rule." 

The Director of EPA's Hazardous Waste Identification Division 
acknowledged in an e-mail to EPA's RCRA regional directors, "[I] expect 
there has been considerable noncompliance with the rule's notification 
provision." The Deputy Director of the agency's Office of Civil 
Enforcement, however, told us that EPA's initial efforts to address 
noncompliance have been aimed at education and outreach. He explained 
that given the rule's relative newness, the regulated community must 
first be made aware of the rule's requirements.[Footnote 25] His 
statement is consistent with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance's Guide for Addressing Environmental Problems, which states 
that the regulated community should be aware of and understand the 
regulations that apply to it and have the means of achieving compliance 
with those requirements.[Footnote 26] 

We believe that EPA's explanation that it needs to focus on education 
and outreach is insufficient. The explanation that an enforcement 
deterrent should await the effects of an education program implies that 
violations to date have resulted largely from unawareness of the rule 
and not from willful disregard for it. This implication has clearly not 
been borne out. With little effort, we were able to observe substantial 
willingness to engage in activities that would appear to violate the 
CRT rule--including instances where the exporters were aware of the CRT 
rule--by simply monitoring e-commerce Web sites and conducting limited 
follow-up. EPA, on the other hand, has done little to ascertain the 
extent of noncompliance with the CRT rule. In the absence of such an 
effort, it has set no enforcement targets, conducted no monitoring, and 
taken only one action against a violator of the rule.[Footnote 27] 
Moreover, the agency has not taken the initial steps necessary to 
develop a program for identifying and prosecuting exporters who do not 
notify the agency when shipping CRTs overseas for recycling or reuse, 
and it does not have plans to develop such a program. The deputy 
director of EPA's Office of Civil Enforcement explained that there is 
no "hard and fast" rule on how long EPA is going to rely on outreach as 
its primary tool for the CRT rule or when the agency will use its 
enforcement resources to deter noncompliance. He added that enforcement 
of the CRT rule is one of the office's many responsibilities, but it is 
not among its highest enforcement priorities. 

EPA Has Several Options That Would Strengthen the Federal Role in 
Reducing Harmful Exports of Used Electronics: 

Even if there were total compliance with the CRT rule, the effect would 
reach only a small percentage of all potentially harmful used 
electronics exported from the United States. Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance guidance states that if an environmental problem would not be 
solved if 100 percent compliance were achieved within the regulated 
community, then modification of regulations or other initiatives may be 
necessary.[Footnote 28] It adds that if "gaps" exist in the regulatory 
structure and opportunities exist for filling these gaps, voluntary 
initiatives, new regulations, or combinations of multiple approaches 
may be needed to fill these gaps. As we have shown, such a gap exists 
with respect to used electronics that do not meet the current U.S. 
regulatory definition of hazardous waste. More comprehensive regulation 
of used electronics exports could narrow this gap. Options in this 
regard include, but are not limited to, amending RCRA regulations to 
include exports of used electronics posing health or environmental 
risks when disassembled or reclaimed, expanding the scope of the CRT 
rule, and revising the regulatory definition of hazardous waste. In 
addition, EPA has options to enhance U.S. control over the export of 
used electronics: It could submit a legislative package to Congress for 
ratifying the Basel Convention, work with Customs and Border Protection 
and with the International Trade Commission to improve identification 
and tracking of exported used electronics, and update RCRA regulations 
to reflect U.S. obligations under OECD decisions. 

Amend RCRA Regulations: 

EPA could amend RCRA regulations to cover exports of used electronics 
where risks exist to human health or the environment when reclaimed for 
reuse or recycling, an amendment that--if implemented--could bring U.S. 
export controls more in line with those of other industrialized 
countries. For example, EPA could revise the definition of "hazardous" 
in its RCRA regulations to encompass certain used products that can 
pose risks upon disassembly or reclamation, including desktop 
computers, laptop computers, printers, and cell phones. Currently, many 
electronics contain toxic constituents in small quantities, yet do not 
come within the regulatory definition of "hazardous" because these 
substances do not leach from the electronic products at unsafe amounts 
under tests simulating disposal in a landfill. Compelling evidence 
shows, however, that when exported, many of these used electronics are 
disassembled in a way that results in human and environmental exposure 
to toxic components. 

As long as the regulatory definition of "hazardous" does not include 
such used products, they will not be subject to any of RCRA's export 
provisions, such as notice and consent, and the burden for identifying 
and controlling the flow of such products will remain solely with the 
receiving country. A revised definition or new rule for other used 
electronics could be developed to effectively cover only exports while 
conditionally exempting domestic activity from substantive 
requirements, if EPA determines that such conditions along with other 
approaches--such as voluntary initiatives and existing regulatory 
controls on recycling facilities--provide adequate domestic protection 
of health and the environment. 

If EPA expanded the scope of used electronics subject to RCRA export 
rules, it could consider requiring exporters of such products for 
reuse--not just those for recycling--to notify EPA. The rationale for 
regulating used electronics destined for reuse with at least a 
notification requirement would be the same as for the CRT rule. In the 
preamble to the final CRT rule, for instance, EPA explained that it 
obtained compelling evidence showing that exported CRTs often are not 
handled as valuable commodities in foreign countries. Used and unused 
intact CRTs are identical in appearance; consequently, it would be 
difficult to distinguish between intact CRTs destined for recycling 
(including disassembly and reclamation) and those for reuse. This same 
difficulty characterizes other used electronic products, such as 
desktop computers, laptop computers, flat panel monitors, and cell 
phones, which can look identical whether functional or broken. 

Moreover, EPA could examine its authority to modify its regulations so 
that regulated used electronics--when shipped for reuse and 
indistinguishable from those shipped for recycling--would be subject to 
the same control procedures as when shipped for recycling. Currently, 
exporters of CRTs for reuse or repair are required to notify EPA of 
their intent to export CRTs, whereas exporters of CRTs for recycling 
are required to notify EPA and to obtain consent from the importing 
country. Thus, although exporters of CRTs for reuse have a lesser 
requirement than those exporting CRTs for recycling, the former need 
only assert that the products are reusable or repairable, and the 
products can be visually indistinguishable. Regulating used electronics 
exported for reuse in this manner, however, would likely create an 
"overwhelming" number of notice-and-consent requests for EPA to handle 
each month, according to EPA officials, and could be successfully 
managed only with additional resources. 

Revising RCRA regulations to more comprehensively cover used 
electronics for export could help ensure that they are handled as 
commodities and, if necessary, disposed of safely. Once regulated as 
hazardous wastes, such used electronics would be subject to RCRA's 
existing export provisions. Revising RCRA regulations would require one 
or more rule makings, which could take several years to implement. 

Provide Congress with a Legislative Package for U.S. Ratification of 
the Basel Convention: 

U.S. regulations contain no provisions for addressing situations when a 
waste is not classified as hazardous under U.S. law but is so 
classified--with its trade restricted or prohibited--under an importing 
country's law. The effect is that the importing country bears the full 
burden of identifying and intercepting such materials, without the 
benefit of U.S. cooperation as the export country. By contrast, the 
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous 
Wastes and Their Disposal--effectively the international standard for 
hazardous wastes shipped for disposal or recycling--provides for 
cooperation between exporting and importing countries. For example, the 
convention requires that an exporting country stop shipments of waste 
if it has reason to believe that the waste will not be handled in an 
environmentally sound manner, as well as an obligation to prohibit 
exports to countries that have prohibited the import of that type of 
waste. The Basel Convention also established a prior notice-and-consent 
system for such wastes. While the U.S. has an existing notice-and- 
consent system, the Basel Convention and its system have significant 
distinctions. According to EPA's International and Transportation 
Branch Chief, U.S. ratification of the Basel Convention has five key 
implications: 

* Scope of waste. The Basel Convention has a much broader definition of 
"controlled" waste than the current RCRA regulatory definition. In 
contrast to the United States, which, to encourage recycling and reuse, 
has numerous conditional exclusions and exemptions to the definition of 
waste, the Basel Convention considers a broader range of items as 
waste. In addition, unlike the United States and OECD, the Basel 
Convention defines hazardous waste in terms of intrinsic hazards; 
therefore, a product is potentially hazardous even when it contains 
very small amounts of toxic substances, as is the case with cell phones 
and other electronic devices.[Footnote 29] 

* Notice-and-consent process. If the United States ratified the Basel 
Convention, an exporter would typically need to work through EPA to 
obtain written consent from the importing country before exporting 
material to a country that considered this material to be hazardous 
waste. U.S. law provides a notice-and-consent process for regulated 
hazardous waste exports; if the United States ratified the Basel 
Convention, the number of products requiring notice and consent would 
likely increase. 

* Environmentally sound waste management. The Basel Convention imposes 
a requirement on the exporting country to ensure that the wastes will 
be handled and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. 
Implementing this provision would require EPA to make this 
determination, which could involve evaluating overseas facilities. EPA 
has already developed a plan to determine environmental soundness in 
this fashion, but actual implementation will likely require additional 
resources. 

* Understanding importing countries' laws. U.S. ratification of the 
Basel Convention would impose on the United States a greater obligation 
to understand the hazardous waste laws of foreign countries to 
determine what materials U.S. exporters cannot export to other 
countries. Exporting countries must prohibit or not allow exports to 
countries that have informed the Basel Secretariat of an import 
prohibition. 

* Take-back provisions. The Basel Convention requires that if an export 
of hazardous waste is refused by the importing country or facility, the 
exporting country must take it back. At present, EPA lacks the legal 
authority or the implementing regulations to take back waste, according 
to EPA officials. For example, from 1998 through 2001, Pyramid 
Chemicals shipped 29 containers of falsely labeled hazardous wastes, 
which were intended for Nigeria, from the United States to the 
Netherlands. Environmental protection officials in the Netherlands 
noticed leakage from some of the shipping containers and detained the 
shipment. Dutch officials cooperated with EPA, but EPA could not have 
the containers returned to the United States for proper handling. 
Instead, EPA had to work with its criminal investigative units to 
prosecute Pyramid Chemicals. According to EPA's International and 
Transportation Branch Chief, EPA found itself in an embarrassing 
position. Ultimately, the containers were not returned; they instead 
had to be disposed of by Dutch officials.[Footnote 30] In proposing the 
implementing legislation necessary for U.S. ratification of the Basel 
Convention, EPA would seek to obtain the statutory authority to take 
back hazardous waste shipments denied by an importing country. 

Some government and industry officials have expressed concerns about 
some aspects of the Basel Convention. For example, the scrap-recycling 
industry has mixed views about Basel ratification because of lingering 
uncertainties over the convention's definitions of exports for 
recycling, refurbishment, and reuse. Some Basel parties argue, for 
example, that the Basel Convention regulates the international movement 
of used products for repair, refurbishment, or remanufacture. If Basel 
Convention parties decide that exports for refurbishment should be 
controlled in the same way that other exports are controlled, then, 
according to EPA officials, the agency would have to manage an 
"overwhelming" number of notice and consents. The U.S. State Department 
takes the position that trade of used products for refurbishment is not 
within the convention; it has also asserted that the current Basel 
system for controlling international shipments of hazardous waste makes 
trade in many used and scrap electronics "difficult." The department 
favors alternative systems for such wastes under the convention. 
Although disagreement persists, some Basel parties are working together 
to develop interim proposals, described in the Mobile Phone Partnership 
Initiative, for managing exports for refurbishment under the Basel 
Convention. Under these proposals, the Basel Convention is exploring 
appropriate mechanisms for exports of mobile phones destined for the 
reuse and refurbishment markets. These proposals could serve as a model 
for regulating reuse and refurbishment exports of other potentially 
hazardous items. 

For the United States to become a party to the Basel Convention, 
Congress would need to enact implementing legislation giving a U.S. 
agency, such as EPA, the authority to enforce the convention's 
provisions domestically.[Footnote 31] Passage of such legislation would 
complete the prerequisites to ratification and, in effect, would make 
the United States party to the Basel Convention. EPA informs us that 
the United States supports ratification of the Basel Convention, but to 
date no implementing legislation has been enacted. Although EPA had 
developed a legislative package that, if signed into law, would give 
EPA the statutory authorities it needs to fulfill the requirements of 
the Basel Convention, the legislative package has not been submitted to 
Congress. The legislative package has not been submitted to Congress 
because, according to Solid Waste officials, the agency has other 
priorities for congressional attention. These officials told us that 
EPA instead wants attention devoted to its legislative package on the 
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which is a 
global treaty to protect human health and the environment from widely 
distributed toxic chemicals that remain intact in the environment for 
long periods. 

Cooperate with Other Federal Agencies to Improve Tracking of Exported 
Used Electronics: 

The U.S. government has adopted the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as the 
basic system for tracking exports for duty, quota, and statistical 
purposes. While the schedule is based on an international standard, the 
United States uses more detailed categories to track goods of 
particular national interest. The U.S. International Trade Commission 
is responsible for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, while Customs and 
Border Protection is responsible for interpreting and enforcing it. 

At present, the harmonized tariff codes neither enable identification 
of used electronics nor distinguish whether such electronics are being 
exported for recycling or reuse. Through identification of potentially 
illegal shipments of CRTs, we observed that shippers described used 
electronic exports as "mixed plastics" and "scrap metals." Customs 
regulations require that U.S. exporters use the 7-digit international 
standard code that most closely describes the contents of a container, 
but there is no such code for used electronics. U.S. exporters can use 
8-or 10-digit codes, which helps Customs and Border Protection 
officials track specific product types. 

Adding more detailed codes to the schedule could assist other countries 
in controlling used electronics exported from the United States. For 
example, a country such as China, which reports it has tried to ban all 
imports of used electronics, could use the codes as listed on the 
shipper export declaration accompanying the shipment to select 
shipments for inspection and potential rejection at the border. 
Further, such codes could facilitate basic statistical tracking of such 
exports, including by type, price, and receiving country, among other 
data. 

Customs and Border Protection appears to have a framework in place that 
could help EPA obtain data and improve oversight of exported used 
electronics. The agency's automated tracking systems electronically 
store information from shippers' export declaration forms, which 
include tariff codes. These systems help Customs monitor and, if 
necessary, enforce the provisions of agreements it has with other 
agencies.[Footnote 32] For example, these systems are used to target 
high-risk outgoing shipments, such as those possibly containing 
materials that would have national security implications. To determine 
which shipments to target, Customs uses criteria based on those 
provided by the responsible agency, such as EPA for hazardous waste 
shipments. While most of Customs' monitoring and enforcement efforts 
directed to outgoing containers occur on behalf of the State Department 
and the Department of Commerce, Customs officials told us that 
provisions are in place to monitor outgoing shipments of RCRA hazardous 
wastes and CRTs. Because Customs enforces the policies, directives, and 
regulations of other agencies, if EPA were to designate used 
electronics as hazardous waste, and tariff codes were developed to 
describe such shipments, Customs could give additional scrutiny to 
outgoing shipments of used electronic products. Moreover, EPA could ask 
for greater scrutiny of particular types of shipments. One Customs 
official stated that, to his knowledge, EPA has not requested Customs' 
assistance to enforce RCRA hazardous waste export provisions. Beyond 
potentially using the information for enforcement, EPA could benefit 
from the data that detailed codes would generate, such as quantitative 
information not currently available about potentially hazardous 
exports, whether regulated or not. 

Update RCRA Regulations to Reflect OECD Changes: 

Although a member of OECD, the United States has not yet updated its 
RCRA regulations to reflect the 2001 OECD decision concerning 
transboundary shipments of wastes for recovery and its subsequent 2004 
amendments. Because the majority of OECD members are also Basel 
parties, the OECD decision revised waste classifications to harmonize 
them with those of the Basel Convention. The decision also altered the 
OECD notice-and-consent framework. Although the 2001 change does not 
require changes to the scope of hazardous wastes regulated in the 
United States, it does require adoption of the classification system to 
facilitate coordination among exporting and importing countries. 

EPA has acknowledged that the 2001 decision is legally binding and must 
be implemented by amending RCRA regulations. EPA told us that they 
submitted proposed changes to RCRA regulations to the Office of 
Management and Budget on May 8, 2008, and EPA officials anticipate 
issuing a proposed rule in mid-November in the Federal Register. The 
proposal would revise RCRA regulations to be completely consistent with 
the 2001 OECD decision, according to EPA officials, and would give EPA 
the regulatory authority to fulfill its obligations as described in the 
decision. 

The options described above--amending RCRA regulations to broaden U.S. 
control over exported used electronics, submitting a legislative 
package to Congress for consideration to complete ratification of the 
Basel Convention, working with Customs and Border Protection and with 
the International Trade Commission to improve identification and 
tracking of exported used electronics, and updating RCRA regulations to 
reflect U.S. obligations under OECD--are just several possible options 
to strengthen the federal role in preventing exports of harmful used 
electronics. These options are not mutually exclusive, and they could 
be used together in any combination. In particular, the first three 
options could explicitly address exports to developing countries where 
adverse human health and environmental effects occur. Broadening U.S. 
control over exported used electronics, and cooperating with other 
federal agencies to improve identification and tracking of these 
devices, are actions that can be spearheaded by EPA. 

Conclusions: 

Americans have increasingly adopted the environmental tenet of "reduce, 
reuse, recycle," but when it comes to obsolete electronics, they lack 
sound information on their disposal options. Exporting used electronics 
to support reuse and recycling ought not be discouraged. Recycling 
electronics can provide social, economic, and environmental benefits, 
both in the United States and abroad, such as providing affordable 
computers to the developing world. In recent years, however, 
irresponsible practices have come to light, prompting EPA to implement 
notification requirements for any company exporting CRTs. To date, the 
agency has established no enforcement targets, done no monitoring, 
conducted only preliminary follow-up of suspected violations, and taken 
only one enforcement action. Not only do EPA's present enforcement 
efforts fall short, but the agency also apparently has no tangible 
plans to develop more effective ones. Until an enforcement mechanism is 
developed and effectively implemented, consumers and businesses aiming 
to be environmentally responsible with their used electronics-- 
particularly CRT monitors and televisions--should be skeptical of some 
companies that claim to responsibly recycle these devices. 

Because of high demand for the metals and other resources within 
electronic products, all kinds of exported used electronics--computers, 
televisions, laptops, printers, and cell phones, among others--are 
dismantled in developing countries where local waste management systems 
are often not equipped to handle them. Despite well-documented health 
and environmental effects, EPA's regulation of exported used 
electronics is confined only to CRTs. In stark contrast, countries that 
are party to the Basel Convention, including most members of OECD, have 
largely embraced the idea that industrialized countries should be 
responsible for ensuring the environmentally sound management of 
potentially hazardous items exported to countries that cannot guarantee 
the safety of workers who will handle them. In issuing the CRT rule, 
EPA exercised its authority to regulate exports of functional CRTs 
because of the likelihood that some will be handled unsafely and the 
danger that they pose when disassembled. Following the rationale of 
this rule to provide controls over other potentially harmful used 
electronics could help bring the United States in line with important 
international norms. A number of options could move EPA forward along 
these lines, such as providing controls over electronic products that 
pose health and environmental risks when unsafely disassembled, such as 
in another country, and taking steps to honor key international 
agreements. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, identify a timetable for 
developing and implementing a systematic plan to enforce the CRT rule. 
This plan should include the basic elements of effective enforcement, 
such as enforcement targets, monitoring, follow-up of suspected 
violations, and prosecution. 

We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, direct the heads of 
appropriate offices to take the following two actions: 

* Develop options on how the agency could broaden its regulations under 
existing RCRA authority to address the export of used electronic 
devices that might not be classified as hazardous waste by current U.S. 
regulations but have a high likelihood of threatening human health and 
the environment when unsafely disassembled, as often occurs overseas. 
Among the options that should be considered is expanding the scope of 
the CRT rule to cover other exported used electronics and revising the 
regulatory definition of hazardous waste. 

* Cooperate with other federal agencies to improve the tracking of 
exported used electronics, which could be accomplished by implementing 
specific harmonized tariff codes for these devices. 

In addition, because determining whether to ratify international 
treaties is a policy decision that rests with Congress and the 
President, we recommend that EPA submit to Congress a legislative 
package for ratification of the Basel Convention, so Congress can 
deliberate whether and to what extent the United States should adopt 
additional controls over the export of used electronics that may 
threaten human health and the environment when disassembled overseas. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Administrator, EPA, for 
review and comment. EPA's August 1, 2008, letter said the draft report 
"does not provide a complete or balanced picture of the agency's 
electronic waste program" and disagreed with our recommendations to 
improve enforcement of the CRT rule and to broaden EPA's authority to 
cover used electronics exports other than CRTs. We continue to believe 
that, as now constructed, the breadth of U.S. regulation covering 
exported used electronics is unacceptably narrow--an outlier among most 
industrialized countries in the world. We also believe that EPA's 
enforcement over used CRT exports--the only electronic device currently 
covered by U.S. regulations--has done little to deter violations. 

The following paragraphs summarize EPA's comments and our responses. In 
keeping with the structure of EPA's letter, we then address the 
agency's comments on our findings related to (1) EPA's enforcement of 
the CRT rule, (2) EPA's outreach to affected parties about CRT rule 
requirements, and (3) the potential expansion of regulation over 
exported used electronics. 

Overall observations. EPA wrote, "Overall, as a general matter, EPA is 
concerned that readers of the report may be misled to believe that a 
very large percentage of U.S. electronic waste is currently being 
reused and recycled globally." The agency then cited statistics showing 
that "80 to 85 percent of used electronics are disposed of 
domestically, primarily in landfills." The wording suggests that 
because only 15 percent to 20 percent of used electronics are collected 
for reuse or recycling, our report overstates the health and 
environmental problems associated with exported used electronics. We 
find that this response needs to be put in the proper perspective. 
First, the document EPA references shows that 330 million electronic 
products were "ready for end-of-life management" in 2006. Fifteen 
percent to 20 percent of 330 million (50 million to 66 million) is 
still a significant number--especially in light of EPA's estimate that 
"a vast majority" of such products are exported. Second, and more 
important, it is EPA's stated goal to significantly reduce the amount 
of used electronics going into landfills--a goal that is also pursued 
by a growing number of states that are banning the dumping of 
electronics in their landfills. Over time, the effect of these efforts 
can be expected to greatly increase the quantity of used electronics 
being both recycled and exported. Under this likely scenario, it will 
become that much more important to ensure that used electronics are 
handled safely and exported in a manner that complies with U.S. and 
international laws. 

EPA's enforcement of the CRT rule. Among EPA's most significant 
comments regarding our enforcement-related findings is its contention 
that the agency should not be asked to "build an extensive compliance 
monitoring and enforcement program" around the CRT rule or any other 
individual provision of its broader RCRA program. We believe the 
comment mischaracterizes our recommendation and the resource commitment 
that would be needed to establish a credible enforcement deterrent. We 
are not recommending that EPA establish an extensive program, but 
rather that it develop the basic enforcement components needed to 
enforce the CRT rule, such as enforcement targets and a plan for 
compliance monitoring, following up on suspected violations, and 
prosecuting violators. Moreover, we continue to believe that these 
actions are reasonable and necessary in light of (1) the substantial 
number of exporters we observed willing to export in apparent violation 
of the CRT rule and (2) EPA's very limited enforcement of the CRT rule. 
In this connection, our work has demonstrated that much can be done to 
identify violators and deter noncompliance without an exorbitant 
commitment of resources. It took little of our time and effort, for 
example, to identify potential violators and potentially illegal 
shipments. Specifically, in several hours--rather than days--of 
monitoring e-commerce Web sites, we observed substantial willingness to 
engage in activities that would appear to violate the CRT rule. 
Similarly, it took only minutes to identify potentially illegal CRT 
shipments by contacting environmental protection officials in countries 
known to import these items and by working with Customs and Border 
Protection officials to detain and observe the shipments. 

EPA's outreach to affected parties about CRT rule requirements. EPA 
stated that our draft report incorrectly described the agency's 
outreach efforts as consisting of only a limited number of 
presentations at conferences and similar venues. The letter points to 
the agency's CRT rule "Communication Plan," stating that the plan "sets 
forth a number of specific activities to reach out to the regulated 
community." It further states that EPA "implemented this plan 
immediately after the rule was published" in July 2006. We have used 
the information provided by EPA to more fully describe what the agency 
states is the entire range of its outreach activities. That said, our 
characterization of EPA's actual outreach efforts is based on comments 
we obtained from EPA program officials during our review and, most 
recently, at meetings with EPA Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and 
Solid Waste officials in May and June 2008. Moreover, although an 
outreach plan may have existed for some time, it is unclear to what 
extent these efforts have focused on educating the regulated community 
about the need to notify EPA when exporting used CRTs. For example, a 
March 2008, internal Office of Solid Waste e-mail to EPA's RCRA 
division directors--prepared 20 months after the rule's adoption-- 
stated, "We expect that there has been considerable noncompliance with 
the notification provisions of the CRT rule and we are planning to 
develop [emphasis added] a strategy for reaching out to the regulated 
community and the states to educate them about the [notification] 
requirements." Hence, the e-mail suggests that a plan for educating the 
regulated community was still needed at the time of our report. 

Potential expansion of regulation over exported used electronics. EPA 
disagreed with our conclusion that the regulatory framework governing 
used electronic exports was too narrowly constructed and with our 
recommendation that it broaden its regulations under existing RCRA 
authority to address the export of used electronics other than CRTs 
(such as computers and cell phones). EPA contends that it should 
instead pursue nonregulatory, voluntary approaches to address the 
problems discussed in this report, because developing options to 
broaden its RCRA regulatory authority might take years and would entail 
legal complexities. Our findings, however, cast serious doubt about the 
effectiveness of a strategy that relies almost entirely on voluntary 
approaches. Given the compliance issues and market realities we 
identified with just the CRT rule, it is not realistic to expect that 
sufficient control over exports of nonworking and potentially harmful 
electronic devices will be achieved without a credible and enforceable 
regulatory framework. Moreover, we do not believe that the time and 
complexities in establishing necessary regulatory controls over 
electronic waste exports is a sufficiently compelling reason for not 
doing so, particularly in light of the anticipated increase in 
potentially harmful electronic devices available for export. 

EPA's letter appears in appendix II, along with our responses. The 
agency also provided technical comments that were incorporated in our 
final report, as appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested 
congressional committees; the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency; and other interested parties. We will also make 
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will 
be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]. Contact points for 
our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

John B. Stephenson: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To examine the fate of used electronics, we obtained and reviewed 
surveys from Basel Convention Regional Centres in Africa, China, and 
Southeast Asia on electronic waste disassembly and disposal practices. 
We obtained and reviewed conference proceedings and presentations from 
a regional workshop in Siem Reap, Cambodia, held from March 13 through 
15, 2007, on environmentally sound management of electronic wastes in 
Southeast Asia. We interviewed officials with Hong Kong's Environmental 
Protection Department about imports of used electronics from the United 
States. We interviewed experts from government, industry, environmental 
groups, and academia and obtained and reviewed documents authored by 
them to learn how used electronics exported from the United States are 
managed overseas. For example, we interviewed officials with Dell on 
its overseas recycling practices and two companies that export CRT 
monitors to facilities in Southeast Asia from the United States. To 
learn firsthand about practices in Africa, we also spoke with a West 
African computer dealer who imports used computers from the United 
States. In addition, we spoke with officials from Greenpeace in China 
and the Basel Action Network in the United States. We also reviewed 
published scientific studies about the health effects of improper 
recycling practices in Asia. We interviewed a professor at Arizona 
State University currently conducting research on used electronics 
exports. We also attended two conferences on the export of used 
electronics, where we interviewed officials with Toxics Link, a 
nonprofit organization; academic officials from research institutions 
in China, Japan, Switzerland, and the United States; electronics- 
recycling and scrap industry officials; and officials from the 
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) national and regional offices. 

In addition, we monitored two e-commerce Web sites to obtain 
information on requests for used monitors, untested monitors, 
nonworking monitors, cathode-ray tubes (CRT), used CRTs, untested CRTs, 
nonworking CRTs, liquid-crystal displays (LCD), used LCDs, untested 
LCDs, nonworking LCDs, central processing units (CPU), used CPUs, 
untested CPUs, nonworking CPUs, used computers, untested computers, and 
nonworking computers. We collected information from these Internet 
sites from February 2008 to May 2008. Among the information we obtained 
were data on the volume requested, location of request, price, and 
quality of equipment sought (such as working, nonworking, untested, as- 
is, or broken). For CRTs in particular, we estimated the total number 
of units requested using conservative assumptions. For example, if a 
buyer requested one container per month, we estimated that 800 CRTs fit 
in a container and multiplied this number by three to obtain an 
estimated request of 2,400 monitors for the 3-month period. 

To determine the effectiveness of regulatory controls over used 
electronics exported from the United States, we took several 
approaches. First, we interviewed EPA officials and reviewed key 
documents. For example, we interviewed officials in the Office of Solid 
Waste and Emergency Response, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, and the Office of Civil Enforcement to determine what 
challenges exist to implementing EPA's CRT rule. We also reviewed EPA's 
CRT rule and hazardous waste export provisions of the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, and its 
implementing regulations. Finally, we reviewed EPA's Hazardous Waste 
Civil Enforcement Response Policy and the Office of Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance's Guide for Addressing Environmental Problems. 

Second, we posed as buyers of CRTs from India, Indonesia, Hong Kong, 
Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam. We also 
posed as a United States-based broker working for a fictitious company 
in Hong Kong. Using these identities, we e-mailed 343 U.S. companies, 
including members or affiliates of an electronics recyclers' 
association and other companies that posted CRT "sell" offers on the e- 
commerce Web sites we monitored. From these companies, we requested CRT 
monitors that were unlikely to be reused (untested, nonworking, and 
broken CRTs), clearly destined for export, and could be supplied in 
less than the 60-day time period for export notifications under the CRT 
rule. Of the 64 firms that responded to our requests, 43 expressed a 
willingness to export. Among the other 21 companies that responded, 3 
stated that they did not export broken CRT monitors; 7 asked for more 
information about our fictitious identities, such as phone numbers, a 
Web site, or what we intended to do with the broken CRTs; and the 
remaining 11 provided various responses, such as offering broken CRT 
monitors from Canada, currently not having CRT monitors in inventory, 
offering working televisions, or offering Pentium IV motherboards. Of 
the 43 companies that expressed a willingness to export, we reached 18 
in separate interviews and asked employees about their knowledge of the 
CRT rule and their perspectives on its effect on their business. We 
obtained notifications for CRT exports for recycling from EPA's Office 
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and from EPA's regional 
offices, we obtained notifications to export CRTs for reuse. We used 
this information to determine whether the U.S. companies that responded 
to our fictitious foreign buyers had previously filed a notification 
for export with EPA. 

Third, we obtained information from Hong Kong's Environmental 
Protection Department on shipments of used CRTs that the department had 
intercepted and returned to the United States because, according to the 
officials, the shipments violated Hong Kong's hazardous waste import 
laws. For the shipments that occurred during our review, we referred 
the information to EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance. On one occasion, we personally viewed one of these shipments 
at the Port of Long Beach, California, with the assistance of Customs 
and Border Protection officials. 

To examine options for strengthening the federal role in regulating 
used electronics exports, we interviewed EPA officials in the Office of 
Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Office of Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance about the implications of (1) expanding the scope 
of the CRT rule to cover other exported used electronics, (2) 
submitting to Congress a legislative package for ratification of the 
Basel Convention, and (3) updating RCRA regulations to reflect a key 
2002 decision by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development. We interviewed Customs and Border Protection officials 
about the implications of working with EPA to improve tracking of 
exported used electronics. We also examined the regulatory regimes of 
European Union countries pertaining to hazardous waste exports. 

We found the data we obtained on e-commerce Web sites to be adequate to 
conclude that a significant demand exists for exported used 
electronics. We conducted our review from October 2007 through July 
2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe the evidence we obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the 
end of this appendix. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency: 
Washington, D.C. 20480: 
[hyperlink, http://www.epa.gov] 

August 1, 2008: 

Mr. John B. Stephenson, Director: 
Natural Resources & Environment: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G. Street, NW Room 2075: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Stephenson: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
report, "EPA Needs to Take a Stronger and More Comprehensive 
Enforcement Action to Control Harmful U. S. Exports," dated August 
2008. - We have completed our review and have significant concerns with 
the completeness and accuracy of this draft report. 

EPA believes the GAO draft report does not provide a complete or 
balanced picture of the Agency's electronic waste program. In 
particular, the draft report fails to consider enforcement of the 
Cathrode-ray tube (CRT) rule in the larger context of the Resources 
Conservation and Recovery Act's (RCRA's) enforcement program and 
mischaracterizes EPA's actions with respect to incidents of non-
compliance with the rule. Further, EPA disagrees with the 
recommendation to develop a separate program for compliance monitoring 
and enforcement of the CRT rule. In reviewing the draft report, we 
address each of these issues by providing background on the 
responsibilities of the RCRA enforcement program, discussing how EPA 
has responded to information provided by GAO, and explaining what EPA 
will do to help address the larger issue of non-compliance with the 
rule. In addition, we have provided a number of comments, attached, 
that correct technical and factual errors we identified during our 
review. [See comment 1] 

Overall, as a general matter, EPA is concerned that readers of the 
report may be misled to believe that a very large percentage of U.S. 
electronic waste is currently being reused and recycled globally. To 
avoid this mistaken conclusion, the report should put into proper 
perspective the amount of used electronics now being reused or 
recycled. Consumer electronics - including TVs and other video 
equipment, computers, assorted peripherals, audio equipment, and 
phones - comprise less than two percent of the municipal solid waste 
stream. US EPA, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: Facts and 
Figures for 2005. EPA 530-R-06-011. EPA estimates that, in the U.S., 
between 15-20 percent by weight of used and end-of-life electronics 
(TVs, computer products, and cell phones) are collected for reuse and 
recycling. The remaining 80-85 percent is disposed of domestically, 
primarily in landfills. US EPA, Office of Solid Waste. Electronics 
Waste Management in the United States: Fact Sheet: Management of 
Electronic Waste In the United States. April 2007. EPA530-R-07-004a. 
[hyperlink, http://www.epa.gov/ecycling/manage.htm]. [See comment 2] 

We also recommend changing the report's title by eliminating the term 
"Enforcement," because singling out enforcement does not accurately 
reflect the report's content. The report discusses the regulation of 
used electronics. In fact, only one of the report's four 
recommendations is directed at strengthening enforcement. [See comment 
3] 

Enforcement: 

The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and its 
counterparts in EPA's 10 regional offices oversee the compliance 
monitoring and enforcement program for all environmental statutes, 
including RCRA. RCRA regulates the transport, treatment, storage, and 
disposal of hazardous waste. Monitoring compliance and enforcing these 
regulations is no small task. Tens of thousands of entities generate 
and manage more than 80 billion pounds of hazardous waste a year in the 
United States. 

EPA does not agree that formally subdividing the RCRA enforcement 
program to dedicate resources solely to the CRT export rule is wise or 
necessary. [See comment 4] The RCRA regulations governing hazardous 
waste are comprehensive and complex and the threats posed to human 
health and the environment by non-compliance are serious and diverse. 
The current RCRA enforcement program has a demonstrated track record of 
success enforcing all of RCRA's requirements. Given the diversity of 
facilities and problems that the RCRA enforcement program must address, 
it is not practical for EPA to build an extensive compliance monitoring 
and enforcement program around every limited provision of the RCRA 
hazardous waste regulations. That does not mean that EPA will not take 
steps to monitor and compel compliance with the CRT rule. In fact, EPA 
has quickly responded to the problems identified by GAO, issuing one 
administrative penalty complaint, initiating eight additional 
investigations, and planning a number of inspections to take place this 
year. [See comment 5] 

EPA's RCRA enforcement program makes significant contributions to 
protecting human health and the environment. In fiscal year 2007, the 
program conducted nearly 4,000 inspections, of which approximately 
2,000 revealed incidents of non-compliance with the RCRA hazardous 
waste requirements. During the same year, EPA concluded 446 RCRA 
enforcement actions. These actions reduced, treated, or eliminated 
nearly 100 million pounds of hazardous waste that companies mismanaged, 
mischaracterized, or illegally disposed - posing a threat to human 
health and the environment. Through these actions, EPA also collected 
approximately $9 million in civil penalties and secured complying 
actions and supplemental environmental projects totaling over $400 
million. 

For the majority of the RCRA regulations EPA shares its compliance 
monitoring and enforcement authorities with the States. The states 
typically conduct more inspections and enforcement actions than EPA, 
while EPA tends to focus on facilities and problems where the threats 
to human health and the environment are most significant. This leads to 
a broad range of cases, against a variety of entities that address a 
number of different problems. [See comment 6] 

EPA appreciates the time and effort that GAO expended to identify 
compliance problems with the CRT rule. The report notes that GAO 
discovered 22 shipments where the exporter failed to provide proper 
notice; GAO informed EPA of seven of these shipments. In addition, GAO 
identified in its report 43 companies that appeared willing to violate 
the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Contrary to statements in the 
report, EPA does ensure that every tip and complaint is investigated. 
[Footnote 1] However, investigations do not always mean "inspections." 
[Footnote 2] EPA uses a variety of means to collect evidence, including 
working with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to obtain information 
and issuing information request letters to exporters or other 
potentially liable companies or individuals.[Footnote 3] [See comment 
7] To be effective, RCRA enforcement actions require the development of 
information and evidence and take time to reach a conclusion. To date, 
EPA has issued one administrative penalty complaint against a company 
associated with one of the seven shipments, seeking the statutory 
maximum civil penalty of $32,500. [See comment 8] 

The report suggests that EPA has not taken sufficient action against 
violators and bases this conclusion on EPA's statements that for new 
rules EPA primarily focuses on outreach to ensure that the regulated 
community is aware of the requirements. EPA does follow that general 
principle; however, a primary focus on outreach does not mean that EPA 
will not take enforcement actions if it learns of specific incidents of 
non-compliance. EPA is investigating and will take appropriate action 
to address violations of the CRT rule. EPA currently has ten ongoing 
investigations and the regions plan to conduct inspections at 
electronic waste collection and recycling facilities this year. In 
addition to EPA's investigations of the specific incidents shared by 
GAO, EPA has initiated an internal discussion to raise awareness of the 
issue within the RCRA enforcement program and identify steps that EPA 
could take to help address the problem. 

Outreach: 

The draft report criticizes EPA's implementation of the CRT rule, 
stating that "EPA has conducted virtually no outreach beyond a limited 
number of presentations..." (See the top of page 31 of the draft 
report.) We believe this significantly understates EPA's outreach 
efforts to the regulated community relative to the CRT rule. EPA's 
outreach efforts consisted of much more than "a limited number of 
presentations at annual scrap-recycling conferences." In fact, the 
Agency's "Communication Plan" for the CRT rule set forth a number of 
specific activities to reach out to the regulated community. We 
implemented this plan immediately after the rule was published. EPA 
mailed and e-mailed copies of the rule and Fact Sheet to numerous 
interested parties, including all relevant trade associations, public 
interest groups, states (through the Association of State and 
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials), local government 
associations, the trade press, and the print media. EPA made many 
presentations at major e-waste conferences (which are attended by the 
major recyclers), and also invested significant staff time in providing 
assistance to the regulated community, states, and others to enhance 
their understanding of the rule. Further, EPA spoke with the national 
press on issues related to electronics in general and on export 
requirements under the CRT rule, specifically. Moreover, EPA believes 
our website is an excellent source of information on the rule. We also 
believe this statement is contradicted by several statements reflecting 
GAO's own experiences in its contacts with electronics recyclers. For 
example, in the paragraph that follows (with similar statements made on 
pages 7, 21, and 23 through 26 and in the draft report "GAO 
Highlights"), GAO states that it observed that recyclers had a 
"substantial willingness to engage in activities that would appear to 
violate the CRT rule-including instances where the exporters were aware 
of the CRT rule...." Additionally, the electronics recycling industries 
closely followed the progress of the rule and were well aware of its 
issuance through implementation of our outreach strategy and through 
their persistent inquiries as to the rule's status. [See comment 11] 

The RCRA enforcement program also has discussed the issue at length 
during regularly scheduled monthly conference calls and biannual 
meetings. OECA has also talked with individual regional offices with 
large U.S. ports. These discussions have already led three EPA regional 
enforcement programs to conduct additional investigations of companies 
beyond those shared by GAO. The conversations have also generated the 
following ideas for actions that EPA plans take to better monitor 
compliance and enforce the rule: 

* Review existing enforcement guidance to determine the need for 
modifications to address the unique aspects of compliance monitoring 
and enforcement of the CRT rule. Such documents include the National 
Program Managers Guidance (2008)(revised annually) and the Hazardous 
Waste Enforcement Response Policy (2003). 

* Hold discussions with CBP and individual port authorities about the 
CRT rule and ways to improve the monitoring of CRT shipments. 

* Publicize concluded enforcement actions to deter others from non-
compliance. 

* Refer the most serious violations of the CRT rule to the OECA's 
Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training (OCEFT) for 
criminal investigation into whether the violations were "knowing", 
i.e., where the alleged violators knew that they were exporting 
electronic waste and were aware of the general hazardous character of 
the waste. 

* Offer compliance assistance to the e-waste recycling industry, states 
and retailers. 

EPA believes these actions will lead to increased compliance with the 
rule and increase the number of identified violations. Therefore, we 
believe that the draft report should be modified to more accurately 
reflect the Agency's outreach efforts on the CRT rule. 

Regulatory Program: 

One of the GAO's recommendations to address electronic waste is for EPA 
to "...develop options on broadening its authority to address the 
export of other potentially harmful used electronic items that are 
currently unregulated." Specifically, GAO identified a number of 
options that EPA could consider, including "...amending RCRA 
regulations to include exports of used electronics posing health or 
environmental risks when disassembled or reclaimed, expanding the scope 
of the CRT rule, and revising the regulatory definition of hazardous 
waste." (See pg 32 of draft report.) Furthermore, GAO suggested that 
"...a revised definition or rule for other used electronics could be 
developed to cover only exports or to exempt domestic activity from 
substantive requirements if EPA determines that other approaches-such 
as voluntary initiatives and existing regulatory controls on recycling 
facilities-provide adequate domestic protection of health and the 
environment." (See pg 33 of draft report.) GAO also suggested that EPA 
examine its authority to regulate used electronics shipped for reuse 
under the same control procedures as electronics shipped for recycling 
(see pg 34 of draft report). 

EPA is well aware of the numerous challenges in appropriately 
controlling the management of e-waste, both domestically and 
internationally. [See comment 12] However, we are not convinced that 
developing a regulatory scheme to address these issues is the most 
appropriate course of action. First, as GAO itself acknowledges, the 
development of regulations would take several years. In addition, we 
believe that there may be legal questions that would limit our 
authority or would need to be resolved. For example, many of the 
concerns that were identified by GAO deal with worker safety issues, 
which are addressed domestically by the Occupational Safety Health Act. 
[See comment 13] Additionally, defusing a waste as hazardous based on 
another country's management scheme may also raise legal questions 
since RCRA does not apply extra territorially. Therefore, because we 
believe that we should not wait years to address some of the issues 
identified by GAO, we believe that non-regulatory approaches can make 
important contributions when it comes to safe exports of electronic 
equipment. As an example, EPA, along with numerous other stakeholders, 
has invested a great deal of effort over the last couple of years in 
our "Responsible Recycling" initiative. `R2' is a voluntary, third-
party, e-waste recycler certification program. EPA is now working with 
electronics recyclers on a voluntary basis to determine which exports 
of various kinds of electronics equipment are or are not allowed to 
enter various foreign countries. We believe we will learn a great deal 
about the regulatory programs of countries such as China (including 
Hong Kong), South Korea, India, and others through our communication 
with the competent authorities in those countries concerning allowable 
imports of electronics to those countries. 

Regarding EPA's ongoing rulemaking effort related to the Organization 
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Council Decision, on 
page, 3 the draft report reads as follows - "In 2001, because a 
majority of its members are also Basel parties, the OECD council 
changed its waste classifications, including what products are 
considered hazardous wastes, to harmonize with those of the Basel 
Convention. Although the United States has agreed to be bound by such 
decisions, the U.S. has not yet implemented the 2001 change." We 
believe this statement is misleading and could be read to imply that 
under our OECD responsibilities, the U.S. must modify our hazardous 
waste determinations to comport with those contained in the Basel 
Convention. [See comment 14] This is not the case. The 2001 OECD 
Decision still retains the fundamental approach of allowing each Member 
country to employ its "national procedures" to determine whether a 
waste is hazardous under its laws and regulations, and therefore 
whether it is subject to the OECD controls. The national procedures for 
the U.S. specify that OECD's "Amber list controls" (i.e., hazardous 
waste controls) apply to the wastes that are: (1) defined as RCRA 
hazardous waste in 40 CFR 262.3, and (2) subject to Federal hazardous 
waste manifesting requirements or to the universal waste management 
standards. (See 40 CFR 262.89(a).) Therefore, although the OECD waste 
lists were modified to align more closely with the Basel Convention 
waste lists, this does not change the scope of wastes in the U.S. 
subject to Amber controls, nor does this OECD decision obligate the 
U.S. to change its national procedures for defining Amber wastes. A 
more accurate description of the waste classification change would be: 

In 2001, because a majority of its members are also Basel parties, the 
OECD council changed its waste classifications to harmonize with those 
of the Basel Convention, although the application of the waste lists is 
different under the OECD than it is under Basel. 

In addition, while the draft report correctly notes (on page 40) that 
the Agency is in the process of modifying its hazardous waste 
regulations to reflect the 2001 OECD Council Decision, we believe such 
statements (in a footnote) should also be noted when GAO discusses this 
issue, such as on pages 3, 8, and 32. [See comment 15] 

Furthermore, in a number of places in the draft report, GAO recommends 
that EPA could work with Customs and the International Trade Commission 
to improve identification and tracking of exported electronics" and 
thus enhance control over the export of used electronics. We agree with 
GAO and intend to contact representatives of those agencies. 

We are providing an enclosure to this response which provides our more 
detailed comments on this draft report. We would like your office to 
consider our comments as you finalize this report. Please see the 
enclosure for additional detailed technical comments. 

We appreciate the opportunity to work with your team on this review, 
and your consideration of our significant reservations with the 
findings and recommendations of this report, If you have any comments 
or questions regarding this Agency response, you may contact Margaret 
Schneider, Director, Office of Administration and Policy at 202-564-
2530. 

Sincerely, 
Signed by: 

Granta Y. Nakayama: 
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance: 

Signed by: 

Susan Parker Bodine: 
Assistant Administrator: 
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response: 

Comment letter footnotes: 

[1] EPA has asked GAO for information regarding the other 15 shipments 
but, to date, EPA has not yet received that information from GAO. [See 
comment 9] 

[2] GAO also appears to criticize EPA for not detaining shipments. EPA 
has no explicit authority to detain shipments or seize personal 
property under RCRA. With respect to the shipment in Long Beach, 
referenced in Figure 5 of the report, CBP exercised its authority to 
detain the shipment. CBP also made the decision to release the 
containers based on a letter from the exporter to Customs that the 
exporter would remove the CRTs from the container. EPA was not aware of 
the exporter's letter until after the containers arrived back in Long 
Beach, and after Hong Kong had rejected the container for the second 
time. [See comment 10] 

[3] EPA issues information request letters pursuant to RCRA ï¿½3007. 42 
U.S.C. 6927 (2000). GAO questions whether we obtain any meaningful 
information from such information request letters. EPA commonly issues 
information request letters in RCRA investigations. We usually receive 
useful information because recipients know that they can be penalized 
for failing to respond. A person who fails to respond to such a letter 
is subject to penalties of up to $32,500 a day under RCRA. In addition, 
all information submitted in response to a 3007 request must be 
certified as true, accurate, and complete; a knowing submittal of false 
information in response to a 3007 request may be actionable under 18 
U.S.C. ï¿½ 1001 and 42 U.S.C. ï¿½ 6927(d). 

The following are GAO's comments on the Environmental Protection 
Agency's letter dated August 1, 2008. 

GAO Comments: 

1. EPA's statement incorrectly characterizes our recommendation in 
asserting that the recommendation calls on EPA "to develop a separate 
program for compliance monitoring and enforcement of the CRT rule." 
Rather, the recommendation asks EPA to "identify a timetable for 
developing and implementing a systematic plan to enforce the CRT rule," 
which would "include the basic elements of effective enforcement such 
as enforcement targets, monitoring, follow-up of suspected violations, 
and prosecution." We do not see why such basic elements could not be 
developed within the context of the overall RCRA enforcement program. 
In any case, our May 2008 meeting with EPA officials to discuss 
preliminary findings made it apparent that a strategy for enforcing the 
rule was needed. Specifically, we were told at that time that the 
agency had not begun to consider how it would enforce the rule (it also 
did not have a time frame for doing so) because it was still 
emphasizing outreach to the regulated community. We continue to believe 
that without the minimal elements of a formal enforcement strategy, it 
will be difficult to determine whether the single penalty EPA has 
levied to date is an isolated action or part of an overall strategy to 
deter noncompliance. 

2. EPA stated that our report should "put into proper perspective the 
amount of used electronics now being reused or recycled," noting that 
"80-85 percent is disposed of domestically, primarily in landfills." 
EPA's comment implies that because only 15 percent to 20 percent of 
used electronics are collected for reuse or recycling (since the other 
80 percent to 85 percent is primarily disposed of in landfills), we 
overstate the human health and environmental problems associated with 
exported used electronics. We find that this response needs to be put 
in the proper perspective. First, the document EPA references shows 
that 330 million computer products were "ready for end-of-life 
management" in 2006. Fifteen to 20 percent of 330 million is not an 
insignificant number--especially in light of EPA's acknowledgment that 
"a vast majority" of such products are exported. Second, and more 
important, it is EPA's stated goal to significantly reduce the 80 
percent to 85 percent of used electronics going to landfills--a goal 
that is also pursued by a growing number of states enacting bans on 
disposing of used electronics in landfills. Over time, the effect of 
these efforts can be expected to greatly increase the quantity of used 
electronics being both recycled and exported--but especially exported, 
given the relatively greater profitability of that alternative. Under 
this likely scenario, it will become that much more important to ensure 
that exported used electronics are handled safely. 

3. We did not delete the word enforcement from the title, as suggested 
by EPA, given the state of present CRT rule enforcement. We did, 
however, broaden and clarify our title to reflect our findings beyond 
enforcement, particularly the limited scope of U.S. regulation. The 
title now reads, Electronic Waste: EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful 
U.S. Exports through Stronger Enforcement and More Comprehensive 
Regulation. 

4. This paragraph restates what we believe to be a misinterpretation of 
our recommendation. EPA's comment implies we are recommending that the 
agency build an extensive compliance monitoring and enforcement program 
for the CRT rule. To the contrary, we are recommending that the agency 
take reasonable steps to establish a credible enforcement deterrent-- 
such as developing enforcement targets and plans for monitoring, 
following up on suspected violations, and prosecuting violators. We 
continue to believe that these actions are necessary and appropriate in 
light of what we observed, including exporters willing to engage in 
apparent violations despite awareness of the CRT rule. We believe our 
own work demonstrates that much can be done to identify violators and 
deter noncompliance without establishing the "extensive compliance 
monitoring and enforcement program" that EPA describes. In particular, 
little effort was required on our part to identify potential violators 
and potentially illegal shipments. In just several hours of monitoring 
of e-commerce Web sites, we were able to observe substantial 
willingness to engage in activities that would appear to violate the 
CRT rule. Additionally, in only minutes, we were able to identify 26 
potentially illegal CRT shipments by simply e-mailing environmental 
protection officials in countries where such imports are known to 
occur. While collecting evidence to establish a violation would take 
additional efforts, our experience suggests that obtaining leads is 
relatively simple. 

5. We acknowledge EPA's response to the violations we identified, but 
also note that 2 years after the CRT rule's implementation, the agency 
has demonstrated little effort to identify noncompliance on its own. We 
would note further that the only administrative penalty EPA has issued 
to date was on July 31, 2008, more than 5 months after we identified 
that violation for the agency in February 2008. Thus, while we 
acknowledge this action, we continue to believe that until EPA adopts 
the basic elements of an enforcement strategy, it will remain unclear 
whether this single penalty was an isolated action--that, in turn, is 
unlikely to deter future violations--or part of an emerging enforcement 
strategy. We also acknowledge EPA's claim that it is "planning a number 
of inspections to take place this year," and see this as a positive 
development if it is part of an overall strategy to ensure greater 
compliance as part of a formal, written plan. 

6. EPA notes that for most RCRA regulations, it shares its compliance 
monitoring and enforcement authorities with the states. We acknowledge 
that this practice is common among RCRA and other environmental 
programs, but, as agency officials told us on May 28, 2008, states do 
not have authority over export provisions. Hence, the states' lack of 
jurisdiction over this particular issue amplifies the importance of 
EPA's role. 

7. EPA's letter states that the agency "uses a variety of means to 
collect evidence, including working with Customs and Border Protection 
to obtain information and issuing information request letters to 
exporters or other potentially liable companies or individuals." EPA 
does, in fact, have two memorandums of understanding with Customs and 
Border Protection to promote information sharing and enforcement of 
environmental laws. The memorandum on information sharing addresses 
imports only. The memorandum on enforcement of environmental laws is 
intended to ensure the timely coordination, communication, and 
cooperation necessary to process violations of environmental 
regulations as they relate to exports and imports. During our May 28 
meeting with EPA officials, they told us they had worked with Customs 
and Border Protection only on imports of potentially hazardous waste, 
not exports. 

8. We applaud EPA's issuance of the administrative penalty on July 31 
but, as noted above, believe this action should be part of an emerging 
enforcement strategy and not an isolated instance. We also note that we 
had identified this particular shipment as a potentially illegal export 
of CRT monitors 5 months earlier, after we were told by Hong Kong 
authorities that it was being returned to the United States as an 
illegal shipment of used electronics. On February 20, 2008, we informed 
EPA of the shipment and asked Customs and Border Protection to detain 
it. We viewed the container's contents on February 27, 2008, and 
observed hundreds of CRT computer monitors stacked haphazardly, some 
with cracked plastic cases and broken glass tubes. EPA completed its 
action 5 months later. 

9. The EPA comment suggests it is waiting for information from us. In 
fact, an Office of Solid Waste official told us EPA already has this 
information. In January 2008, when we began to uncover potentially 
illegal shipments of CRTs where the exporter failed to provide proper 
notice, we also began to provide this information to EPA. EPA implies 
that it asked us for information on all shipments mentioned in our 
draft report. During a June 2008 meeting with the agency, however, EPA 
officials asked us to verify only the information we obtained on the 
shipments we identified during our review. EPA did not ask us for 
information on the containers that were returned before our review 
began (although this information would have been easy for EPA to obtain 
from Hong Kong environmental protection officials). We understand that 
EPA has since obtained this information. 

10. EPA's comment suggests that the agency was not aware of the 
potential illegality of the three containers until they had been 
shipped to Hong Kong for the second time. We find this suggestion 
puzzling since we provided EPA with information on these containers 
when they were returned from Hong Kong the first time. We had several 
telephone conversations and sent numerous e-mails to EPA staff in the 
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Before the three 
containers were re-exported to Hong Kong, about 4 weeks after being 
returned to the Port of Los Angeles, a director in EPA's Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance e-mailed us, stating that the 
exporting company had contacted Customs and Border Protection and 
intended to remove the monitors before shipping the containers back to 
Hong Kong. As we note in our report, the exporter did not remove the 
monitors. In fact, according to an Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance investigator, the exporter merely changed his company's name 
and re-exported the used CRTs. 

11. Our characterization of EPA's outreach efforts was based on (1) 
interviews during two meetings with EPA officials in May and June 2008, 
and (2) an internal EPA document from March 2008--20 months after 
adoption of the rule--stating that "the agency still needed to develop 
a strategy for educating the regulated community about CRT rule 
notification requirements." In our final report, we have nonetheless 
used the information provided by EPA to more fully describe what the 
agency states is the entire range of its outreach activities. For 
example, the agency's communication plan for the CRT rule states that 
EPA is to notify its regional offices, state hazardous waste directors, 
the press, environmental groups, and relevant associations. 

12. EPA contends that because developing options to broaden the 
agency's regulations under existing RCRA authority might take several 
years and require addressing legal complexities, the agency should 
instead pursue nonregulatory, voluntary approaches. We disagree. First, 
as EPA's experience has shown, voluntary programs can also take years 
to implement--and in some cases may never attain effective broad 
coverage since in a voluntary scheme, the agency has no enforcement 
recourse against reluctant participants. Second, given the widespread 
willingness to export in apparent violation of EPA's one existing 
electronics export regulation (the CRT rule), including some exporters' 
admitting knowledge of the rule, we do not assume that the industry 
will voluntarily agree to adopt and adhere to broader, meaningful 
export controls in the absence of a broader, better enforced regulatory 
framework. 

13. Among the factors EPA cites as drawbacks to the regulatory options 
we identified are possible "legal questions that would limit [EPA's] 
authority or would need to be resolved" involving the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) and RCRA. We believe these concerns are 
not well founded. With respect to the applicability of the OSH Act, EPA 
states that many of the concerns our report identified relate to worker 
safety risks, which in the United States are regulated under the OSH 
Act by another agency. Although EPA's statement is correct as far as it 
goes, it does not explain why the other risks our report identified-- 
risks to the environment--cannot be regulated by EPA under RCRA in the 
ways we have suggested. We note that the OSH Act focuses solely on 
workplace safety, including controlling exposures to hazardous 
materials, while RCRA grants EPA broad authorities to regulate 
management of hazardous waste to protect human health and the 
environment. Many of the improper management practices we have cited 
pose a risk both to workers' health and to the environment (e.g., via 
related releases of gases and liquids and potential dumping of 
materials without value). Because RCRA and the OSH Act regulate 
different aspects of the same toxic substances, applicable OSH Act 
regulations may be an appropriate consideration in crafting a RCRA 
approach to used electronics. As a part of developing options on how 
the agency can broaden its RCRA regulations to address used electronic 
devices, EPA should address any legal issues it may identify involving 
the OSH Act. With respect to EPA's suggestion that a regulatory program 
to include additional used electronics "may also raise legal questions 
since RCRA does not apply extraterritorially," we are not suggesting 
that EPA apply RCRA extraterritorially. We recommend that EPA develop 
options to address management of used electronics under existing RCRA 
authority, including RCRA's existing subtitle C export provisions, 
which apply to parties in the United States, on the basis of conditions 
in the United States. These provisions control exports by imposing 
requirements, such as notice and consent, upon parties in the United 
States who are exporting regulated wastes. Our recommendation would 
expand the scope of the regulated wastes subject to existing export 
provisions, not extend the geographical application of the export 
provisions themselves. The basis for this expansion of the scope of 
regulated wastes subject to export provisions is EPA's existing broad 
legal authority under RCRA. Thus, we are not suggesting that EPA 
"define a waste as hazardous based on another country's management 
scheme." Although our rationale for our recommendation acknowledges the 
risks to health and the environment that can occur when these items are 
exported, as documented in this report, it also involves concerns about 
domestic management, which fall squarely within EPA's RCRA authorities. 
[Footnote 33] We believe EPA has authority to regulate at least some 
used electronics on the basis of potential domestic mismanagement. 
While RCRA provides EPA with broad authority and significant 
flexibility in its regulatory approaches, EPA should address any legal 
issues it may identify as part of developing options on how the agency 
can broaden its RCRA regulations to address used electronic devices. 
If, after studying the options that we discuss herein, EPA concludes it 
needs additional authority to implement its preferred approach, then 
the agency should seek such authority. 

14. Our statement is accurate as written. But to avoid any implication 
that our OCED responsibilities require the United States to modify its 
hazardous waste determinations to comport with those contained in the 
Basel Convention, we have added the following sentence: "While the 2001 
change does not require changes to the scope of hazardous wastes 
regulated in the United States, it does require adoption of the 
classification system to facilitate coordination among exporting and 
importing countries." 

15. We added footnotes as requested, noting that EPA has stated that it 
intends in the fall of 2008 to propose regulatory amendments to 
implement the 2001 OECD decision. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Steve Elstein, Assistant 
Director; Nathan Anderson; Elizabeth Beardsley; Mark A. Braza; Ellen W. 
Chu; Michael Derr; Paul Kazemersky; David Stikkers; and Arvin Wu made 
key contributions to this report. Also contributing to the report were 
Lydia Araya and Katherine Raheb. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Basel Action Network and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Exporting 
Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia (Seattle, Washington, and San 
Jose, California, Feb. 25, 2002). 

[2] Circuit boards (removed from any product) are also regulated under 
RCRA. Circuit boards intended to be disposed of, recycled, or reclaimed 
would come under the definition of hazardous waste. EPA regulations, 
however, provide a conditional exclusion from the hazardous waste 
definition for circuit boards that are shredded for recycling after 
removal of certain hazardous components and an exemption from the 
definition for whole circuit boards to be recycled, which are 
considered scrap metal. These circuit boards are not subject to any 
regulatory requirements when exported. Any exported circuit boards 
intended for disposal must comply with notice-and-consent requirements. 
Beyond CRTs and circuit boards, any other used electronics that qualify 
as "hazardous" under RCRA regulations would be subject to export 
provisions; EPA has stated repeatedly, however, that to its knowledge, 
other types of electronics do not fail its threshold toxicity test and 
thus are not currently regulated. 

[3] The CRT rule requires that any exporter of CRTs for recycling 
(which includes reclamation and other processing) must notify EPA at 
least 60 days prior to the intended shipment, and that the shipment be 
accompanied by and conform with an acknowledgment of consent, provided 
by EPA, that documents the importing country's consent. Any exporter of 
intact CRTs for reuse (which includes use after repair or 
refurbishment) must send EPA a one-time notification and maintain 
business records demonstrating that each shipment will be reused. Thus, 
broken CRTs (which cannot be reused and can only be recycled) that lack 
or fail to conform with an acknowledgment of consent would be in 
violation of the CRT rule and therefore regulated as hazardous waste. A 
shipment of broken CRTs falsely represented as intact CRTs for reuse 
would likewise be considered hazardous waste, since any shipment of 
broken CRTs (excluding processed CRT glass) is required to have and to 
conform with an acknowledgment (whether shipped for recycling under the 
CRT rule or as hazardous waste for disposal). Used CRTs generated by 
households are subject to the CRT rule when a recycler or collector 
mixes them with CRTs from other sources (e.g., businesses or government 
entities). 

[4] Since 1961, the OECD has provided a setting where governments 
compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify 
good practices, and coordinate domestic and international policies, 
particularly in the areas of trade, environment, agriculture, 
technology, and taxation. 

[5] OECD Council, On Exports of Hazardous Wastes from OECD Area, 
Decision-Recommendation C(86)64/Final (June 5, 1986). The decision 
recommends that member countries implement it by requiring exporters of 
hazardous waste to non-OECD countries to provide the exporting country 
with documentation that the proposed disposal operation will be 
performed in an environmentally sound manner and that the proposed 
disposal facility may, under the importing country's laws and 
regulations, dispose of the exported wastes. 

[6] OECD Council, Concerning the Control of Transfrontier Movements of 
Wastes Destined for Recovery Operations, Decision C(92)39/Final (Mar. 
30, 1992). 

[7] OECD Council, On the Control of Transboundary Movements of Wastes 
Destined for Recovery Operations, Decision C(2001)107/Final (June 14, 
2001) as amended by Decision C(2004)20 (March 9, 2004), which replaces 
Decision C(92)39/Final. 

[8] EPA submitted proposed changes to RCRA regulations to the Office of 
Management and Budget on May 8, 2008, and EPA officials anticipated 
issuing a proposed rule in the Federal Register by mid-November 2008. 

[9] The International Association of Electronics Recyclers is a trade 
association that represents the electronics recycling industry. Its 
stated priority is to promote high standards of environmental quality 
and regulatory compliance, as well as high-quality business practices. 

[10] It is not possible to determine why the other 279 companies did 
not respond to our offers from fictitious foreign brokers. It is likely 
that many of our e-mails did not reach recipients because of spam-mail 
filters. 

[11] As of June 2008, 25 companies have submitted 47 notices for export 
of CRTs for recycling to EPA. These companies informed EPA that they 
intended to responsibly recycle CRTs at facilities in Brazil, Canada, 
Korea, Malaysia, and Mexico. 

[12] To establish such a criminal violation in these circumstances, EPA 
would need to prove that (1) the party exported CRTs, (2) the party did 
not notify EPA as required by the CRT rule, and (3) the party knowingly 
failed to notify EPA. 

[13] In addition to the location of markets for reusable and recyclable 
electronics, a number of reasons lead U.S. companies to export used 
products, including waste. Often, the nearest waste management facility 
capable of handling a particular waste stream may be just over the 
international border from the point of generation. In other cases, a 
facility in another country may specialize in treating, disposing of, 
or recycling a particular waste. Such a facility may be one of a kind, 
or it may present a more environmentally sound management solution for 
the waste. In some cases, hazardous wastes constitute "raw" material 
for industrial and manufacturing processes in many developing countries 
where natural resources are scarce or nonexistent. In addition, using 
hazardous wastes is often preferable to natural resource extraction or 
hazardous waste disposal. 

[14] The Basel Convention also prohibits movement of waste between 
parties and nonparties to the convention, except when these movements 
occur under an equivalent bilateral or multilateral agreement. The 
bilateral or multilateral agreements must provide an equally sound 
management structure for transboundary movements of waste. 

[15] Asia-Pacific Regional Centre for Hazardous Waste Management 
Training and Technology Transfer, Report on the Survey of the Import 
and the Environmentally Sound Management of Electronic Wastes in the 
Asia-Pacific Region (2005). The Basel Convention Regional Centre in 
China, the publisher of this report, is one of 14 regional centers that 
assist party countries in controlling the transboundary movement of 
hazardous wastes. 

[16] Hand dismantling has many positive benefits: more reusable 
components can be obtained, and the value of the extracted materials is 
higher because of less contamination. Hand dismantling is the 
predominant method of recycling in the United States. 

[17] EPA issued a special regulation for CRTs because, the agency 
stated, the products are hazardous waste under RCRA regulations as they 
typically fail EPA's tests for toxicity. EPA also stated that the 
principal goal of this regulation was to promote the reuse and 
recycling of CRTs. 

[18] U.S. exporters of hazardous wastes must comply with all applicable 
domestic laws and regulations, which include regulations under RCRA. In 
general, a U.S. exporter must prepare and submit certain documents. 
Before a shipment proceeds, an exporter must submit to EPA headquarters 
a notification of intent to export, describing the type and amount of 
waste, its itinerary, the number of shipments expected, and the period 
during which shipments will occur. EPA forwards this notification to 
the governments of all concerned countries. The government of the 
importing country must consent to the shipment before it may proceed. 
While a shipment is in transit, an exporter must attach a hazardous 
waste manifest to the shipment, along with the acknowledgment of 
consent from the importing and transit countries. Finally, an exporter 
must file an annual report with EPA headquarters summarizing the 
exporter's shipments for the previous calendar year. 

[19] EPA regulations pursuant to RCRA state that a solid waste is a 
hazardous waste if it exhibits one or more of the characteristics of 
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity or if it is 
specifically listed as a hazardous waste (e.g., certain industrial 
wastes and pure chemicals). The hazardous characteristic most relevant 
to electronics is toxicity. By EPA regulation, toxicity is measured by 
a lab procedure called the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure, 
which predicts whether a particular waste is likely to leach toxic 
chemicals into groundwater at dangerous levels. A waste would fail--and 
be regulated as hazardous waste--if the leachate from the test exceeded 
specified levels of a toxic contaminant. Because many used electronics 
feature constituents such as plastic housing that are not prone to 
leach toxics, they are unlikely to exceed the concentrations because 
the test is performed on the entire product, not separately on its 
potentially toxic constituents. 

[20] Despite this export ban, a 2006 European Union report estimates 
that since implementation of the ban, a small number of exporters have 
shipped over 2 million computer monitors and 1 million televisions out 
of the European Union, ostensibly for reuse; many of these items were 
probably for dismantling under unsafe conditions. 

[21] Six others requested more information about our purchase offer; 
two indicated they would sell us only working CRTs; and three said they 
would not do business with us because they did not export nonworking 
CRTs. 

[22] The 43 may represent the tip of an iceberg for a number of 
reasons. For example, over a 3-month period, we observed more than 50 
U.S companies selling nearly 1.3 million CRTs on two Internet e- 
commerce trade sites. In addition, according to California State 
officials knowledgeable about the electronics-recycling industry, the 
electronics-recycling community is "tight-knit" and tends to operate 
only within long-standing, established relationships. They said that 
established players do not need to advertise on Web sites for new leads 
and would therefore be invisible to us. 

[23] We continue to receive requests from this company, including one 
from July 2008, seeking a buyer for 60 40-foot containers of used 
televisions "available now," or around 48,000 used televisions. On a 
Chinese e-commerce Web site, this company states that it has "a 
continuous supply of used monitors" and currently has over 200,000 
nonworking CRT monitors for sale. On its own Web site, this company 
claims that it is a "leader in CRT recycling" and it "satisfies all 
state and federal requirements regarding proper disposal of toxic/ 
hazardous electronic waste," as well as ensuring that "100 percent of 
the electronic waste we receive is reused or responsibly recycled." 

[24] California's Department of Toxic Substances Control sent 
investigators to inspect the containers and, upon inspection, pursued 
administrative penalties against the shipper for potentially violating 
California's hazardous waste storage and transportation laws. The 
outcome of California's action against the shipper was pending as of 
August 2008. Like all states, however, California does not have 
authority over exports. 

[25] EPA advised the public as early as 2001 that CRTs were generally 
regulated as hazardous waste because they typically fail the toxicity 
test. EPA officials told us, however, that before the CRT rule, the 
agency had not made its regulatory policy on CRT exports clear. 

[26] The agency's May 2006 communication plan for the CRT rule states 
that EPA would notify its regional offices, state hazardous waste 
directors, the press, environmental groups, and relevant associations. 
It is unclear, however, the extent to which these efforts have focused 
on educating the regulated community about the need to notify EPA when 
exporting used CRTs. For example, an internal EPA document from March 
2008--20 months after adoption of the rule--states that "the agency 
still needs to develop a strategy for educating the regulated community 
about CRT rule notification requirements." One electronics recycler, 
for instance, told us that he has "not seen any effort to publicize the 
rule besides seeing it in print, which is in contrast to EPA's previous 
[outreach] efforts." 

[27] RCRA provides EPA with broad authorities to collect information 
and to inspect facilities to investigate suspected violations, as well 
as to evaluate compliance. EPA has the authority to contact exporters 
who have notified the agency, when appropriate, to ask for verification 
that the CRTs are exported for reuse instead of recycling or disposal. 
These persons must keep copies of normal business records demonstrating 
that each shipment of exported CRTs will be reused, and this 
documentation must be retained for 3 years from the date the CRTs were 
exported. For any past or present violation, EPA may issue an 
administrative enforcement order assessing a penalty of up to $32,500 
per day or requiring compliance. Further, EPA may submit a civil 
judicial referral to the Department of Justice. RCRA also provides for 
criminal penalties for knowing violations; if an exporter of CRTs 
knowingly fails to file a notification--or if the CRTs were intended to 
be or actually were discarded and the exporter did not obtain an 
acknowledgment--then the exporter may be subject to criminal penalties. 
Relevant to the CRT rule's documentation requirements, criminal 
penalties are authorized for any person who knowingly omits material 
information or makes any false material statement or representation in 
any document filed, maintained, or used for purposes of compliance with 
RCRA regulations or who exports a hazardous waste and knowingly 
destroys, alters, conceals, or fails to file any document required to 
be maintained or filed. Criminal penalties also are authorized for any 
person who knowingly exports a hazardous waste without the consent of 
the receiving country. The criminal penalties may include a fine of up 
to $50,000 per day of violation or imprisonment of up to 2 years. 

[28] EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Guide for 
Addressing Environmental Problems: Using a Strategic Approach 
(Washington, D.C., March 2007). 

[29] Under the Basel Convention, a country may use its own national 
definition of hazardous waste. If a country prohibits import of a 
hazardous waste, other countries must prohibit or not permit exports of 
such wastes to that country. 

[30] The owner and an affiliated company were indicted and pleaded 
guilty to illegally storing, transporting, and exporting hazardous 
waste. The damages imposed as part of the sentences (which included 
over $2 million in restitution and fines) covered the port operator's 
costs for storing the hazardous wastes for 3 years, the Dutch 
government's cost in incinerating the almost 300 tons of hazardous 
wastes, and EPA's cost in overseeing the warehouse cleanup in the 
United States, according to EPA. 

[31] The United States Ambassador to the United Nations signed the 
Basel Convention on March 21, 1990. The United States Senate gave 
consent to ratification in 1992 (138 Congressional Record 12291-92). 
The State Department has advised the Senate that it will not ratify the 
convention before the enactment of implementing legislation. 
(Ratification occurs when a country submits its documents of 
ratification to the Secretariat.) Thus, the next step in ratification 
would be congressional passage of implementing legislation, followed by 
presentation to the President. 

[32] Customs and Border Protection has existing memorandums of 
understanding with EPA; EPA, however, told us that its current 
coordination activities with Customs focus mainly on imports. 

[33] See, for example, GAO, Electronic Waste: Strengthening the Role of 
the Federal Government in Encouraging Recycling and Reuse, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-47] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 
10, 2005). 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***