The United States does not have a comprehensive national approach for  the reuse and recycling of used electronics, and previous efforts to  establish a national approach have been unsuccessful. Despite steps to strengthen enforcement of the CRT rule, issues related to  CRT exports and to exports of other used electronics remain. EPA’s Partnership Programs Have Had a Positive but Limited Effect

EPA has worked with electronics manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, state  governments, environmental groups, and other stakeholders to promote  partnership programs that address the environmentally sound  management of used electronics. However, EPA has not systematically analyzed the agency’s  partnership programs, such as the Federal Electronics Challenge, to  determine whether the impact of each program could be augmented. Stakeholders’ Views on the State-by-State Approach to Managing Used Electronics Vary Widely

To varying degrees, the entities regulated under the state electronics  recycling laws—electronics manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers— consider the increasing number of laws to be a compliance burden. In  contrast, in the five states we visited, state and local solid waste  management officials expressed varying levels of satisfaction with  individual state recycling programs, which they attributed more to the  design and implementation of the programs, rather than to any burden  caused by the state-by-state approach. Options for Promoting the Environmentally Sound Management of Used Electronics Involve Basic Policy Considerations

Options to further promote the environmentally sound management of  used electronics involve a number of basic policy considerations and  encompass many variations. Moreover, EPA does not have a plan for coordinating its efforts  with state electronics recycling programs or for articulating how EPA’s  partnership programs, taken together, can best assist stakeholders to  achieve the environmentally sound management of used electronics. Key Implications of a Continuation of the State-by- State Approach

Among the key implications of a continuation of the state-by-state  approach are a greater flexibility for states and a continuation of a  patchwork of state recycling efforts, including some states with no  electronics recycling requirements. A state-by-state  approach also allows for innovations among states in enacting electronics  recycling legislation. A  primary issue of concern to many stakeholders is the degree to which the  federal government would (1) establish minimum standards, allowing  states to adopt stricter standards (thereby providing states with flexibility  but also potentially increasing the compliance burden from the standpoint  of regulated entities), or (2) establish fixed standards. Further Federal Regulation of Exports Is a Potential Component of Either Approach to Managing Used Electronics

In doing our work, we found that a potential component of either  approach that we discuss for managing used electronics is a greater  federal regulatory role over exports to (1) facilitate coordination with  other countries to reduce the possibility of unsafe recycling or dumping  and (2) address the limitations on the authority of states to regulate  exports. Second, we recommended that the agency submit to Congress a legislative  package for ratification of the Basel Convention on the Control of  Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, a  multilateral environmental agreement that aims to protect against the  adverse effects resulting from transboundary movements of hazardous  waste. EPA  officials told us that the agency had developed a legislative proposal on  more than one occasion under previous administrations but did not  finalize any proposal with other federal agencies. In addition, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA work with other  federal agencies, including the State Department and the Council on  Environmental Quality, to finalize a legislative proposal that would be  needed for ratification of the Basel Convention, with the aim of submitting  a package for congressional consideration. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To examine the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to  facilitate the environmentally sound management of used electronics, we  reviewed solid and hazardous waste laws and regulations—including the  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and EPA’s rule on the  management of cathode-ray tubes (CRT)—and their applicability to used  electronics.
Why GAO Did This Study

Low recycling rates for used televisions, computers, and other electronics result in the loss of valuable resources, and electronic waste exports risk harming human health and the environment in countries that lack safe recycling and disposal capacity. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the management of used electronics that qualify as hazardous waste and promotes voluntary efforts among electronics manufacturers, recyclers, and other stakeholders. However, in the absence of a comprehensive national approach, a growing number of states have enacted electronics recycling laws, raising concerns about a patchwork of state requirements. In this context, GAO examined (1) EPA's efforts to facilitate environmentally sound used electronics management, (2) the views of various stakeholders on the state-by-state approach, and (3) considerations to further promote environmentally sound management. GAO reviewed EPA documents, interviewed EPA officials, and interviewed stakeholders in five states with electronics recycling legislation.

What GAO Found

EPA's efforts to facilitate the environmentally sound management of used electronics consist largely of (1) enforcing its rule for the recycling and exporting of cathode-ray tubes (CRT), which contain significant quantities of lead, and (2) an array of partnership programs that encourage voluntary efforts among manufacturers and other stakeholders. EPA has improved enforcement of export provisions of its CRT rule, but issues related to exports remain. In particular, EPA does not specifically regulate the export of many other electronic devices, such as cell phones, which typically are not within the regulatory definition of hazardous waste despite containing some toxic substances. In addition, the impact of EPA's partnership programs is limited or uncertain, and EPA has not systematically analyzed the programs to determine how their impact could be augmented. The views of stakeholders on the state-by-state approach to managing used electronics have been shaped by the increasing number of states with electronics recycling legislation. To varying degrees, the entities typically regulated under the state laws--electronics manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers--consider the increasing number of state laws to be a compliance burden. In contrast, in the five states GAO visited, state and local solid waste management officials expressed overall support for states taking a lead role in the absence of a national approach. The officials attributed their varying levels of satisfaction more to the design and implementation of individual state recycling programs, rather than to the state-by-state approach. Options to further promote the environmentally sound management of used electronics involve a number of policy considerations and encompass many variations, which generally range from a continued reliance on state recycling programs to the establishment of federal standards via legislation. The first approach provides the greatest degree of flexibility to states, but does not address stakeholder concerns that the state-by-state approach is a compliance burden or will leave some states without electronics recycling programs. Moreover, EPA does not have a plan for coordinating its efforts with state recycling programs or articulating how EPA's partnership programs can best assist stakeholders to achieve the environmentally sound management of used electronics. Under the second approach, a primary policy issue is the degree to which federal standards would allow for stricter state standards, thereby providing states with flexibility but also potentially worsening the compliance burden from the standpoint of regulated entities. As a component of any approach, a greater federal regulatory role over exports could address limitations on the authority of states to regulate exports. GAO previously recommended that EPA submit to Congress a legislative proposal for ratification of the Basel Convention, a multilateral environmental agreement that aims to protect against the adverse effects resulting from transboundary movements of hazardous waste. EPA officials told GAO that the agency had developed a legislative proposal under previous administrations but had not finalized a proposal with other federal agencies.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Administrator, EPA, (1) examine how EPA's partnership programs could be improved to contribute more effectively to used electronics management and (2) work with other federal agencies to finalize a legislative proposal on ratification of the Basel Convention for congressional consideration. EPA agreed with the recommendations.