Eventually, though, consumers need to dispose of these units in some  manner. Available EPA data indicate  that less than 4 million monitors and 8 million televisions are disposed of  annually in U.S. landfills—only a fraction of the amount estimated to  become obsolete annually, according to EPA. Hence, the gap  between the enormous quantity of used electronics that are obsolete (or  becoming obsolete), and the quantity either in landfills or sent to recycling  centers, suggests that most are still in storage—such as attics, basements,  and garages, and that their ultimate fate is still uncertain—or have been  exported for recycling and reuse overseas. By  disposing of these products in landfills or incinerators, valuable resources  are lost for future use. Cost and Regulatory Factors Deter Recycling and Reuse of Used Electronics

The costs associated with recycling and reuse, along with limited  regulatory requirements or incentives, discourage environmentally  preferable management of used electronics. Generally, consumers have to  pay fees and take their used electronics to locations that are often  inconvenient to have them recycled or refurbished for reuse. Federal Regulatory Framework Governing Used Electronics Provides Little Incentive for Recycling or Reuse

The lack of economic incentives promoting recycling and reuse of  electronics is compounded by the absence of federal provisions that either  encourage recycling, or preclude their disposal in landfills. Specifically,  current federal laws and regulations (1) allow hazardous used electronics  in municipal landfills, (2) do not provide for a financing system to support  recycling, and (3) do not preclude electronic products generated in the  United States from being exported and subsequently threatening human  health and the environment overseas. According to an official with the California Department of  Toxic Substance Control, the revenues generated from the fee are intended  to deal with a key concern—used electronics in storage, or “legacy waste.”  The officials explained that while California’s recycling industry had  sufficient capacity to recycle large volumes of used electronics, consumers  and businesses had little incentive to take products out of their basements  or warehouses to have them recycled. Further, this patchwork may be placing a substantial burden on  manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers. Accordingly, one survey respondent told us that the  export of such products should be regulated more closely than the export  of specific commodities, such as copper, because they still contain toxic  substances likely to be handled improperly in countries without regulations  to protect human health and the environment. Since 2000, EPA has spent about $2  million on voluntary pilot programs, projects, and grants related to  recycling used electronics. Of note, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) recently  documented cost savings associated with its FEC participation. The problem is particularly serious in the case of nonworking  whole products, such as CRT televisions and computer monitors, which are  often handled in a manner that causes adverse environmental and human  health effects in receiving countries. These factors have prevented much recycling from occurring to date and, if  not addressed, will continue to stymie recycling and reuse efforts. EPA has  implemented several promising voluntary programs to encourage recycling  and reuse of used electronics, but without the authority to require recycling  of these products or to require other federal agencies to participate, the  success of these programs is and will continue to be limited. Using the success  of the Energy Star program as a precedent, the federal government has the  opportunity to lead by example by building on existing EPA programs to (1)  enhance the domestic recycling infrastructure for used electronics by  ensuring a steady and substantial supply of used electronics; (2) stimulate  markets for environmentally preferable electronic products by purchasing  energy efficient, easily recyclable products with high recycled content and  less toxic substances; and (3) save energy by extending the lifespan of used  electronics. However,  participating agencies and facilities are not required to meet these goals. Does this discourage recycling? (Select one.) a. ARF collected at retail level and managed by the federal government (covering collection, transportation, and recycling)....... b. ARF collected at retail level and managed by a third-party organization (covering collection, transportation, and recycling)....... c. ARF/EPR hybrid:  ARF for historic waste with a transition to EPR after “X” years ........ d. ARF for collection/transportation of used electronics, and EPR for  recycling/processing ...................................... e. EPR with market share divisions for  orphan waste .................................................. f. EPR with retroactive liability for historic waste .............................................................. g. End of life fees............................................... h. Local tax base funding for collection/transportation, and EPR for recycling/processing ...................................... transportation, and EPR for recycling............ j. Deposit/refund ............................................... k. Other – Specify: ..................................
EPA’s management of used electronics The Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste (OSW) developed shared responsibility pilots, for example, under the “Plug-In to eCycling” campaign to help demonstrate the kinds of voluntary partnerships that can significantly increase recycling of used electronics in the United States.
Why GAO Did This Study

Advances in technology have led to rapidly increasing sales of new electronic devices. With this increase comes the dilemma of managing these products at the end of their useful lives. Some research suggests that the disposal of used electronics could cause a number of environmental problems. Research also suggests that such problems are often exacerbated by the export of used electronics to countries without protective environmental regulations. Given that millions of used electronics become obsolete each year with only a fraction of them being recycled, GAO was asked to (1) summarize information on the volumes of, and problems associated with, used electronics; (2) examine the factors affecting their recycling and reuse; and (3) examine federal efforts to encourage recycling and reuse of these products.

What GAO Found

Available estimates suggest that over 100 million computers, monitors, and televisions become obsolete each year, and this number is growing. If improperly managed, these used electronics can harm the environment and human health. Available data suggest that most used electronics are probably stored in garages, attics, or warehouses, with the potential to be recycled, reused, or disposed of in landfills, either in the United States or overseas. If disposed of in landfills, valuable resources, such as copper, gold, and aluminum, are lost for future use. Additionally, some research shows that toxic substances with known adverse health effects, such as lead, have the potential to leach from discarded electronics in landfills. Although one study suggests that this leaching does not occur in modern U.S. landfills, it appears that many used electronics are exported to countries without modern landfills or with regulations less protective of human health and the environment. Economic factors inhibit the recycling and reuse of used electronics. Consumers generally have to pay fees and drop off their used electronics at often inconvenient locations to have them recycled or refurbished for reuse. Recyclers and refurbishers charge these fees because their costs exceed the revenue they receive from selling recycled commodities or refurbishing units. In addition to these economic factors, federal regulatory requirements provide little incentive for environmentally preferable management of used electronics. First, the governing statute, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, allows individuals and households to dispose of hazardous waste, including many used electronics, in landfills. Second, federal regulations do not provide a financing system to overcome the economic factors deterring recycling and reuse. Third, federal regulations do not prevent the exportation of used electronics to countries where disassembly takes place at far lower cost, but where disassembly practices may threaten human health and the environment. In the absence of federal actions to address these concerns, an emerging patchwork of state requirements to encourage recycling and reuse may place a substantial burden on manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers, who incur additional costs and face an uncertain regulatory landscape as a result. In response to these challenges, EPA has spent about $2 million on several promising programs to encourage recycling and reuse of used electronics. Participation in one program--the Federal Electronics Challenge--has already led the Bonneville Power Administration to substantial cost savings through the procurement of environmentally friendly and energy efficient electronic products. To date, however, federal participation in this and other EPA electronics recycling programs has been minimal because--unlike other successful federal procurement programs (such as EPA's and the Department of Energy's Energy Star program)--participation is not required.