<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:37447.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-988
ELECTRONIC WASTE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
SUPERFUND AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 26, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
37-447 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
__________
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia BARBARA BOXER, California
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 26, 2005
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 3
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 2
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 5
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey, prepared statement..................................... 42
Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota.... 1
WITNESSES
Davis, Sheila, executive director, Silicon Valley Toxics
Coalition...................................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 87
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 93
Senator Jeffords......................................... 88
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 92
Dunne, Thomas P., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 50
Senator Inhofe........................................... 49
Senator Jeffords......................................... 54
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 54
Goss, Richard, director of Environmental Affairs, Electronic
Industries
Alliance....................................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 113
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 118
Senator Inhofe........................................... 114
Senator Jeffords......................................... 116
Hickle, Garth T., principal planner, Minnesota Office of
Environmental
Assistance..................................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 85
Senator Jeffords......................................... 85
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 87
Slesinger, Scott, vice president for Government Affairs,
Environmental Technology Council............................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 102
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 111
Senator Jeffords......................................... 109
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 112
Stephenson, John B., Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 65
Senator Inhofe........................................... 65
Senator Jeffords......................................... 66
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 66
Talent, Hon. James, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri...... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Thompson, Hon. Mike, U.S. Representative from the State of
California..................................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Vitelli, Michael, senior vice president, Consumer Electronics and
Product Management, Best Buy Company, Inc...................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 95
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 102
Senator Inhofe........................................... 101
Senator Jeffords......................................... 101
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 43
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter, from Gallagher, Dawn R., Commissioner, Maine Department
of Environmental Protection to Senators Thune and Boxer........ 163
Report, SB20, Determination of regulated elements in discarded
laptop computers, LCD monitors, Plasma TVs and LCD TVs......... 164
Statements:
Basel Action Network, Seattle, WA............................ 124
Cassel, Scott, executive director, Product Stewardship
Institute, Inc............................................. 161
Consumer Electronics Association............................. 130
Isaac, David, director, Government and Public Policy on
Behalf of Hewlett--Packard Company (HP).................... 118
Retail Industry Leaders Association.......................... 123
Sheehan, Bill, Ph.D., director, Product Policy Institute..... 132
ELECTRONIC WASTE
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John Thune (chairman of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Thune, Inhofe, Boxer and Jeffords.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. The hearing will come to order.
I want to welcome our panelists and say good afternoon.
We are here this afternoon to hear testimony from various
stakeholders concerning an issue that has been receiving an
increased amount of attention as various States begin to
grapple with the disposal of obsolete, electronic devices. Not
only is the topic new to this committee but it also marks my
first hearing as subcommittee chairman. As this hearing gets
underway, I want to thank my fellow subcommittee members for
joining me today and look forward to working with them in the
future regarding this and other issues under our subcommittee's
purview.
According to the Consumer Electronics Association,
Americans own some 2 billion electronic products, about 24
products per household. Though e-waste constitutes less than
1.5 percent of municipal solid waste, it is piling up at three
times the rate of other household trash according to the EPA.
Like many American families, I am sure that there are a
majority of folks in the hearing room today who have older
televisions or computers sitting around their homes because
they just don't know what to do with them.
While some interest groups claim that electronic waste such
as TVs, computers and computer monitors pose a significant risk
to human health due to the presence of toxins such as lead,
mercury and cadmium, I look forward to hearing more from the
EPA and other witnesses about the risk if any that electronics
pose to the general public when disposed of in municipal
landfills.
While it is currently possible for older electronics to be
recycled in hopes of recovering precious metals such as gold,
copper, aluminum and platinum, the latest estimates from the
Environmental Protection Agency show that consumers only
recycle roughly 10 percent of all electronics. The remaining 90
percent of used consumer electronics are in storage, disposed
of in landfills or incinerators or exported for reuse or
recycling.
I also look forward to hearing from our third panel which
represents various stakeholders from the retail, manufacturing,
recycling and environmental sectors. Particularly, I am
interested in learning more about what each of our witnesses
think of the emerging patchwork of States' e-waste initiatives
and what it means to not only the future of collection and
recycling but also what impact the differing State e-waste
initiatives mean to the U.S. economy and the competitive
position of the U.S. electronics industry.
Before turning to our first panel, I would like to
recognize Senator Boxer, the Ranking Member of our subcommittee
for her opening statement. As many of you may know, California
has placed a ban on electronics from the landfill and has
created its own statewide program regarding e-waste. As I
discovered in preparation for this hearing, it seems this issue
is very similar to layers of an onion, the more you learn, the
more complex it becomes.
I would be happy to yield to the Senator from California,
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator, for holding this
hearing and I am very grateful to our colleagues on our first
panel and look forward to their remarks.
I would like to read an opening statement. It will last
around 5 minutes. Is that OK?
Senator Thune. That is fine.
Senator Boxer. I see that the chairman of the full
committee is here. I am very happy to see you, Senator.
Senator Inhofe. Would you mind yielding to me for just a
moment?
Senator Boxer. No, I would not mind.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
We are this close to finishing up our highway bill.
Senator Boxer. I had that feeling when I looked at your
face.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. So I cannot spend a lot of time here but I
wanted to come by and just briefly say, first of all,
congratulations to Senator Thune. This is your first
chairmanship and your first meeting of your chairmanship and
there is no more important subcommittee than the one you have.
Being the home of the most devastating of all superfund sites,
Tar Creek, it is one I am very sensitive to the issues before
this committee.
I would say this is a very significant issue and you are
diving into a very complicated issue at this time. I know that
you and Senator Boxer will be able to handle this. I applaud
both of you for giving it your attention.
I would ask unanimous consent that my formal statement be
made a part of the record at this point.
Senator Thune. Without objection.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
I would like to take a moment to congratulate Subcommittee Chairman
Thune on his first hearing. Senator Thune has already demonstrated a
great ability to consider legislation and balance the interests of
diverse groups of stakeholders. I am confident that as Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management, he will lead on several
important issues facing our Nation.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, you are certainly diving right into a big
issue with today's hearing. The issue of electronics waste and
recycling has become one that a lot of people talk about but have had
difficulty in defining what the problems are much less potential
solutions.
Various interest groups and European Nations have been pushing for
laws restricting electronics waste and require recycling. A handful of
States have passed or are contemplating legislation that adopts
differing regulatory approaches.
Enacting environmental regulations cost money, and the subject of
funding various e-waste and recycling programs is one of the bedrock
issues of today's hearing. In reviewing the various approaches and
responses from individual stakeholders one thing is clear: the issue of
electronics waste and recycling has tremendous impacts on the
competitiveness of companies.
The electronics industry is one of the most price sensitive, and
shifting compliance costs may have serious consequences that could
jeopardize a business's future. Congress should take care in proposing
laws that may pick winners and losers.
Upon assuming the Chairmanship of the Environment Committee I
pledged to focus on well grounded science as a benchmark for
regulations. In applying that standard here, I am concerned with
considering the best approach given the potential benefits versus the
costs.
To my knowledge, EPA is unaware of a single instance where toxins
from electronics have leeched from a landfill. I am not suggesting that
people must be injured before Congress or the Agency should act,
however, I firmly believe that regulations should not be imposed for
the sake of imposing regulations based upon the precautionary
principle.
Further, Americans enjoy their electronics and domestic businesses
have prospered as a result. However, dictating technology or increasing
the costs of popular consumer goods based on circumstances still being
studied may have a stifling effect on the highly competitive and global
electronics sector.
This is the first hearing the Environment and Public Works
Committee has ever held on electronics waste and the first hearing for
Subcommittee Chairman Thune. I am confident that he will review and
balance all of the points of view in considering this very complex
issue. I look forward to working with him.
Senator Thune. We thank the chairman for joining us and the
best of luck with the Highway bill, something in which we are
all very interested.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe, get it done. I know you will get it done.
If anyone can do this, you can.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Each day more than 3,000 tons of electronic
products are discarded. Every year, 50 million computers become
obsolete. This waste from electronic products makes up an ever-
increasing share of our Nation's total amount of solid waste.
Even though it is going to be complicated, Mr. Chairman, I
think you have struck a nerve because this is an important
issue for us to get a handle on.
This electronic waste is not like normal food scraps that
every American throws out. Waste from electronic products can
be very toxic. Let me use TVs as an example. There are an
estimated 287 million analog TVs in our Country. Each TV like
each computer monitor contains an average of 4 pounds of lead.
If you do the math, you are talking about a lot of lead.
We are quickly moving into the digital age and many people
in the very near future will switch to digital TV sets. I serve
on the Commerce Committee where we are looking at that issue,
the move to digital and how to make it go faster. Over time, if
90 percent of the analog TVs are thrown out, our landfills
could be burdened with more than 1 billion pounds of lead, just
from TVs.
Lead is not the only hazardous substance from electronic
products. Electronic waste also contains heavy metals which my
colleague has talked about, cadmium, arsenic and mercury.
Unless disposed of properly, these substances can damage almost
every system in the human body. We know about these products
and we know about these heavy metals.
Municipal landfills are meant to hold trash, not extremely
toxic material. Hazardous substances from crushed glass and
other electronic debris can leak from landfills and threaten
the nearby groundwater. The toxic substances in electronic
wastes are known or suspected of causing cancer and birth
defects. We know that lead can lower the IQs of children and
damage their hearing. The toxic waste in these products can
also damage the lungs, the liver, the kidneys and injure the
human endocrine, cardiac, skeletal and nervous systems.
As my colleague from South Dakota, the chairman of this
subcommittee pointed out, California has been one of the
leading States in dealing with the problem, perhaps because we
have a high concern for environment and also because we have
such a large tech industry and frankly, a tech industry that
has really been aware and sensitive to these problems.
Whatever the reason, California encourages recycling of e-
products. The State has established a fee-based system that
promotes the collection and recycling of cathode ray tubes. The
State has also banned the disposal of cathode ray tubes in
municipal landfills recognizing that many facilities may not be
able to protect human health from toxins that can leach from
such landfills. California has also established a program that
requires retailers to take back cell phones for recycling.
I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses
starting with our esteemed colleagues and from people who are
in California and other States trying to deal with this.
Unfortunately, throughout most of the Country, the steps that
California has taken have not been taken and much of this
dangerous waste ends up in municipal landfills or is even
shipped overseas for someone else to deal with our problems.
I think it is really important. This is a silent problem
and we can't let these wastes silently seep into our drinking
water supplies and then suddenly note an outbreak of some
horrible problem with our children who as you know I always say
are our most vulnerable, pregnant women, infants and children.
That is kind of the place where we see it first. We cannot wait
that long, Mr. Chairman. So my deepest thanks go to you for
this hearing and I hope we can meet these challenges in a
bipartisan way.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from the
State of California
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank you for holding a subcommittee hearing on
such an important topic.
Each day, more than 3,000 tons of electronic products are
discarded. Every year, 50 million computers become obsolete. This waste
from electronic products makes up an ever-increasing share of our
Nation's total amount of solid waste. But, this electronic waste is not
like the normal food scraps that every American throws out. Waste from
electronic products can be very toxic.
Let me use TVs as an example. There are an estimated 287 million
analog TVs in our country. Each TV, like each computer monitor,
contains an average of four pounds of lead. We are quickly moving into
the digital age in TV. And, many people in the very near future will
switch to digital TV sets. Over time, if 90 percent of the analog TVs
are thrown out, our landfills could be burdened with more than 1
billion pounds of lead, just from TVs.
Lead is not the only hazardous substance from electronic products.
Electronic waste also contains heavy metals such as cadmium, arsenic,
and mercury.
Unless disposed of properly, these substances can damage almost
every system in the human body.
Municipal landfills are meant to hold trash, not extremely toxic
material. Hazardous substances from crushed glass and other electronic
debris can leak from landfills and threaten nearby groundwater.
The toxic substances in electronic waste are known or suspected of
causing cancer and birth defects. We know that lead can lower the IQs
of children and damage their hearing. The toxic waste in these products
can also damage the lungs, liver, and kidneys and injure the human
endocrine, cardiac, skeletal, and nervous systems.
California has been one of the leading States in dealing with the
problem--perhaps because we have such a high concern for our
environment, perhaps because we have such a large tech industry, or
perhaps both. Whatever the reason, California encourages recycling of
electronic products.
The state has established a fee-based system that promotes the
collection and recycling of cathode ray tubes. The state has also
banned the disposal of cathode ray tubes in municipal landfills,
recognizing that many facilities may not be able to protect human
health from toxins that can leach from such landfills.
California has also established a program that requires retailers
to take back cell phones for recycling.
I look forward to hearing from one of our witnesses today, Ms.
Sheila Davis, Executive Director of the Silicon Valley Toxics
Coalition, and other witnesses about the recycling program in
California and other States.
Unfortunately, throughout most of the country, these steps have not
been taken and much of this dangerous waste ends up in municipal
landfills or is shipped overseas.
We must not ship our problems to other countries or allow them to
silently seep into our drinking water supplies. We must meet the
challenge before us.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
We have been joined by the Ranking Member of the full
committee, Senator Jeffords from Vermont. Would you like to
make an opening statement, Senator Jeffords?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Yes, I would.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this general oversight
hearing for electronic waste.
Computers, televisions and other electronic products have
enriched our lives in a multitude of ways. They have also
created a new problem, how to appropriately manage these
products once they reach the end of their useful life. The
sheer volume of electronic waste is staggering. Each year an
estimated 220 tons of computers and other electronic wastes are
dumped in landfills or incinerated in the United States.
It is estimated that almost 50 million computers and
monitors and approximately 20 million televisions became
obsolete in the year 2003. The challenge of properly managing
this much scrap is compounded by the presence of harmful
toxins. EPA confirms that electronic scrap often qualifies as
``hazardous waste'' because it fails the Agency's toxicity
test.
Each computer and the monitor contain an average of 4 to 8
pounds of lead, making computer monitors and televisions the
greatest source of lead in municipal waste. The greatest source
of mercury in these landfills is from batteries, switches and
printed wiring boards. Likewise, the leading source of cadmium
is the rechargeable nickel-cadmium battery found in the top
computers.
From a resource conservation perspective, it is far better
to reuse and recycle these materials rather than discarding
them. For instance, the U.S. Geological Survey reports that 1
metric ton of computer scrap contains more gold than 17 tons of
ore and much lower levels of harmful elements common to ores
such as arsenic, mercury and sulfur.
However, in 2003, only 10 percent of consumer electronics
were recycled in the United States. The remaining 90 percent
were stored, disposed of in landfills or incinerators or
exported for use and recycling.
In the absence of a national solution, a patchwork of
differing State requirements is emerging. Four States have
banned landfill disposal by cathode ray tubes and three States
have passed electronic waste legislation; 26 other States
reportedly are considering electronic waste legislation.
Some retailers and manufacturers have created voluntarily
recycling programs to deal with the problem. This patchwork of
State regulation and limited industry involvement is not
sufficient to address the expected growth in electronic waste.
There is also concern that it could place unnecessary costs on
U.S. manufacturers if forced to comply with these inconsistent
State regulations.
For these reasons, a national program is needed to provide
incentives for the greater collection and proper recycling of
electronic waste. The key question is how to finance the
development of the infrastructure needed to address this
looming problem. A variety of options have been proposed
ranging from an advanced recovery fee on the sale of new
equipment to a requirement that manufacturers take back their
own equipment.
Senators Wyden and Talent have suggested an innovative
alternative approach that uses tax incentives to encourage
greater recycling. I was pleased to work with Senator Wyden in
a similar recycling tax incentive in the Senator Energy bill.
That provision would create a 15 percent tax credit for the
purpose of equipment used to process or sort recycled materials
including electronic waste. While modest, this provision is a
first step toward building an electronic waste recycling
infrastructure.
I look forward to hearing the expert testimony today from
the EPA, industry and other interested stakeholders and their
views on how to develop, fund and administer a national
electronic waste recycling program. I hope to be able to work
with you and other members of the subcommittee on bipartisan
legislation that would help build the infrastructure to
mitigate the environmental impacts from electronic waste
disposal and to maximize the resource recovery to be gained by
greater electronic waste recycling.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from the
State of Vermont
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this general oversight hearing
on electronic waste.
Computers, televisions and other electronic products have enriched
our lives in a multitude of ways. They have also created a new problem:
how to properly manage these products once they reach the end of their
useful life.
The sheer volume of electronic waste is staggering. Each year, an
estimated 220 tons of computers and other electronic waste are dumped
in landfills or incinerated in the United States. It is estimated that
almost 50 million computers and monitors and approximately 20 million
televisions became obsolete in 2003.
The challenge of properly managing this much scrap is compounded by
the presence of harmful toxins. EPA confirms that electronic scrap
often qualifies as ``hazardous waste'' because it fails the Agency's
toxicity test. Each computer and monitor contains an average of 4 to 8
pounds of lead, making computer monitors and televisions the greatest
source of lead in municipal landfills. The greatest source of mercury
in these landfills is from batteries, switches, and printed wiring
boards. Likewise, the leading source of cadmium is from rechargeable
nickel-cadmium batteries found in laptop computers.
From a resource conservation perspective, it is far better to reuse
and recycle these materials rather than discard them. For instance, the
U.S. Geological Survey reports that 1 metric ton of computer scrap
contains more gold than 17 tons of ore and much lower levels of harmful
elements common to ores, such as arsenic, mercury, and sulfur. However,
in 2003, only 10 percent of consumer electronics were recycled in the
United States. The remaining 90 percent were stored, disposed of in
landfills or incinerators, or exported for reuse or recycling.
In the absence of a national solution, a patchwork of differing
State requirements is emerging. Four States have banned landfill
disposal of cathode ray tubes and three States have passed electronic
waste legislation. Twenty six other States reportedly are considering
electronic waste legislation. Some retailers and manufacturers have
created voluntary recycling programs to deal with this problem. This
patchwork of State regulation and limited industry involvement is not
sufficient to address the expected growth in electronic waste. I'm also
concerned that it could place unnecessary costs on U.S. manufacturers
if forced to comply with inconsistent State regulations.
For these reasons, a national program is needed to provide
incentives for the greater collection and proper recycling of
electronic waste. The key question is how to finance the development of
the infrastructure needed to address this looming problem. A variety of
options have been proposed, ranging from an advance recovery fee on the
sale of new equipment to a requirement that manufacturers take back
their own equipment. Senators Wyden and Talent have suggested an
innovative alternative approach that uses tax incentives to encourage
greater recycling.
I was pleased to work with Senator Wyden on a similar recycling tax
incentive in the Senate Energy bill. The provision would create a 15
percent tax credit for the purchase of equipment used to process or
sort recycled materials, including electronic waste. While modest, this
provision is a first step toward building an electronic waste recycling
infrastructure.
I look forward to hearing the expert testimony today from EPA,
industry and other interested stakeholders on their views on how to
develop, fund, and administer a national electronic waste recycling
program. I hope to be able to work with you and other members of this
subcommittee on bipartisan legislation that would help build the
infrastructure to mitigate the environmental impacts from electronic
waste disposal and to maximize the resource recovery to be gained by
greater electronic waste recycling.
Senator Thune. I thank the Senator from Vermont.
I want to recognize our panel of distinguished colleagues.
When Senators Wyden and Talent first approached me about doing
a hearing on e-waste, I had to figure out exactly what it was
they were referring to. I had heard of e-mail and e-commerce
and I guess it makes sense that we have e-waste. It is an issue
that I think more and more people in this Country can now
identify with. There are a lot of us that it becomes very
personal when you have a computer that is outdated and can't
figure out what to do with it. Frankly, there is a patchwork of
different State initiatives out there.
I had the conversation with some of our colleagues on the
House side who had a hearing on this recently and said, we have
a lot discussed about the problem, but we didn't have much come
out in the form of solutions. I am hopeful that on the Senate
side, you will have something more in the form of solutions.
Senators Wyden and Talent have introduced legislation that
is a tax credit proposal. I want to give them great credit for
taking the initiative to come up with something that attempts
to provide incentives for people to figure out how to use and
recycle many of these products.
We will hear as well from our colleague from the House
side, Mike Thompson as well, but I want to start first with our
Senate colleagues. Senator Wyden, Senator Talent informs me
that you are the real guy spearheading this so you get to go
first. We would love to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
OREGON
Senator Wyden. We are a bipartisan team and I will just
tell you that we are supposed to be discouraging gratuitous
filibusters around here, so if I could just have my statement
put in the record, let me perhaps make a few comments. Then I
will turn it over to our friend, Jim Talent.
This really is a day of firsts and congratulations to you
on your first hearing. This is the first time we have ever had
a hearing on electronic trash, No. 1. Second, we have never had
a bipartisan bill before and third, this is really a first in
terms of a different approach. Senator Boxer is dead right, our
States have done a variety of work in this area and have tried
to be innovative.
It has always involved one of two things, either up front
fees which I think will hurt consumers and make it hard to get
them interested or slapping manufacturers with more taxes.
Senator Talent and I have said that there really is an interest
in jump starting a national approach. We use a tax credit
approach, $8 per unit tax credit for companies that recycle
significant numbers of display screens, a $15 tax credit for
consumers.
The first question is how do you do something like this
when you have a big deficit. We have said that we would
envision doing something like this for about 3 years to try to
jump start a national policy in this area. It seems to me that
if we don't, what we are going to do is see States and
localities put in place a crazy quilt of laws and regulations
which we will eventually have to try to sort out.
Senator Jeffords and I have talked about it for years. We
did get a baby step in the right direction in terms of the tax
credit for e-waste recycling equipment in the Senate bill and
we are optimistic that will be signed by the President.
Senator Talent and I do think what is important now is that
there is a national interest in terms of recycling electronic
trash and not just sort of sitting around and waiting for this
kind of hazardous stew of toxic e-waste to accumulate in
landfills across the Country.
The last point that I would make, and Senator Boxer touched
on this as well, is with respect to digital television, that on
a bipartisan basis in the Senate we have finally begun to look
at ways to ensure that we are always advancing the next set of
technology. In effect, what you use one year is going to be
obsolete the next and people will, in effect, be looking at
that new round of products. So this problem is only going to
grow exponentially.
I was really struck by the story a few days ago in the New
York Times that talked about computers being so infected with
spyware and adware that they are on life support and rather
than try to debug computers, people essentially chuck them.
Nobody really talked about spyware and adware very long ago.
Senator Boxer, myself, Senator Burns and others have been
working on this but the fact of the matter is that was a
problem nobody envisioned just a few years ago and now all of a
sudden the New York Times is running front page stories on why
people are chucking their computers because they can't debug
their system and will just say what the heck, let us get the
next one.
We are very hopeful that on a bipartisan basis we can work
to put less e-waste in the landfills and more in the recycling
bin. We acknowledge the good work that is being done by States
and localities around the Country but it is the view of Senator
Talent and myself that if we don't get a national policy in
place, particularly to jump start the effort to come up with a
uniform set of incentives, 4 or 5 years down the road, we are
essentially going to be trying to wade through another kind of
morass. In that case, it will be a hodgepodge of inconsistent
rules and regulations and our work will be that much more
difficult.
We thank you for the chance to come and work with you and
Senator Boxer and Senator Jeffords on this.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Wyden, for your testimony
and for your thoughtful approach and looking beyond just
identifying and defining the problem but actually coming up
with something tangible, specific proposal that would help
address it.
We will yield to your colleague, Senator Talent.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES TALENT, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
MISSOURI
Senator Talent. When Senator Wyden approached me about
this, I really thought he had a good idea. I am happy to be his
wing man on this idea.
I don't want to talk a long time about the problem because
I think we all understand that. I do think it is important to
keep in mind that if we don't do something we are really going
to be overwhelmed by this. Everyone just needs to think of
their own buying habits and their family's buying habits and
think of the number of old computers and TVs that we are
accumulating. We are going to start running out of rooms in our
attics, garages and basements and have to get rid of them.
I think the advantage of this approach is that it will
provide a boost through the Tax Code for creation across the
Country of a recycling system that will be uniform in the sense
that this is a national incentive, it may adapt a little bit
from place to place and we can get this into place. Consumers
can get used to dealing with it, can see the benefits they get
from it. Once that is in place, it will be easier for us to
move to a different system of financing it if we want to do
that.
The problem with collecting up-front fees is the hassle
with it, the resentment people have and they don't know really
what they are getting for the money they are paying. They are
going to pay it whether you hit them directly or hit the
manufacturer, it will get passed through to them. This way we
get a system going and people can see it is working and get
satisfied with it. Then we can figure out longer term how you
want to finance it.
I really like this idea, although obviously the
subcommittee and the committee are going to have to work on
this and massage this a lot because we have introduced this as
kind of a starting point but we understand there is a ways to
go with it.
Senator Thune. Senator Talent.
We are also joined this afternoon by Congressman Mike
Thompson from the State of California, a colleague from the
House side who is also keenly interested in this issue.
Congressman Thompson, we would love to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE THOMPSON, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Congratulations on your first subcommittee hearing. I am
glad to be a part of it.
I would like to go a step further than my two friends and
Senate colleagues. I would like to suggest we make this a
bicameral as well as a bipartisan solution.
I first introduced legislation 3 or 4 years ago on this
issue trying to raise the profile because as everyone has
recognized, it is a very serious problem. I will admit that my
solution, my bill has the up-front fee, a point of sale fee.
The idea was to get some startup money and let EPA take that
money and spend it in the form of grants to anyone, public or
private sector, who came up with a good program to deal with
this problem.
For the record, please know that I am not married to that
solution. I just think it is important that first, everybody
recognizes the problem and then we all sit down and figure out
the solution.
There are proponents for both the point of sale fee, there
are proponents for the tax approach. There is also a new
suggestion that we combine them and start with a point of sale
collection so we can get the program started and then move to a
tax type of solution to get it going and then as I think
Senator Wyden said, phase it out altogether once it got up and
going, but it is a problem.
You mentioned the landfill problem, the public safety
problem with the heavy metals going into the environment and
some folks are taking these components overseas and
disassembling them with child labor and discarding the bad
stuff into the environment somewhere else but exposing kids to
the problem. You mentioned the storage problem and said you
have been confronted with this. Everybody is confronted with
this.
The life expectancy of a computer today is so short that we
out use their abilities and stick them in a closet someplace. I
have had business people tell me that they actually have
warehouse space in their businesses designated for storage for
these computers because they have no place to put them.
The issue of States, I think Senator Jeffords mentioned
there are three States, Maryland, Maine and California that
already have programs. There are 26 other States currently
considering legislation to put a program on the books. This
could create such a mess not only for consumers but for
manufacturers and for retailers as well.
All of this is just a bit more pressure that I believe
should bring us to figure out the solution. In the House, we
started a bipartisan working group with four of us who have
taken this on as a major priority. Of the four of us, I think
there are two or three who have bills but we would very much
like to extend it, as I mentioned, make it a bicameral issue
and figure out what that solution will be because hopefully we
can move away from the issue of e-waste which suggests that
this is waste we dispose of and move it toward e-scrap which
may suggest that we can reuse or recycle these, or at least
dispose of them in a proper manner.
I commend you for having this hearing and hopefully we can
all come together and figure out what the solution is. Anyone
who is at all honest will admit there is a problem. As
mentioned before, the difficulty is finding that solution. I
hope I am able to be a part of figuring that out.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement I will submit.
Senator Thune. Without objection, we will have that placed
in the record and again, thank you for your leadership on the
House side on this issue. Frankly, I guess I am somewhat
surprised it hasn't been dealt with sooner. There are
stockpiles of computers, televisions and all kinds of
electronic devices out there I am sure piling up in peoples'
homes, garages and other places. So it is very timely and
important that we get into this issue today.
We don't want to keep you all very long, but a question for
Senators Talent and Wyden. On your legislation, why is it that
you give the tax credit to ``certified'' recyclers?
Senator Wyden. I think whenever you are trying to use
scarce resources, particularly in the Tax Code I saw what a
battle it was just to get the incentive for the purchase of
equipment, you have to draw the line somewhere. We thought that
made the most sense in terms of scarce dollars.
Senator Talent and I were saying, there would be a variety
of ways to complement our bill. Say you wanted to have
diminimus up front kind of charge so people had some skin in
the game in terms of recycling, something like that could be
looked at. We essentially made the definition because we
thought that was the best use of scarce dollars.
Senator Talent. There have been a lot of incidents of
illegal dumps and recycling centers around the Country,
basically fraudulent outfits that advertise themselves as
recycling centers and take the computers, get some money from
people and dump it. We had an incident of that in Missouri. So
the idea here is to have some kind of a process where you can
certify that the recycling center is up to standards before
they are eligible for the tax credit. That is the most obvious
way of doing it.
Senator Thune. Senator Boxer?
Senator Boxer. I would commend you on that. It is really
key because otherwise we will have these little businesses
spring up which, as you say, are just a front to collect some
money and don't do the job. So thank you for that.
Senator Wyden, since you, according to Jim Talent, came up
with this idea of the tax credit first, do we know because we
have these deficits, what the cost will be here because we are
going to lose money from the Treasury, so what does this add to
the deficit?
Senator Wyden. We think it might be $300 million to $400
million. We obviously have to kind of crunch the numbers in
terms of how much recycling would be done. There will obviously
be definitions and the like, but it strikes me, and this is the
heart of what we are trying to do, we are not saying put a tax
credit in place in perpetuity. We are saying look at it for a
relatively short period of time and we think if you even capped
it somewhere in the vicinity of $300-$400 million, you could
with a sharp pencil say that would be a good investment.
Senator Boxer. I want to ask the whole panel a question. I
sometimes think we under estimate the people out there. People
hate taxes, let us face it, but if they know there is a
dedicated tax, a dedicated fee, they feel very differently
about it, at least the calls that I read. So if it was $2 a
product and plus you did a tax credit in combination, are you
willing to look at that with us because I fear if it is $300
million to $400 million a year, you are talking real bucks over
time. We just don't have it, so I am just wondering if you
would be willing to work with us.
As Mike Thompson said, and he is a very pragmatic
legislator, maybe there is a way we could do some combination
thing where the consumers pay but not to a point where they are
upset about it. For example, the airport fee, a lot of people
were scared after 9/11, how can we ask people to pay a security
fee? Let me just tell you, people in California who travel
across the Country all the time are happy to do it if they know
it is going for security.
If this was drawn in such a way, would you be open to
working with us? I even know if Senator Thune is interested in
this. I am just saying for myself, I think the more avenues we
have to explore so we don't come to our colleagues with a big
hole in the deficit.
Senator Talent. If I was in your position, the position of
the Ranking Member, I wouldn't rule out anything. My own sense
of it is that you are right, that if people have an assurance
they know what the money is going for and have assurance it is
taking care of a real problem, they would be more open to that.
The question is how do you give them that assurance, how do you
get a system up and running first.
You are also right, I think, in believing people may be
ahead of us on this issue because everybody has to deal with
this. Every time you walk by one of the old computers in your
garage or something, you say to yourself, what am I going to do
with that, it is just taking up space.
I think this is a basis for discussion and we would like to
continue being a part of it. I was saying to Senator Wyden I
see the stirrings of an E-Waste Caucus here beginning on a
bicameral basis.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Wyden. I think that is a very good point. It was
just our concern that if you are trying to build this ethic to
recycle these electronic products rather than chuck them, you
just want to make sure that the first thing people don't see is
a huge batch of new taxes. I think if it is an effort where the
Federal Government is going to be a partner in trying to set up
the national infrastructure and say to people, we want you to
have some skin in the game too, there will be some charges, I
think something like that ought to be on the table.
Senator Boxer. Thanks.
Senator Thune. Senator Jeffords?
Senator Jeffords. What about some way that we could get
money put into whatever we were using and then a refund to get
people to buy it back?
Senator Wyden. Probably too logical for government. I think
all those kinds of things ought to be on the table as well. Jim
touched on this at the outset. You have to figure out a way as
people begin to get acclimated to these kinds of priorities and
say look at all this stuff we are going to have, you have to
make sure that it is user friendly and there isn't a lot of
confusion about how it is set up. I think that is attractive
too.
Senator Talent. The only concern I would have and I am sure
your other panels will have a lot of comments on these various
alternatives, we ought to try and set it up so the system is as
simple as possible so the incentive is consumer buys and
consumer takes to the recycling center rather than takes back
to a store and they then take to a recycling center. I wouldn't
rule out anything at this stage.
It is music to my ears to hear there is resolution on the
part of the leaders of the committee to address the problem. I
think this hearing is a good first start. I hope you take these
ideas and put them all together in a bill. The longer we take
to do something, I think we are all in agreement, the harder it
is going to be when we finally do something.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Senator Thune. One final question. You ended up at $15 on
your individual and $8 for a small business. How did you come
up with the number?
Senator Wyden. You can see, Chairman Thune, the list of
people that endorsed the legislation. We essentially pulled
together this environmental and industry coalition. For
example, the $8 credit should go to companies that recycle at
least a significant number of screens, again because you are
trying to draw the line. Certified recyclers are going to be
the priority in terms of focal point for entering the system.
The credit for the companies was built on the idea there
should be a significant number of display screens or computer
systems that a company used per year but this was a judgment
essentially that we came to by talking to that support group,
the coalition of consumers and business leaders. If we are
lucky to go that kind of route, we ought to be consulting with
them more to try to refine what is that target point that will
make it attractive for people to do this and incorporate some
of the ideas that we touched on here about whether individuals
ought to have to pay something.
Senator Thune. Very good. Thank you all very much.
We have heard from our first panel on some proposals. Thank
you Senators, thank you, Congressman Thompson. We will call our
second panel. We will have an opportunity to hear from EPA and
others if there is a problem out there that needs to be
addressed. We look forward to hearing their testimony.
I want to welcome our second panel. As part of that panel,
we have Thomas Dunne, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; John Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources
and Environment, U.S. Government and Accountability Office; and
Garth Hickle, principal planner, Minnesota Office of
Environmental Assistance, one of the four States that I think
has taken steps or put in place some sort of comprehensive
approach to dealing with the issue of electronic waste.
We will start on my left with Administrator Dunne.
Before we begin, let me say we are going to adhere to the
5-minute rule. So if you will confine your oral remarks to 5
minutes and any additional information you want to present, we
will make sure it gets put into the record.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. DUNNE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Dunne. Good afternoon.
As you said, my name is Tom Dunne, and I am the Acting
Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. I am pleased to appear today to discuss how
EPA is addressing electronic issues including management, reuse
and recycling. I will summarize my testimony but ask the
written statement be submitted for the record.
Senator Thune. Without objection.
Mr. Dunne. EPA believes that more emphasis needs to be
placed on conservation and recovery in the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act known as RCRA. To that end, EPA
launched a Resource Conservation Challenge in the year 2002.
Arguably, the best way to manage waste is to eliminate it by
designing products and processes that minimize waste, by
collecting waste products and reusing them and by using input
materials more efficiently.
EPA has been involved with the improvement of electronics
design and recovery for a number of years. This involvement was
prompted by several EPA concerns including the increased growth
of electronic wastes, the potential for exposure to substances
of concern contained in some discarded electronics if they were
not properly managed and the lack of a convenient, affordable,
electronics reuse and recycling infrastructure.
Electronic waste is an increasing portion of the municipal
solid waste stream, although it contributes less than 2 percent
of municipal solid waste. EPA estimates that in 2003,
approximately 10 percent of consumer electronics was dismantled
and recycled domestically. The remaining 90 percent of
discarded consumer electronics was stored, reused or
refurbished, exported or disposed of in landfills or
incinerators.
Discarded electronic products contain a number of
substances that cause concern if improperly managed, including
lead from cathode ray tubes and mercury in flat panel displays.
While used electronic products do not pose a human health or
environmental threat at this time, it makes good sense to reuse
and recycle these products to bring about better materials
management, create more jobs and economic activity and to
promote greater resource conservation.
EPA is currently engaged in a series of partnerships with
manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, State and local
governments, non-profit organizations and other Federal
agencies to encourage the improved design of electronic
products, help develop an infrastructure for the collection and
reuse and recycling of discarded electronics and to encourage
the environmentally safe recycling of used electronics.
For example, EPA funded and participated in a process with
electronic manufacturers, government technology purchasers and
other organizations to develop the electronic product
environmental assessment tool called EPEAT. EPEAT will help
large technology purchasers identify electronic products that
are designed in a more environmentally friendly manner and it
is expected that EPEAT will be operating in 2006 when
manufacturers who meet their criteria will be able to certify
their products.
The initial electronic products eligible for EPEAT
certification will be desktop computers, laptops and monitors.
In addition, EPA has entered into a voluntary partnership with
a number of electronic manufacturers, retailers and State and
local governments to develop the Plug-In To eCycling. The aim
of this initiative is to raise the public awareness of
electronics recycling and to increase recycling opportunities.
In the first 2 years of the initiative, more than 45
million pounds of unwanted electronic products were recycled by
Plug-In partners. Further, EPA launched several pilot projects
last year with manufacturers, retailers and local governments
to provide consumer electronics recycling. The pilots resulted
in more than 11 million pounds of reused electronics and were
collected in retail stores including New England area Staples,
Seattle area Good Guys and all of the Office Depot locations.
EPA has also partnered with the Federal Environmental
Executive and several other Federal agencies to launch the
Federal Electronics Challenge or FEC. The U.S. Federal
Government is the largest bulk purchaser of electronics
products in the world. In fiscal year 2005, the Federal
Government will invest roughly $60 billion in information
technology equipment and services. That represents about 7
percent of worldwide purchases. Therefore, it is fitting that
the Federal Government lead by example.
The FEC is a voluntary partnership of Federal agencies that
have committed to develop a more sustainable environmental
stewardship of electronic products. Twelve Federal agencies
have signed a Memorandum of Understanding on electronics
management which will help increase reuse and recycling. These
agencies represent roughly 83 percent of the Government's
information technology purchasing power.
Finally, EPA continues to work with a wide range of
stakeholders to further encourage the reuse and recycling of
electronic products. Last spring, the agency hosted a national
electronics meeting attended by representatives from industry,
government and non-profit organizations to discuss electronics
management issues.
As a result of these meetings, a collaborative strategy is
being developed that included the development of a
certification program for electronic recyclers, a development
of a nationwide electronics recycling data repository and
piloting a private, multi-state organization to help support
electronics recycling in the Pacific Northwest.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my summary of some of the
efforts to encourage electronics management, reuse and
recycling and certainly, I would be happy to answer any
questions you or other subcommittee members may have.
Senator Thune. Next is Mr. Stephenson from the Government
and Accountability Office which has prepared an analysis of
this subject at least in draft form. I was one of the
requesters of that as was Senator Boxer. I understand you will
be coming out with a final draft some time this fall. I
appreciate the work you have put into it already in terms of
finding out the state of play out there with respect to this
issue and some of the things being proposed.
Mr. Stephenson.
STATEMENT OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Stephenson. Thank you. It is a pleasure for us to be
here to discuss our ongoing work for this subcommittee on the
growing problem of used consumer electronics, primarily
computers, monitors and televisions but in the future maybe
other types of consumer electronics.
As you know, rapid advancements in technologies have led to
increasing sales in electronics but with this increase comes
the dilemma of how to manage products that have reached the end
of their useful lives. Recycling and reuse have great potential
to help deal with this dilemma but there are also significant
challenges.
Today, I will summarize our work to date on one, existing
information on the volumes of and problems associated with used
electronics and two, factors affecting the Nation's ability to
recycle and reuse these electronics.
To address these issues, we are currently surveying key
stakeholders including manufacturers, retailers, trade
associations, recyclers, environmentalists and State and local
governments. To date, 41 of the 53 surveyed participants have
responded. We are also visiting States and localities that have
implemented programs or passed legislation to manage used
electronics.
Available estimates strongly suggest that the amount of
used electronics is large and growing and that if improperly
managed, can harm the environment and human health. Over 100
million computers, monitors and televisions become obsolete
each year and most are probably being stored in places like
basements, garages and warehouses. So the opportunity is to act
now.
The question is what will happen to these units that can be
recycled and reused but might also be disposed of in landfills
or exported for recycle or reuse overseas. Standard regulatory
tests show that some toxic substances with known adverse health
effects have the potential to leach from discarded electronics
into landfills.
As has been mentioned, the CRT tube can contain as much as
4 to 8 pounds of lead. Some suggest that because modern U.S.
landfills are designed with liners and other safety
precautions, leaching into the environment is not a major
problem. However, about 70 percent of heavy metals in landfills
currently come from discarded electronics and studies on the
long term effects are limited.
In addition, many used electronics end up in countries
without modern landfills or with considerably less protective
environmental regulations. Moreover, if these electronics are
simply discarded in landfills, valuable resources such as
copper, gold and aluminum are lost for future use.
For a perspective, the U.S. Geological Survey has reported
that one metric ton of computer circuit boards contains between
40 and 800 times the concentration of gold contained in gold
ore and 30 to 40 times the concentration of copper while
containing much lower levels of harmful elements common to such
ores. Despite the clear advantages, less than 10 percent of
electronic waste is currently being recycled.
So, what is the problem? The cost along with limited
regulatory requirements or incentives discourage recycling and
reuse. Consumers generally have to pay fees ranging from $10-
$27 per unit and drop off their used electronics at often
inconvenient locations to have their used electronics recycled
or refurbished for reuse. Such economic factors are compounded
by Federal regulatory requirements that provide little
incentive for environmentally preferable management of used
electronics.
EPA regulates hazardous waste under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act but lacks the authority to
require environmentally preferable management of used
electronics through recycling and reuse or to establish a
mandatory national approach such as a disposal ban or financing
schemes. As a result, all of its efforts are voluntary.
In the absence of a national framework for dealing with
this problem, a patchwork of potentially conflicting State
requirements, albeit good in their own right, create some
problems. Manufacturers in one State, for instance, may have an
advance recovery fee placed on their products but the same
manufacturers may have to take back their products and pay for
recycling in another.
This patchwork may be placing a substantial burden on
manufacturers, retailers, recyclers and stakeholders. It is
worth noting that several European countries have established
disposal bans and they have been in place for some time and
that the EU has a financing plan proposal.
In light of all this activity, it is not surprising that 97
percent of our survey respondents to date have told us that
some type of national legislation is needed to deal with this
growing problem. As we conclude our work, we will be further
examining ongoing efforts among the States to deal with this
growing problem, the various legislative solutions that have
been proposed to create a uniform national approach, and
options the Federal Government can pursue to encourage
recycling and reuse of electronics.
Thank you. That concludes my statement.
Senator Thune. Thank you.
Mr. Hickle is with the Minnesota Office of Environmental
Assistance. We welcome you here today and look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF GARTH HICKLE, PRINCIPAL PLANNER, MINNESOTA OFFICE
OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Hickle. My name is Garth Hickle with the Office of
Environmental Assistance, a division of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. Thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony today and share Minnesota's experience for the
management of waste electronics. Given the State, legislative
and programmatic attention devoted to this issue over the past
5 years, congressional attention is an important step forward
to address this complex issue.
The Office of Environmental Assistance began to address
this issue in 1995 at the request of our State legislature in
response to concerns regarding the growing presence of
discarded electronic products in the waste stream and the
potential environmental impacts of an electronics disposal.
While there is debate regarding the actual long term
environmental impacts from disposing of waste electronics in
landfills, Minnesota has framed the issue as one of resource
conservation and the promotion of economic development
opportunities created by the collection and de-manufacturing of
old electronic products.
The environmental benefits, energy savings and job creation
from promoting waste as a resource have guided our thinking as
to the rationale for the collection and recycling of waste
electronics. It is Minnesota's intent to ensure that residents
have convenient access to collection opportunities and that the
infrastructure is sufficient to discourage illegal dumping,
abandonment of collected products and the export of waste
electronics to nations with less stringent environmental
standards.
Since 1997, the OEA has facilitated a number of
demonstration projects for the collection of waste electronics
with participation from manufacturers, local government and
recyclers. Partnerships with individual manufacturers and
retailers such as Best Buy and Target, both Minnesota-based
companies, have served to model various collection options and
assess costs. The OEA has also participated in several efforts
to bring parties together to implement comprehensive programs
both at the State and national level.
We actively participated in the National Electronic Product
Stewardship Initiative. While NEPSI did not arrive at a
consensus regarding how a national program should be financed,
the stakeholders did agree on the need for several important
elements of a national program, including a broad scope of
products beyond just televisions and monitors, the need for
performance goals and funding for local collection activities,
environmentally sound management standards and a third party
organization to implement a program.
The Minnesota Legislature has also considered legislation
for waste electronics each year since 2002. The proposals have
ranged from advance recycling fees similar to the program
enacted by SB-20 in California to the producer responsibility
approach implemented in Maine. The different business models
and perspectives within the industry that prevented a national
approach from emerging from NEPSI have also stymied passage of
a State program in Minnesota.
Following the 2004 Minnesota legislative session, the OEA
initiated another consultation process with significant
participation from stakeholders to identify expectations for a
program in Minnesota. The expectations include offering
convenient collection options for residents that address a
broad scope of products and track the purchasing and disposal
habits of consumers utilizing existing infrastructure and
providing incentives for collection, ensuring accountability
for collection and recycling by identified parties, promoting
environmentally sound management and providing incentives for
design for the environment.
As well, we identified support in private management to the
extent possible to reduce government involvement in management
of the program as a key principle. Last, financing the program
without relying on end of life fees or local government
funding. While developed for Minnesota, the expectations listed
above will also be relevant for a comprehensive national
program.
This subcommittee will certainly hear from manufacturers,
retailers and others on the preference for a national approach
for business reasons to avoid a patchwork of State programs. A
Federal approach will also address some of the concerns faced
by State government grappling with this issue. From the
perspective of State government and consumers, a Federal
approach may provide a consistent standard and eliminate
regional disparities.
For instance, in 2003 Minnesota enacted a disposal ban for
cathode ray tube containing products, televisions and computer
monitors that is now slated for implementation in 2006. This
ban raised a concern among neighboring States, South Dakota,
North Dakota, Wisconsin and Iowa that televisions and monitors
from Minnesota would be transported across Minnesota's border
for disposal.
A Federal framework would also eliminate the impact upon
border sales if, for instance, one State enacted a consumer
fee-based program while a neighbor State did not. A national
program might also greatly simplify administrative
responsibilities such as compliance reporting and public
education.
If comprehensive national legislation is contemplated, a
step Minnesota supports, it is important to consider the
following: adopting an approach that engages all the players
along the product chain from manufacturers to local government
to share responsibility for funding and operating a program and
such an approach would result in a more effective that provides
incentives for more environmentally friendly products in the
future but will not place significant additional burden on
government.
Legislation should also contain a financing mechanism that
recognizes the different business models within the electronics
industry and provides flexibility to implement tailored
collection activities. A framework should be established so
that products can be added or deleted as the technology and
consumer purchasing habits evolve and finally, adopting
performance standards and mechanisms for evaluating progress.
If a comprehensive national program is not adopted, there
are still several steps the Federal Government could undertake
to support the collection and recycling of discarded electronic
products including performing data collection and analysis,
ensuring a consistent regulatory environment to support reuse
and recycling of discarded products, developing clear standards
for environmentally sound management that impose restrictions
on the export of waste electronics to countries with less
stringent environmental standards and finally, engaging in
research and analysis regarding innovative partnerships to
manage the program.
It is important to acknowledge that USEPA and others have
projects underway to address some of these issues. USEPA in
particular deserves significant recognition for the resources
and staff that have been devoted to this issue over the past
several years.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look
forward to addressing any questions you may have.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Hickle.
I will advise my colleagues who are here we will try and
adhere to 5-minute rounds for us as well and the additional
questions we have, we can submit for the record.
Mr. Dunne, I would like to direct a question to you. First,
because Congress has exempted household waste such as TVs and
computers from the Hazardous Waste Rules, are there any
particular concerns that EPA has when it comes to handling this
particular waste stream?
Mr. Dunne. You have to be vigilant in terms of what you are
doing. Even with the exemption, we have to be careful about
sham recyclers creeping up. Senator Talent mentioned there was
a case in Missouri and there were some other cases but there
are always people who will go outside the realm.
We feel so far based on data that we have, which are not
necessarily complete, even though a cathode ray tube may not
meet the TCLP test, it doesn't necessarily create an
environmental problem as long as the landfill is properly lined
and has a leachate system in place; they would be able to catch
it.
However, I think we have to continue to study this. We have
a study done by the Solid Waste Association of North America
that has not been able to trace any concerns so far. They
represent municipal solid waste organizations in their cities.
There has been some research and study which we sponsored at
the University of Florida that so far suggests there is not
contamination but I do think we don't have enough data in this
Country to jump to the conclusion that it will never occur.
Right now, I don't think there is any data that we have seen
and been able to analyze to say there is an environmental
problem right now.
Senator Thune. Are you aware, under existing landfill
permitting regulations, of any instances in which toxins from
electronics have led to human exposure?
Mr. Dunne. I am not aware of any particular case. There
could be but I am not aware. I want to remind you of something.
We do have the subtitle (c) part of RCRA and there is a
structure in place which this committee helped to pass in about
1976, I believe. It is run by the Federal Government and the
States. We can always fall back, if there is a hazardous waste
problem through corrective action under subtitle (c), so we
couldn't have just a voluntary program without the basis of the
regulatory program in place right now.
Senator Thune. Mr. Stephenson, during the course of GAO's
work, have you come across any estimates as America transitions
to HDTV about how that might increase the number of televisions
that could end up in landfills?
Mr. Stephenson. No, because converter boxes will likely be
used to make old TVs HDTV compatible, we don't think that there
will necessarily be a spike in the number of TVs that appear as
waste. But, you have to remember that even the plasma screens
that are replacing those old CRT tubes have mercury in them. So
you have to consider all forms of electronic wastes.
The real problem is that without a landfill ban, people are
not incentivized to do anything with their computers. The fact
that most have done nothing with them sort of exemplifies that.
It is easy to put an old computer on your curb but if you have
a landfill ban, you can't do that. We think that should be an
integral part of any legislation or national program that is
considered. The States that have landfill bans have
exponentially more recycling and reuse than those that don't.
Senator Thune. Did I hear you say, Mr. Dunne, that if there
was a determination made by EPA that these materials were
hazardous that under subtitle (c), you would have the authority
to enact regulations?
Mr. Dunne. I said that if it is causing contamination in a
particular landfill, we and the States who run most of the
program, the operational side, could fall back on subtitle (c).
It isn't whether there is lead in a material, we know there is
and there is a significant amount of lead going into landfills.
That is one of our concerns, the volume of this. That is why we
are dealing with this as a separate issue rather than straight
municipal landfills.
Senator Thune. My time has about expired. I have a question
I would like to address to Mr. Hickle, but I will yield now to
the Senator from California.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Dunne, I thought you said this isn't so
much of a problem on the cathode ray tubes, so I want to ask
you a question. Do you agree with this, ``Toxicity
characteristics of cathode ray tubes above the toxicity
characteristic regulatory level of 5 mg per liter that is used
to classify lead containing waste is hazardous''?
Mr. Dunne. I think so but when you ask it very specifically
like that, I would have to go back and find out the exact
answer.
Senator Boxer. What I read to you was EPA. That is what EPA
says, that it is a problem.
Mr. Dunne. I think what you have to do is quantify the
problem. A tube by itself may have these characteristics, but
whether or not it presents an environmental problem put into a
qualified landfill doesn't represent a health or environmental
problem as far as we know today.
Senator Boxer. I am confused because in 2002, and I ask
unanimous consent to place this in the record, EPA makes the
case that we do this rule.
[The referenced document not received at the time of
print.]
Mr. Dunne. The rule is under development right now, the
cathode ray tube.
Senator Boxer. I know that. Do you know when it started to
be considered? Do you know what year?
Mr. Dunne. My guess is back in the 1990's.
Senator Boxer. It was 1998, that is 7 years. Picking up
from your demeanor and your comments on this, I don't sense you
are particularly interested in moving this through. Is there
anything you can tell me in terms of the EPA's intention? Do
you have an EPA decision on when you are going to finish this
regulation and promulgate it?
Mr. Dunne. It is going through review right now, Senator. I
would assume in the next few months, there would be some
determination in terms of what rule will be published.
Senator Boxer. In a few months, you will have a
determination on?
Mr. Dunne. On the cathode ray tube rule.
Senator Boxer. So in a few months, you won't have the final
version of the rule but you will know if you are going to have
a rule?
Mr. Dunne. Yes and it could be published shortly.
Senator Boxer. What could be published?
Mr. Dunne. The rule on cathode ray tubes.
Senator Boxer. Do you expect that to happen?
Mr. Dunne. It is very possible.
Senator Boxer. Can you give me an approximate date?
Mr. Dunne. I don't control the calendar in terms of when it
goes to reviews.
Senator Boxer. Who does?
Mr. Dunne. The interagency review process takes time and
the Office of Management and Budget reviews it.
Senator Boxer. The value of leaded glass recently dipped to
minus $200 per ton. This change reflects a shift in the
consumer preference for different technologies. Doesn't this
drop in value eliminate EPA's rationale for exempting cathode
ray tubes from hazardous waste regulations as a ``valuable
commodity''?
Mr. Dunne. I don't think so.
Senator Boxer. Do you still think it is valuable?
Mr. Dunne. I think it is valuable in the sense that we want
to be able to regulate only those things that create a real
environmental threat. I don't think that we have to gauge every
rule on today's market share.
Senator Boxer. But that wasn't the question. I understand
what you are saying. You want to make sure that it is an
environmental threat before you regulate it. I understand that.
I appreciate that, but that is not the question. One of the
reasons for the rationale for exempting cathode ray tubes in
the past has been that it has been deemed a valuable commodity.
Isn't that rationale gone now given what I told you about the
value, putting aside the risks?
Mr. Dunne. I don't think what I have seen so far of the
evaluation done by staff is that there is some cost benefit
analysis if it has to be done with every rule and it seems to
me there is probably some benefit to exemption.
Senator Boxer. Because?
Mr. Dunne. Because there is still value in the marketplace.
Senator Boxer. I told you it is minus $200.
Mr. Dunne. It still may have value. I don't know.
Senator Boxer. I will follow up with some written
questions. That makes no sense. I was an economics major, what
do I know. I don't understand something having such great value
when it doesn't have any value, has a minus value, but we will
get into that later.
To finish my last question, then I might ask for a second
round, we know that cathode ray tubes can leach four times the
amount of lead as material that is regulated as a hazardous
waste. I just read EPA's own words on that. The EPA's Inspector
General recently noted that EPA is testing other types of
electronic wastes for their hazardous characteristics. What
types of electronic material has EPA tested for its hazardous
characteristics and what were the results?
Mr. Dunne. I will have to get you that for the record,
Senator. I am sorry, I can't answer that right now.
Senator Boxer. In October 2003, EPA proposed a rule that
could deregulate up to 3 billion pounds of hazardous waste
including used circuit boards. Among other problems, EPA's
proposed rule would allow hazardous waste to be shipped on
public roads without any tracking documents. Can you please
tell me the status of that proposed rulemaking?
Mr. Dunne. I believe it is still under development and I
don't have a timeframe in terms of when the regulation would
come out but we can give you an approximation when we go back
to the office.
Senator Boxer. I would like that answer in writing. We will
propound our unanswered questions.
Thank you.
Senator Thune. Senator Jeffords?
Senator Jeffords. I have heard from numerous industry
groups concerned about the emerging patchwork of conflicting
State and local rules governing electronic waste disposal. Do
you agree that the Federal legislation is needed to build a
national infrastructure to encourage electronic waste recycling
or does EPA have the tools it needs to do the job?
Mr. Dunne. I think it has been pointed out by GAO that we
don't have mandatory authority or regulatory authority. We have
been meeting with industry and other people as I mentioned in
my testimony. I am not too sure what Federal standards or a
program would look like at this particular point. It was
interesting to hear the two Senators and the Congressman who
have two different approaches. That is fine and there may be
many other approaches. It is a matter of which one do you test
that is going to make some sense.
We haven't taken a position because I don't think we have
enough knowledge and information but we do recognize the
problem in terms of the collection of electronic material and
also the marketplace condition of electronic material in terms
of making it more efficient. It may well be in the future that
as you consider this, you will have enough ideas and we will be
able to aid you if it is going to be a Federal system.
Senator Jeffords. In my service of the Country in the Navy,
I traveled around the world and I found when we went into Asian
countries, they seemed to have a great facility for taking
equipment and understanding them and modeling them and taking
our secrets and improving on them. Do you find when you do
travel that the European and Asian nations are somehow ahead of
us, stealing information from us and getting better equipment?
Mr. Dunne. I am not fortunate enough as a Government
official to get to travel outside this Country, so I am not
sure I am an expert on that. Certainly the European Union has
advanced some laws and some regulations based on part of
California's law. That is going to change some of the way our
manufacturers who are international producers, not just for the
United States, in terms of how they produce. Certainly there
are lessons to be learned I suspect from watching what the
European Union is doing.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Hickle, any comments?
Mr. Stephenson. Some of the countries, Japan, the
Netherlands, Switzerland, are leaders in the recycling of
electronics. They have had programs in place since 1998, so I
think they are a little bit ahead of us on this. The EU and
certain countries in Europe have bans on landfills and the EU
is proposing a financing option that largely puts a lot of the
onus on the producer of the consumer electronics to be
responsible for end-of-life disposal.
We think, as the Senators said before, all options ought to
be on the table at this point. Our stakeholders seem to think
that some sort of a hybrid option possibly with an up-front fee
combined with manufacturer responsibilities might be the way to
go. Each approach one has pros and cons and that is part of
what we will be evaluating as we complete our study for the
subcommittee.
I agree with Senator Boxer that in general, if people know
what the fee is going to be used for, $6-$10 is not a lot to
pay at the point of sale to build a fund to handle recycling
and reuse later.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Hickle?
Mr. Hickle. Senator Jeffords, in addition to the
developments in the European Union, I think it is also
important to look at the step forward that Canada has taken.
Alberta currently has a program in place right now for e-waste
and there are proposals on the table in Ontario, Nova Scotia,
Sasketchwan and I believe British Columbia as well. I think
largely in Europe, many of the countries in Asia and now in
Canada, they have been able to address this problem in a fairly
comprehensive fashion.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
We will indulge the members and ask a few more questions. I
have a couple here and I think Senator Boxer does as well.
Mr. Hickle, as a Senator from a State that borders
Minnesota, I appreciate hearing how your State has worked to
address this issue. Because you prohibit CRT tubes from being
disposed in landfills, I thought your perspective would be
helpful to the committee as we learn more about the challenges
the individual States are facing.
Since it seems funding is the greatest challenge for
implementation of your e-recycling program, where do you see
your legislature heading on that? You mentioned in your
testimony some things that they have been reviewing and looked
at in the past. Are they coming to any consensus on that?
Mr. Hickle. Senator Thune, we have been deadlocked on this
issue for 4 years. As I mentioned, the competing industry
visions of how any waste system should be financed has been
very much in play in Minnesota, so there has not been
resolution to this point. I am hoping that in the upcoming
legislative session, the legislators will be able to look at
what I think Mr. Stephenson referenced as a hybrid option that
potentially combines some sort of fee-based and producer
responsibility program as one package. There is a legislative
task force that is being convened to address this issue in the
interim, so I am really excited we will be able to see a break
through on this next year.
Senator Thune. Senator Boxer?
Senator Boxer. Mr. Dunne, have you seen the EPA Inspector
General report dated September 1, 2004?
Mr. Dunne. I don't think I have read it.
Senator Boxer. It is titled, ``Multiple Actions Taken to
Address Electronic Waste but EPA Needs to Provide Clear
National Direction.'' I would ask unanimous consent that we
just put the summary in the record today, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thune. Without objection.
[The referenced document not received at the time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. It is just very clear what your own
Inspector General is telling you. I guess if you haven't read
it, you wouldn't know, but one of the things is finalize the
CRT rule as soon as possible and hopefully you are doing that;
define your e-waste program, your goals, your performance
measures, communicate them to stakeholders, just about five of
these. I would like to get this to you.
EPA's Plug-In To eCycling Program is a voluntary
partnership to increase electronics recycling. The IG reported
that several stakeholders involved with recycling electronics
didn't understand the purpose of the program or weren't even
aware of it. What steps is EPA taking to clearly define the
program's goals and to increase awareness of the program?
Mr. Dunne. Senator, we are in the stage where we are
completing a strategy in terms of municipal solid waste and
some others including electronics. I was out in Las Vegas to
the Consumer Electronics Products Show and there were other
governmental officials there and I believe there are 21
partners involved in that who have been involved in recycling,
some jointly, some on their own and we want to give recognition
and encouragement to some others.
I haven't read that report thoroughly enough I guess to
understand, if I understood what you said, how somebody could
participate in the program and not know what it is about. If
that is what it said, it seems very strange. Maybe they
interviewed the wrong person in the company. I am not too sure,
so I would have to take a look at the analysis done on that
because I really don't know.
Senator Boxer. I would think if the Inspector General is
doing a good job he wouldn't just talk to one person. I think
they would go out and interview a number of companies to see
whether or not they heard of this program. I guess my feedback
to you is this is a year old or so.
I hope you would look into it because that seems to be a
sad situation when you are doing a program to help people
understand they should recycle and they say, we don't even know
about the program. It just sounds like you are doing it but you
are not really putting any effort behind it maybe or the
Inspector General maybe did a terrible job on this report which
you indicated maybe he talked to the wrong person. Just accept
the fact that the IG has made this very important evaluation.
I think you should take it as a criticism you should take
in a good way and say maybe we are not doing enough, let me get
back to you, Senator, let me see, because I think rather than
be defensive and say, they only asked one person, maybe the
truth is there is a good program out there in the EPA but you
are not doing enough to publicize it. That would be my
reaction.
Mr. Dunne. I am not going to question the competency of the
Inspector General's Office on this. I mentioned in my testimony
that we had an electronics conference not too many months ago
and 200 people showed up. A number of them came from this
particular program.
I find it difficult that any company or city would lend
their name to something and say they don't know about it, so I
would have to go back and analyze what the Inspector General
really did to come up with that conclusion. I just haven't seen
it.
Senator Boxer. OK. Let me ask you one more thing. The EPA
Inspector General recently concluded that the United States is
``lagging behind international e-waste efforts,'' which you
alluded to when you talked about some of the things Europe is
doing. The IG highlighted international laws that require
manufacturers to take financial responsibility for recycling
consumer electronic products and to reduce the use of six toxic
chemicals in these products.
Here is what I think is interesting. Maybe you are prepared
and maybe you want to get back to me but here in the United
States, we have the Pollution Prevention Act. It establishes a
national policy that ``pollution should be prevented or reduced
at the source whenever feasible.'' I guess my question is, why
hasn't the EPA used its authorities under the Pollution
Prevention Act to require e-waste pollution prevention
activities?
Mr. Dunne. We are tied in to Pollution Prevention but I
don't think, as I said before, that products are produced for
international consumption, not just consumption in the United
States, so it would be very difficult for us alone to do that
under the Pollution Prevention Act.
I do understand that one of our goals is to reduce the
number of materials and reduce and reuse materials. It just
makes sense to us economically. We wouldn't be putting this
kind of manpower and effort behind it like my colleague from
Minnesota, if we didn't think this was a worthwhile effort.
Senator Boxer. I see my time has run out. That is fine. I
look forward to your written responses.
But Mr. Chairman, I think we have a lot of good advice here
from the Inspector General, from the GAO, some of Mr. Dunne's
comments were helpful, some weren't but some were, and I think
we have struck something here. My own view just from listening
is maybe this issue just hasn't gotten the attention it
deserves and maybe we can jump start it. I just want to thank
ever member of the panel for answering the questions.
Senator Thune. Thank you all very much.
We will move to our third panel. On this panel we have: Ms.
Sheila Davis, executive director, Silicon Valley Toxics
Coalition; Mike Vitelli, senior vice president, Consumer
Electronics and Product Management, Best Buy Company, Inc.;
Scott Slesinger, vice president for Government Affairs,
Environmental Technology Council; and Richard Goss, director of
Environmental Affairs, Electronic Industries Alliance.
Ms. Davis, if you would like to lead off, we would love to
hear from you.
STATEMENT OF SHEILA DAVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SILICON VALLEY
TOXICS COALITION
Ms. Davis. I am Sheila Davis, executive director of Silicon
Valley Toxics Coalition. I want to thank you for the
opportunity to speak to you today about a very important issue,
electronic waste.
The problem with electronic waste in the United States is
becoming critical. Discarded computers and other electronic
products are the fastest growing part of the waste stream as we
heard earlier. These produces contain a lengthy list of toxic
chemicals as well. They also cause serious health problems
which we know.
Less than 10 percent of discarded computers are currently
being recycled, with the remainder getting stockpiled or
improperly disposed of; 50 to 80 percent of e-waste collected
for recycling is actually being exported to Asian countries
which have no infrastructure to accommodate the hazardous
properties of e-waste. Due to horrific working conditions and
no labor standards in many other developing countries where e-
waste is sent, women and children are often directly exposed to
lead and other hazardous materials when dismantling electronic
products to recover the few valuable parts for resale.
I don't know if you received a copy of the photo that was
submitted earlier, but Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition as well
as the Basil Action Network actually went to China several
years ago to see what was happening with the materials and
there is a video as well as photos. The photo submitted earlier
is a photo of a woman squatting on the ground surrounded by e-
waste and she has a hammer and a baron cathode ray tube which
is the inner part of the monitor and she is trying to knock off
the copper in the back.
[The referenced document can be found on page 87.]
It says, here in the photo, you will see a woman who is
working on dismantling. She is in Guiyu, China. You see that
she has no protective equipment whatsoever, yet she is about to
smash a cathode ray tube from a computer monitor in order to
remove the copper-laden yoke at the end of the funnel.
The glass is laden with lead but the biggest hazard the
woman faces is inhalation of the highly toxic phosphor dust
coating inside the CRT. The monitor glass is later dumped in
irrigation canals and along the river where it leaches lead
into the groundwater. The groundwater in Guiyu is completely
contaminated to the point where fresh water is trucked in
constantly for drinking purposes.
Why does the computer that I turn in at my local recycler
event in California end up in China at this woman's workplace?
Why didn't my computer get dismantled and recycled here in the
United States like I thought it would?
The answer is that the market for recycling e-waste here
doesn't exist. The recycled materials used in these products
are so toxic, it is very expensive to recycle them. There are
some good recyclers who are actually trying to recycle products
as extensively as technology allows but this requires manual
processing and protecting workers from exposure to the toxic
chemicals is very expensive.
The economics just don't work for most recyclers so they
look for the cheaper, low road solutions and cream off the
parts for which there are local markets and ship the rest
across the ocean to become someone else's problem or they use
low wage prison labor in the United States for disassembly
which further undermines the chances for a healthy recycling
market in this Country.
How do we fix this problem? We think the solution is to
create incentives for the market system to work here. We need
to do two things to make that happen. First, we need the
products to be easier to recycle. The economics of recycling
will never work unless these products are easier and therefore,
cheaper to recycle. Part of that means using less toxic
materials and part of that means designing them so that they
are more easily disassembled for recycling without relying on
prison labor or women and children in China.
Here is an example of what I mean by designing for
recycling. For example, a local to California representative of
a printer manufacturer told me a discouraging story about
recycling at his company. He said that designers worked with
the recyclers and found that if they simply added a part that
was less than a dollar, a component part, to the new line of
printers, it would make the printer easier to disassemble and
cheaper to recycle but the design team was told not to include
the part because there is no guarantee that the printer would
be recycled. So the added cost could not be justified. Here the
producer was not motivated to change the design because they
were not concerned about the recycling end of life for their
product.
The second thing we need to do is to get the producer to
take responsibility for the product at the end of the product's
life so they do have this incentive. If the producer, and here
I mean manufacturers and brand owners, have no connection to or
responsibility for their products at disposal time, then what
incentive do they have to modify their design for better
recycling or even better reuse for their products? The answer
is none. They have no incentive to do anything different.
What if companies did have responsibility for taking back
their products for recycling? What if that was just a normal
part of operation, that each company had to recycle a
significant portion of its own products each year? They would
simply build these take back and recycling costs into their
products' pricing structure.
To be competitive and to cut the recycling costs, they
would innovate, redesign and end up with computers that were
cheaper to recycle. Less toxic materials would be used so
recycling would be easier and cheaper and there would be no
reason to even think about having perhaps taxpayers pay to
solve some of these problems. The market would really work
better and work for us.
This legislation we are encouraging our lawmakers to adopt,
this legislative approach I should say is a call to producer
responsibility and this is far reaching and it is probably more
complex than we can go into today in testimony here, but we
think it is the only solution that will correct the market
forces that currently send my computer and yours too into
landfills or to a village in China or into prisons.
My message here today is this is a big picture problem that
really calls for big picture solutions. It won't be solved just
by the tax credits or just by a front end fee paid at point of
sale. I encourage you as lawmakers to seek the kinds of changes
that will actually make the market take care of the problem of
electronic waste.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Ms. Davis.
Mr. Vitelli.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL VITELLI, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CONSUMER
ELECTRONICS AND PRODUCT MANAGEMENT, BEST BUY COMPANY, INC.
Mr. Vitelli. I am Michael Vitelli, senior vice president of
Consumer Electronics at Best Buy. I am here today on behalf of
the Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition. This is my first
committee hearing also. CERC appreciates the opportunity to
provide the views of the consumer electronics and general
retail industry concerning the need for a national approach to
handling electronic devices at the end of their life. We look
forward to working with you and members of this committee to
identify the best means of developing a national solution for
electronic device recycling.
Best Buy is the Country's leading consumer electronics
retailer with close to 700 stores in 49 States and nearly
100,000 employees. The company started back in 1966 with a
single store in St. Paul, Minnesota and we continue to operate
our headquarters in the Twin Cities today. In addition to our
products and services offerings, Best Buy is also known for our
commitment to our communities, providing volunteer support,
financial resources and leadership on many issues but
especially on the use of innovative technology to improve
learning opportunities for children.
Best Buy is also actively concerned with the issue of
electronic waste. In 2001, we launched a series of recycling
events to provide a simple and convenient program for recycling
electronics that protects the environment while raising
awareness of recycling options. Through these events, Best Buy
has helped consumers nationwide recycle over 2.5 million pounds
of electronics in an environmentally responsible way since the
program began. We also offer the ability to recycle cell
phones, ink cartridges and rechargeable batteries year round in
all of our U.S. stores.
CERC is a national coalition representing consumer
electronics retail businesses and associations that operate in
all 50 States and worldwide. Joining Best Buy in CERC are
Circuit City, Radio Shack, Wal-Mart, Target, the North American
Retail Dealers Association and the Retail Industry Leaders
Association. Our goal at CERC is to educate, advocate and
instill continued consumer and market confidence in consumer
electronics policy issues.
The most important point I want to make here today is that
the Country needs a national solution to the issue of
electronic waste. In the first half of 2005 alone, 30 States
and local legislators saw more than 50 separate bills
introduced on this issue including an e-waste measure
introduced and still active in New York City. So 50 differing
and potentially conflicting approaches will be administratively
unreasonable and infeasible for manufacturers and retailers
alike and will not lead to a comprehensive and efficient
electronics waste management system for our Nation.
While retailers have a limited role in the life cycle of
the product we sell, consumer electronics retailers realize we
have a responsibility in working with interested stakeholders,
retailers, manufacturers, distributors, recyclers, public
interest groups, charitable organizations, State and local
governments and indeed our consumers themselves all have a role
in advocating for the development of a successful, national
electronics waste management system.
Both consumer electronics and general retailers unanimously
support a shared responsibility approach to handling electronic
devices at the end of their life cycle. While other
stakeholders have yet to reach a broad consensus, consumer
electronics and general retailers, including their national and
State federations, have come together. CERC drafted a consensus
legislative position paper supporting a producer responsibility
model based upon internal discussions, industry wide and
meetings with policymakers.
Since issuing this position paper, CERC has been working
with and recruiting broad, across industry support among other
interested stakeholders including environmental groups,
recyclers, State legislators and manufacturers. Our members
oppose a point of sale, advance recovery fee system at the
State level because we know from firsthand experience that such
an ARF will not accomplish its goals. It is an administrative
burden for all parties and while it guarantees a new revenue
source for Government, it does not guarantee there is an
effective recycling system put in place or that the fees are
adequate to support that system. In addition, such a program
provides no incentive for the design of more environmentally
friendly products and fails to take advantage of market forces
to reduce the cost of recycling over time.
While retailers and others believe that the producer
responsibility approach is the most fair, least burdensome and
perhaps the most easily managed model, we have also looked upon
the Talent-Wyden Electronic Waste Recycling Promotion and
Consumer Protection Act that would provide that limited tax
credit to recyclers and to consumers as an excellent model that
could jump start a national capitalization of e-waste
recycling.
Even without State or Federal laws governing management of
electronic waste, the private sector, manufacturers and
retailers, working with qualified recyclers, are fully
supportive of a shared responsibility approach as evidenced
through the numerous voluntary initiatives that collect and
recycle today. CERC members and other consumer electronics
retailers and manufacturers have participated in such EPA
programs as the Plug-In To eCycling Outreach Campaign which
works to increase the number of electronics devices collected
and safely recycled in the United States. Partners in this EPA
program have included manufacturers like Panasonic, Sharp,
Sony, JVC, Lexmark, Dell, Intel, retailers like our company,
Best Buy, as well as Staples and Office Depot and approximately
two dozen State and local governments.
More than 26.4 million pounds of electronics were collected
in the first 10 months of this national program alone. In
addition, a number of retailers and manufacturers have taken
part in other voluntary programs to encourage greater
recycling. As I mentioned earlier, Best Buy actively provides
recycling options for our customers and our recycling events.
We had an overwhelming response to one in our headquarters
in Minnesota over a month ago that drew record crowds and we
had 2,900 cars and collected over 250,000 pounds in just 2
days. Another event is scheduled next week at our Mira Mesa, CA
store and we are very excited to be partnering with HP and Sony
in this event.
We all realize that voluntary programs cannot fully handle
or solve the end of life issues involving consumer electronics
and CERC strongly believes that a comprehensive, nationwide
approach to the matter of electronics is the ultimate solution.
We further believe that a successful national system can be
established without imposing fees at point of sale, without
having to create a new complex administrative structure, and
without mandates that discourage innovation. That is why the
Talent and Wyden Act seemed to many of us a cost efficient and
potentially successful national program. We urge you to
consider this proposal as a viable and creative opportunity to
deal with electronics at the end of their lives.
The members of CERC together with consumer electronics,
general retailers and their trade associations throughout the
United States want to be constructive and contributing partners
with lawmakers, manufacturers and others in dealing with these
end of life cycle consumer electronics products. We cannot,
however, afford to let individual States, individual cities and
counties establish the wrong programs and impose inconsistent
mandates on retailers and manufacturers and create confusion
about the appropriate ways to handle electronics at the end of
their life.
We appreciate the holding of this hearing and encourage
Congress in general and this committee in particular to work
toward a national solution on electronics waste management. We
pledge to work hard with you in arriving at a fair, viable and
effective approach.
Thank you.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Vitelli.
Mr. Slesinger.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT SLESINGER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS, ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL
Mr. Slesinger. My name is Scott Slesinger and I am vice
president for Governmental Affairs of the Environmental
Technology Council. I want to thank the committee for
requesting our views on the issues of e-waste. Our Council
represents environmental service companies that recycle
hazardous materials including e-waste and solvents. We also
represent hazardous waste facilities permitted under RCRA.
Similar to the lead shielding used to protect dental
patients during x-rays, the amount of lead in computers is
significant but is a crucial component that protects the user
from radiation emitting from the tube. Without toxic metals,
disposal in a sanitary landfill would be a safe and available
option, however, these facilities are not operated to protect
the environment from the leaching of the volumes and types of
lead that would be placed in these facilities.
In some communities, if you put a computer curbside in a
garbage bag, it will be crushed, then incinerated and the lead
and other contaminants will go into the air. Newer flat panel
monitors do not use lead and glass but use mercury to operate
efficiently.
If computers are hazardous toxic waste under the law, why
are they being disposed of in non-hazardous waste landfills and
incinerators? Congress exempted households and certain small
generators from the hazardous waste regulatory regime. The
belief at the time was that the volume of toxic waste from
households would be minor and not a threat to the environment.
When communities became aware of the volume of lead being
placed in their sanitary landfills, they grew concerned. About
a quarter of the States passed laws treating CRTs as universal
waste. Universal waste rules are clear and simple standards for
managing widely distributed hazardous waste as compared to the
more burdensome requirements intended for factories and similar
facilities.
Essentially, the universal waste rules are a middle ground
between the household rules which exempt waste from controls
and the full RCRA subtitle (c) hazardous waste standards. EPA
is establishing universal waste rules for items such as mercury
thermostats and flourescent lamps.
An EPA advisory group that included State, Federal,
environmental and industry officials recommended to EPA that
CRTs be regulated as universal waste to ensure responsible
recycling. However, we have learned that instead of requiring
universal waste protections, EPA plans to finalize the rules
that essentially deregulate these waste if sent to a domestic,
unregulated recycler. EPA's proposed exemption from RCRA for
CRT glass if followed by the States would represent a
regrettable rollback in environmental protection.
We believe that other electronic waste including computer
hardware and cell phones should also be regulated under the
universal waste rules instead of the normal hazardous waste
rules. Those who may argue that deregulation will lead to more
recycling may be right but such unregulated recycling will
inevitably lead to improper recycling, taxpayer financed
cleanups and public cynicism of recycling. Those costs would
dwarf the benefits of a possible chance of some increase for
recycling.
The risks are not imaginary as Senator Talent mentioned a
facility in Missouri. At a State convention of hazardous waste
officials in 2002, State regulators described the recycling
industry as a low profit, risky business with high turnover
rates and inadequate insurance. The State regulators cited
cases where low cost recyclers were merely sham operations who
collected waste fees with no intention of doing any recycling.
Many of these facilities have gone belly up leaving
contaminated sites for States to clean up.
Despite EPA's proposed approach, many generators of
computer waste want recyclers to have some certification, a
good housekeeping seal of approval. EPA responded by
establishing fairly good guidelines in the document, Plug-In To
eCycling, Guidelines for Materials Management. However, these
guidelines are only voluntary and their effectiveness as
opposed to the promulgated University Waste Standards is
unconvincing.
Many of our customers send computers to us for handling
because our companies are protected. For instance, our member
companies and legitimate competitors track the waste, train our
employees, prepare spill prevention plans and hold
environmental and closure insurance.
Under the proposed EPA CRT rule, our companies and
competitors would not need to meet any of those requirements.
Unregulated companies would be subject to RCRA only if they
spill the hazardous waste on the ground but it is hard to
imagine how that would become known. It would be difficult if
not impossible for regulated entities to compete in such a
system.
Today with commodity prices high, there have been many new
businesses trying to make profits out of e-waste. When the
price of the valuable components inevitably turns, these
unregulated recyclers may fail and leave the taxpayer to clean
up the toxic remains. We believe that whatever legal regime is
established for recycling, the rule should require them to have
financial assurance for closure, environmental liability
insurance, employee training and some minimal waste tracking so
consumers can be assured their discarded computers are managed
properly.
The goal should not be to increase recycling, the goal
should be responsible recycling that conserves resources, saves
energy and enhances the environment.
Thank you and I look forward to any questions you may have.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Slesinger.
Mr. Goss.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD GOSS, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS,
ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES ALLIANCE
Mr. Goss. My name is Richard Goss. I am the director of
Environmental Affairs for the Electronic Industries Alliance,
EIA. EIA is the leading advocate for the $400 billion U.S. high
tech and electronic industries. Our 1,300 member companies
provide products and services ranging from microscopic
electronic components to State of the art defense, space and
industry high tech systems, as well as the full range of
telecommunications, information technology and consumer
electronics products.
EIA appreciates the opportunity to provide the views of our
membership concerning the end of life management of our
products. We commend the subcommittee for holding this hearing
and advancing the dialog on this important issue. We would also
like to thank Senator Wyden and Senator Talent for their
efforts and leadership in this area.
EIA and our member companies support the safe and
appropriate recycling of used electronics products to help meet
the important environmental goal of increasing resource
conservation and recovery. As manufacturers, we recognize that
we are a key partner in the process and we will continue to
work with Congress, Federal agencies, the States and involved
stakeholders to address this challenge.
The ongoing commitment of our member companies to product
stewardship, environmental design and recycling can best be
demonstrated by a listing of some of our industry's concrete
achievements. Through a combination of direct corporate efforts
and innovative partnerships, including USEPA's Plug-In To
eCycling Campaign, EIA member companies have been involved in
the proper recovery and management of well over 1 million tons
of used electronics products, well over 2 billion pounds.
In addition, EIA member companies use significant
quantities of recycled materials including glass, metals and
plastics in new generations of their products. EIA member
companies are on target to be in compliance with the European
Union directive on the restriction of hazardous substances, the
Ross Directive, which will take effect on July 1, 2006. Since
electronics products are manufactured for global sale and
distribution, U.S. consumers will have broad access to products
that comply with the new EU requirements.
As a result of our members' longstanding dedication to
product stewardship and technological innovation, the
electronics industry continues to achieve significant and
sustained environmental progress throughout the entire product
life cycle, from design through beneficial use to end of life.
On the whole, every year our products become more energy
efficient, use fewer materials of potential environmental
concern and become easier to upgrade, disassemble and recycle.
EIA is currently compiling a record of member company
achievements in the areas of product stewardship and design for
the environment and we will be happy to share this document
with the subcommittee once it is completed.
In summary, we support electronics recycling as a way to
conserve and reclaim resources. However, this is a complex
challenge that will require the coordinated efforts of all the
key stakeholders to resolve. Given the complex nature of the
challenge, EIA supports efforts to establish a viable recycling
infrastructure in which all the major stakeholders,
manufacturers, government retailers, non-governmental
organizations and recyclers participate based on the unique
expertise and capabilities.
The combined goal of these institutional stakeholders
should be to develop a recycling infrastructure that is
convenient for the residential consumer. Implementing a system
based on principles of shared responsibility will increase the
efficient collection of electronics and ensure economies of
scale by taking advantage of existing infrastructure.
EIA supports equitable, flexible and cost efficient
solutions that encourage the proper management of used
electronics while limiting additional cost to the public for
these popular products. EIA also believes that it is essential
to consider the science related to electronics products as part
of any public policy discussion regarding recycling.
Certain compounds are present in electronics products such
as lead and mercury that provide clear safety performance and
energy and efficiency benefits. These compounds should be
appropriately managed at the end of the life. USEPA shares this
view and has consistently stated the used electronic products
when properly managed do not represent a human health or
environmental concern.
The agency considers electronics recycling as fundamentally
a solid waste mangement and resource conservation issue.
Likewise our member companies recognize that reusing and
recycling electronics at the end of the life is the most
environmentally preferable option and we support reasonable
efforts to develop the recycling infrastructure.
As you know, three States have already enacted three very
disparate statutes which address electronics recycling.
Numerous other States and even some localities have either
developed special regulations for handling of used electronics
or are actively considering their own electronics recycling
legislation. These approaches often include significant
variations in terms of financing mechanisms, the scope of
covered products, the roles and responsibilities of key
participants and the overall regulatory structure.
Industry and other stakeholders are rightly concerned that
potential confusion of State recycling laws and regulations
will prove costly, inefficient and perplexing. There is clearly
a role for the Federal Government to play in bringing national
consistency to this emerging field. Federal action can help
promote the safe and environmentally sound recycling by
creating a streamlined and uniform regulatory framework that
removes artificial barriers and instead encourages the free
flow of used products for proper management.
Specific steps include: establishing consistent regulatory
definitions of key terms and strictly defining the scope of
covered products through the application of fixed criteria;
considering the establishment of a flexible third party
organization that can help with roles such as data reporting,
compliance and financing; ensuring broad consistency in
labeling product information and regulatory reporting
requirements; and assessing whether additional recycling
regulations or standards are necessary to ensure the safe and
environmentally sound management of used electronics.
EIA and our member companies stand ready to work with the
subcommittee on these and other initiatives.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share industry's
position on this important issue and I would be pleased to
respond to any questions.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Goss.
I am now going to turn to Senator Boxer for questions.
Senator Boxer. I know that is a favor to me because I have
a 4:30 I have to attend but this has been a terrific panel. I
do appreciate all of your. Every one of you has made a
tremendous contribution at least to this Senator's
understanding of this.
Mr. Vitelli, thank you for what you do to recycle these
products, take these products back. I guess what I am
interested in is what you do with them once you get them?
Mr. Vitelli. We work with qualified recyclers in the
various States that we do that and with the manufacturers who
participate with us. In some cases, they are the ones taking
the product to the right place.
Senator Boxer. So you don't send them to China?
Mr. Vitelli. No, we do not. In fact, our RFQs with
recyclers we work this, one of the key things in there is the
fact the product will be recycled in the United States.
Senator Boxer. I am glad. That makes me very proud of what
you are doing.
I was on a local county board years ago in the days we
didn't think about recycling anything, paper, plastic,
definitely not plastic, aluminum cans and we realized that
there could be a profit in this. I am wondering whether you in
this effort break even on this, make money, do you lose money?
What do you think at the end of the day?
Mr. Vitelli. You mentioned it earlier. There is not a
tremendous profit in this, you are actually paying for the
removal of waste.
Senator Boxer. So it is a cost?
Mr. Vitelli. It is a cost literally and it is going to be a
function of who ends up paying for the cost.
Senator Boxer. I think that is really important. You are
doing the responsible thing and it is costing you something.
You are getting goodwill out of it, getting people into the
store. That is very good but still I think we need to consider
that there needs to be a more equitable type of system.
Ms. Davis, thank you so much for sending us this photo. The
chairman and I were looking at this photo of the woman not
really having a clue of what she is doing here, with no
protective clothing or anything like that. How widespread a
problem is the export of electronic waste to countries that
lack adequate environmental protections?
Ms. Davis. There is an estimate of about 80 percent of the
materials that are accumulated in the United States are
exported.
Senator Boxer. Who are the major exporters?
Ms. Davis. They are basically companies that are sometimes
front men for recyclers. If you give your product to or drop it
off at a recycle, they might collect it but will put it in a
shipping container, give it to a broker and the broker will
ship it overseas. That is where most of the waste ends up.
Senator Boxer. Let me understand this. People go to a
recycle?
Ms. Davis. Go to a local recycle.
Senator Boxer. Do they pay them the fee to take the
computer?
Ms. Davis. It depends on what State you are in. Most States
don't have a fee.
Senator Boxer. So what is in it for this person?
Ms. Davis. The recycler will cream off the good computer,
so some of the computers can be reused, they will take some of
the valuable metals, some of the valuable chips and the rest is
basically waste. The monitors basically do have some valuable
parts like copper but it is very hard to recovery.
Senator Boxer. They pay the broker out of their profits to
get the stuff out?
Ms. Davis. It depends. Sometimes the broker will actually
pay them up to 2 cents a pound or so.
Senator Boxer. You say 80 percent of the waste is winding
up in these countries?
Ms. Davis. It is estimated 80 percent but I don't think
anyone in this Country is actually keeping track.
Senator Boxer. I think this is amazing, Mr. Chairman. With
all we do for good will, this is something we need to look at,
what is happening.
Scott, thank you for being here. EPA acknowledges that
cathode ray tubes can leach four times the amount of lead as
regulated hazardous waste. We got that out of the EPA today. It
is in their rule. Electronic waste can also contain mercury,
cadmium and other toxic substances. However, EPA has stated
that municipal landfill standards are sufficiently protective
to hold electronic waste. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Slesinger. No. I think it is clear it fails EPA's test
for what should not go into a municipal landfill. A similar
test used by the State of California also failed the test. All
landfills are different. It tries to mimic the average
landfill. Certain landfills will probably leak more than others
but if it is a hazardous waste and it is coming from Best Buy,
Dell or a computer company, it can't go there. If it isn't
recycled, it should go to a hazardous waste landfill.
Hazardous waste landfills don't just put it with regular
garbage and dump it into the landfill, they encapsulate it with
a plastic and then use a reagent that goes around the material
four inches thick that makes it so what was in there, lead,
mercury, doesn't leach out and then it is put into a landfill.
Then it is much more protected.
Senator Boxer. Let me understand. Right now, there is no
EPA rule to stop it from going to municipal landfills?
Mr. Slesinger. Not exactly. The EPA rule generally says if
you have a waste and it fails the EPA test, in this case for
lead, which it fails, it should go to a hazardous waste
landfill. A lot of the major manufacturers and retailers do
send to our facilities for either recycling or for disposal.
Most companies would rather have it recycled. We try to recycle
as much as possible. In fact, today we are recycling all the
hazardous materials in the computers but have to landfill the
non-hazardous plastics and others because there is no market
for those materials.
Senator Boxer. Is there any rule of the EPA that these
products have to go to a hazardous landfill?
Mr. Slesinger. Yes.
Senator Boxer. There is a rule. So they can't show up in
municipal landfills?
Mr. Slesinger. Unless it is a household which is exempt or
a small quantity generator who is exempt.
Senator Boxer. But household is exempt?
Mr. Slesinger. That is correct.
Senator Boxer. That is a lot. We are talking here, looking
at the TV sets, many millions of these TVs. How many did you
say?
Ms. Davis. Two hundred and eighty-seven million.
Senator Boxer. Two hundred and eighty-seven million analog
TVs, if everyone just takes it to a municipal landfill, that is
a lot of dangerous waste in municipal landfills.
Mr. Slesinger. The alternative is if somebody does a pick
up like a manufacturer or retailer, then it would go into the
hazardous waste stream.
Senator Boxer. That is why what Mr. Vitelli is doing is so
responsible because he is making a point to try to do that.
I am going to ask one last quick question to you, Mr. Goss,
because the whole panel is so good and you have so much
information.
I wanted to ask you about your member companies that are
complying now with the European Union requirements. To what
extent will Europe's requirements provide your member companies
with a system that we could duplicate here and that you could
duplicate here in the United States? Is it onerous over there
or are you learning ways to live with what they are
recommending?
Mr. Goss. You are referring to the electrical waste?
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Mr. Goss. The jury would still be out on that. The
directive has not been implemented yet. It is scheduled to go
into effect in August of this year. Several companies, the
United Kingdom, France, have had difficulties in terms of
transposing the directive so far and we are waiting to see
exactly how it works in practice.
Senator Boxer. Transposing it from the law into pragmatic
rules?
Mr. Goss. My understanding also is that in numerous
countries they have yet to set down the regulations and the
registration requirements.
Senator Boxer. Couldn't it just be done by the European
Union or be different for each?
Mr. Goss. I am not an expert on the we approach but I
believe each country has certain registration and regulatory
requirements but we can certainly check on that.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Goss, would you keep the chairman and me
informed as to how it is going over there, if it is a total
nightmare or if they are coming up with ideas that we could
look at?
Mr. Goss. We certainly will and in fact, we will keep a
close eye on it because we are interested to see how it works
in practice once it is implemented.
Senator Boxer. I think it is good for all of us. Again, I
want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and our terrific panel. Thank
you all.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Boxer. I would echo what
the Senator from California said. I think you have been a very
enlightening and informative panel. Hearing about what is
happening out there and some of the good things that companies
like Best Buy are doing is encouraging to hear.
Hopefully it gives us a bit of an idea and perspective on
what we might or might not be able to do in terms of a national
solution, if that is something we decide is necessary based
upon the data collected about the risks associated with the
stream currently heading into these landfills and will probably
only increase in the future as we dump more and more of these,
particularly the older television sets.
Mr. Goss, I want to ask you during Ms. Davis' remarks, she
mentioned the needs to make products easier to disassemble and
I think if you look at the General Accountability Office's
study it also points out that 50 percent of the cost recycling
is in the labor and the companies currently doing that, it
becomes almost prohibitive at times depending on the value of
some of those materials to recycle.
How would a requirement to make those products easier to
disassemble impact the durability of the electronics consumers
buy today? How would that affect the quality and the
workmanship and all that? It is in the GAO study, and I don't
have it in front of me, but talked about $1 per screw or
something like. HP spent a $1 in additional design costs to
reduce a number of different screws in each computer and would
save Niranda, which does these disassemblies, $4 cost. Do you
sacrifice something in terms of durability and quality?
Mr. Goss. I would have to check with some of my individual
member companies on that. Certainly there are a lot of advances
that our companies have made and as I said in the compilation
we are going to be sharing with the subcommittee some of those
and be detailed in terms of the advances we made, in terms of
designing for ease of upgrading and recyclability and reuse. I
can get some specific information for you on that. I would
imagine there are probably several innovations out there right
now that would allow products to be recycled easier without
compromising any of the performance.
The other point I would make is that we will be dealing
with recyclers as we do to find out the break down and exactly
what makes it easier for them to recycle because as
manufacturers, we know how to put the products together but we
need that knowledge base and what makes it easier for them on
their end to disassemble it.
One related point is the transportation costs for the
materials I think are far and away the largest single bulk of
the cost involved with recycling.
Senator Thune. Were members of your organization members of
this NEPSI group in 2001?
Mr. Goss. Yes, we were.
Senator Thune. I guess the industries would prefer a
national framework so that you don't have to comply or deal a
patchwork of State requirements but it sounds like the
consensus reached as a result of those meetings was they
couldn't come to a consensus on what a national system or
framework might look like. At least that was what I was told,
that in 2005 those efforts dissolved because the stakeholders
couldn't reach agreement.
Could you explain some of the market competitiveness issues
that have prevented your association from being able to advance
a consensus position on what a national framework might look
like?
Mr. Goss. Certainly. The first point I will make is that
our industry as a whole, all the companies recognize the
importance of this issue and that we are a key player in this
issue. For us, it is not a question of whether we should be
involved in recycling, that question has already been answered
in the affirmative.
The question is how to finance it. Based on different
companies with different product lines, different sales and
distribution models and experiences in the market, there are
some very market differences in terms of what they see as a
fair and equitable approach to this recycling challenge.
We went through well over a year of intimate industry
discussions to try to come to a consensus on this. It was a lot
of commitment to try to come up with something everyone could
agree with. Those discussions are still ongoing. We still have
hope we will be able to reach a consensus industry position on
this but for right now, there are marked differences of opinion
in terms of what the different players believe is fair and how
it works to competitive advantage.
Senator Thune. Mr. Slesinger, GAO's testimony talked about
the amount of precious metals found in computers and other
electronics. Why don't we see a larger U.S. business interest
in recovering some of those precious metals like gold and
copper, aluminum and platinum found in some of those products?
Mr. Slesinger. The reason has to do mostly with labor
costs. There might be a little bit of gold in some computers
but finding it is very costly. EPA testified last week they
thought recyclers were getting $1-$2 worth of valuable product
out of a computer which they had to charge $15 to take apart.
In fact, the metal prices are such that for instance today, if
we send the glass to a glass company that makes new leaded
glass, it doesn't cost us anything for them to take it and we
don't get anything from it.
What we find the most profitable part of a computer is if
we can get a computer that is newly discarded, its hard disk or
particular chips or other parts of it may have a resale value
and that is really the value. An efficient way to mining for
the gold has not been shown yet.
Senator Thune. Mr. Vitelli, if I were wanting to drop off
an old computer I have sitting in my closet, how does your
collection program work? There is a Best Buy on 41st Street in
Sioux Falls, SD. Do I just take it down there? How does that
work?
Mr. Vitelli. Currently, the programs we are doing have been
voluntary with the manufacturer in a particular city or a
particular State, so there isn't a comprehensive recycling
program for computers today. We would actually look to whatever
that particular city or State program may or may not be at that
time, but there isn't a comprehensive here is what you do
nationally or that particular store now.
Senator Thune. So it is sort of State to State, store to
store, so to speak.
Mr. Vitelli. More voluntary versus anything else.
Senator Thune. I have a question or two for Ms. Davis
dealing with the issue raised earlier about extended producer
liability which I think you suggested needs to happen. You
mentioned in an attempt to reduce the amount of e-waste in the
future, manufacturers need to have more responsibility for
their products at disposal time which is one solution some of
the States have implemented, some have front end fees, some
have held the manufacturer responsible.
If you didn't have a Federal mandate of extended producer
responsibility, how would you see the Federal Government doing
it? Would you have to impose a national mandate or is there
another way of accomplishing the same objective I guess is the
question I am asking?
Ms. Davis. There would have to be some type of Federal law
that would level the playing field for all the manufacturers to
actually take some responsibility for their product at the end
of life. That could mean there could be a third party, as Mr.
Goss suggested, that can actually set up a system that would
take back the products and set up some type of standards for
the manufacturers to abide by and the manufacturers would pay
into that third party in order to have their products recycled
or they can go directly back to the manufacturer. For example,
when you purchase a computer, you should be able to return your
old computer and that manufacturer would take responsibility
and recycle it for you.
Senator Thune. If you create a third party, you have to
figure out a way to finance, correct? In any of these
scenarios, you are talking about some sort of way of paying for
this. Manufacturers probably aren't going to volunteer, are
they?
Ms. Davis. No. I guess if they were going to volunteer,
they would be doing it now but there would have to be some type
of regulation or laws or framework put in place that would
allow them to operate as a third party or operate with a third
party and pay into it, I imagine.
Senator Thune. Somebody mentioned today there ought to be a
way of doing this without a front end fee or something like
that, but it seems to me if the responsibility is placed upon
the manufacturer, the producer, the producer or the
manufacturer is going to pass it on to the retailer, the
retailer is going to pass it on to the consumer.
At some point, somebody is going to pay for this process
unless there is enough incentive in the recycling side of it to
encourage people and that is where I am kind of coming back to
the Talent-Wyden bill, if in fact that creates enough incentive
for either individual consumer buyers of these products or
certified retailers to get in the business of recycling these
products?
Ms. Davis. If the manufacturers were responsible for paying
the cost of recycling, then they would have to find innovative
ways to change the design and drive down the costs just as they
find innovative ways to manufacture the product to drive down
the cost without hopefully sacrificing labor and so forth or
labor standards. But if there were some type of incentives,
whether it is a liability, some type of government incentives
around recycle content or some type of tax break around
research and development, those could be built into the
framework.
But I think the bottom line is that manufacturers, for the
most part, need to incorporate the cost or internalize the cost
for the recycling and for the end of life. That way they have
some bottom line incentive to actually figure out how to do it
cheaper.
For example, in California where there is a front end, the
manufacturers aren't involved at all, they have no incentive to
redesign their products, so people in California could
basically pay for now $5, $6 or $10 and the fee will probably
go up and not down over the years to recycle their products.
Senator Thune. Mr. Goss?
Mr. Goss. I would say in terms of the design for
environment, clearly the Ross directive goes into effect in the
EU next July but the point I would make is that our member
companies have been innovating in design for environment and
product sustainability for years on a voluntary basis and have
made some wonderful technological innovations in terms of
design. This is not something that has only come about due to
several directives or State laws or what have you. We are
certainly designing more for upgrading, for recycling, for
reuse and will continue to do so because it is part of what the
public and consumers demand.
Senator Thune. As a consumer, we want you all to make those
upgrades but to get the prices down.
Mr. Goss. We will do our best.
Ms. Davis. I would like to note that I think the Ross
directive with the restriction on hazardous substances in the
EU as well as a redirective really truly has driven the
manufacturers to change their practices. I think some of the
manufacturers have done it on their own but again unless there
is a level playing field for manufacturers, they are simply not
going to be able to invest and manufacture products and stay
competitive.
Senator Thune. I want to thank you all very much for your
testimony and for the light you have shed on the subject. It is
not something that Congress has dealt with in the past. Clearly
the States are beginning to deal with it. I think this is a way
of defining and quantifying the problem, if there is a problem,
and then trying to figure out what is the best way to come up
with a solution.
That is the challenge we are going to face but certainly
your testimony and presentations today will add a lot to the
body of evidence to say as we move forward we will need to come
up with solutions.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Frank Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing and giving us an
opportunity to learn more about this issue.
When I was a boy, my family was poor. We weren't ashamed of it,
because everybody we knew was in the same boat.
When people don't have a lot, they make the most of what they do
have. That's what people did when I was growing up.
If something could be used, it didn't get thrown away. Nobody could
afford to waste anything.
During World War II, Americans saved tin foil and tires so the
aluminum and rubber could be reused.
This was not only frugal--it aided the war effort and made our
Nation stronger.
Today Americans own two billion electronic products--which works
out to about 25 items for every single household.
On an individual basis, many Americans can probably afford to toss
out these products when they become obsolete.
But as a society, we can't afford to do that. The environmental
costs are simply too high.
Computers and televisions contain significant amounts of lead,
mercury and other hazardous substances.
Tossing old computers into landfills creates tons of lead and
mercury waste.
In fact, some experts predict one billion pounds of lead from
electronics could enter our landfills in the next decade.
This would pose a serious threat of toxic runoff--and it would
ultimately be an expensive problem to clean up.
We dispose of about twelve million computers every year. These fill
up a lot of landfills. And in populated areas like New Jersey, landfill
space is limited.
There is a better way.
Instead of throwing away these products, we should retrieve and
reuse the resources that are salvageable.
Electronics are currently the fastest growing part of the waste
stream, but fewer than 10 percent of old electronics products are
recycled.
That has to change. Mr. Chairman, it is simply wasteful to continue
throwing away old products that contain resources we could re-use.
Congress needs to join with the producers of these products in
leading the way for change.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
__________
Statement of Hon. Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon
Mr. Chairman, America is a computer-dependent society. I'm willing
to bet that before coming to this hearing, almost every person in this
room used a computer to write a document, to check e-mail, or to read
the news. Yet as much as we depend on our computers, we seldom think
about what they're made of. Let me tell you.
The desktop computer in your office right now contains about 14
pounds of plastic, 4 pounds of lead, 8.5 pounds of aluminum, more than
12 pounds of iron, half a pound of nickel and lesser amounts of
arsenic, cadmium, mercury, titanium, zinc, beryllium and gold. There's
mercury in LCD and gas plasma screens, lead in monitors and circuit
boards, cadmium in chip resistors and semiconductors and heavy metals
in CPUs. And every year, millions of newly obsolete computers--and
televisions, and other electronic trash or e-waste--are discarded to
the tune of 2.2 million tons. Those 2.2 million tons of e-trash are the
equivalent of 219 Boeing 737 jetliners. If handled improperly, this
hazardous stew of toxic e-waste can poison water supplies, people and
the environment. But there is a better way.
Today, barely one in 10 computers gets recycled or reused. Compare
that to old cars: 94 percent go to scrap yards where useable parts are
reclaimed, and the rest of the material is shredded, compacted and
recycled into appliances, cars and other products.
Senator Talent and I believe that the United States can put less e-
waste in the landfill and more in the recycling bin. We have proposed
S. 510, a pro-consumer, pro-environment and pro-technology bill to
jumpstart a nationwide recycling infrastructure for electronic waste.
Our bipartisan approach is the first to rely on incentives, rather than
upfront fees or end-of-life penalties, to deal with electronic waste.
Our legislation offers incentives to consumers and small businesses to
get their old computers and laptops out of the closet and into the e-
waste stream. Our legislation offers manufacturers, retailers and
recyclers incentives to recycle e-waste. The bill has the support of
retailers, electronics manufacturers, and environmental recyclers.
Specifically, our legislation would:
Establish an $8 per unit tax credit for companies that recycle at
least 5,000 display screens or computer system units per year;
Establish a $15 tax credit for consumers who recycle their old
computers and TVs, provided they use qualified recyclers;
Prohibit the disposal in a municipal solid waste landfill of any
electronic equipment with a display screen larger than 4 inches or any
computer system unit, beginning 3 years after the bill passes if EPA
finds that the majority of U.S. households have reasonable access to e-
waste recycling;
Modify EPA's universal waste rule to classify screens and system
units as ``universal wastes'' to allow for easier collection,
processing, transportation and recycling;
Require Federal executive agencies to recycle or reuse their
display screens and CPUs; and
Direct EPA to recommend to Congress the feasibility of establishing
a nationwide e-waste recycling program that would preempt any state
plan within 1 year.
We do not claim to have a monopoly on the wisdom for how e-waste
should be recycled, and so the tax credit is limited to 3 years. Our
goal is to get a recycling infrastructure launched, and in the
meantime, have EPA look at various options, at what various states are
doing and come up with recommendations for Congress for a nationwide e-
waste recycling plan.
The bill recognizes that states like California have already put a
plan in place, and that many other states, like Oregon, are moving in
that direction. But if every state and hundreds of municipalities and
counties take different paths to solve the e-waste problem, the country
will end up with a hodge podge of rules and regulations. Companies and
consumers who are keen on doing the right thing will be confused,
innovation will be stifled and not a lot of recycling would get done.
One nationwide program seems to make the most sense.
Last week the New York Times carried a story about computers so
infected with spyware and adware that they are on life support. Rather
than going through the painstaking process of debugging them, consumers
opt to toss them out and pay several hundred dollars for a new one.
Unless some miracle cure is found, the spyware plague is not going away
anytime soon, and the number of discarded computers will grow.
Then there's the transition to digital television, which could pull
the plug on analog television sets in 21 million American households.
The hand-over of the old analog channels could take place in the next
4-5 years. Unless the U.S. gets serious about recycling electronic
trash, what is going to happen to all those old tv sets?
It is not very often Congress has the chance to get a jumpstart on
solving a problem. This is one place where a bipartisan effort can make
a real difference. I look forward to working with you to get a
nationwide electronic waste recycling program launched.
__________
Statement of Hon. James Talent, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri
I would like to thank Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Boxer for
holding this important hearing on electronic waste, the first of its
kind in the Senate.
There are roughly 50 million computers and 20 million televisions
disposed of every year, some are illegally dumped, some are recycled,
and others are just thrown away with the garbage. Computer monitors and
televisions are a potential threat to our environment since they
contain four to eight pounds of lead as well as other harmful
materials. Because it's not always convenient to recycle computers, TVs
and their parts, a lot of people store them in their basements, attics
and backyards or just throw them away. According to the EPA, U.S.
households have an average of two to three computers and televisions
that they are not using in storage. That's about 70 million computers
and televisions nationwide sitting around, collecting dust and
potentially harming the environment.
One of the largest illegal computer dumps was located in Rolla,
Missouri. Someone was running an illegal computer recycling business
out of a rented building on the property. Instead of properly disposing
of the computers, the man collected over 15,000 monitors and dumped
them. Cleaning up this illegal dump cost Missouri taxpayers hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
To avoid these types of hazardous and costly situations, Senator
Wyden and I have introduced legislation that creates the first-ever
nationwide infrastructure to deal with e-waste. The ``Electronic Waste
Recycling Promotion and Consumer Protection Act'' (S. 510) gives tax
credits to consumers as well as to manufacturers, and retailers for
recycling old or unwanted computers and TVs. Importantly, this tax
credit is completely voluntary. If folks don't want to recycle their
old TVs and computers, they don't have to and there will be no penalty,
which is where the law is now.
Here's how the legislation works: There is a $15 credit, which is a
one-time deal for people like you and me that may have a computer or TV
in our basements. To get the credit, you must submit with your tax
return proof that the recycling was done by a qualified recycler.
There is also a small business credit, which operates like this: An
$8 credit is available to anyone who collects no less than 5,000 TVs or
computers in a given year and proves that they are recycled by
qualified recyclers. They just have to submit with their tax returns a
record of who recycled the computer or TV and where it ended up.
We want to encourage people to do the right thing and recycle by
developing a national solution, which is most desirable in the long run
to avoid manufacturers and retailers from dealing with a patchwork of
50 different state laws. This legislation will also help domestic
manufacturing as companies will use the tons of recycled materials to
make new computers and other electrical and industrial products.
Further, it is pro-consumer since folks will have an incentive to
recycle an old computer or TV and take the tax credit or use the money
toward the purchase of new technology. Presently, consumers are
actually discouraged from recycling e-waste since the garbage collector
doesn't always collect it, folks don't know how to otherwise dispose of
it, or manufacturers charge fees to recycle the technology. This bill
helps move us in the right direction by providing people with
incentives, rather than disincentives, to be environmentally
responsible.
I am pleased that we are working with a broad business and
environmental coalition support this common sense, pro-business, pro-
technology and pro-environment solution to e-waste. In particular, I
want to thank the Missouri Recycling Association and its 163 individual
and business members for endorsing this first-ever Federal electronics
recycling bill.
Thank you for letting me join you today to discuss this pro-job,
pro-technology and pro-environment legislation.
__________
Statement of Hon. Mike Thompson, U.S. Representative from the
State of California
Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me here today to comment
briefly on electronic waste or ``e-waste''. I appreciate Chairman Thune
and Ranking Member Boxer allowing me to be a part of this hearing on
the subject of e-waste, an issue with which I've been involved since I
first came to Congress.
Electronic devices are becoming smaller and lighter, but they also
are creating an ever-growing environmental and waste disposal problem.
That's because it's often cheaper and more convenient to buy a new PC
or cell phone than to upgrade an old one.
Today, the average lifespan of a computer is only 2 years and
Americans are disposing of 3,000 tons of computers each day. Consumers
Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, recently estimated that the
typical household could expect to discard approximately 68 electronic
items over the next 20 years including: 20 cell phones, 10 computers, 7
TVs, 7 VCRs or DVD players and several answering machines, printers and
CD players.
While e-waste contains a number of valuable materials that are
recoverable including aluminum, gold, silver and other metals, it also
contains a witches' brew of toxic material such as lead, mercury and
cadmium. If not properly disposed of these toxic materials can cause
health and environmental problems. For example, the glass of a typical
computer monitor contains six pounds of lead. When this glass is
crushed in a landfill, the lead is released into the environment.
There's a Native American proverb about stewardship, which says:
``We don't inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'' To give you an idea of the potential legacy we are leaving
future generations, the National Safety Council has projected that
approximately 300 million computers are obsolete. If all 300 million
units were discarded, this would involve nearly 1 billion pounds of
lead, 2 million pounds of cadmium and 400,000 pounds of mercury.
Residents in my District are stalwart stewards of the environment,
recycling a healthy amount of e-waste compared to other parts of the
country. Last year alone, Napa County collected 214 tons of e-waste,
approximately 3 pounds for each of the County's 136,000 residents. In
comparison, Boston collected 330 tons and San Diego collected 270 tons.
But while Napa is tackling the problem of e-waste at a local level,
we've done little to address the problem on a national scale. Some
retailers and manufacturers have created voluntary recycling programs,
but they are too small in scope to have a significant impact on the e-
waste stream. Without a national recycling infrastructure consumers and
businesses today are left with few choices for getting rid of their old
computers, cell phones and other electronic devices. Most people shove
them in a spare closet or corner and wait. When people do try to
dispose of their e-waste responsibly, all too often it is shipped
overseas. There, it and its toxins can land in riverbeds or in the
hands of unprotected workers.
The buildup of e-waste on the local and state level has led
California, Maine and Maryland to implement their own e-waste laws--
each very different from the others. Twenty-six additional states are
also considering e-waste legislation. As states continue to develop
their own approaches the need for a Federal solution only grows.
Without Federal action both consumers and businesses will have to
contend with an unmanageable patchwork of state laws.
My colleagues--Representatives Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Randy
``Duke'' Cunningham (R-CA) and Mary Bono (R-CA) and I formed the
bipartisan congressional E-Waste Working Group with the objective of
investigating possible Federal e-waste solutions and educating Members
of Congress about the issue. At our first event, a forum entitled, ``E-
Waste: Is a National Approach Necessary?'' we invited all stakeholders,
including consumers, manufacturers, retailers, recyclers,
environmentalists and nonprofits. All agreed on the value of a national
approach to e-waste.
Again, I thank the subcommittee for bringing much needed attention
to this issue and to gathering expert testimony on the problem of e-
waste. I--and other members of the E-Waste.
__________
Statement of Thomas P. Dunne, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Thomas Dunne,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response at EPA. Thank you for inviting me to appear today to
discuss electronics waste and EPA's interest in electronics product
design and recycling. In 2002, we set in motion a plan of action to
renew the emphasis on resource conservation in the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). At least since 1976, RCRA has
included among its purposes a goal to reverse the trend of ``millions
of tons of recoverable material which could be used [being] needlessly
buried each year.''
Today, the RCC has become a national program, challenging all of us
to promote recycling and reuse of materials and to conserve resources
and energy. One key area of focus is electronics.
The use of electronic equipment has grown substantially in recent
years. According to the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA),
Americans own some 2 billion electronic products about 25 products per
household. Electronics sales grew by 11 percent in 2004, and the same
growth is expected again this year.
WHY WE CARE ABOUT ELECTRONICS AT EPA:
EPA has been actively involved in helping to improve the design and
recovery of electronics for more than 8 years now. Our interest in
electronics stems from three primary concerns:
(1) the rapid growth and change in this product sector, leading to
a constant stream of changing offerings and wide array of obsolete and
discarded products needing an appropriate response;
(2) substances of concern present in many products which can cause
problematic exposures during manufacturing, recycling or disposal if
not properly managed--the presence of these constituents has sparked
the search for workable substitutes and development of better
management practices; and
(3) the desire to help encourage development of a convenient and
affordable reuse/recycling infrastructure for electronics, with an
initial emphasis on TVs and PCs.
HERE I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME ILLUSTRATIVE FACTS
1. Increasing volume of electronic waste.--Consumer Electronics
including TVs and other video equipment, audio equipment and personal
computers, printers and assorted peripherals--make up about 1.5 percent
of the municipal solid waste stream (2003 Figures). This is a small,
but growing percent of the waste stream. Consumer electronics have
increased as a percent of municipal solid waste in each of the last few
years that EPA has compiled data.
2. Recycling is limited.--EPA's latest estimates are that in 2003
approximately 10 percent of consumer electronics were recycled
domestically, up slightly over previous years. The remaining 90 percent
of used consumer electronics are in storage, disposed of in landfills
or incinerators, or exported for reuse or recycling. EPA is now taking
a closer look at the fate of all electronics waste such that the Agency
can better account for the amount of electronic waste stored, disposed,
or exported. But anecdotal information suggests that nontrivial amounts
of consumer electronics are in storage or exported, rather than going
to disposal in landfills.
3. Substances of concern in electronics.--While industry is making
progress in making its products with less toxic materials, many
products may contain substances of concern such as lead, mercury and/or
cadmium. For example, older cathode ray tubes (monitors) in TVs and PCs
contain on average 4lbs of lead, although there are lower amounts of
lead in newer CRTs. These constituents do not present risks to users
while the product is in use; indeed, they are there for a good reason.
Lead shields users from electromagnetic fields generated while the
monitor is operating. Mercury is used in backlights in flat panel
displays to conserve energy. But the presence of these materials means
that some electronic equipment may present a risk if not properly
managed.
WHAT WE ARE DOING ABOUT ELECTRONICS
We are engaged in several broad scale partnerships with
manufacturers, retailers, other Federal agencies, state and local
governments, recyclers, non-government organizations (NGO's) and others
to encourage and reward greener design of electronic products, to help
develop the infrastructure for collection and reuse/recycling of
discarded electronics, and to promote environmentally safe recycling of
used electronics. I'd like to give you a little more detail about each
of these efforts.
GREENING DESIGN OF ELECTRONICS
EPEAT.--EPA funded and participated in a multi-stakeholder and
consensus-based process, involving electronics manufacturers, large
government IT purchasers, NGO's and others, to develop the Electronics
Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT). It was created to meet
growing demand by large institutional purchasers for a means to readily
distinguish greener electronic products in the marketplace. EPEAT is
modeled on other environmental rating tools like the LEED's Green
Building Rating system. It is expected to gain wide acceptance in
purchases of information technology equipment by Federal and state
government--and eventually by other large institutional purchasers of
IT equipment.
The EPEAT rating system establishes performance criteria in eight
categories of product performance, including reduction or elimination
of environmentally sensitive materials; design for end of life; life
cycle extension; energy conservation; and end of life management.
The multi-stakeholder team that developed EPEAT has reached
agreement on the main criteria that will be recognized for
environmental performance. Now, the tool is being readied for use; as
part of this effort, a third party organization will be selected to
host and manage the tool. The aim is to have the EPEAT system up and
running by December 2005 or January 2006--at which time manufacturers
will be able to certify their products to the EPEAT requirements and
purchasers will be able to find EPEAT certified products in the
marketplace. The first EPEAT certified products will be desktop
computers, laptops and monitors.
Energy Star.--EPA recently made its best known brand, the Energy
Star label, available for external power adapters that meet EPA's newly
established energy efficiency guidelines. Power adapters, also known as
external power supplies, recharge or power many electronic products--
cell phones, digital cameras, answering machines, camcorders, personal
digital assistants (PDA's), MP3 players, and a host of other
electronics and appliances. As many as 1.5 billion power adapters are
currently used in the United States--about five for every American.
Total electricity flowing through external and internal power
supplies in the U.S. is about 207 billion kWh/year. This equals about
$17 billion a year, or 6 percent of the national electric bill. More
efficient adapters have the potential to save more than 5 billion
kilowatt hours (kWh) of energy per year in this country and prevent the
release of more than 4 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions. This
is the equivalent of taking 800,000 cars off the road.
On average, Energy Star-qualified power adapters will be 35 percent
more efficient.
EPA is promoting the most efficient adapters since they are
commonly bundled with so many of today's most popular consumer
electronic and information technology products.
Design for the Environment (DfE).--Over the years, EPA's DfE
program has worked numerous times with the electronics industry to help
green the manufacturing of electronics as well as electronics products
themselves. DfE has worked with the industry on ways to green the
manufacture of printed wiring boards, assessed the life cycle impacts
of CRTs and flat panel displays and has also recently assessed the life
cycle impacts of tin-lead and lead-free solders used in electronics.
One important ongoing project in this DfE realm is the joint
government industry search for substitutes for tin-lead solder that
have acceptable engineering performance and environmental attributes.
The DfE Lead Free Solder Partnership is providing the opportunity
to mitigate current and future risks by assisting the electronics
industry to identify alternative lead free solders that are less toxic,
and that pose the fewest risks over their life cycle. The draft final
life cycle assessment report for the tin lead and alternative solders
is available now for public review.
(2) Encouraging reuse and recycling, rather than disposal, at
product end of life Plug-In To eCycling--Plug In To eCycling is a
voluntary partnership to increase awareness of the importance of
recycling electronics and to increase opportunities to do so in the
United States. Through Plug In, EPA has partnered with 21 manufacturers
and retailers of consumer electronics as well as 26 governments to
provide greater access to electronics recycling for Americans. In the
first 2 years, the Plug In program has seen the recycling of 45.5
million pounds of unwanted electronics by program partners--all of whom
have agreed to rely on recyclers who meet or exceed EPA's ``Guidelines
for Materials Management,'' EPA's voluntary guidelines for safe
electronics recycling.
Last year, we launched a number of pilot programs with
manufacturers, retailers and local governments to create more
compelling opportunities for consumers to drop off our old electronics.
These pilots succeeded in collecting over 11 million pounds of used
electronics and demonstrating that, when the circumstances are right,
retail collection can be a successful model:
<bullet> The Staples pilot in New England collected over 115,000
pounds in testing in-store collection and ``reverse distribution''
making use of Staples existing distribution network. In this pilot,
trucks dropping off new equipment at Staples stores removed electronics
that had been dropped off and took them to Staples distribution centers
rather than leaving the stores with the trucks empty.
<bullet> The Good Guys pilot in the Seattle area collected over
4,000 TVs--double the quantity expected--by offering in-store take back
and a low fee for drop-off countered by a purchase rebate.
<bullet> Office Depot and Hewlett-Packard worked together to offer
free in-store takeback of consumer electronics in all 850 Office Depot
stores for a limited time period. It resulted in 10.5 million pounds
collected, more than 441 tractor trailer loads.
We believe these and other pilots sponsored by industry, states,
and recyclers are generating critical data which will inform
policymaking on electronics recycling. These pilots have proved crucial
to testing out what works, what doesn't, where collaboration is
possible and where it is not, what kinds of opportunities really get
the attention of the consumer and what kind of material the consumer
wants to recycle. And very importantly, what it costs to get
electronics from the consumer into responsible recycling.
Federal Electronics Challenge--The Federal Government is a large
purchaser of IT products. To help the Federal Government lead by
example the Federal Environmental Executive and the EPA launched the
Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC). The FEC is a voluntary partnership
program designed to help Federal agencies become leaders in promoting
sustainable environmental stewardship of their electronic assets. As
FEC Partners, Federal agencies agree to set and work toward goals in
one or more of the three electronics life cycle phases--acquisition &
procurement; operations & maintenance; and end-of-life management. As
of this month, the FEC has 54 partners representing facilities from 12
Federal agencies. All 12 Federal agencies are signatories to a national
Memorandum of Understanding on Electronics Management and, in total,
represent about 83 percent of the Federal Government's IT purchasing
power.
Recent National Electronics Meeting.--Last spring, EPA hosted a
National Electronics Meeting to take stock of where we are with our
electronics programs and talk with stakeholders about what else is
needed. The goal of the meeting was to identify collaborative
strategies that will contribute to effective management of used
electronics across the country. Nearly 200 representatives from
industry, government, and the non profit community participated in this
meeting.
A few of the collaborative strategies being developed include the
following:
<bullet> Developing standards for environmentally safe electronics
recyclers and a process for certifying these recyclers. EPA plans to
take a leadership role in convening stakeholders to develop such
standards.
<bullet> Further development of a centralized data repository for
electronics recycling to collect nationwide market data/share by
manufacturers and provide information and status on national, state and
local e-waste initiatives (provides data on waste, geographic summaries
and process/implementation data). This effort is being chaired by the
National Center for Electronics Recycling (NCER) in partnership with
EPA and other interested parties.
<bullet> Piloting a private multi-state Third-Party Organization
(TPO) to support electronics recycling efforts in the Pacific
Northwest. This project will explore how a multi-state TPO could assume
responsibilities on behalf of manufacturers, like contracting for
recycling services across state lines. This effort is being chaired by
the NCER and the WA Department of Ecology with eight electronics
manufacturers.
Even if the key collaborations noted above are implemented, there
will remain some gaps in needed infrastructure. In the course of
developing, implementing, and sharing information related to key
infrastructure-related collaborations, EPA looks forward to working
with stakeholders to identify and plan to address other infrastructure-
related efforts.
EPA WILL WORK WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS MOVING FORWARD
EPA has been working with a wide range of stakeholders in a variety
of forums, both domestically and, as appropriate, internationally. This
approach has worked well, and we expect to continue to follow it in
partnership with other Federal agencies such as the Commerce Department
and with the Federal Environmental Executive.
CONCLUSION
I hope that I have given you a sense of EPA's electronics goals and
how we work with partners throughout the product chain to achieve
shared responsibility for a greener, recovery-oriented product cycle.
______
Responses by Thomas Dunne to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. The subject of electronics recycling is very broad and
not all electronics are created equally. Some stakeholders point out
the differences in addressing a console television versus a mobile
telephone. The wireless industry has a voluntary program--would you
agree that they are contributing to the proper management of wireless
products?
Response. The cell phone industry has developed programs to make
sure wireless products find their way back into appropriate reuse or
recycling programs when they are discarded. A lot of manufacturers,
service providers, and retailers of cell phones recognize their
responsibility in helping to ensure safe recycling and are acting on
it. We hope that the successes we've seen to date with cell phone
recovery spearheaded by retailers, manufacturers and non-profits will
continue and that these players will continue to build on their
outreach efforts so that eventually all cell phones will be recovered
and recycled back into useful products.
Question 2. Has EPA taken steps to facilitate the safe and cost
effective recycling of end-of-line electronic equipment?
Response. EPA has been involved with the improvement of electronics
design and recovery for a number of years now. EPA is engaged in a
series of partnerships with manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, state
and local governments, non-profit and other organizations, and other
Federal agencies to encourage the improved design of electronic
products, help develop the infrastructure for the collection and reuse
or recycling of discarded electronics, and encourage the
environmentally safe recycling of used electronics.
For example, EPA funded and participated in a process with
electronics manufacturers, government technology purchasers, and other
organizations to develop the Electronics Product Environmental
Assessment Tool (EPEAT). EPEAT will help large technology purchasers
identify electronics products that are designed in a more environmental
friendly manner. More environmentally friendly electronics include
products that are designed to be more easily and cost-effectively
recycled. It is expected that EPEAT will be operating before the end of
2006 when manufacturers that meet EPEAT criteria will be able to
certify their products. The initial electronic products eligible for
EPEAT certification will be desktop computers, laptops, and monitors.
In addition, EPA has entered into a voluntary partnership with
numerous electronics manufacturers, retailers, and state and local
governments to develop the Plug-In To eCycling initiative. The aim of
this initiative is to raise public awareness on electronics recycling
and to increase recycling opportunities.
In the first 2 years of Plug-In, more than 45 million pounds of
unwanted electronics products were recycled by Plug-In partners. EPA
launched several pilot programs under the Plug-In banner last year with
manufacturers, retailers and local governments to provide consumer
electronics recycling opportunities. The pilots resulted in collection
of more than 11 million pounds of used electronics at retail stores,
including New England area Staples, Seattle area Good Guys, and all
Office Depot locations. All of this is helping to encourage growth of
the electronics recycling infrastructure.
To help make sure that as electronics recycling opportunities
increase, human health and the environment are also protected, we have
issued voluntary safe recycling guidelines. These guidelines, issued
under the Plug-In program, establish safe management practices for
electronics recyclers.
EPA has also partnered with the Federal Environmental Executive and
several other Federal agencies to launch the Federal Electronics
Challenge (FEC). Given that the Federal government is such a large
purchaser of information technology products, it is fitting that we
lead by example. The FEC is a voluntary partnership of Federal agencies
that have committed to develop a more sustainable environmental
stewardship of their electronic products. Twelve Federal agencies have
signed a Memorandum of Understanding on electronics management, which
represents roughly 83 percent of the government's information
technology purchasing power. Among the key goals of the FEC are to help
promote further expansion of the electronics recycling infrastructure
and safe recycling practices.
Finally, EPA continues to work with a wide range of stakeholders to
further encourage the reuse and recycling of electronics products. Last
Spring, the Agency hosted a National Electronics Meeting attended by
representatives from industry, governments, and non-profit
organizations to discuss electronics management issues. As a result of
the meeting, collaborative strategies are being developed that include
the development of a certification program for electronics recyclers,
the development of a nation-wide electronics recycling data repository,
and piloting a private multi-state manufacturer-led organization to
help support electronics recycling efforts in the Pacific Northwest.
______
Responses by Thomas Dunne to Additional Questions from Senator Boxer
Question 1. Cathode ray tubes used in most televisions can leach
significant quantities of lead into a landfill. The EPA's Inspector
General (IG) recently criticized EPA's failure to finalize a rule
stating how the agency would regulate these tubes. EPA began this
rulemaking in 1998. When will EPA finalize its rulemaking on cathode
ray tubes?
Response. First, we should clarify that many waste cathode ray
tubes (CRTs) are currently regulated as hazardous waste under RCRA if
they are being discarded. That is, the vast majority of color CRTs will
exceed the criteria in the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) regulation for
lead (5 mg/l, in the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure Test
(TCLP) test; see 40 CFR 261.24), and so would be classified as RCRA
hazardous on this basis (see Musson, et al., 2000, Jang and Townsend
2003, and Townsend et al., 2004). Large quantity generators of color
TVs bound for disposal would be required to dispose of these materials
in hazardous waste landfills or hazardous waste incinerators. The
rulemaking that you reference in your question would not change this.
Most monochrome CRTs would not qualify as hazardous waste under the
TCLP test for lead, but there are relatively few monochrome CRTs
produced any more.
Color CRTS that would not be regulated as hazardous include those
generated by households and conditionally exempt small quantity
generators of hazardous waste (less than 100 kg/month of all hazardous
waste). These may be disposed in municipal solid waste landfills under
current RCRA regulations, as would all other types of hazardous waste
generated by households and conditionally exempt small quantity
generators.
As to the premise in your question that cathode ray tubes leach
significant quantities of lead into landfills, EPA believes that the
disposal of electronics--including those that qualify as household
hazardous waste--in municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills is protective
of human health and the environment if that disposal occurs in properly
managed municipal solid waste landfills.
In 1991, EPA updated the MSW landfill criteria to ensure that these
landfills will be protective of human health and the environment, even
if they accept household hazardous waste or conditionally exempt
hazardous waste. Recent studies indicate that landfill leachate from
properly designed and operated MSW landfills is unlikely to cause
drinking water contamination due to low levels of metals present in the
leachate from these landfills, and due to leachate collection and
treatment systems. There is ongoing research being undertaken by the
University of Florida to further assess the effects of electronics
waste in MSW landfills.
With respect to your specific question, the final rule on CRTs is
currently undergoing interagency review and until this review is
completed, we cannot say with certainty when the rule will be
finalized.
Question 2. The value of leaded glass recently dipped to minus $200
per ton. This change reflects a shift in the consumer preference for
different technologies, among other factors. Doesn't this drop in value
affect EPA's rationale for exempting cathode ray tubes from hazardous
waste regulations as a ``valuable commodity''?
Response. EPA has no data indicating that leaded glass has the
negative economic value mentioned in your question. In fact, according
to very recent conversations with a glass processor, leaded glass sent
for recycling to make new cathode ray tubes is worth at least $100 per
ton. Although this figure is lower than it was when EPA proposed its
CRT rule in 2002, it is still significant. In addition, CRT glass
processors have recently stated that demand for leaded glass is still
very high, and that the market for new CRTs in other countries is
strong. We note that recycled leaded glass is necessary to make new CRT
glass; raw materials such as silica are not considered an adequate
substitute.
In contrast, processors who send leaded glass to lead smelters must
pay the smelter approximately $140 per ton to accept the lead. The
smelter then uses the glass as fluxing material and as lead feedstock.
Broken glass from CRTs resembles industrial sand in composition and can
therefore serve as a substitute for this sand in the fluxing process.
The sand is inexpensive. CRT glass manufacturers have stricter quality
standards than lead smelters for the type of material that they can
accept.
Further evidence of the economic value of CRT glass is demonstrated
by the cost savings realized by CRT glass manufacturers and lead
smelters when using processed CRT glass. The use of processed CRT glass
cullet benefits the manufacturer in several ways, such as improving
heat transfer and melting characteristics in the furnaces, lowering
energy consumption, and maintaining or improving the quality of the
final product.
Question 3. Toxicity tests have shown that cathode ray tubes can
leach four times the amount of lead as material that is regulated as a
hazardous wastes. The EPA's IG recently noted that EPA is testing other
types of electronic waste for their hazardous characteristics. What
types of electronic material has EPA tested for its hazardous
characteristics or plans to test for such characteristics?
Response. EPA has funded studies by researchers at the University
of Florida at Gainesville on the RCRA status of a variety of waste
electronics devices (see Townsend, et al., 2004). These include
(excluding CRTs): Computer CPUs, Laptop computers, Cell phones,
Computer printers, Keyboards, Computer Mice, TV Remote controls, Smoke
Detectors
Question 4. What are the results of any tests that EPA has already
conducted?
Response. From Townsend 2004:
CPUs: 1 out of 22 computer CPUs tested using the TCLP exceeded the
lead TC level of 5 mg/l, having 6.0 mg/l lead in the test leachate.
Keyboards: No keyboards (0/3) failed the TCLP.
Mice: All mice tested (15/15) failed the TC for lead using the
TCLP.
Laptops: 6 out of 6 laptops tested failed the TC using the TCLP.
Remote controls: All remotes (4 out of 4 tested) failed the TC for
lead using the TCLP.
Smoke detectors: Most (8 out of nine 9 tested) failed the TC for
lead using the TCLP.
Cell Phones: 28 out of 38 individual cell phones tested exceeded
the TC for lead using the TCLP. The average lead in test leachate
overall for cell phones was 20 mg/l. However, there was wide
variability in the leach test results by brand and model, and the
results ranged from zero to 65 mg/l lead in the test leachate.
Circuit boards: Many electronic devices fail the TC regulatory
value for lead because lead is used in the printed wire boards (PWB),
or circuit boards, which are part of these devices. In Jang and
Townsend (2003), PWBs were leached using the TCLP, and lead exceeded
the TC value, with an average of 162 mg/l. In Townsend (2004), PWBs
tested with TCLP averaged 151 mg/l lead in the test leachate (3
samples).
References to studies cited:
Musson, S., Jang Y., Townsend, T., and Chung, I. ``Characterization
of Lead Leachability from Cathode Ray Tubes Using the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure'' Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34,
4376-4381.
Townsend, T., Vann, K., Mutha, S., Pearson, B., Jang, Y.,Musson,
S., and Jordan, A. (2004). ``RCRA Toxicity Characterization of Computer
CPUs and Other Discarded Electronic Devices'' July 15 2004. Funded by
U.S. EPA Regions 4 & 5. Unpublished.
Jang , Y., and Townsend, T. (2003) ``Leaching of Lead from Computer
Printed Wire Boards and Cathode Ray Tubes by Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill Leachates'' Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 4778-4784.
Townsend, T. (2003). ``Leachability of Printed Wire Boards
Containing Leaded and Lead-Free Solder''. November 5, 2003. Funded by
U.S. EPA/OPPTS. Unpublished.
Question 5. In October 2003, EPA proposed a rule that could
deregulate up to 3 billion pounds of hazardous waste, including used
circuit boards. Among other problems, EPA's proposed rule would allow
hazardous wastes to be shipped on public roads without any tracking
documents. Can you please tell me the status of this proposed
rulemaking?
Response. This proposed rule would modify the definition of solid
waste to promote increased recycling. EPA is currently evaluating the
numerous and varied public comments received in response to our
proposal. We are developing a broad range of options for the final
rule, and we anticipate that EPA management will select preferred
options by the end of this year. We currently expect to publish a final
rule in November 2006. However, if the Agency believes it needs to re-
propose all or parts of the proposal, we would expect to finalize that
by the Winter of 2008. EPA would not support regulatory approaches that
would allow unsafe management of hazardous wastes under the guise of
recycling.
Question 6. EPA's ``Plug-In to eCycling'' program is a voluntary
partnership to increase electronics recycling. The IG reported that
several stakeholders involved with recycling electronics did not
understand the purpose of this program or were not even aware of it.
What steps is EPA taking to clearly define the program's goals and to
increase awareness of the program?
Response. Electronics recycling is one of the key pillars of EPA's
Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC)--a major initiative undertaken by
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response as well as the
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to place more emphasis on
toxics reduction and materials recovery. These two offices have
developed an RCC Action Plan that addresses electronics.
Long before we developed the RCC Action Plan for electronics, EPA
had clear goals with respect to our electronics programs and our
electronics projects were designed to align with these goals. See page
14 of the IG's final report.
Despite the fact that numerous well-known retailers and
manufacturers signed on as early supporters and participants of EPA's
Plug-In to eCycling program (examples include Dell, Sony, Panasonic and
Best Buy), purportedly, others that the IG spoke with were not aware of
the program. Therefore, EPA has undertaken efforts to increase its
communication of the Agency's electronics goals and programs.
In particular, EPA has worked hard to give greater visibility to
the Plug-In goals. These goals are to:
<bullet> Work with partners to inform the public about the
importance of electronics reuse and recycling and give them information
about how to reuse or recycle their outgrown/unwanted electronics.
<bullet> Increase opportunities for Americans to safely recycle
their electronics and to promote shared responsibility for safe
electronics recycling by facilitating partnerships with communities,
electronics manufacturers, and retailers.
<bullet> Establish pilot projects to test innovative approaches to
safe electronics recycling.
Since the release of the IG report, EPA has done the following to
give higher visibility to these goals:
(1) More visibly presented the program goals on the Plug-In
website;
(2) Incorporated program goals, partners, and partner
accomplishments into speeches by senior EPA officials, presentations at
conferences, and materials and discussions at stakeholder meetings;
(3) Developed more public education materials that are disseminated
at conferences, trade shows, and meetings. EPA partners also
disseminate these materials at their recycling events, trade shows and
meetings;
(4) Discussed the purpose of the Plug-In program and highlighted
retailer-based Plug-In pilots in press advisories and shared the
results of pilots through press releases and postings on EPA and
partner websites;
(5) Highlighted the goals of Plug-In and partner accomplishments in
media events at CES 2005;
(6) Highlighted the goals of Plug-In at the EPA National
Electronics Meeting held in March 2005;
(7) Launched multi-stakeholder collaborative efforts aimed at
increasing public awareness on how to donate outgrown computers and
overcome hindrances to reuse like concerns regarding data security; and
(8) Required all partners to contribute to public outreach goals by
completing education and outreach initiatives regarding electronics
recycling.
Question 7. The EPA's IG recently concluded that the United States
is ``lagging behind international e-waste efforts.'' The IG highlighted
laws in the European Union that require manufacturers to take financial
responsibility for recycling their consumer electronic products and to
reduce the use of six toxic chemicals in these products. Here in the
United States, the Pollution Prevention Act establishes a national
policy that ``pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source
whenever feasible.''
Why hasn't the EPA used it authorities under the Pollution
Prevention Act to require pollution prevention activities and
manufacturer responsibility with electronic waste similar to the
European Union's policies?
Response. The Pollution Prevention Act does not give EPA the
authority to require pollution prevention activities or impose
manufacturer responsibility. Under the Pollution Prevention Act, EPA is
authorized to encourage voluntary approaches to pollution prevention.
Voluntary measures we are undertaking to help support pollution
prevention for electronics include the Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool (EPEAT), Federal Electronics Challenge, Plug-In to
eCycling and the Design for the Environment program's work on lead-free
solder.
It is true that the U.S. does not have Federal substance bans for
electronics similar to those that will soon take effect in Europe. Most
electronic products are manufactured for a worldwide market; thus
manufacturers generally need to design their products to the most
stringent design standards in effect wherever they are. According to
many industry observers, many, if not most, electronics sold in the
U.S. will meet the EU design requirements simply because most
manufacturers will not be making a separate product for the U.S.
market. California recently adopted substance bans essentially
identical to those of the EU for selected electronic products. It is
anticipated that these California requirements will capture any covered
electronics that are made for a strictly U.S. market.
Question 8. EPA's EPEAT program seeks to develop criteria for
judging electronics products that are designed to be environmentally
friendly. The EPEAT program will allow manufacturers to self-select
whether they meet all of the criteria to qualify for a bronze, silver
of gold label.
Will EPA or a third party audit the representations made by
manufacturers, or merely rely on data submitted by manufacturers?
Response. A credible verification process for product declarations
is one of the most critical aspects for long-term EPEAT success.
Purchasers and the environmental community must have confidence that
the claims of manufacturers are accurate.
However, the stakeholders in the development of EPEAT, which
include manufacturers, federal and state and local procurement
officials, environmental organizations, recyclers, and others, agreed
that, given the very short time-to-market characteristic of the
electronic marketplace, it is impractical to use a third-party process
to pre-verify each product claim before that claim can be used by the
manufacturer. EPEAT therefore relies on manufacturer self-declaration
that is backed up by a multi-tiered verification process.
The first tier in verification is the signing of a legal agreement
with each manufacturer that wishes to declare products to the EPEAT
standard. This must be signed by a high-level, responsible company
manager, and will spell out, in an enforceable manner, the commitments
of the company and the consequences of failing to meet those
commitments.
Second, for each manufacturer, product self-declarations will be
monitored to assure that they are being entered correctly. This is not
a verification of accuracy, but declarations will be double checked by
the EPEAT host organization. (The process of identifying a host
organization for the EPEAT tool is now underway; it is expected that a
host organization will be chosen later this year.) In product
declarations, manufacturers are required to have ready for review
specified data that supports the claim for each criterion.
Then on an annual basis, products will be selected for spot checks
by the EPEAT host organization--a thorough verification of accuracy.
Products will be randomly selected and, if questions or challenges have
been raised by users of the system, specific products will be targeted.
The number of spot checks will be variable, depending on the need to
assure EPEAT credibility.
The process for administering and performing spot checks will use
Qualified Verifiers, who have been properly trained and certified. The
spot checks will include a review of the data that will be provided by
the manufacturer, and will include product testing or other procedures
as necessary. The spot check of factual findings will be brought to a
Technical Verification Committee of independent, technical experts to
pass judgment.
The EPEAT host organization will take any outstanding problems to
the manufacturer to be explained or resolved. If a resolution cannot be
achieved, termination of the declaration of the product in question
will be undertaken. If multiple problems of this nature should occur,
the manufacturer's ability to declare to EPEAT may be terminated. All
these procedures will have been spelled out in the original agreement
with the manufacturer.
______
Response by Thomas Dunne to an Additional Question from
Senator Jeffords
Question. There have been numerous reports about unsafe recycling
of electronic waste in China, exposing children and workers to
hazardous materials from computers that were exported from the U.S.
Will EPA's upcoming rule on cathode ray tubes address this problem by
either banning the export of electronic waste or requiring exporters to
verify that electronic waste sent overseas to be recycled will be
properly handled to protect against harm to human health and the
environment? What is the status of this rulemaking and when is it
expected to be published as a final rule?
Response. In response to our proposed rule, EPA received many
comments about CRTs exported for recycling. We thoroughly evaluated all
of these comments when developing our final rule, and examined all
relevant options. The final rule, which is currently undergoing
interagency review, will discuss the comments received and describe the
final approach adopted, including responding to the comments that were
submitted.
______
Response by Thomas Dunne to an Additional Question from
Senator Lautenberg
Question. As you know, CRTs may contain up to 10 lbs. or more of
leaded glass. Are you planning to issue a ``universal waste rule'' for
CRT glass to control this toxic metal? If not, why not?
Response. In June, 2002, EPA proposed an exclusion from the
definition of solid waste for CRTs and CRT glass sent for recycling.
The purpose of this rule is to encourage more reuse, recycling, and
better management of this rapidly growing waste stream, while at the
same time ensure that these materials are safely managed. The Agency
believed that this regulatory exclusion was preferable to including
CRTs in the universal waste rule because, in our view, these materials
resemble commodities more than wastes when sent for reuse or recycling.
Therefore, some of the requirements of the universal waste rule (e.g.,
notification and tracking) did not seem appropriate. However, we note
that the management conditions of our proposed exclusion are very
similar to the general conditions of the universal waste rule. Both
sets of conditions would minimize the release of toxic constituents
during storage and transport. With that said, the Agency did describe
in the proposal and specifically requested comment on an alternative
approach that would regulate CRT's and CRT glass sent for recycling
under the universal waste rule, instead of excluding them from the
definition of solid waste. The Agency received many comments on this
``request for comment'' which have been carefully evaluated and
considered in the draft final rule, which is currently undergoing
interagency review.
Finally, our proposed rule would not streamline RCRA requirements
for CRTs that are hazardous and sent for disposal. Under the proposed
rule, CRTs that are hazardous and sent to landfills or incinerators
would still be subject to existing requirements, including use of the
hazardous waste manifest.
__________
Statement of John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural
Resources and Environment
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work to date on the
issues surrounding the growing volume of used electronics accumulating
in the nation's basements, attics, and landfills. Rapid advancements in
technology have led to increasing sales of new electronic devices,
particularly televisions, computers, and computer monitors.
Approximately 62 percent of U.S. households had computers in 2003,
compared with only 37 percent just 6 years earlier. With this increase
comes the dilemma of how to manage these products when they come to the
end of their useful lives. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has estimated that in 2003 alone, about 50 million existing computers
became obsolete, but one estimate forecast that less than 6 million
were recycled.
Disposal of used electronics creates potential problems that can be
averted through recycling or reuse. For example, concerns have been
raised because toxic substances such as lead, which have well-
documented adverse health effects, can potentially leach from used
electronics. Concerns have also been raised over used electronics that
are exported from the United States to countries with less stringent
environmental regulations. In addition, computers contain precious
metals, such as gold, silver, and platinum, that require substantial
amounts of energy and land to extract. These metals can often be
extracted with less environmental impact from used electronics than
from the environment. The U.S. Geological Survey, for instance, reports
that 1 metric ton of computer scrap contains more gold than 17 tons of
ore and much lower levels of harmful elements common to ores, such as
arsenic, mercury, and sulfur.
In this context, you and several other Members of the Congress
asked. that we address, a number of issues surrounding this problem.
Specifically, we were asked to (1) summarize existing information on
the volumes of, and problems associated with, used electronics and (2)
examine the factors. affecting the nation's ability to recycle and
reuse electronics when such products have reached the end of their
useful lives.
To address these issues, we are examining studies that provide
nationwide estimates on the amount of used electronics,\1\ as well as
federal and state government studies (including those by EPA and task
forces in Oregon and Washington), industry and interest group studies,
and local studies (including municipal solid waste characterization
studies) that discuss the problems associated with used electronics. We
are also visiting states and localities that have implemented programs
or passed legislation to responsibly manage used electronics, including
California, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington. In
addition, we are surveying participants in the National Electronics
Product Stewardship Initiative and other key stakeholders, which
include key stakeholders from Federal, State, and local governments,
environmental organizations, recyclers, retailers, equipment
manufacturers, and academicians. To date, we have received responses
from 41 of the 53 survey participants. We are also comparing current
government and industry practices with existing practices for promoting
recycling in other industries, such as bottle- and can-recycling
programs and the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation program.
Further, we are examining EPA-sponsored Federal, State, and local pilot
programs that attempt to encourage recycling of electronic products.
Our work is being done in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards, which include an assessment of data reliability and
internal controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purposes of our study, used electronics includes
computers, computer monitors, and televisions that have reached the end
of their original useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are here to present our preliminary observations on these
issues. We will report the final results of our study and any
recommendations we may develop at a later date. In summary:
<bullet> Available estimates suggest that the volume of used
electronics is large and growing and that if improperly managed can
harm the environment and human health. While data and research are
limited, some data suggest that over 100 million computers, monitors,
and televisions become obsolete each year and that this amount is
growing. These obsolete products can be either recycled, reused,
disposed of in landfills, or stored by users in places such as
basements, garages, and company warehouses. Available data suggest that
most used electronics are probably stored. These units have the
potential to be recycled and reused, disposed of in landfills, or
exported for recycling and reuse overseas. If ultimately disposed in
landfills, either in the United States or overseas, valuable resources,
such as copper, gold, and aluminum, are lost for future use.
Additionally, standard regulatory tests show that some toxic substances
with known adverse health effects, such as lead, have the potential to
leach into landfills. Although one study suggests that leaching is not
a concern in modern U.S. landfills, it appears that many of these
products end up in countries without modern landfills or the
environmental regulations comparable to the United States.
<bullet> Both economic and regulatory factors discourage recycling
and reuse of used electronics:
<bullet> 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. Consumers in
Snohomish County, WA, for instance, may have to travel more
than an hour to the nearest drop-off location, which then
charges between $10 and $27 per unit depending on the type and
size of the product. Consumers in the Portland, OR area, pay
one local recycler 50 cents per pound to have their used
computers recycled, which is about $28 for an average-sized
desktop computer. Recyclers and refurbishers charge these fees
because costs associated with recycling and refurbishing
outweigh the revenue received from recycled commodities or
refurbished units. This point was underscored by the
International Association of Electronics Recyclers, which
reported that the value of commodities recovered from computer
equipment (such as shredded plastic, copper, and aluminum) is
only between $1.50 and $2.00 per unit. It was further
underscored by our interviews with eight electronics recyclers,
who were unanimous in emphasizing that they could not cover
costs without charging fees.
<bullet> Federal regulatory requirements provide little
incentive for environmentally preferable management of used
electronics. The governing statute, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, bars entities that dispose of more than 220
pounds of hazardous waste per month from depositing hazardous
waste (including some used electronics) in landfills. However,
RCRA does not prohibit households and entities that generate
less than 220 pounds of hazardous waste per month from sending
hazardous waste to municipal landfills. Consequently, since
only four states currently ban disposal of used electronics in
their trash or local landfill, most consumers in the remaining
46 states (and the District of Columbia) are allowed to do so-
and have little incentive to do otherwise. Not surprisingly,
available data suggest that states and localities that do not
have landfill bans have dramatically lower levels of recycling
than the four states that have enacted landfill bans. In
addition, federal regulations provide for neither a financing
system for responsible management of used electronics, nor
oversight of these products when exported--a particular problem
in the case of some developing countries, where risks to the
environment and human health may be more likely because of less
stringent environmental regulations.
In the absence of a national approach, a patchwork of potentially
conflicting state requirements is developing. This patchwork may be
placing a substantial burden on recyclers, refurbishers, and other
stakeholders. As we conclude our work, we will be examining the
implications of our findings for the ongoing efforts among the states
to deal with the problem, for the various legislative solutions that
have been proposed to create a uniform national approach, and for
options the federal government can pursue to encourage recycling and
reuse of used electronics.
BACKGROUND
Few people are aware of recycling options for their old televisions
and personal computers. Because of the perceived value of used
electronics, some pass their used equipment to family members or
friends before eventually storing these units in their attics,
basements, or garages. Eventually, though, consumers need to dispose of
these units in some manner. By choosing to have these products
recycled, consumers ensure the recovery of resources like copper, iron,
aluminum, and gold, which would otherwise be procured through less
environmentally friendly practices such as mining. Likewise, consumers
who choose to recycle also reduce the amount of waste entering the
nation's landfills and incinerators. Since used electronics typically
contain toxic substances like lead, mercury, and cadmium, recycling or
refurbishing will prevent or delay such toxic substances from entering
landfills.
The Congress affirmed its commitment to reducing waste and
encouraging recycling, first through enactment of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, and then again with
passage of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. Both RCRA and the
Pollution Prevention Act address alternatives to waste disposal. RCRA
promotes the use of resource recovery, either through facilities that
convert waste to energy or through recycling. To promote recycling,
RCRA required EPA to develop guidelines for identifying products that
are or can be produced with recovered materials. RCRA also requires
federal agencies to procure items that are, to the maximum extent
practicable, produced with recovered materials. The Pollution
Prevention Act provides that pollution that cannot be prevented should
be recycled or treated in a safe manner, and disposal or other releases
should be used only as a last resort. It specified that pollution
prevention can include such practices as modifying equipment,
technology, and processes; redesigning products; and substituting less-
toxic raw materials. Executive Order 13101, issued on September 14,
1998, also affirmed the federal government's commitment to encourage
recycling by directing federal agencies to consider procuring products
that, among other things, use recovered materials, can be reused,
facilitate recycling, and include fewer toxic substances.
Nonetheless, while large-quantity generators, such as businesses,
schools, and government agencies, must treat some used electronics as
hazardous waste due to the relatively high level of toxic substances,
it is not illegal for households or for small quantity generators--non-
household entities disposing of less than 220 pounds per month--to
dispose of used electronics in landfills in most states. Under RCRA,
household hazardous wastes, including used electronics, may be disposed
of at municipal solid waste landfills. However, some states have begun
imposing more stringent disposal requirements for used electronics. For
example, because of concerns regarding the potential environmental and
health effects of leaded glass in cathode ray tubes (CRTs), California,
Maine, Massachusetts, and Minnesota recently banned them from disposal
in municipal landfills.
As national awareness of potential problems associated with the
disposal of used electronics has grown, EPA has taken steps to
encourage recycling of used electronics. For instance, EPA, together
with electronics manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers, sponsored
several pilot programs in 2004 to measure the success of convenient
collection options for used electronics. Other recent EPA efforts, such
as the Federal Electronics Challenge and the Electronic Product
Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) program, attempt to leverage U.S.
Government procurement power to drive environmentally preferable design
for electronic products. Finally, through the establishment of the
National Electronic Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) in 2001, EPA
established a voluntary, multi-stakeholder initiative to reach
consensus on a national approach to encourage recycling of used
electronics. This voluntary effort ultimately dissolved in 2005 without
agreement, however, because stakeholders could not reach consensus on a
nationwide financing system.
VOLUME OF USED ELECTRONICS AND THE PROBLEMS THEY POSE
The information we have reviewed to date suggests strongly that the
volume of used electronics is large and growing. For example, in a 1999
study, the National Safety Council forecast that almost 100 million
computers and monitors would become obsolete in 2003-a three-fold
increase over the 33 million obsolete computers and monitors in
1997.\2\ Additionally, a 2003 International Association of Electronics
Recyclers report estimated that 20 million televisions become obsolete
each year--a number that is expected to increase as CRT technology is
replaced by new technologies such as plasma screens.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Safety Council, Electronic Product Recovery and
Recycling Baseline Report May 1999. These estimates are based on major
assumptions, as well as responses from only 38 percent of sampled
companies. Although, the study supports the existence of a large and
growing problem, the precise estimates should be used with caution.
\3\ International Association of Electronics Recyclers, IAER
Electronics Recycling Industry Report 2003. These estimates are based
on major assumptions, as well as responses from only 20 percent of
sampled companies. Although the study supports the existence of a large
and growing problem, the precise estimates should be used with caution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus far, it appears that relatively few units have found their way
into either landfills or recycling centers. 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. Additionally,
the 1999 National Safety Council report forecast that only 19 million
computers, monitors, and televisions would be recycled in 2005. Hence,
the gap between the enormous quantity of units that are obsolete (or
becoming obsolete), and the quantity either in landfills or sent to
recycling centers, suggests that most used electronics are still in
storage-such as attics, basements, and garages-and that their ultimate
fate is still not certain, or have been exported for recycling and
reuse overseas.
Conventional disposal of used electronics in landfills raises two
primary concerns, according to research we reviewed: the loss of
natural resources and the potential release of toxic substances in the
environment. By disposing of these products in landfills or
incinerators, valuable resources are lost for future use. For example,
computers typically contain precious metals, such as gold, silver,
palladium, and platinum, as well as other useful metals like aluminum
and copper. Further, the U.S. Geological Survey reports that one metric
ton of computer circuit boards contains between 40 and 800 times the
concentration of gold contained in gold ore and 30 to 40 times the
concentration of copper, while containing much lower levels of harmful
elements common to ores, such as arsenic, mercury, and sulfur.\4\ The
research we have thus far reviewed also suggests that the energy saved
by recycling and reusing used electronics is significant-the author of
one report by the United Nations University states that perhaps as much
as 80 percent of the energy used in a computer's life can be saved
through reuse instead of producing a new unit from raw materials.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Bleiwas, Donald and Kelly, Thomas, Obsolete Computers, ``Gold
Mines,''or High-Tech Trash? Resource Recovery From Recycling
(Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey, 2001). Because we have not yet
reviewed this study, this data should be used with caution.
\5\ The United Nations University is a think tank for the United
Nations and is not a degree granting university.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the issue of toxicity, the research we have reviewed to
date is unclear on the extent to which toxic substances may leach from
used electronics in landfills. On one hand, according to a standard
regulatory test RCRA requires to determine whether a solid waste is
hazardous and subject to federal regulation, lead (a substance with
known adverse health affects) leaches from some used electronics under
laboratory conditions. Tests conducted at the University of Florida
indicate that lead leachate from computer monitors and televisions with
cathode ray tubes exceeds the regulatory limit and, as a result, could
be considered hazardous waste under RCRA.\6\ On the other hand, the
study's author told us that these findings are not necessarily
predictive of what could occur in a modern landfill. Furthermore, a
report by the Solid Waste Association of North America suggests that
while the amount of lead from used electronics appears to be increasing
in municipal solid waste landfills, these landfills provide safe
management of used electronics without exceeding toxicity limits that
have been established to protect human health and the environment.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Townsend, Timothy, et al, Characterization of Lead Leachability
from Cathode Ray Tubes Using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure. (University of Florida, Department of Environmental
Engineering Sciences: 2000). Because we have not yet reviewed this
study, these estimates should be used with caution.
\7\ Solid Waste Association of North America, The Effectiveness of
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Controlling Releases of Heavy Metals
to the Environment (2004). Because we have not yet reviewed this study,
this data should be used with caution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECONOMIC 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 often inconvenient
locations to have them recycled or refurbished for reuse. Recyclers and
refurbishers charge fees to cover the costs of their operations. In
most states, consumers have an easier and cheaper alternative--they can
take them to the local landfill. These easy and inexpensive
alternatives help explain why so little recycling of used electronics
has thus far taken place in the United States. This economic reality,
together with federal regulations that do little to preclude disposal
of used electronics along with other wastes, have led a growing number
of states to enact their own laws to encourage environmentally
preferable management of these products.
Cost and Consumer Inconvenience Discourage Recycling and Reuse of Used
Electronics
Consumers who seek to recycle or donate their used electronics for
reuse generally pay a fee and face inconvenient drop-off locations.
Unlike their efforts for other solid waste management and recycling
programs, most local governments do not provide curbside collection for
recycling of used electronics because it is too expensive. Instead,
some localities offer used electronics collection services, for a fee,
at local waste transfer stations. These localities send consumers' used
electronics to recyclers for processing. For example, transfer stations
in Snohomish County, WA, charge consumers between $10 and $27 per unit
for collecting used electronics and transporting them to recyclers.
Moreover, such transfer stations are generally not conveniently
located, and rural residents, such as those in Snohomish County, may
need to drive more than an hour to get to the nearest drop-off
station.\8\ In some localities, consumers can also take their used
electronics directly to a recycler, where they are typically charged a
fee. In the Portland, OR area, for instance, one recycler charges
consumers 50 cents per pound to recycle computers, monitors, and
televisions, which means it costs the consumer about $28 to recycle an
average-sized desktop computer system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Over 70 percent of the survey respondents felt that existing
collection options for recycling used electronics were inconvenient for
households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recyclers charge these fees to cover the costs they incur when
disassembling used electronics, processing the components, and refining
the commodities for resale. As noted in a 2003 report by the
International Association of Electronics Recyclers, most recyclers and
refurbishers in the United States cannot recoup their expenses from the
resale of recycled commodities or refurbished units. The report, which
compiled data from more than 60 recyclers in North America, stated that
the costs associated with recycling are greater than the revenue
received from reselling recycled commodities, and that fees are needed
to cover the difference. Furthermore, the report states that the value
of commodities recovered from computer equipment, such as shredded
plastic, copper, and aluminum, is only between $1.50 and $2.00 per
unit.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ This point is further underscored by our interviews with 8
electronics recyclers, who were unanimous in emphasizing that they
could not cover costs without charging fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs associated with recycling 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. Officials
with Noranda Recycling Inc., which recycles used electronics for
Hewlett-Packard, told us that over 50 percent of their total costs for
recycling are labor costs involved in disassembly, even though they
operate some of the most technologically advanced equipment available.
Labor costs are high, in part, because electronic products are not
always designed to facilitate recycling at their end of life. For
instance, a Hewlett-Packard official told us 30 different screws must
be removed to take out one lithium battery when disassembling a
Hewlett-Packard computer for recycling. According to this official, if
Hewlett-Packard spent $1 in added design costs to reduce the number of
different screws in each computer, it would save Noranda approximately
$4 in its disassembly costs.
Second, to obtain sellable commodities, the resulting metal and
plastic ``scrap'' must be further processed to obtain shredded plastic,
aluminum, copper, gold, and other recyclable materials. Processing in
this fashion typically involves multimillion-dollar machinery.
According to officials with one international electronics recycling
company, processing costs are high, in part, because this sophisticated
machinery is being used to process the relatively limited supply of
used electronics being recycled in the United States. The firm's
officials noted that in Europe, by contrast, where manufacturers are
required to take financial responsibility for the disposal of their
products, the increased supply of recyclable electronics has decreased
the firm's per-unit processing costs and increased the profitability of
recycling used electronics.
Finally, recyclers incur additional expenses when handling and
disposing of toxic components (such as batteries) and toxic
constituents (such as lead), which are all commonly found in used
electronics. These expenses include removing the toxic components and
constituents from the product, as well as handling and processing them
as hazardous material. Once separated from the product, these wastes
are considered hazardous wastes and are subject to more stringent RCRA
requirements governing their transportation, storage, and disposal.
CRTs from computer monitors and televisions are particularly expensive
to dispose of because they contain large volumes of leaded glass, which
must be handled and disposed of as a hazardous waste. Since CRT
manufacturing is declining in the United States, some recyclers send
their CRT glass to a lead smelter in Missouri that charges recyclers
for their CRT glass. A study on the economics of recycling personal
computers found that the cost associated with disposing of CRT monitors
substantially reduces a recycler's net revenue.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Boon, J.E., Isaacs, J.A., and Gupta, S.M. ``Economic
Sensitivity for End of Life Planning and Processing of Personal
Computers.'' Journal of Electronics Manufacturing (Vol. 11, 81-93,
2002). Because we have not yet reviewed this study, this data should be
used with caution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refurbishers charge similar fees to cover the costs involved in
guaranteeing data security by ``wiping'' hard drives, upgrading
systems, installing software, and testing equipment. A program manager
for a nonprofit technology assistance provider told us that it
generally costs about $100 to refurbish a Pentium III computer system,
plus an additional licensing fee of about $80 for an operating system.
To encourage used electronics recycling, EPA sponsored pilot
programs that addressed the cost and inconvenience issues. Office Depot
and Hewlett-Packard, for example, partnered to provide free take-back
of used electronics at Office Depot retail stores. Collected used
electronics were sent to Hewlett-Packard facilities for recycling. Over
a 3-month period, nearly 215,000 computers, monitors, and televisions
were collected and recycled. EPA officials told us that the pilot
program showed the extent to which recycling can be encouraged by
making it inexpensive and convenient to the consumer.
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 little to preclude
electronic products generated in the United States from being exported
and subsequently threatening human health and the environment overseas.
While several promising federal initiatives supporting electronics
recycling have been launched, their voluntary nature makes their
success uncertain.
Hazardous Used Electronics Are Allowed in Municipal Landfills
Regulation of used electronics at the federal level falls under
RCRA Subtitle C, which was established to ensure that hazardous waste
is managed in a manner that is protective of human health and the
environment. However, households and small quantity generators are
exempt from many RCRA regulations, thus allowing them to deposit their
used electronics in municipal solid waste landfills--even though
cathode ray tubes in computer monitors and televisions, and potentially
circuit boards in computers, exhibit characteristics of hazardous
waste. EPA's Office of Solid Waste regulates hazardous waste under
RCRA, but it lacks the authority to require environmentally preferable
management of used electronics through recycling and reuse or to
establish a mandatory national approach, such as a disposal ban. As a
result, all of the office's efforts with regard to the recycling of
used electronics are voluntary.
In response to RCRA's exemption for household hazardous waste and
the growing volume of obsolete electronics within their boundaries,
four states-California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Minnesota-recently
banned from landfills some used electronics.\11\ Our preliminary work
suggests that such bans have contributed to a higher degree of
recycling than in states where disposal in solid waste landfills is
allowed. In San Ramon, CA, for instance, a 1-day collection event for
television monitors yielded 24,000 units. In contrast, in Richmond,
Virginia, a metropolitan area 4 times the size of San Ramon but without
a landfill ban, a similar collection event (organized by the same
electronics recycler as in San Ramon) only yielded about 6,000
monitors. This difference in yield is consistent with assessments of
California and Massachusetts officials, who all told us that their
states have seen substantial increases in used electronics recycling.
One international electronics recycler, for instance, set up recycling
facilities in the San Francisco area in 2003 because of the large
volume of used electronics that were no longer being disposed of in
landfills. In Massachusetts, an official with the Department of
Environmental Protection told us that six businesses dedicated to
electronics recycling were created following the enactment of a
landfill ban. Finally, about 75 percent of the survey respondents to
date said that a national disposal ban should be enacted to overcome
the economic and regulatory factors that discourage recycling and reuse
of used electronics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The landfill bans in Maine and Minnesota take full effect in
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experts Believe a National Financing System is Needed to Support
Recycling
Given the inherent economic disincentives to recycle used
electronics, we found widespread agreement among our survey respondents
and others we contacted that the establishment of some type of
financing system is critical to making recycling and reuse sufficiently
inexpensive and convenient to attract the participation of consumers.
For instance, almost 90 percent of survey respondents believe that
either an advanced recycling fee (ARF), extended producer
responsibility (EPR), or a hybrid of the two should be implemented if
national solution is instituted. Yet despite broad agreement in
principle, participants in the recent multi-stakeholder NEPSI process,
particularly those in the computer and television industries, did not
reach agreement on a uniform, nationwide financing system after several
years of meetings.
In the absence of a national system, several states have enacted
their own financing systems through legislation to help ensure
environmentally preferable management of used electronics. For example,
in 2005, California implemented an ARF on all new video display
devices, such as televisions and computer monitors, sold within the
state. The fee is charged to consumers at the time and location of
purchase, and can range between $6 and $10. 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 for used electronics had
sufficient capacity to recycle large volumes, consumers and large-
quantity generators had little incentive to take products out of their
basements or warehouses to have them recycled. The state uses revenues
from the fees to reimburse electronics recyclers at the rate of 48
cents per pound of used electronics recycled. The recyclers, in turn,
pass on 20 cents per pound to collectors of used electronics, thereby
providing an incentive for entities to make collection free and
convenient for households.
The state is still in the preliminary stages of program
implementation, and state officials acknowledge that they face a number
of challenges. Some of these challenges underscore the difficulty of
dealing with the electronic waste problem on a state-by-state basis.
The officials noted, for instance, that the ARF applies only to
electronics purchased in California, and that the fees are intended
only for used electronics originating in the state. Implementing the
program within the state's boundary, however, may prove difficult
because the payout for used electronics may attract units originating
in other states. Preventing this problem, they say, requires
substantial documentation for each unit, and may require a substantial
enforcement effort.
While California's ARF focuses on consumers of electronics, Maine's
approach focuses on producers. In 2004, the state passed legislation
requiring computer and television manufacturers who sell products in
Maine to pay for the take back and recycling of their products at their
end of life-a strategy referred to as EPR. Under this plan, consumers
are to take their used electronics to a consolidation point, such as a
transfer station, where they are sorted by original manufacturer. Each
manufacturer is responsible for transporting and recycling its
products, along with a share of the products whose original
manufacturer no longer exists. According to one official with Maine's
State Planning Office, a key challenge of its EPR system is the lack of
a financial incentive for consumers to take their used electronics out
of storage: they must still take their products to a consolidation
point, and will still likely have to pay a fee.
Several other states, as well as some countries, have implemented
or are considering implementing financing systems for used electronics.
Earlier this year, Maryland passed legislation requiring all computer
manufacturers that sell computers in the state to pay $5,000 into a
fund to help implement local recycling programs.\12\ Other states, such
as Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, and Massachusetts have allocated grants
to help pay for the recycling of used electronics, and New York, Rhode
Island, and Vermont are considering enacting manufacturer take-back
programs. In Europe, the European Union implemented the Waste
Electrical and Electronic Equipment Management Regulations in July
2004, which requires producers of electronic products to be financially
responsible for the recycling or reuse of their products at end of
life. In our final report, we will provide a more complete examination
of various strategies for financing environmentally preferable
management of used electronics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ An official with the Maryland Department of Environment
estimated that anywhere from 40 to 200 computer manufacturers might be
required to pay the fee. He cited one estimate that the fee will
provide the state with about $400,000 to use toward recycling used
electronics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oversight of Exhorted Used Electronics Is Limited
The lack of oversight over exports of used electronics could also
discourage environmentally preferable management of used electronics.
In the United States, businesses, schools, government agencies, and
other organizations, as well as households, face multiple options for
their used electronics. In some instances, organizations and recyclers
receive e-mails from brokers, who typically have partners in Asia,
willing to pay them for their used electronics, regardless of whether
they can be reused. For example, one broker requests up to 50,000 used
monitors per month and does not require the monitors to be tested.
Another broker specifically requests nonworking monitors and wanted to
fill at least 10 containers, which equals anywhere from 6,000 to 11,000
units, depending on their size. One Seattle area recycler said that
brokers such as these are probably not handling the units in
environmentally preferable ways once the units are exported. Even so,
one business we contacted said it regularly receives e-mail requests
such as these.
Companies export used electronics because the largest markets for
reused computers and computer parts are overseas, according to an EPA
official. Likewise, demand is high for recycled commodities, which can
be processed more cheaply due, in part, to lower, wages and less
stringent environmental requirements. Also, unlike their counterparts
in some other developed countries, the U.S. officials have permitted
the export of hazardous used electronics, such as CRT monitors and
televisions, if the exporter asserts that the equipment is destined for
reuse. While some environmental groups have called for a ban on exports
of used electronics, the Congressional Research Service noted that such
a ban would cut recyclers off from many of the markets able to reuse
the materials.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Congressional Research Service, Recycling Computers and
Electronic Equipment: Legislative and Regulatory Approaches for ``E-
Waste,'' (Washington, D.C.: 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, few safeguards are in place to ensure that exported used
electronics are indeed destined for reuse.\14\ Used electronics that
are destined for reuse are not considered to be waste subject to RCRA
export regulations. Instead, such electronics are considered to be
commodities, which means that they can be exported with little or no
documentation, notification, and oversight. Nonetheless, instances have
been recently documented in which environmental and human health
threats have resulted from the less-regulated disassembly and disposal
of United States-generated used electronics overseas. For example, a
2002 documentary by the Basel Action Network and Silicon Valley Toxics
Coalition videotaped egregious disassembly practices in China that
involved open burning of wire to recover copper, open acid baths for
separating precious metals, and human exposure to lead and other
hazardous materials.\15\ Without the ability to track the exported
units to importing countries, or to audit companies exporting used
electronics, it is difficult to verify that exported used electronics
are actually destined for reuse, or that they are ultimately managed
responsibly once they leave U.S. shores. As our work continues, we will
further examine the extent of the problems associated with
irresponsible management of used electronics overseas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The following are generally not classified as solid wastes
under RCRA: Used electronics for reuse, whole circuit boards, shredded
circuit boards, if free of certain hazardous materials, metal from used
electronics, and scrap metal.
\15\ The Basel Action Network is an environmental group that works
to prevent the trade of toxic wastes from developed countries to
developing countries. The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition is an
environmental group that works to prevent environmental and human
health problems caused by the electronics industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunities Exist for Federal Initiatives to Enhance Electronics
Recycling
The federal government has taken some steps to affirm its
commitment to encourage recycling of used electronics through the
implementation of two voluntary programs sponsored by EPA. The Federal
Electronics Challenge (FEC) and the Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool (EPEAT) both leverage U.S. Government purchasing power
to promote environmentally preferable management of electronic products
from procurement through end of life. For example:
<bullet> The FEC program challenges federal agencies and facilities
to procure environmentally preferable electronic products, extend the
lifespan of these products, and, expand markets for recycling and
recovered materials by recycling them at their end of life. The FEC
provides guidance on environmentally preferable attributes of
electronic products information, on operating and maintaining them in
an energy-efficient manner, and on options for recycling or reusing
them at the end of their useful lives. To date, 11 federal agencies and
26 individual federal facilities participate in the FEC to some extent.
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) recently documented cost
savings associated with its FEC participation. BPA noted, for example,
that the program extended the lifespan of its personal computers from 3
to 4 years. With over 500 computers procured each year at an annual
cost of more than $500,000, a BPA official told us extending computer
life spans could generate substantial savings. Additionally, BPA
decided to procure new flat-screen monitors instead of CRT monitors,
reducing both hazardous waste tonnage and end of life recycling costs.
According to BPA, it expects to save at least $153 per monitor over
each monitor's life.
<bullet> The EPEAT program promotes environmentally preferable
management of electronics by allowing large purchasers, such as
government agencies, to compare and select laptop computers, desktop
computers, and monitors with environmentally preferable attributes. For
example, EPEAT evaluates an electronic product's design for energy
conservation, reduced toxicity, extended lifespan, and end of life
recycling, among other things. EPEAT's three-tier system--bronze,
silver, and gold--provides purchasers with the flexibility to select
equipment that meets the minimum performance criteria, or to give
preference to products with more environmental attributes. For
manufacturers, EPEAT provides flexibility to choose which optional
criteria they would like to meet to achieve higher levels of EPEAT
qualification. EPA expects EPEAT to be instituted in 2006, and products
with higher environmental ratings could receive preferred consideration
in federal procurement decisions.
While we will continue to examine the FEC and EPEAT programs in
greater detail, including how stakeholders say they might be improved,
our preliminary work suggests that the federal government can build on
these initiatives by using its purchasing power to lead markets for
electronic products in environmentally friendly directions. In fact,
there is ample precedent for such a strategy, perhaps most notably in
EPA's and the Department of Energy's Energy Star program. In that
program, the federal government partners with industry to offer
businesses and consumers energy-efficient products that ultimately save
money and protect the environment. According to EPA, in 2004 alone,
Energy Star products helped save approximately $10 billion in energy
costs and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent to
that produced by 20 million automobiles. Part of Energy Star's success
can be attributed to federal actions, particularly those outlined in
two executive orders that required federal agencies to purchase
products equipped with Energy Star features. Since the federal
government will spend over $60 billion on information technology
products in fiscal year 2005, including televisions, computers, and
computer monitors, it could go beyond the voluntary and limited FEC and
EPEAT programs by broadening the programs' scope and requiring agency
participation in, or adherence to, some of the programs' key practices.
As with the Energy Star program, such actions may lead to cost savings
and greater environmental protection. Of particular note, over 80
percent of the survey respondents to date said that Federal Government
procurement criteria along the lines of FEC and EPEAT should be
required, and about 95 percent of the survey respondents to date said
that such procurement criteria would encourage environmentally
preferable product design, as well as recycling and reuse.
OBSERVATIONS ON FEDERAL ACTIONS TO ENCOURAGE RECYCLING AND
REUSE OF USED ELECTRONICS
In our future work, we will continue to examine factors affecting
recycling in greater detail, and the diverse efforts by individual
states and others to deal with these issues. It is becoming clear,
though, that in the absence of a national approach, a patchwork of
potentially conflicting state requirements is developing, and that this
patchwork may be placing a substantial burden on recyclers,
refurbishers, and other stakeholders. A manufacturer in one state, for
example, may have an advance recovery fee placed on its products,
whereas in another state, the same manufacturer may have to take back
its products and pay for recycling. Further, a retailer may have to set
up a system in one state to collect fees on specific products and, at
the same time, set up a different system in another state to take back
a particular manufacturer's product. Hence, manufacturers we contacted
said that while they had their preferences regarding, for instance, an
ARF or EPR system, their main preference is to operate within a uniform
national system that mandates a financing mechanism that preempts
varying state requirements. Our preliminary survey results substantiate
these views, with over 90 percent of survey respondents indicating that
national legislation should be enacted and, if so, almost 90 percent
believe a financing mechanism should be included.
Our future work will also discuss some of the options--both
legislative and administrative--being considered to encourage
environmentally preferable management of used electronics at a national
level. Frequently cited options include disposal bans, consumer
education programs, a variety of financing systems, export
restrictions, and federal government procurement requirements. These
options may offer suggestions for a uniform national approach and what
aspects should be considered. Additionally, an examination of EPA's
voluntary programs--the FEC and EPEAT--may shed light on other, more
effective options available to the federal government that can save
money over electronic products' life cycle; enhance environmental
protection; drive markets for environmentally preferable product
design; and establish a recycling infrastructure and markets for
recycled commodities.
Finally, with rapid advances in technology, particularly in
consumer electronics, new products are reaching.the marketplace with
remarkable speed. Consequently, our future work will also examine the
implications of these newer generations of electronics entering the
nation's waste stream.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of this
Subcommittee may have at this time.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.001
Response by John Stephenson to an Additional Question from
Senator Inhofe
Question. GAO's report recognizes that there is potential for
contamination from electronics if they are not managed properly. What
specific examples of mismanagement that led to contamination has GAO
found?
Response. Instances of improper management of used electronics have
been documented overseas, for example, by the Basel Action Network and
the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. Their findings were confirmed in
an investigation conducted by the San Jose Mercury News. These efforts
documented practices in China that involved open burning of plastic
computer casings, open acid baths for separating precious metals, and
human exposure to lead and other hazardous materials. Of note, GAO is
not aware of any contamination from used electronics in the United
States.
______
Responses by John Stephenson to Additional Questions from Senator Boxer
Question 1. Your written testimony states that a ``lack of
oversight over exports could [] discourage environmentally preferable
management of used electronics.''
Could you please elaborate on this finding, and in particular its
potential effects for domestic markets of recycled products?
Response. Some businesses in developing countries with less
stringent environmental and human health standards will disassemble
used electronics and extract valuable materials without paying the cost
of proper worker and environmental protection. As a result, many of
these products will ``flow'' to these countries and potentially expose
workers and citizens to hazardous substances. Further, the U.S.
recycling infrastructure will be at a competitive disadvantage when
compared to these less-responsible overseas operations. In fact, only
22 percent of GAO's survey respondents believe that the export of non-
working equipment--which many experts believe is the equipment most
often handled irresponsibly--should be allowed. Oversight, such as
``downstream'' tracking or notification requirements to importing
countries, could help ensure that United States-generated used
electronics are only exported to responsible entities overseas.
Question 2. The GAO examined EPA's EPEAT program, which establishes
criteria for judging electronic products that are designed in an
environmentally-sensitive fashion.
Could you please describe how federal and state governments can
best promote this type of program to reduce the use of toxic material
and increase the recycling rate of electronic products?
Response. Federal and state governments could require electronic
products they procure to meet some level of EPEAT criteria--bronze,
silver, or gold. Additionally, preference could be given to electronic
products that meet higher levels of EPEAT criteria.
Question 3. California and three other states currently have bans
on the disposal of cathode ray tubes in municipal land fills.
Please describe the effect of such bans on the recycling rate for
electronic waste.
Response. Interviews with state government officials in California
and Massachusetts, as well as large, international recyclers, suggest
that landfill bans on used electronics substantially increase the
amount of used electronics available for recycling. For example, In San
Ramon, CA, a 1-day collection even for CRT television monitors yielded
24,000 units. In contrast, in Richmond, Virginia, a metropolitan area 4
times the size of San Ramon but without a landfill ban, a similar
collection event (organized by the same electronics recycler as in San
Ramon) only yielded about 6,000 monitors.
Question 4. Your written testimony suggests that the costs of
taking electronic waste apart to recover valuable material can
negatively impact some recycling.
Do you think that manufacturers can facilitate the recycling of
electronic products by redesigning their products to be more easily
recycled?
Are any manufacturers currently undertaking such redesign
initiatives?
Response. Several manufactures have modified their electronics to
ease disassembly at end-of-life. For example, Hewlett-Packard designed
its DeskJet 6540 printer to snap together so that it could be easily
disassembled for recycling. Dell has also taken strides in product
design to ease disassembly at end of life. These efforts are voluntary,
however, and to date there has been little economic or regulatory
incentive for manufacturers to design their products for end of life
recycling. European regulations, such as the WEEE directive, are
helping to drive manufacturers of consumer electronics in this
direction.
______
Responses by John Stephenson to Additional Questions from
Senator Lautenberg
Question 1. How much is known about whether toxics and heavy metals
can leach from electronic units discarded in landfills to possibly
contaminate groundwater?
Response. Regarding the issue of toxicity, the research we have
reviewed to date is unclear on the extent to which toxic substances may
leach from used electronics in landfills. On one hand, standard
regulatory tests required by RCRA to determine whether a solid waste is
hazardous and subject to federal regulation show that lead, as
substance with known adverse health affects, leaches from some used
electronics under laboratory conditions. On the other hand, the author
of this study told GAO that these findings are not necessarily
predictive of what could occur in a modern landfill. Further, a report
by the Solid Waste Association of North America suggests that while the
amount of lead from used electronics appears to be increasing in lined
municipal solid waste landfills, these landfills provide safe
management of used electronics without exceeding toxicity limits that
have been established to protect human health and the environment.
Overall, however, research on the long-term effects of used electronics
in landfills is limited, in part because many of them are fairly new
products.
Question 2. Does the GAO have a viewpoint on whether ``producer
take backs'' or financing mechanisms such as fees, are most effective?
Response. At this time, the effectiveness of either an advanced
recovery fee (ARF) or extended producer responsibility (EPR) system is
difficult to determine because the only examples--California's ARF
system and Maine's EPR system--are in the beginning stages of
implementation. Overall, the effectiveness of these state systems might
not necessarily predict their success on a national level because
California and Maine adopted them, in part, to address each state's
unique challenges. California, for example, has a robust recycling
infrastructure capable of handling large volumes of used electronics;
and, there was evidence that California citizens had millions of units
of historic e-waste in storage. Therefore, California enacted an ARF to
provide immediate funding to handle this waste. Maine, on the other
hand, has a waste management infrastructure capable of collecting e-
waste at consolidation points, but they have a very limited recycling
infrastructure. Additionally, state officials wanted to ensure that
future electronic products were produced with fewer toxic substances
and designed for recycling. As a result, Maine enacted an EPR system to
ensure that recycling of e-waste occurs without over-burdening limited
recycling resources and to provide electronics manufacturers to design
products in environmentally preferable ways in the future.
Recognizing each state's unique waste challenges and concerns,
participants in the NEPSI process appeared to be advocating a hybrid
ARF/EPR approach before the process was dissolved earlier this year.
Supporters of this approach viewed it as a way of dealing with both (1)
the need to recycle used electronics in storage (as emphasized in the
California approach), and (2) the need to encourage more
environmentally-friendly design while at the same time addressing
future used electronics (as emphasized in the Maine approach). We will
be examining this and other approaches in greater detail during the
remainder of our work.
Question 3. I am a proponent of the ``cradle to cradle'' philosophy
which would reduce waste, protect the environment, and stimulate the
economy. Could EPA do more to move industries closer to a ``cradle to
cradle'' management system?
Response. Through its voluntary partnerships with industry under
the Resource Conservation Challenge, EPA has sponsored numerous pilot
projects to make recycling used electronics inexpensive and convenient.
While EPA has other ``tools'' at its disposal, we are working with them
to determine what EPA can do to help reduce the level of toxic
substances in electronics are to facilitate recycling and reuse at
these products' end of life.
______
Responses by John Stephenson to Additional Questions from
Senator Jeffords
Question 1. Mr. Stephenson, based on research conducted by GAO so
far, do you have a recommendation on which of the following systems is
the most effective to promote the recycling of used electronics:
manufacturer take back or an advanced recycling fee levied at the time
of purchase by the manufacturer?
California and Maine adopted their respective ARF and EPR systems,
in part, to address each state's unique challenges, such as their
individual waste management and recycling infrastructures, but the
effectiveness of these state systems is not yet known and might not
necessarily predict success on a national level. California, for
example, has a robust recycling infrastructure capable of handling
large volumes of used electronics, and there was evidence that
California citizens had millions of units of historic e-waste in
storage. Therefore, California enacted an ARF to provide immediate
funding to handle this waste. Maine, on the other hand, has a waste
management infrastructure capable of collecting e-waste at
consolidation points, but they have a very limited recycling
infrastructure. Additionally, state officials wanted to ensure that
future electronic products were produced with fewer toxic substances
and designed for recycling. As a result, Maine enacted an EPR system to
ensure that recycling of e-waste occurs without over-burdening limited
recycling resources and to provide electronics manufacturers to design
products in environmentally preferable ways in the future.
Recognizing each state's unique waste challenges and concerns,
participants in the NEPSI process appeared to be advocating a hybrid
ARF/EPR approach before the process was dissolved earlier this year.
Supporters of this approach viewed it as a way of dealing with both (1)
the need to recycle used electronics in storage (as emphasized in the
California approach), and (2) the need to encourage more
environmentally-friendly design while at the same time addressing
future used electronics (as emphasized in the Maine approach). We will
be examining this and other approaches in greater detail during the
remainder of our work.
Question 2. Mr. Stephenson, you testified that several states have
banned cathode ray tubes and other used electronics from landfill
disposal. How has this impacted the electronic waste recycling rates in
those states and would you recommend a national landfill ban?
Response. Interviews with state government officials in California
and Massachusetts, as well as large, international recyclers, suggest
that landfill bans on used electronics substantially increase the
amount of used electronics available for recycling. For example, In San
Ramon, CA, a 1-day collection even for CRT television monitors yielded
24,000 units. In contrast, in Richmond, Virginia, a metropolitan area 4
times the size of San Ramon but without a landfill ban, a similar
collection event (organized by the same electronics recycler as in San
Ramon) only yielded about 6,000 monitors. While a landfill ban appears
to have been a key component to the success of recycling in these
states and localities, at this time there limited controls over exports
and illegal dumping--both of which may increase if a nationwide
landfill ban were imposed--and there is no national financing mechanism
to ensure that used electronics are recycled or reused. As a result,
the ultimate effectiveness of a national landfill ban on used
electronics is uncertain.
__________
Statement of Garth T. Hickle, Principal Planner, Minnesota Office of
Environmental Assistance
Mr. Chair and members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Garth Hickle and I am with the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today and share
Minnesota's experience with the management of waste electronics. Given
the state legislative and programmatic attention devoted to this issue
over the past 5 years, congressional attention is an important step
toward addressing this complex issue.
The Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance began to address
this issue in 1995 at the request of our state legislature in response
to concerns regarding the growing presence of discarded electronic
products in the waste stream and the potential environmental impacts of
electronics disposal.
While there is debate regarding the actual long-term environmental
impacts from disposing of waste electronics in landfills, Minnesota has
framed the issue as one of resource conservation and the promotion of
economic development opportunities created by the collection and de-
manufacturing of old electronic products. The environmental benefits,
energy savings, and job creation from promoting ``waste as a resource''
have guided our thinking as to the rationale for the collection and
recycling of waste electronics. It is Minnesota's intent to ensure that
residents have convenient access to collection opportunities, and that
the infrastructure is sufficient to discourage illegal dumping,
abandonment of collected products, and the export of waste electronics
to nations with less-stringent environmental standards.
Since 1997, the OEA has facilitated a number of demonstration
projects for the collection of waste electronics with participation
from manufacturers, local government, and recyclers. Partnerships with
individual manufacturers and retailers served to model various
collection options and assess costs.
The OEA also participated in several efforts to bring parties
together to implement comprehensive programs, both at the state level
and nationally. The Office convened a multi-stakeholder cathode ray
tube (CRT) task force in 1999, and actively participated in the
National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI). While
NEPSI did not arrive at a consensus regarding how a national program
should be financed, the stakeholders did agree on the need for several
important elements of a national program: including a broad scope of
products beyond just televisions and monitors; performance goals;
funding for local collection activities; environmentally sound
management standards; and a third-party organization to implement a
program.
The Minnesota Legislature has considered legislation for waste
electronics each year since 2002. The proposals have ranged from
advance recycling fees similar to the program enacted by SB 20 in
California to the shared-responsibility approach implemented in Maine.
The differing business models and perspectives within the industry that
prevented a national approach from emerging from NEPSI have also
stymied passage of a state program in Minnesota.
Following the 2004 Minnesota legislative session, the OEA initiated
another consultation process, with significant participation from
stakeholders, to identify expectations for a program in Minnesota. As
part of that effort, the OEA identified the following elements for an
effective state program:
<bullet> Offering convenient collection options for residents that
address a broad scope of products and track purchasing and disposal
habits.
<bullet> Utilizing existing infrastructure and providing incentives
for collection.
<bullet> Ensuring accountability for collection and recycling by
identified parties.
<bullet> Promoting environmentally sound management.
<bullet> Providing incentives for design for the environment.
<bullet> Supporting private management, to the extent possible, to
reduce government involvement in the program.
<bullet> Financing the program without relying on end-of-life fees
or local government funding.
While developed for Minnesota, the expectations listed above will
also be relevant for a comprehensive national program.
This Subcommittee will certainly hear from manufacturers and
retailers on the preference for a national approach for business
reasons to avoid a patchwork of state programs. A federal approach will
also address some concerns faced by state governments grappling with
this issue.
From the perspective of state government and consumers, a federal
approach may provide a consistent standard and eliminate regional
disparities. For instance, in 2003 Minnesota enacted a disposal ban for
cathode ray tube containing products, now slated for implementation in
2006. This ban raised a concern among neighboring states, South Dakota,
North Dakota, Wisconsin and Iowa, that televisions and monitors from
Minnesota would be transported across the Minnesota's border for
disposal. A federal framework would eliminate the impact upon border
sales if, for instance, one state enacted a consumer-fee-based program
while a neighbor state did not. A national program may also greatly
simplify administrative responsibilities such as compliance, reporting,
and public education.
If comprehensive national legislation is contemplated-a step
Minnesota supports-it is important to consider the following:
<bullet> Adopting an approach that engages all of the players along
the product chainmanufacturers, retailers, and local government, among
others-to share responsibility for funding and operating a program.
Such an approach will result in a more effective system that provides
incentives for more environmentally friendly products in the future,
but will not place significant additional burdens on government.
Legislation should contain a financing mechanism that recognizes the
differing business models within the electronics industry and provide
<bullet> Establishing a framework so that products can be added or
deleted as the technology and consumer purchasing habits evolve.
<bullet> Adopting performance standards and mechanisms for
evaluating progress.
However, even if a comprehensive national program is not adopted,
there are several steps that the federal government could undertake to
support the collection and recycling of discarded electronic products,
including:
<bullet> Performing data collection and analysis that tracks the
sales of new products and recycling and disposal of waste electronics.
<bullet> Ensuring a consistent regulatory environment to support
the reuse and recycling of discarded products.
<bullet> Developing clear standards for environmentally sound
management that impose restrictions on the export of waste electronics
to countries with less stringent environmental standards.
<bullet> Engaging in research and analysis regarding innovative
partnerships to manage the program.
It is important to acknowledge that U.S. EPA and others have
projects underway to address some of these issues. U.S. EPA deserves
significant recognition for the resources and staff that have been
devoted to this issue over the past several years including, among
others, the support for NEPSI and grants for collection pilots.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. I look
forward to addressing any questions you may have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.016
Responses by Garth Hickle to Additional Questions from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. Mr. Hickle, what are the consequences for your state if
Congress fails to enact national electronic waste legislation?
Response. With the July 1, 2006, implementation date for the ban on
the disposal of cathode-ray-tube-containing products looming and the
expected increase in disposal due to the transition to digital
television scheduled for later in the decade, it is necessary that a
program be in place for the collection and recycling of waste
electronics. The Minnesota Legislature is scheduled to address this
issue in the 2005 legislative session, but the prospects for enacting a
comprehensive program are unclear at this time.
If Congress does not move forward with legislation for waste
electronics, Minnesota will continue to examine legislative options for
e-waste and promote proper management of waste electronics.
In lieu of comprehensive national legislation, Congressional action
to facilitate harmonized state legislation may be a useful step. Such
action could be the authorization of state compacts to assist with
program administration and, potentially, fee collection and
disbursement if that option is selected.
Question 2. Mr. Hickle, what prompted Minnesota to initiate its
landfill ban on Cathode Ray Tubes and how effective has it been? Based
on Minnesota's experience, would you endorse a national landfill ban?
Response. Following the deliberation of legislation to enact a
comprehensive program for waste electronics during the 2003 session,
the Minnesota Legislature enacted the disposal ban as a step toward
restricting the disposal of CRT-containing products and raising public
awareness of the need to recycle monitors and televisions.
Minnesota's disposal ban is scheduled for implementation in 2006,
so it is difficult to assess the potential impact on the solid waste
management system. A national ban on the disposal of CRTs and other
electronic products would eliminate regional disparities within the
solid waste management system and ensure consistency with the
requirements for commercially generated CRTs.
______
Responses by Garth Hickle to Additional Questions from Senator Boxer
Questions 1a. Minnesota has identified seven elements for an
effective state recycling system for electronics. These elements
include providing incentives for environmentally-safe designs of
products and a financing system that does not rely on end-of-life fees
or local governments funding.
What types of incentives do you think are most effective for
increasing the number of products with an environmentally-safe design?
Response. There are three principal policy tools that serve as
incentives for manufacturers to increase Design for Environment (DfE)
activities. The first is a financial obligation to collect and recycle
products, ensuring feedback between design, manufacturing, and
disposal. The second is restrictions and/or bans on the use of certain
substances, such as the EU Directive on the Restrictions of Hazardous
Substances (RoHS). Third, purchasing standards that specify DfE
attributes, such as the EPA's EPEAT tool, act as a marketplace driver
for enhanced product design.
Question 1b. What type of recycling-promotion system do you think
can most efficiently promote recycling here in the United States?
Response. The key to an effective recycling program in the United
States is clear guidance for consumers regarding collection options,
combined with a financial incentive for collection entities to offer
service. Recyclers, retailers, local government, and even charities
have indicated an interest in establishing permanent collection
services but require funding for sustained and adequate service.
It is also important that manufacturers share responsibility for
financing, public education, and in some cases direct management of the
collection and recycling system.
Question 2a. One of the concerns with a lack of national standards
for recycling consumer electronics is that some businesses do not have
strong environmental practices.
Have you heard of any problems with businesses accumulating
electronic products that were not recycled?
Response. There have been at examples of accumulation and
abandonment of discarded waste electronics in Minnesota counties in
recent years. In Hennepin County six instances of illegal dumping have
occurred since 1999. The most prominent example was a company
purporting to be a recycler that aggregated old computers, removed
valuable components, and abandoned the remaining material in a
warehouse.
Question 2b. And, if so, what are the potential problems associated
with the accumulation of such waste?
Response. Fortunately, the environmental impacts from the cases
identified above have been minimal. However, such cases have required
substantial resources from the county and the state to resolve the
situation.
Question 3a. Your testimony refers to the need for clear standards
that impose restrictions on the export of waste electronics to
countries without strong environmental protections.
Please describe the most important types of standards that you
think are needed on exports to overseas recycling operations.
Response. Due to the potential environmental and public health
impacts of improper management of waste electronics, this is a critical
area for attention by the federal government. Export should comply with
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
control system that is implemented by national laws and regulations of
OECD countries and the Basel Convention.
Question 3b. Please also describe any relevant international laws
that incorporate such export controls.
Response. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal is the most relevant
international treaty that addresses export and movement of waste
electronics.
Question 4. Minnesota enacted a ban on the disposal of cathode ray
tubes in 2003, but has delayed implementation until 2006 out of
concerns voiced by surrounding states that Minnesota would export it
electronic waste.
What steps do other states want Minnesota to take before
implementing this ban?
Response. It is my understanding that neighboring states would
prefer Minnesota institute a comprehensive program for managing e-waste
to ensure that adequate collection and recycling opportunities exist
within our borders. Such a program would include a robust public
information and outreach component to inform Minnesota residents of
existing collection opportunities.
Question 5. What are the best current policies for encouraging the
least amount of hazardous substances in electronic products and the
largest amount of recycling? Are any governments pursing such policies?
If so, what is your assessment of the implementation of those policies?
Response. Both the European Union and the state of California have
enacted restrictions on the use of certain substances such as heavy
metals (lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, and cadmium) and certain
flame retardants in electronic products, as well as instituting
programs to manage waste electronics at the end of life.
Several states, including Minnesota, have contemplated legislation
that would adopt the RoHS restrictions or add additional substances to
the list of restrictions (typically an expanded list of flame
retardants).
The RoHS restrictions do not come into force in the EU until July
1, 2006, so assessing progress toward meeting the goals is difficult.
Question 6. The Council of State Governments/Eastern Regional
Conference and the Northeast Recycling Council are attempting to
develop a consistent policy approach for e-waste recycling programs.
Do you think the system discussed in their draft system could
efficiently increase e-waste recycling and promote public health
protections from exposure to toxic substances?
Response. The draft policy developed by the Northeast Recycling
Council and the Council of State Governments is an important step
toward regional consistency, incorporating many of the attributes of
both the advance-recycling-fee and producer-responsibility models
promoted by members of the electronics industry. The manufacturer-paid
fee will engage manufacturers in directly funding the system, but does
not obligate them to establish their own collection and recycling
infrastructure. This funding mechanism will also reduce the number of
fee payers, reducing administrative and compliance responsibilities for
state government.
The financing approach will create sufficient funding to spur the
development of an expanded collection infrastructure as has happened
with the program in California.
______
Response by Garth Hickle to an Additional Question from Senator
Lautenberg
Question. Minnesota is one of the States with the longest records
in trying to address electronic recycling. Could you give me your
opinion on whether ``producer take backs'' or financing mechanisms are
the most effective recycling method?
Both methods of establishing a program for managing waste
electronics have distinct advantages, particularly if they ensure a
mechanism for funding collection activities. However, after thorough
consideration of models enacted or proposed in the United States, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency recommended a fee-based system to
finance the program. A fee-based program offers a level playing field
and generally assures sufficient financial resources for
implementation. As referenced earlier, a manufacturer-paid fee, rather
than a retailer-administered fee, will reduce concerns with
administration and compliance.
__________
Statement of Sheila Davis, Executive Director, Silicon Valley Toxics
Coalition
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members:
I am Sheila Davis, and I am the Executive Director of the Silicon
Valley Toxics Coalition. I want to thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you today about the very important issue of electronic waste.
The problem of electronic waste in the United States is becoming
critical. Discarded computers and other electronic products are the
fastest growing part of the waste stream. And these products contain a
lengthy list of toxic chemicals, which cause some serious health
effects when they leak out of landfills and into our groundwater, or
are incinerated into our air.
But less than ten percent of discarded computers are currently
being recycled, with the remainder getting stockpiled or improperly
disposed of. Fifty to eighty percent of the e-waste collected for
recycling is actually being exported to Asian countries which have no
infrastructure to accommodate the hazardous properties of e-waste. Due
to horrific working conditions and no labor standards in many of the
developing countries where e-waste is sent, women and children are
often directly exposed to lead and other hazardous materials when
dismantling the electronic products to recover the few valuable parts
for resale.
Here, in the photo shown, you will see a woman who works in one of
these dismantling shops in Guiyu, China. You will see that she has no
protective equipment whatsoever. Yet she is about to smash a cathode
ray tube from a computer monitor in order to remove the copper laden
yoke at the end of the funnel. The glass is laden with lead but the
biggest hazard this woman faces here is the inhalation of the highly
toxic phosphor dust coating inside this CRT. The monitor glass is later
dumped in irrigation canals and along the river where it leaches lead
into the groundwater. The groundwater in Guiyu is completely
contaminated to the point where fresh water is trucked in constantly
for drinking purposes.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.017
[Photo 2001 Copyright: Basel Action Network]
So why does the computer that I turned in, at a local ``recycling''
event in California, end up in China, at this woman's workplace? Why
didn't my computer get dismantled and recycled here, like I thought it
would. The answer is that the market for recycling e-waste here doesn't
work. The materials used in these products are so toxic, it's very
expensive to recycle them. There are some ``good recyclers'' who are
actually trying to recycle the products as extensively as technology
allows, but this requires manual processing, and protecting workers
from exposure to the toxic chemicals is very expensive. The economics
just don't work for most recyclers. So they look for the cheaper, low-
road solutions, and cream off the parts that there is a local market
for, and ship the rest across the ocean to become someone else's
problem. Or they use low wage prison labor for disassembly, which
further undermines the chances for a healthy recycling market in this
country.
So how do we fix this problem? We think the solution is to create
incentives for the market system to work here. And we need to do two
things to make that happen:
First we need the products to be easier to recycle. The economics
of recycling will NEVER work unless these products are easier, and
therefore cheaper, to recycle. Part of that means using less toxic
materials. Part of that means designing them so they are more easily
disassembled for recycling, without relying. on prison labor or women
and children in China. Here's an example of what I mean by designing
for easier recycling:
A representative from a printing manufacturer told me a
discouraging story about recycling at his company. He said that
designers worked with the recyclers and found that if they simply added
a $1.25 component part to the new line of printers it would make the
printer easier to disassemble and cheaper to recycle. But the design
team was told not to include the part because there is no guarantee
that the printer would be recycled, so the added cost could not be
justified.
So here, the producer was not motivated to change their design
because they were not concerned about the recycling end of their
product's life.
So the second thing we need to do is to get the producers to take
responsibility for their products at the end of their useful life, so
that they do have this incentive. If the producers (and here I mean the
manufacturers and brand owners) have no connection to, or
responsibility for their products at disposal time, then what incentive
do they have to modify their designs for better recycling, or even
better reuse of their products? The answer is none--they have no
incentive to do anything different.
But what if the companies did have responsibility for taking back
their products for recycling? What if that was just part of their
normal operation, that each company had to recycle a significant
portion of its old products each year? They would simply build these
takeback and recycling costs into their pricing structure. But to be
competitive, (and cut their recycling costs) they would innovate,
redesign, and end up with computers that were cheaper to recycle. Less
toxic materials would be used, so recycling would be easier and
cheaper. And there would be no reason to even think about having to use
taxpayer money to solve this problem. The market would work.
So this is the legislative solution that we are encouraging our
lawmakers to adopt, the approach that is called Producer
Responsibility. Of course, this is a far reaching, complex solution,
with many components that can't be covered in a short testimony. But we
think it's the only solution that will correct the market forces that
currently send my old computer into a landfill or to a village in
China. So my message here today is that this is a big picture problem
that calls for big picture solutions. It won't be solved with partial
fixes like tax breaks or making consumers pay a recycling fee. I
encourage our lawmakers to seek the kinds of changes that will actually
make the market take care of the problem of electronic waste.
__________
Responses by Sheila Davis to Additional Questions from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. Ms. Davis, in your testimony, you advocated a Producer
Responsibility approach to create incentives to manufacturers to
consider the full life-cycle costs of their products and to design
products that are easier to recycle. I've heard concerns, however, that
a true producer responsibility approach is impractical. Please comment
on whether you think it is economically feasible to overcome the
logistical hurdles needed to collect and transport end of life products
back to their original manufacturer for recycling?
Response. There is no doubt that this is a complex issue, and
effective solutions will not be simple. It will require companies to
set up infrastructures (individually or collectively) to manage this
system. But it is economically feasible, because the companies will
incorporate their cost into their pricing structure for their products.
If anything, it will level the playing field between companies who
currently have a significant recycling program, and companies who are
currently making no significant effort to recycle their products. All
of these same companies are already implementing this system in Europe
right now, in order to meet Europe's deadline (set by the WEEE
directive) of August 13. (And the European program is far more
demanding, since it includes home appliances.) We think that many
companies would end up funding a third-party organization (TPO) which
can handle all of the logistics, contracts, etc. and benefit from
economies of scale. One example of this called the European Recycling
Platform (ERP), which is a combined effort of Sony Europe, Hewlett-
Packard, Braun and Electrolux to collectively manage their takeback
obligations across Europe. (See http://www.erp-recycling.org.)
Question 2. Ms. Davis, your testimony details the unsafe recycling
of electronic waste in China. Do you think that the export of
electronic waste should be banned?
Response. Yes, exporting of hazardous electronic waste (see
discussion below of relevant definitions) should be banned to China and
the dozens of other developing countries who are not members of the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD or the
European Union (EU) for two reasons. First, exporting these wastes to
China and these countries violates international law (1986 OECD
Decision, discussed below). Second, developing countries like China and
India have no effective infrastructure for handling these materials in
a safe, environmentally sound way, so exporting our hazardous wastes
knowing that this is the case constitutes a blatant form of
environmental injustice.
International Laws Around Waste Exporting.--There are two relevant
international laws or treaties that address hazardous waste export: the
Basel Convention (which the United States has not ratified) and the
OECD Decision (which the United States ratified, but doesn't enforce).
The United States could take giant steps in addressing the e-waste
export problems by ratifying the Basel Convention or even just
enforcing the OECD Decision, which we are violating. Below is an
explanation of both laws and how they would help with this problem.
Basel Convention.--Most countries in the world (166 so far) have
ratified the international treaty restricting the trade in hazardous
wastes, known as the Basel Convention.\1\ All developed nations of the
world except the United States have ratified the Basel Convention and
are thus legally bound to strictly control Basel listed hazardous waste
exports. The Basel Convention called for, at a minimum, all trade in
hazardous wastes to be preceded by government to government
notification and the receipt of consent. The treaty also called for
guarantees of environmentally sound management, and a general
prohibition against trade in hazardous wastes with non-Parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Full name is Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. (www.basel.int).The
Basel Convention is a multilateral environmental agreement under the
auspices of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) that is noted
for being the first international treaty that promotes environmental
justice. It was designed to protect developing countries from being
disproportionately burdened by hazardous wastes via trade, simply due
to their economic status. The original treaty called for a minimization
of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and national self-
sufficiency in waste management by all countries (see www.basel.int).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Parties in 1995 have agreed to amend the treaty to
include a full prohibition on all exports of hazardous wastes from OECD
countries, EU countries, and Liechtenstein (totaling 37 countries) to
all countries outside of that group. This is known as the Basel Ban
Amendment which now has garnered 58 of the 62 ratifications necessary
for it to enter into force. More significantly, even prior to entering
into strict legal force, 30 of the 37 countries to which the export ban
applies have already implemented it in their national law.
The United States has received Senate advice and consent to ratify
the original treaty, but has not as yet asked for the advice and
consent for the Basel Ban Amendment. But the fact that the United
States has not approved the Basel convention is a problem for two
reasons:
(1) Basel would prevent the United States from sending hazardous
waste to China and other developing countries, and
(2) Until the United States does ratify the Basel Convention, we
can't legally export wastes to most other ``developed'' countries,
because all the Basel Parties are prohibited from importing hazardous
wastes from the United States. This is because Parties are forbidden
from trading with non-Parties such as the United States (Article 4,
Paragraph 5), unless they have signed a special ratified a bilateral or
multilateral agreement with that possesses an equivalent level of
control to that of the Basel Convention. The only such agreements the
United States has signed are the OECD agreements and a bilateral accord
with Canada. The OECD has treaties binding on the United States,
governing the transboundary movement of hazardous waste, with direct
relevance to electronic waste generated here in the United States. Yet
the United States has failed to implement many of these OECD
obligations (in RCRA, etc.), resulting in the uncontrolled exports of
our hazardous wastes to some of the poorest nations in the world.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Decision.--
While the United States has not ratified the Basel Convention and
therefore is technically not bound by it, we have ratified and agreed
to a 1986 OECD accord which would require that all exports of hazardous
wastes to non-OECD countries be controlled similarly to what is
required under the Basel Convention. However, the United States is
failing to implement this agreement for hazardous electronic wastes.
In 1986, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) adopted Council Decision-Recommendation
C(86)64(final)<SUP>1</SUP> (OECD Decision) which has to do with
hazardous wastes exported from the 30 developed nations who comprise
the OECD. Decisions of the OECD Council are legally binding upon Member
countries at the time of the adoption of the decision.<SUP>1</SUP>
Since the United States was a member country in 1986, the OECD Decision
is legally binding on the United States.
There are several elements in this OECD Decision that could address
this problem of e-waste export, but none of them are actually being
enforced, and the United States violates all four:
1. The United States should monitor and control exports,
including prohibiting certain exports. (The United States has
avoided restricting export of electronic waste by selecting a
definition that does not define it as hazardous waste)
2. The United States should use the same strict controls on
exporting hazardous wastes to developing (non- OECD) countries
as to developed (OECD) countries.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Transfrontier shipments between OECD member states of cathode
ray tubes (CRTs), and/or CRT glass, for example, must in fact be
controlled within the OECD as it is part of the ``amber'' list under
Council Decision C(92)39/Final, as amended by C(2001)107/Final
(governing recycling trade in hazardous wastes between Member States).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The United States should not send hazardous wastes to non
OECD countries without their consent.
4. The Unite States should not send hazardous waste to non
OECD countries unless they are sent to an adequate disposal
facility.
Definitions of what should and shouldn't be banned.--To be banned:
The export of non-working or untested electronic equipment or parts
containing hazardous materials, as defined internationally (see below),
should most definitely be banned to all non-OECD/EU countries for
recycling, major refurbishment\3\, and/or disposal. Also, any used
electronics must be banned from going to any country that has domestic
laws forbidding the import of those electronics, otherwise those U.S.
exports result in the violation of laws in recipient countries.
Further, until the United States ratifies the Basel Convention they
should not trade in Basel-listed wastes with any of the 160+ countries
that have ratified the Convention. To do otherwise violates the laws of
the importing country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Major repairs are any repairs that result in the removal or
replacement of hazardous materials/components as defined in the Basel
Convention, www.basel.int.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to be banned.--Tested working equipment going into the reuse
market, or equipment needing minor repairs\4\ does not need to be
banned for export, as working equipment is considered a product, not a
waste, under international definitions. Additionally parts that are not
considered hazardous such as power supplies, copper wires and cables,
clean plastic housings etc. need not be banned from export.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Minor repairs are any repairs that do not result in the removal
or replacement of hazardous materials or components, as defined in the
Basel Convention, www.basel.int.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which waste components are to be controlled (Basel listed hazardous
e-wastes).--At a minimum, cathode ray tubes (including leaded glass
cullet), circuit boards made with lead solder, components containing
beryllium or beryllium copper, items containing mercury, beryllium,
PCBs, or the equipment that contains any of the above. Likewise, any
electronic equipment that in any form or units needing major repairs
that contain these materials.
Consistent Definitions.--The United States has not harmonized its
definitions of hazardous wastes with the global ones in use by most
other nations (www.basel.int). U.S. law (The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act) previously controlled hazardous wastes even for export,
but industry succeeded in lobbying for de-listings from waste
definitions for recycling, resulting in an ugly loophole where the
United States in the only country in the world that does not consider
electronic waste, lead-acid batteries, and other known hazardous wastes
from being controlled from international trade (dumping on developing
countries). While this de-listing made some sense for domestic-only
transactions, it results in a gross violation of laws in other
countries as well as a violation of the principle of environmental
justice.
Conclusion on Export issue.--In conclusion, it is imperative that
Unite States legislation finally prohibits the export to any non-OECD/
EU of any electronic waste that is regulated under the Basel Convention
and OECD treaties. At a minimum, this includes cathode ray tubes
(including leaded glass cullet), circuit boards made with lead solder,
mercury, beryllium, PCBs, and any wastes or units needing major repairs
that contain these materials.
Much more information about this issue can be found in our report
``Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia which can be
downloaded at: www.ban.org.
Question 3. If the recycling of electronic waste were profitable,
more businesses would be doing it and waste disposal would not be as
big a problem. In your opinion, what are the economic barriers to
making recycling of electronic waste economically viable?
Response. The major barrier to making recycling economically viable
is that our solid waste infrastructures reward disposal rather than
recycling. Our existing solid waste infrastructure was developed and
engineered for the purpose of disposing of materials in municipal
landfills. The federal government should provided leadership in setting
standards and goals and promoting policies that support responsible e-
waste recycling. The current e-waste recycling system which depends on
voluntary standards encourages sham recycling and penalizes legitimate
recyclers who pay living wages, protect their workers health and safety
and invest in recycling equipment. Responsible recyclers can not
financially compete with sham recyclers who dump or burn e-waste in
developing countries or engage in dirty recycling that takes advantage
of child labor or prison labor. Similarly, existing regulations do not
reward manufacturers who pro-actively invest in product designs that
facilitate recycling.
The Federal Government has the capacity to eliminate barriers to
recycling and support e-waste recycling industries by enacting the
following policy changes.
(1) Design for recycling. Require electronic manufacturers to
incorporate the cost of end-of-life-management into a product's pricing
structure. Incorporating end-of-life-management into the price of the
product provides incentives for manufacturers to invest in product
designs that bring down the cost of recycling and increase the value of
the recovered materials. This also eliminates the need for consumer
recycling fees and/or government taxes that subsidize recycling
businesses to recycle electronic products that were not designed for
recycling and contain very limited amount of valuable materials.
(2) Protect U.S. consumers from sham recyclers. U.S. customers
recycle their products with the intention of protecting human health
and the environment. The lack of e-waste industry standards, government
monitoring and oversight defies public confidence in recycling and
leaves well-meaning citizens vulnerable to brokers and ``front men''
who say that they are recycling e-waste but are really exporting the e-
waste overseas and dumping it in developing countries or endangering
health and safety of entire communities by recycling in horrendous
conditions. Banning the export of non-working or untested electronic
equipment or parts containing hazardous materials (as defined in the
Basel Agreement) would close the export loop hole and protect human
health and the environment and promote consumer confidence in e-waste
recycling.
(3) Develop and enforce e-waste recycling standards. Currently
there are few e-waste recycling industry standards. For example, there
is not an accepted e-waste recycling certification or performance
auditing system. There is a very limited understanding of worker
exposure to hazardous materials at e-waste recycling facilities or the
appropriate types of worker protective measures and equipment needed.
There are no accepted ``best practices'' for demanufacturing
electronics or standards for acceptable levels of contamination in
recovered material.
(4) Establish national e-waste recycling goals. Long-term national
e-waste recycling goals are key to the development of an economically
viable e-waste recycling industry. Thus, national recycling goals
should reward electronic manufacturers whose products are made with
materials that contain few contaminants, can be easily recycled and
that retain market value. The federal government can further support
the e-waste recycling industry by harmonizing national e-waste
recycling goals with federal environmental preferable purchasing
guidelines for electronics. For example, new federal purchasing
guidelines will give preference to electronic products in which 90
percent of materials and components (by weight) are reusable or
recyclable within the current infrastructure and use demonstrated
technologies.\5\ The federal government could encourage profitable
recycling industry by incorporating this guideline into other policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Electronic Product Assessment Tool (EPEAT) Criteria Worksheet
Draft, 9-20-04
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Federal investment in e-waste recycling research and
development. A public investment in e-waste research and development
will provide non-proprietary technology that would potentially improve
and contribute to regional and national infrastructure development.
E-waste research and development needs:
<bullet> Work measurement studies that can be shared throughout the
industry,
<bullet> Automation of disassembly systems that reduce labor cost
and protect worker health and safety
<bullet> University green chemistry and materials science that
helps manufacturers determine the impact of materials throughout the
lifecycle of their products
<bullet> Affordable materials separation systems that produce a
clean stream of recovered materials
<bullet> Identification of end market for recovered materials
<bullet> Recycling facilities warehousing and inventorying systems
<bullet> Worker health and safety studies that include health
monitoring and improvements in ergonomics
<bullet> Development of affordable plastic identification equipment
<bullet> Open source website that posts latest studies, provides
information about specific products recycling, disassembly and best
practices
<bullet> Tests and reports on prototype recycling equipment
<bullet> Collaborate between recyclers and Original Equipment
Manufacturers (OEMs) to overcome barriers to recycling products before
the products are introduced into the consumer market
Question 4. What are the consequences if Congress fails to enact
national electronic waste legislation?
Response. Clearly, this is a national problem that calls for a
comprehensive national solution. There are economies of scale to be
gained on a national level. Sales, distribution and marketing patterns
for these companies are national. But if Congress fails to act, the
states can also pass legislation to address this problem. We think that
because this is a complex issue, there are advantages to setting it up
at the state level first, before trying to tackle it on a national
level.
Question 5. Ms. Davis, your testimony also discusses the lack of
recycling standards in China, and, as you know, there are none in this
country. Would a Federal program to certify recyclers in the United
States address your concerns and lessen the export of electronic waste?
Response. The lack of recycling standards in China has nothing to
do with the illegality of the United States shipping its hazardous e-
waste there. U.S. exports of such waste not only violate China's
obligations under the Basel Convention, but also violate China's
domestic import bans on this material, and should not be occurring,
regardless of the level of technology or standards in China. China has
ratified the Basel Convention and its Ban Amendment, and is a non-OECD
country; the United States has not ratified the Basel Convention, and
is an OECD country. We should be looking to handle our own hazardous
waste problems domestically rather than exploit weaker economies with
these types of problems. This type of environmental injustice is not
acceptable in the United States and it should not be acceptable to dump
our wastes on the world's poorest communities either.
While there is a desperate need for national recycling standards
here in the United States and in all countries, these standards will
only be meaningful if those standards explicitly forbid that export.
This is due to the fact that there will be very little waste to manage
domestically if export is allowed, and on the other hand, it is
impossible to enforce a standard extraterritorially, particularly in
countries that lack the infrastructure to properly enforce or monitor
such standards.
______
Response by Sheila Davis to an Additional Question from
Senator Lautenberg
Question. Your description of women and children dismantling toxic
equipment by hand is very disturbing--and something we must try to
stop. Since it will take years to get a U.S. system for e-recycling in
place, does the Coalition have any short-term recommendations for
improving this situation?
Response. One of the most important and overdue things the United
States can do is implement the 1986 Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) Council Decision-Recommendation
C(86)64(final)<SUP>1</SUP> treaty described above in the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. This is already a legal requirement of
the United States. Doing this shouldn't even be controversial. It
requires no advice and consent, but just requires that Congress mandate
that legislation to implement the requirement be drafted and adopted.
This will have the immediate effect of requiring minimal controls on
export and curtailing a great deal of it. It is not the ultimate
solution, which involves passing EPR and toxic phase-out legislation,
ratifying both the Basel Convention and the Basel Ban Amendment, but it
will create a major dam against the tsunami of e-waste trade.
______
Responses by Sheila Davis to Additional Questions from Senator Boxer
Question 1. What do you think the main advantages and disadvantages
are of using market-based systems--such as product stewardship--to
encourage recycling versus consumer-financed incentives?
Response. There are four significant advantages to a market based
solution:
Financing shift to producers, not taxpayers.--This will be a
lasting, far-reaching solution that doesn't require taxpayer funds. By
giving the producers the financial responsibility for this sytem,
taxpayer money, which currently pays for most local recycling programs,
would no longer be needed. The ARF system uses the legislature to set a
specific fee on products when they are sold. But if these fees turn out
to be inadequate to cover the costs (and the legislature has not acted
to increase them), then either taxpayer money will make up the
difference, or less recycling will happen. The quantities of e-waste
that need recycling will continue to grow, so we need a solution that
can easily grow with it.
Drives more recycling.--Once the producer takeback system is in
place (assuming it has important components like recycling goals) it
will drive more recycling to occur because the companies will have
goals to meet. The consumer advanced recycling fee (ARF) system has no
real drivers to make more recycling happen. It's simply a system to
collect some fees to pay for some recycling.
Incentive to design for the environment.--Another advantage to this
system is that the companies who manufacture the products have an
incentive to reduce the problem, by reducing the toxics in their
products. While some companies are pursuing ``design for the
environment'' goals, many are not. This system would give them a
financial incentive to do so.
Restricts export dumping and sham recycling.--The producer takeback
model includes provisions for making sure the products are actually
recycled safely, not exported to third world countries. By having the
producers charged with the responsibility for working with responsible
recycling vendors, we can fix one of the biggest problems with
electronics recycling in this country--illegal export. The ARF model,
by being just a fee generation system, doesn't alter the way things are
done, just who pays.
The main drawbacks of this system are: (1) its comprehensive
approach makes it more complicated to establish, and (2) because it
requires a large commitment from the producers, it will be resisted and
challenged by industry.
Question 2. Your testimony provides vivid and disturbing details
concerning the lack of public health and environmental protections at
recycling operations in China. How widespread of a problem is the
export of electronic waste to countries that lack adequate
environmental protections?
Response. The problem is severe and widespread, due to the sheer
economics of the trade, and the completely unregulated export of e-
waste from the United States. We believe that 50-80 percent of what is
being collected for recycling, finds its way offshore to these types of
conditions. Because the United States is failing to `control and
monitor' its exports of hazardous e-waste despite its OECD obligations
to do so, there are no hard numbers indicating the exact amount going
offshore. However, a number of environmental groups and reporters have
documented numerous sites in China, India, Pakistan, and elsewhere.
(www.ban.org, www.toxiclink.org, www.greenpeace.org) There are also
many reports of sites in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Viet Nam. African and
South American nations are receiving millions of cell phones and
computers, some of it waste when it arrives, with little to no
hazardous waste facilities to properly manage the toxic materials.
Greenpeace is about to release a report documenting extremely high
levels of toxins found at electronic recycling sites in China and
India. Also available will be photos of labels (asset tags) from
computers found in these 2 countries, on riverbanks, at primitive
`recycling' operations, and in openly discarded mountains of electronic
waste. Limited health studies have been done on populations living
amongst these toxic recycling yards in Guiyu, China, by both the
Medical College of Shantou University, in the Guangdong Province of
China (attached), and by Greenpeace China.
It must be understood, however, that while many of these developing
countries may claim to have (or could soon have) the technology to
perform electronics recycling, their economies clearly cannot support a
full array of infrastructural and democratic, social support systems
and safety nets that should be in place to protect them from the
dangers of recycling. For instance, they have almost no occupational
health equipment, training, clinics, legal remedies for damages,
governmental monitoring, and enforcement, of standards, etc. No doubt,
if these existed, then the economies would be similar to developed
nations; and the exploitive incentive to export would no longer exist
as the waste management costs would have been fully internalized. Any
exports to weaker economies equates to a violation of principles of
environmental justice. It is therefore essential that the United State
strategy does not entail finding ways to justify continued export based
on exporting technological fixes.
Question 3. What, in your opinion, are the pressures that promote
the exportation of e-waste to other countries?
Response. The primary pressure to export e-waste is, without a
doubt, an economic one in the absence of legislation. Exporters can (a)
claim they are involved in recycling, (b) demand payment from consumers
believing that recycling is the right thing to do, and (c) then get
paid again at the back end by the Chinese broker for the raw value of
the equipment sold. When there are no U.S. regulations limiting the
options of export and prison labor, many waste generators will opt for
making money off their hazardous e-waste, rather than incurring an
expense to ensure that it is properly managed in ways that won't impact
citizens and the environment in any country.
Integral to the economic pressure to export is the toxicity of this
equipment. Costs associated with managing known hazards can be avoided
if one simply decides to make a buck instead. With the U.S. Government
freely allowing this export of toxic waste, there are only matters of
conscience for some to contend with. It is precisely because of the
economic incentives to do the wrong thing that nations came together in
the 1980's to erect a trade barrier to hazardous wastes (the Basel
Convention and the Basel Ban Amendment). The United States remains the
only developed nation to disregard this landmark treaty, and to
continue to dump its hazardous waste on any country it wants.
Question 4. What level of oversight exists at the state or federal
level to monitor and enforce protections for public health and
environmental quality at overseas recycling facilities that take
domestically generated e-waste?
Response. None. U.S. State and Federal agencies have no
extraterritorial jurisdiction whatsoever. Without this authority, it is
impossible to claim that proper monitoring and enforcement can take
place. The oversight is reduced to an honor system which is not
adequate to ensure standards are upheld.
As we continually must stress, with weaker economies, one cannot
expect that the infrastructure will exist to protect the environment,
workers and communities, from the impacts of hazardous wastes. Even if
they did actually have the same infrastructure as developing countries,
it is still inappropriate to burden weaker economies with
disproportionate amounts of hazardous wastes or other environmental
problems simply because they are relatively poor. This is the type of
behavior which gives globalization it reputation as being exploitive.
Rather than looking for ways to put band-aids on the disastrous e-
waste export situation it is far better to work toward establishing
national recycling infrastructure and providing support for it by
promoting mandated recycling paid for by producers.
The OECD treaty, however, attempts to address this issue by
allowing OECD member countries to keep their hazardous waste within
those 30 developed countries, using only environmentally sound
management systems (EMS) for the hazardous wastes. The United States,
an OECD member country, has the legal right to ship its hazardous waste
to other OECD countries, if it meets the minimal requirements for prior
informed consent, EMS facilities, etc.
To this end, the OECD has developed the ``Technical Guidance for
the Environmentally Sound Management of Specific Waste Streams: Used
and Scrap Personal Computers'' This document is a set of guidelines,
not requirements, that was created for and by the 30 OECD member
countries, and only for use within the OECD. It is not intended as a
guidance to justify exports to non-OECD countries. Therefore, any
system set up in the United States should never suggest that OECD
Guidelines be met in non-OECD countries.
Question 3a. What is the best way to encourage the least amount of
hazardous substances in electronic products and the largest amount of
recycling?
Response. Costs of management must be internalized so that those
that profit from the use of consumer products (both the manufacturers
and the consumers) bear the entire costs of the products' liabilities
presented through its entire life cycle. This type of feedback
mechanism ensures incentives for greener and greener design. Proper
mechanisms that provide for consumer and producer responsibility must
be promoted through legislation. It is not appropriate to allow
mechanisms that externalize costs to taxpayers, city or local
governments, utility rate payers, prison labor forces, or offshore
communities.
The EU passed the RoHS Directive (Reduction of Hazardous
Substances) listing six specific materials that must be removed from
new products by July 2006. Companies are redesigning their products to
remove these materials, rather than be left out of those markets. The
United States will presumably benefit from Europe's efforts, if these
redesigned products are also available to U.S. markets. The RoHS list
of substances is only a preliminary list, and there are other materials
that require attention, but it's an excellent example of how chemical
policy can force change in design. It would be easier and cheaper to
recycle electronics products if they were not so toxic. So reducing the
toxic materials, along with setting up an effective recycling
infrastructure, is the best way to increase recycling
Question 3b. E-waste contains a number of heavy metals and other
hazardous substances that can threaten public health, especially
vulnerable populations. Lead is one such metal in abundance in e-waste.
What is the state of knowledge regarding the safety of current
standards for protecting children from lead exposure?
Response. Actually with every year that passes, scientific research
shows that lead is even more of a problem for childhood development
than previously thought. For the last 2 years, the EPA has been
readying a new lead level thresholds. It is likely however that no
amount of lead exposure is truly safe. The impacts on children can be
devastating, leaving irreparable damage to nervous system and brain
development. The notion that lead somehow disappears once placed in a
landfill is very shortsighted thinking. If we believe in the survival
of the human species, we must think of very long-term leaching and
exposure. Heavy metals are immortal--they don't have a half-life. They
are with us forever. The ultimate answer for lead, mercury and other
toxic metals is to rapidly provide incentives to design our way away
from their continued use. This is best done through mandated extended
producer responsibility and toxic use phase-outs.
Note: The Computer TakeBack Campaign would like to mention the
contributions by our partner organization, the Basel Action Network, in
supplying answers to some of the recycling questions.
__________
Statement of Michael Vitelli, Senior Vice President, Best Buy on Behalf
of the Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition (CERC)
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Boxer and members of the Committee,
I am Michael Vitelli, Senior Vice President of Consumer Electronics of
Best Buy and am here today on behalf of the Consumer Electronics
Retailers Coalition (CERC) to provide the views of CERC's membership on
the need for a national electronics management system.
CERC very much appreciates the opportunity to provide the views of
the consumer electronic and general retail industry concerning the need
for a national approach to handling electronic devices at their end of
life. We are also very appreciative, Mr. Chairman, of the leadership
you have shown in holding this hearing today and providing a forum for
interested stakeholders to express their views. We look forward to
working with you and the members of this Committee to identify the best
means of developing a national solution for electronic device recycling
that will, obviously, have to be implemented at the local level.
INTRODUCTION
Best Buy is the country's leading consumer electronics retailer
with close to 700 stores in 49 of the 50 states and nearly 100,000
employees. The company started in 1966 with a single store in St. Paul,
Minnesota and we continue to operate our headquarters in the Twin
Cities.
In addition to our product and service offerings, Best Buy is also
known for our commitment to our communities, providing volunteer
support, financial resources and leadership on many issues, but
especially on the use of innovative technology to improve the learning
opportunities for kids. We provide over 1300 scholarships to students
entering higher education--3 scholarships in every Congressional
district in the country. Our new tech program rewards schools and
educators who are using technology to energize their lesson plans and
engage students. The National Parks Foundation's Junior Ranger program
is available to kids across the country through the Web Ranger program
sponsored by Best Buy. With Junior Achievement's ``Titan'' business
simulation game, we've helped harness the excitement of a video game to
stimulate real learning.
Best Buy has also been actively concerned with the issue of
electronic waste. In 2001, we launched a series of recycling events to
provide a simple, fun and convenient program for recycling electronics
that protects the environment while raising awareness of recycling
options. Best Buy has helped consumers nation-wide recycle over 2.5
million pounds of electronics in an environmentally responsible way
since the program began. In addition to recycling events, we also offer
the ability to recycle cell phones, ink cartridges, and rechargeable
batteries year round in all our U.S. stores.
CERC is a national coalition representing small, medium and large
consumer electronics retail businesses and associations that operate in
all 50 states and worldwide. Our members, in addition to Best Buy,
include Circuit City, RadioShack, Wal-Mart, Target, the North American
Retail Dealers Association and the Retail Industry Leaders Association.
Our goal is to educate, advocate and instill continued consumer and
market confidence in consumer electronics policy issues.
Consumer electronics (CE) retailers throughout the United States
strongly believe that developing an electronics management system that
encourages the collection and recycling of electronic waste is far more
preferable, desirable and efficient if it is handled as a federal
solution implemented by local authorities, rather than dealing with a
patchwork of different eWaste laws instituted by individual States. In
the first half of 2005 alone, 30 State and local legislatures saw more
than 50 separate bills introduced on this issue including an eWaste
measure introduced and still active in New York City. A 50-by-50
approach is administratively unreasonable and infeasible for
manufacturers and retailers alike and will not lead to a comprehensive
and efficient electronics waste management system for our Nation.
Retailers have a limited role in the life cycle of the products we
sell. We neither design nor make the products, nor do we have control
over what a consumer does once the product is purchased, and have no
control on a products reuse, recycling or disposal. However, CE
retailers realize that we have a responsibility in working with all the
interested stakeholders. Retailers, manufacturers, distributors,
recyclers, public interest groups, charitable organizations, state and
local governments, and our customers all have a role in advocating for
the development of a successful national electronics waste management
system.
Both CE and general retailers unanimously support a shared
responsibility approach to the handling of electronic devices at the
end of their life cycle. Product stewardship addresses the
environmental impact of electronic products at all stages of their life
cycle--from design and manufacturing to packaging and distribution to
end-of-life management. When done correctly and fairly, it shifts the
responsibility for end-of-life management from the public sector
(government and taxpayers) alone, to a shared responsibility that
includes the private sector (manufacturers, recyclers, non-profits,
retailers and purchasers). The goal is to encourage environmentally-
friendly design and recycling and reduce flow to the landfills.
Following months of internal discussion, conducting an industry-
wide survey, holding meetings with state legislative leaders and
experiencing the impact and initial results of the California advance
recycling fee law, CERC drafted a consensus legislative position paper
on electronic waste management earlier this year, which is attached to
my written statement. While other stakeholders have yet to reach a
broad consensus, consumer electronic and general retailers, including
their national and state federations, have come together around a
position that we believe succinctly and forthrightly lays out the
issues, opportunities and obstacles involved in setting up a nationwide
eWaste model. Since issuing this Position Paper, CERC has been working
with and recruiting broad cross-industry support among other interested
stakeholders, including environmental groups, recyclers, state
legislators and manufacturers.
While retailers and many others believe that the producer
responsibility approach is the most fair, least burdensome, and most
easily manageable model, we have also looked upon the Talent-Wyden bill
(S 510) that would provide a limited tax credit to recyclers as an
excellent conceptual model that could jump-start a national
capitalization of eWaste recycling.
While we have expressed general support for some state initiatives,
such as laws recently passed in Maine and Maryland; and opposition to
others, such as the point of sale advance recycling fee recently
instituted in California; our purpose in testifying today is not on
which state law is good or bad, efficient or administratively
burdensome, helpful or hurtful to eWaste recycling efforts. Rather, we
are here to advocate for a national approach and to highlight some very
successful voluntary efforts that industry partners have been engaging
in.
CURRENT PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES
Even without state or federal laws governing management of
electronic waste, the private sector--manufacturers and retailers
working with qualified recyclers--has been fully supportive of the
shared responsibility product stewardship approach through numerous
voluntary initiatives that collect and recycle devices. These programs
have included the development of a strong and meaningful educational
campaign for consumers and policy makers. Best Buy and other members of
CERC, as well as consumer electronic retailers that are not members of
our organization, together with a number of manufacturers, have been
actively involved in activities that highlight the need for
conservation and how best to handle electronic devices at their end of
life.
There are several initiatives in place today to reduce and manage
electronic waste both at the federal and industry levels. CERC members
and other consumer electronic retailers and manufacturers have
participated in such EPA programs as the Plug-In To eCycling outreach
campaign, which works to increase the number of electronic devices
collected and safely recycled in the United States and has identified
new and creative flexible, yet more protective ways to conserve our
valuable resources.
Plug-In To eCycling focuses on:
<bullet> Providing the public with information about electronics
recycling and increasing opportunities to safely recycle old
electronics;
<bullet> Facilitating partnerships with communities, electronics
retailers and manufacturers to promote shared responsibility for safe
electronics recycling; and
<bullet> Establishing pilot projects to test innovative approaches
to safe electronics recycling.
Program partners have included manufacturers like Panasonic, Sharp,
Sony, JVC, Lexmark, Dell, Intel; retailers like our company, Best Buy,
as well as Staples and Office Depot; and approximately two dozen state
and local governments. More than 26.4 million pounds of electronics
were collected in the first ten months of this national program alone.
In addition to the Plug-In To eCycling campaign a number of
retailers and manufacturers have taken part in voluntary programs to
encourage greater recycling.
As noted in my introduction, Best Buy actively provides recycling
options for our customers with our recycling events. We have had an
overwhelming response to our events. In fact, the event we hosted a
month ago at our corporate headquarters in Minnesota drew record crowds
with over 2,900 cars and a collection of over 250,000 pounds (125 tons)
in just two days. This is in a county that already has a program in
place for the recycling of electronics. Our next event is scheduled for
our Mira Mesa, CA Best Buy store (9540 Mira Mesa Blvd, San Diego, CA)
on Friday, August 5th and Saturday, August 6th from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. We are very excited to be partnering with HP and Sony at this
event.
In another example, six of our Best Buy stores in the Indianapolis
area served as recycling drop-off points for many consumer electronics
items in a 2004 pilot. Accepted items included computers, monitors,
printers, fax machines, televisions, stereos, VCRs, DVD payers and
camcorders.
In addition to Best Buy activities, a number of CE retailers and
manufacturers have and are taking part in voluntary pilot projects.
Staples, for example, sponsored a New England-based pilot program in
cooperation with EPA's Plug-In To eCycling campaign and the Product
Stewardship Institute (PSI) in the summer of 2004. Also last summer,
Office Depot and HP sponsored a similar in-store electronics recycling
pilot nationwide. Both programs accepted hardware from any
manufacturer, including PCs, mice, keyboards, PDAs, monitors, flat-
panel displays, laser and ink jet printers, scanners, all-in-one
printers, digital cameras, fax machines, cell phones, TVs, and TV/VCR
combos. This summer, Good Guys is partnering with the EPA and a number
of electronics manufacturers to collect and recycle televisions.
A NATIONAL ELECTRONICS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
But we all realize that voluntary programs cannot fully handle or
solve the end of life issues surrounding electronics products. CERC
strongly believes a comprehensive nationwide approach to the management
of electronics is the ultimate solution. We further believe that a
successful national system can be established without imposing fees at
the point-of-sale; without having to create a new complex
administrative structure; and without mandates that discourage
innovation. This is why the Talent-Wyden ``Electronic Waste Recycling
Promotion and Consumer Protection Act'' (S 510) seems to many of us as
a cost-efficient and potentially successful national approach. We urge
you and your colleagues to look at this end of life tax credit as a
viable and creative opportunity to deal with electronics at their end
of life.
However, in the alternative, retailers support a no-fee producer
responsibility system because it will provide consumers with a variety
of choices and manufacturers with flexibility to implement electronics
recycling programs that make sense--to our customers, government,
retailers and manufacturers.
Our Position Paper outlines the factors and components that a
successful producer responsibility program should include:
<bullet> Initially, any program should have a limited number of
types included to insure an easy transition, and clear definitions of
which devices are covered.
<bullet> Making sure that any `take-back' programs--if mentioned at
all--remain voluntary.
<bullet> A `safe harbor' for a consumer electronics retailer that
sells a product not covered under an approved management plan absent
actual knowledge.
<bullet> Programs that help educate and are easily understood by
consumers.
<bullet> A flexible system that allows manufacturers the ability to
provide services to consumers and encourages the market to drive
efficiencies and choices.
<bullet> Encouragement to voluntary collection initiatives by
manufacturers to partner with retailers, charities and/or local
government.
<bullet> Establishment of manufacturers' financial responsibility
based on the products that consumers return to the system--not fees at
the point of sale or other financial models that do not reflect the
true costs and realities of the return system.
<bullet> The ability of manufacturers to work independently or
collaborate with others to meet the established responsibility goals.
Our members oppose a point of sale advance recovery fee (POSARF)
system because we know from firsthand experience that such an ARF will
not accomplish its goals, is administratively burdensome for all
parties, and will only guarantee a new revenue source for government
without guaranteeing that an effective recycling system will be put
into place. In addition, such a program provides no incentive for the
design of more environmentally-friendly products, and fails to take
advantage of market forces to reduce the cost of recycling over time.
The recent institution of such a fee/tax program in California has
already been shown to be:
<bullet> Too complicated for all parties--government, businesses
and consumers--to understand and administer.
<bullet> Incredibly costly for both governmental agencies and
retailers to implement.
<bullet> Impracticable to bring sufficient dollars down to the
local level to implement enough local collection and disposal
facilities.
<bullet> Impossible to impose on out-of-state online/mail order
retailers.
<bullet> Impractical, by asking the government to set up a new
administrative structure to collect the fees, to manage the program and
disperse the revenue for effective recycling.
<bullet> Impossible to know how high the taxes/fees charged to
consumers needs to be in order to adequately fund a successful
electronics device recycling program.
In short, a POSARF--particularly given significant budget cutting
at all levels of government--will not adequately fund an effective
recycling program, and will only serve to confuse and burden the
consumer with the imposition of new fees and perceived new taxes
without any direct benefits.
CONCLUSION
The members of the Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition,
together with CE and general retailers and their trade associations
throughout the United States, want to be constructive and contributing
partners with law makers, manufacturers, public interest groups,
recyclers and our customers in dealing with the end of life issues
surrounding electronics products. We cannot, however, afford to let
individual states and certainly individual cities and counties,
establish their own programs that impose inconsistent mandates on
retailers or manufacturers.
We very much appreciate the holding of this hearing and encourage
Congress in general and this Senate Committee in particular to continue
to work towards a national solution to electronics waste management. We
pledge to work with you in arriving at a fair, viable and effective
approach.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.019
Response by Michael Vitelli to an Additional Question from Senator
Inhofe
Question. In 2003 California passed the Electronic Waste Recovery
Act which established a funding mechanism to provide for the recycling
of certain electronic products. The goal was to eliminate these items
from public landfills and provide an easy and convenient method of
proper management. The system is funded through fees paid by consumers
of covered electronics products at the time of purchase. The projected
revenue for the first year was $60 million, and $15 million have
already been collected. In addition, more than 13 million pounds of
materials have been recovered for recycling in the first quarter alone.
How much is compliance with the California system costing
retailers?
Response. Best Buy has spent nearly $1 million in California to
update our point-of-sale systems, to educate our store personnel and
consumers, and to ensure compliance going forward. Since these point-
of-sale fees are not added to all products, like a sales tax often is,
but rather added to only some products (and not even all products in a
given category of products,) the cost of compliance is high. In
addition, each time changes are made to the fees and to the list of
applicable products, these systems must be updated, adding costs.
Finally, if different states implement differing schedules of fees, the
costs of compliance will increase.
______
Responses by Michael Vitelli to Additional Questions from
Senator Jeffords
Question 1. Mr. Vitelli, in your testimony, you advocate ``a shared
responsibility approach.'' Please explain how such a system would work.
In particular, please delineate the relative responsibilities of
manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and recyclers under such a shared
responsibility approach?
Response. In the manufacturer responsibility model, manufacturers
are responsible for working with consumers to properly recycle their
product. This can mean that they provide direct recycling, work with a
recycler or in some instances, fund a recycling system. Retailers are
responsible for the education and outreach of consumers, working with
manufacturers to ensure that they are carrying product from
manufacturers who are compliant with the law. Retailers are also
responsible as a manufacturer; if they produce private label brand
products (Best Buy brands include Insignia and Dynex.) Consumers are
responsible for the proper disposal of products and recyclers must meet
environmentally sound practices when working with consumers and
manufacturers.
Question 2. If the recycling of electronic waste were profitable,
more businesses would be doing it and waste disposal would not be as
big a problem. In your opinion, what are the economic barriers to
making recycling of electronic waste economically viable?
Response. One of the driving reasons this issue requires government
action is that the recycling of electronic waste will probably always
cost more than value of the residual scrap. Thus a system that provides
an incentive to reduce the costs of recycling through design of the
product has the greatest potential to ultimately provide the least cost
solution to this issue.
A complicating factor is that there is currently a significant
amount of historic waste waiting for a solution. These products were
manufactured without the expectation that they would need to be
recycled. This adds a ``hurdle'' of initial cost to any new system. If
the issue of historic waste could be handled through a different
program than the ultimate, ongoing program, the solutions might be
easier to achieve. The Talent-Wyden approach provides a significant
incentive to tackle this initial cost ``hurdle'' and could help start a
recycling process that ultimately does not need the incentives provided
through the Talent-Wyden approach.
Question 3. What are the consequences for your industry if Congress
fails to enact national electronic waste legislation?
Response. The Consumer Electronic Retailers Coalition represents
small, medium and large consumer electronics retail business in all 50
states and worldwide. In 2005, 30 states contemplated 50 different
pieces of legislation. Ultimate passage of differing solutions in each
of the 50 states would present real compliance challenges and costs. In
addition, differing solutions in each of the 50 states will cause great
confusion for consumers. Products purchased in one state with a fee
added at the time of sale, may need to be recycled in another state
where the solution may be a charge at the time of recycling.
______
Responses by Michael Vitelli to Additional Questions from Senator Boxer
Question 1. The Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition supports a
national electronics recycling system based on making manufacturers
responsibility for recycling electronic waste. What are the biggest
advantages and disadvantages to this type of recycling system?
Response. In the manufacturer responsibility model, manufacturers
are responsible for working with consumers to properly recycle their
product. This can mean that they provide direct recycling, work with a
recycler or in some instances, or fund a recycling system. Under the
manufacturer responsibility model, the manufacturer is ultimately
responsible for their product at end-of-life which provides the double
incentive to both develop environmentally-friendly products and to find
the most cost effective ways to recycle product. Ultimately consumers
will pay for recycling through either higher taxes, fees at the time of
purchase, or additional costs included in the cost of the product by
the manufacturer. Only the latter offers an economic incentive for
improvements.
Question 2. Best Buy has been a leader in several, highly-
successful voluntary efforts to recycle waste from electronic products.
Do you think that these voluntary initiatives can solve our problems
with recycling electronic waste, or is more needed?
Response. Best Buy's voluntary recycling events only provide a
small solution to a much larger need. More industry leaders would need
to join this effort in order for it to be effective at addressing the
problem. The Talent-Wyden (S-510) could provide an incentive for
industry to take that added step.
Question 3. What are the two or three best things that the federal
government can do to increase the rate of recycling to both promote
environmental stewardship and help businesses make profits?
Response. The Talent-Wyden bill provides a good incentive to help
businesses grow their recycling efforts. It also provides a solution to
the issue of historic waste, which is a complicating and costly portion
of the total solution. By giving manufacturers and/or retailers a tax
credit to run recycling programs, it not only can help to create more
of a base for programs, it allows manufacturers to realize their true
costs in recycling and can help motivate manufacturers to design more
environmentally-friendly products, ultimately reducing their recycling
costs.
In addition, the Federal Government could actively study this
issue, thereby providing assurance to states that a federal solution
may be found and potentially reducing the number of individual state
actions. Many states are acting only because they do not see a federal
action.
__________
Statement of Scott Slesinger, Vice President for Governmental Affairs,
The Environmental Technology Council
My name is Scott Slesinger. I am Vice-President for Governmental
Affairs of the Environmental Technology Council. I want to thank the
Committee for requesting for the views of our Council on the issue of
electronic or e-waste. Our council represents environmental service
companies that recycle hazardous materials including electronic wastes
and solvents. We also represent hazardous waste facilities permitted
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The volume of e-waste is growing, now comprising about 2 million
tons a year. But this is a small percentage of the 236 million tons of
waste that is disposed in our nation's sanitary landfills. The reason
that e-waste is a problem is the composition of the waste--electronic
wastes such as television screens, computer screens and cell phones
contain toxic materials including mercury, cadmium and lead.
CHALLENGE OF E-WASTE
Despite public statements to the contrary the amount of lead in a
cathode ray tube (CRT) is not a ``trace amount.''\1\ Similar to the
lead shielding used to protect dental patients during x-rays, the
amount of lead in computer is significant. A CRT can easily contain
over 10 pounds of lead; large televisions have significantly more. The
lead is a critical component that protects the users from radiation
emitting from the tube. Other parts of the computer use lead in solder.
Without these toxic metals, disposal in a sanitary landfill would be a
safe and available option. However, sanitary landfills contain mostly
organic food and other biodegradable acetic waste. These facilities are
not operated to protect the environment from the leaching of the volume
and types of lead that would be placed in such facilities. Newer, flat
panel monitors do not use leaded glass, but require another toxic
chemical, mercury, to operate efficiently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gattuso, Washington Post, June 19, 2005, page B8. Attachment B.
Response published in Washington Post July 2, 2005 Page A27, Attachment
A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If computers are hazardous toxic wastes under the law, why are they
being disposed in non-hazardous waste landfills? When Congress passed
the hazardous waste law, Congress exempted households and certain small
quantity generators from the hazardous waste regulatory regime. The
belief at the time was that the volume of toxic wastes from households
and small generators would be minor and therefore would not be a threat
to the environment.
RESPONSE TO THE E-WASTE PROBLEM
When communities became aware of the volumes of lead being placed
in their sanitary landfills, they grew concerned. Some communities
passed laws to encourage recycling and alternative waste management
activities. Some banned such waste from landfills; others supported e-
waste recycling.
About a quarter of the states passed laws treating CRTs as
universal wastes. The universal waste rules are clear and simple
standards for managing widely distributed hazardous wastes where the
full hazardous waste requirements would be overly burdensome. The
intent of the universal waste rules is to get hazardous waste out of
the sanitary waste stream but without the rigorous requirements
protections intended for industrial process wastes at factories and
similar facilities. Essentially, the universal waste rules are a
middle-ground between the household and conditional exempt generator
rules, which exempts waste from controls and the full RCRA Subtitle C
hazardous waste rules. EPA has established universal waste rules for
items such as mercury thermostats, spent lead-acid batteries, unused
pesticides, mercury thermostats and fluorescent lamps. An EPA advisory
group that included state, Federal, and environmental and industry
representatives\2\ recommended to EPA that CRTs be added to the
universal waste program to ensure responsible recycling. However, we
have learned that instead of requiring universal waste protections, EPA
plans to finalize regulations that essentially deregulate these wastes
if sent to domestic recyclers. EPA's proposed exemption from RCRA for
CRT glass, if followed by the states, would represent a regrettable
rollback in environmental protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Common Sense Initiative (CSI) Council Computer and
Electronics Sector Subcommittee 67 FR 40,515 col.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The universal waste requirements that some states have in place for
computers and CRTs provide for proper packaging, labeling, and tracking
of shipments of CRTs sent and received to prevent illegal dumping and
ensure legitimate recycling. The requirements also include notifying
state regulatory officials of CRT waste management activities to allow
necessary inspections and compliance. These requirements are
appropriate and not unduly burdensome for companies engaged in the
commercial collection, processing, and recycling of this type of
hazardous waste. The practical and sensible approach is for EPA to
apply universal waste standards to all CRT glass destined for recycling
at the point of commercial collection. Other electronic waste,
including computer hardware and cell phones should likewise be
regulated under universal waste rules. The universal waste rules were
promulgated for just this type of waste. Those who may argue that
deregulation will lead to more recycling may be right. But such
unregulated recycling will inevitably lead to improper recycling,
taxpayer financed cleanups and public cynicism of recycling. These
costs will dwarf the benefits of the possible chance of some increased
recycling.
The risks are not imaginary. At the State Hazardous Waste
Conference in 2002, many state regulators described the recycling
industry as a ``low-profit, risky business'' with high turnover rates
and inadequate insurance. The state regulators cited cases where low
cost recyclers were merely sham operations that collected wastes fees,
with no intention of doing any recycling. Many of these facilities have
since gone out of business leaving contaminated sites for state
agencies to clean up. One example occurred in Phelps County, MO.
According to media reports,\3\ The Missouri Department of Revenue found
15,000 abandoned computer monitors. The DNR found someone was running a
``computer recycling'' business out of a rented building on the
property. The owner of the business reportedly told customers he would
take the monitors and dispose of them properly. Instead, state
investigators say the man took the monitors, the cash and left. Hot sun
melted the plastic coverings and rain can cause the lead to run-off
into the soil and groundwater. It cost Missouri taxpayers hundreds of
thousands of dollars to clean up the mess. By proposing to exclude CRT
glass recycling from RCRA and the universal waste rule, EPA would be
aiding and abetting this problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ KOLR-TV, Springfield, MO. www.recycles.org/124226366.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite EPA's approach, many generators of computer wastes want
recyclers to have some ``Good Housekeeping'' seal of approval. EPA
responded by establishing fairly good guidelines in the document Plug-
In to eCycling Guidelines for Materials Management. However, these
Guidelines are only voluntary and their effectiveness as opposed to a
promulgated universal waste standard is unconvincing.
ECONOMICS OF RECYCLING
The key to e-waste recycling is economics. The first choice for the
handling of e-waste, and the most economically viable alternative, is
reuse of complete systems or individual components removed from the
computer systems. Unfortunately, this alternative is not sufficient to
accommodate the entire quantity of e-waste generated. Although donation
programs are a means of providing technology to those that may not be
able to afford it, there is a potential downside to this practice. If a
company donates usable but outdated equipment to a school or program
for low income individuals, the service life of that equipment is much
shorter than that of new equipment. As such, the organization that
could not afford to purchase new equipment is saddled with the cost of
disposing the donated items when they cease operating. We know of one
instance where a school received donated computer systems only to find
that greater than 50 percent of the monitors received ceased operating
within the first year.
For those items which cannot be reused, the other alternative is to
recycle e-waste. Recycling will pay for itself if the value of the
commodities that can be harvested from the computer is greater than the
cost associated with the labor and facilities necessary to safely
separate the materials into recoverable assets. If the economics don't
work, recycling can still occur if someone--the consumer, government,
or manufacturers pays for the recycling. Today, recyclers cost to
recycle computers has dropped as commodity prices and useable parts
prices have increased.
There are several variables that work against a vibrant domestic e-
waste recycling industry. The first is the availability of ``glass to
glass'' recycling. As domestic manufacturers have moved operations
overseas or discontinued the manufacture of CRT glass, the demand for
leaded glass within the United States has dropped. When EPA proposed
its CRT rule in June of 2002, the Agency determined that the value of
leaded glass waste was $170 a ton. By January 2004, the value was minus
$200. This economic reality created a situation where leaded glass was
cheaper to dispose than to recycle. It also undermined EPA's rationale
in its proposed CRT rule that defined broken leaded glass as
``commodity'' because of its value. There is now a strong demand for
CRT glass in Brazil and China for use in computers and televisions in
those countries. However, the ultimate disposal of those CRTs after
their second life is unlikely to be protective of the environment. A
related factor is the price of metals on the commodities market. Most
commodities do not go up with inflation as we see with the price of
real estate or beer. Instead prices fluctuate wildly based on worldwide
demand. When prices are high, inevitably there is more mining,
recycling and use of alternatives followed by over-supply and price
declines. The price of lead has fluctuated dramatically over the years.
(Attachment C) Therefore any subsidy system should be flexible to
accommodate the fluctuating prices of the metals and re-usable parts of
e-waste.
Another factor is the cost of the recycling activity. It is
difficult for e-waste recyclers located in the United States to compete
with other low cost foreign recyclers. Because the recycling of e-waste
is so labor intensive, the low wages and lack of benefits paid in some
foreign countries provide these recyclers with disproportionately lower
processing cost. Processing costs are not just limited to labor costs
but also include the costs associated with environmental compliance and
providing for worker safety. Many of these recyclers are located in
countries that do not have the same level of standards that exist
within the United States. The Basel Action Network report on China
highlights the problems that exist. To address the labor costs, a few
states have turned to prison labor; however this has been controversial
due to questions concerning worker protection and other health and
safety standards.
Many of our customers send computers to us for handling because our
companies are heavily regulated. They know by our reputation and
regular audits that we are in compliance with RCRA and state laws. For
instance, we must track our waste, train our employees, prepare spill
prevention plans and hold environmental insurance and closure
insurance. Under the EPA proposed CRT rule, our competitors would not
need to meet any of those requirements. Those companies would be
subject to RCRA if they spilled hazardous waste on the ground but it is
hard to imagine how that would be known. It would be difficult, if not
impossible, for regulated entities to compete in such a system.
Our companies also have policies in place which mandate appropriate
due diligence is exercised in selecting proper facilities for the
recycling or disposal of materials derived from e-waste, regardless of
whether the company is located domestically or abroad. These customers
want to be assured that the wastes will actually be recycled properly
and that the wastes from the recycling process, if any, are handled
safely and consistent with the law.
Today, with commodities prices high, there have been many new
businesses trying to make profits out of e-waste. When the price of the
valuable components inevitably turns, these unregulated recyclers may
fail and leave the taxpayer to clean up the toxic remains. We believe
that whatever legal regime is established for recycling the rules
should require financial assurance for closure, environmental liability
insurance, employee training and some minimal waste tracking so
consumers can be assured their discarded computers are managed
properly.
The Wyden-Talent bill, which we endorse, includes standards for e-
waste recyclers. With protections and economic incentives, we believe
e-waste recycling can expand and be a significant part of the
manufacturing life cycle. Mr. Chairman, the goal should not simply be
to increase recycling. The goal should be responsible recycling that
conserves sources, saves energy and enhances the environment.
Thank you and I look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.022
Responses by Scott Slesinger to Additional Questions from
Senator Jeffords
Question 1. Mr. Slesinger, you testified that lead and other
hazardous substances of concern present in many used electronic
products may pose an environmental risk during recycling or disposal if
not properly managed. To your knowledge, is EPA conducting any
inspections in this area or monitoring the proper handling of
electronic waste?
Response. Unlike in the European Union, Canada and Japan, EPA does
not regulate most recycling, even when the recyclers are handling
hazardous materials. Only companies that recycle hazardous wastes and
have permits for storage may be subject to inspections by EPA or a
state agency. To the best of my knowledge, EPA is not conducting any
inspections or monitoring activities with respect to the proper
handling of electronic wastes that are recycled.
Under our environmental laws, states are often allowed to be more
protective than the federal government. States such as California,
Maine and Washington do regularly inspect recyclers of computers and
other hazardous discarded materials.
Question 2.If the recycling of electronic waste were profitable,
more businesses would be doing it and waste disposal would not be as
big a problem. In your opinion, what are the economic barriers to
making recycling of electronic waste economically viable?
Response. Generally, it costs more to recycle than dispose of
electronic wastes. Unless companies and homeowners with old computers
are willing to pay to have them recycled, an industry will not exist to
serve a need not in demand. The value that can be mined from most
discarded computers is almost always less than the cost of collection,
handling, and separation. This is not surprising. Although computers
are manufactured using some valuable metals, computers are highly
value-added products. A silicon disk may have raw materials that cost
$5 but the expertise used to produce such technology makes the price of
the chip hundreds of dollars. If the price of gold or lead doubles or
drops in half, it will have little practical effect on the cost of the
computer and only a minor impact on the economics of recycling.
The economics of recycling are not unique to e-waste. For instance,
take the case of paper recycling. If the price of collection,
separation and de-inking newsprint is more expensive than the cost of
virgin paper, recycled paper will not be economically viable unless it
is subsidized.
Therefore, the top of the waste management pyramid, reuse, is the
key to economic computer recycling. If the components of a discarded
computer, such as the hard disk, are still marketable, then it is more
likely that the computer can be recycled profitably.
Since the value of the harvestable raw materials in a computer is
limited, the other variable is the cost of separation and handling. If
computers were manufactured with reuse and disposal in mind, then the
cost of separation and handling could be reduced. The European Union is
banning certain toxic metals from computers and requiring manufacturer
take-back of obsolete computers. These laws will encourage changes in
how computers are constructed so they will be easier to recycle or
dispose. The economics are not likely to change. Fees, tax incentives,
manufacturer subsidies are likely to be needed to create the economic
incentives to recycle computers.
There are two alternatives when recycling is not economically
viable. One is disposal in a municipal landfill that is allowed because
of the household waste exemption. Some municipalities are enacting
local laws that prohibit such disposal, however. The other alternative
is disposal in a hazardous waste landfill that is built and operated so
that toxic metals do not leach into the environment. The second option
is the preferable environmental option if recycling of e-waste is not
subsidized.
Question 3. What are the consequences for your industry if Congress
fails to enact national electronic waste legislation?
Response. There will continue to be a patchwork of state
requirements that will include different funding mechanisms, different
administrative requirements, different standards that will be
disruptive to industry. Even today, one of the problems without a
national approach can be seen in California, where recyclers are
required to prove that the computers have not been shipped from other
states. A national program that standardizes the collection, handling,
and recycling system would be much more efficient.
Historically, RCRA has encouraged a state-by-state approach by
allowing states to be more protective than the federal rules. This
allows states to experiment with different strategies to protect the
environment, especially when EPA is gridlocked. For instance, some
communities have taken positive steps to remove e-waste from their
municipal wastes stream. However, this type of balkanization is
wasteful and discourages addressing problems that are national in
scope.
Question 4. Mr. Slesinger, what are the advantages of regulating
the management of electronic waste under the Universal Waste Rule
compared to no regulation of electronic waste at all?
Response. The Universal Waste Rule for electronic wastes would
enhance environmental protection, avoid the creation of new remediation
sites, and encourage the development a sophisticated e-waste recycling
industry that is required to comply with world-class environmental
standards.
Today the e-waste recycling industry is still immature. It is
critical that EPA adopt a regulatory approach that both encourages
responsible recycling and safeguards the environment. ETC member
companies have already moved to the forefront of this new industry by
establishing the necessary collection networks, processing capacity,
and recycling facilities in many states. In doing so, the ETC companies
have worked with the states to ensure that necessary safeguards are
met, including employee training, tracking of shipments, secure
handling, and legitimate recycling.
We are concerned that EPA's proposed rule that would not regulate
CRTs as universal waste will be the death knell for this new industry.
Instead of standards to ensure safe and responsible recycling of lead-
contaminated CRT glass, EPA has proposed a rule that essentially allows
anybody with a hammer and cardboard box to be an exempt ``recycler.''
In doing so, EPA is not only cutting off responsible companies at the
knees, but it is also inevitably exposing the public to lead
contamination from haphazard CRT recycling.
Lead is a potent developmental neurotoxicant, and is especially
harmful to children. Thus, CRTs can be hazardous and should be
carefully managed by responsible companies according to necessary
regulatory standards. For this reason, many states currently regulate
CRT glass that is sent to a dismantler or recycler as either a RCRA
hazardous waste or a universal waste.
Under EPA's CRT proposed rule, new intact CRTs and new broken CRTs
sent for recycling would not be regulated in any way. Used intact CRTs
would have an unconditional exclusion unless they are disposed. Used
broken CRTs would have a conditional exclusion, provided minimum
requirements such as packaging and labeling are met. Household CRTs,
even when collected and stored in bulk for recycling by commercial
firms, would not be subject even to the conditional standards.
Processed glass from used CRTs sent for recycling would be subject to
speculative accumulation limits. There would be no limits on
speculative accumulation applied to new intact or new broken CRTs or
used intact CRTs, but used broken CRTs would have speculative
accumulation requirements.
In the real world, commercial firms and state regulators will never
be able to accurately keep track of whether CRTs collected for
recycling are new, used, household, commercial, broken or intact (at
least when initially picked up). Moreover, these various
classifications are irrelevant to proper management and recycling of
CRT glass. A state inspector at a collection or processing facility
would never be able to determine whether CRT glass is subject to even
the minimal standards of the conditional exclusion or is totally exempt
from any standards depending on its pedigree. Sham recyclers will have
a field day claiming that the CRTs piled high in their rented buildings
and lead<dagger>leaching glass scattered around the property are all
completely exempt from Federal waste management standards. Most
importantly, commercial firms that are legitimately in the business of
hazardous materials recycling, and that are willing to make the
investment in proper management in accordance with generally-applicable
standards, will simply be forced to abandon CRT glass recycling rather
than compete with unregulated recyclers.
The practical and sensible approach is for EPA to apply the
universal waste standards to all CRT glass destined for recycling at
the point of commercial collection. The universal waste rule was
promulgated for just this type of material. CRT leaded glass destined
for recycling is just as much a waste material as spent lead-acid
batteries, unused pesticides, mercury thermostats and lamps, all of
which are subject to the universal waste standards. The CRT itself is a
commodity; the leaded glass from a dismantled CRT is clearly a waste.
Importantly, CRT glass is a waste material that poses a hazard because
of its high leachable lead content that warrants universal waste
stewardship.
The universal waste rule applied to recyclable CRT glass would
include requirements for employee training and release response that
are necessary to ensure that the glass is collected, stored, and
managed in all respects to prevent the leaching of lead into the
environment. The universal waste requirements would also provide for
proper packaging, labeling, and tracking of shipments of CRTs sent and
received to prevent illegal dumping and ensure legitimate recycling.
Most importantly, the universal waste rule would apply accumulation
time limits to CRT glass to prevent speculative accumulation by sham
recyclers with no intent to legitimately recycle. The requirements
would also include notification to EPA and state regulatory officials
of CRT waste management activities to allow necessary inspections and
compliance. These requirements are appropriate and not unduly
burdensome for companies engaged in the commercial collection,
processing, and recycling of this hazardous waste.
Question 5. Mr. Slesinger, EPA has suggested that disposal of
electronic waste in municipal landfills may not present an
environmental risk, even though electronic waste fails the Agency's
toxicity test. Do you agree?
Response. EPA's suggestion is not based on any reputable research.
It is nothing more than speculation, and it is belied by the fact that
many electronic wastes, such as CRTs, flunk the Agency's fundamental
test for hazardous characteristics. The toxicity test was developed to
predict what will happen if a waste is disposed in a municipal
landfill. EPA's ``suggestion'' hints at solving the e-waste problem by
pretending it does not exist. It also moves in the opposite direction
as the rest of the developed world.
Please refer to the response to Senator Boxer Question No. 3 for a
discussion of the critical differences of disposal in a municipal
landfill and a hazardous landfill.
______
Responses by Scott Slesinger to Additional Questions from Senator Boxer
Question 1. Your testimony referred to an EPA's proposed rule that
would exempt some cathode ray tubes from hazardous waste regulations.
What is the main danger if this rule is implemented as proposed?
Response. The proposed rule would exempt all cathode ray tubes that
are sent for recycling from regulation under the hazardous waste rules.
The danger is that some companies, without the requirement for
financial assurance, training of employees, and tracking of wastes,
will mismanaged these toxic wastes causing releases and contaminated
sites. Because recyclers will not have financial assurance for cleanup,
the taxpayers will undoubtedly be required to pay the cost of
remediation.
By encouraging cheap, unregulated recycling, the commercial waste
management industry, with significantly higher costs of environmental
compliance, will not be able to compete.
Please refer to the detailed response to Senator Jeffords Question
No. 4 that details the risks of the EPA proposal.
Question 2. And, in you're your opinion, would public health be
better protected if cathode ray tubes are regulated as hazardous waste?
Response. Rather than require the full panoply of RCRA
requirements, we suggest that CRTs, like mercury thermostats and
fluorescent tubes, be managed as universal waste. This would make it
easier for the generators to get CRTs disposed or recycled without the
full RCRA requirements, but require recyclers to meet some minimal
requirements such as financial assurance for closure, employee training
and waste tracking.
Please refer to the more detailed answer to Senator Jeffords
Question No. 4.
Question 3. EPA acknowledges that cathode ray tubes can leach four
times the amount of lead as regulated hazardous waste. Electronic waste
can also contain mercury, cadmium and other toxic substances. However,
EPA has left open the possibility that municipal landfill standards are
sufficiently protective to hold electronic waste.
In your opinion, do EPA's municipal landfill standards protect
groundwater or other environmental values from toxic chemicals in
electronic products?
Response. No, municipal landfills do not adequately protect
groundwater from toxic chemicals in electronic products. Municipal
landfills and hazardous waste landfills are operated very differently.
First, under RCRA rules, the employees at hazardous waste sites are
trained to safely handle toxic materials and are properly equipped to
protect themselves from possible contamination. Second, in a hazardous
waste landfill e-wastes are treated to prevent the toxic contaminants
from leaching out by being coated with an impermeable substance that
hardens and covers all exposed sides of the e-waste. This leach-
resistant encapsulated waste is then placed in the landfill cell where
it will not be disturbed. As with all waste in hazardous waste
landfills, each specific waste load is mapped so that if there is a
problem the waste can be dug up and properly handled. All leachate from
hazardous waste landfills is collected and also managed as hazardous
waste. All shipments to the landfill are on trucks that are specially
permitted to carry hazardous waste. Hazardous waste landfills are not
allowed to take organic wastes. Organic wastes, such as paints,
cleaning products, and household pesticides, are not allowed in
hazardous waste landfills because they could promote leaching.
Municipal landfills are operated differently. First, the wastes are
much more heterogeneous including acids and liquids from regular trash.
Second, because of the household exemption, municipal solid waste
landfills are allowed to take e-wastes and other hazardous waste. The
toxic e-waste and other garbage are not treated, stabilized or
encapsulated. Unlike hazardous waste landfills, the wastes are
commingled, crushed in the truck and mixed with the other garbage.
Because of daily cover, e-wastes such as CRTs are likely to be
repeatedly bulldozed and broken, leading to more surface area of the
leaded glass being exposed causing more leaching. There is no way to
know where the particular hazardous wastes are buried as all the wastes
are commingled. With the acids and different bio-degradables in the
garbage, and the lack of encapsulation treatment, the likelihood of
lead leaching is significantly higher than in a hazardous waste
landfill. Despite this, the leachate collected from an MSW landfill is
not considered a hazardous waste. Although municipal and hazardous
waste landfills may be constructed with similar attributes, the
operation of hazardous waste landfills makes them more protective of
the environment for disposing of toxic wastes.
Question 4. The companies that you represent are among the most
heavily regulated entities that handle hazardous waste in the United
States. Please describe the environmental and public health benefits of
going to a hazardous waste landfill versus a municipal landfill.
Response. Certain types of hazardous waste, such as toxic metal-
bearing wastes, should be disposed in hazardous waste landfills. As my
answer to your previous question indicates, hazardous waste landfills
are built and operated so these substances do not leach into the
environment. Our Nation uses many toxic chemicals that are a necessary
part of the standard of living we enjoy today. With hazardous waste
landfills, the toxic wastes of society are intended to remain safely
within the landfill indefinitely. In many cases, states now require our
companies to establish perpetual funds to monitor the landfill and
provide the states with a source of funds if toxic wastes ever escape
from the landfill. These specialized facilities cost more to operate
and use, but the increase in environmental protection versus disposal
in a municipal landfill is substantial and worth the investment.
Question 5. A company that you represent, Onyx Environmental
Services, was recently approved as a ``collector'' and ``recycler''
under California's recycling law.
How many facilities does Onyx have in California and what types of
recycling services does it offer? Is Onyx generally happy with
California's recycling program?
Response. Onyx has a total of 10 facilities located throughout
California. These include a waste-to-energy facility (Montenay Power),
several 10-day transfer facilities, service centers and Industrial
Service Groups. A facility in Azusa recycles the E-waste under SB50
within the State of California. In addition, this location recycles/
reclaims thinners, solvents, mercury compounds, laboratory chemicals
and other types of acids and caustics.
Overall, Onyx has been pleased with the California recycling law
(SB50). While payments to some of the recyclers have been delayed, it
is often due to deficiencies in the paperwork process. I believe it to
be very important that the State continue to require detailed paperwork
since the real opportunity for recyclers to import covered electronics
from out of State generators will continue to tempt those recyclers not
committed to ethical standards. With that said California is leading
the way and influencing change in other parts of the Country which
inevitably will have far reaching effects in diverting E-waste from
landfills.
______
Response by Scott Slesinger to an Additional Question from
Senator Lautenberg
Question. Mr. Slesinger, you probably heard my question to Mr.
Dunne about whether EPA would issue a ``universal waste rule'' for the
leaded glass in computers, in order to control this highly toxic heavy
metal. Would you like to respond to his comments?
Response. EPA has proposed not to regulate CRTs under the universal
waste rule. Mr. Dunne did not indicate whether the Agency would follow
that proposal in the final rulemaking or follow the comments of many
states and our Council to regulate leaded CRTs as universal wastes. As
I indicated in the response to the question above (Senator Jeffords
Question No. 4), we believe that the arguments made by EPA in the
proposal were seriously flawed. For instance, EPA considered leaded
glass, broken or not, to be a commodity because the glass had a
positive value and generators would therefore be careful and
protective. However, the value of leaded glass is now about zero. This
calls into question the entire theory of assuming that generators will
be careful with the glass when it has no value. Second, I believe the
interest of encouraging an e-waste recycling industry that would be
protective of the environment would be undermined if the Agency
deregulated this waste instead of requiring basic environmental
standards for its proper handling.
__________
Statement of Richard Goss, Director of Environmental Affairs,
Electronic Industries Alliance
INTRODUCTION
Thank you Chairman Thune, Senator Boxer and members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Richard Goss, and I am the Director of
Environmental Affairs for the Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA). EIA
is the leading advocate for the $400 billion U.S. high-tech and
electronics industries. Our 1,300 member companies provide products and
services ranging from microscopic electronic components to state-of-
the-art defense, space and industry high-tech systems, as well as the
full range of telecommunications, information technology and consumer
electronics products.
EIA appreciates the opportunity to provide the views of our
membership concerning the end-of-life management of our products. We
commend the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and advancing the
dialogue on this important issue. We would also like to thank Senators
Wyden and Talent for their efforts and leadership in this area.
INDUSTRY COMMITMENT
EIA and our member companies support the safe and appropriate
recycling of used electronics products to help meet the important
environmental goal of increasing resource conservation and recovery. As
manufacturers, we recognize that we are a key partner in the process,
and we will continue to work with Congress, federal agencies, the
states and involved stakeholders to address this challenge.
The ongoing commitment of our member companies to product
stewardship, environmental design and recycling can best be
demonstrated by listing some of our industry's concrete achievements:
<bullet> Through a combination of direct corporate efforts and
innovative partnerships--including U.S. EPA's Plug-in to eCycling
campaign--EIA member companies have been involved in the proper
recovery and management of well over one million tons of used
electronics products. In addition, EIA member companies use significant
quantities of recycled materials, including glass, metals and plastics,
in new generations of their products.
<bullet> EIA member companies are on target to be in compliance
with the European Union Directive on the Restriction of Hazardous
Substances (the RoHS Directive), which will take effect on July 1,
2006. Since electronics products are manufactured for global sale and
distribution, U.S. consumers will have broad access to products that
comply with the new EU requirements.
<bullet> As a result of our members' long-standing dedication to
product stewardship and technological innovation, the electronics
industry continues to achieve significant and sustained environmental
progress throughout the entire product lifecycle: from design, through
beneficial use, to end-of-life. On the whole, every year our products
become more energy efficient, use fewer materials of potential
environmental concern, and become easier to upgrade, disassemble and
recycle.
EIA is currently compiling a record of member-company achievements
in the areas of product stewardship and design for the environment, and
we will be happy to share this document with the Subcommittee once it
is completed.
In summary, we support electronics recycling as a way to conserve
and reclaim resources. However, this is a complex challenge that will
require the coordinated efforts of all the key stakeholders to resolve.
GENERAL RECOMMENDED APPROACH
Given the complex nature of the challenge, EIA supports efforts to
establish a viable recycling infrastructure in which all the major
stakeholders--manufacturers, government, retailers, nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) and recyclers--participate based on their unique
expertise and capabilities. The combined goal of these institutional
stakeholders should be to develop a recycling infrastructure that is
convenient for the residential consumer. Implementing a system based on
principles of shared responsibility will increase the efficient
collection of electronics and ensure economies of scale by taking
advantage of existing infrastructure. EIA supports equitable, flexible
and cost-efficient solutions that encourage the proper management of
used electronics while limiting additional costs to the public for
these popular products.
ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION
EIA believes it is essential to consider the science related to
electronics products as part of any public policy discussion regarding
recycling. Certain compounds are present in electronics products, such
as lead and mercury, that provide clear safety, performance and energy
efficiency benefits. These compounds should be appropriately managed at
the end of life. U.S. EPA shares this view, and has consistently stated
that used electronics products, when properly managed, do not represent
a human health or environmental concern. The agency considers
electronics recycling as fundamentally a solid waste management and
resource conservation issue. Likewise, our member companies recognize
that reusing and recycling electronics at the end of life is the most
environmentally preferable option, and we support reasonable efforts to
develop the recycling infrastructure.
SUGGESTED FEDERAL ROLE
As you know, three states have already enacted three very disparate
statutes which address electronics recycling. Numerous other states,
and even some localities, have either developed special regulations for
the handling of used electronics, or are actively considering their own
electronics recycling legislation. These approaches often include
significant variations in terms of financing mechanisms, the scope of
covered products, the roles and responsibilities of key participants,
and the overall regulatory structure.
Industry and other stakeholders are rightfully concerned that a
potential confusion of state recycling laws and regulations will prove
costly, inefficient and perplexing. There is clearly a role for the
federal government to play in bringing national consistency to this
emerging field.
Federal action can help promote safe and environmentally sound
recycling by creating a streamlined and uniform regulatory framework
that removes artificial barriers and instead encourages the free flow
of used products for proper management. Specific steps include:
<bullet> Establishing consistent regulatory definitions of key
terms, and strictly defining the scope of covered products through the
application of fixed criteria;
<bullet> Considering the establishment of a flexible third party
organization that can help with roles such as data reporting,
compliance, and financing;
<bullet> Ensuring broad consistency in labeling, product
information, and regulatory reporting requirements; and,
<bullet> Assessing whether additional recycling regulations or
standards are necessary to ensure the safe and environmentally sound
management of used electronics.
EIA and our member companies stand ready to work with the
Subcommittee on these and other initiatives. Thank you again for the
opportunity to share industry's position on this important issue. I
would be pleased to respond to any questions.
______
Response by Richard Goss to an Additional Question from Senator Inhofe
Question Mr. Goss, I understand that the electronics industry would
prefer the federal government to offer a national waste and recycling
program because it is fearful of a patchwork of state requirements.
Could you explain some of the market competitiveness issues that have
prevented the EIA from advancing a consensus position?
Response. First, it is important to note that our industry has
successfully reached agreement on most of the primary elements of an
electronics recycling approach. These elements include the following:
<bullet> National consistency in electronics recycling--
particularly a streamlined and uniform regulatory framework--will
encourage the appropriate and efficient management of used products.
<bullet> A viable recycling infrastructure will require that all
the major stakeholders--manufacturers, government, retailers, non-
governmental organizations and recyclers--coordinate efforts and share
responsibility.
While used products can and should be appropriately managed at the
end of life, electronics recycling is fundamentally a solid waste
management and resource conservation issue.
Any recycling approach should begin with a limited and defined
scope of products, rather than attempting to cover all electronics
products at once.
Since the EIA member companies manufacture products for global sale
and distribution, an approach should seek to harmonize any labeling,
product information, and regulatory reporting requirements.
Regulations or standards for recyclers are important in order to
ensure the safe and environmentally sound management of used
electronics.
The one area where our members have yet to reach consensus is on a
preferred approach for financing an electronics recycling
infrastructure. Over the past months and years, EIA and our member
companies have worked diligently to try and achieve a common position
on funding. The difficulty that our industry faces in reaching
consensus is directly related to the quantity and diversity of
manufacturers, and to the intense competition in the marketplace. The
primary products contemplated under most electronics recycling
approaches--computers and televisions--are increasingly treated by the
market as commodities. Since margins are thin and producers depend on
volume sales, any shift in the competitive playing field can have a
direct and immediate impact on market share and the bottom line.
The EIA member companies, which include all the global brand-name
manufacturers of these products, hold divergent views on financing
based in large part on their particular business models and corporate
strategies. Specific factors include but are not limited to:
<bullet> Company size
<bullet> Number and types of product lines, and the comparative
life-spans of their products
<bullet> Sales and distribution methods (i.e., traditional
distribution and retail channels versus direct-to-consumer sales)
<bullet> Experiences and capabilities related to recycling
<bullet> Relative market share (i.e., current market share as
compared to historical market share; business sales as compared to
household sales)
Given this diversity of business models and capabilities, any
particular funding approach may result in a competitive imbalance in
this extremely competitive industry. Consequently, several of our
member companies support an advanced recycling fee, Hewlett-Packard in
particular supports producer responsibility, and other companies
promote market-driven initiatives as a way to resolve the challenge.
The competitive issues are keen enough just between the EIA member
companies. However, concerns over fair competition are significantly
heightened due to the presence in the market of numerous small
producers and/or no-name manufacturers that cannot necessarily be
compelled to participate in a recycling program. These manufacturers
fall predominantly into one of two groups: (1) small foreign producers
that sell mostly low-end units into U.S. markets; and (2) the so-called
``white box'' manufacturers that produce and sell generic computers at
retail or remotely via catalogs or the internet. While individual
manufacturers in these categories are usually small, they nonetheless
collectively represent a noteworthy segment of the market.
EIA member companies comply with existing state requirements, and
will certainly step up and participate in any broader national system.
The same cannot be said of ``fly-by-night'' companies that often
frequently change brand names, or the white-box manufacturers that sell
remotely. There are already serious concerns over whether states can
effectively compel these manufacturers to play by the rules. For
instance, the California Board of Equalization issued an opinion that
it cannot impose a fee collection obligation on out-of-state retailers
that have no physical presence in the state. While the state of Maine
does not implement its recycling program until 2006, EIA members
already have significant doubts over whether state officials can take
effective enforcement actions against small foreign producers or white-
box manufacturers to pay their fair share of recycling costs.
In addition, there are also concerns over how a given financing
approach will apportion responsibility for orphan products--those
products coming back into the recycling system that were manufactured
by companies that have since gone out of business and have no successor
in interest.
In summary, different business models, recycling capabilities and
concerns over newer and non-traditional market entrants have resulted
in differing opinions over financing. EIA and our members are
continuing to ongoing commitment and concerted efforts.
______
Responses by Richard Goss to Additional Questions from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. Mr. Goss, I understand that a European Union directive
requires manufacturers to design electronics with less toxic materials.
Are there similar incentives to encourage electronics manufacturers to
design their products to promote easy reuse and recycling?
Response. The competitive marketplace continues to be the primary
driver behind improvements in product design, efficiency and
performance. The electronics industry continues to achieve significant
and sustained environmental progress throughout the entire product
lifecycle: from design, through beneficial use, to end-of-life. In
fact, many of our companies have long-standing design-for-environment
or product stewardship programs that pre-date the adoption of the
European Union Directive on the Restriction of Hazardous Substances
(the RoHS Directive) by several years. On the whole, every year our
products become more energy efficient, use fewer materials of potential
environmental concern, and become easier to upgrade, disassemble and
recycle. This process of continuous evolution--driven by market demand
and competition--can be readily observed by comparing today's products
to similar products that were manufactured just a few years ago.
Given the intense competition in the consumer electronics
marketplace, any manufacturing efficiencies that a company achieves can
result in increased output while simultaneously decreasing per-unit
production costs. These market-driven innovations on the production
side directly translate into benefits for reuse and recycling. Please
consider the following examples:
1. Manufacturers have a clear incentive to streamline and simplify
product assembly by, for instance, using fewer screws and connectors.
Not only does this improve production efficiency, but it makes these
products easier to service during their useful lives. It also makes
these products easier to upgrade, disassemble and recycle at the end of
life.
2. To achieve valuable economies of scale, manufacturers are
increasingly purchasing larger volumes of a single plastic, instead of
smaller amounts of different plastics. The use of a uniform type of
plastic makes these products easier and less expensive to recycle at
the end of life.
3. Larger and heavier products cost more to transport. Accordingly,
our companies strive to use lighter-weight materials as they become
available in order to control transportation costs for distribution and
sale. To achieve production efficiencies and meet market demand, our
members are also constantly innovating to create smaller products
without sacrificing functionality or performance. Since transportation
costs represent one of the single largest expenses associated with
recycling, these ongoing innovations directly result in products that
are less expensive to recycle.
4. Metals and certain other compounds are present in electronics
products because of their important safety, performance or energy
efficiency characteristics. However using these materials can add costs
to the manufacturing process, as companies may need to implement
additional measures to ensure proper management. As technically and
economically viable substitutes become available, EIA member companies
have worked to reduce or eliminate the uses of these compounds. These
efforts also facilitate the recycling of electronics products.
In addition, EIA member companies have gained invaluable knowledge
by recovering products themselves and by working with independent
recyclers. Understanding the requirements for recycling also helps
manufacturers factor in end of life management considerations into the
design of new products.
Many government and other institutional purchasers already include
environmental requirements for electronics products in their
procurement contracts. These approaches offer market incentives to
those companies that can satisfy the contract specifications. EIA and
our member companies are also cooperating with U.S. EPA, state
governments, private entities and non-governmental organizations to
standardize a list of environmental criteria that governments and other
large institutional purchasers can specify when buying information
technology equipment. This initiative, known as the Electronic Product
Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT), will provide a market reward to
those companies that reduce the environmental footprint of their
products throughout the entire life cycle.
Finally, there are international standards for electronics products
already in place or currently under consideration that focus on
environmental design and recycling. Due to the global nature of the
electronics manufacturing and distribution chain, international
standards will be reflected in our companies' products sold in the
United States. These standards will also help drive improvements in
reuse and recycling.
Question 2. If the recycling of electronic waste were profitable,
more businesses would be doing it and waste disposal would not be as
big a problem. In your opinion, what are the economic barriers to
making recycling of electronic waste economically viable?
Response. The key economic barrier to establishing a viable and
self-sufficient recycling infrastructure is that the overall costs of
recycling exceed the value of the resulting commodities (primarily
glass, plastic and metals). Recycling thus represents a significant and
absolute cost, leading inevitably to differing stakeholder perspectives
over how it should be funded and by whom.
The three major elements of an electronics recycling system are
collection, transportation and the actual disassembly and recycling.
The physical collection of used electronics represents arguably the
biggest single economic barrier to recycling. Televisions are
ubiquitous in American households, and personal computers are now
nearly as prevalent. With hundreds of millions of these products spread
out across urban, suburban and rural areas, collection becomes an
enormous and costly logistical challenge.
The vast majority of electronics products are sold through
traditional distribution and retail channels. In general, manufacturers
sell products in bulk to distributors, who sell them to retailers who
in turn sell them to consumers. These products then have years of
useful life, and are often re-sold, given to friends or family members,
or donated to charities. In most cases, manufacturers do not have a
direct relationship with the end user at the time of initial sale, let
alone years later when the product is ready to be placed into the
recycling stream.
As a consequence, EIA and our member companies believe that an
electronics recycling system should take advantage of the existing
infrastructure rather than attempting to create a separate and costly
system to collect used electronics products. This existing
infrastructure includes municipal waste collection systems and reverse
distribution systems that rely on established product distribution and
retail channels.
Transportation costs are another major economic barrier to
establishing a self-sufficient recycling infrastructure. As noted
above, previous generations of products--particularly cathode ray tubes
(CRTs)--are larger and heavier than contemporary devices. Loading and
transporting large volumes of electronics long distances to centralized
recycling facilities is costly in terms of time, labor and overhead,
especially given the marked rise in fuel prices. Mailing back larger
and heavier devices can be cost prohibitive. While these costs are not
fixed--they would likely decrease if there were more recycling
facilities--they can only be controlled so much and will remain a
significant expense.
The labor and overhead costs to conduct the actual recycling are
also significant, and the commodities generated often suffer from low
prices and a lack of consistent market demand. For example, as
manufacturers continue to move away from CRTs to alternate display
technologies--i.e., LCD screens, plasma screens, digital light
processing technology--the supply of processed CRT glass has
outstripped demand. Also, since most electronics products destined for
U.S. markets are manufactured overseas, the recycled commodities must
often be transported thousands of miles to be used in the next
generation of products.
In addition to the economic barriers, there are also regulatory
obstacles that serve to artificially increase the costs of recycling.
For example, the patchwork of state regulations on transport of certain
electronic products aggravates the economic situation. As discussed in
our testimony to the Subcommittee, one step to consider is the creation
of a streamlined and nationally uniform regulatory framework for
electronic products destined for recycling. This includes adoption of
the proposed rule that allows for the movement of CRTs sent for proper
recycling.
Question 3. What are the consequences for your industry if Congress
fails to enact national electronic waste legislation?
Response. Absent a consistent national approach to electronics
recycling, manufacturers, retailers and recyclers will be confronted by
an expensive, inefficient and unworkable confusion of state laws and
regulations. Such a patchwork of approaches will impact interstate
commerce and may be a barrier to certain companies participating in the
markets of some smaller states. If this state-by-state pattern is
allowed to continue, it will impose an enormous administrative and
logistical burden on the system that will ultimately result in
increased prices to consumers for new products. As detailed above, EIA
member companies are already facing competition that is unprecedented
in this industry. Federal action should strive to keep costs to
consumers as low as possible, create a level playing field for market
participants, and ensure that the products are being recycled in an
environmentally sound manner.
______
Response by Richard Goss to an Additional Question from Senator Boxer
Question. Ensuring a large amount of electronic waste for recycling
can reduce the costs of recycling as more waste is fed into the system.
What steps are your member companies taking to promote this type of
economy of scale in recyclable material?
Response. EIA member companies have been involved in the proper
recovery and management of well over one million tons--greater than two
billion pounds--of used electronics products. Our companies are
involved in a variety of efforts to increase the collection and
recycling of used products. These efforts include: implementing
individual recovery, refurbishment and recycling programs;
participating in recycling partnerships with U.S. EPA, state and local
governments, retailers, recyclers and charities; and sponsoring
collection events and grants. We are also leading efforts to raise
public awareness of the importance and benefits of recycling. In
addition, our member companies use significant quantities of recycled
materials, including glass, metals and plastics, in new generations of
their products, thus creating demand that helps sustain markets for
these materials.
It is also important to note that, regardless of the volume of used
products placed in the system, recycling will likely remain an overall
cost. As detailed above, collection and transportation costs each
represent a significant part of the overall expense. Even with greater
volumes of products and the establishment of more recycling facilities,
these costs will still remain fixed within a range. The value of the
resulting commodities still won't pay for the overall costs of
collecting and recycling products, at least not at the present time.
__________
Statement of David Isaac, Director, Government and Public Policy on
Behalf of Hewlett-Packard Company (HP)
On behalf of Hewlett-Packard Company (HP), I am pleased to provide
this testimony on the recycling of used electronics. My name is David
Isaacs, and I am Director, Government and Public Policy, based in our
Washington, DC office. HP is a technology solutions provider to
consumers, businesses and institutions globally. The company's
offerings span IT infrastructure, global services, business and home
computing, and imaging and printing. More information about HP is
available at www.hp.com.
HP applauds Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Boxer for convening
this important hearing to discuss electronic waste. Today's hearing is
a valuable first step in advising Members of the Senate and the public
on the emerging challenge of managing and recycling used electronics in
the United States. HP supports increased recycling to conserve natural
resources and protect our environment through a harmonized national
approach. HP calls on Congress to support a national solution to the
challenge of recycling used electronics, the adoption of recycling
incentives and the removal of regulatory barriers to cost-effective
recycling, and market-based solutions to finance government recycling
programs. HP believes that the Congress should reject attempts to
impose a new tax on American consumers and to create bureaucratic
recycling programs. Imposing more taxes on consumers will needlessly
increase costs to the public and fail to achieve our nation's recycling
goals in an efficient manner. Several decades of experience in
implementing environmental laws and regulations in this country have
proven that environmental goals can best be achieved by providing the
private sector with flexibility and incentives to innovate.
As a major manufacturer of a broad range of technology products, as
well as a leading recycler of these products, HP has a strong interest
in the development of policies relating to electronics recycling. HP
has nearly 20 years of first-hand experience in product take-back and
recycling. Since 1987, HP has successfully collected and recycled more
than 600 million pounds of used or unwanted computer-related equipment
globally. With our vast knowledge and experience, HP's goal is to
recycle 1 billion pounds of equipment by the end of 2007. HP encourages
Congress to allow companies such as HP to maintain this flexibility in
implementing recycling--which provides American companies opportunities
and incentives to continue to focus on innovation--and efficiently
achieve superior recycling results that best protect our nation's
natural resources for future generations.
We wish to emphasize the following points in our testimony today:
<bullet> A harmonized national approach to the recycling of used
electronic products is necessary to avoid a patchwork of varying state
and local requirements.
<bullet> As first steps in the development of a national approach,
Congress should adopt incentives for recycling, such as those set forth
in the ``Electronic Waste Recycling Promotion and Consumer Protection
Act'' (S.510); expand federal support for recycling projects; and
remove regulatory impediments to recycling.
<bullet> A comprehensive national approach should promote
innovation and allow for flexible implementation to achieve recycling
goals in the most efficient manner.
<bullet> Congress should reject calls for new taxes on technology
products and new government recycling programs.
I. A NATIONAL APPROACH IS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE
A national solution for the recycling of used electronic products
can help promote efficiency and avoid a patchwork of inconsistent state
approaches. Electronics recycling is an emerging national challenge
resulting from the growing use and enjoyment of technology products and
consumer electronics throughout our society. As an emerging
environmental challenge, the country as a whole would benefit from a
national approach that enables the United States to address this issue
at a relatively early stage in its development. Environmental
challenges are too often addressed by the Congress after a problem
already exists. This issue presents an opportunity for the Congress to
act proactively in developing a solution to an emerging challenge.
A patchwork has already begun to develop. Three states--California,
Maine, and Maryland--have adopted comprehensive recycling laws for
certain electronic products, but each of these laws is significantly
different from the other. The most important differences are the
varying methods of financing the recycling system. California has
imposed a new tax on consumers to fund a bureaucratic government
recycling program. In contrast, Maine has developed an innovative
shared responsibility model in which the burdens of recycling are
shared by various stakeholders. Manufacturers are required to pay for
consolidation and recycling or to conduct recycling of their products
on their own. Maryland has imposed a fee on manufacturers to finance
computer recycling programs around the state, with the fee varying
depending on whether a manufacturer offers a computer take-back
program. Moreover, numerous states, and even some localities, have been
and are considering proposals to address the management of used
electronics, and we anticipate that this trend will continue.
This emerging patchwork of differing state laws is adding
significant new costs and impeding the development of an efficient
nationwide infrastructure, while creating the potential for consumer
confusion. A consistent national approach is necessary and appropriate.
We recognize, however, that solid waste issues are traditionally
managed by the states and localities. Nonetheless, a federal solution
is needed in this instance not only to address disparate state program
developments, but also because of the connection between the recycling
of used electronics and the adoption of state-specific design
standards. Several states have adopted, or are considering, mandated
design requirements on new technology products as part of their
recycling laws or other environmental initiatives, driven largely by
concerns with environmental issues associated with disposal of used
electronic products. Differing state design requirements are
problematic for HP and other technology companies because our products
are designed and manufactured for global distribution. Conflicting
state design requirements can impair our ability to sell products
globally, may needlessly raise costs, and ultimately restrict
innovation in the development of new products. An effective national
solution can address the concerns of the states with the disposal of
used electronics, thereby avoiding the need for design standards at the
state level that may balkanize the global technology marketplace.
II. RECYCLING INCENTIVES, FEDERAL SUPPORT, AND REMOVAL OF REGULATORY
IMPEDIMENTS ARE APPROPRIATE FIRST STEPS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN
EFFICIENT RECYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE
To further the development of an effective recycling infrastructure
for used electronics, HP believes that incentives to promote recycling
are a useful first step. One such incentive is a tax credit for
consumers to return their products for recycling and for manufacturers
to offer recycling services to their consumers. In this regard, HP
supports the ``Electronic Waste Recycling Promotion and Consumer
Protection Act'' (S.510), a bipartisan bill introduced by Senator
Talent and Senator Wyden. This bill would provide tax credits to help
manufacturers, retailers, the recycling industry, and others to
establish an efficient national infrastructure for the environmentally
sound recycling of computers and other products and to encourage
consumers to return their products for responsible recycling. These
incentives can serve as a catalyst for voluntary, market-based
solutions that avoid the need for potentially burdensome, costly
mandates at the federal or state level.
Similarly, expanded government support for pilot projects and other
initiatives can help promote the development of an efficient recycling
infrastructure for electronics. Programs such as the ``Plug-In to
eCycling'' initiative of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have
played a useful role in successfully recycling large volumes of
products and collecting data on the nature of the issue and the range
of approaches that can be successful. For example, during the summer of
2004 HP partnered with Office Depot stores nationwide on an in-store
takeback program that collected and recycled approximately 10 million
pounds of products in a manner that was convenient for consumers and
efficient for the two companies. Another retail return program, in
which HP participated, involving Staples stores in New England also
proved to be successful. Continued and expanded funding for these
``Plug-In to eCycling'' programs can facilitate more recycling of used
electronics and the development of new approaches.
Finally, the federal government can play an important role in
promoting recycling by removing regulatory impediments to cost-
effective recycling. Under current federal and state regulations, used
electronics are sometimes classified as ``hazardous waste,'' even
though they are routinely used in our homes and offices and, when
recycled, pose no risk to human health or the environment. When these
used products are classified as hazardous waste, they become subject to
burdensome and costly regulatory requirements associated with their
collection, storage, transportation, and processing. Congress and the
EPA should reform these regulatory requirements to facilitate recycling
of used electronics, while continuing to protect human health and the
environment.
III. A NATIONAL APPROACH SHOULD PROMOTE INNOVATION AND ALLOW FOR
FLEXIBLE AND EFFICIENT IMPLEMENTATION
HP supports a comprehensive, national approach to the recycling of
used electronics that allows for flexible implementation and innovative
approaches that can achieve our recycling goals in the most efficient
manner. In discussions with several states, we have advocated a Product
Stewardship Solution that is based on implementing a market driven
system for recycling CRT-containing computer monitors and TVs (``CRT
devices''). The approach requires manufacturers to take responsibility
for the recycling of a specified amount of CRT devices, either by
implementing a recycling program to cover this specified amount or by
assuming financial responsibility for this amount. It places limited
responsibilities on retailers and state government and avoids creation
of new taxes and government bureaucracies. It provides funds to local
governments for CRT device collection, consolidation, and recycling. As
a result, the approach promotes flexible and efficient implementation
of CRT recycling.
Under the Product Stewardship Solution, manufacturers must take
responsibility for their ``equivalent share'' of CRT devices--including
orphan CRT devices--returned by households (individual consumers and
home businesses) for recycling. They can do this either (1) by
establishing a recycling program or (2) by paying the state reasonable
collection, consolidation, and recycling costs for their equivalent
share.\1\ Manufacturers implementing a recycling program have the
flexibility to design their program as they see fit, so long as they
recycle their equivalent share in compliance with applicable laws and
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This is a hybrid approach that combines elements of a producer
responsibility system and the widely supported Maryland Statewide
Computer Recycling Pilot Program (HB 575). A producer responsibility
system enables manufacturers to assume responsibility for their
products by establishing a recycling program. The Maryland law requires
manufacturers to pay to the state an annual registration fee--the
amount of which varies depending on whether the manufacturer offers a
computer takeback program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer equivalent shares are determined annually by the
state. A manufacturer's equivalent share is that manufacturer's portion
of the annual CRT device waste stream. The equivalent share concept
allows manufacturers that choose to run a recycling program to satisfy
their obligations with CRT devices of any brand or their own brand.
This approach avoids the need for brand sorting, but preserves the
ability of manufacturers to implement recycling programs that collect
only their own brand products. It provides an efficient recycling
system with multiple options for consumers.
Manufacturers will be held accountable to the state to meet their
equivalent share obligations. This is a self-implementing performance
standard keyed to a specific amount of CRT devices to be recycled.
Thus, a manufacturer that chooses to provide a recycling program but
fails to recycle its equivalent share has a predetermined payment
obligation for the shortfall to the state. This system is designed to
achieve recycling results by manufacturers, not merely to generate
revenue or establish government recycling programs.
The Product Stewardship Solution has numerous benefits and
advantages compared to alternative approaches such as advance recycling
taxes or fees (``ARFs''):
A. Provides efficiencies through market-based solutions and the
opportunity for improvements over time, thereby offering a
lower cost solution to consumers
Relies on and leverages the expertise of manufacturers to produce
competitive, market-based solutions. Key recycling responsibilities are
placed on manufacturers competing among themselves in the private
sector, rather than on the government, which faces no competitive
pressure.
Provides flexibility to allow manufacturers to develop over time
least-cost recycling arrangements. Manufacturers have broad flexibility
to act individually or in partnership with others to develop recycling
programs or to pay for their recycling responsibility. This provides
manufacturers with maximum flexibility to be innovative and to work
with recyclers to develop least-cost alternatives.
Allows collection costs and responsibilities to be determined by
the market. Manufacturers that choose to run recycling programs are
required to recycle their equivalent share of discarded CRT devices.
But no particular entity has a mandated responsibility to collect
discarded CRT devices. This fosters development of cost-effective,
market-driven collection methods by manufacturers, non-profits,
independent collectors, municipal governments, and others.
Provides consumers a broad range of collection/recycling options.
Consumers may return their unwanted CRT devices to recycling programs
offered by manufacturers or to any other recycling program--whichever
collection/recycling option best suits their needs.
B. Avoids new taxes on consumers
The Product Stewardship Solution imposes no point-of-sale taxes on
consumers. ARF proposals are simply a new tax on consumers to finance
new government recycling programs.
C. Places key responsibilities on manufacturers, not government, to
achieve recycling goals, including recycling of orphan CRT
devices
Manufacturers are responsible for their contribution to the
household-CRT device waste stream--the fundamental performance goal of
a recycling program. Manufacturers are responsible for their equivalent
share of CRT devices that are discarded each year by households, i.e.,
the contribution that their products make to the annual CRT device
waste stream.
Manufacturers are responsible for the orphan waste stream. This
includes both unlabeled CRT devices and CRT devices for which the
manufacturer is no longer in business and has no successor in interest.
D. Places minimal responsibilities on retailers
Retailers are not required to impose and collect new taxes and are
not obligated to collect products. The only obligations of retailers
are not to sell unlabeled and unregistered CRT devices and to certify
annually that they checked the state CRT device registration website to
determine if the branded CRT devices they sell are registered.
E. Limits government involvement to enforcement and other necessary
functions, avoiding the creation of new taxes and new agencies
Requires government to perform limited administrative and
enforcement functions. These limited functions will be sufficient to
establish the level playing field that makes it possible for
manufacturers to provide market based recycling solutions. Among the
functions performed by government are determining annual manufacturer
equivalent share obligations, enforcing the requirements of the law,
and collecting and compiling recycling data.
Avoids establishing new taxes and new agencies. By placing
fundamental recycling responsibilities on manufacturers, there is no
need for consumers to pay new taxes on their purchases of CRT devices
or for new agencies to be created to collect or administer a tax. The
limited government responsibilities required by the approach are
designed, like the other parts of the approach, to achieve overall
recycling goals efficiently.
F. Reduces burdens on local governments by providing manufacturers with
incentives to keep CRT devices out of the municipal waste
stream and by providing a funding source for CRT device
collection, consolidation, and recycling
Provides manufacturers with incentives to keep their CRT devices
out of the municipal waste stream. Manufacturers' equivalent share
obligations are based on the percentage of CRT devices for each
manufacturer that are collected in local government recycling programs.
Thus, manufacturers have incentive to keep their CRT devices out of the
municipal waste stream.
Provides local governments with a funding source for CRT device
collection, consolidation, and recycling. Manufacturers that elect to
pay the government for their recycling obligation, or that are required
to pay for failing to meet their equivalent share obligation, provide
local governments with a funding source for collecting, consolidating,
and recycling CRT devices.
G. Provides the opportunity for design improvements
Allows manufacturers to benefit from improved environmental design
and innovation. Those manufacturers that collect their own brand
products can benefit from design improvements they have made. Moreover,
the system provides an incentive to improve product design by removing
materials of concern, enhancing recyclability, and incorporating
recycled content into their new products.
IV. CONGRESS SHOULD REJECT NEW TAXES AS A MEANS OF FINANCING
RECYCLING PROGRAMS
California has adopted a new tax, or ``advance recycling fee''
(``ARF''), to finance a government recycling program, and other states
are considering this approach.\2\ Congress should reject this approach.
HP believes that a new tax on technology products to raise revenue for
government to use for recycling is a poor way of achieving recycling
goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Supporters of this approach refer to it as a ``fee'' and not a
tax. The law generally distinguishes between ``taxes'' and ``fees''
based on whether the payment provides a public benefit (a tax) or a
specific service (a fee). National Cable Television Assn. v. United
States, 415 U.S. 336 (1973). Because the revenue raised provides a
general public benefit and not a specific service for the consumer
paying the tax, an ARF is properly characterized as a tax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This new tax on consumers will raise the price of technology
products and, assuming it is used for its intended purpose, establish a
new government program that will likely result in efficient recycling
solutions. There is no incentive for improvements over time--all
products are subject to the same fee regardless of the cost of
recycling that product. Manufacturers and others have little incentive
to reduce these costs. This new tax is a one-size-fits-all approach
that removes incentives for innovation and market-based solutions,
thereby likely resulting in higher overall costs. Moreover, there is
the risk that the funds collected by the government would be used for
purposes other than recycling, thereby failing to address the issue.
A tax-based approach suffers from other deficiencies, including the
following:
A Tax on Products Is Burdensome To Retailers.--The Consumer
Electronics Retailers Association (``CERC''), supported by retailers
such as Best Buy Co., Circuit City Stores, Inc., Radio Shack Corp.,
Sears Holdings, Target, and Wal-Mart, opposes an ARF because an ARF is
``administratively burdensome for all parties;'' and ``too complicated
for all parties.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See http://www.ceretailers.org/cerc/CERC--Position--on--
eWaste.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Tax Finances A Large New Government Program.--A tax-based system
requires receipt and administration of new sales taxes on consumers
transmitted by likely thousands of retailers and distribution of the
tax proceeds to hundreds of collectors and recyclers. The result is a
large new government program with substantial administrative expenses.
The Tax Revenues Can Be Diverted For Other Governmental Purposes.--
The tax revenues may be diverted to finance other governmental
programs. Given tight government budgets and numerous competing
priorities, governments often shift spending from one area to another.
Indeed, there is no way to prevent a future legislature from taking
such action. Numerous recycling and other environmental programs based
on special taxes or fees that are presumably dedicated to a specific
purpose have witnessed the funds being shifted to other uses.
A Tax System Does Not Guarantee That Any Amount of Electronic
Devices Will Be Recycled. Although proponents of tax-based recycling
systems typically call for achieving numeric collection goals, the
proposed systems provide no mechanism for enforcing these goals or
ensuring that any amount of electronic devices are actually recycled.
The California ARF statute does not require that any amount of
discarded electronic devices must be recycled. The only guaranteed
outcome of these tax-based systems is the generation of new tax revenue
for government, not the recycling of products.
Collection And Administration Of Taxes By A TPO Raises Concerns of
Efficiency, Expertise, Legality, and Accountability. Some proponents of
new taxes advocate the formation of a ``Third Party Organization''
(TPO) to receive and administer the government-imposed taxes collected
by retailers. This proposal raises concerns of efficiency, expertise,
legality, and accountability:
<bullet> The TPO duplicates functions currently performed by
government agencies.
<bullet> The TPO lacks the expertise of existing tax collecting
agencies and is unlikely ever to acquire equivalent expertise.
<bullet> The lack of accountability of the TPO to the government
for TPO expenditures of public revenues raises significant legal
issues. A TPO would control public tax revenues without congressional
oversight over appropriations.
<bullet> TPO proposals provide no accountability if the TPO fails
to achieve recycling goals or fails to meet other obligations. There is
no ability by the government to enforce against a TPO.
An ARF Constrains Competition And Limits The Efficiencies To Be
Gained From Competition. A new tax to fund a monopolistic recycling
program fails to establish a competitive environment that will provide
incentives for improved performance. Under the California ARF system,
all collectors and recyclers receive a uniform rate of compensation set
by the state. In ARF systems that depend on a TPO, the only possibility
of competitive bidding is with a monopoly organization that sets the
bid requirements. This is not the same as a fully functioning private
market with multiple manufacturers seeking recycling services.
V. CONCLUSION
HP supports a Product Stewardship Solution that requires
manufacturers to take responsibility for their equivalent share of CRT
devices returned for recycling by households, that places minimal
responsibilities on retailers and state government, and that provides
local governments with funds for CRT collection, consolidation, and
recycling. Overall, this approach offers a more efficient and flexible
way to achieve our recycling goals.
HP looks forward to working with the Subcommittee and other Members
of Congress on the development of a national recycling system that
leverages the capabilities and expertise of manufacturers, retailers,
recyclers, and others to achieve efficient and low cost opportunities
for all consumers.
__________
Statement of the Retail Industry Leaders Association
The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) appreciates the
opportunity to provide the committee with comments on the need for a
national electronics management system and applauds the leadership of
Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Boxer for holding a hearing on this
important environmental issue.
By way of background, The Retail Industry Leaders Association
(RILA) is an alliance of the world's most successful and innovative
retailer and supplier companies--the leaders of the retail industry.
RILA members represent more than $1.4 trillion in sales annually and
operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing facilities and
distribution centers nationwide. Its member retailers and suppliers
have facilities in all 50 states, as well as internationally, and
employ millions of workers domestically and worldwide. Through RILA,
leaders in the critical disciplines of the retail industry work
together to improve their businesses and the industry as a whole. The
mission of RILA is to lead and serve the most successful and innovative
retailers and suppliers through the delivery of world class education,
innovation and advocacy.
RILA strongly believes that a federal solution that encourages the
proper collection and recycling of electronic waste is far more
practical than dealing with a patchwork of 50 or more different
``eWaste'' laws instituted by individual states and localities. This
year alone, 30 State and local legislatures have introduced over 50
separate bills on this issue. It would be impractical and ineffective
to expect retailers and manufacturers to comply with over 50 eWaste
programs, and, if Congress legislates in this area, we urge it to
create a strong federal preemption of state and local law.
RILA also supports a ``producer responsibility'' eWaste recycling
model, and is working with the Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition
(CERC), state retail associations and other interested stakeholders in
advocating this approach. A producer responsibility approach would make
manufacturers responsible for the recycling of electronic devices in an
efficient and cost-effective manner that fits into each individual
company's business model. This program may also include participation
from distributors, retailers and consumers, all of which benefit from
the sale of electronic products. A producer responsibility model,
similar to those adopted in Maine and Maryland, provides consumers with
a variety of choices and manufacturers with flexibility to implement
practical electronics recycling programs that make sense to customers,
government, retailers and manufacturers alike.
A producer responsibility model also gives retailers the ability to
develop voluntary recycling programs for their customers. For years,
many retailers have partnered with manufacturers and certified
recyclers to periodically offer recycling programs that encourage
customers to return obsolete electronic equipment for recycling. These
programs have proven to be successful and popular for all parties
involved and such private sector initiatives should not only be
permitted, but also encouraged through public policy.
RILA strongly opposes eWaste policies that would mandate that
retailers collect and/or dispose of used or unwanted electronic
products. Retail stores are designed to make the shopping experience as
enjoyable as possible for consumers. They are not designed to serve as
collection centers, nor do they have room to store discarded products
targeted for recycling. Retailers are highly efficient distributors of
consumer products who operate on razor thin profit margins. Forcing
them to play the role of recycling centers will add significantly to
the cost of doing business. We urge Congress to reject mandated
retailer recycling programs.
In addition, RILA also opposes ``point of sale advance recovery
fee'' (POSARF) programs such as the one adopted in California.
Experience has shown that a POSARF does not accomplish its goals, is
administratively burdensome for all parties, and only guarantees a new
revenue source for government without guaranteeing that an effective
recycling system will be put into place. In addition, such a program
provides no incentive for the design of more environmentally friendly
products, and fails to take advantage of market forces to reduce the
cost of recycling over time.
Finally, RILA endorses the ``Electronic Waste Recycling Promotion
and Consumer Protection Act'' (S 510), legislation introduced earlier
this year by Senators Jim Talent (R-MO) and Ron Wyden (D-OR). This bill
would give consumers a one-time tax credit for turning in electronic
equipment to a qualified recycler. It also provides manufacturers,
retailers and qualified recyclers tax credits over a 3-year period for
recycling a certain amount of e-waste each year. This bill appears to
be a cost-efficient and potentially successful approach to jump-
starting the development of a national eWaste recycling industry. RILA
hopes Congress will view this tax credit as a viable and creative
opportunity to deal with electronics at their end of life, and urges it
to enact the bill quickly.
RILA is dedicated to working with the Subcommittee and other
Members of Congress on developing a fair and effective program for the
recycling of electronic products. The fact that states and localities
continue to consider their own recycling initiatives that impose
inconsistent requirements on retailers and manufacturers is clear
evidence that Congress should move quickly to develop a federal
solution.
__________
Statement of Basel Action Network, Seattle, WA
the problem
Volume of e-Waste
Gartner, Inc, a research firm, states that Americans discard
133,000 PCs daily. This doesn't include televisions, cell phones, fax
machines, and other electronics. EPA estimates that American dispose of
3 million tons of outdated or broken electronic devices annually. This
fastest growing segment of the waste stream is largely invisible,
unless one has the opportunity to visit the massive warehouses filled
with pallets and huge boxes of monitors, central processing units, TVs,
printers, etc. The average length of time Americans keep their
computers is 18 months. Lease agreements between electronics
manufacturers and their corporate/institutional customers guarantee a
complete replacement of all units within agreed upon timeframes,
usually 1-3 years. Where do the ``old'' ones go? We have created
societies that thrive on, even depend on, the latest technology,
generating massive volumes of unwanted electronics. But they are laden
with toxins, and we must create legislation to safely manage these
mountains of unwanted electronics without impacting human health or the
environment in any country.
Toxicity of e-Waste
The sheer volume of electronic or e-waste is stunning, but it is
only part of the problem. Electronics are made of many materials, some
of them benign, and some of them quite toxic. Lead, mercury, beryllium,
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and brominated flame retardants are only
a few of the many toxins that comprise electronic devices. Many of the
substances in electronics are on the U.S. EPA's 1998 ``Draft RCRA Waste
Minimization List of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals''
(PBTs). The EPA set a national goal of reducing the amount of these
persistent biological toxins in waste by at least half by this year,
and yet the levels of many of them continue to rise in the environment
and in body burden samples taken in studies. PBTs remain in the
environment for a very long time without degrading, accumulating in
fatty tissues of humans and animals. This results in increasing
concentrations as the persistent toxins move up the food chain. They
also readily bio-transport, moving easily through air, water and soil
to places far from where they originated.
For more information on toxins in electronics, see attached
Greenpeace document entitled, ``Toxic Tech: Dangerous Chemicals in
Electronic Products'', available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/
international/press/reports/toxic-tech-chemicals-in-elec
For information on the health impacts of these toxins, go to the
following websites:
<bullet> Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternative (GAIA) at
http://www.no-burn.org/resources/index.html#top
<bullet> International POPs Elimination Network at http://
ipen.ecn.cz/index.php?z=&l=
en&k=home
Export of e-Waste
Largely unregulated in the United States, this massive volume of
hazardous material is being managed in a myriad of ways, including
landfilling it, illegally dumping it, sending it to federal
penitentiaries where prisoners disassemble it, or to private sector
recyclers who manually disassemble or mechanically shred the end-of-
life electronics. But currently the most lucrative `solution' to this
toxic waste problem is to export it to developing countries that are in
need of materials to manufacture the world's trinkets and tools. The
lack of regulation and complete absence of control of these exports
result in U.S. hazardous e-waste flowing to developing countries where
impoverished or displaced communities, desperate for work of any kind,
suffer the profound effects of recycling hazardous e-waste,
dramatically impacting human health and the environment. These
communities are faced with the choice between poverty or poison, and
frequently choose to accept the developed world's unknown toxins in
exchange for food on the table and schools for their children. Please
view our 23-minute film, ``Exporting Harm: The High Tech Trashing of
Asia'', documenting the toxic recycling of U.S. e-waste in China
(available from Grant Cope in Senator Boxer's office).
In our film and report by the same name, (http://www.ban.org/E-
waste/technotrashfinalcomp.pdf) we document some of these impacts on
the region called Guiyu, in the Guangdong Province in SE China. Here,
families live and work in yards where they use primitive and toxic
techniques to dismantle and process e-waste primarily from the US, but
also from Japan and other developed Nations. For example, they remove
and sell the copper yokes from the back of the cathode ray tubes
(picture tubes), then throw the leaded glass into their former
irrigation ditches, which brought water to rice patties until about 8
or 9 years ago, when they found they could make a little more money by
scavenging materials from e-waste. Each monitor tube has 6-8 pounds of
lead.
Without any protection from lead fumes, mostly women and girls heat
circuit boards over open pools of molten lead-tin solder, plucking
individual circuits from the heated boards.
The loosened chips are then sorted for re-sale or to be sent to
acid chemical strippers to recover gold from the chips. These acid
operations are located on riverbanks out of town, where they heat a
mixture of 75 percent pure hydrochloric acid and 25 percent pure nitric
acid to dissolve tiny amounts of gold from the chips. Then the workers
dump the pure acids and dissolved heavy metals directly into the
rivers. The water table in the Guiyu region is so toxic that hundreds
of vendors truck in water from another town on a daily basis. Our
samples of river water and sediments revealed some extraordinary test
results for 18 different heavy metals and elements, available on page
47 (Annex II) and page 48 (Annex III) of the Exporting Harm report
(linked above). One water sample yielded a lead level that was 2400
times higher than the World Health Organization's limit for lead in
drinking water. Page 14 displays a photograph of computer asset tags
found on computers in China--computers from the United States,
including a State of California medical facility, the L.A. Unified
School District, the City of Los Angeles.
Other neighborhoods in Guiyu sort small computer wires by day, and
burn them by night in open fires. These copper wires have a PVC
sheathing, which creates dioxins and furans--some of the most toxic
substances known to humankind--when melted at low temperatures. Dioxins
have no smell or taste; they are invisible threats.
Volume of e-Waste Exported
No one knows the amount of electronic waste being exported from the
US; this fact in itself is important, as it indicates the sheer
irresponsibility of the United States (unlike most other countries) in
controlling and monitoring its exports of hazardous e-wastes,
frequently in violation of laws in recipient countries. [To see the
Auststralian Government's ``Criteria for the Export and Import of Used
Electronic Equipment'', go to http://www.deh.gov.au/settlements/
publications/chemicals/hazardous-waste/electronic-paper.html]
The fact is electronic waste is leaving the United States by ocean-
going container loads daily. Anecdotal reports from U.S. recyclers
indicate that, of all the electronics collected in the United States by
recyclers, 80 percent-90 percent of it goes offshore. Aggressive buyers
from Asia, particularly China, are purchasing as much as electronic
waste as they possibly can, with ``toxins along for the ride'', in
order to obtain copper, aluminum, steel and precious metals at lower
costs than if they mine and smelt primary ore in their countries.
Because the United States has failed to implement its legally binding
obligations to control and monitor its exports of hazardous wastes (see
below), these massive volumes of toxic e-waste are exported anywhere in
the world, frequently in violation of laws in recipient countries, and
many times with horrific impacts.
Even if the United States had the political will to oversee it
exports of toxic waste to poor countries, there are no harmonized
tariff codes (used to document international trade) that distinguish
between waste and new electronics. Because of this, there is currently
no customs information on e-waste available.
Why is e-Waste Being Exported
The United States is the only developed country not to ratify the
``Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of
Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal'' (Basel Convention). 165 Nations,
however, are a Party to this Convention, and apply Basel restrictions
and definitions of hazardous wastes when it comes to exports and
imports of such. Despite the United States refusal to respect the Basel
laws and definitions that govern most of the rest of the world's trade
in hazardous waste, the United States has ratified a multi-lateral
agreement governing trade in hazardous wastes between the 30
Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD) countries,
but has failed to implement its legally binding obligations. (More
details below.)
Without any controls on the export of hazardous e-waste, the
resulting free-for-all is based on pure profitability, regardless of
toxic impacts or violation of laws in recipient countries. In this
country, the sheer economics of the waste trade, without restrictions,
are a powerful incentive to do the wrong thing. Waste generators and/or
their recyclers are faced with a choice: either pay to have their
unwanted electronics properly managed, or be paid by brokers who whisk
them away to developing countries. For some, it's a simple choice
between an expense or revenue, and when it involves a lucrative way to
get rid of toxic materials, many make this choice. Other individuals,
corporations and institutions who have concerns about data security,
liability for improper hazardous waste disposal, and even impacts on
citizens in developing countries, make better choices. But these
choices about how to manage this hazardous waste stream should not be
completely left up to individuals and corporations. The U.S. Government
must join the global community and ensure that all citizens of the
world are protected from U.S. toxic electronic wastes.
One might argue that importing countries should `just say no' to
toxic U.S. e-waste, but in so many developing countries, the lack of
environmental laws, poor enforcement, the need for raw materials for
manufacturing and the jobs that come along with it, and widespread
corruption result in open ports for toxic waste shipments. It is more
difficult for any Nation to control its imports than its exports, as
the United States found out after September 11th. As called for in the
Basel Convention, each Nation must be responsible for controlling and
monitoring its exports of hazardous wastes. Decontaminate the wastes in
developed nations, keeping jobs here, and then send the clean
commodities any where in the world.
U.S. vs. International Laws Pertaining to e-Waste
The Basel Convention is a multilateral environmental agreement
under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)
that is noted for being the first international treaty that promotes
environmental justice. It was designed to protect developing countries
from being disproportionately burdened by hazardous wastes via trade,
simply due to their economic status. The original treaty called for a
minimization of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and
national self-sufficiency in waste management by all countries.\1\ In
1995, by consensus vote, the Basel Convention banned the export of
hazardous wastes for any reason from European Union (EU) or
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)\2\
countries to all other countries, and proposed this ban as an amendment
to the Convention. This is known as the Basel Ban Amendment.\3\
Although this amendment is still acquiring the necessary ratifications
to enter into strict legal force globally, it has already been
implemented by many of the nations that have ratified it, including the
entire European Union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Article 4, paragraph 2(d) and 2(b) respectively; www.basel.int
\2\ An organization representing the interests of 30 developed
nations; www.oecd.org
\3\ Decision III/1 of the Basel Convention
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States signed the Basel Convention in 1989 but has to
date failed to ratify it. There are only three countries that signed
and never ratified. These countries are Afghanistan, Haiti, and the
United States.
Indeed, the United States is the only developed country in the
world that has not ratified the Basel Convention. Furthermore, because
the United States has created exemptions from controls in the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for wastes deemed recyclable, we
are now the only developed country in the world that allows electronic
waste to flow uncontrolled as a toxic tide out of our borders. Every
week, hundreds of container loads of hazardous electronic waste flow
across U.S. borders to disproportionately burden foreign communities.
This is not legal in any other developed country. The irony of this is
that the United States is where the concept of ``environmental
justice'' was born. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898
requires that each federal agency include environmental justice as part
of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately adverse human health or environmental effects of its
programs, policies, and activities on people of color and low-income
populations in the United States and its territories. The U.S. Office
of International Affairs' 2004 Environmental Justice Action Plan
states, ``OIA's senior leaders are committed to the principles of
environmental justice both at home and abroad.''
If the toxic impacts on these communities were not a big enough
affront, it must be understood that this policy of ``free trade in
toxic waste'' is actually illegal in the United States and promotes
illegal activity in developing countries globally. The OECD has
treaties binding on the United States, governing the transboundary
movement of hazardous waste, and the United States turns a blind eye to
these legally binding obligations. Indeed, the United States is in
direct violation of one of these OECD treaties.
In 1986, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) adopted Council Decision-Recommendation C(86)64(final)\4\ (OECD
Decision) which has to do with hazardous wastes exported from the 30
developed nations who comprise the OECD. Decisions of the OECD Council
are legally binding upon Member countries at the time of the adoption
of the decision.\5\ Since the United States was a member country in
1986, the OECD Decision is legally binding on the United States. Some
of the more pertinent OECD Decision elements that the United States
agreed to implement are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Decision-Recommendation of the Council on Exports of Hazardous
Wastes from the OECD Area, 5 June 1986, C(88)90(Final) see http://
www.oecd.org. Note that Decision-Recommendations include both Decisions
and Recommendations.
\5\Art. 5(a), OECD Convention, see http://www.oecd.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. ``Monitor and control exports of hazardous wastes to a final
destination which is outside the OECD area; and for this purpose shall
ensure that their competent authorities are empowered to prohibit such
exports in appropriate instances;''
Reality in the United States today.--U.S. competent authorities are
empowered to forbid only some of their exports but remarkably do not
consider lead-acid batteries, electronic wastes and other OECD-defined
hazardous wastes to be hazardous waste. This is illegal when they are
exported. The United States has failed to harmonize its definitions of
hazardous wastes with those in the OECD regime.
ii. ``Apply no less strict controls on transfrontier movements of
hazardous wastes involving non-member countries than they would on
movements involving only Member countries;''
Reality in the United States today. Transfrontier shipments between
OECD member States of cathode ray tubes (CRTs), and/or CRT glass, for
example, must in fact be controlled within the OECD as it is part of
the ``amber'' list under Council Decision C(92)39/Final, as amended by
(2001)107/Final\6\ (governing recycling trade in hazardous wastes
between Member States). Thus, in fact, the United States is violating
this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00029000/M00029772.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. ``Prohibit movements of hazardous wastes to a final
destination in a non-Member country without the consent of that country
and the prior notification to any transit countries of the proposed
movements;''
Reality in the United States today. The United States does not
require the consent of the receiving country for hazardous electronic
waste, lead-acid batteries and other hazardous waste exports, as
defined by the OECD, and thus, is in clear violation of this
obligation.
iv. ``Prohibit movements of hazardous wastes to a non-Member
country unless the wastes are directed to an adequate disposal facility
in that country.''
Reality in the United States today. The United States exercises no
control, nor shows any concern as to whether exported hazardous wastes
are destined for adequate facilities, or even whether they are recycled
or simply dumped.
U.S. vs. International Definitions of Hazardous Wastes
It is also essential to understand that United States intentionally
does not harmonize its definitions of hazardous wastes with
international ones found in the Basel Convention and the OECD treaties.
While this is acceptable for domestic only transactions, it creates a
huge loophole and illegalities for export. Once U.S. companies load up
containers with material that is designated as hazardous waste
internationally, and that container gets outside of U.S. territory, it
automatically falls under the umbrella of international laws and
definitions, whether we like it or not.
The definitions applicable to the OECD C(86)64(final) that have to
do with wastes exported from the OECD area have been amended to those
found in Council Decision C(88)90(Final)\7\, which in turn has been
amended by C(94)152(Final)\8\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ OECD Council Decision C(88)90(final), see http://
www.olis.oecd.org/horizontal/oecdacts.nsf/
a0da5457376d5a1f412569750054d65b/
eca14832de914b75c1256acb005158fb?OpenDocument
\8\ OECD Council Decision C(94)152 (final), see http://
www.olis.oecd.org/olis/1994doc.nsf/linkto/c(94)152-final
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The definition of hazardous waste in C(94)152(Final) calls any
waste listed in a core, Y list of hazardous constituents to be
controlled as a hazardous waste, as long as they possess hazardous
characteristics listed in Table 5. The Y list includes lead, listed as
Y31--``Wastes having as constituents lead or lead compounds''. Table 5
includes substances considered H11--``toxic'', H12--``ecotoxic'', and
H13--``capable, by any means, after disposal, of yielding another
material, e.g. leachate, which possesses any of the characteristics
listed above.''
Because of their lead content, CRTs, circuit boards, and lead-acid
batteries, etc., have been demonstrated to create toxic lead leachate
by virtue of their failure to pass the Toxic Characteristic Leachate
Procedure (TCLP) threshold of 5mg/l. It is clear that CRTs and circuit
boards, as well as equipment containing CRTs, CRT glass, or circuit
boards fall under the OECD Council Decision-Recommendation C(86) 64
(final) having satisfied both the list and Table 5. Other toxic
materials in electronic waste, such as mercury, beryllium, and
hexavalent chromium, are also designated as hazardous waste under the
OECD treaty, and therefore the exports of e-waste with these
constituents ought to be controlled and monitored.
The United States' claim that certain wastes are not hazardous
simply because they are recyclable and can therefore be freely traded
is not consistent with U.S. obligations under OECD accords. The United
States currently is in direct violation of their OECD treaty
commitments. The violation also allows for the disproportionate
burdening of developing country communities with U.S. toxic e-waste.
U.S. e-Waste Trade Violates the Laws of Importing Countries
The export of hazardous waste without controls also violates the
laws of many developing countries globally. The Basel Convention
forbids any Party to the Convention (165 nations) from trading with a
non-Party, without a special bilateral or multilateral agreement.
Because the United States is not a Party to the Convention and
virtually every other country in the world is, most countries cannot
accept hazardous waste, as defined by the Convention, from the United
States. The only exception to this rule is 30 OECD countries that have
signed waste trade accords, for example, for recyclable wastes.
However, any Basel country that is not an OECD member State (there are
about 132 of these, including virtually all Asian countries except
Japan and South Korea), cannot legally accept hazardous waste, such as
e-waste, from the United States. To do so is illegal traffic with
criminal sanctions applicable.
Every day, container loads of hazardous electronic wastes are
leaving the United States with the full knowledge of EPA, and Commerce
and State Department authorities; once these container loads arrive at
most importing nations' ports, they are contraband. Many countries like
China have made it very clear they do not want this hazardous waste,
have passed national importation bans, and have announced these import
bans through the formal conduit of the Basel Convention Secretariat.
Still the U.S. EPA, Commerce and State Departments ignore these
violations. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, and China
continued to knowingly send us thousands of tons of material each year
that is in clear violation of our laws. Wouldn't this be considered at
least a diplomatic affront?
The EPA has refused to list the countries for which imports of
electronic waste from the United States are illegal, despite being
urged at length to do so, and despite considerable recycling industry
support for the notion during EPA's development of the Plug-In to e-
Cycling electronic waste recycling guidelines. Nor has the EPA warned
U.S. recyclers that it is illegal for those 130+ countries to receive
hazardous waste, including electronic waste, from the United States.
Furthermore, the Plug-In Guidelines created definitions for electronic
waste that are completely incompatible with those developed (even with
the United States present and active in the negotiations) at the
international level in the Basel Convention\9\. This makes it even more
difficult for recyclers and exporters in the United States to comply
with importing countries' laws (which are based on international
definitions). This appears to indicate a willful disregard on the part
of EPA to respect those laws, and the principles of environmental
justice upon which they are based.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ A full critique of these Guidelines is available at: http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/plugin/pdf/guide.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, in the drafting of the rule on managing CRTs, the EPA was
roundly criticized for providing no controls on the export of these
toxic wastes. The final rule is yet to be promulgated, but it is not
expected that Basel-like controls will be applied to the export of CRTs
or CRT glass.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For a full critique on the draft CRT rule see: http://
www.ban.org/Library/BAN--comments--CRTrule.PDF
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``As boundaries between domestic and global environmental issues
erode, environmental challenges facing the United States have become
more complex. In an increasingly interconnected world, domestic
environmental quality and public health often require global action,
which in turn have economic, political, cultural, and humanitarian
implications. As in the United States, the burden of a degraded
environment in developing countries has been even greater to minority
and low-income communities, often with little or no inclusion in the
decision-making processes.
``The fair treatment of all people and their right to meaningful
involvement in the environmental decision making process does not exist
in many countries. OIA has the challenge of respecting the traditions,
laws and protocols in the countries where we work, while encouraging
environmental justice for all people.''--Office of International
Affairs' Environmental Justice Action Plan
Unintended Consequences of the California e-Waste Bill
Because the financing scheme in CA SB 20/SB50 only covers display
devices such as monitors and TVs, consumers are bringing to recyclers
these items along with non-covered devices, such central processing
units (the computer box), printers, fax machines, etc., and asking
recyclers to also take them for free. Many recyclers in CA quickly
learn that the only way they can avoid the expense of properly
recycling these non-covered devices is to export them to developing
countries, which generates more revenue for them. The net result is an
increase in exports of hazardous waste (as defined internationally),
while at the same time collecting the leaded glass tubes for proper
recycling.
THE SOLUTIONS
It is essential in any national legislation define the scope of
products to include all components that are defined as hazardous waste
internationally (listed above). In this way, legislation will not
result in an increase in exports of non-covered hazardous wastes (as
defined internationally).
Control and monitor of exports is a federal jurisdiction. National
legislation requiring the collection and recycling of unwanted
electronics must forbid the export of hazardous e-waste based on U.S.
OECD obligations, the Basel obligations of other nations, and the
Basel/OECD definitions of hazardous wastes in use by almost all other
nations besides the United States. This means that any waste
electronics or untested or non-working electronics that contain a
cathode ray tube (CRT), circuit boards that use lead solder, mercury,
beryllium, PCBs, or any e-scrap or untested/non-working equipment with
them in them, must be kept in OECD/EU countries only for recycling or
disposal. After decontaminating the hazardous wastes, clean commodities
can be sold anywhere in the world.
Provide a funding mechanism that no longer allows the United States
to externalize the end-of-life costs of these toxic electronics onto
citizens in developing countries, and prisoners in this country. We
believe the best financing system is to require all original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) to pay an advanced recycling fee (ARF) on every
product sold in the United States into a non-profit, third party
organization (TPO). This TPO would be responsible for managing the full
participation of OEMs, contracting for the collection and recycling of
electronics, informing the public about the free recycling options, and
managing the funds. We do not believe an ARF collected at the point of
retail is an acceptable solution, because this toxic waste problem
belongs to the manufacturers, who must oversee the end-of-life
management and costs. This `extended producer responsibility' provides
a direct financial incentive to redesign the products with fewer
toxins, make them more upgradeable, more easily recycled. In order to
provide widespread collection options to urban and rural citizens,
collection payments can be offered to existing and new infrastructure
(if they choose to opt into the system), including recyclers,
charities, municipal waste collection facilities, retailers, and mail
back programs with the manufacturers.
Legislation must also require that adequate recycling and reuse
standards are set to ensure that occupational and public health are
protected from the many toxins in e-waste, and that adequate financial
assurances exist to cover environmental, liability, closure, and other
costs are in place.
Hazardous e-waste must be prohibited from landfills, incinerators
(including waste to energy incinerators), and prison recycling
operations, based on definitions that recognize toxicity of any waste
or unwanted electronic.
Create new harmonized tariff codes for the various components of
used electronics, based on international definitions of hazardous
waste, and requiring a distinction between tested working used
equipment vs. untested/waste equipment or components.
An official enquiry must be made into the U.S. violation
(documented above) of the 1986 OECD accord on hazardous waste exports.
The United States must finally implement its legally-binding
obligations under the OECD treaty, requiring that we:
<bullet> ``Monitor and control exports of hazardous wastes to
a final destination which is outside the OECD area; and for
this purpose shall ensure that their competent authorities are
empowered to prohibit such exports in appropriate instances;''
<bullet> ``Apply no less strict controls on transfrontier
movements of hazardous wastes involving non-member countries
than they would on movements involving only Member countries;''
<bullet> ``Prohibit movements of hazardous wastes to a final
destination in a non-Member country without the consent of that
country and the prior notification to any transit countries of
the proposed movements;''
<bullet> ``Prohibit movements of hazardous wastes to a non-
Member country unless the wastes are directed to an adequate
disposal facility in that country.''
__________
Statement of The Consumer Electronics Association
INTRODUCTION
The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) thanks Chairman Thune
and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present its
views on electronic waste.
CEA represents more than 2,000 companies involved in the design,
development, manufacturing, distribution and integration of audio,
video, in-vehicle electronics, wireless and landline communication,
information technology, home networking, multimedia and accessory
products, as well as related services that are sold through consumer
channels. CEA also produces the nation's largest annual event, the
International Consumer Electronics Show.
By extending information and entertainment to everyone--regardless
of income or geographic location--our products have improved lives and
changed the world. Meanwhile, America stands as the global leader in
innovation, ingenuity and creativity.
In addition, the competition and falling prices characteristic of
our industry continue to confer benefits to consumers. As our products
become increasingly affordable, it is often more economical for
consumers to replace a product with a new one rather than repair older
equipment.
While these displaced products may have reached the end of their
lives or be out-of-date, they are definitely too valuable to be
completely discarded. Most consumer electronics products contain
valuable materials such as precious metals, plastics and other raw
materials that can be resold in the commodities market by recyclers.
Moreover, used, working computers can find use in thousands of schools,
charities and public agencies committed to training people with
disabilities, students at risk and economically disadvantaged
Americans.
In fact, CEA recently joined eBay's Rethink Initiative, which
brings together leading technology companies, government agencies,
environmental groups and millions of eBay users to confront the problem
of electronic waste (e-waste). Rethink's members offer consumer
education via comprehensive information on options available to reuse
or responsibly recycle, as well as disposition tools such as assisted
selling, convenient local drop-off, trade-in programs and charity
donations.
CEA SUPPORTS A NATIONAL APPROACH TO E-WASTE MANAGEMENT
The Consumer Electronics Association strongly supports the
development of a national framework for e-waste management. The current
de-facto system for e-waste is an evolving patchwork of state-by-state
approaches. This conflicting, ad-hoc approach imposes unnecessary
burdens on technology companies and consumers alike. E-waste is a
national issue that should have a national solution.
A national end-of-use framework would apportion responsibility and
ensure a level playing field among stakeholders, while promoting a
widespread and adequately financed e-waste solution.
In addition to the development of a national e-waste framework, CEA
believes the following elements are worthy of consideration:
1. Tax Credits
The federal government should support states choosing to rely on
effective market-based solutions. Federal tax credits can enable
manufacturers, recyclers, and retailers to offer recycling services in
those states. Tax credits also may enable stakeholders in other
electronics sectors to offer recycling services or to develop markets
for recycled products. Tax credits should be available to all
stakeholders involved in the end-of-life infrastructure, including
retailers to help defray costs in those states adopting visible fee-
based systems.
2. Fostering Design for Environment
The principal responsibility of manufacturers of display devices
lies in product design. CEA supports the creation of reasonable federal
procurement policies based on environmental criteria. The market power
of the government can play a significant role in providing a direct
sales-based incentive to manufacturers. States can augment this by
adopting federal environmentally sensitive procurement guidelines,
increasing the market and the incentive for manufacturers. Federal and
state governments will capture cost-savings through reduced energy
usage and other advantages offered by these products.
3. A National Recycling Third-Party Organization
States considering advanced recovery fee or ``ARF''-based systems
may opt to select a third-party organization (``TPO'') to collect and
administer recycling funds. CEA will support the creation of a national
TPO, both to assist states considering a TPO system and to provide a
national clearinghouse for consistent product scope to ensure stable
harmonization of state-level systems. A national TPO should include
manufacturers, retailers, and recyclers in its governance structure.
TPO creation and availability to states can serve as a further
incentive to create state-level systems complementing a national
solution. If additional federal authority to enable to harmonization is
required, CEA will work with the U.S. Congress as appropriate to put
that authority in place.
4. Ensuring a Level Playing Field Through Federal Policy
The role of the federal government lies primarily in ensuring a
level playing field nationally for recycling stakeholders complying
with state-level recycling systems. The federal government should put
measures in place that enable states to ensure a level competitive
playing field for in-state retailers with Internet and out-of-state
retailers. CEA supports any required additional federal authority to
ensure interstate compliance with state-level market-based or visible
fee-based systems.
CONCLUSION
Finding a solution to this public policy challenge is a priority
for CEA. As we continue to make strides in eco-friendly design
initiatives, lead the consumer electronics industry on environmental
issues and be a part of the effort to educate consumers about e-
recycling, CEA hopes to work with Congress and all interested parties
to reach a common-sense, national solution that makes recycling as
convenient as possible for all Americans.
__________
Statement of Bill Sheehan, Ph.D., Director, Product Policy Institute
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the Senate
Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management hearing on the problem
of electronic waste disposal. The Product Policy Institute is an
independent nonpartisan research and education organization that
focuses on the link between production and consumption, on the one
hand, and waste generation and disposal, on the other, in order to
promote public policies that encourage sustainable practices. We
believe that the policy approach of extending producer responsibility
for end of life management of electronic waste offers the most
effective solution to the problem of electronic waste management,
because it relies on market forces and incentivizes fundamental
solutions upstream at the design stage..
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy principle to
promote total life cycle environmental improvement of product systems
by extending the responsibilities of the manufacturer of the product to
various parts of the entire life cycle of the product, and especially
to the take-back, recycling and final disposal of the product. EPR
policies shift part, or all, of the responsibility for the end-of-life
management of products and packaging from tax payers and waste
management authorities to those who design the products and packaging--
the manufacturers. Manufacturers have the largest opportunities to
reduce lifecycle environmental and health impacts, because the design
phase of the product chain is the most critical to reducing waste.
Moreover, local public authorities do not have the resources to safely
manage e-waste.
EPR policies appeal to both conservative and liberal political
perspectives. From a fiscal conservative perspective, EPR makes sense
because it gets waste management off the tax base and it is based on
the notion that the market will drive programs that are more efficient
than government managed programs. Those of a more liberal bent support
EPR because they believe that producers should have responsibility for
pollution prevention. In several European countries and Canadian
provinces, EPR regulations have been implemented, maintained or
strengthened by conservative governments.
In our opinion, the most critical step in solving the ``e-waste
problem'' using the market-based approach is establishing optimal roles
for government and industry. The key is to ensure that government's
role is focused on setting performance standards in the public interest
and enforcing agreed outcomes that create a level playing field. When
correctly designed and implemented, EPR policies can provide an
alternative both to traditional bureaucratized command-and-control mode
of environmental regulation, on the one hand, and to radical
deregulation and privatization, on the other. Such policies allow
regulated parties and other affected groups a greater share in shaping
the rules under which they operate and permits a certain degree of
self-regulation.
In North America, this approach is best developed in the Canadian
province of British Columbia, where regulations allow brand-owners to
develop their own EPR programs for a range of products, as long as they
meet approval of the province. Targeted products never come through the
municipal waste management system. British Columbia has applied this
approach to beverage containers and household hazardous waste products,
and is expected to shortly include electronic waste in the system.
Maine's e-waste law comes closest to EPR in the United States.
Maine's law leaves significant collection responsibility to the
municipalities, but overall Maine's approach is a strong step forward
in the right direction.
We append to these comments a checklist of elements for effective
EPR programs developed from a variety of sources. These are intended to
apply to a range of products and packaging beyond electronic waste, but
were developed with electronics in mind. We note several elements here.
<bullet> A key objective is to transfer costs of product waste
management from taxpayers to producers and users, so that more
efficient designs are rewarded in the market. Thus, tax credits alone
are unlikely to solve the problem of e-waste.
<bullet> Competition is critical to making a market-based system
work. Consequently, individual producers should be clearly assigned
responsibility for results, even if given a choice to join a
collective, third-party recovery system. Legislating a third-party
monopoly is dangerous, as is direct government participation in
managing such third party organizations. If government shares
governance of such organizations, it becomes too easy to blame
government for inefficiencies and failures.
<bullet> Bans on landfill disposal and other inappropriate forms of
disposal like incineration and exporting to countries with inadequate
safety regulations are essential to effective EPR programs. If these
options are available to producers, there is little incentive to
recycle responsibly.
We believe that advanced fees charged to consumers may be
appropriate in the short term as a fair way of dealing with historical
waste. But fees do nothing to influence product design, so should not
persist beyond the initial period.
We also append to these comments a recent report by the Product
Policy Institute comparing the development of EPR policies in the
United States and Canada. Canada is instructive to look at. Canadians
have progressed beyond debating whether EPR is a good idea, to figuring
out how to implement it. Besides being our neighbor, Canada displays a
diversity of EPR models being tested at the provincial level.
Thank you for taking up the critical issue of electronic waste
management. We hope these comments are useful in your deliberations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.049
Statement of Scott Cassel, Executive Director, Product Stewardship
Institute, Inc.
Comments Related to NEPSI
Since the first multi-stakeholder NEPSI discussions in April 2001,
significant progress has been made. PSI believes that the results of
this multi-stakeholder dialogue, involving numerous meetings and
conference calls, should be acknowledged and built upon, as even more
stakeholders have become interested since NEPSI. PSI would like to
emphasize that NEPSI participants agreed on the following:
1. Electronic wastes present an environmental problem.--None of the
participants--including manufacturers and government officials--
considered landfilling and incinerating these products as viable
management solutions. Participants understood that we do not want to
bury lead and other heavy metals for future generations to dig up, that
the disposal of electronic equipment is akin to throwing jobs,
resources, and economic value into the garbage can, and that
environmental problems can result from improper management. In
addition, much solid waste disposal is accomplished through
incineration in waste-to-energy plants; the inclusion of electronic
waste in the feedstock increases the emissions of toxics into our air.
2. NEPSI's goal should be to develop a national solution.--In the
February 26, 2004, NEPSI Compromise Resolution, which PSI helped
negotiate, participants agreed to the following: ``it is the desire of
the NEPSI group to establish a national system to collect, transport
and process consumer electronics in a manner that is protective of
human health and the environment, and one that is economically
sustainable and market driven.'' State governments have been forced to
develop their own legislation primarily because the electronics
manufacturers have been split on the type of system needed to finance
and manage electronic wastes.
3. The cost of managing electronic wastes should be included in the
purchase price of a new product.--At the start of the NEPSI dialogue,
manufacturers argued that all taxpayers should cover the cost of
managing electronic wastes, and that government programs, funded by
taxes, should be increased to pay for waste management programs. This
was a non-starter for government agency officials. Industry officials
then proposed that consumers be charged ``end-of-life'' fees to be
assessed when a consumer returned an item for recycling. Again,
government agency officials considered this solution a non-starter,
since fees discourage recycling and encourage illegal dumping. Finally,
industry officials agreed to some type of ``front-end financing
system'' that would include the cost to manage the product at its end-
of-life in the purchase price of the product. It is on this single
point--the type of front-end financing system--that manufacturers have
been unable to agree.
4. The Scope of Products to be covered by an agreement was agreed
to as follows:
<bullet> TV/TV Monitors (cathode ray tubes [CRTs] and flat panels).
<bullet> Stand-alone computer CRT and flat panel monitors greater
than 9 inches.
<bullet> Laptop/notebook computers.
<bullet> Computer Processing Units (CPUs).
<bullet> Small peripherals (mice, keyboards, cables, speakers)
<bullet> Consumer desktop devices (printers and multifunction
devices).
5. The financing system should be a ``hybrid''--starting with an
``advanced recycling fee'' (ARF) and transitioning to a type of ``cost
internalization,'' in which the end-of-life management costs are
included in the product purchase price, but invisible to the consumer
(e.g., not a specified and visible fee). While all government NEPSI
participants supported this system as a compromise to their preferred
system, there were several other stakeholders who dissented. Government
officials believe there is great merit in a system that internalizes
all the system costs. However, recognizing that such a proposal was a
non-starter for industry in NEPSI, agencies agreed to start with an ARF
to pump quick funds into the development of badly needed
infrastructure, then transition to an internalized financing system
based on set criteria.
6. The Hybrid system should allow for an equivalent alternative
system. The NEPSI resolution allows for a flexible alternative system
that would permit individual manufacturer responsibility if a company
could provide a level of service that is equivalent to the ``base level
of service'' that the NEPSI group believed was needed for an effective
collection and processing infrastructure.
7. Standards are needed for electronics recyclers.--The NEPSI group
supported the creation of recycling standards to ensure the
``environmentally sound management'' of electronic wastes.
In addition to the above agreements among the multi-stakeholder
NEPSI group, PSI was able to develop a consensus among the state and
local government participants as to their legislative preferences on
several other issues.
<bullet> Use a non-profit entity to manage system finances.--
Government officials supported the development of an industry-led non-
profit that would collect and disburse funds to pay for the collection,
reuse, and recycling of electronic equipment. This organization could
also contract for collection and recycling services, submit reports on
system performance, and perform other administrative functions. These
non-profit entities already operate in Canada and Europe to enhance the
efficiency of product management systems. In addition, government
agencies researched legal precedents that allowed private entities to
manage funds created by a government program.
<bullet> Develop performance measures for collection and
recycling.-- Agencies believe that the group's focus should be on
system performance, and that the logistics should be the role of the
private sector, which has greater incentive to reduce costs. Government
agencies believe that its role should be to establish performance
goals, with multi-stakeholder input.
<bullet> Disposal bans should be preceded by a recycling
infrastructure.-- While disposal bans will help to create a market for
recycling, they will create consumer frustration and enforcement
concerns if there is no alternative to disposal. Disposal bans,
however, work well when a recycling infrastructure is in place.
COMMENTS RELATED TO S. 510
With regard to S. 510, PSI welcomes the opportunity that the
introduction of this bill gives to consider interim measures to improve
the national system for recycling used electronics. Provisions within
the bill that PSI considers valuable include:
1. Federal government agencies should ensure that federally
procured electronics equipment is recycled. PSI suggests that
government agencies develop purchasing specifications that
include the cost of recycling unwanted electronics equipment in
the purchase price of new equipment.
2. Requiring electronics recyclers to be certified according to
standards that will promote environmental protection.
3. Preceding a disposal ban by an adequate recycling
infrastructure.
4. Determining how national legislation can be consistent with
the intent of current state electronics recycling laws.
Provisions that PSI believes require additional consideration
include the following:
1. Although the proposed study will have significant value, the
study of end-of-life fees should acknowledge the experience
gained in the last 5 years of electronics collections, much of
which was financed by such fees. End-of-life fees may play a
minor role in a comprehensive collection and processing
infrastructure, but as a general policy, they discourage
recycling and encourage illegal dumping. While some consumers
will be more than happy to pay such a fee, this is not a
strategy to reach the levels of recycling needed to make a true
environmental difference.
2. Some PSI members believe that tax credits could be an
interim measure, or a supplement to a comprehensive system, and
that they could only help an ailing electronics recycling
infrastructure. However, many of our members are concerned that
all taxpayers would finance tax credits for electronics waste
management, and not just those who use the product. These
members believe that it is not fair for all taxpayers to pay an
equal share of the costs when some taxpayers use, and benefit
from, more or higher quality electronic equipment than others.
Tax credits will not provide an incentive for manufacturers to
change their product design or find ways to reduce the end-of-
life management cost of their products. In addition, these tax
credits will not go to local governments, which are most
burdened financially by waste management, but to recyclers.
State and local government agencies in NEPSI preferred that all
potential collectors of electronic equipment be eligible to
receive a set ``incentive payment'' based on the unit or weight
of material collected. Such a payment would directly cover
their costs, and would provide an incentive for retailers,
charities, and other entities to contribute to the collection
infrastructure so that the burden did not fall completely on
local government. Further, this approach would be more
convenient to consumers, who would have multiple points at
which they could drop off equipment. We would not expect many
consumers to save their receipts for a $15 tax credit.
3. PSI would like to consider the best ways to encourage reuse
in the context of the legislation.
Let me again express PSI's appreciation to the Committee for
spending the time necessary to understand this complex environmental
issue, and to take action toward resolving electronics waste management
issues. I would urge the Committee to take advantage of the discussions
that have already taken place and use them as a springboard for new
ideas so that we can truly find a workable national solution that is
amenable to all key stakeholders. Now that there are three state laws
pertaining to electronics waste management, we need to work together to
find a national law that will integrate these systems into a strong
national electronics management system.
__________
Maine Department of Environmental Protection,
July 28, 2005.
Hon. John Thune, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management,
Senate Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Boxer, Ranking Member,
Senate Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
Re: Testimony for hearing on electronic waste issues
Dear Senators: Thank you for recognizing that the disposal of
electronic waste represents an unconscionable waste of resources and
creates an unnecessary risk to human health and the environment. Our
challenge is to create public policy that achieves appropriate
recycling of electronic waste in an efficient and cost effective way.
The State of Maine was the second state to adopt an electronic
waste law. Maine's program is a first-in-the-nation system in which
responsibility for a comprehensive recycling program is shared by
consumers, the public sector; and the private sector. It shifts away
from the presumption that government alone is responsible for end-of-
life management of solid wastes from households by assigning
manufacturers direct responsibility for ensuring electronic waste is
appropriately recycled.
Our experience in working with stakeholders to design and implement
Maine's system has been very positive. Manufacturers and recyclers
understand that the more responsibility and authority they are given to
manage the recycling of their products, the more opportunity they have
to develop innovations in product design, collection and recycling
systems that can lead to financial gains.
The Maine program is a system that is fair and flexible while
adhering to high environmental standards. It clearly defines roles,
establishes accountability and provides incentives for private sector
innovation and for ``Smart Production'', i.e., environmentally
sustainable production without the need for a new, extensive public
sector bureaucracy to manage the system.
If you choose to establish a national program, it should not be
more costly to the consumer than any of the existing state programs. A
national program that assigns end-of-life product responsibility to the
manufacturers will reward ``green design'' and environmentally-
sustainable production processes. Such producer responsibility leaves
the private sector with the ability to apply its strengths in
innovation and efficient systems management to recapturing the
resources that are currently wasted every time an electronic product is
thrown away instead of recycled, and it can do this without creating a
new layer of bureaucracy.
One positive step that the federal government can take to support
current State e-waste programs and to lay a strong foundation for any
future national program is to adopt an import ban on products from
overseas manufacturers that are non-compliant with electronic waste
laws in the United States. This would level the playing field for U.S.
manufacturers, against whom states can readily take enforcement action,
while provide significant incentive to comply to foreign manufacturers
with no physical presence in the United States.
Once again, thank you for understanding that our current e-waste
management problem presents us with a great opportunity to effectively
recoup wasted resources and prevent environmental degradation through
application of ``Smart Production'' principles and appropriate end-of-
life management.
Sincerely,
Dawn R. Gallagher,
Commissioner.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7447.091
<all>