Order Code RL31505
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Recycling Computers and Electronic
Equipment: Legislative and Regulatory
Approaches for “E-Waste”
July 19, 2002
James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Recycling Computers and Electronic Equipment:
Legislative and Regulatory Approaches for “E-Waste”
Summary
Rapid growth in the use of computers and the incorporation of electronic
features in a wide array of consumer products have been among the most important
driving forces of the nation’s economy during the last decade; but they also pose
major potential environmental problems. Rapid improvements in technology have
produced better products, but also growing volumes of obsolete products to be
managed as waste. According to the National Safety Council, which undertook the
first major effort to gather quantitative information on electronic product recycling,
55.4 million personal computers will become obsolete in the United States in 2002.
At an average weight of 70 pounds, obsolete PCs weighing 3.878 billion pounds will
be added to the supply of waste needing management by the recycling and waste
disposal industries in the current year alone.
Management of these products as waste has become an issue of environmental
concern. A computer monitor or television set, for example, generally contains 4-10
pounds of lead. Mercury, cadmium, and other heavy metals are also commonly used
in such equipment. In an incinerator or landfill, these metals can be released to the
environment, contaminating air, ash, and ground water. The presence of such
materials suggests to many that electronic equipment should be managed separately
from the municipal waste stream, and recycled whenever possible.
The United States has done little to address this problem. Unless disposed in
large quantities, used computers and other electronic products may be managed as
municipal solid waste (i.e., the same as ordinary household trash) in most states. In
many locations, used computers have been collected for recycling on special
voluntary collection days, but few jurisdictions offer frequent, comprehensive
recycling opportunities for electronic waste. The exceptions are California and
Massachusetts, where disposal of cathode ray tubes (i.e., television sets and computer
monitors) has been banned – essentially requiring their separate collection for
recycling. Collection for recycling does not guarantee environmentally responsible
management, however; recent reports suggest that large volumes of electronic waste
separated for recycling are being shipped to China and other developing countries,
where primitive recycling methods threaten human health and the environment.
Numerous interested parties, including environmental groups, solid waste
management officials, electronics manufacturers, and retailers, have begun to develop
alternative approaches on a voluntary basis; and elsewhere in the world, notably in
Japan and the European Union, regulations are under development that would force
manufacturers and importers to take back end of life products for recycling and waste
management separate from the municipal waste stream. This report provides
background, discusses some of the initiatives undertaken by these groups, and
identifies options that Congress might consider if it were to address this issue.

---

Contents
The Nature of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Regulatory Structure for E-Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Voluntary Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
State and Local Government Collection Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Manufacturers’ Take Back Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Retailer Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Effects of Voluntary Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
State Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
International Regulatory Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The NEPSI Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Legislative Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Report to Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. Grants for Recycling Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Exemptions from RCRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Bans on Disposal and/or Export of E-Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Regulating the Use of Hazardous Substances in Computers . . . . . . 17
7. Recycled Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Extended Producer Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Management of “Historic” Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Defining E-Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

---

Recycling Computers and
Electronic Equipment: Legislative and
Regulatory Approaches for “E-Waste”
The Nature of the Problem
Rapid improvements in technology and software have made the use of
computers and other electronic products nearly ubiquitous in the United States and
other developed countries; but disposal of these products, when they become “e-
waste” at the end of their useful lives poses major potential environmental problems.
The improvements in technology and software have stimulated new
applications, simplified computer use, and lowered cost, bringing computers within
reach of more and more consumers. In addition, electronic controls have been
incorporated in a growing list of products, from autos to audio equipment to
microwave ovens. On balance, particularly over the last decade, the effect of these
developments has been to stimulate productivity and contribute to the nation’s
longest sustained period of economic growth.
As computers and electronic equipment have improved, however, there has been
a more rapid turnover of such equipment. This rapid improvement produces growing
volumes of obsolete products to be managed as waste. According to the National
Safety Council, which undertook the first major effort to gather quantitative
information on electronic product recycling, the average lifespan of personal
computers will be only 2.4 years in 2002; 55.4 million PCs are expected to become
obsolete in that year.1 At an average weight of 70 pounds, obsolete PCs weighing
3.878 billion pounds will be added to the supply of waste needing to be managed in
2002.
Not all of this amount will actually be disposed in 2002, however. In fact, the
amount disposed may be substantially smaller. Replacing an obsolete computer
generally has more to do with the consumer’s or business’s desire for a
new/improved feature of the replacement model – additional speed or memory, for
example – or, in some cases, the failure of a single component of a larger system.
Obsolete computers that are still in working order are often consigned to spare offices
or basements, where they may occasionally be used, but more likely will sit unused
for months or years. Computers needing repair of a component may suffer a similar
fate, often piled in storage rooms or basements until the owner decides what to do
with them. In part, this storage is motivated by a lack of information on how end-of-
1 National Safety Council, Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report,
May 1999, p. 29.

---

CRS-2
life computers should be disposed. Uncertain what to do, the owners let them sit.
Waste analysts refer to this method of managing used computers as “hoarding.”
There is little hard information regarding the number of computers being hoarded,
but it is widely assumed that hoarding is a common practice.
PCs are only one part of the electronics waste stream. Mainframe computers,
printers and other peripheral equipment, laptops, video gaming systems, televisions,
VCRs, and telecommunications equipment are also changing and being replaced at
a rapid rate.
This equipment and the rechargeable batteries that power increasing numbers
of computers, telephones, and other portable devices pose challenges to the waste
management system. At the end of their useful life, many of these devices are
disposed in municipal waste systems poorly designed to handle such trash.
Electronic equipment can be bulky and not easily compacted. It is largely composed
of glass and metals (materials that don’t burn or decompose) and that, in some cases,
are hazardous: a computer monitor or television set, for example, generally contains
4-10 pounds of lead. Mercury, cadmium, and other heavy metals are also commonly
used in such equipment. In an incinerator or landfill, these metals can be released to
the environment, contaminating air, ash, and ground water. The presence of such
materials suggests to many that electronic equipment should be managed separately
from the municipal waste stream and recycled whenever possible.
Regulatory Structure for E-Waste
The United States has done little to address this problem. Under EPA
regulations, much of the waste would qualify as hazardous. When disposed in
sufficient quantities, it would be subject to regulations requiring generators and
transporters to ship wastes only to permitted hazardous waste management facilities.
These facilities must comply with stringent standards governing treatment, storage,
and disposal of the waste.2
But federal law exempts households and other small-quantity-generators from
hazardous waste management requirements. Generators of up to 220 pounds per
month of electronic waste may dispose of it with ordinary trash or at municipal waste
management facilities in most states without any special requirements. Larger
generators often escape regulation, too, by donating used equipment to educational
or charitable groups for reuse. Such donations are not considered disposal from a
regulatory perspective.
When electronic goods are ready for disposal, recycling can keep them out of
the waste management regulatory scheme. Often, the equipment is shipped outside
the United States, where U.S. regulatory authorities may have little information
concerning the environmental performance of the recycling facility.
Under the federal waste management laws, states remain free to establish more
stringent requirements. Two states (California and Massachusetts) have done so,
2 The regulations are found at 40 CFR Parts 260-265.

---

CRS-3
banning disposal of cathode ray tubes (i.e., television sets and computer monitors)
in municipal landfills and incinerators. Disposal of other electronic waste is not
regulated in any state, however, and, as of early July 2002, no legislation has been
introduced in Congress to address any aspect of the issue.
Even the materials collected for recycling (about 14% of total discards,
according to the National Safety Council3) pose environmental and regulatory
questions. According to one recent report, “Currently the cheapest e-waste recycling
option in the U.S. is to send e-waste overseas: how it is used or disposed of there is
largely unknown.”4
Although there is little current regulation governing disposal of e-waste, a
growing movement among environmental groups, regulatory officials, manufacturers,
and retailers, both in the United States and abroad, has begun to develop alternative
approaches. This report discusses some of the initiatives undertaken by these groups
and identifies approaches that Congress might consider if it were to address this
issue.
Voluntary Initiatives
Recognizing that electronic waste is rapidly increasing, local waste management
officials, manufacturers, and retailers in the United States have developed a number
of voluntary programs to collect electronic products for reuse or recycling. These
initiatives are motivated by a mix of reasons, including the desire to protect the
environment from the effects of disposal, an interest in demonstrating the feasibility
of separate collection and recycling, a sense that it is good business and good public
relations to do so, the wish to provide a stimulus for companies pioneering
“demanufacturing” and recycling technologies, and in response to the increasing
discussion of regulatory approaches under development in Europe and Japan.
State and Local Government Collection Efforts. Over the past several
years, many local governments have undertaken recycling collection events for
computer equipment. According to the Electronic Industries Alliance, collection
events are scheduled at at least 330 locations in 21 states and the District of
Columbia.5
These events generally follow the model of household hazardous waste
collection. Since the early 1980s, hundreds of local governments have organized
occasional collection of hazardous waste (paints, used oil, batteries, pesticides, etc.),
generally by establishing a one-day event, or a series of such events, at central
3 Ibid., p. viii. These machines are largely collected from businesses, rather than
households.
4 Global Futures Foundation, Computers, E-Waste, and Product Stewardship: Is California
Ready for the Challenge?, Report for U.S. EPA Region IX, June 25, 2001, Executive
Summary, available at [http://www.globalff.org/].
5 For comprehensive state-by-state information on these events, see the web site of the
Electronic Industries Alliance at [http://www.eiae.org/].

---

CRS-4
locations. These events are geared toward households (rather than businesses),
allowing citizens of the jurisdiction to bring such wastes to a collection point where
the wastes are separated by type for recycling or hazardous waste disposal. The
objective is to keep hazardous wastes out of the ordinary municipal waste stream,
protecting sanitation workers and the environment.
In the past several years, a number of jurisdictions have added computer
equipment to the list of items that they will accept at such events. Other jurisdictions
have staged similar events focused on computers alone. The response has indicated
that many consumers will participate in separate collection programs. In Ohio, for
example, the Cleveland-area’s Cuyahoga County Solid Waste District collected 161
tons of old computers at two events in April and August of 2001. The events were
so popular that the district is now planning recycling drives for old televisions and
other electronic equipment.6 In Rhode Island, the state’s Resource Recovery
Corporation sponsored drop-off collections on two back-to-back Saturdays, in which
87 tons of unwanted computers were collected. Thousands of the state’s residents
waited up to an hour in wintry weather to recycle computers. The state officials were
so impressed by the turnout that they began a permanent program, with collections
at a central location on the last Saturday of every month.7
Manufacturers’ Take Back Programs. Some computer manufacturers
have also begun programs in which they take back old equipment for recycling.
While these programs typically charge a fee, they are broader than the municipal
programs in one respect: they accept computers returned by businesses as well as
individuals.
IBM, for example, is offering to manage any manufacturer’s end-of-life personal
computers, “including system units, monitors, printers, and optional attachments” for
a fee of $29.99. The fee covers the cost of shipping.8 Depending on the age and
performance capability of the computer, IBM’s recycling service will recycle and
reuse parts or refurbish the computer for donation to nonprofit organizations. In the
latter case, the donor will receive a receipt for potential deduction on their annual tax
return. Even before announcing this program, IBM states that it “recycled more than
120 million pounds of equipment parts and machines in 1999, with less than four
percent deemed unsalvageable/non-recyclable.”9 This equipment came from IBM’s
internal operations and from equipment the company leased to customers.
Hewlett-Packard (HP) also offers to accept for evaluation and recycling– from
both businesses and individuals – a wide range of computer equipment, whether or
6 “Recycling in Bits and Bytes,” Waste News, September 17, 2001, p. 6.
7 “Permanent Computer Drop-Off Program Established,” Rhode Island Resource Recovery
C o r p o r a t i o n , N e w s a n d E v e n t s , u n d a t e d ( J a n u a r y 2 0 0 1 ? ) , a t
[http://www.rirrc.org/site/news/story.asp?NewsID=19].
8 See “IBM Announces Product Recycling Programs for Consumers, Small Businesses &
E n t e r p r i s e s , ” P r e s s R e l e a s e , N o v e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 0 , a v a i l a b l e a t
[http://www.ibm.com/Press/prnews.nsf/jan/64D3E7BBB37BEF4285256997005857E0].
9 Ibid.

---

CRS-5
not the company manufactured it. Their service “includes pickup, transportation,
evaluation for reuse or donation, and environmentally sound recycling for products
ranging from PCs and printers to servers and scanners.”10 In HP’s case, the fee is
variable, from $13 to $34 per item, depending on the type and quantity of hardware
returned.
Sony has also begun taking back equipment for recycling from some U.S.
consumers. In October 2000, the company announced a five-year recycling
agreement with the State of Minnesota and Waste Management, Inc. under which
Minnesota consumers can return any Sony product to designated collection points for
recycling at no cost.11
The Sony decision was preceded by a 3-month pilot program, in August-October
1999, in which 575 tons of used electronic equipment was collected and analyzed.12
Perhaps surprisingly, televisions – not computers – made up the bulk of the items
collected, by weight, accounting for 69% of the total weight of items collected.
Roughly half of these televisions were manufactured before 1980, and 15% were
orphan products (products whose manufacturers are no longer in business).
The waste management industry has also become involved in separate collection
and recycling of electronic waste. In the past two years, Waste Management, Inc.,
through its Asset Recovery Group, has opened a network of eight e-scrap facilities
across the country that sort and recycle more than 60 million pounds of e-scrap per
year.13
Retailer Programs. Retailers are also becoming interested in promoting
recycling of electronic equipment, although thus far, their efforts appear limited. In
April 2001, Best Buy announced that it would begin periodic collections to allow
consumers to drop off used electronic items for recycling. Under Phase I of their
program, the company held special recycling collection events at 11 sites in 8 states
across the country in the summer and fall of 2001. In later phases, the company
expects to expand the service “to ensure that consumers in every Best Buy
community will be close to a special electronics recycling event at least once a
year.”14
10 See “HP Recycling Program Helps Keep Computer Parts Out of Landfills,” Press Release,
May 21, 2001, available at [http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/21may01a.htm].
11 “Sony Electronics Teams with State of Minnesota and Waste Management, Inc. to Kick
Off New Electronics Recycling Program,” Press Release, October 18, 2000, available at
[http://imagtest.sel.sony.com/SEL/corpcomm/news/corporate/108.html].
12 For a discussion of this pilot program, see “Recycling Used Electronics,” Report on
M i n n e s o t a ’ s D e m o n s t r a t i o n P r o j e c t , J u l y 2 0 0 1 , a t
[http://www.moea.state.mn.us/plugin/report.cfm].
13 “Waste Management Announces Electronics Recycling Program With Sony Electronics,
State of Minnesota,” Press Release, October 18, 2000, available at
[http://www.wm.com/press/PR/2000/press0080.asp].
14 “Best Buy Electronics Recycling Program,” program introduction, undated, available at
(continued...)

---

CRS-6
Under the Best Buy program, recycling collections were two-day events.
Consumers could bring computers, monitors, keyboards, printers, fax machines, TVs,
stereos, camcorders, cell phones, rechargeable batteries, VCRs, and small household
appliances of any brand to the designated location (generally a Best Buy store).
Drop-off was generally free, except for computer monitors and TVs, for which there
were handling fees of $10 and $15 respectively. The company’s web site notes that,
in every location, they received substantial amounts of publicity, including television
news coverage, and, in one case, the web site commented that the “event had a
noticeable and positive reaction on store sales that weekend.”15
Effects of Voluntary Programs
Data concerning the results of voluntary programs (whether run by
municipalities, manufacturers, or retailers) indicate that there is substantial interest
in electronics recycling. In addition, the programs have demonstrated a number of
models for how larger (possibly mandatory) programs might be organized. Overall,
however, the availability and use of such programs has only scratched the surface of
what is available to be recycled, with little impact on overall recycling rates.
For example, the IBM take-back program – perhaps because it charges
consumers nearly $30 to recycle a computer – was reported to have handled fewer
than 1,000 computers (0.03% of the company’s annual sales) as of June 2001 (i.e.,
after 6 months of operation).16 Best Buy, while reporting returns of 257,243 pounds
(128 tons) of scrap electronics in the first year of its program, offered recycling
events at only 9 of its 415 retail locations. Overall, according to Ted Smith,
Executive Director of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, “while millions of
computers have been ‘junked’ over the past few years, the rate of recycling has
decreased due to a lack of effective systems or policies.”17
The rate of electronic product recycling, estimated at 14% by the National
Safety Council, relies heavily on the return to manufacturers of leased equipment.
Such returns used to be standard practice in the computer industry: customers leased
equipment, and as they traded up to newer, faster models, manufacturers took the
older models in return. As the price and size of computers became smaller, leasing
gave way to outright purchase in most cases, and with that transition, manufacturer
responsibility for end-of-life products disappeared.
14(...continued)
[http://www.e4partners.com/Best%20Buy%20Electronics%20Recycling.htm].
15 “Event Results (December 5 Update),” at Ibid.
16 Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Poison PCs and Toxic TVs: California’s Biggest
Environmental Crisis that You’ve Never Heard Of, June 19, 2001, p. 3. The report is
available at [http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/pubs/poisonpc.htm].
17 Ted Smith, “Should PC Makers Recycle Wares?”, June 24, 1999, as quoted in Ibid., p.
1.

---

CRS-7
State Regulations
As noted earlier, two states have promulgated regulations to deal with aspects
of electronic waste disposal.
Massachusetts. Massachusetts banned the disposal of cathode ray tubes
(CRTs) in landfills and incinerators as of April 1, 2000, and established a grant
program that helped develop an infrastructure for recycling them. CRTs are the
picture tubes that form the bulk of most televisions and computer monitors.
According to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), a
wide array of organizations, including the University of Massachusetts, non-profits
(such as the Salvation Army and Goodwill Industries), for-profit companies, and
municipalities established an infrastructure to collect, repair, reuse, and recycle CRTs
as Massachusetts implemented its ban on disposal. The state encouraged the
development of the collection and recycling infrastructure through grants. Measured
by the number of collection programs, this effort appears to have been wildly
successful. Of the nationwide total of 330 electronics collection programs identified
by the Electronic Industries Alliance, 255 (77%) are in Massachusetts.
The collected monitors and televisions have multiple uses. A high percentage
(perhaps 4 in 10, according to a DEP official) are still useable or repairable, and can
be resold. In other cases, the face plate of the picture tube is removed from the CRT
for reuse. In still others, the CRT is crushed and the glass is sent to a smelter for
recycling.
One problem Massachusetts had in implementing its program was obtaining
approval from EPA. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
EPA is given authority to regulate hazardous waste, but may authorize states to run
the program if the state can demonstrate that its regulations are equivalent to and
consistent with EPA’s. As discussed earlier, CRTs are considered hazardous waste
under EPA regulations, because of the high amount of lead they contain.
Massachusetts wanted to exempt CRTs from hazardous waste management
regulations in order to avoid regulatory requirements that would increase the cost of
its program to entities handling the CRTs. After prolonged negotiations with EPA,
Massachusetts rewrote its hazardous waste regulations to provide a conditional
exemption from the hazardous waste program provided that the CRTs are managed
according to specific regulations that, among other things, prohibit disposal.
EPA granted the state only an interim, 3-year authorization to run the CRT
program. The state had initially planned to expand the program to cover other
electronic products, but because of the difficulties it encountered with EPA, it does
not now plan to do so.
In part because of the experience with Massachusetts, and in part because of a
desire to stimulate recycling throughout the United States, EPA has now proposed

---

CRS-8
a set of special exemptions from the hazardous waste rules for computer recycling.
The proposed changes were published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2002.18
California. In California, “the disposal of waste CRTs in municipal landfills
has always been prohibited,” according to Peggy Harris, Chief of the State
Regulatory Programs Division, Hazardous Waste Management Program.19 But this
fact was not widely appreciated until March 2001, when the state’s Department of
Toxic Substances Control responded to a letter from the Materials for the Future
Foundation (MFF). MFF, which has hosted several working group meetings to
promote the development of recovery and recycling infrastructures for electronic
products, asked the state for clarification of how its hazardous waste regulations
applied to disposal of CRTs. The response, dated March 20, 2001 (and subsequently
revised, April 3, 2001) received substantial attention in environmental, industry, and
regulatory circles, and in the press.
In the letter, the Department stated that CRTs are considered hazardous waste
under both federal and state law, when discarded. Unlike federal law, the letter went
on, California law does not contain exemptions for household or small quantity
generators. Therefore, in California, persons that generate hazardous waste at their
home, or who are small generators, must transport their hazardous waste (including
CRTs) to a household hazardous waste collection facility for disposal.20
International Regulatory Developments
Computers and consumer electronics have long been among the most
international of industries. Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, European, and American
companies sell products worldwide, with production facilities and component
manufacturing plants in many different countries. As a result, developments in
Europe and the Pacific Rim – where numerous countries are developing legislation
and regulations that would reduce the volume of electronic waste, shift the burden
for its management from the public sector to industry, and reduce the toxicity of
materials used in production – are being closely watched by executives in this
country. This section discusses developments in several major countries, including
Switzerland, the Netherlands, Japan, and the European Union.
Switzerland. Switzerland was the first country to enact broad legislation: on
January 14, 1998, the Swiss enacted an ordinance on separate collection and
recycling of electronic waste.21 The ordinance, which went into effect on July 1,
18 67 Federal Register 40508, June 12, 2002.
19 Letter of Peggy Harris to Sheila Davis, MFF, April 3, 2001, available at
[http://www.materials4future.org/ELECTRONICS/DTSCresponse3-20.html].
20 Ibid.
21This section is based on the Ordonnance sur la Restitution, la Reprise et l’Elimination des
Appareils Electriques et Electroniques of January 14, 1998, available in French on the Swiss
Federal Government website at [http://www.buwal.ch/abfall/f/elektronikschrott.htm].
According to the Swiss Embassy, the ordinance has not been translated into English,
(continued...)

---

CRS-9
1998, requires separate collection and recycling of electronic waste, including
electronic equipment used at home as well as office equipment, computer equipment,
communications equipment, and household appliances. According to the ordinance,
consumers are required to take used equipment back to a manufacturer, an importer,
or a retailer. Retailers are required to take back old equipment if they offer the same
sort of product for sale. Wholesalers and intermediaries likewise have an obligation
to accept returns, although they can arrange for waste equipment to be delivered
directly to a waste-handling facility.
Manufacturers and importers are only required to take back equipment of their
own brand (or, in the case of importers, of brands that they import). This reinforces
one of the ordinance’s primary objectives, which is to serve as an incentive to
manufacturers to consider the question of waste management during the design of a
product. Manufacturers who produce equipment that is easily disassembled and
made of materials easily recycled and causing little pollution can thus reduce their
costs vis-a-vis their competitors.
The ordinance leaves most details of the recycling and management of returned
items to industry or to state-level (canton) governments. Regulations on the
recycling and management of the returned items and permitting or authorizing the
necessary facilities, for example, are left to the cantons. The ordinance contains no
requirements on financing; determining how to finance and structure the return
system is left to industry and the markets to decide. The Swiss federal government
does have one other role, however: the regulation of exports, in order to insure that
disposal in other countries is in accord with those countries’ regulations and is
respectful of the environment.
In many respects, such as the required take-back provisions and the flexibility
given industry to devise its own collection and recycling schemes, the Swiss system
is similar to regulations established elsewhere in Europe to encourage recovery and
recycling of packaging waste. These regulatory systems have the same general
objective: by imposing responsibility for waste management on producers and
importers, they aim to affect manufacturer decisions regarding product design, reuse,
and recyclability.
Netherlands. Shortly after the Swiss enacted their ordinance, the Dutch
government issued a Decree on the Removal of Electric and Electronic Appliances
(also referred to as the Disposal of White and Brown Goods Decree), April 21,
1998.22 The decree requires retailers, manufacturers, and importers of electric and
electronic appliances to finance the collection and to take back end-of-life equipment,
21(...continued)
although information on the recycling requirements is available in English on the
government’s website.
22 An unofficial translation of the decree and an explanatory memorandum can be found on
the Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment website at
[http://www.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=1&goto=40]. Click on “English,” “Environment,”
“White and Brown Goods.”

---

CRS-10
including computers, from consumers. It prohibits incineration and landfilling of the
products.
The decree applied to large appliances (televisions, video and sound equipment,
computers, printers, and telecommunications equipment, as well as refrigerators,
freezers, washers, dryers, and stoves) as of January 1, 1999. Smaller appliances were
covered as of January 1, 2000. The decree requires retailers to accept used
appliances in trade, and requires local authorities to provide separate collection of
such appliances from households, as well as a place to which retailers may take
equipment traded in. Manufacturers and importers must take back products of their
brand from retailers and local authorities and must reimburse retailers, repair
companies, and local authorities for the cost of collecting their products.
The Dutch system, which is the only one for which we were able to obtain data,
“works well after two years of operation,” according to a Dutch source; it has
“recycling rates higher than anticipated” and “costs lower than anticipated.”23 The
system captured 76% of end-of-life televisions in its first two years, for example, and
processing costs for TVs were lower than budgeted, allowing the recycling fees
charged on new televisions to be lowered from $10 to $7.24
In general, electrical and electronic products are sorted and processed by an
industry-funded recycling organization (known by its Dutch initials, NVMP), rather
than being taken back by individual manufacturers and importers. NVMP is funded
by fixed recycling fees imposed on the sale of new products. These range as high as
$15 for refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioners; small items like radios and CD
players initially had fees of $2.00, but as of July 2001 are not subject to fees.
Dutch computers are collected through a separate system, not through NVMP.
There are no recycling fees paid directly by consumers in this system; rather,
producers and importers are paying the costs of computer recycling, in proportion to
each company’s share of the products returned. About 25% of the products returned
are orphans (i.e., the manufacturer is no longer doing business in the Netherlands).
The cost for managing these products is split among companies still in business
according to each company’s share of the recycled products. One potential inequity
of this system is that it places a heavier burden on companies that had a large market
share in the past, irrespective of their current sales. New entrants to the market, by
contrast, do not pay for the management of historic or orphan waste, even if they
have a significant share of current sales.25
23 Ab Stevels. “Experiences with the Take-Back of White and Brown Goods in The
Netherlands,” Sustainable Development International, available at
[http://www.sustdev.org/Features/DelftUni.pdf]. The author is affiliated with Delft
University of Technology and Phillips Consumer Electronics.
24 Ibid., p. 3.
25 Personal communication, Alan Phipps, Product Stewardship Initiative, University of
Massachusetts (Lowell). Mr. Phipps has researched the Dutch electronics recycling
program for the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative, which is described
elsewhere in this report.

---

CRS-11
Another criticism of the Dutch system is that, as currently structured, it provides
little incentive for companies to design their products for recycling, since all products
of a given type are charged the same recycling fee.
Japan. In Japan, a Law for Recycling Specified Kinds of Home Appliance
(also referred to as the Home Appliances Recycling Law) was enacted in June 1998.
The law requires that retailers collect – and that manufacturers and importers recycle
– four types of household appliances: televisions, refrigerators, washing machines,
and air conditioners. The law’s inclusion of televisions has encouraged the
development of a TV and CRT recycling industry in Japan, where substantial
research has gone into the development of TV dismantling and recycling
technologies since the early 1990s. On its web-site, for example, Sony reports that
it has developed automated recycling lines that open the television cabinet, remove
the CRT, separate the front panel from the rear funnel, and pulverize the glass for
recycling. Sony has cooperated with other companies to establish 190 take-back sites
and 15 recycling plants in Japan since enactment of this law.
Japan began compulsory recycling of business computers in April 2001, and will
expand the requirement to PCs in the summer of 2003. In anticipation of this
requirement, the Japanese PC manufacturing industry and the Ministry of Economy,
Trade, and Industry are reported to have agreed to add recycling fees to the price of
new computers when the requirement goes into effect. The fees are expected to
range from $30 - 40 for desktop units to $10 - 15 for laptops.26
European Union. While the above countries have already implemented take-
back and recycling requirements for electronic products, the efforts of the 15-nation
European Union (EU), whose regulatory program is still under development, has
aroused far greater interest. The size and importance of the European Union (376
million consumers in some of the world’s wealthiest economies) and the broad sweep
of the requirements under discussion have made EU developments the principal
focus of discussion among participants and observers of the electronics industry.
The draft European Union Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment (WEEE),27 the most recent revision of which is dated April 10, 2002,
26 “Japan to Require Computer Recycling Starting in Summer 2003, Agency Says” Daily
Environment Report, March 6, 2002, p. A-6.
27 Finding the current version of the directive is a complicated process, particularly if one
is not familiar with European Union institutions. There are at present separate versions
approved by the European Parliament and by the Council of Ministers. These must be
reconciled before the directive is approved. In addition, the European Commission, the
bureaucratic staff of the EU, has issued an Opinion identifying those amendments approved
by the Parliament that should be accepted in full, in part, or in principle, and those that
“cannot be accepted.” The full text of the directive as first proposed, including a 55-page
Explanatory Memorandum, can be found on the European Union’s EUR-Lex website, under
“Legislation in preparation” [http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/search/search_lip.html]. The
original proposal, Document COM (2000) 0347 (01), can be found there by clicking on
“Environment, consumers and health protection ,” then “Waste management and clean
technology,” then searching for the document number 2000 0347. As of July 2002, the most
(continued...)

---

CRS-12
would establish comprehensive take-back and recycling requirements for retailers,
manufacturers, and importers of electrical and electronic products. The draft contains
a two-and-a- half-page list of covered products, including household appliances,
computer and telecommunication equipment, consumer electronics (TVs, radios,
VCRs, etc.), lighting equipment, tools, toys, medical equipment, monitors and
controls, and vending and ATM machines.
EU directives are somewhat different from federal law in the United States.
Unlike U.S. federal laws, which can bind individuals and corporations directly, EU
directives are implemented and enforced indirectly, by requiring that the Member
States of the Union enact legislation meeting the directive’s requirements. In this
case, the Member States would be required to have a legal and regulatory framework
in place 18 months after the entry into force of the Directive.
The draft directive on WEEE would provide, among other requirements, that
Member States shall: 1) ensure that systems are set up so that consumers can return
WEEE for reuse, recycling, or disposal free of charge; 2) ensure that retailers (termed
“distributors” in the directive) offer to take WEEE back free of charge when they
supply a new, similar product; 3) ensure that producers and importers provide for
collection of WEEE from holders other than households; 4) regulate collection and
treatment of WEEE to ensure its suitability for reuse and recycling; and 5) meet a
separate collection target from households of at least 6 kilograms (13.2 pounds) per
person per year by December 31, 2005.28
In Article 6, the directive sets targets for collection and recycling of the various
categories of products. For computer and telecommunications equipment (category
3) and consumer electronics, including televisions, VCRs, and audio equipment
(Category 4), the target rate of recovery would be 85% by December 31, 2005,29 with
reuse and recycling of the components, materials, and substances collected to be 65%
by weight. Additional targets are to be set for the years beyond 2008, but are not
specified in the directive.
27(...continued)
recent related document, which lists all earlier versions, is COM (2002) 0353, which can be
found under “Recent proposals not yet included in the directory” on the EUR-Lex site. The
most recent Council version of the Directive can be found at: “Common Position (EC) No
20/2002 of 4 December 2001,” Official Journal of the European Communities 45.C110E (7
May 2002): 1-22, available at
[http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2002/ce110/ce11020020507en00010022.pdf].
Amendments made to this Common Position by the European Parliament on April 10, 2002
can be found at: European Parliament 2002-2003. “Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment.” Texts Adopted at the Sitting of Wednesday 10 April 2002 Part One. pp. 18-36,
available at [http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/calendar?APP=PDF&TYPE=
PV2&FILE=p0020410EN.pdf&LANGUE=EN].
28 These targets are still under debate. The European Parliament’s latest amendments
suggested 6 kilograms by December 31, 2005, but the Council’s Common Position has 4
kilograms by 3 years after the Directive enters into force.
29 These targets are also being debated. The European Parliament suggested 85% by
December 31, 2005, while the Council’s Common Position is a 75% rate of recovery by 46
months after entry into force of the Directive.

---

CRS-13
The directive would require that producers and importers finance the separate
collection of waste electronics either on their own or through collective systems
financed by themselves and other members of the industry. The cost of managing
waste from products put on the market before the directive’s entry into force
(historical waste) is to be shared by all existing producers based on their market
share. Users other than private households may be made partly or totally responsible
for financing the costs of management of their historic waste.
The directive provides for labeling and consumer information, and for
submission of annual reports on quantities placed on the market, as well as collection
and recycling.
The EU also has proposed addressing the issue of hazardous substances in
electronic waste. In Annex II of the WEEE draft, the directive requires that certain
hazardous substances (including PCBs, mercury, batteries, printed circuit boards,
toner cartridges, plastic containing brominated flame retardants, asbestos, CRTs,
CFCs, liquid crystal displays, and components containing radioactive substances) be
removed from waste electrical and electronic equipment and treated separately.
There is also a separate draft directive on the Regulation of Hazardous Substances
(RoHS), in which the EU proposes that 6 hazardous substances (lead, mercury,
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls [PBBs], and
polybrominated diphenyl ether [PBDE]) be replaced by other substances in electrical
and electronic equipment by January 1, 2006. The directive provides a list of
exemptions, however, including use of lead in the glass of cathode ray tubes and in
solder, mercury in fluorescent lighting, and lead as radiation protection. In addition,
the prohibited substances may continue to be used in spare parts for equipment that
was placed on the market before January 1, 2006.
As noted previously, the proposed EU directive is broad in scope, setting
aggressive collection, reuse, and recycling targets for dozens of products and
industries. But the basic principles – producer responsibility for take-back and for
financing collection and recovery systems, fees on new products to cover the cost of
managing historical waste, recycling targets, and controls on hazardous substances
– appear common to many European and Japanese recycling programs.
As of June 2002, the EU directives had not been finalized.
The NEPSI Process
Developments in other countries, the beginnings of state regulatory programs
in the United States, and the desire to address what many see as an emerging
environmental problem have led a diverse group of U.S. stakeholders to establish a
formal dialogue called the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative
(NEPSI). Coordinated by the Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies at
the University of Tennessee and funded by EPA, NEPSI participants include the
Electronic Industries Alliance, several computer and consumer electronics
manufacturers, electronic product retailers, waste management firms, EPA, 15 state

---

CRS-14
governments, environmental groups, and other organizations interested in computer
recycling issues.30
NEPSI began meeting in June 2001, and hopes to reach agreement on the
framework for an electronics recycling initiative in the latter part of 2002.
Discussions have centered around the establishment of a national financing system
for recovery of used computers and TVs. One option under consideration is
assessment of fees on the sale of new computers and TVs.
Legislative Approaches
With any environmental issue, growing interest among individuals and interest
groups in what appears to be a national or international problem, frequent attention
to the issue in the press, and consideration of a diverse array of legislative and
regulatory options among the states are often precursors of congressional interest.
Thus, although Congress has not yet held hearings on electronic waste, many assume
Congress is likely to take up this issue given the increasing interest by other
stakeholders.
If Congress decided to address the subject, there are at least nine options that
might arise during discussions: 1) a Report to Congress on e-waste issues; 2) grants
for the development of recycling infrastructure; 3) legislation establishing
exemptions from the hazardous waste program to facilitate recycling of computers
or other e-waste; 4) labeling to encourage recycling or provide environmental
information to consumers; 5) bans on disposal and/or export of e-waste; 6) regulation
of the use of hazardous substances in computer equipment; 7) requiring reuse or
recycled content in computer manufacture; 8) an “extended producer responsibility”
system, requiring manufacturers and importers to take back computers for recycling,
either as individual companies responsible for their own brands, or collectively
through an industry consortium; and 9) a fee-based system for the management of
“historic” waste.
An additional question that presents itself is what to include in the definition of
computers (or electronic waste) that might be the subject of legislation. This
question is addressed in a separate section at the conclusion of this report.
1. Report to Congress. At present, there is a dearth of information on the
U.S. electronics waste stream. Such basic facts as current and projected amounts of
electronic waste, the amounts and types of heavy metals and other toxic substances
contained in such products, how such waste is managed, and the impact of its
disposal on the environment are all essentially unknown.
Few states regulate such waste separately from the municipal waste stream,
which means that it can be disposed in municipal landfills or incinerators. Under
EPA’s hazardous waste regulations, disposal of more than 100 kilograms (220
30 For information on NEPSI, including the identity of the stakeholders, timelines, and
meeting notes, see [http://eerc.ra.utk.edu/clean/nepsi/].

---

CRS-15
pounds) of such waste per month is likely to qualify as hazardous waste disposal,
subject to strict regulatory requirements. It is not clear how stringently this
requirement is enforced.
A Report to Congress, defining e-waste, providing basic information on the
quantities and types of such waste, describing how it is currently managed, and
outlining options for management of electronic products at the end of their useful
lives could be a useful starting point.
2. Grants for Recycling Infrastructure. If one wanted to establish
universal requirements for recycling electronic waste, implementation of such
requirements would likely be thwarted initially by the absence of a national
infrastructure to collect and manage the products being returned. E-waste recycling
is in its infancy. Most states and local governments have no separate collection
program for computers or other electronic products, and few facilities are equipped
to process the materials that are collected. Much of the processing/recycling that is
done occurs overseas.
Thus, the development of a recycling infrastructure through a grant or loan
program may merit consideration. A model for this effort could be the program in
Massachusetts. As noted earlier, Massachusetts implemented a ban on the disposal
of computer monitors and televisions containing cathode ray tubes (CRTs) in April
2000. Prior to implementation of the ban, the University of Massachusetts, a variety
of non-profits (such as the Salvation Army and Goodwill Industries), for-profit
companies, and municipalities established an infrastructure to collect, repair, reuse,
and recycle CRTs. The State encouraged the development of the collection and
recycling infrastructure through a municipal grant program. The program was not
large: according to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP), the state spent $517,000 combined in FY 1999 - FY 2001, and (as of June)
$269,000 in FY 2002.31 The grants covered the cost of processing collected materials
for each of the state’s 331 cities and towns for the first year in which they collected
e-waste. During that year, the local governments developed programs for collection
and were able to determine the amounts they would need to budget to continue the
programs in succeeding years.
Extrapolating these amounts on the basis of population, a comparable program
for all 50 states might cost about $10 million annually.
3. Exemptions from RCRA. A third approach, used by Congress and EPA
to encourage recycling of batteries in 1996, would be to amend the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (generally referred to as “RCRA”32) to exempt e-waste from portions
of the hazardous waste management rules, provided that the material is reused or
recycled. One model for this is EPA’s “universal waste” rule, which exempts waste
31 Personal communication, Peggy Harlowe, Massachusetts DEP, June 12, 2002.
32 RCRA refers to the title of a comprehensive set of amendments to the Solid Waste
Disposal Act. These amendments, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (P.L. 94-
580), were enacted in 1976. The statute has since been amended seven more times,
however, including comprehensive amendments in 1984.

---

CRS-16
batteries, pesticides, and thermostats from portions of the hazardous waste
management regulations in order to encourage their recycling. When a waste is listed
as a universal waste, handlers can accumulate a greater quantity of the waste and hold
it for a longer time without requiring a hazardous waste storage permit. Universal
wastes are also exempt from the requirement that transporters carry a manifest with
detailed information when handling hazardous waste, thus permitting transport by
common carriers in many cases. Adding computers and/or other electronics to the
universal waste stream would provide clarification as to what type of waste these
items are considered to be.
One drawback of the universal waste approach is that states are not required to
adopt the universal waste designations: under the hazardous waste program, states
are allowed to have regulations that are more stringent than the federal requirements.
If not all states adopt the designation of e-waste as universal waste, transporting end-
of-life computers and other waste electronic products through states with differing
regulations may become burdensome for handlers. To address this issue as regards
rechargeable batteries, Congress enacted the Mercury Containing and Rechargeable
Battery Management Act in 1996 (P.L. 104-142). This act established the universal
waste rule for rechargeable batteries as law in all 50 states and preempted state and
local laws that conflicted with or were more stringent than its requirements.
Without new legislation, EPA is already moving to exempt CRTs from all
hazardous waste requirements using a different approach. On June 12, 2002, the
Agency proposed a rule that would exempt cathode ray tubes and glass removed from
them from being considered solid waste when sent for recycling. Under RCRA,
waste generators have to decide whether an item is subject to RCRA hazardous waste
regulations (and if so, manage it as such) only if that item is first defined as solid
waste. By declaring that CRTs are not solid waste, the Agency would exempt them
from all hazardous waste regulations. The intention of this exemption is to streamline
the reuse and recycling process for CRTs.
4. Labeling. A fourth option would be to require labeling of computers to
encourage recycling or to provide environmental information to consumers. The
content of such labels would be determined by the other components of the
legislation. For example, the European Union intends to require labels that will
identify electronic equipment subject to its requirements that manufacturers and
importers take equipment back for reuse or recycling. Other types of labels might
identify the percentage of recycled materials used in the product, indicate compliance
with prohibitions on the use of hazardous substances, identify materials used in order
to facilitate their recycling, or communicate to consumers if disposal of certain
components is to be prohibited.
5. Bans on Disposal and/or Export of E-Waste. As noted earlier,
because of the increasing volume of CRTs and the toxicity of some CRT
components, Massachusetts and California have prohibited disposal of these products
in landfills and incinerators. Although we have little information concerning the
overall effects of these disposal bans, the prohibitions have apparently served as a
stimulus to the development of recycling and reuse options in the two states.
Similarly, a federal prohibition might serve as a stimulus at the national level,

---

CRS-17
provided it gave the waste management and recycling industries sufficient time to
develop alternatives to disposal.
An important issue related to this option, would be whether to regulate exports
of CRTs and other e-waste, as well as prohibiting their disposal in the United States.
Exporting Harm, a recent report by the Basel Action Network and the Silicon Valley
Toxics Coalition, concludes that such exports (often identified as being for the
purpose of recycling) have served as a means of escaping from U.S. regulation, and
in many cases pose serious health and environmental threats in the receiving
countries. According to the report, “Informed recycling industry sources estimate
that between 50 to 80 percent of the wastes collected for recycling are not recycled
domestically at all, but very quickly placed on container ships bound for destinations
like China.”33 Thus, restrictions on disposal without accompanying controls on
exports might simply transfer a greater share of the problems associated with
management of the waste overseas.
On the other hand, a prohibition on the export of materials collected for
recycling would cut recyclers off from many of the markets able to reuse the
materials. A significant portion of the manufacture and assembly of CRTs and
computers occurs in Asian countries. If recovered materials cannot be shipped there,
recycling and reuse will be difficult to achieve.
A possible solution might involve regulation rather than prohibition of exports,
with specific record-keeping and reporting requirements, and shipment allowed only
to facilities that have been certified to meet high standards for recycling, worker
protection, and waste management. This option might require further development
to identify the exact nature of feasible controls or prohibitions and to identify a
certifying authority, before legislation along these lines could be drafted.
6. Regulating the Use of Hazardous Substances in Computers. A
sixth option is suggested by the European Union (EU) draft directive on the
Regulation of Hazardous Substances (RoHS). This directive would – with some
important exceptions – ban lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium,
polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) and polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) from
electrical and electronic equipment put on the market after a specific date. A number
of items, including lead in CRT glass, would be exempt from the ban because of the
lack of substitutes.
Such a ban, it is argued, would limit hazardous substances in electronics and
therefore reduce the hazards of exposure to employees, recyclers and waste managers
(risks of exposure to users are thought to be negligible). Consultation with industry
and recyclers would be helpful to determine what non-hazardous substitutes exist for
the substances to be regulated and whether the benefits of such substitution outweigh
the costs.
33 Basel Action Network and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Exporting Harm, February
25, 2002, p. 2.

---

CRS-18
One possible problem with this approach is that banning hazardous substances
could depress the market for reuse. If hazardous materials are banned, then spare
parts from older computers would no longer be able to be reused to make new
computers. The European Parliament is attempting to get around this problem by
proposing language that would exempt reused equipment and spare parts from the
ban. The current EP draft reads:
This Directive does not apply to the reuse of electrical and electronic
equipment or its components, which are put on the market before [the
prohibition date]. This includes the reuse of these components in new
electrical and electronic equipment put on the market.
[The prohibition] shall not apply to spare parts for equipment and the
repair of equipment put on the market before [the prohibition date].34
Language such as this could be useful to ensure that the reuse market continues to
function.
7. Recycled Content. A seventh option would be to stimulate the markets
for reuse and recycling of computer components by requiring recycled content in new
computer equipment. Most recycling and waste management experts would agree
that collecting material for recycling is an incomplete exercise unless markets for
reuse of the material are assured; but mandating the reuse of such material poses a
number of logistical problems. Computer components are manufactured in numerous
locations and often assembled in locations far from the places of manufacture. The
parts are made of at least 36 different materials, according to one recent analysis,35
many of them combined in ways that may be difficult to separate for recycling or
reuse.
On the other hand, according to the same analysis, six components – silica
(much of it used in glass), plastics, iron, aluminum, copper, and lead – account for
95.8% of the weight of a typical desktop computer. Many of the parts containing
these materials can be recycled. The key might be to set recycled content or reuse
requirements for some or all of the specific computer components, such as the CRT,
plastic casing, or specific metals.
8. Extended Producer Responsibility. Under “extended producer
responsibility” (EPR), which is at the heart of the Asian and European proposals for
regulation of e-waste, manufacturers and importers of electronic products would be
held responsible for the management of those products at the end of their useful life.
34European Parliament 2002-2003. "Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic
Equipment." Texts Adopted at the Sitting of Wednesday 10 April 2002 Part One. pp. 37-41.
Article 2, Paragraph 2(a) and Article 4, Paragraph 2(a). Available at:
[http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/calendar?APP=PDF&TYPE=PV2&FILE
=p0020410EN.pdf&LANGUE=EN].
35Handy and Harmon Electronic Materials Corp., as cited in Exporting Harm, p. 44.

---

CRS-19
EPR can be imposed on producers individually or collectively. In the individual
approach, a producer or importer would be responsible for the take-back and
management of its own products. By placing responsibility on individual companies,
this approach creates incentives to design and manufacture the products in ways that
simplify recycling and reuse. And, by allowing reuse of component parts, this
approach could provide potentially large cost savings in the manufacture or
remanufacture of products.
While it has potential advantages, individual producer responsibility also has
potential drawbacks. The collection and sorting of e-waste in such a system could
be costly and cumbersome, given that each manufacturer’s products would need to
be collected or sorted separately. One way to implement such a program would be
by requiring retailers to accept returns of the brands of equipment that they offer for
sale, and then simply to reverse the distribution process to get the products from
retailers to manufacturers. Retailers might oppose such a requirement, however,
because of the burden involved in storing the used equipment. In addition, many
computers are sold directly by manufacturers or distributors to consumers without the
use of retail locations.
An alternative to individual EPR is the use of a collective responsibility system.
Under collective producer responsibility, manufacturers and importers create a third
party organization which assumes responsibility for collection, recycling, and
disposal of all the regulated products. The third party organization would be
financed by producers and importers in proportion to the market share of each, or in
proportion to the cost of recycling the products each contributes to the total collected.
While foreign governments have taken the leadership role in developing EPR
legislation, legislation has been introduced in Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New
York that would establish some form of EPR requirement for the management of
CRTs or computer waste. Copies of state legislation on e-waste can be found on the
web site of the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators at
[http://www.ncel.net/ewastelist.html].
9. Management of “Historic” Waste. Electronic products that were sold
prior to the date of enactment of any new regulatory scheme could contribute a
substantial amount of waste. According to the National Safety Council study, 303
million personal computers are likely to become obsolete in the United States
between 2002 and 2006.36 While some of these will be disposed or recycled, a large
number will simply be placed in long-term storage in basements, attics, or
storerooms, until the owners decide what to do with them. Millions of old television
sets have accumulated in the hands of consumers for similar reasons.
These “historic” products may have been manufactured by companies no longer
in business, or, where the company is still in business, the amount of waste
attributable to its brand may bear little correlation to the company’s current market
36 National Safety Council, Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report,
May 1999, p. 29.

---

CRS-20
share.37 Thus, many argue that a separate collection and recycling scheme needs to
be adopted for historic waste.
Under California legislation that passed the state Senate in May 2002,38 a fee
would be imposed on the sale of all new computers and television sets (up to $30,
with the amount to be determined by the Integrated Waste Management Board). The
proceeds would be used to provide grants for collection and recycling and for public
education.
Under the EU directive, the cost of managing historic waste would be shared by
all current producers in proportion to their respective share of the market at the time
the item is disposed. While the language is different, this and the California
approach are essentially the same.
Defining E-Waste
What types of electronic products to include in any legislative consideration of
e-waste is a key issue. There is a wide range of options. The most restrictive option
would include only products containing cathode ray tubes (CRTs). CRTs are the
picture tubes used in most computer monitors and television sets. They are easily
identified. They contain substantial amounts of lead and some other heavy metals
that are considered hazardous when disposed in regulated quantities. They comprise
a significant portion of the electronic waste stream, accounting for perhaps one-third
of the weight of a standard personal computer. And, as noted earlier, their disposal
is already banned in two states. They also are costly to collect and recycle: most
voluntary programs charge a fee of $5 - $15 to accept a television or monitor for
recycling. Given this cost, it is unlikely that voluntary programs will ever handle a
significant portion of the CRT waste stream.
A somewhat broader option would be to include other components of a personal
computer: in addition to the monitor, they might include the CPU (the central
processing unit that contains a system’s memory, hard drive, disk drives, CD unit,
etc.), keyboards, printers, speakers, scanners, modems, and any other peripheral
equipment sold for use with a computer.
At the other end of the spectrum, the EU and other countries are taking a far
broader approach. The WEEE directive contains 10 categories of equipment covered
by its proposed requirements: large household appliances; small household
appliances; IT and telecommunications equipment; consumer equipment; lighting
37 When Minnesota conducted a pilot e-waste recycling project in 1999, historic waste was
a large percentage of what was collected: by weight, 69% of what they received was
television sets. “Roughly half” of the televisions were manufactured before 1980, 15% by
manufacturers who were no longer in business. See Minnesota Office of Environmental
Assistance, Recycling Used Electronics, Report on Minnesota’s Demonstration Project, July
2001, Background and Highlights, available at [www.moea.state.mn.us/plugin/report.cfm].
38 S.B. 1523, as amended May 28, 2002, and S.B. 1619, as amended May 8, 2002. These
bills are available at [http://www.ncel.net/ewastelist.html].

---

CRS-21
equipment; electrical and electronic tools (with the exception of large-scale stationary
industrial tools); toys, leisure and sports equipment; medical devices (with the
exception of all implanted and infected products); monitoring and control
instruments; and automatic dispensers. The directive includes a two-and-a-half page
list of specific items that fall under these categories.
Those states that are considering legislation have focused primarily on CRTs
and computers. Bills in California, Massachusetts, and South Carolina address only
CRTs or products containing them. Minnesota legislation would address TVs,
computer monitors, laptop computers, CPUs, and printers. A New York bill would
direct the state’s environmental agency to identify "electronic equipment"; the bill
defines electronic equipment as "appliances that contain complex circuitry, circuit
boards, or signal processing, as well as one or more hazardous components." An
Oregon bill would regulate personal computers, defined as "a central processing unit
that may or may not be combined with peripheral equipment such as hard drives,
floppy drives, CD-ROM drives, internal or external modems, fans, keyboards, and
monitors."
Given the rapidly changing nature of the computer and consumer electronics
industries, new concerns may arise Flat screen TVs and monitors, for example,
which are rapidly gaining market share, do not use CRTs; nor do laptop and handheld
computers. Requiring only the older technology to be subject to regulatory
requirements could provide an additional incentive for industry to phase out the
technology’s use. In contrast, covering a wide array of technologies, including new
technologies as they are introduced, could encourage advance consideration of the
environmental consequences of new technologies and the design of products for
minimal environmental impact

---