Managing Electronic Waste:
Issues with Exporting E-Waste
Linda Luther
Analyst in Environmental Policy
October 7, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40850
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Managing Electronic Waste: Issues with Exporting E-Waste
Summary
Electronic waste (e-waste) is a term that is used loosely to refer to obsolete, broken, or irreparable
electronic devices like televisions, computer central processing units (CPUs), computer monitors
(flat screen and cathode ray tubes), laptops, printers, scanners, and associated wiring. E-waste has
become a concern in the United States due to the high volumes in which it is generated, the
hazardous constituents it often contains (such as lead, mercury, and chromium), and the lack of
regulations applicable to its disposal or recycling.
Under most circumstances, e-waste can legally be disposed of in a municipal solid waste landfill
or recycled with few environmental regulatory requirements. Concerns about e-waste landfill
disposal have led federal and state environmental agencies to encourage recycling. To date, 19
states have implemented some form of mandatory e-waste recycling program. These state
requirements, mixed with increased consumer awareness regarding potential problems with
landfilling e-waste, have led to an increase in recycling. With that increase have come new
questions about e-waste management. Instead of questions only about the potential impacts
associated with e-waste disposal, questions have arisen regarding the potential danger associated
with e-waste recycling—particularly when recycling involves the export of e-waste to developing
countries where there are few requirements to protect workers or the environment.
Answering questions about both e-waste disposal and recycling involves a host of challenges. For
example, little information is available to allow a complete assessment of how e-waste ultimately
managed. General estimates have been made about the management of cathode ray tubes (CRTs,
the only devices where disposal is federally regulated), but little reliable information is available
regarding other categories of e-waste. For example, accurate data regarding how much is
generated, how it is managed (through disposal or recycling), and where it is processed (either
domestically or abroad) are largely unknown. Further, little information is available regarding the
total amount of functioning electronics exported to developing countries for legitimate reuse.
What is known is that e-waste recycling involves complex processes and it is more costly to
recycle e-waste in the United States, where there is a limited recycling infrastructure. It also is
known that most consumer electronics manufacturers (who provide the market for material
recovery from recycled electronics) have moved overseas. As a result, the majority of e-waste
collected for recycling (either for reuse or recycling) appears to be exported for processing.
Although there may be limited data regarding how e-waste is managed, the consequences of
export to countries that manage it improperly are becoming increasingly evident. In particular,
various reports and studies (by the mainstream media, environmental organizations, and
university researchers) have found primitive waste management practices in India and various
countries in Africa and Asia. Operations in Guiyu in the Shantou region of China have gained
particular attention. Observed recycling operations involve burning the plastic coverings of
materials to extract metals for scrap, openly burning circuit boards to remove solder or soaking
them in acid baths to strip them for gold or other metals. Acid baths are then dumped into surface
water. Among other impacts to those areas have been elevated blood lead levels in children and
soil and water contaminated with heavy metals.
The impacts associated with e-waste exports have led to concerns from environmental
organizations, members of the public, and some Members of Congress.
Congressional Research Service
Managing Electronic Waste: Issues with Exporting E-Waste
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Impacts of E-Waste Exports ........................................................................................................ 2
Concerns About Domestic E-Waste Disposal............................................................................... 4
Waste Volume ....................................................................................................................... 4
Hazardous Constituents......................................................................................................... 4
E-Waste Management Requirements ........................................................................................... 5
Relevant Waste Disposal Requirements ................................................................................. 5
Recycling and Export Requirements...................................................................................... 7
Factors Influencing E-Waste Exporting ....................................................................................... 9
Costly and Complex Domestic Recycling Processes .............................................................. 9
Limited Domestic Infrastructure and High Demand Abroad................................................. 10
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 11
Tables
Table 1. Summary of the CRT Rule’s Export Notification Requirements...................................... 8
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 12
Congressional Research Service
Managing Electronic Waste: Issues with Exporting E-Waste
Introduction
Electronic waste (e-waste) is a term that is used loosely to refer to obsolete, broken, or irreparable
electronic devices like televisions, computer central processing units (CPUs), computer monitors
(flat screen and cathode ray tubes), laptops, printers, scanners, and associated wiring. Rapid
technology changes have led to increasingly large e-waste surpluses. Electronic devices,
particularly older units in use today or in storage, contain a host of hazardous constituents such as
lead, mercury, or chromium, as well as plastics treated with brominated flame retardants. The
presence of these constituents has led to end-of-life (EOL) management1 concerns from state and
federal environmental agencies, environmental organizations, and some Members of Congress.
E-waste is essentially unregulated at the federal level—meaning it can be disposed of with
common household garbage in municipal solid waste landfills (the primary disposal method) or
incinerators. Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated that e-waste
disposal in landfills is safe,2 state and local waste management agencies have expressed concerns
regarding the potential cumulative impact to human health and the environment of landfilling
millions of pounds of e-waste. As a result, individual states have begun to enact their own e-waste
management requirements. To date, 19 states and New York City have enacted some form of
e-waste management law. Those laws include provisions such as restrictions on landfill disposal
of certain e-wastes and the establishment of mandatory recycling programs, generally paid for by
electronics manufacturers. In the coming years, it is likely that more states will enact similar laws.
New state requirements, mixed with increased consumer awareness regarding potential problems
with landfilling e-waste, have led to an increase in recycling. With that increase have come new
questions about e-waste EOL management. Instead of questions only about the potential impacts
associated with e-waste disposal, questions have arisen regarding the potential danger associated
with e-waste recycling.
Because e-waste recycling is largely unregulated, virtually no data are available to track its fate.3
Accurate data regarding how much is generated, how it is managed, and where it is processed
(either domestically or abroad) are largely unavailable. What is known is that e-waste recycling
may involve costly, complex processes and that there is not a sufficient recycling infrastructure
for the United States to manage its own e-waste. It also is known that markets for e-waste (either
for reuse or recycling for scrap) are largely overseas. As a result, the majority of e-waste collected
for recycling appears to be exported for processing.
Although it is difficult to know exactly how much e-waste collected for recycling is exported, it
appears that India or developing countries in Asia or Africa are most likely to receive it. Those
1 EOL management options include disposal (in a landfill or through incineration) or recycling (which may include
reprocessing for parts or refurbishment and reuse). While reuse may be considered a form of recycling, in this report,
“recycling” will generally refer to recovering a device for the purposes of dismantling and parts or materials recovery.
“Reuse” will include the reuse of a device “as is” or with refurbishment.
2 While landfill disposal is considered safe, EPA’s preferred method of EOL management is reuse or recycling. For
more information, see Robert Tonetti, EPA Office of Solid Waste, presentation materials, “EPA’s Regulatory Program
for E-Waste,” October 2007, available at http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/materials/ecycling/docs/e-wasteregs.pdf.
3 Most available waste management data attempt to approximate disposal, recycling, or export information about
cathode ray tubes (CRTs). Little, if any, data are available regarding the generation, disposal, or recycling of other
types of e-waste such as flat panel monitors, CPUs, or laptops.
Congressional Research Service
1
Managing Electronic Waste: Issues with Exporting E-Waste
countries are more likely to have electronics manufacturing plants that can cheaply repair or
refurbish e-waste for reuse. Also, developing countries are more likely to value e-waste more
highly than developed countries for its potential to recycle for scrap.
While some exports may be sent to facilities that manage e-waste in a way that protects workers
and the environment, a significant amount is likely sent to countries that have few if any
protections for workers or the environment, or that have regulations that are not enforced. The
result is that recycling operations in those countries may pose a significant risk to human health
and the environment. Increasingly, environmental organizations, university researchers, and the
media have documented contamination to air, soil, and water, and health impacts to the people
working and living near these operations—particularly to children (these issues are discussed in
more detail in the section “Impacts of E-Waste Exports”).
Concerns regarding the potential impact of exporting e-waste for processing in developing
countries have led to increased scrutiny from members of the public, environmental
organizations, as well as some Members of Congress. On May 21, 2009, Congressman Gene
Green introduced H.R. 2595, a bill that would amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6921) to establish certain e-waste export restrictions. There have also been several congressional
hearings on issues associated with e-waste management, one of which specifically addressed
issues associated with e-waste exports.4
There are various issues of concern with regard to e-waste disposal and recycling. This report
looks at issues specifically related to its export for recycling. Particularly, it discusses
documented impacts to human health and the environment that have been tied to unsafe recycling
practices in developing countries. It provides an overview of various factors necessary to
understand why e-waste disposal has become a concern in the United States. Specifically, the
report discusses issues that have motivated certain stakeholders to divert e-waste from landfill
disposal and, hence, increase recycling. It also discusses waste management requirements in the
United States, to illustrate how e-waste disposal and recycling are essentially unregulated; and
why processing e-waste abroad has, and will likely continue to have, a predominant role in the
recycling process.
Impacts of E-Waste Exports
It is difficult to determine how much e-waste is exported from the United States to developing
countries. It is further difficult to determine how much of the waste that is exported is sent to
facilities that will manage it safely as opposed to those that use disassembly and disposal methods
that will expose workers to toxic chemicals with little, if any, protection. It is also difficult to
determine how much e-waste may be sent to countries that have a limited regulatory framework
to protect the local environment—potentially exposing the surrounding communities to resulting
contamination.
What is becoming easier to document is the impact that e-waste exports are having on less
developed nations. With increased exports have come increased media attention on the improper
4 House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment, “Exporting
Toxic Trash: Are We Dumping Our Electronic Waste on Poorer Countries?” September 17, 2008. For more
information, see http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/hearing_notice.asp?id=1031.
Congressional Research Service
2
Managing Electronic Waste: Issues with Exporting E-Waste
handling of e-waste in those areas and its resulting impacts.5 Various reports have graphically
documented health and safety threats to workers and environmental contamination from e-waste
recovery practices in developing countries. It is difficult to document all e-waste recycling hubs,
but popular destinations for e-waste exported from the United States (and other developed
countries) are waste processing operations in Guiyu in the Shantou region of China, Delhi and
Bangalore in India, and the Agbogbloshie site near Accra, Ghana.
Multiple studies have documented environmental and health effects of uncontrolled waste
processing activities. Environmental impacts include contamination of all local environmental
media—soil, air, surface water, and ground water. For example, a June 2009 study6 found that the
primary hazardous recycling operations in Guiyu involve
• metal recovery that involves open burning of wires to obtain steel and copper,
cathode ray tube (CRT) cracking to obtain copper-laden yokes, desoldering and
burning of circuit boards to remove solder and chips, and acid stripping chips for
gold;
• plastic recycling through chipping and melting; and
• dumping of materials that cannot be further processed (such as leaded CRT glass
and burned circuit boards) and residues from recycling operations (such as ashes
from open burn operations, spent acid baths, and sludges).
It was observed that burning circuit board plastics treated with brominated flame retardants
emitted harmful heavy metals, dioxins, and aromatic hydrocarbons. Further, heavy metal
contamination in surface water and sediments was found that could be attributed to the direct
effects of e-waste recycling operations in Guiyu. Copper from surface water was found to be 2.4
to 131 times the reference background concentrations, and sediment samples were 3.2 to 429
times the reference levels. The study also found severe levels of contamination for lead,
cadmium, mercury, and arsenic in sediment and surface water as a result of recycling operations.
In addition to environmental contamination, impacts on humans have been observed. In a 2007
study, children from one to six years old in Guiyu were compared to those living in a neighboring
town where no e-waste processing was done. 7 Children in Guiyu were found to have blood lead
levels (BLL) that were significantly higher than those in the neighboring village. The study
5 See “FRONTLINE/World,” Ghana, Digital Dumping Ground, originally broadcast June 23, 2009, available online at
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/ghana804/video/video_index.html; “60 Minutes,” Following the Trail of
Toxic E-Waste, broadcast November 9, 2008 and August 27, 2009, available online at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2009/08/19/60minutes/main4579229.shtml; National Geographic, ”High Tech Trash,” January 2008, available at
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/high-tech-trash/carroll-text; Basel Action Network and Silicon Valley
Toxics Coalition, “Exporting Harm: The High Tech Trashing of Asia,” February 25, 2002, available at online
http://www.ban.org/E-waste/technotrashfinalcomp.pdf; “Scientific American,” Not in My Backyard: Stopping Illegal
Export of Junked Televisions and Computers, November 19, 2008, available online at
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=stopping-illegal-e-waste-export-and-mishandling; “Business
Week’s,” E-Waste: The Dirty Secret of Recycling Electronics, October 15, 2008, available online at
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_43/b4105000160974.htm.
6 Yan Guoa, et al., Journal of Environmental Quality, “Heavy Metals in the Environment: Heavy Metal Contamination
from Electronic Waste Recycling at Guiyu, Southeastern China,” July-August, 2009, Vol. 38:1617-1626.
7 Xia Huo, et al., Environmental Health Perspectives, “Elevated Blood Lead Levels of Children in Guiyu, an Electronic
Waste Recycling Town in China,” Vol. 115, Number 7, July 2007, 1113-1117.
Congressional Research Service
3
Managing Electronic Waste: Issues with Exporting E-Waste
concluded that elevated BLLs in Guiyu children were common as a result of exposure to lead
contamination caused by primitive e-waste recycling activities.
Concerns About Domestic E-Waste Disposal
To understand why e-waste is exported, it is helpful to understand why landfill disposal has
become a concern to certain stakeholders in the United States. Those concerns center largely
around the waste’s increasing volume and the hazardous constituents, such as lead and mercury, it
likely contains. Increased awareness has encouraged state waste management and water resources
agencies to consider the potential impacts to human health and the environment associated with
e-waste and has led to increased efforts to divert e-waste from landfill disposal.
Waste Volume
The proliferation of and increasingly rapid technological advances in electronics mean that the
volume of e-waste generated in the United States is large and growing. Data regarding electronic
products sold, stored, recycled, and disposed of are limited. However, in 2008, EPA completed a
study that attempted to gather more current data.8 According to that study, in 2007, of the 2.25
million tons of televisions, cell phones and computer products ready for end-of-life (EOL)
management, 18% (414,000 tons) were collected for recycling and 82% (1.84 million tons) were
disposed of, primarily in landfills. Further, EPA estimated that approximately 235 million units
sold between 1980 and 2007 were obsolete and in storage, awaiting some method of EOL
management.
Although EPA estimates that e-waste comprises about 2% of the municipal solid waste stream, it
is anticipated that this percentage will grow as consumers continue to replace old and outdated
electronic equipment and discard equipment in storage.
Hazardous Constituents
Electronic devices may contain any of a host of hazardous constituents. Cathode ray tubes
(CRTs)9 found in televisions and computer monitors and printed wire boards (PWBs) often
contain significant amounts of lead.10 CRTs contain an average of four pounds of lead but may
contain more, depending on the size, age, and make of the device.
8 EPA published the final results of its study on “Electronics Waste Management in the United States” in July 2008.
The consumer electronics covered in EPA’s analyses are televisions, personal computers (desktops, laptops, and
computer monitors), hard copy computer peripherals (including printers, scanners, and fax machines), computer mice,
keyboards, and cell phones. EPA used two different approaches to gather its data. Summary information about the
study as well as the results of each approach are available on EPA’s web page, “Statistics on the Management of Used
and End-of-Life Electronics,” at http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm.
9 CRTs are the large vacuum tubes that provide the video display in older televisions and computer monitors.
10 Lead is a toxic metal that can cause delayed neurological development in children and other adverse health effects in
adults, including increased blood pressure, nephritis, and cerebro-vascular disease. For more information, see EPA’s
Final Rule, “Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Program; Cathode Ray
Tubes,” 71 Fed. Reg. 42927 July 28, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
4
Managing Electronic Waste: Issues with Exporting E-Waste
Although high lead levels in CRTs and PWBs often get the most attention from federal and state
waste regulators, electronic devices such as personal and laptop computers, keyboards, and
computer mice may contain toxic constituents such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, or mercury.11
In addition to potentially toxic constituents, plastics used in electronic devices often contain
brominated flame retardants (BFRs). BFRs are widely used in plastic cases and cables for fire
retardancy.12 Plastics containing BFRs cannot be recycled as easily as plastics such as those used
in plastic bottles or other containers.
While an individual electronic device may not have dangerously high levels of a given toxic
material, the cumulative impact of large volumes of e-waste being disposed of in a municipal
solid waste landfill has become troubling to many state waste management agencies.
E-Waste Management Requirements
Broadly speaking, discarded e-waste has two potential fates—it may be disposed of (most likely
in a landfill) or it may be recycled. Once the device is in the hands of the recycler, it may be
resold and reused “as is” or it may undergo some degree of refurbishing. Products that cannot be
reused or refurbished are either dismantled or shredded, with the resulting material separated into
secondary material streams and at least partially recovered. The resale of electronic devices for
reuse or material recovery may occur domestically or abroad.
Regardless of whether an electronic device is disposed of or recycled, there are virtually no
federal environmental regulatory requirements applicable to its management. Factors specific to
e-waste that affect the lack of regulation are useful in understanding the challenges associated
with addressing e-waste management issues.
Relevant Waste Disposal Requirements
Federal standards regarding waste management are specified under provisions of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq.).13 RCRA establishes criteria for
managing both “solid” and “hazardous” waste. All regulatory requirements arising from the act
11 See report prepared by Timothy G. Townsend, et al, “RCRA Toxicity Characterization of Computer CPUs and Other
Electronic Devices,” by Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences the University of Florida, Gainesville,
Sponsored by EPA Regions 4 and 5, July 15, 2004.
12 Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are the most commonly used brominated flame retardants (BFRs) which
became a replacement for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The extent to which PBDEs pose a threat to human health
is unclear (see the Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
ToxFAQs™ for PBDEs, available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts68-pbde.html). However, concerns about the
potential impacts of the use of BFRs have led some countries to ban their use and some manufacturers to voluntarily
phase-out their use. Also, some U.S. states have banned their use. (For more information, see the Organisation for
Economic Co-Operation and Development web page regarding “Brominated Flame Retardants,” see particularly the
Hazard/Risk Information Sheets, available online at http://www.oecd.org/document/63/0,3343,en_2649_34375_
2403647_1_1_1_1,00.html.) However, BFRs are present in many devices still on the market, in use, or in storage.
13 The Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), enacted by Congress in 1965, provided federal statutory provisions
regarding solid waste disposal practices. RCRA was a 1976 amendment to SWDA. All subsequent amendments to
SWDA, including the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA, P.L. 98-616) of 1984 and the Federal
Facilities Compliance Act (FFCA, P.L. 102-386) of 1992, are commonly referred to as RCRA.
Congressional Research Service
5
Managing Electronic Waste: Issues with Exporting E-Waste
stem from the initial determination of whether an item is actually a “waste” and, further, if that
waste is “hazardous.”
Solid waste is defined under the law as “any garbage, refuse ... or other discarded material.”
Subtitle D of RCRA establishes state and local governments as the primary planning, regulating,
and implementing entities for the management of nonhazardous solid waste, such as household
garbage and nonhazardous industrial solid waste. Landfills that collect household garbage are
predominately regulated by state and local governments. EPA has, however, established minimum
criteria that certain types of landfills must meet in order to stay open.14 Also under Subtitle D,
states are encouraged (but not required by regulation) to develop comprehensive plans to manage
nonhazardous industrial solid waste and municipal solid waste.
Under Subtitle C of RCRA, EPA has established regulations on the transport, treatment, storage,
and disposal of “hazardous wastes.” For a material to meet the regulatory definition of hazardous
waste, it must first meet the definition of “solid waste.” Further, for waste to be considered
hazardous, it must either be listed specifically or exhibit any of four hazardous characteristics:
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity. E-waste would most likely exhibit toxicity
characteristics, meaning it would be harmful or fatal when ingested or absorbed (because it
contains toxic substance such as mercury or lead). When toxic wastes are disposed of on land,
contaminated liquid may drain (leach) from the waste and pollute ground water. Such toxicity is
defined through a laboratory procedure called the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP), which is intended to simulate landfill disposal conditions.
EPA has determined that CRTs meet the regulatory definition of hazardous waste, but has not
determined if other electronic devices and components would consistently fail TCLP (i.e., exceed
toxicity limits). Studies have determined that devices such as personal computer central
processing units (CPUs), laptop computers, printers, computer mice, and keyboards have the
potential to exceed toxicity limits, but it has not been determined that entire classes of electronic
devices will always be toxic.15 Toxicity levels would likely vary by manufacturer, make, and
model.
Even if a device meets the definition of hazardous waste, that does not necessarily mean that the
device must be disposed of in accordance with RCRA’s hazardous waste regulations. EPA
regulations have established many exclusions and exemptions to its hazardous waste disposal
requirements.16 Implementing exclusions or exemptions is often used as a mechanism to facilitate
recycling. Examples of e-wastes that are excluded or exempt from the definition of hazardous
waste are:
• Any electronic devices discarded by household consumers.
• Devices that can be reused.
14 For more information about landfill standards, see EPA’s “Landfills” website at http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/
municipal/landfill.htm.
15 See footnote 11, Timothy G. Townsend, et al, “RCRA Toxicity Characterization of Computer CPUs and Other
Electronic Devices,” p. 5-1.
16 An “exclusion” is a situation where a designated material would be deemed a “non-waste” that is, it is excluded from
the definition of solid waste and, therefore, could not be defined as a hazardous waste. An “exemption” is a situation
where the material is considered a waste, but specifically exempted from the definition of hazardous waste.
Congressional Research Service
6
Managing Electronic Waste: Issues with Exporting E-Waste
• Scrap metal, processed scrap metal, precious metals, whole circuit boards,
shredded circuit boards, processed CRT glass, intact CRTs, and partially
processed CRTs sent for recycling.17
RCRA establishes certain minimum waste management standards that states must meet, but states
have the option to implement requirements that are more stringent than those specified under
RCRA. To date, 19 states and New York City have opted to regulate e-waste more strictly.
Although the specific requirements vary somewhat from state to state, all have the same goal—to
avoid landfill disposal and incineration of certain types of e-waste. Most state laws have certain
broad elements in common, such as specifying the electronic devices covered under the law; how
a collection and recycling program will be financed; collection and recycling criteria that must be
met to minimize the impact to human health and the environment; and restrictions or
requirements that products must meet to be sold in the state.
EPA’s stated policy on e-waste management is to encourage equipment reuse, recycling, and then
disposal, in that order. Further, EPA has acknowledged that e-waste can be safely disposed of in
municipal solid waste landfills. However, that is not its preferred management option.18
Recycling and Export Requirements
There are no federal laws that require e-waste recycling by commercial entities or households.
Also, as with e-waste disposal, there are few federal environmental regulatory requirements
applicable to recycling operations themselves (including the export of e-waste for recycling or
reuse).
The term “recycler” broadly refers to a company that may engage in any of a number of activities
including collecting, sorting, demanufacturing, or processing of waste. E-waste recycling can be a
labor-intensive process (see “Factors Influencing E-Waste Exporting,” below). Any federal
regulation applicable to recycling operations would likely address human impacts associated with
the disassembly process and apply to workplace health and safety operations. Any environmental
regulations applicable to a recycling operation would likely apply to the management of residual
waste generated during the recycling process.
Exporting e-waste is generally considered a potential element of the recycling process, wherein
electronic devices are sent for reuse, refurbishment, or materials recovery. As with disposal and
other elements of the recycling process, there are no requirements applicable to e-waste exporting
as a whole. However, there are export notification requirements that apply to certain CRTs. Those
requirements are stipulated under EPA’s 2007 “CRT Rule.”19 Export notification requirements
under the CRT Rule are summarized in Table 1, below.
17 Regulatory exclusions specific to CRTs are specified in regulations that have come to be referred to as the “CRT
Rule”; see EPA’s Final Rule, “Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Program;
Cathode Ray Tubes,” 71 Fed. Reg. 42927 July 28, 2006.
18 Robert Tonetti, EPA Office of Solid Waste, presentation materials “EPA’s Regulatory Program for E-Waste,”
October 2007, available online at http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/materials/ecycling/docs/e-wasteregs.pdf.
19 See footnote 17.
Congressional Research Service
7
Managing Electronic Waste: Issues with Exporting E-Waste
Table 1. Summary of the CRT Rule’s Export Notification Requirements
Type of CRT Subject to
Regulation
Overview of Regulatory Requirements
Used CRTs (Broken and Intact)
Used CRTs exported for recycling must comply with requirements
Exported for Recycling
specified in 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5), including requirements to notify
EPA of an intended shipment 60 days before the shipment.
Notification may cover exports extending over a 12-month or
shorter period and must include contact information about the
exporter and recycler, and an alternate recycler. It must also
include a description of the recycling, frequency and rate of export,
means of transport, total quantity of CRTs, and information about
transit countries. Consent is not required from transit countries,
but EPA will notify the exporter of any responses from these
countries.
CRT Glass Exported for Recycling Processed glass (i.e., CRT glass that has been removed from the
monitor and sorted from other material) is not subject to export
requirements. Unsorted glass would be considered a “broken
CRT” and would be subject to export requirements.
Used Intact CRTs Exported for
Persons who export used, intact CRTs for reuse must submit a
Reuse
one-time notification to the appropriate EPA Region with contact
information and a statement that they are exporting the CRTs for
reuse.
Unused Intact CRTs Exported for
No regulatory requirements.
Reuse or Recycling
Source: Table generated by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using information from the
Environmental Protection Agency’s Web page, “Final Rules on Cathode Ray Tubes and Discarded Mercury-
Containing Equipment,” available at http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/recycling/electron/index.htm.
High demand for used electronic products can facilitate illegal export—at least with respect to
CRTs. Export notification requirements do not apply to CRTs exported for reuse. A recycler can
export CRTs without notification by claiming such a purpose. In 2008, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) determined that EPA was not sufficiently enforcing the export
notification requirements specified under the CRT Rule.20 Since then, EPA has initiated
enforcement actions against several recyclers for not submitting the proper notifications.
In addition to a lack of regulatory restrictions on recycling activities, there are currently no
consistently applied industry standards applicable to e-waste recyclers. This can actually pose a
problem to recyclers that limit their exports.
A recycler that removes hazardous constituents from e-waste, sorts and disassembles its e-waste,
and exports the waste to a responsible recycler or confirms that devices are in working order
before exporting them for reuse, will likely offer its services at a significantly higher rate than a
recycler that simply ships unsorted e-waste abroad. The recycler that ships unsorted e-waste can
still make the claim that it is operating in a “green” way because it diverts the waste from landfill
disposal. A recycler can also claim that it does not export its waste, but that is a claim that would
20 Government Accountability Office report to the Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives,
“Electronic Waste: EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S. Exports through Stronger Enforcement and More
Comprehensive Regulation,” report GAO 08-1044, August 2008, available online at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d081044.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8
Managing Electronic Waste: Issues with Exporting E-Waste
be very hard for the average consumer (or even a state or charitable organization using the
recycler) to confirm.
Since 2008, voluntary recycler certification programs have been developed by environmental
organizations, the recycling industry, and EPA. Certification programs implemented by
environmental organizations, such as the Basel Action Network’s “E-Stewards” program, would
prohibit e-waste exports.21 EPA’s “Responsible Recycling (R2) Practices” program specifies that a
recycler exporting e-waste must obtain “assurances from downstream vendors both domestically
and internationally … [that] show that the materials are being handled properly and legally by
downstream vendors throughout the recycling chain.”22
Any impact these voluntary certification programs may have has yet to be seen. It is difficult to
determine how such programs may be enforced. It is also difficult to determine if they will have
an effect on companies willing to make false or misleading claims about the environmental
attributes of their recycling services.
Factors Influencing E-Waste Exporting
Since e-waste recycling is largely unregulated, accurate data regarding the end markets, both
domestic and abroad, are not publicly available. Therefore, it is difficult to know how much
e-waste that is collected for recycling is actually exported for processing. However, in a 2008
report, EPA consulted an industry expert to develop a “best estimate” of the end markets for
CRT-containing devices (televisions and computer monitors). According to that estimate, between
77% and 89% of those end markets were outside the United States.23 EPA acknowledged that
such data are fluid—market conditions change rapidly. Also, since this estimate only applies only
to CRTs, it is not possible to apply those estimates to all e-waste. Still, it can be estimated that the
majority of e-waste collected for recycling is processed, at least to some extent, abroad.
There are various reasons why recyclers export e-waste instead of recycling it domestically. Most
reasons relate to the high costs of processing the waste domestically and the lower costs and
higher demand for the material abroad.
Costly and Complex Domestic Recycling Processes
E-waste collected for recycling may be reused or processed for parts or components. Before it can
be determined which of those two fates it may meet, the device will require a certain level of
sorting, inspection, and testing.
If a product is ultimately processed for parts or components, it would have to go through various
processing activities. Unlike recyclable products that contain essentially a single component, like
plastic bottles or newspaper, electronic devices contain a host of mixed materials that may not be
21 For information about the Basel Action Network’s “E-Stewards Certification Program,” go to http://www.e-
stewards.org/esteward_certification.html.
22 See EPA’s “Responsible Recycling (R2) Practices” available online at http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/materials/
ecycling/r2practices.htm.
23 See the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste, “Electronic Waste Management in the United States: Approach 1,” EPA530-R-
08-009, July 2008, p. 29. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm.
Congressional Research Service
9
Managing Electronic Waste: Issues with Exporting E-Waste
easily separated or extracted. Before the device can be recycled it may go through any of a
number of steps, including some or all of the following:24
• Demanufacturing into subassemblies and components—involves a worker
manually disassembling a device or component to recover value from working
and nonworking components (e.g., video cards, circuit boards, cables, wiring,
plastic or metal housing).
• Depollution—the removal and separation of certain materials to allow them to
be handled separately to minimize impacts to human health and the environment
(e.g., batteries, fluorescent lamps, CRTs, or plastics embedded with brominated
flame retardants).
• Materials separation—manually separating and preparing material for further
processing. At this stage, materials that have already been disassembled would be
sorted into material categories.
• Mechanical processing of similar materials—generally involves processing
compatible plastic resins, metals, or CRT glass to generate market-grade
commodities.
• Mechanical processing of mixed materials—generally involves processing
whole units, after depollution, followed by a series of separation technologies.
• Metal refining/smelting—after being sorted into components or into shredded
streams, metals can be sent to refiners or smelters. At this stage, thermal and
chemical management processes are used to extract metals of many types.
Many of the processes described above must be done by hand and can be labor intensive. This
can be a costly operation. Depending on the value of the commodities being extracted, among
other factors, a recycler may find it more profitable simply to send all of the e-waste it collects
abroad, where labor is less costly but health and safety practices may not be implemented when
extracting hazardous materials or precious metals.
Limited Domestic Infrastructure and High Demand Abroad
The presence of recycling facilities with the ability and capacity to recycle e-waste components is
limited, and varies from region to region, within North America. For example, there is only one
smelter in the United States and one in Canada capable of processing CRT glass for lead recovery.
There are also limited opportunities for copper and precious metal recovery from circuit boards in
the United States.
Most consumer electronics manufacturers (who provide the market for materials recovered from
recycled electronics) have manufacturing operations overseas. According to EPA estimates, in
24 Activities listed here are specified in “Closing the Loop: Electronics Design to Enhance Reuse/Recycling Value,” a
study conducted by the Green Electronics Council and funded through a cooperative agreement with EPA’s Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response Innovations Pilot Projects, pp. 5-7, January 2009. The report is available online
at http://www.greenelectronicscouncil.org/documents/0000/0007/Design_for_End_of_Life_Final_Report_090208.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10
Managing Electronic Waste: Issues with Exporting E-Waste
2005, 61% of CRTs collected for recycling were refurbished or remanufactured into new
televisions abroad.25
When U.S. consumers discard electronic products, they are not necessarily broken. In developing
countries, there is high demand for electronics that American consumers may deem “waste.” In its
2008 report, GAO observed significant demand for used electronics in developing countries. In
particular, GAO reported:
In a search of one Internet e-commerce site, we observed brokers from around the world
place 2,234 requests to purchase liquid-crystal display (LCD) screens. On the same site, we
found 430 requests for central processing units and 665 requests for used computers. In an
extensive search of two Internet e-commerce sites over a 3-month period, we observed
brokers in developing countries make 230 requests for about 7.5 million used CRTs. Brokers
in developing countries represented over 60 percent of all requests we observed.26
Developing countries also have a high demand for scrap. Demand for plastics for recycling is
almost entirely overseas.
Conclusions
An unintended consequence of avoiding potential negative impacts of domestic e-waste disposal
has been a contribution to actual environmental contamination and human health impacts to some
communities in developing countries. If environmentally preferable management of e-waste is the
goal, is recycling it preferable to landfill disposal if recycling means exporting the waste to
developing countries? Determining how to address this issue—that is, take into consideration
concerns regarding domestic e-waste disposal and the impacts of recycling abroad—involves
many factors.
One significant factor is the lack of timely, accurate data needed to help fully understand the
scope of the potential problem. It is almost impossible to know exactly how much e-waste is
generated, to what extent it is processed domestically (e.g., to what degree it is sorted or
disassembled by domestic recyclers), how much is exported, and, of the waste that is exported,
how much is actually reusable or sent to a facility that will manage it properly. That is not to say
that all or even the majority of e-waste that is exported is managed improperly. It is simply
impossible to know using existing data.
Electronics manufacturers are currently driven by various forces to make their products more
easily recyclable and with fewer hazardous constituents.27 Any future changes to electronic
25 See EPA’s “Electronic Waste Management in the United States: Approach 1,” pp. 31-32.
26 See GAO’s “Electronic Waste: EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S. Exports through Stronger Enforcement
and More Comprehensive Regulation,” p. 16.
27 These forces include consumer demand for “greener” products and regulatory restrictions on the use of hazardous
substances. Regulatory restrictions are being developed primarily outside the United States. For example, European
Union (EU) Directive 2002/95/EC is the restriction on the use of certain hazardous substances (RoHS) in electrical and
electronic equipment. The RoHS Directive bans the use of certain heavy metals and brominated flame retardants from
certain electronic equipment. Further, EU Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)
includes provisions that encourage the design and production of electronic equipment that will facilitate dismantling
and recovery, particularly the reuse and recycling of electronic equipment.
Congressional Research Service
11
Managing Electronic Waste: Issues with Exporting E-Waste
devices have no impact, however, on the hundreds of millions of devices currently in use or
obsolete devices currently in storage. Eventually those devices will make their way to the
disposal or recycling markets.
While legitimate reuse markets and recycling operations exist in developing countries, an outright
prohibition on exports may be problematic, particularly when limited opportunities for recycling
exist in the United States. Further, the high cost of domestic recycling, high demand for exports,
and a lack of barriers to export will continue to drive reuse and recycling markets abroad.
Author Contact Information
Linda Luther
Analyst in Environmental Policy
lluther@crs.loc.gov, 7-6852
Congressional Research Service
12