September 6, 2005
MEMORANDUM
To:
Members, Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials
From:
Committee Staff
Subject:
Oversight Hearing on Electronic Waste in the Unites States
The Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials has scheduled the second
part of a two-part hearing for Thursday, September 8, 2005, at 2:00 p.m. in 2322 Rayburn House
Office Building. This hearing is entitled "Electronic Waste: An Examination of Current Activity,
Implications for Environmental Stewardship, and the Proper Federal Role." Witness participation
is by invitation only.
Background
The rapid growth in technology and software have made the use of computers,
televisions, and other electronic products 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. With this expansion of new and improved
products though, come many questions about technology turnover, end-of-life use, and waste
disposal capacity. The Congressional Research Service notes that according to the National
Safety Council, 500 million personal computers will become obsolete in the U.S. between 1997
and 2007 -- at an average lifespan of two (2) years and weight of 60 pounds per PC.
Management of these electronic wastes is a concern in part because of their sheer
volume, but more also because they contain large amounts of heavy metals and other toxic
substances. 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. As a result, many argue that electronic equipment should be managed
separately from the municipal waste stream, and recycled whenever possible.
Numerous interested parties, including some states, solid waste management officials,
electronics manufacturers, environmental groups, and retailers, have begun to develop alternative
approaches; and elsewhere in the world, notably in Japan and the European Union, regulations
Page 2
are being implemented that will force manufacturers and importers to take back end of life
products for recycling and waste management separate from the municipal waste stream.
Federal Programs
No U.S. statute governs the specific disposal and recycling electronic products. While
electronics disposed in large quantities, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), needs to be disposed of by waste generators and transporters in specially permitted
hazardous waste facilities, RCRA exempts households and other small-quantity generators from
hazardous waste management requirements. In addition, Federal law allows larger generators of
electronic equipment to avoid regulation by donating these items to educational or charitable
organizations.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) main response to dealing with the
electronic waste stream has come in the form of its programs under the Resource Conservation
Challenge (RCC). RCC is a largely voluntary, EPA initiative that identifies and promotes
flexible approaches to protect and conserve natural resources, prevent pollution, promote
recycling and reuse, reduce priority chemicals at all product life cycle stages, and conserve
energy and materials with a focus on materials management and resource conservation that is
results oriented. The “Product Stewardship” portion of RCC has three (3) main “challenges” that
focus on electronic waste streams: (1) the “Plug-In To eCycling Program” attempts to increase
recycling of old consumer electronics by giving incentives to product manufacturers and retailers
while getting private sector partners to commit to making more recycling opportunities available
to the public; (2) the “Federal Electronics Challenge” encourages General Services
Administration, Departments of Defense, Energy, and Interior, and the Federal Network for
Sustainability to buy “green” products, use them more efficiently, and manage them better at the
end of their useful lives; and (3) the “Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool” labels
and rates electronic equipment based on certain environmental factors.
In addition to EPA, the U.S. Department of Commerce has also been following trends in
electronic waste. At Part 1 of this hearing, the Commerce Department will submit a report to
Congress to create a "road map" on promoting electronics recycling nationwide. This report was
borne of roundtable meetings on market issues, particularly a concern about a patchwork of state
regulations, affecting electronics recycling between the Commerce Department, EPA, and
several industry representatives. The Commerce Department report is not fully intended to make
legislative recommendations but rather to outline areas of consensus.
State Programs
Currently, only three (3) states have enacted actual statutes to address electronic waste:
California, Maine, and Maryland. While each of these laws is intended to address cathode ray
tubes (CRTs) as well as flat screen liquid crystal displays (LCDs), each is quite different in the
obligations placed on various parties and the way each operate.
The California law, enacted on September 23, 2003, funds a recycling program by
charging consumers an advance recycling fee (ARF) of between $6-$10, based on the size of the
computer or television screen, and is levied at the point of the item’s sale. The ARF only applies
to products purchased by households; it does not apply to businesses, government, or other
institutions. The collected funds are then supposed to be used to reimburse authorized electronic
Page 3
waste consolidators and recyclers. In addition, beginning on January 1, 2007, the California law
prohibits, with a few exceptions, the use of certain products containing hazardous substances
banned by the European Union, including flame retardants, lead, cadmium, mercury, and
hexavalent chromium. Additionally, beginning in one year, California will require retailers of
cell phones to collect – at no cost to consumers buying a new cellular phone -- used products for
reuse, recycling, or proper disposal.
Maine enacted its law on April 22, 2004. Like California, Maine’s law applies only to
computer or television screens disposed by households. However, instead of an ARF, Maine
requires manufacturers to pay for recovery of and recycling costs associated with their own
products when they become waste, as well as a pro-rata share of orphan waste (electronic waste
whose manufacturers are either no longer in business or are not viable enough to pay for product
recovery and recycling costs). Also, as opposed to banning certain products based on substances
contained in them, Maine’s law states that manufacturers should reduce and ultimately phase out
hazardous materials, but does not specify a requirement. Of note, though, Maine has banned
some of the same flame retardant chemicals as California beginning in 2006.
Maryland was the last and most recent state to enact an electronic waste law in 2005.
Unlike California and Maine, the Maryland law is a five-year pilot program that applies only to
desktop and laptop computers, not television or cellular phones (Maryland’s law requires further
study of CRT devises). Under Maryland’s law, a manufacturer who produced more than 1,000
computers on average each year since 2002 must register with the state and pay an initial fee of
$5,000 by January 1, 2006 in order to sell computers in Maryland. This money is deposited into
a State Recycling Trust Fund to finance program costs. In subsequent years, manufacturers are
required to pay the annual $5,000 registration fee, however, they can qualify for a reduced fee of
$500 if the manufacturer agrees to pay to “take back” computers from consumers for
refurbishment and recycling.
Outside of these three states, as of June 2005, 23 other states were investigating some
way to address electronic waste. Included in this number are ten (10) northeastern states that
recently released draft legislation to form a regional electronic waste disposal compact, as well
as two states, Massachusetts and Minnesota, addressing electronic waste without establishing a
statutory, statewide recycling program. Both states have banned the disposal of CRTs and have
either set up grants for local recycling programs or instituted several voluntary recycling
programs.
International Impacts on U.S. Commerce
Computers and consumer electronics are among the most international industries with
products made among several different continents for shipment to the United States and
elsewhere. Consequently, the development of legislation and regulations, particularly in the
European Union (EU), has a great impact on design, sales, and investment on products in the
United States. The size and importance of the European Union (376 million consumers in some
of the world's wealthiest economies) and the broad sweep of e-waste requirements have made
EU developments the principal focus of discussion among participants and observers of the
electronics industry. The EU’s 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 programs.
Page 4
The European Union Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)
establishes comprehensive “take-back” and recycling requirements for retailers, manufacturers,
and importers of electrical and electronic products, as well as prescriptive recycling targets per
product. WEEE contains a very comprehensive 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. Unlike Federal law, though, which directly binds individuals or
parties, EU directives are implemented and enforced indirectly, by requiring that the Member
States of the Union enact legislation meeting the directive's requirements
There is also a separate directive EU on the Regulation of Hazardous Substances (RoHS).
Similar to the California law, the EU will require that lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent
chromium, and two classes of flame retardants be replaced by other substances in electrical and
electronic equipment by July 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 July 1, 2006.
Issues for the Subcommittee





How does the Federal government and/or states define electronic waste and do they
consider it an environmental hazard?
Since many of these electronics items travel in interstate commerce, should the
Federal government take a more elevated role? If so, what should that role be?
What should the private and public sector do to address electronic waste?
What responsibilities should all stakeholders bear?
What are future issues that are important in dealing with electronic waste?
Please contact Jerry Couri, Tom Hassenboehler, or Mark Menezes with the House Energy
and Commerce Committee at 5-2927 for further information on this hearing.