Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 8 • Number 17 • 3rd October 2008
US regulation of e-waste exports under scrutiny from within
Discuss this articleShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say
According to a report by the investigative branch of the United States government, current US regulations have not stopped the export of millions of potentially hazardous used electronics.
The investigation by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) revealed a vast demand for US e-waste exports, especially in developing countries. In a search of one internet e-commerce site, investigators observed brokers from around the world place 2,234 requests to purchase liquid-crystal display (LCD) screens. On the same site, they found 430 requests for central processing units and 665 requests for used computers. Brokers in developing countries represented over 60 percent of all requests observed.
Trade in used electronics is highly profitable for developing countries and can provide development benefits like access to inexpensive refurbished electronics. Some argue that these exports extend the life of electronics and therefore cut down on waste. The extraction of metals from used electronics, if handled responsibly, can also be an environmentally friendly alternative to mining.
Harmful environmental effects
But environmentalists worry that, if improperly handled, used electronics like TV screens, computer monitors, and even cell phones can have devastating consequences for the air, land, and water.
Jim Puckett, an environmental activist at Seattle-based Basel Action Network, has observed areas where processing takes place in the developing world. “Whole villages were making their living burning little wires, cooking computer chips, breathing toxic fumes,” Puckett says. “Vats of chips were soaked in acid to extract the gold and all the residues were flushed into the river.”
According to surveys made on behalf of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), these practices are not uncommon in developing countries where large quantities of electronics are informally recycled using the environmentally unsafe methods Puckett describes.
In the report, US government investigators claim that over 75 percent of the requests for used electronics observed on e-commerce websites offered US$10 or less per unit, and almost half offered US $5 or less. Low prices (under US$10 per unit) indicate a high likelihood that these items will ultimately be handled and disposed of unsafely.
Weak enforcement of current regulations
The report partly blames the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for weak enforcement of American regulations. US regulation of e-waste exports currently only controls the export of cathode ray tubes (CRTs). CRTs are found in old computer monitors and contain hazardous amounts of lead. Under current rules, CRTs can only be exported if the seller properly notifies the EPA. Furthermore, the importing government must give its consent and shipments must be clearly labelled. But investigators claim that many US companies export these hazardous products outside EPA regulations.
To ascertain the level of noncompliance with CRT rules, investigators monitored E-commerce websites under fictitious profiles. When they requested CRTs they received 43 offers from US companies, none of which had submitted a proper notification, according to EPA records.
According to the report, the EPA has made no effort to improve its monitoring and has only ever issued one penalty for noncompliance with CRT rules. This leaves the onus on foreign ports to intercept shipments of hazardous CRTs.
A sales representative for a large New Jersey-based electronics recycler told the Government Accountability Office’s fictitious buyer from Hong Kong not to worry about U.S. laws’ holding up export of untested CRT monitors. He explained that “it’s the laws at [the port of Hong Kong] that you have to find out about.” When asked about the CRT rule, another electronics recycler replied that it would definitely not affect shipment: “We ship these overseas all the time,” he wrote. The report found that many exporters mix toxic products in with legal shipments or hide the broken electronics toward the back of the container in order to avoid interception at foreign ports.
Through follow-up emails and interviews, investigators found that weak enforcement of CRT rules has lead to scandalous environmental profiteering by American recycling companies, many of which boast environmentally friendly practices. One Maryland electronics recycler charges anywhere from US$ 10 to US$ 30 to collect used monitors for recycling. According to their website, this fee is collected in order to cover the company’s “responsible domestic recycling costs.” Yet the same recycler asked undercover investigators what price they were willing to pay for used CRTs destined for Singapore.
Many hazardous materials not included in US regulation
But the report goes on to say that enforcing the CRT rule is not enough since many other forms of e-waste are recognized internationally. While the US regulates only one form of e-waste (CRTs), many countries that receive and export US e-waste have much broader definitions and regulations of hazardous materials. To address this inconsistency, most industrialized countries have harmonized their regulation of hazardous materials with the definitions agreed upon in the Basel Convention, an agreement the US has signed but not ratified.
In 2001, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) revised its hazardous waste definitions to harmonise with those outlined by the Basel Convention, since most of its members have ratified it. The report claims that, as a member of the OECD, the US must adopt the classification system to facilitate coordination among exporting and importing countries; however, these changes have not yet been implemented.
The report also recommends that the Basel Convention, which aims to minimise the generation of waste, treat wastes as near as possible to where they were generated, and reduce international movements of hazardous wastes, be brought before US Congress for ratification. According to the report, American implementation of the Basel Convention could help protect developing countries from the health and environmental impacts the e-waste trade.
ICTSD Reporting, “EPA faulted for failing to control e-waste exports,” ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE, 18 September 2008, “EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S. Exports through Stronger Enforcement and More Comprehensive Regulation,” UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, August 2008.
Add a comment
Enter your details and a comment below, then click Submit Comment. We’ll review and publish the best comments.