Senate Report 111-168 - ELECTRONIC DEVICE RECYCLING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT

[Senate Report 111-168]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 351
111th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 111-168

======================================================================

ELECTRONIC DEVICE RECYCLING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT

_______

April 19, 2010.--Ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Reid (for Mrs. Boxer), from the Committee on Environment and Public
Works, submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany S. 1397]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was
referred a bill (S. 1397) to authorize the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to provide grants for
electronic device recycling research, development, and
demonstration projects, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSES

The Electronic Device Recycling Research and Development
Act was introduced by Senators Klobuchar and Gillibrand on July
6, 2009, and referred to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works. The bill was considered at a markup by the
Committee held on December 10, 2009. At the December 10, 2009,
markup, Senator Klobuchar offered a substitute amendment which
was agreed to by voice vote and the bill was ordered favorably
reported, as amended.
The Act's primary purposes are to: authorize EPA to award
multi-year grants to consortia to conduct research on
innovative and practical approaches to manage the human health
and environmental impacts of electronic devices through
recycling, reuse, reduction of the use of hazardous materials,
and life-cycle extension; authorize EPA to award grants to
higher education institutions to develop curricula for
environmental design in electronic devices; require a National
Academy of Sciences report to Congress on unwanted electronics
issues; and require the National Institute of Standards and
Technology to establish a physical property database for
environmentally preferable alternative materials, design
features, and manufacturing practices for use in electronic
devices.
The substitute amendment added an authorization of
appropriations for EPA to conduct research, expanded the scope
of the research to include human health impacts, and pushed
back the date of the grants by one year.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The rapidly increasing number of unwanted electronic
devices, including televisions, computers, cell phones,
printers, gaming systems, and other electronic devices, is a
growing problem in the United States and throughout the world.
Rapid advances in technology have resulted in enormous
increases in sales of new electronic devices, but have also
resulted in electronic devices becoming obsolete more quickly.
According to the Consumer Electronics Association, Americans
own approximately 24 electronic devices per household.\1\ Many
electronic devices are not designed to be easily recycled and
often contain toxic or hazardous substances. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that over 2
billion electronic devices have been sold in the United States
since 1980, generating 2 million tons of unwanted electronic
devices in 2005 alone.\2\ However, according to EPA, only 15 to
20 percent of unwanted electronic devices are recycled, while
most end up in municipal solid waste landfills and
incinerators.\3\ Hazardous substances from electronic devices
disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills and electronic
devices burned in municipal solid waste incinerators can
release toxic substances into the environment.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Consumer Electronics Association Market Research Report:
``Trends in Consumer Electronics Reuse, Recycle and Removal'' (April
2008).
\2\``EPA Fact Sheet: Management of Electronic Waste in the United
States'', EPA530-F-08-014, April 2007 (revised July 2008); online at:
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/ materials/ecycling/docs/fact7-
08.pdf; ``EPA 2008 Statistics on the Management of Used and End-Of-Life
Electronics,'' http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserv/materials/ecycling/
manage.htm; ``EPA Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 2007
Facts and Figures'', EPA530-R-08-010, November 2008; online at: http://
www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt.pdf.
\3\``EPA Fact Sheet: Management of Electronic Waste in the United
States'', EPA530-F-08-014, April 2007 (revised July 2008); online at:
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/ materials/ecycling/docs/fact7-
08.pdf.
\4\EPA Proposed Rule, ``Hazardous Waste Management System;
Modification of the Hazardous Waste Program; Cathode Ray Tubes and
Mercury-Containing Equipment'', 67 Fed. Reg. 40508, 40522 (June 12,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unwanted electronic devices can be refurbished and reused
or recycled to recover and conserve valuable materials, such as
gold, copper, platinum, and rare earth metals.\5\ For example,
the United States Geological Survey reports that 1 metric ton
of computer scrap contains more gold than 17 tons of ore and
much lower levels of toxic elements, such as arsenic, mercury,
and sulfur.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Testimony of John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office, before Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, ``Electronic Waste,'' July
26, 2005, S. HRG. 109-988 at 55; U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Geological Survey Fact Sheet 087-02, ``Rare Earth Elements--Critical
Resources for High Technology'' (2002); online at: http://
pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs087-02/fs087-02.pdf.
\6\U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Fact
Sheet 060-01, ``Obsolete Computers, `Gold Mine,' or High-Tech Trash?
Resource Recovery from Recycling'' (July 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the electronic device recycling industry in the
United States is growing, many challenges remain for the
recycling of electronic devices, particularly by households and
other small generators. Collection of the millions of unwanted
electronic devices spread out over urban, suburban, and rural
areas presents an expensive and logistical challenge. Also the
separation and proper recycling of some of the materials
recovered, such as lead from cathode-ray tube (CRT)
televisions, is costly.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Testimony of Scott Slesinger, Vice President for Government
Affairs, Environmental Technology Council, before Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, ``Electronic Waste,'' July 26, 2005, S.
HRG. 109-988 at 40; Response to Additional Questions by Richard Goss,
Director of Environmental Affairs, Electronic Industries Alliance,
before Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, ``Electronic
Waste,'' July 26, 2005, S. HRG. 109-988 at 116-117; Statement of Renee
St. Denis, Director of America's Product Take-Back and Recycling,
Hewlett Packard Company, Before House Committee on Science and
Technology, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 30, 2008, Serial No. 110-98
at 27; Statement of Eric Harris, Associate Counsel/Director of
Government and International Affairs, Institute of Scrap Recycling
Industries, Before House Committee on Science and Technology, 110th
Cong., 2nd Sess., April 30, 2008, Serial No. 110-98 at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The export of unwanted electronic devices to countries that
lack the infrastructure required to properly recycle unwanted
electronic devices also presents a serious challenge. The crude
methods of many of the recycling operations in these countries
can expose workers to harmful chemicals, jeopardizing their
health and polluting the environment.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Statement of Sheila Davis, Executive Director, Silicon Valley
Toxics Coalition, before Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works, ``Electronic Waste,'' July 26, 2005, S. HRG. 109-988 at 27-28;
U.S. Government Accountability Office Report ``Electronic Waste--EPA
Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S. Exports Through Stronger
Enforcement and More Comprehensive Regulation,'' GAO-08-1044, August
2008; Statement of Dr. Valerie Thomas, Associate Professor, Georgia
Institute of Technology, Before House Committee on Science and
Technology, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., Feb. 11, 2009, Serial No. 111-1 at
17; Statement of Dr. Eric D. Williams, Assistant Professor of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Arizona State University, Before House
Committee on Science and Technology, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 30,
2008, Serial No. 110-98 at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the challenges to increasing the recyclability of
electronic devices can be addressed by improving the logistics
and technology of the collection and recycling process,
designing electronic devices to avoid the use of hazardous
materials and to be more easily recycled, and encouraging the
use of recycled materials in more applications.\9\ The public
currently does not take full advantage of existing electronic
device recycling opportunities, with many unwanted electronic
devices being stored in people's homes. Studying factors that
influence behavior and educating consumers about responsible
electronic device recycling could help communities and private
industry develop recycling programs that draw more
participation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Testimony of Richard Goss, Director of Environmental Affairs,
Electronic Industries Alliance, before Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works, ``Electronic Waste,'' July 26, 2005, S. HRG. 109-988
at 39; Statement of Dr. Valerie Thomas, Associate Professor, Georgia
Institute of Technology, Before House Committee on Science and
Technology, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., Feb. 11, 2009, Serial No. 111-1 at
17; Statement of Dr. Eric D. Williams, Assistant Professor of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Arizona State University, Before House
Committee on Science and Technology, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 30,
2008, Serial No. 110-98 at 16; Statement of Eric Harris, Associate
Counsel/Director of Government and International Affairs, Institute of
Scrap Recycling Industries, Before House Committee on Science and
Technology, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 30, 2008, Serial No. 110-98
at 29.
\10\Testimony of Renee St. Denis, Director of America's Product
Take-Back and Recycling, Hewlett Packard Company, Before House
Committee on Science and Technology, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 30,
2008, Serial No. 110-98 at 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The development of tools and technologies to increase the
lifespan of electronic devices and to promote their safe reuse
would decrease the impact of the production of electronic
devices on the environment and likely increase the
recyclability of such devices.\11\ Accurately assessing the
human health and environmental impacts of the production and
recycling of electronic devices is a complex task and should be
addressed cooperatively by relevant stakeholders, including
EPA's Office of Research and Development, the electronic device
manufacturing and recycling industries, public health and
environmental groups, and academia. Data, tools, and methods to
better quantify these impacts would help policymakers and other
stakeholders determine the best end-of-life management options
for electronic devices.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Statement of John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources
and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office, before Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, ``Electronic Waste,'' July
26, 2005, S. HRG. 109-988 at 62; Statement of Dr. Eric D. Williams,
Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Arizona
State University, Before House Committee on Science and Technology,
110th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 30, 2008, Serial No. 110-98 at 15;
Statement of Ted Smith, Chair, Electronics TakeBack Coalition, Before
House Committee on Science and Technology, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess.,
April 30, 2008, Serial No. 110-98 at 38; Responses by Dr. Eric D.
Williams, Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Arizona State University, to Questions Submitted by Chairman Bart
Gordon, House Committee on Science and Technology, 110th Cong., 2nd
Sess., April 30, 2008, Serial No. 110-98 at 63-64.
\12\Statement of Dr. Eric D. Williams, Assistant Professor of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Arizona State University, Before House
Committee on Science and Technology, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 30,
2008, Serial No. 110-98 at 13; Statement of Renee St. Denis, Director
of America's Product Take-Back and Recycling, Hewlett Packard Company,
Before House Committee on Science and Technology, 110th Cong., 2nd
Sess., April 30, 2008, Serial No. 110-98 at 28; Responses by Dr. Eric
D. Williams, Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Arizona State University, to Questions Submitted by
Chairman Bart Gordon, House Committee on Science and Technology, 110th
Cong., 2nd Sess., April 30, 2008, Serial No. 110-98 at 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bill will authorize EPA grants and in-house research
and development programs to advance our understanding of how to
make electronic devices in more environmentally preferable ways
and to ensure the responsible recycling of the materials they
contain. This research and development program will create
tools to expand knowledge in EPA and industry to better protect
public health and the environment, enhance competitiveness, and
grow business opportunities and jobs in the electronic device
manufacturing and recycling industries.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

Summary
This section provides that the Act may be cited as ``The
Electronic Device Recycling Research and Development Act.''

Section 2. Findings

Summary
This section outlines the scope of the challenges and
issues relating to the recycling of electronic devices in the
United States and how a research and development program will
provide the tools for policymakers and stakeholders to increase
the recycling of unwanted electronic devices and to reduce the
human health and environmental impacts of the production and
recycling of electronic devices.

Section 3. Definitions

Summary
This section defines the following terms:
(1) The ``Academy'' is the National Academy of Sciences.
(2) The ``Administrator'' is the Administrator of EPA.
(3) A ``Consortium'' is a grant applicant or recipient
under Section 4 that includes: (a) at least 1 institution of
higher education, nonprofit research institution, or government
laboratory; and (b) at least 1 for-profit entity, including a
manufacturer, designer, refurbisher, or recycler of electronic
devices or components of those devices.
(4) The ``Director'' is the Director of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology.
(5) An ``electronic device'' includes computers (including
laptops and notebooks), computer monitors, televisions,
printers, wireless devices (including cell phones, pagers, and
personal digital assistants (PDAs)), copiers, fax machines,
stereos, video gaming systems, and the components of electronic
devices.
(6) An ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning
given the term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)), and for the purpose of section
7(a)(2) of the bill, includes any institution of higher
education under section 101(b) of that Act (20 U.S.C. 1001(b)).
(7) A ``minority serving institution'' is an institution
that is eligible under section 371(a) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1067q(a)).

Section 4. Electronic Device Engineering Research, Development, and
Demonstration Projects Grant Program

Subsection (a)--Grant program
Summary
Subsection (a) directs the Administrator to provide multi-
year grants to consortia to conduct research on managing the
human health and environmental impacts of electronic devices
through recycling, reuse, reduction of the use of hazardous
materials, and life-cycle extension, and to contribute to the
professional development of scientists, engineers, and
technicians in the fields of electronic device manufacturing,
design, refurbishing, and recycling.
Discussion
The EPA grants program will promote research to increase
knowledge of how to make electronic devices in more
environmentally preferable ways throughout their life-cycle and
to ensure the responsible recycling of the materials they
contain. This research and development program will create
tools to expand knowledge in EPA and industry to better protect
public health and the environment, enhance competitiveness, and
grow business opportunities and jobs in the electronic device
manufacturing and recycling industries.
The substitute amendment expanded the scope of the types of
research that grants will support, including to authorize
research on the risks to human health and the environment from
the recycling of unwanted electronic devices, as well as the
risks to human health and the environment from the disposal of
electronic devices and recycling residues, such as leachate
from landfills and emissions and combustion residues from
municipal solid waste incinerators and smelters. The substitute
also authorized research and development on methods to
discourage exports to countries with unsafe recycling practices
of recyclable materials from electronic devices that could be
processed into usable commodities in the United States and
North America, including identification of what kind of
additional specialized capacity may be needed, existing
barriers to developing that capacity, and options for
overcoming those barriers.
Subsection (b)--Merit review; competition
Summary
Subsection (b) requires that the grants be provided on a
merit-reviewed, competitive basis.
Subsection (c)--Applications
Summary
Subsection (c) requires that a consortium submit a grant
application to EPA, at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information and assurances as the Administrator
may require, including: (1) a description of the research
project and the contributions of each of the participating
entities, including the for-profit entity; (2) the
applicability of the project to reduce impediments to
electronic device recycling in the electronic device design,
manufacturing, refurbishing, or recycling industries; (3) the
potential for and feasibility of incorporating the research
results into industry practice; and (4) how the project will
promote collaboration among scientists and engineers from
different disciplines, such as electrical engineering,
materials science, and social science.
Subsection (d)--Dissemination of research results
Summary
Subsection (d) requires that the research results be made
public through: (1) publication on EPA's website; (2)
development of best practices or training materials for use in
the electronic device manufacturing, design, refurbishing, or
recycling industries; (3) dissemination at conferences
affiliated with such industries; (4) demonstration projects; or
(5) educational materials for the public produced in
conjunction with State governments, local governments, or
nonprofit organizations on problems and solutions related to
electronic device recycling and reuse.
Discussion
The Committee expects that EPA will make all information
developed through these programs that is not proprietary
information or trade secrets, including research results,
training materials, conference materials, educational
materials, and any other information, available on its website.
Subsection (e)--Funding contribution from for-profit member
of consortium
Summary
Subsection (e) requires that the for-profit entity
participating in the consortium contribute at least 10 percent
of the total research project cost, either directly or with in-
kind contributions.
Subsection (f)--Protection of proprietary information
Summary
Subsection (f) prohibits the disclosure of proprietary
information or trade secrets provided by any person or entity
under this section. Subsection (f) also requires that, as a
condition of receipt of a grant under this section, each member
of the consortium must have in place proper protections to
maintain proprietary information or trade secrets contributed
by other members of the consortium, and if any member of the
consortium breaches that condition or discloses such
proprietary information or trade secrets, the grant recipient
may be required to return funds received under the grant.
Discussion
The Committee appreciates and respects the legitimate need
of consortia members to protect proprietary information or
trade secrets. Because one of the primary purposes of this bill
is to develop and promote the widespread use more
environmentally preferable materials, design features, and
manufacturing processes in the electronic device industry, the
consideration of this goal is expected when making a
determination on whether to assert or maintain a claim that
such information is proprietary information or a trade secret.
Subsection (g)--Biennial report
Summary
Subsection (g) requires EPA to report to Congress within 2
years of enactment, and every 2 years thereafter until Congress
stops appropriating funds to carry out the program, of grants
awarded, list of the research and development projects, results
of projects, and a description of the rate and success of the
adoption or integration of the research results into electronic
device manufacturing practices, management practices, and
products.
Subsection (h)--Authorization of appropriations
Summary
Subsection (h) authorizes $60 million over 3 years for the
research, development, and demonstration project grant program
as follows: $18 million for fiscal year (FY) 2011; $20 million
for FY 2012; and $22 million for FY 2013.

Section 5. Electronic Device Engineering Research, Development, and
Demonstration Projects of EPA

Summary
This section directs the Administrator, through an applied
research program in EPA's Office of Research and Development,
to conduct research for the purposes described in and on the
topics listed in section 4. Section 5 authorizes $10 million
for each of FYs 2011 through 2013 for this in-house research
program.
Discussion
The scope of the in-house research to be conducted by EPA's
Office of Research and Development is the same as the scope of
the research authorized to be conducted by the consortia
through the grant program. The Committee expects that the grant
program and the in-house research program will complement each
other. The Committee has authorized appropriations for the in-
house research program separately from the grant program and
expects that each program shall be funded independently.

Section 6. National Academy of Sciences report on electronic devices

Subsection (a)--In general
Summary
Subsection (a) directs the Administrator to arrange a study
and enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of
Sciences under which the Academy will, within 1 year of
enactment, provide Congress with a report on:
(1) opportunities for and barriers to increasing the
recyclability of electronic devices;
(2) the environmental and human health risks posed by the
storage, transport, recycling, and disposal of unwanted
electronic devices;
(3) the current status of research and training programs to
promote the environmental design of electronic devices to
increase the recyclability of such devices;
(4) any regulatory or statutory barriers that may prevent
the adoption or implementation of best management practices or
technological innovations that may arise from the research and
training programs established in this Act; and
(5) the direct and indirect economic and domestic
employment impacts associated with recycling and harvesting
materials from unwanted electronic devices, instead of
disposing of such devices directly in landfills.
Discussion
The substitute amendment added to the scope of the Academy
study an examination of the direct and indirect economic and
domestic employment impacts of recycling and harvesting
materials from unwanted electronic devices instead of disposing
of such devices in landfills. The Committee believes that it is
important for the Academy to examine how increasing the reuse
and recycling of electronic devices will enhance
competitiveness, and grow business opportunities and jobs in
the electronic device manufacturing and recycling industries in
the United States.
Subsection (b)--Recommendations
Summary
Subsection (b) requires that the Academy's report to
Congress under subsection (a) identify gaps in the current
research and training programs in addressing the opportunities,
barriers, and risks relating to electronic device recycling,
and recommend areas where additional research and development
resources are needed to reduce the impact of unwanted
electronic devices on human health and the environment.

Section 7. Engineering curriculum development grants

Subsection (a)--Grant program
Summary
Subsection (a) directs the Administrator, in consultation
with the Director of the National Science Foundation, to
provide grants to institutions of higher education to develop
curricula that incorporates the principles of environmental
design into the development of electronic devices for the
training of electrical, mechanical, industrial, manufacturing,
materials, and software engineers and other students at the
undergraduate and graduate level, and to support the continuing
education of professionals in the electronic device
manufacturing, design, refurbishing, or recycling industries.
Subsection (b)--Outreach to minority serving institutions
Summary
Subsection (b) directs the Administrator to conduct
outreach to minority serving institutions for the purposes of
providing information on the grants available under this
section and how to apply for such grants.
Subsection (c)--Merit review; competition
Summary
Subsection (c) requires that the grants be awarded on a
merit-reviewed, competitive basis.
Subsection (d)--Use of funds
Summary
Subsection (d) requires that the grants be used for
activities that enhance the ability of an institution of higher
education to broaden the undergraduate and graduate-level
engineering curriculum or professional continuing education
curriculum to include environmental engineering design
principles and consideration of product lifecycles related to
electronic devices and increasing the recyclability of such
devices. Activities may include:
(1) developing and revising curriculum to include
multidisciplinary elements;
(2) creating research and internship opportunities for
students through partnerships with industry, nonprofit
organizations, or government agencies;
(3) creating and establishing certificate programs; and
(4) developing curricula for short courses and continuing
education for professionals in the environmental design of
electronic devices to increase the recyclability of such
devices.
Subsection (e)--Application
Summary
Subsection (e) requires that an institution of higher
education seeking a grant under this section submit an
application to the Administrator at such time, in such manner,
and with such information and assurances as the Administrator
may require.
Subsection (f)--Authorization of appropriations
Summary
Subsection (f) authorizes $15,454,000 over 3 years as
follows: $5,000,000 for FY 2010; $5,150,000 for FY 2011; and
$5,304,000 for FY 2012.

Section 8. Environmentally friendly alternative materials physical
property database

Subsection (a)--In general
Summary
Subsection (a) requires the Director of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in conjunction
with the EPA Administrator to develop a comprehensive physical
property database for environmentally preferable alternative
materials, design features, and manufacturing practices for use
in electronic devices.
Subsection (b)--Eligible materials, features, and practices
Summary
Subsection (b) requires that the Director consult the
Administrator in determining whether certain materials, design
features, and manufacturing practices are environmentally
preferable and, therefore, should be contained in the database.
Discussion
The Committee recognizes that there is no established,
generally recognized definition of the term ``environmentally
preferable,'' and that the determination of what is
environmentally preferable can be made on a case-by case basis.
The Committee also recognizes that such determinations will not
be static, but will change over time as newer more
environmentally preferable alternative materials, design
features, and manufacturing practices are developed. In making
determinations of what to include in the database, NIST will be
required to consult with EPA in making a determination that
materials, design features, and manufacturing practices are
environmentally preferable. The Committee also expects that EPA
will work with stakeholders, including industry, public health
and environmental groups, in carrying out its role of providing
its expert advice to NIST on the materials, design features,
and manufacturing practices that are environmentally preferable
and, therefore, can be contained in the database.
Subsection (c)--Priorities
Summary
Subsection (c) requires the Director, working with the
electronic device design, manufacturing, or recycling
industries, to develop a strategic plan to establish priorities
and the physical property characterization requirements for the
database.
Subsection (d)--Other matters
Summary
Subsection (d) allows the Director to expand the database
to include information on the environmental impacts of various
materials, design features, and manufacturing practices used in
electronic devices from a life-cycle standpoint.
Subsection (e)--Annual updates
Summary
Subsection (e) requires at least annual updates to the
database.
Discussion
The Committee expects that NIST will, in consultation with
EPA, update the database more often as the results of the
research and demonstration projects by the consortia and EPA
become available.
Subsection (f)--Authorization of appropriations
Summary
Subsection (f) authorizes $3 million for each of fiscal
years 2011 through 2013.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 1397 was introduced by Senators Klobuchar and Gillibrand
on July 6, 2009. The bill was read twice and referred to the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. On December
10, 2009, the full Committee on Environment and Public Works
considered S. 1397 and ordered favorably reported a substitute
amendment. Senator Klobuchar made the following statement about
S. 1397:

Thank you Chairman Boxer. I appreciated the time you gave
me to talk about the formaldehyde bill. One other I wanted to
mention that is on the mark up today that I am co-sponsoring
with Senator Gillibrand who I see is here. That is the
Electronic Device Recycling Research and Development Act. As
you all know across the country the vast majority of discarded
electronics end up in landfills or burned in garbage
incinerators. This is a national and an international problem
and the solutions will have to be on an equal scale if we ever
hope to recycle the huge, ever-growing volume of discarded
electronics. When e-waste is buried in landfills, lead and
mercury can contaminate ground and surface water.
What this bill does is authorize public/private cost
sharing grants to be awarded for R&D projects that aim to
address this growing problem. We have worked on this bill with
the Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition. I've seen
firsthand some of the work that is going on with consumer
electronics to make them so that they are less damaging to the
environment when they are discarded. There is a lot of
recycling, obviously that we want to promote that is going on.
But there is a huge amount of work to be done. When you think
of all of the electronics in this country and it is going up at
such an exponential rate that we need to be on the front end of
this because, as I said, it's not just a national but an
international problem. I appreciate that the Consumer
Electronics Association, the Electronics Take Back Coalition,
and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries and others are
on board with this legislation that Senator Gillibrand and I
have. Thank you very much

HEARINGS

The Committee did not hold hearings on S. 1397 during the
111th Congress. On July 26, 2005, the Subcommittee on Superfund
and Waste Management held an oversight hearing on ``Electronic
Waste.''

ROLLCALL VOTES

There were no rollcall votes. The Committee on Environment
and Public Works met to consider S. 1397 on December 10, 2009.
A quorum of the Committee being present, S. 1397 was reported
favorably as amended by a voice vote.

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that there
are not expected to be significant costs to private entities
under this legislation.

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(public Law 104-4), the Committee finds that S. 1397 would
impose no Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State,
local, or tribal governments.
December 14, 2009.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1397, the Electronic
Device Recycling Research and Development Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S.
Mehlman.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office.

S. 1397--Electronic Device Recycling Research and Development Act

Summary: S. 1397 would authorize appropriations for the
Environmental Protection Agency to provide grants to consortia
and institutions of higher education to support research and
projects related to the recycling of electronic devices, such
as computers, printers, and copiers. This legislation also
would authorize appropriations for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop a database of
alternative materials for use in electronic devices and for EPA
to conduct its own engineering research and demonstration
projects.
CBO estimates that implementing S. 1397 would cost $14
million in 2011 and $109 million over the 2011-2014 period,
assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. Enacting the
bill would not affect direct spending or revenues.
S. 1397 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Any costs to state, local, or tribal governments would result
from complying with conditions of assistance.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 1397 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 300
(natural resources and environment) and 370 (commerce and
housing credit).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
---------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Grants to Consortia to Address Environmental Impact of
Electronic Devices:
Authorization Level..................................... 0 18 20 22 0 60
Estimated Outlays....................................... 0 7 16 21 13 57
Funding to Support Engineering Research and Demonstration
Projects:
Authorization Level..................................... 0 10 10 10 0 30
Estimated Outlays....................................... 0 4 9 10 6 29
Grants to Develop Engineering Curriculum:
Authorization Level..................................... 0 5 5 5 0 15
Estimated Outlays....................................... 0 2 4 5 3 15
NIST Database Development:
Authorization Level..................................... 0 3 3 3 0 9
Estimated Outlays....................................... 0 1 3 3 2 9
Total Proposed Changes:
Authorization Level..................................... 0 36 38 40 0 114
Estimated Outlays....................................... 0 14 32 39 24 109
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: NIST = National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S.
1397 will be enacted before the end of 2010, that the specified
amounts will be appropriated in each year starting in 2011, and
that outlays will follow historical spending patterns for
similar programs. CBO estimates that implementing this
legislation would cost $109 million over the 2011-2014 period.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1397
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. The bill would provide grants to institutions
of higher education, including public colleges and
universities, to conduct research and develop curricula related
to improving the recycling of electronic devices. Any costs to
state, local, or tribal governments would result from complying
with conditions of federal assistance.
Previous CBO cost estimate: On March 30, 2009, CBO
transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 1580, the Electric Device
Recycling Research and Development Act, as ordered reported by
the House Committee on Science and Technology on March 25,
2009. Both pieces of legislation are similar, though S. 1397
includes an additional authorization of appropriations for EPA
to fund its own engineering research and demonstration
projects. That difference between the two pieces of legislation
is reflected in CBO's cost estimates.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman;
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Ryan Miller;
Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

Section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate
requires the Committee to publish changes in existing law made
by the bill as reported. Passage of this bill will make no
changes to existing law.