E-waste Collection No Longer Operating in Canberra?

Last Sunday I took a computer monitor to the ACT Government's Mitchell Resource Management Centre. I expected to to be directed to a row of bins for computers, TVs and other presorted electronic equipment, as previously. But instead I was directed to a mixed pile of electrical equipment, including washing machines, TVs, printers, and electronic items. Has the ACT Government withdrawn from the  National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme? Is the ACT Government handling e-waste in accordance with local, national and international law, which requires it  to be treated as hazardous.

At the moment I am revising my "ICT Sustainability" course for students at ANU. If e-waste is no longer being recycled in Canberra, I will need to revise the materials chapter.

E-waste in India

The Indian state of Puducherry has issued an Order for Management and Handling of E-waste  (16th September 2014). The definition of e-waste includes e-waste’ covers electrical and electronic equipment to be discarded, including computers, laptops, printers, copying
equipment, electrical and electronic typewriters, facsimile, telex, telephones and television sets. Unusually it also includes refrigerators,
washing-machines and air-conditioners, but excludes central air-conditioning plant. E-waste is is to be sent to authorized collection centres, registered recyclers or returned to the manufacturer. This may be of interest to students of "ICT Sustainability", inclduing the course COMP7310, being offed by the Australian National University on-line to all postgraduate students in first semester 2015.

Reuse or Recycle Your Old Computer

I will be speaking at Google Sydney on "Reuse or Recycle Your Old Computer", during the Sydney Linux User Group meeting,  6pm 28 March 2014. This is free to attend, but please RSVP.

Reuse or Recycle Your Old Computer

Computers and mobile devices become obsolete much quicker than other consumer products, such as refrigerators and cars. Electronic equipment can contain toxic and valuable materials which should not be simply put into landfill. Before you buy a new computer, tablet or phone, look at the options of what to do with the old one.

Tom is the author of the free ebook "ICT Sustainability: Assessment and Strategies for a Low Carbon Future" and teaches an on-line course in ICT sustainability which started at the Australian National University in mid-February.

What is e-waste

Electronic waste "e-waste": material from unwanted electrical or electronic devices.

1.  Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (1989) limits the movement hazardous waste between nations. 
2.  Criteria for the export and import of used electronic equipment  assumes that e-waste is hazardous, until shown otherwise.

See: Materials Use in"ICT Sustainability:Assessment and Strategies for a Low Carbon Future" Tom Worthington, 2013.

National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme

• National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme (NTCRS): paid for by an industry levy
• Recycling Drop Off Points free for the public, across Australia
• Drop-off in Sydney at shops and council depots.
• 41,000 tonnes of Old TVs and Computers Recycled in Australia Last Year
• 30% of old TVs and computers recycled: "National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme - Outcomes 2012-13".
• About two million devices

Reuse or Recycle?

The NTCRS and services such as MobileMuster are strictly for recycling, not reuse. The equipment is broken up into its constituent materials (plastic, metal, glass) and these are melted down for making new items. For Reuse the equipment (or parts) refurbished and used again (often by charities).

Options for E-waste Plastic

The New Zealand Government has issued reports of two studies it commissioned on how to dealing with plastic which contains Brominated flame retardant (BFR) chemicals. These plastics have been commonly used in computers and other electronic devices. The chemicals are banned under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). The result is e-waste which is difficult to dispose of.

Backup and Erase Media Before Recycling or Reusing

Before recycling or reusing your computer, backup any useful information and then erase the media.

TAD’s Computer Support Service (CSS)

Technical Aid to the Disabled (TAD) accepts donations of relatively new computers for their TAD Computer Support Service.

Computers are refurbished by volunteers, upgraded to new Windows OS and provided to those on a disability or a Centrelink card at a modest cost.

Upgrade Really Old Computers to Linux 

• Microsoft is ending technical assistance for Windows XP, 8 April 2014 and advise "Very few older computers will be able to run Windows 8.1"
• Last year I upgraded four old PCs from Windows 98 and XP to  Mint Linux (Version 15) "Mate". This worked fine and provides a Windows-like interface.

Reuse or Recycle?

• Second hand computers are not classified as e-waste (as long as they work).
• Refurbishing a computer will extend its life.
• But will the computer use significantly more electricity than a new one?

See also: Labels: e-waste, ICT Sustainability

41,000 tonnes of Old TVs and Computers Recycled in Australia Last Year

The Department of the Environment, has released a report on "National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme - Outcomes 2012-13". It is estimated the scheme just about reached its target of recycling 30% of the TVs and computers made surplus during the year (41,327 tonnes). 

 Assuming each computer or TV weights an average of 20 kg, that would represent two million devices being recycled (computers weight less and TVs more). However, the target may not take account of the old equipment which has accumulated in homes and offices in the absence of a recycling scheme. Also the introduction of digital TV and tablet computers may be increasing the rate at which equipment is replaced. I suggest a more realistic target might be four times the one set.

This week I have a class of university students studying e-waste. 

Options for E-waste Plastic

The New Zealand Government has issued reports of two studies it commissioned on how to dealing with plastic which contains Brominated flame retardant (BFR) chemicals. These plastics have been commonly used in computers and other electronic devices. The chemicals are banned under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). The result is e-waste which is difficult to dispose of. Available are:

1. Managing waste that may contain brominated flame retardants,
2. Brominated flame retardant research: A pilot study of e-waste plastic sorting in New Zealand (AS140193), Geoff Latimer, NVIRON Australia Pty Ltd, for NZ Ministry for the Environment, September 2013. The study found most CRT TVs in NZ were manufactured in Asia after 1990 without POP-BDEs. A small number of older units from Europe may contain the chemical. Photocopiers and printers are likely to be POP-BDE free. There was limited evidence on POP-BDEs in CRT computer monitors, so the authors recommended monitors should be assumed to contain them. But LCD computer monitors are unlikely to contain the chemical.
   
3. Brominated Flame Retardant Research: A cost-benefit analysis of sorting options for e-waste plastics, ACIL Allen Consulting Pty Ltd, for NZ Ministry for the Environment, October 2013. The report compared visual inspection of items versus use of a handheld "XRF scanner" which uses X-rays to detect the chemicals.  The report concludes that the scanners can't sufficient distinguish between POP-BDE and the more benign chemicals used to replace them, resulting in a large number of false positives. The report concludes XRF is more expensive and does not give any better identification result.

China E-waste Draft National Standards

The China Electronic Standards Association (CESA), distributed seven draft national standards the handling of e-waste. These cover the dismantling of obsolete equipment, general requirements for premises, equipment procedures, pollution control, health and safety, and documentation. These cover desktop computers, copiers, printers, laptops, plasma, LCD and CRT TVs and computer monitors. It is not clear why seven separate standards are needed, as most of the procedures will be common for all types of equipment. One standard could be issued with appendices, or supplements, for variations in equipment type. These standards are important for Australia, as much of the  e-waste collected through the Australian National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme, goes to China for recycling.

Here are the original Chinese texts of the proposed standards:

1. CRT TVs and Monitors: 20083080-T-339
2. LCD TVs: 20083081-T-339
3. Plasma TVs: 20083082-T-339
4. Notebook computers (laptops): 20083083-T-339
5. Printers: 20083084-T-339
6. Copiers: 20083085-T-339
7. Desktop computers (PCs): 20083086-T-339

E-waste Collection Working In Canberra Working Too Well

Canberra has a drop-off point for the "National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme" at the Mitchell Resource Management Centre.  Rather than turning left for the general waste, turn right and stop next to the large steel mesh crates. There is one place for computers and another for TVs. Judging by the amount of material piled up in the crates (they look like a hi-tech gabion wall), the scheme is working well. But perhaps it is a bit too easy to simply trow away perfectly usable working TVs and computers, which should be instead reused.

Guidelines on what is e-waste under the Basel Convention

The Basel Convention regulates the movement of hazardous waste, including e-waste, across international borders. New draft technical guidelines are being prepared on the distinction between waste and non-waste used electrical and electronic equipment (22 December 2012). Australia contributed "Criteria for the export and import of used electronic equipment" from the Department of the Environment and Heritage, March 2005. The guidelines try to distinguish between used equipment destined to be repaired, refurbish or reused (which is not waste) and that which is to be disposed of (which is e-waste). This is a problem for authorities, as regulations on e-waste could be circumvented by simply labeling the material for reuse.

22. To determine if equipment is waste it may be necessary to examine the history of an item and its proposed use on a case by case basis. However, there are characteristics of the equipment that are likely to indicate whether it is waste or not.
23. Without prejudice to paragraph 26, where the holders of used equipment claim that this is intended to be or is a movement of used equipment intended for direct reuse and not e-waste, the following should be provided or be in place to back up this claim to an authority on its request (prior to the transport, either generally or on a case-by-case basis):
24. a copy of the invoice and contract relating to the sale and/or transfer of ownership of the equipment with a signed statement that indicates that the equipment had been tested and is destined for direct reuse and fully functional and includes information on the further user or, where this is not possible, the retailer;
25. evidence of evaluation or testing in the form of copy of the records (certificate of testing – proof of functionality) on every item within the consignment and a protocol containing all record information (see Section III C);
26. a declaration made by the holder who arranges the transport of the equipment that none of the equipment within the consignment is waste as defined by national law of the countries involved in the movement¹ (countries of export and import, and, if applicable countries of transit) and;
27. appropriate protection against damage during transportation, loading and unloading, in particular through sufficient packaging² and stacking of the load.

Testing of used equipment should be performed before shipment in the country of export. Except from the situations described in paragraph 26, all the above-listed criteria would need to be met for the used equipment not to be considered waste.

1 In case of disagreement on the status of the equipment being waste or not the procedure for the strictest interpretation (i.e. the procedure for shipments of waste) should be followed.

2 With regard to computing equipment, see the packaging guidelines developed under PACE. ...

From: Draft technical guidelines on transboundary movements of e-waste and used electrical and electronic equipment, in particular regarding the distinction between waste and non-waste under the Basel Convention, by the Open-ended Working Group of the Basel Convention (OEWG 8), 22 December 2012.

University Green IT Guidelines

The University of Southern Queensland (USQ) has issued an "ICT Guideline for Green IT" (30 October 2012). This aims to reduce the USQ’s ICT carbon footprint. Measure include consolidating applications and selection of energy efficient equipment. Recycling to avoid eWaste is also discussed.

No figures on existing emissions or ewaste are given and no targets are set, so the USQ's commitment to ICT Sustainability is questionable. The document is the equivalent of 2 A4 pages and at 159 kbytes is not efficiently formatted, thus wasting ICT resources.

Strategic areas of focus for ICT Services include:

• Optimise resource usage and reduce waste and inefficient resource application by ensuring that appropriate technologies are chosen to support business requirements.
• Manage resource consumption and demand through consolidation and virtualisation. Specific initiatives include:
  • Consolidate servers and manage optimised shared virtual infrastructure;
  • Consolidate applications and infrastructure by promoting the use of shared services including cloud computing where appropriate;
  • Build and manage more efficient data centers with a PUE (Power Usage Effectiveness) rating of less than 2.0 and approaching 1.0;
  • Consolidate and reduce the number of computer laboratories to ensure optimal utilisation;
  • Consolidate the number of printers in use and replace these with more efficient larger capacity multi-function printing devices;
  • Improve the ratio of desktop computers to printer ratio.
• Encourage electronic collaboration through the use of the learning management system, Microsoft
• SharePoint technologies and other collaboration tools which can improve the collaborative effort and effectiveness of all staff and students;
• Implement new computing infrastructures including increased use of mobile devices or thin clients, as replacements for more intensive, less flexible computing devices.
• Safe and responsible disposal and recycling of ICT equipment and eWaste (Refer also to ICT Procurement Guidelines);
• Consider energy efficiency in technology selection and acquisition. Improvements in sustainable procurement including procurement of green equipment such as Electronic Product Environmental
• Assessment Tool (EPEATTM)1 registered desktop computers, laptops and monitors or purchasing products with a high ENERGY STAR® 2 and EPEATTM rating;
• Centralisation of ICT procurement, deployment and disposal assists with improving asset management, reuse and recycling across the University;
• Provide alternatives to travel by using remote communication technologies.

What can you do as an individual?

• Minimise energy consumption of idle devices, specifically desktop computers and mobile devices (ie turn off computer equipment when not in use).
• Safe disposal and recycling of ICT equipment and eWaste (Refer also to ICT Procurement Guidelines).
• Reduce unnecessary travel by using remote communication technologies. Reduce unnecessary printing.

Green Printing

The University continues to investigate a number of specific strategies to reduce the amount of unnecessary printing including:

• All networked printers and multi-function devices are configured (by default) to print duplex.
• Multi-function devices enable greater use of scanning features rather than printing.
• Meeting agendas and associated material are published online to reduce the requirement to print meeting material. ...

From:  ICT Guideline for Green IT, Executive Director, ICT Services, University of Southern Queensland, 30 October 2012

E-waste Rules from Indian Government

The Indian Ministry of Environment & Forests has announced that "E-waste Management and Handling Rules 2011" (S.O. 1035(E), Government of India Press, 12/05/2011) will come into effect 1 May 2012. These are useful rules for reducing the amount of toxic material from electronic devices polluting the environment, but the Indian government needs an on-line system to make the rules workable.

The rules apply to producers , bulk consumers and recycling centres for electrical and electronic equipment (batteries, small enterprises and radioactive waste are excluded). Under these rules producers are responsible for recycling of e-waste at the "end of life" of their products, including the cost of collection and recycling centres.

The rules are contained in a 23 page, 1.3Mb PDF file (also available in Hindi). Unfortunately the English version of the rules appears to be a poorly scanned facsimile of a paper copy. This will make it difficult for organizations to find the rules and prepare internal documentation in order to comply with them.

Organizations covered by these rules are required to register with their state pollution control board or Pollution Control Committee, keep records of e-waste handling and file annual returns with the government. Unfortunately the forms provided in the rules are poor quality facsimilies of paper copies. It appears that the Government of India's intention is that organizations will fill these forms in on paper and send them through the post. This will create a large administrative burden for the companies and government agencies concerned. It will also create an environmental burden due to the materials and energy consumed in the process. The paper based records produced will be of little value in monitoring e-waste.

I suggest the Government of India produce a central web based registration system for producers to register and enter their annual returns. Responsible agencies can then also register so they can monitor the activities in their region. The e-forms used could be design to be filled in using a smart phone or other low cost low bandwidth device, so minimal burden will be imposed on industry. The system could be self funding by including advertisements on the web site.

Buying a New Mobile Phone Battery

The battery in my Sharp GX30i mobile phone now only lasts for about a 20 minute call. This battery is a replacement from Power Mart aka Topscope Pty Ltd, purchased in August 2009 for $19.95, plus $4.50 delivery. The original battery with the phone lasted more than four years, so the replacement only lasting about 20 months is disappointing. However, this is within the expected life of a Lithium Ion battery.

The company Battery Charger are offering a replacement for the SHARP XN-1BT30 battery, at only $7.69 (assuming they still have them). The catch is $10 for Australia Post registered delivery. While I am at it I might as well order another battery for a Motorola U9 as well (for $9.22). The company gets a positive mention in the Whirlpool forum.

I did consider a new smart phone, but the old 2G phone has worked reliably (being dropped many times) and carries out the main function of making phone calls. Also it would be a shame to create more e-waste by throwing out a functioning phone. Also there is an new range of higher function low cost smart phones about to come out, such as the HTC Wildfire S. That should cause the price of existing units such as the Huawei Ideos u8150, to drop to under $100.

Product Stewardship Bill in Austrlaian Parliment

The "Product Stewardship Bill 2011" was introduced to the Australian Senate 23 March 2011. This allows for so called "co-regulatory" approach, where industry bodies run recycling schemes for e-waste (those companies which do not participate may be required to pay a fee). This timely as the switch-over to digital TV is resulting in many old analogue CRT TVs being replaced with flat screen LCD models. The NBN will also likely result in consumers upgrading their computer equipment with new networking equipment.

While there are many companies wo will do the right thing with e-waste, unfortunately as detailed in "International Waste Trafficking: Preliminary Explorations" (Klenovšek and Meško, 2011), there are those who will attempt to flout the law.

The Product Stewardship Bill 2011 (the Bill) establishes a national framework to enable Australia to more effectively manage the environmental, health and safety impacts of products, and in particular those impacts associated with the disposal of products.

The Bill implements a commitment in the National Waste Policy: Less Waste, More Resources (November 2009) that:

the Australian Government, with the support of state and territory governments, will establish a national framework underpinned by legislation to support voluntary, co-regulatory and regulatory product stewardship and extended producer responsibility schemes to provide for the impacts of a product being responsibly managed during and at end of life.

The National Waste Policy has been endorsed by all Australian governments, through both the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (November 2009) and the Council of Australian Governments (August 2010).

... The Bill is a ‘framework’ bill in the sense that regulations will determine the products and persons that obligations apply to. This framework approach, which enables assessment of whether product stewardship requirements should be established for particular classes of products, has been endorsed by all Australian governments through the National Waste Policy. It avoids the need for product-specific legislation and promotes a consistent approach to matters such as reporting, compliance and enforcement.

Key provisions

Scope of obligations

The Bill will provide the basis for obligations to be imposed on manufacturers, importers, distributors and others to take action that relates to one or more of the following:

· avoiding generating waste from products;

· reducing or eliminating the amount of waste from products to be disposed of;

· reducing or eliminating hazardous substances in products and waste from products;

· managing waste from products as a resource;

· ensuring that products and waste from products is treated, disposed of, recovered, recycled and reused in a safe, scientific and environmentally sound way.

Circumstances in which obligations may be imposed

Obligations will only apply to classes of products identified in regulations under the co-regulatory or mandatory provisions of the Bill. Before a decision to make regulations is made, the Australian Government’s requirements for regulatory impact analysis will be met in accordance with the Best Practice Regulation Handbook. This will have regard to the following:

· the problem or issues that give rise to the need for action;

· the objectives of government action;

· the feasible alternative options to achieve these objectives;

· the costs and benefits of the alternative options; and

· the net benefit of each option for the community as a whole.

In addition to regulatory impact analysis requirements, the Minister will have to be satisfied that the regulations meet criteria identified in the Bill and further the objects of the Bill.

Voluntary provisions

The Bill provides the basis for accreditation of voluntary product stewardship arrangements. The purpose of voluntary accreditation is to provide an avenue for encouraging and recognising product stewardship without the need to regulate, and to provide assurance to the community that a voluntary product stewardship arrangement is operating to achieve the outcomes it has committed to achieve. Details of the accreditation process would be set out in a Ministerial determination.

Co-regulatory provisions

A co-regulatory approach involves a combination of government regulation and industry action. Government sets the minimum outcomes and operational requirements, while industry has flexibility as to how those outcomes and requirements are achieved. In practice, it is likely that the co-regulatory provisions of the Bill would be used where a substantial part of an industry wants to take action, but is concerned about the rest of the industry ‘free riding’ on their efforts. This is the case for the national computer and television recycling scheme, which would be supported by the co-regulatory provisions and associated regulations.

Mandatory provisions

Under the mandatory provisions, regulations may establish prescriptive product stewardship requirements and establish offences or civil penalties that apply if those requirements are not met. Regulations could, amongst other things, require specified actions to be taken with respect to the reuse, recycling, treatment or disposal of products or prohibit the manufacture and import of products containing hazardous substances....

Financial Impact Statement

... potential savings from national rather than state by state regulation of product stewardship. It indicated that if states and territories were to pursue their own approach then the cost to the economy would be between $212m and $414m above business as usual, while a national approach to product stewardship would have a net saving of $147 million. The RIS relating to national television and computer product stewardship indicated there would be a net benefit to the community from regulation. ...

From: "Product Stewardship Bill 2011", Explanatory Memorandum, Australian Senate, 23 March 2011 (Bill number C2011B00048).

ICTs and Environmental Sustainability in Australia

Andrew Garton has produced a "Report for 2010 - ICTs and Environmental Sustainability in Australia". This is one of numerous reports available at the GISWatch.

With the Australian government wavering on its response to climate change, a national household energy reduction scheme in tatters, and illegal shipments of electronic waste (e waste) still said to be en route to China,¹ the July 2010 launch of a National Waste Policy Implementation Plan could not have come soon enough.

The pressure on Australians to upgrade domestic information and communications technologies (ICTs) is set to spike. With the 2012 change over to digital broadcasting, new wide-screen high-definition televisions are in demand. So much so that current trends suggest that the number of televisions are “fast outnumbering people in the average Australian household.”²

An anticipated 40 million analogue radio receivers in Australia are also due to be discarded by 2012. This, together with LCD prices plummeting and 3D screens set to impact on the market, means that the volume of e-waste that will pour out of businesses and homes will be unprecedented. Kerbside e waste, recognised by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as one of the fastest growing types of waste³ in the country, will undoubtedly increase.

In an environment that has seen a government renege on its major environmental promises, it may well require a stronger commitment from industry, in cooperation with civil society, to ensure sufficient incentives and measures are in place to increase the uptake of e waste management initiatives and the opportunities they afford. In fact, the past decade has seen the private sector – and many in the civil society sector – do just that.

Will Australia seek to influence ICT manufacturers to reduce e waste to zero sums, or will it further the need to advocate for a programme of toxic waste management? The increasing concerns around the radioactive waste site mooted for Muckaty cattle station in the Northern Territory suggests Australia has yet to find the leadership and commitment towards the establishment of a uniform and consistent approach to outright minimisation of environmental harm across all sectors.

Still, the National Waste Policy is a much sought-for step in very much the right direction.

New e-Waste Regulations for China

The "Recycling Waste Electrical and Electronic Products Regulations" of the State Council of People's Republic of China
came into force on 1 January 2011 (No. 551:《废弃电器电子产品回收处理管理条例》). This standardises the regulations for recycling electrical and electronic waste. There are considerable fines for non-compliance.

Proposals for recycling old TVs and Computers

The Australian and New Zealand governments are considering how to recycle old televisions and computers. The Environment Protection and Heritage Council of has released a Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement: Televisions and Computers" (170 pages, 1.23 Mbyts of PDF, July 2009). Forums were held and written comments are invited by 13 August 2009. Of the nine options in the report, my preference is for option 1 (joint responsibility for collection) followed by option 2 (major computer brands responsible for their own products).

Available are:

1. Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement: Televisions and Computers - July 2009Code of Practice for Managing End-of-Life Televisions - July 2009
2. Willingness to pay for e-waste recycling - July 2009
3. Submission template - Television and Computer Product Stewardship Consultation Package
4. Statement on End of Life Televisions and Computers - Nov 2008

Executive summary

This document is a consultation regulatory impact statement for end of life televisions and computers put out by the Environment Protection and Heritage Council.

Introduction

Electrical and electronic products, in particular televisions and computers, constitute a significant element of Australia's material consumption, domestic environmental impact and waste to landfill. In 2007/08, 31.7 million new televisions, computers and computer products were sold in Australia, which is equivalent to 1.5 new units per person every year. In the same year 16.8 million units reached their end of life, which is close to one unit per Australian. Of these units, it is estimated that 88% were sent to landfill, with only 9% being recycled. Over the next 20 years, a significant volume of televisions, computers and computer products for disposal/recycling is expected to be generated, with expectations that the end of life volume will more than double. Waste volumes are increasing with shorter life spans of product and increasing ownership of electrical products, with the number of televisions, computers and computer products reaching their end of life expected to grow to 44.0 million by 2027/28.

Internationally, programs are being developed or implemented to reduce the environmental impact of electrical and electronic products. The European Union and Japan have already implemented legislation requiring the recovery and recycling of televisions and computers whilst other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries are in the process of introducing a range of mechanisms to address this issue.

Australia’s consideration of an approach for managing e-waste has been ongoing since the 1990s when national electrical and electronic waste management was put forward as an emerging priority by industry to the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC), the precursor to the current Environment Protection and
Heritage Council (EPHC).

In 2002 Environment Ministers agreed that national action was required in relation to waste electrical and electronic equipment. On behalf of the EPHC, a multi-jurisdictional working group, known as the Electrical Equipment Product Stewardship Sub-Group, examined the issue of waste electrical and electronic equipment and identified televisions and computers as first priorities for action as a result of their higher levels of hazardous
components relative to other types of electrical products, and the lost opportunities for conserving non-renewable resources due to products being sent to landfill. In 2008 EPHC committed to the development of a national solution to the problem of end of life televisions and computers.

In parallel with government consideration of the issues both the television and key players in the computer industries are keen to engage in large scale national action, with national regulatory support to ensure a level playing field in the market.

In this document computer and computer products are defined as including: computer displays, computer desktops and similar, computer mobile units (e.g. laptops), computer
peripherals (e.g. keyboards, mouse, hard drives, scanners, speakers, web cams, power cords, internal power supplies, external power supplies, fans, miscellaneous/other parts), personal or desktop laser and inkjet printers, and multi function devices.

While each jurisdiction has its own regulation setting out waste minimisation policies (refer to Appendix D), currently only the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government has a ban on disposing television screens and computers monitors in its landfill. Other jurisdictions are considering bans and a number of take-back schemes have been trialled. In addition, a number of local governments across Australia have implemented or are
considering bans or charges for disposing of e-waste in landfill. The number of responses to addressing television and computer waste, and more broadly e-waste, in Australia, demonstrates the significance of the issue to the community and the drive to take action

This document is a consultation regulatory impact statement. Its purpose is to examine the impacts of implementing consistent national arrangements for end-of-life televisions and computers. The regulatory impact statement assesses proposed options to address identified problems with end-of-life televisions and computers. This consultation regulatory impact statement does not propose to address the whole issue of end of life electrical and electronic products, but rather it is part of a proposed incremental approach. ...

The television and computer waste problem

Currently in Australia, each jurisdiction has its own waste minimisation legislation or policies. The broad powers provided to each jurisdiction by waste minimisation legislation means that there is a tangible risk that each jurisdiction will implement a different approach to the television and computer waste problem in the absence of a national approach. Due to this, Environment Protection and Heritage Council each jurisdiction has been working through the EPHC towards seeking a national solution. Specific television and computer waste responses have already begun to vary in different jurisdictions. For example the ACT has banned the disposal of computer monitors and television screens in landfill, and Victoria is trialling Byteback, a government-run computer collection and recycling scheme.

In addition, some private sector schemes have arisen to deal with the increasing volumes of waste television and computer products (e.g. Dell offers free recycling of any Dell branded equipment, and Apple offers free recycling for purchases from particular stores). However, these schemes are brand-specific so are not whole-of-waste solutions, and in addition it is not clear how easy it is for households to participate. While some television and computer waste is currently recycled, the financial value of the recycled
material resources (metals, glass, plastic, etc.) is not high enough to fund an
expansion of recycling beyond its current levels. In other words, recycling of
these products is financially unviable without government support.

Despite some government and private sector intervention, the recycling rate remains low at 9% of units reaching end of life (excluding export of used items), or 10% based on tonnage - with the remainder being landfilled and a minor proportion that are exported.

Considering whether there is a case for government intervention to improve recycling or reduce landfill of television and computers in Australia, it is important to identify the possible problems with the current situation. The following problems have been identified for stakeholder consideration:

* Conservation of non-renewable resources. ...
* Community expectations are not being met. ...
* Free-rider problem. ...
* Landfill externality costs. ...
* Landfill direct costs and opportunity cost of land. ...

In addition to the problems with the current disposal methods, there are a
number of policy factors that add to pressure for Australian governments to
address these problems. These policy pressures include:

* Australia is a signatory to the Basel Convention on the Control of the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and Their Disposal (the Basel Convention) and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (the Stockholm Convention). ...
* international pressure from countries that have already implemented television and computer recycling schemes.

Policy objectives

The objectives of a regulatory impact statement when considering government intervention should include broad-ranging concepts that can be applied to a range of problems. More specifically relating to end of life televisions and computers should be to address the conservation of non-renewable resources; meet community expectations regarding resource
recovery and recycling; address market and regulatory failures; and avoid, where possible, any negative environmental impacts associated with waste going to landfill, while being consistent with broader government policy.

Consistent with the Council of Australian Governments’ Best Practice Regulation A Guide for Ministerial Councils and National Standard Setting Bodies (2007) (the COAG guidelines) the following specific objectives have been agreed.

Acknowledging that the above objectives will require implementation, administration and other costs, whilst generating a range of social and environmental benefits, an overriding objective in line with the COAG guidelines, will be to obtain a net benefit (benefits minus costs) for the community. This will be considered when alternative approaches to intervention are considered in a cost benefit analysis framework.

Policy options

Considering the problems identified and objectives established, a set of policy options have been identified that seek to address television and computer waste problems and wholly or partly achieve the stated objectives.

In order to identify the most feasible options, the following process was undertaken:

* identification of policy options ...
* identification of funding approaches ...
* assessment of policy and funding combinations ...
* most feasible options selected ...

Considering findings of the qualitative analysis of each policy option, the nine options for a change in government intervention and the base case that are considered worthy of further cost benefit analysis are:

* Base Case: business as usual ...

* Options 1 & 2: Co-regulatory state-based Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme – implemented as a National Environmental Protection Measure (NEPM) with an exemption if the importer belongs to an industry scheme. This scheme is assumed to be administered by an industry-run Producer Responsibility Organisation (PRO), and makes use of a regulatory safety net to encourage participation that is administered by state and territory government. Two options for industry involvement were also considered:

- Option 1: television and computer industries are jointly responsible for the collection of all products under a common PRO (including historic and orphan products).

- Option 2: television industry responsible for the collection of all products (including historic and generic). Major computer brand owners responsible for historic waste from their own brand and importers of generic computer parts and equipment are responsible for all non-branded and historic products. There are two PROs.

* Options 3 & 4: Co-regulatory Commonwealth-based EPR – with an exemption if the importer belongs to an industry scheme. This scheme is assumed to be administered by a PRO, and makes use of a regulatory safety net to encourage participation that is administered by the Australian Government. Two options for industry involvement were also considered:

- Option 3: television and computer industries are jointly responsible for the collection of all products under a common PRO (including historic and orphan products).

- Option 4: television industry responsible for the collection of all products (including historic and generic). Major computer brand owners responsible for historic waste from their own brand and importers of generic computer parts and equipment are responsible for all non-branded and historic products. There are two PROs.

* Options 5 & 6: Co-regulatory Commonwealth excise (levy) – with an exemption if the importer belongs to an industry scheme. This scheme is assumed to be administered by a PRO, and makes use of a regulatory safety net to encourage participation that is administered by the Commonwealth Government. Two options for industry involvement were also considered:

- Option 5: television and computer industries are jointly responsible for the collection of all products under a common PRO (including historic and orphan products).

- Option 6: television industry responsible for collection of all products (including historic and generic). Major computer brand owners responsible for historic waste from their own brand and importers of generic computer parts/ equipment are responsible for all non-branded and historic products. There are two PROs.

* Option 7: Mandatory Commonwealth levy with a government-run subsidy scheme for collection/recycling – a Commonwealth administered scheme whereby regulations impose a fee to be paid on all imports, and subsidies are paid to recyclers for collection/recycling of televisions and computers;

* Option 8: Mandatory import license requirement – producers must hold a license to import televisions and computers, which involves membership of an industry scheme to collect and recycle waste items (involving an industry PRO administering the scheme on behalf of importers); and

* Option 9: Mandatory state-based EPR (NEPM) – involves an industry-run PRO administering a collection/recycling scheme on behalf of importers (who are required by regulation to take part in the scheme). Administration of required regulation could be undertaken by the Australian or state or territory governments.

Cost benefit analysis of options

Analysing the costs and benefits of the identified policy options using economic Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), indicates that the nine television and computer recycling schemes assessed in this regulatory impact statement will result in net economic benefits to society. As the CBA is based on a range of estimates and assumptions, the appraisal results provide a general view about the likely expected economic outcomes that are subject to these assumptions. Despite this, the appraisal results in an overall conclusion that the options have positive economic outcomes, with relativities between options not expected to change with amendments to key assumptions.

In addition to establishing positive net economic benefits from implementing a scheme, the cost benefit analysis also compared nine possible policy options against the status quo.

The CBA and analysis of broader considerations indicates that:

* all nine recycling policy options assessed result in net benefits, with net present values (NPVs) ranging from $517-742 billion;
* there is little differentiation between the schemes in terms of the present value of costs and benefits; and
* any differentiation has been found to be due to differing ramp up of recycling rates, and varying administration costs.

Given the closeness of the options it is preferred that the community be given the opportunity to comment freely on which option might be the preferred, hence approach in the consultation regulatory impact statement is that no individual options are recommended and all will be considered through the consultation process. ...

From: Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement: Televisions and Computers", prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) in association with Hyder Consulting (Hyder) for the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC), July 2009).

Australian e-waste scheme by end of 2009

Australian Governments have agreed to have an electronic waste (e-waste) scheme by the end of 2009. Media reports suggest a $30 levy on new computers and TVs to cover the cost. This does not seem excessive, but there would be some interesting issues to consider (for example, should the levy be the same for a small $350 nettop, as for a desktop PC which uses five times as much material and costs five times as much ). Unfortunately the scheme will not be in place to cover the cost of disposal of the old CRT TVs displaced by new flat screens purchased with the government's $900 stimulus payments.

Work will begin immediately on the development options for a national scheme to deal with increasing amounts of computer and television waste.

“I have today obtained the agreement of my state and territory colleagues to look at the cost implications and the regulatory impact of taking national action on this matter,” said Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett.

“Given increasing community and industry concern about electronic waste, and cognisant of the length of time it has taken previous governments to make progress on this front, I am pleased that my colleagues agreed to take this major step forward by looking at the
regulatory impacts of a recycling system.

“I expect to be able to make the results of this study available for public comment by July, before a final decision is made by the Council at its next meeting in November “The decision to explore regulatory options is supported by the results of a choice
modelling study for recycling of televisions and other electronic items that showed consumers are prepared to pay to have these goods disposed of in an environmentally sustainable manner
“Choice modelling has only rarely, and only very recently, been applied to gauge people’s receptiveness to environmental policies. It has never before been used in the context of waste or recycling.

“This study is assurance that, whatever approach is ultimately agreed upon as the best option from an environmental management point of view, Australians are prepared to support a scheme to deal with e-waste.”

Ministers also agreed on the development of a ‘fluoro-cycle’ scheme for the recycling of mercury-containing lamps, the finalisation of product stewardship arrangements for used tyres, renewed their support for the development of a national waste policy by the end of
2009 and welcomed a decision by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) to close a significant gap in environmental protection by giving the EPHC a single decision making role on the environmental management of chemicals.

The full EPHC Communique can be found at: www.ephc.gov.au/sites/default/files/EPHC18__Communique_22May09.pdf

From: BREAKTHROUGH ON COMPUTER, TV WASTE, MEDIA RELEASE, The Hon Peter Garrett MP, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, PG/276 22 May 2009

Australian e-waste policy

The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts released a consultation paper on a National Waste Policy 7 April 2009. The paper is 62 pages long in a 397 Kbyte PDF or 1.3 Mb RTF file. The paper has 19 references to "e-waste" electronic waste as from computers and telecommunications equipment. Section 10 of the report asks: "What, if any, changes are needed to the way e-waste is managed?" and points out that some local governments have e-waste collections.

10. Electronic waste

This section explores the issue of electronic and electrical waste (e-waste) and its management as a growing part of the waste stream.

Electronic waste or e-waste is discarded electronic or electrical equipment. It typically includes televisions, video and DVD players, stereos, mobile phones, computers, photocopiers, fax machines, printers as well as cartridges, batteries and peripheral devices associated with the equipment. E-waste consists predominantly of metals and plastics with some components having an economic value if recycled and some containing hazardous substances (which may also be valuable) (see Table 5).There is some community concern with the practice of landfilling electrical and electronic waste (e-waste). This may be because such waste contains hazardous substances, but also because of the relatively short life of these products, the desire not to waste the resources embodied in the waste, and the increasing volume going to landfill.

Table 5: Key materials in electrical and electronic equipment

Component	Equipment	Substances of concern	Recyclable materials
Cathode ray tube	Personal computer monitor, television	Lead, antimony, mercury, phosphors	Mercury
Glass screens	Computer monitors, televisions, microwaves	Lead
Liquid crystal display	Notebook, laptop, mobile phone, some desktop computers	Mercury	Mercury
Circuit board	Telephone, personal computer, notebook, laptop, television, radio, audio amplifier, CD/DVD player, handheld games machines, mobile phones	Lead, beryllium, antimony, Brominated flame retardants, cadmium, arsenic	Gold Silver Palladium
Batteries	Telephone, personal computer, laptop, mobile phone, handheld games machines	Lead, lithium, cadmium, mercury	Cadmium Cobalt Nickel Mercury
Power or external cables	Most electronic and electrical equipment	Phthalates	Copper
Plastic housing	Most electronic and electrical equipment	Brominated flame retardants	PVC

(Based on WEEE and Hazardous Waste, A report for DEFRA, March 2004 by AEA Technology. The report defines WEEE as waste from electrical and electronic equipment. DEFRA is the United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.)

E-waste is a growing component of the waste stream. In 2005 an estimated 697,000 tonnes of electronic equipment was consumed with approximately 312,930 tonnes of electronic equipment disposed of to landfill.¹ It is estimated that approximately

570,900 computers are disposed of annually in Australia, with only a quarter being recycled. Current annual disposal of televisions is around 350,000 units.

Figure 7: TVs landfilled 2000–2005

(Hyder Consulting, 2008)

Data for the years 2004 and 2005 is only available in aggregated format.Figure omitted

Figure 8: Computers landfilled 1998–2008

(Hyder Consulting, 2008)

Figure omitted

In 2007–08 approximately 8.87 million mobile phone units were imported into Australia, an increase of 1.48 million from 2006–07 (7.39 million).² For televisions, Hyder Consulting reported an 18 per cent increase in sales from 2003 to 2004.³ An

estimated 3.5 million computers were purchased in Australia in 2005, including units that were assembled locally from imported parts.⁴

The rapid growth in e-waste is driven by factors including consumer demand to have the latest equipment, the need to upgrade systems to accommodate new software, the rate of technological change, the short lifespan and technical obsolescence of the equipment and increasing affordability.There are limited options for the public to recycle domestic e-waste. Most e-waste is disposed of to landfill, while the cost for recycling of e-waste is carried primarily by those consumers who take the initiative to recycle their computers through a recycling centre. The potential long-term costs arising from landfilled e-waste, including health and environmental costs from the possible leaching of contaminants from e-waste into the environment, are likely to be carried by the community.A number of computer recyclers operate in Australia, some offer pick-up services and the majority charge a fee for recycling. Some local councils hold collection days for end-of-life computer equipment and either stock pile the waste or send it to recyclers. There are a number of voluntary initiatives for recycling e-waste, including recycling mobile phones through Mobile Muster (www.mobilemuster.com.au), Cartridges for Planet Ark (www.cartridges.planetark.org) and the computer industry and Victorian Government partnership to run the Byteback computer recycling scheme (www.bytebackaustralia.com.au/).Currently the Australian Capital Territory is the only state or territory to have regulation governing the domestic management of e-waste, placing a levy on the disposal of televisions and computers at landfill sites. South Australia is in the process of consulting on legislation to ban computer monitors and televisions from landfills, with a ban on all other electrical or electronic equipment within three years. The New South Wales Government has also identified computers, televisions, mobile phones and “other electricals” as “wastes of concern” and is investigating product stewardship arrangements.The Environment Protection and Heritage Council is examining options to deal with end-of-life televisions and computers. Among the options are proposals from both the television and computer industries for product stewardship schemes. The industry-proposed product stewardship schemes would place a charge on eligible new product that would then be used to pay for recycling at the end of its life (an advance recycling fee).

Consultation question

7. What, if any, changes are needed to provide a national approach to the way e-waste is managed?

1 Hyder Consulting, Waste recycling in Australia, November 2008, p.68

2 Mobile Muster 2007–08 Annual Report, p.6

3 Hyder Consulting, Waste recycling in Australia, November 2008 p.53 and 54

4 Hyder Consulting, Waste recycling in Australia, November 2008, p.49

From: "A National Waste Policy: Managing Waste to 2020", Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts released the consultation paper, 7 April 2009

How many old computers are recycled?

The Australian Bureau of Statistics asked for data sources for measuring Electronic waste. There are mobile phone recycling schemes in Australia, with estimates of how many are recycled. Are there similar figures for recycling of computers and peripherals? Any suggestions would be welcome.

About all I could think of was the AIIA sponsored scheme might have some figures. ByteBack scheme (similar to the phone muster).