eWaste Report Summary

8/3/2019 eWaste Report Summary

1/37

CAUDIT

RESEARCH REPORTElectronic Waste

Summary Report

October 2006

Prepared by

Malcolm Wolski


2/37

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................11. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 32. Terms of Reference .......................................................................................................................... 4

3. Background .......................................................................................................................................54. Current Regulatory Environment ..................................................................................................... 7

4.1 Federal Legislation and Regulations .......................................................................................... 74.2 The Definition of Waste ............................................................................................................. 84.3 Definition of Hazardous Waste .................................................................................................. 84.4 Landfill Regulation ...................................................................................................................104.5 Electrical Safety Regulations ................................................................................................... 104.6 Standards for Computers Australia ....................................................................................... 104.7 Legislation and Regulations Europe ......................................................................................114.8 Relevant University Regulations, Policies and Processes ........................................................13

4.8.1 Financial Management ......................................................................................................134.8.2 Facilities Management .......................................................................................................144.8.3 IT Departments ..................................................................................................................15

5. Other Disposal Options ..................................................................................................................165.1 Supplier/Manufacturer Take-back Schemes ............................................................................165.2 Asset Management Upon Disposal .......................................................................................... 165.3 Charitable Donation (third party) .............................................................................................165.4 Charitable Donation (direct) .....................................................................................................165.5 Internal Refurbishment .............................................................................................................17

6. The Universitys Role in Sustainability and Ewaste ......................................................................186.1 Underlying Principles ...............................................................................................................18

6.2 Ewaste and the Sustainable Organisation .................................................................................196.3 Governance and Management ..................................................................................................196.4 Operations and Facilities ..........................................................................................................206.5 Design and Process Innovation ................................................................................................ 216.6 Human Resource Development and Corporate Culture ...........................................................236.7 Marketing and Communications ..............................................................................................246.8 Partnership and Stakeholder Engagement ................................................................................24

7. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................258. Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................26Appendix A - Options Summary Table .............................................................................................27Appendix B Draft Policy for the Disposal of Computer/Electronic Equipment ............................31

i


3/37

Executive Summary

This report is a summary of findings into research into the impact of electronic waste on University

campuses and contains some recommendations on how Universities should deal with the issue. Thisreport summarises the findings contained in the full research report which will be made available toCAUDIT members.

As an introduction to the scale of the problem the following table provides rough estimates of theamount of hazardous material being generated from computers discarded from the Universitysystem.

Number of CAUDIT member institutions 40

Conservative estimate of average computer fleet 5000 PCs

Annual turnover lifecycle (assume 5 yrs) 1000 PCs

Written off computers per yr from all institutions 40,000 PCsRaw tonnage (40 PCs + CRT per tonne) 975 tonnes

PCs to auction (60% of written-off computers)* 24,000 PCs

Value of PCs auctioned (median auction value $48)* Most lease take-back schemesusually take into account estimated resale value in lease cost & most leasing vendors auction/resellequipment taken back.

$1.15 million

Machines sold at auction which are exported (40% of total auctioned)* 9,600 PCs

PCS re-sold to domestic market (60% of auction items). In the absence ofcollection schemes eventually end up in landfill*

14,400 PCs

Scrapped/scavanged (33%) which either goes via scrap merchants/landfill or intogeneral waste then to landfill* (balance of 100% written off for other reasons eg theft,donation etc)

16,000 PCs

Cost to recycle non-working/scrapped equipment & old parts etc (16,000 PCs/40PCs per tonne * $700 per tonne recycle costs)*Note this refers to recycling back to raw

product not resale to refurbishers.

$280,000

* Based on figures Griffith for 2005

Rough Breakdown of Hazardous Waste Generated by University Sector Scrapped/scavanged

to Australian landfill(16000 PCs)

Exported(9600PCs)

Auctioned/soldto domesticmarket (14,400

PCs)

Totalannualwaste

Lead (tonnes) 22.4 13.4 20.2 56.0

Cadium (kgs) 43.5 26.1 39.2 108.8

chromium (kgs) 27.6 16.6 24.9 69.0

Mercury (kgs) 9.2 5.5 8.3 23.0

Note this does NOT include lesser amounts of nickel, zinc, tantalum, indium, vanadium, terbium, beryllium, gold ,europium, titanium, ruthenium, cobalt, palladium, manganese, silver, antinomy, bismuth, selenium, niobium, yttrium,rhodium, platinum, mercury, arsenic, silica and more. Nor does it include the fire retardant plastics used which create adifferent set of disposal problems

In addition to computers there are also numerous other electronic items of equipment in use oncampus and evidence suggests that the numbers of electronic devices will continue to increase

rapidly, have shorter life-cycles and have low or zero resale value.

83610201.doc 1


4/37

This report discusses the electronic waste (ewaste) problem and offers three basic responses: a) donothing and respond to legislation and regulation when it happens with the minimum response; b)start dealing with electronic waste on a proactive basis as a procurement problem and whileincluding some take-back obligations, leave disposal as the responsibility of Facilities ManagementDepartments; and c) addresses the electronic waste issue as an organisational sustainability

problem.

Basic recommendations for Universities

Recommendation 1: Adopt an ewaste Policy or integrate the elements of such a policy into existing policies (e.g. WasteManagement Policy, Procurement Policies etc).

Recommendation 2: Facilities Management investigate formal policies &/or strategies relating to the management ofsolid wastes/resources generated across its campuses specifically addressing electronic waste.

Recommendation 3: The University issue a Request for Information on a solution to dispose of old computers andcomponents specifying criteria to ensure electronic waste is dealt with in an appropriate manner. Any equity schemes

should be included as an optional service in this tender.

Recommendation 4: Facilities Management investigates and costs options for separate collection and disposal ofelectronic waste on all campuses.

Recommendation 5: That the University align their current procurement practices to the National Voluntary Tools forEnvironmental Purchasing and IEEE 1680 (EPEAT) which includes the Environmental Purchasing Checklists forPersonal Computers and Monitors and Office Equipment Consumerables (ie develop a Green ProcurementGuide).

Recommendation 6: Develop and implement performance indicators to measure compliance and progress againsttargets.

Recommendation 7: Develop learning materials and education programs to address sustainability and ewaste issueswithin the organisation and develop a Green Office program to address the ewaste issue.

Recommendation 8: Establish a Sustainable Organization Program Board within the University using ewaste as theinitial activity to develop the sustainable organisation culture and bring about change. Market and promote progress inthe larger community.

Recommendation 9: Universities explore the potential of establishing Sustainable Organisation Industry Partners as ameans to engage with industry and market the partnerships for mutual benefit using ewaste as a starting point.

Basic Recommendations for CAUDIT

CAUDIT Recommendation 1: Investigate the development in-house procurement guide or the adoption of an externalgreen procurement guide for use by Universities (e.g. ECOBUY in Victoria).

CAUDIT Recommendation 2: Investigate opportunities with our colleagues in Facilities Management through theirmember associations to collaborate on a waste management solution across the University Sector with regards todisposal processes.

CAUDIT Recommendation 3: Liaise with major electronic equipment suppliers to set up a take back scheme withregional collection points.

CAUDIT Recommendation 4: Investigate the opportunity for a CAUDIT negotiated recycling agreement to drive thecost of recycling down.

83610201.doc 2


5/37

1. IntroductionThe University sector is a major user of computers and peripherals. The end-of-service units aredisposed of to four main routes:-

Sale by public auction through an approved auction house, which is the preferred option foroperational equipment;

Take-back by leasing companies who generally dispose of equipment by public auction orthrough brokers;

A smaller amount of working computers may be donated as working units;

If the equipment is non-operational or in parts, it is either taken by a local scrap metalmerchant or ends up in general waste bins.

A relatively small amount of equipment is also written-off due to other reasons such as theft andinsurance claims. Any residual bits and pieces of computer components generally get discarded inwith general waste. At current rates, non-operational equipment could be taken to the local landfill

for around $30 - $60 per tonne. At current rates, recycling computers (not refurbishing) cost over$700 a tonne. Proper recycling incurs significant costs. There are three main reasons for pursuingalternative solutions for dealing with disposal of computers.

Firstly Universities (typically Facilities Management departments) are greening campuses in aneffort to achieve greater sustainability and there is an increasing realisation of social andenvironmental responsibilities associated with sustainability principles. None of the previouslymentioned disposal routes for waste computer equipment have any influence or involvement indetermining if the final route (treatment through to disposal) complies with their own objectives andaspirations, and therefore may not be moving towards closing the materials loop, which is necessaryfor sustainability.

Secondly overseas countries have already introduced legislation restricting disposal of electronicwaste. It is on the agendas of the Australian Federal government, State Governments and localauthorities. By dealing with the issue now, Universities will be in position to respond to any futurelegislation and regulations.

Finally there is a marketing opportunity for the sector to show leadership in responding to thisenvironmental issue.

83610201.doc 3


6/37

2. Terms of ReferenceThe purpose of this discussion paper is to provide a summary report of investigations on the current

provisions for waste electronic items within the University sector and is a companion report to themuch larger CAUDIT Research Report forwarded under separate cover. This report will also

present recommendations on how resource efficiencies can be optimised to positively progresseconomic, environmental and social outcomes. This will be undertaken by identifying potentialopportunities throughout the life-cycle of the electronic equipment for waste minimisation andresource recovery.

The terms of reference for this paper have particular regard to:

Current and possible future regulatory regimes, which may provide both barriers andopportunities for increasing resource recovery from this waste sector;

Institutional regimes and barriers, which may impede optimal resource recovery; and torecommend, where appropriate, new proposals for limiting or eradicating them;

The adequacy of current organisational data relating to the purchase, allocation and disposalof electronic assets and consumerables; and if data could be more efficiently collected usingsuitable recording and auditing procedures;

Identification of effective and/or ineffective initiatives for waste electronic equipment;

Formulation of a formal policy for the treatment of electronic wastes which will beuniversally applicable and workable at all University campuses; and

Development of clear and decisive policies, which do not unduly financially burden theUniversity or diminish its position within the educational market-place.

83610201.doc 4


7/37

3. BackgroundIn order to be sustainable, a University must reduce its environmental impact via more efficient useof resources, whilst ensuring that all stakeholders are not negatively impacted and continue to

benefit from their association with the University.

For the purpose of this report and accompanying policy, the term electronic equipment refers to,and includes equipment which is dependent on electric currents or electromagnetic fields in order tooperate and contains a hard-drive or significant electronic components/printed circuit board.Ewaste is therefore any item of discarded electronic equipment, regardless of value or condition(operational or non-operational).

The consumption rates of both electronic and electrical equipment are accelerating globally. Whilemost University computer fleets are reasonably stable, numerous other electronic items are being

purchased, such as, mobile phones, DVDs, digital cameras and PDAs. It should be noted that

there is a significant backlog of computers moving through the system either held in storage orredeployed to lesser tasks (ie rate of acquisition is greater than rate of disposal). Typically majortechnology advances stimulate turnover (e.g. deployment of Vista, MAC OSX etc). There is also atrend to replace more desktop PCs with laptops. This is coupled with increasingly restrictivetreatment and disposal legislation across many countries and an increased public awareness anddisapproval of transfrontier shipments of wastes to developing countries for treatment.

The growth of commercially produced electronic waste is higher than that of domestic sources witha higher composition of IT and telecommunications equipment.

One of the core issues associated with waste electronic equipment is the determination of accurate

and up-to-date data regarding the quantity and quality (i.e. operational/non-operational) of themultiple waste fractions across of the domestic, commercial and domestic sectors, comprised ofnumerous different brands and specifications. This is difficult to determine at the University level,let alone at the sector level.

The Computer and Peripherals Materials Project Report released in October 2001, by MeinhardtInfrastructure and Environment Group for the Environment, Australia, stated that there was a rangeof possible options that could be implemented within Australia to achieve environmental gains withrespect to computers and peripheral equipment. Opportunities for environmental improvement can

be examined in three main areas:

Actions initiated at manufacturing stage, which are focused on reducing the environmental

footprint of production of the equipment; Activities at the end of product life, involving extending product life and recovery of

material resources; and

Education of users to encourage improvement across all stages of equipment life, includingcorrect disposal.

While a University may recognise its role in effecting positive change across all three of these mainareas there are currently no formal policies and guidelines for staff to follow. Such policies andguidelines will promote best practice and introduce new systems where appropriate, including:

Utilising the standard, IEEE 1680(TM), "Standard for Environmental Assessment of

Personal Computer Products" in procurement decisions;

83610201.doc 5


8/37

Working with electronic equipment suppliers to promote the principles of green design,including the reduction and possible elimination of hazardous materials;

Only purchasing equipment which complies to ISO11469 the Standardised MaterialsMarking System (the optimum method of labelling, where components are etched with theirmaterial composition during manufacture);

Where possible, procurement of new equipment with a recycled content; Purchase equipment which can be upgraded and as so will extend product life;

Ensure that end-of-life electronic equipment is dealt with in accordance with the wastehierarchy and preferred systems designated by the University.

83610201.doc 6


9/37

4. Current Regulatory Environment

4.1 Federal Legislation and Regulations

There are a number of commonwealth legislative items, which apply to waste electronic equipment:

Hazard Status of Waste Electrical and Electronic Assemblies or Scrap, October 1999.

Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989.

National Environment Protection Measure: Movement of Controlled Waste between Statesand Territories 1998.

It is expected that similar legislation and regulations exist in other CAUDIT member countries.

Currently, there is NO specific computer waste legislation being considered in Australia or othercountries in the region and any national strategy would, most likely, be voluntary. Without strictregulation or mandatory legislation, there is little incentive for manufacturers and suppliers of

electronic equipment to implement costly recycling or take-back schemes, and without the take-back schemes there is even less motivation to implement green-design principles or active designfor disassembly. It is noted however that recently in Australia, environmental issues are back on the

political agenda so this may change.

The Australian Government has a mandatory list of Endorsed Suppliers when purchasing majoroffice machinery at www.esa.finance.gov.au. These suppliers have fulfilled a pre-qualification

process which ensures listed suppliers comply with Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines andBest Practice Guidance. The Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments have also endorsedthe National Government Waste Reduction and Purchasing Guidelines which links sound

purchasing policies to the reduction of waste and suggests environmental purchasing criteria for

personal computers and monitors.

Purchasers of computers and monitors need to request information regarding the above issues at thetime of requesting a quotation. Note: Each State/Territory has its own legislation and regulationswhich may relate to, and include ewastes. Please refer to the accompanying full CAUDIT

Research Report on Electronic Waste for further information.

The basic principles behind the waste management hierarchy moves from the most preferred to leastpreferred method:

waste avoidance;

waste re-use; waste recycling;

energy recovery from waste; and

waste disposal.

The principles for achieving good waste management include:

The "polluter-pays principle" all costs associated with waste management should, wherepossible, be borne by the waste generator;

The "user-pays principle" all costs associated with the use of a resource should, wherepossible, be included in the price of goods and services developed from that resource; and

The "product-stewardship principle" the producer or importer of a product should take all

reasonable steps to minimise environmental harm from the production, use and disposal ofthe product.

83610201.doc 7


10/37

These principles and the waste management hierarchy provide a basis for ewaste managementprograms that may be required as a condition of approval for an environmentally relevant activityfor industry, such as for voluntary industry waste reduction programs and for State and localgovernment waste management strategic plans.

4.2 The Definition of Waste

Note that each Australian State has its own definition of what is waste. For example in Queenslandunder the current definition of waste located within the Environmental Protection Act 1994(EPA), a waste includes anything that is (a) left over, or an unwanted by-product from anindustrial, commercial, domestic or other activity; or (b) surplus to the industrial, commercial,domestic or other activity generating the waste. A thing can be waste whether or not it is of value.While there may be federal regulations or legislation covering waste, the definition of waste is leftto regional authorities.

Following on with the Queensland example, surplus and end-of-life electronic equipment generatedby a Queensland University is deemed to be waste and is therefore subject to certain regulatoryconditions. As an example of out-of-date legislation the Queensland legislation states that:-

If the waste being transported is general waste, the transporter is required to be approved bythe local government under s369 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994. If the waste isa regulated waste as defined in the Environmental Protection Regulation 1998, thetransporter must also be licensed by the EPA as a regulated waste transporter. If the waste istrackable waste as defined by s17 of the Environmental Protection (Waste Management)Regulation 2000, the applicable waste tracking requirements must be complied with by allwaste handlers.

If a Queensland University seeks to transport the electronic equipment waste themselves,

then it becomes by definition both a generator and transporter of the waste and as such willbe required to be licensed as a regulated waste transporter if carrying more than 250kg of aregulated waste.

The transportation of waste computer equipment or scrap within Queensland may require a permitunder the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000, as it is likely to containmaterials that are considered Trackable Wastes. Tracking the transport of a waste stream canincrease transport costs substantially. The lesson here is that Universities should stay away fromtransportation of electronic waste.

4.3 Definition of Hazardous Waste

The storage, transportation and disposal of computer components becomes subject to regulatorycontrol when the materials that comprise these components are considered to pose an environmentalor health hazard. Hazardous wastes are controlled through various State and Commonwealth Actsand Regulations.

In general terms, the transportation of hazardous materials both between States and either importedor exported is controlled by the Commonwealth Government, whereas intrastate movement andhandling of Controlled/Hazardous materials is subject to the specific State or Territoryrequirements.

The Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 implements Australia'sobligations under the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous

83610201.doc 8


11/37

Wastes and their Disposal. This Act defines waste as anything to be disposed of, includingcomputers destined for disassembly followed by re-use, recycling, recovery or disposal.

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and theirDisposal is an international agreement, ratified by 166 countries, (including Australia), contains

definitions of hazardous waste. Under the agreement, there are two simple considerations forclassifying a waste as hazardous. Firstly to determine if it has hazardous characteristics, forexample, is it explosive, flammable, toxic, eco-toxic, corrosive, infectious, oxidising, poisonous orradioactive, and secondly, to determine the waste stream is hazardous. For example, clinicalwastes, radioactive waste, and other wastes from industrial sources which contain hazardouscharacteristics.

Despite the guidance offered under Basel, each Australian state has its own regulations andclassifications of what is considered hazardous. This has clear geographical implications for thetreatment and recovery of some waste streams that may be listed as hazardous in one state but notanother. Also, some waste streams may contain hazardous wastes in such a low proportion or in a

stabilised form, so as not to be considered hazardous.

The Australian Governments Productivity Commission Draft Report on Waste Management(2006), listed the following items in the municipal waste stream that exhibit characteristics thatcould be defined as hazardous (their Table 1):

Batteries, mobile phones, televisions, computers that can contain toxic and eco-toxic

heavy metals such as lead, nickel, copper, cadmium, chromium and mercury.

The report also highlighted (their Table 6.1) the potential environmental impacts of batteries,phones and computers in landfill as sources of heavy metals and other toxic compounds that can bemobilised in leachate. However, it was acknowledged that the management of the site as being themain factor influencing both the escape and possible environmental impacts of wastes in landfill.

This report went on to state that:The Commission has endeavoured to use a pragmatic approach to determining theboundary between hazardous and non-hazardous waste. Thus, small amounts of

hazardous waste in the municipal, construction and demolition, and commercial andindustrial waste streams must be accepted as a reality (albeit undesirable), as it is very

difficult, and possibly too costly, to attempt to prevent such items entering the waste

stream or to completely remove them.

Waste electrical equipment or scrap may be exported without a permit if it is destined for recoveryoperations in a member country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD), or if printed circuit boards are only a minor component of the overall material. Otherallowable imports/exports of waste electronic equipment or scrap such as nickel cadmium batteriesand CRT glass which contain less than 0.5% (weight for weight) of lead or generate less than 1.0mg/L of lead during a Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test, as they areconsidered to be non-hazardous (The Hazardous Waste Act, 1989).

Export and import of used computers for sale and on-going use as a computer does not require apermit if machines are in working order or require only minor repairs (e.g. replacement of brokenparts or upgrading of chips). However, a permit is required if re-construction of single units from

multiple units is involved. In Australia, a large proportion of computers sold at auctions are destinedfor export.

83610201.doc 9


12/37

Despite the financial costs associated with the responsible treatment of hazardous wastes withinAustralia and the current infrastructure limitations, Australia has, by signing the Basel Convention,acknowledged that the export of hazardous wastes for disposal and other end-of-life treatments, tothe developing countries is not acceptable. Universities should acknowledge this and endeavour to

ensure that no waste electronic units are sent outside Australia for the purpose of disposal.However, Universities should ensure that overseas charities and community organisations requiringdonations of working electronic equipment are not unfairly prejudiced within this framework, butcare is required with respect to final destination of such units at end-of-life.

4.4 Landfill Regulation

The regulation of landfills within Australia overall, has tightened considerably over recent years,and this trend would support further future strengthening of the regulations, which may include thecontrol or complete ban of potentially polluting substances, such as electronic equipment.

If waste computers and peripheral equipment are deemed to be hazardous waste, disposal to landfillwill not only be limited to specifically engineered facilities but will also involve considerable cost.This will present a significant incentive to divert waste material to reuse, recycling and recoveryoperations.

The associated costs of landfill are also rising. As an example gate fees in the state of Queenslandare currently between $20-30 per ton. This is cheaper than in all the other Australian states such as

New South Wales where a levy ($22.70 per tonne, 2006) is included in the gate fees increasingcosts to between $50-60 per tonne. The Waste Management Association of Australia is currentlyformulating a policy paper to impose a landfill tax in Queensland. Note that the cost of recyclingcomputers at a recognised recycler (not a refurbisher) is currently over $700 per tonne.

4.5 Electrical Safety Regulations

Within the Electrical Safety Regulations in Queensland, it is strongly advised that any pre-owned/used electrical item needs to be subject to a Portable Appliance Test to ensure that it is insafe working order. If an item has not been tested, the seller is recommended to remove the plug orlabel the item accordingly so that the buyer is aware that no safety testing has been undertaken.Failure to conduct an electrical safety test or label an item untested may leave the seller liable forany incident. A Queensland University also has a duty under the Queensland Electricity Act toensure all electronic equipment is safe. This duty applies to all equipment within University control.It is expected that similar exposure to liability would exist in all States and CAUDIT membercountries. This needs to be taken into account when looking at solutions involving the donation or

re-sale of old computers.

4.6 Standards for Computers Australia

The physical characteristics of computer equipment are influenced by a variety of design standardsproduced by a number of organisations including, but not limited to, Standards Australia, theInternational Standards Organisation, the International Electrotechnical Commission and theInstitute for Electrical and Electronic Engineering. Standards of particular relevance to the ICTindustry relate primarily to PCBs, including Australian Standards as follows:

AS1795 Sheets and Boards for Electrical Purposes;

AS2546 Printed Boards; and

AS3508 Printed Board Assemblies.

83610201.doc 10


13/37

Whilst the majority of standards refer to the minimum acceptable performance of a particularcomponent rather than specifying the materials used in their construction, some standards providean opportunity to improve the choice of materials. For example, ISO11469 Standardised MaterialMarking System provides a framework for identifying plastics used in the construction of a productand is used by several major computer companies to facilitate identification of parts for recovery.

Some standards mention environmental considerations within design (e.g. Standards AustraliaHB98 - 1997 Guidance on Environmental Aspects in Specifications and Design Briefs forElectrotechnical Products, or IEC60249 Base Materials for Printed Circuits, which instructsdesigners of PCBs to consider the risk of emission of hazardous substances arising fromcombustion or incineration). However, many of these standards do not reflect currentenvironmental best practice.

4.7 Legislation and Regulations Europe

The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) 2002/96/EC, relates to the end-of-life stage of both electrical and electronic equipment.

Article 3 of the Directive contains the definitions, Article 4 relates to product design, Article 5 theseparate collections used to minimise the disposal to landfill of WEEE, and Article 11 of the WEEEDirective requires producers to provide treatment information to treatment operators when neededfor each type of new equipment they put on the market. The guidance document that the abovementioned associations agreed upon sets some rules for a practical implementation of therequirements:-

Each producer creates an access point for recyclers to post questions in relation to their products, for example an alias to be used on the producer's internet site, or via the

organisation in charge of managing the producer responsibility, of which they are a member; Producers track information on agreed, specified components and materials used in their

equipment on the basis of positive presence at product level or product family level; and

Producers and recyclers contribute via above-mentioned associations to a constructive andsustained dialogue to discuss past and future technology trends in products as well as thetechnical evolutions of treatment operations so as to update guidance as appropriate.

The WEEE Directive has been widely implemented across the Member states, however the level ofimplementation has been variable with some states experiencing logistical issues regarding fullimplementation, with governments, producers and retailers unable to reach mutually agreeablesolutions.

On the 24th March 2005, the UK Government delayed the implementation deadline for theproducer responsibility and take-back obligations component of the Directive until January 2006.This was due to difficulties in assigning responsibilities within the framework.

Germany introduced the WEEE Directive into its legislation in March 2005. The main element ofthe German legislation is an independent producer foundation, which acts as a national clearing-house and overall authority. Any company/producer wishing to sell electrical and electronicequipment within Germany has to register with the clearing-house and provide commercial andcompliance data in relation to their own products.

Although German local authorities have financed the separate collection of waste electrical andelectronic wastes from householders, individual companies are responsible for the end-of-life

83610201.doc 11


14/37

treatment of their own products, either opting for a brand return scheme or a payment, whichreflects their market share for the previous calendar year.

The two key features of the WEEE Directive is that of product take-back and the requirement ofindividual producer responsibility (IPR). Once fully implemented by all the Member States, the

WEEE Directive will be the most wide-ranging producer responsibility legislation in the world.

In order for IPR to be most effective, it relies on individual producers being responsible for theirown products; for an accurate data on production and weight or volume of waste generated; anational collection system and finally; suitable technology to re-use and recycle electronic wasteand waste components in an environmentally and socially acceptable manner. This will thenencourage producers to design their products to eco-design and green disassembly principles.

Germany has led the way in integrating IPR from the WEEE Directive into its strategies, directlyinfluencing electronic equipment manufacturers to consider the green design and disassembly oftheir products carefully as they will have responsibility for treatment and disposal at their end-of-

life.

In the Australian Governments Productivity Commission, whos recent Draft Report on WasteManagement released on the 23rd May 2006, criticised the philosophy of IPR. The report didhowever acknowledge that some products are problematic in normal waste streams, and thatextended producer responsibility (EPR) and product stewardship (PS) can be a means of effectivelyaddressing these but that policy needs to:

Clearly identify the extent of the problem and the benefits of intervention;

Give consideration to other options; and

Consider effectiveness and compliance issues.

The report also made note that the proposed schemes for tyres, computers and TVs appear unlikelyto pass rigorous cost-benefit analysis and that much of the electronic equipment within Australia isimported, so there was little scope for influencing design. However, the limited financial figures

presented within the report in relation to waste disposal took no account of externalities such asenvironmental pollution, site monitoring, and the costs of remediation amongst others, thus makingany recycling or recovery options appear to be uncompetitive. Also, legislative drivers in Europeand the US will encourage manufacturers to better-design their equipment in order to comply withthis legislation, which will see a design-improvement to the equipment purchased in Australia.

Several European organisations working within the electronic and electrical sectors have also

developed policies relating to the design and end-of-life treatment of WEEE. For example, EICTAhave adopted a Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) approach to WEEE, deciding that the embeddedenergy of a product and/or materials should be addressed within any policy or strategy. Embeddedenergy considerations are therefore an indicator to measure the effects of any proposed or actual

policy (including waste collection/treatment policies and green-design considerations).

The European Commission is currently gathering information (via public request) to provideinformation for the review of the WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC). This process is due to close onthe 11th August after which time the EC will collate and disseminate the information.

Despite the best intentions of the WEEE Directive, its jurisdiction under Article 175 of the

European Union allows each member state to interpret it into their own laws. This has led to an

83610201.doc 12


15/37

uneven and discrepant set of laws relating to waste electrical and electronic equipment acrossEurope, much of which has failed to address the key principles contained within the Directive.

4.8 Relevant University Regulations, Policies and Processes

4.8.1 Financial Management

Both the purchase and disposal of assets is governed within most Universities by a series ofregulations and policies, many reflecting State, Territory or regional legislative requirements. Asan example in Queensland in accordance with the Financial Management Standard 1997, theuniversity is required to manage its assets in an efficient and effective manner, and in accordancewith the Non Current Asset Policies for the Queensland Public Sector. The aim is to ensure thatthe University achieves value for money on purchased assets and, in turn, ensures best practicerelating to the use of public resources.

Universities define what an asset is. For example Griffith defines an asset as an item which hasa future service potential or economic benefit controlled by the University as a result of pasttransactions or other past events and where the useful life of the asset exceeds 12 months, (GriffithFinancial Management Practice Manual). Increasingly, many of the electronic items currently onthe market and those purchased by the University fall under $1,000 and/or have an expected life ofless than twelve months, for example, mobile phones.

At Griffith electronic equipment, including computers (including leased computers) are classed asnon-current assets and as such are recorded in the Universitys Asset Management System.General property under $1,000 is not required to be recorded in the Griffith Asset ManagementSystem and is typically classed as a consumerable. Other Universities would have similar standards

and guidelines.

The majority of computers that reach end-of-life are sold as working units at auction. Olderworking computers are generally replaced for three reasons:

Technical obsolescence (wont run newer software versions, operating system no longersupported, not enough disk capacity etc);

Not economical to maintain (parts and labour costs exceed the value of the equipment); and

Lower productivity of the user (where computer downtime interferes with the day-job,machine runs too slow etc).

Unless another useful purpose can be found, the equipment is sent for disposal. It is unlikely that a

computer is ever surplus. Figure 1 below shows the typical flow of computers through theUniversity.

83610201.doc 13


16/37

Figure 1 Typical Computers ewaste Flow on Campus

4.8.2 Facilities Management

At Griffith, Facilities Management defines waste (Strategic Asset Management Plan 2005-2008), asany item that is-

a) left over, or an unwanted by-product, from an industrial, commercial, domestic or otheractivity; or

b) surplus to the industrial, commercial, domestic or other activity generating the waste.

Facilities Management at Griffith have formulated a Cleaning and Waste Management Plan which

applies non-current or capital physical assets which it defines as having a life longer than oneaccounting period. However, the same document also categorically defines the FacilitiesManagement assigned responsibility as not including vehicles, communications and computingsystems or hardware. Each University will need to check who has responsibility for electronicwaste on their campus and whether changes need to be negotiated or clarified.

Facilities Management Departments are generally responsible for the range of waste collection andremoval, and any current recycling and waste reduction programmes across campuses (except

perhaps for paper and printer ink cartridges). In general Facilities Management Departments havethe most practical experience at addressing sustainability issues on campus and any solutionaddressing electronic waste would need to include them.

83610201.doc 14

ContractedSuppliers

Contracts signed

through a tender

process.

No terms &conditions dealing

with specificallywith ewaste but

environmental

issues are covered

in selection criteria.

In the tender

process currently

taking place newcriteria was addeddealing with ewaste

Responsibility of Head ofOrganisational Unit

Computers designated portable &

attractive (eg over $1,000) are entered

on asset register. Written-off after 5

years and de-asseted. Computing

equipment under $1,000 not recorded

as assets.

Purchases End ofLife

Retirement by Sale throughauction

This is largest category & relates to

working equipment. Best estimate is

between 30% and 50% of auction

sales go overseas. No control over

computers once sold at auction.

OtherStudent Equity Schemse,donations,

theft, insurance loss, transfer to

external group.

CannibalisedWhile re-use of parts is good it is

assumed parts replaced go into

general waste bins on campus.

Trade-in & Lease ReturnNo terms & conditions currently

included dealing with ewaste

responsibilities. Final destination

varies dependant on vendors

response to dealing with ewaste

ScrappedGiven to a scrap dealer. No terms &

conditions currently dealing with

ewaste responsibilities.


17/37

4.8.3 IT Departments

A survey was undertaken of a number of Universities. The survey was very detailed which wasdesigned to gain an understanding of each Universitys organisational environment and to gauge thelevel of knowledge about sustainability issues.

Responses seemed to indicate that sustainability and electronic waste is low on the priority list in ITdepartments and also that understanding of sustainability issues was at a basic level. However itshould be noted that the high level of interest expressed by respondents indicated a willingness tolearn more.

83610201.doc 15


18/37

5. Other Disposal Options

5.1 Supplier/Manufacturer Take-back Schemes

This is achieved by encouraging equipment manufacturers and suppliers to take-back theirequipment at the end-of-life, either through a lease scheme or as contract terms prior to purchase.

It is commonly believed that take-back would encourage green-design concepts by themanufacturer as they would be aware of their responsibility for active disassembly. In reality, asupplier may decide to refurbish the returned equipment for re-sale either within or outsideAustralia, essentially increasing the equipments life-span but still not addressing the end-of-lifeissues.

There is likely to be a take-back service charge payable at end-of-life or added to the purchase/leaseprice per unit. A University would also need a contractual obligation that the end-of-life equipment

treatment would be both environmentally and socially acceptable. A University could drive aneffective mechanism for assigning take-back of future electronic wastes. Any mechanism wouldneed to enable waste fractions, which could potentially contain products from a range of differentmanufacturers, to be re-allocated to those manufacturers. A mechanism of brand return wouldhave to be negotiated through contract with the equipment supplier before purchase and would

probably not address historic waste equipment.

5.2 Asset Management Upon Disposal

Asset Management is fundamentally different from company take-back schemes which simplyobligate suppliers and manufacturers to take-back their equipment at their end-of-life. Usually, theequipment user has no influence over the treatment of the equipment upon its return. However,

asset management is a complete service that may include activities such as inventory managementand environmentally responsible disposal of equipment where redundant equipment (oftenregardless of brand), is collected from customers, resold, refurbished, recycled or disposed of.Services may also include the resale of assets with marketable value (with a certain percentage ofthe proceeds retained by the asset management service) and secure procedures for removal of datafrom redundant equipment. A number of major manufacturers have introduced asset managementservices in recent years, as have some large auction houses.

5.3 Charitable Donation (third party)

There are several charities which currently collect and grade equipment for either a small fee or

free-of-charge basis to commercial users. The collected equipment is graded for potentialdonation/re-sale, refurbishment and donation/re-sale, component and material recycling anddisposal.

5.4 Charitable Donation (direct)

This would require direct partnership working between the Universitys Community LiaisonDepartment (CLD) and external stakeholders. The CLD would be responsible for identifying theneeds and requirements of selected stakeholders requiring operational electronic equipment andwho would mutually benefit from a direct relationship to the University. The additional benefits ofdirect rather than third party donations is that the University could maintain control over thedonation process, and the final disposal of equipment once non-operational. The University is also

more likely to select local recipients of the equipment, thus strengthening community bonds with

83610201.doc 16


19/37

the individual campuses. A University may also specify that all equipment is returned to them uponend-of-life for final treatment and disposal, allowing full control of the product cycle.

Both of the donation to charity options will require full support and consensus from all UniversitySchools. This is because the Department/School which owns the equipment will potentially be

losing out on sale income generated from the written-off assets (electronic equipment). Furtherconsiderations include the benefits gained in donation of discarded electronic equipment to charitiesversus cash funding. In this instance, both the university and charity may experience increased

benefits from selling the equipment for maximum financial value and then donating a proportion ofthat value in cash to the charity.

Consensus for one single scheme or solution is an essential requirement. Individual Schoolswishing to go-it-alone may not generate a sufficient quantity of surplus equipment to beeconomically attractive to either auction houses or for charity collections (economies of scale). Themonitoring and management of a de-centralized scheme may also increase School workload anddecrease transparency.

5.5 Internal Refurbishment

This option could be utilized to extend the in-service operational-life of equipment. It would alsobe a pre-requisite of some of the previous options such as the direct charitable donation, as anydonated equipment would require testing to ensure operational status and compliance withrecommendations contained within the regional authority electrical safety legislation. Data(including software) removal would also have to be undertaken. The disadvantage of this route iscost of personnel time and facilities to test and refurbish equipment where required, in addition tothe cost of transport and retrieval. Assuming that donated equipment is returned to the University atend of life, final disposal costs would also have to be borne by the University and are likely to

increase significantly over time with tightening landfill regulation and a proposed landfill tax levy.Internal refurbishment currently is undertaken on a small scale and can be seen through thecannibalization of parts and computers. It would be difficult to justify this type of operation froma cost perspective due to the high cost of salaries and facilities relative to the low value of oldcomputers.

83610201.doc 17


20/37

6. The Universitys Role in Sustainability and Ewaste

6.1 Underlying Principles

It is accepted that no single option will effectively or efficiently deal with the electronic wastecurrently being generated on campus. A series of hybrid options are therefore proposed (AppendixA), utilising, wherever possible, options from the top of the waste hierarchy with disposal beingreduced to a minimum.

In line with general accepted practice the University should accept the polluter-pays and user pays principles which are key to achieving good waste management practice and long-termprotection of the environment.

It is commonly acknowledged that current costs associated with the purchase of electronicequipment do not embrace these principles, as all costs associated with the use of a resource are not

included in the price of goods and services developed from that resource. Additionally, the cost ofdisposal currently does not accurately cover all externalities such as environmental and socialimpacts. Also, the producers or importers of the electronic goods purchased by CAUDIT memberUniversities, do not take all reasonable steps to minimise environmental harm from the production,use and disposal of the product as they should in line with the "product-stewardship principle".

In order for IPR to be most effective, it relies on individual producers being responsible for theirown products; for accurate data on production and weight or volume of waste generated; a nationalcollection system; and finally suitable technology to re-use and recycle electronic waste and wastecomponents in an environmentally and socially acceptable manner. This will then encourage

producers to design their products to eco-design and green disassembly principles.

The Australian Governments Productivity Commission, whos recent Draft Report on WasteManagement, released on the 23rd May 2006, criticised the philosophy of IPR but did, however,acknowledge that some products are problematic in normal waste streams, and that extended

producer responsibility (EPR) and product stewardship (PS) may be a means of effectivelyaddressing these, but that policy needs to:

Clearly identify the extent of the problem and the benefits of intervention;

Give consideration to other options; and

Consider effectiveness and compliance issues.

The report also made note that the proposed schemes for tyres, computers and TVs appear unlikelyto pass rigorous cost-benefit analysis and that much of the electronic equipment within Australia isimported, so there was little scope for influencing design. However, the limited financial figures

presented within the report in relation to waste disposal took no account of externalities such asenvironmental pollution, site monitoring, and the costs of remediation, thus making any recyclingor recovery options appear to be uncompetitive. Also, legislative drivers in Europe and the US willencourage manufacturers to better-design their equipment in order to comply with this legislation,which will see a design-improvement to the equipment purchased in Australia.

The conclusion therefore is that the University sector will need to develop its own approach todealing with ewaste acknowledging that it will be some time before a national approach is

implemented through regulatory processes and local recycling industry delivers economicalsolutions.

83610201.doc 18


21/37

6.2 Ewaste and the Sustainable Organisation

Resolving the ewaste issue on campus should be seen in the context of achieving the goal ofbecoming a sustainable organisation. The Sustainability Helix framework is a useful process to

follow to move forward in addressing ewaste within the University, in light of the fact that a widerregulatory framework isnt yet in place. The Sustainability Helix is a non-linear, matrix styleapproach developed by the NaturalEdge Project (http://www.naturaledge.org.au/) that can beimplemented from day one.

Figure 2 Sustainability Helix

6.3 Governance and Management

To develop a comprehensive response to deal with ewaste requires support from the UniversityExecutive. The adoption of an ewaste policy would introduce guidelines for the social andenvironmentally responsible management of used and waste electronic equipment from allUniversity premises. A policy would indicate top-down support and assign responsibilities to themanagement of ewastes. The aims of the policy would reflect the Universitys commitment forsustainability. A draft policy is attached in Appendix 2.

A University needs to have a formal policy or strategy relating to the management of all solidwastes/resources generated across its campuses. Any strategy needs to cover all wastes includingend-of-life electronic equipment and assign responsibility for their correct and ethical management.The Facilities Management Departments deal with the majority of the wastes generated atUniversities. As ewaste can be discarded to general waste streams and the Facilities ManagementDepartments currently have waste management expertise and contacts in place, including the

83610201.doc 19


22/37

management of the current trade waste and recycling contracts, it is sensible to also make ewastetheir responsibility but an investigation into the cost impact would need to be carried out.

Recommendation 1: Adopt an ewaste Policy or integrate the elements of such a policy into

existing policies (e.g. Waste Management Policy, Procurement Policies etc).

Recommendation 2: Facilities Management investigate formal policies &/or strategies relating

to the management of solid wastes/resources generated across its campuses specifically

addressing electronic waste.

6.4 Operations and Facilities

Leasing is seen as a preferred method of outsourcing the ewaste problem. The move to lease,although helping to close of the loop for University ewaste management, will also lead to areduction in the parts used for cannibalization or the number of non-operational units scrapped. Itwill also lead to a reduction in the amount of operational equipment suitable for re-sale or donationto various equity computer schemes. Generally laboratory computers currently make up the bulk ofworking computers being sold at auction. Student equity schemes and other donation schemes, willstruggle to satisfy the demand for free (or cheap) computers especially to students experiencingfinancial difficulties. In comparison, alternative schemes such as those offered by externalcompanies (such as Green PC) are not cost effective to students and although they can be madeaccessible to all students, will not be suitable for students experiencing financial hardship.

In order to support student learning and equal access to facilities for all, it is expected that thestudent equity schemes will be better served by remaining an internal service but the cost ofoutsourcing this service should be investigated as part of any tender process for disposal of old

equipment. Although some external organizations are agreeable to maintaining the scheme and willoffer a twelve month warranty on computers, there are indications that a financial contribution bythe students will be required and additionally, supply may continue to be insufficient againstdemand. Also, such an option will still fail to address the issues of end-of-life disposal of studentequity computer scheme equipment, which will only be resolved if the students return theequipment, regardless of condition, at the end of their studies, indicating a move to a lease-stylesystem.

With regards to disposal, Integrated Option C in Appendix A provides a solution that meetsUniversity needs and provides a solution dealing with ewaste from computers. By tendering fordisposal of both working and non-working equipment the University not only fulfils its obligations

towards safe environmental practices but also has the option to control where computers go whenthe leave the University.

To ensure electronic waste is dealt with in an appropriate manner, sale of operational electronicequipment to external agencies (e.g. refurbishers, recyclers, auction houses and brokers) shouldinclude the following contract specifications are recommended as a minimum:

The contractor will be making any collections from the University;

The company will assume all title upon equipment collection releasing the University fromany future environmental liability;

All computer hard drives are securely stored and then erased or rendered inoperable,protecting the University from software pirating and release of sensitive university data;

83610201.doc 20


23/37

All traces of ownership by the University will be removed, including the removal ofUniversity IDs, asset tags and any engravings that may identify the University as theequipment's original owner;

All equipment is pulled apart and/or directly segregated into the appropriate recyclingcategories before forwarding to the various reprocessors;

Where possible, selected and assessed re-useable computer components and equipment willbe made available to the second hand market for re-use on the condition the purchaser cancertify if will be disposed of in the correct manner. Again, all identification marksassociated with the University will be removed;

A detailed report providing details of the services performed and quantities will be sent tothe University;

The contractor will certify that no computers on-sold will be exported to countries wherethere are no acceptable recycling facilities; and

The contractor will certify that discarded components will be sent to a recognisedreprocessor and not sent to landfill.

In addition the University has an option to specify what percentage of outgoing computers are to bedirected to specific organisations and individuals (eg numbers of machines donated to specificcommunity organisations, or to students nominated to receive a computer under the equity schemeor to be made available for resale). Although there would be reduced income from resale of oldequipment it must be remembered if the trend towards leasing continues the current income streamwould fall off in any case. There is still the option to run the student equity scheme in-house if itwas more cost effective to do so. It is also noted that if the numbers of working computersavailable for resale drop off it may be more cost effective to send all old equipment (working ornot) to a recycler under a bulk contract for destruction and breakdown.

Electronic waste must be dealt with as a separate waste stream if it is to be kept out of generalwaste. This will require separate waste collection points on campus and adjustments to existingwaste collection contracts.

Recommendation 3: The University issue a Request for Information on a solution to dispose

of old computers and components specifying criteria to ensure electronic waste is dealt with in

an appropriate manner. Any equity schemes should be included as an optional service in this

tender.

Recommendation 4: Facilities Management investigates and costs options for separate

collection and disposal of electronic waste on all campuses.

CAUDIT Recommendation 2: Investigate opportunities with our colleagues in Facilities

Management through their member associations to collaborate on a waste management

solution across the University Sector with regards to disposal processes.

6.5 Design and Process Innovation

Currently under most University guidelines, for purchasing goods and services that are not thesubject of preferred supplier or other contractual arrangements, quotes have to be obtained. Foritems under a certain value (e.g. $5,000 which is typically covers most electronic equipment), only

one or two quotes are required and there are usually no specifications regarding any contractualobligations relating to the environment or social responsibilities from the supplier/seller.

83610201.doc 21


24/37

Special conditions do exist for some items being purchased. For example, bulk purchase ofcomputing equipment for the University is usually coordinated through a specific section/s andlarge orders are placed to turnover computing laboratory equipment. Generally computingequipment is usually purchased from approved suppliers. However, as stated previously, there are

usually no specific contractual obligations specified in relation to sustainability in standarddocuments used.

Universities that have centralised purchasing departments generally have a stronger purchasingpower due to economies of scale and may be able to exert influence to promote product stewardshipor an extended producer responsibility over vendors.

In an attempt to address sustainability issues in new tenders for the supply of computers andprinters, additional criteria can be added requesting potential suppliers to detail how they addressenvironmental standard in relation to:

Toxics Reduction

Material Selection

Design for End of Life

Life-cycle extension

Energy Conservation

Potential suppliers can be asked to respond to these questions by providing details of compliance oftheir products and services using the criteria in the Electronic Product Environmental AssessmentTool (EPEAT) sections 4.1 through to 4.5 available at http://www.epeat.net/Criteria.aspx. EPEATwas developed from the standard, IEEE 1680(TM), "Standard for Environmental Assessment ofPersonal Computer Products".

However given that all electronic items add to ewaste stream on campus, a more holistic approachis required. Green procurement guidelines would require a University to formulate and introduce

purchasing policies which specify criteria for all new electronic equipment, not just computers.Initially, these criteria can be set around improving the end-of-life management of products withinclusion of take-back programs requiring reuse and recycling of materials, and even minimumstandards for upgrading machines. A University may also specify preferred suppliers, such as thoseaccredited to the Blue Angel accreditation scheme in Germany. The introduction of new policymeasures, coupled with the revision of existing procurement strategies, must ensure that theUniversity meet sustainability criteria for environmentally responsible purchasing (ERPP). Therevision of the current policy and the promotion of ERPP and product stewardship in the IT

departments would provide a strong incentive for Finance and other areas of the universityresponsible for purchasing and general management to adopt policies that will promotesustainability within the university. The adoption of a standard procurement scheme for allCAUDIT members would provide a strong incentive for collaboration with other major publicsector organisations (e.g. Education Departments, TAFE sector etc).

Under tender conditions for all electronic equipment, a University could specify conditions toinclude:-

The labeling of components for recycling;

Energy usage during in-service life-time;

The life expectancy of equipment; Take-back of products for recycling or appropriate disposal.

83610201.doc 22


25/37

This would represent a significant move in incorporating environmental considerations inpurchasing decisions.

All the products and services procured by a University have an impact on the local and possibly

global environment. These impacts start at the raw manufacturing stage and progress through tofinal disposal. It is recommended that the University align their current practice to the NationalVoluntary Tools for Environmental Purchasing which includes the Environmental PurchasingChecklists for Personal Computers and Monitors and Office Equipment Consumerables(www.deh.gov.au/settlements/government/purchasing/index.html) and the IEEE 1680 standard.

Performance Indictors (PIs) are often used in contracts between two parties (typically anorganisations and its contractor) in order to determine whether contractual goals and obligations are

being met. Some organisations, such as Local Governments, use PIs to monitor performance overtime or to bench-mark their performance against other similar organisations.

Any PI set, needs to be meaningful, and requires clear methodologies relating to data collection andprocessing to ensure the process is transparent and repeatable for all stakeholders. Finally, theyhave to be realistic in terms of data acquisition and the resources required both monitoring andreporting them.

Recommendation 5: That the University align their current procurement practices to the

National Voluntary Tools for Environmental Purchasing and IEEE 1680 (EPEAT) which

includes the Environmental Purchasing Checklists for Personal Computers and Monitors

and Office Equipment Consumerables (ie develop a Green Procurement Guide).

Recommendation 6: Develop and implement performance indicators to measure compliance

and progress against targets.

CAUDIT Recommendation 1: Investigate the development in-house or adoption of an

external green procurement guide (e.g. ECOBUY in Victoria) for use by Universities.

CAUDIT Recommendation 3: Liaise with major electronic equipment suppliers to set up an

take back scheme with regional collection points.

CAUDIT Recommendation 4: Investigate the opportunity for a CAUDIT negotiated recycling

agreement to drive the cost of recycling down.

6.6 Human Resource Development and Corporate Culture

The average computer user within the University may be unaware of the scope of the problem ofdisposal of waste electronic and computer equipment in relation to financial and regulatoryguidelines, and issues relating to data protection. Whilst some users and Schools may be aware oftheir individual difficulty in locating an appropriate recycling or disposal pathway for their end-of-life electronic equipment, they may not be fully aware of the nature of hazardous materials used incomputer manufacture and the requirement for special disposal, particularly if classified ashazardous waste.

83610201.doc 23


26/37

How to address the ewaste issue needs to be integrated into other staff development activities andcampus programs to ensure it becomes a part of the culture in the organisation. Suggested avenuesinclude staff development programs and a Green Office Program

In addition a short ewaste education programme comprising of a leaflet and identification of

relevant web site resources should be included within staff induction programmes (at all levels, toacademic, general, and sessional staff).

There are also ongoing issues surrounding the timely disposal of equipment, which may be held instorage for several months before disposal (sale or scrap) after being written-off. This period ofstorage can effectively diminish the auction value of equipment sent for sale and can pose bothstorage and health and safety issues on-campus.

Recommendation 7: Develop learning materials and education programs to address

sustainability and ewaste issues within the organisation and develop a Green Office program

to address the ewaste issue.

6.7 Marketing and Communications

Marketing potential would be gained by incorporating ewaste into promoting a SustainableOrganization Program within the University. This could be developed through the establishment ofa Sustainable Organisation Program Board comprised of senior staff from across the Universityincluding a permanent academic member from Environmental Sciences and Office of FacilitiesManagement. Working groups undertaking specific activities could report to this Board. TheSustainability Helix could be used as the process for developing the University as a sustainableorganization.

Recommendation 8: Establish a Sustainable Organization Program Board within the

University using ewaste as the initial activity to develop the sustainable organisation culture

and bring about change. Market and promote progress in the larger community.

6.8 Partnership and Stakeholder Engagement

Opportunities exist to identify and promote industry partnerships to develop the sustainableorganisation in a more organised manner (eg corporate logos on a University website).

Recommendation 9: Universities explore the potential of establishing Sustainable

Organisation Industry Partners as a means to engage with industry and market thepartnerships for mutual benefit using ewaste as a starting point.

83610201.doc 24


27/37

7. Conclusions

The increase in consumption of smaller electronic items, such as PDAs and mobile phones,coupled with lowering acquisition costs of new electronic equipment, is resulting in an increase inconsumerables and a decrease in assets across the University. Consumerables, under mostFinancial Service guidelines are categorized differently from assets and are generally not recordedwithin asset management systems. Thus the monitoring of an increasing amount of electronicequipment is becoming harder.

Therefore any long term solution to address ewaste must be designed to take into accountconsumerables rather than assets. Generally, staff are responsible for initiating acquisition anddisposal of most consumerable items (including petty cash purchases and claims for re-imbursementof expenses) and therefore any solution will require their participation if there is to be a satisfactoryresponse to the electronic waste problem. However, some specific staff and offices within the

University will need to be given responsibility to ensure processes and facilities are in place and toeducate staff and students in how to select environmentally friendly products and how to dispose ofold electronic equipment in the correct manner.

In addressing electronic waste problems, there is an opportunity for the University to implement abroader sustainability program involving the whole organisation which would bring together currentactivities from around the organisation (eg print toner recycling programs, Facilities ManagementDepartment sustainability activities). The Sustainability Helix offers a suitable framework toimplement solutions not only to address electronic waste but also to implement other programs tomove towards a sustainable organisation.

Finally, there is also an opportunity for the University sector to become a recognised leader in howto develop sustainable organisations. While much has been written on the topic there seem to befew examples of successful transitions that could be held out to be best practice transitions.

83610201.doc 25


28/37

8. Bibliography

Australia Government Treasury Department. (2006). Draft Waste Management Report.

Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and TheirDisposal. (http://www.basel.int/text/con-e-rev.pdf#search='Basel%20Convention%20on%20Hazardous%20Wastes').

The Council of Australian University Directors of Information Technology, (2006). CAUDITResearch Report - Electronic Waste.

Computer and Peripherals Materials Project Report. (2001). Meinhardt Infrastructure andEnvironment Group for the Environment, Australia,

Finance and Business Services. Financial Management Practice Manual. Griffith University.

Office of Facilities Management (2005). Strategic Asset Management 2005-2008. GriffithUniversity, Queensland.

Queensland Environmental Protection Act 1994.

Queensland Government Treasury. (1997). Financial Management Standard.

Queensland Government Treasury. (2005). Non Current Asset Policies for the Queensland PublicSector

The Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989

83610201.doc 26
http://www.basel.int/text/con-e-rev.pdf#search='Basel%20Convention%20on%20Hazardous%20Wasteshttp://www.basel.int/text/con-e-rev.pdf#search='Basel%20Convention%20on%20Hazardous%20Wastes


29/37

Appendix A - Options Summary TableOption Advantages Disadvantages Approximate $ Value

(+/-)

Actions

Required0 Do nothing (carry on as

present) Retain Student equity and donation

schemes

Auction income

Dispense University liability onauction items

Minimum University staff inputrequired

Unknown no. of units.

Uncontrolled disposal to skips/other,which may leave University vulnerableto liability

Scavenging from skips

May not adhere to future legislation andregulation

Auction income declining

When legislation comes in dumpedewaste will increase dramatically

Auction income in 2005but income would falldramatically if labequipment is leased aslab equipment makes up

bulk of auction items.

Education ofstaff on ewaste

1 Electronic Equipment WasteAvoidance (leasing)

No ewaste generation

No old machines up-to-date models

Limited/no IT support required

Immediate replacement of brokenequipment

No storage of old equipment

Full equipment inventory

Dispense University liability forequipment disposal

Increased resource/overhead cost

Only waste avoidance, no overallreduction

No control over final destination of oldequipment

Loss of equipment for student equityand donation schemes

Would be cost neutral ifno take-back controls asit is assumed vendor will

build scrap value intolower leasing costs

Would increase costs ifcontractual obligationsrequires vendor torecycle as vendor wouldneed to include recyclingcosts.

Identification ofsuitable service

providers

Contract clausesto includereferences to

preferreddisposal andhard-drivesecurity issues

2 Direct Re-Use of equipment

(inter and intra-departmental)

Efficient re-deployment of computing

resources

Small proportion of equipment is

directly re-usable Disposal problem still the same except

most likely more non-working waste

Data/equipment tracking inadequacies

Technical obsolescence makes oldequipment unusable/no resale value

Old out of warranty

equipment requiresapprox. 45 PCs to FTE.Up to double currentstaff support levels inmanaged desktopenvironments of inwarranty equipment.

Loss of productivity ofstaff and students usingold equipment (ie slowor in maintenance)

83610201.doc 27


30/37

3 Upgrade of equipmentwhere possible forredeployment

Efficient re-deployment of computingresources

Maximum use/maximised life-span ofresources prior to disposal

Staff intensive process

Disposal problem still the same exceptmost likely more non-working waste

Cost of parts and labour versus new

Increased maintenance and call-out

Older equipment not suitable forupgrade

Disposal still required

More costly to supportthan option 2.

Loss of productivity ofstaff and students usingold equipment (ie slowor in maintenance)

4 100% Donation of write-offequipment

Dispense with University liability

Good Cause, positive PR

Charity will have responsibility fordisposal of unsuitable equipment

Frequent collections no storagerequired

May be able to specify preferredrecipients of donated equipment

Loss of auction income

Possible loss of student equity scheme

No control over final recipients

No control over end-of-life options for

equipment Not all equipment will be suitable for

donation

Charity responsible for upgrades/refurbishment

No direct control over data removalprocesses

Loss of auction income Contract wouldensure liability istransferred fromUni

Stipulate ethicalsocial andenvironmentalactions, includingcontinuation ofstudent equityschemes

Fullyaccountable andauditable(destination andvolume reports)

Stipulate dataremoval

processes

5 Auction (sale of all suitableworking equipment)

Dispense University liability

Frequent collections no storage

required Income stream

Limited University resources required

Disposal still required as not allequipment has value (approx. 33% were

written off as scrap) Auction income declining

No control of final destination

No data removal services by vendor

Fall away if leasingoptions pursued with

take-back options

Educate staff onewaste

Treat non-workingcomputers as aseparate issue

6 Recycling of electroniccomponents (ie break downall old equipment for spares)(internal/external)

Ensure use of all useable resources

No internal market within University

for components

Control over the data removal processif internal

Resource/man-hour intensive

Cost of parts < wages

External purchaser required forcomponents

Appointment ofstaff if doneinternally

Contractconditions

83610201.doc 28


31/37

Possible donation of components toschools etc

relating to dataremoval forexternalorganisation

7 Recycling of materials(polymers, glass and metals)& non-working computers

Better than disposal

Saves natural resources

Complete data destruction

Local service supplier (proximity)

No data removal required

Cost per item

No review of items so completedestruction regardless of conditionand order

No control over final market forcommodities (open market)

$700 per tonne bulk(avg. 40 PC/CRT pertonne)

Guarantee that allequipment issecurelymanaged prior todestruction

8 Disposal (ie dumped) No data removal required (in theory)

Lower costs

Proximity to landfill sites

Environmental costs

Not sustainable

Only landfill disposal available forewaste

Future of disposal routes limited due tolegislative changes

Limited control over scavenging

$30/ton gate fee +transport costs

Need to securetransport

Integrated Solutions

A Refining Option 0 (doingnothing) to includecharitable donations

Many protocols already in place

Increasing profile and position ofUniversity good PR

Outsource the problem

Liability issues need to be addressed A formalisedmethod for e-auditing needs to

be established

Education toUniversity staffat all levelsregarding scheme

Approach needsto be the sameacross the

campusesB Creation of internalcharitable organisation(resource village)

Collaboration with internal andexternal stakeholders

Control over decisions (includingbeneficiaries)

Focus on local environment andpopulation

Expand student equity schemes toother local educational organisationssuch as schools and TAFES

Initial resources required for set-up

Determination structure and positionwithin University of organisation

Determining responsibilities

Liability issues

Another service to manage

Set objectivesand vision fororganisation

Recruitment

Increasedcommunication

83610201.doc 29


32/37

Employment creation withinprogramme (including training)

Possible external fundingopportunities

Community partnership working

Control to close-the-loop

Fully transparent

C Outsource problems(combination 3,4, and 6 upgrade, donation andcomponent recycling)through a tendering process

for a disposal solution(decide on retaining StudentEquity program internally oroutsource depending ontender responses).

Contractual obligations

Control over income and expenditure

Incorporate resale, donation andstudent equity scheme in re-use

Recycling of components where

possible Simplify disposal process

Possible to control percentage split ofoutgoing equipment to sale, recyclingand donation (& close the loop).

Loss of auction revenue

Tight contractual controls over finaldestination will reduce re-sale income

Ecxample: If 1,500 PCswere sent to anoutsourcer in 2007,those refurbished for re-sale would produce

income which wouldoffset the recycling costof any non-workingequipment and parts. Ifyou assumed the worstcase scenario in 2007, ifall 1,500 PCs/CRTs non-working are written off& recycled @ $700 pertonne (40 PCs/CRT pertonne) = $26,000 totalcost although a bulkrecycle contract may

produce better pricing.

83610201.doc 30


33/37

Appendix B Draft Policy for the Disposal ofComputer/Electronic Equipment

Approving Authority: The Executive/Vice Chancellor, University.

Approval Date: TBC

Document Reference: WEE/Pol.1.1

Review Date: 1st January 2008.

Policy Advisors:

Description of Policy

This document provides a full policy covering the collection and treatment of waste electronicequipment within University. This document requires approval from The Executivein order to effectively manage ewaste across the University and includes recommendations for a

user education programme and tender requirements. The policy implementations will need to beimmediate and applies to all campuses.

Related Policies and Documentation

Policies Procedures Forms .Asset Policy Assets Overview Asset Disposal FormPurchasing Policy Assets Non Current Assets Internal Transfer/Sale of

Assets - Disposal Asset FormAssets Equip taken off campusAssets - StocktakeAssets Loss

Assets Transfer of Ownership

Rationale

University recognises the significant role that electronic equipment (includingcomputers) currently plays in its activities (teaching and research) across its campuses. A study intohow electronic equipment is currently managed within the University was undertaken in order toinvestigate areas for improvement, and to formulate new policy to ensure movestowards its goal of achieving a sustainable campus. A key deliverable from the study wasformulation of a preferred treatment hierarchy for electronic equipment and identification of key

performance indicators (KPIs) to measure achievement against set goals. (Web link to finishedreport and other commissioned work).

Definitions

For the purpose of this policy the term electronic equipment refers to, and includes equipmentwhich is dependent on electric currents or electromagnetic fields in order to operate and contains ahard-drive or significant electronic components/printed circuit board.

Included Omitted

Desk top computers* Electrical only items including-Desk lamps-Kettles

Lap top computers* OHPsVCRs

83610201.doc 31


34/37

DVD players Laboratory Equipment including-Electron microscopes-Splutter coaters-Scientific scales

Mobile phones (including chargers) Leased equipment (such as photocopiers)

Data Projectors All contractor equipment (including computers)Digital Cameras Maintenance equipment

Printers and other Peripherals External research equipment

Small Bench-top Laboratory Equipment

* Many of the included items are classified as financial assets rather than consumables and are therefore the mainfocus for this policy due to their financ

Documents

eWaste Report Summary