CAUDIT RESEARCH REPORT Electronic Waste

Summary Report

October 2006

Prepared by Malcolm Wolski

Table of Contents
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................3 2. Terms of Reference..........................................................................................................................4 3. Background.......................................................................................................................................5 4. Current Regulatory Environment.....................................................................................................7 4.1 Federal Legislation and Regulations..........................................................................................7 4.2 The Definition of Waste.............................................................................................................8 4.3 Definition of Hazardous Waste..................................................................................................8 4.4 Landfill Regulation...................................................................................................................10 4.5 Electrical Safety Regulations...................................................................................................10 4.6 Standards for Computers Australia.......................................................................................10 4.7 Legislation and Regulations Europe......................................................................................11 4.8 Relevant University Regulations, Policies and Processes........................................................13 4.8.1 Financial Management......................................................................................................13 4.8.2 Facilities Management.......................................................................................................14 4.8.3 IT Departments..................................................................................................................15 5. Other Disposal Options..................................................................................................................16 5.1 Supplier/Manufacturer Take-back Schemes............................................................................16 5.2 Asset Management Upon Disposal..........................................................................................16 5.3 Charitable Donation (third party).............................................................................................16 5.4 Charitable Donation (direct).....................................................................................................16 5.5 Internal Refurbishment.............................................................................................................17 6. The Universitys Role in Sustainability and Ewaste......................................................................18 6.1 Underlying Principles...............................................................................................................18 6.2 Ewaste and the Sustainable Organisation.................................................................................19 6.3 Governance and Management..................................................................................................19 6.4 Operations and Facilities..........................................................................................................20 6.5 Design and Process Innovation................................................................................................21 6.6 Human Resource Development and Corporate Culture...........................................................23 6.7 Marketing and Communications..............................................................................................24 6.8 Partnership and Stakeholder Engagement................................................................................24 7. Conclusions....................................................................................................................................25 8. Bibliography...................................................................................................................................26 Appendix A - Options Summary Table.............................................................................................27 Appendix B Draft Policy for the Disposal of Computer/Electronic Equipment............................31

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. This report summarises the findings contained in the full research report which will be made available to CAUDIT members. As an introduction to the scale of the problem the following table provides rough estimates of the amount of hazardous material being generated from computers discarded from the University system. Number of CAUDIT member institutions Conservative estimate of average computer fleet Annual turnover lifecycle (assume 5 yrs) Written off computers per yr from all institutions Raw tonnage (40 PCs + CRT per tonne) PCs to auction (60% of written-off computers)* Value of PCs auctioned (median auction value $48)* Most lease take-back schemes
usually take into account estimated resale value in lease cost & most leasing vendors auction/resell equipment taken back.

40 5000 PCs 1000 PCs 40,000 PCs 975 tonnes 24,000 PCs $1.15 million 9,600 PCs 14,400 PCs 16,000 PCs $280,000

Machines sold at auction which are exported (40% of total auctioned)* PCS re-sold to domestic market (60% of auction items). In the absence of collection schemes eventually end up in landfill* Scrapped/scavanged (33%) which either goes via scrap merchants/landfill or into general waste then to landfill* (balance of 100% written off for other reasons eg theft,
donation etc)

Cost to recycle non-working/scrapped equipment & old parts etc (16,000 PCs/40 PCs per tonne * $700 per tonne recycle costs)* Note this refers to recycling back to raw
product not resale to refurbishers. * Based on figures Griffith for 2005

Rough Breakdown of Hazardous Waste Generated by University Sector

Auctioned/sold Total to domestic annual market (14,400 waste PCs) 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 a different set of disposal problems Scrapped/scavanged to Australian landfill (16000 PCs) Exported (9600 PCs)

In addition to computers there are also numerous other electronic items of equipment in use on campus 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

This report discusses the electronic waste (ewaste) problem and offers three basic responses: a) do nothing 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 while including some take-back obligations, leave disposal as the responsibility of Facilities Management Departments; 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Recommendation 9: Universities explore the potential of establishing Sustainable Organisation Industry Partners as a means 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 external green procurement guide for use by Universities (e.g. ECOBUY in Victoria). 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. CAUDIT Recommendation 3: Liaise with major electronic equipment suppliers to set up a 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.

83610201.doc

1. Introduction
The University sector is a major user of computers and peripherals. The end-of-service units are disposed of to four main routes: Sale by public auction through an approved auction house, which is the preferred option for operational equipment; Take-back by leasing companies who generally dispose of equipment by public auction or through 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 metal merchant or ends up in general waste bins. A relatively small amount of equipment is also written-off due to other reasons such as theft and insurance claims. Any residual bits and pieces of computer components generally get discarded in with 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 pursuing alternative solutions for dealing with disposal of computers. Firstly Universities (typically Facilities Management departments) are greening campuses in an effort to achieve greater sustainability and there is an increasing realisation of social and environmental responsibilities associated with sustainability principles. None of the previously mentioned disposal routes for waste computer equipment have any influence or involvement in determining if the final route (treatment through to disposal) complies with their own objectives and aspirations, and therefore may not be moving towards closing the materials loop, which is necessary for sustainability. Secondly overseas countries have already introduced legislation restricting disposal of electronic waste. It is on the agendas of the Australian Federal government, State Governments and local authorities. By dealing with the issue now, Universities will be in position to respond to any future legislation and regulations. Finally there is a marketing opportunity for the sector to show leadership in responding to this environmental issue.

83610201.doc

2. Terms of Reference
The 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 the much larger CAUDIT Research Report forwarded under separate cover. This report will also present recommendations on how resource efficiencies can be optimised to positively progress economic, environmental and social outcomes. This will be undertaken by identifying potential opportunities throughout the life-cycle of the electronic equipment for waste minimisation and resource recovery. The terms of reference for this paper have particular regard to: Current and possible future regulatory regimes, which may provide both barriers and opportunities for increasing resource recovery from this waste sector; Institutional regimes and barriers, which may impede optimal resource recovery; and to recommend, where appropriate, new proposals for limiting or eradicating them; The adequacy of current organisational data relating to the purchase, allocation and disposal of electronic assets and consumerables; and if data could be more efficiently collected using suitable 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 be universally applicable and workable at all University campuses; and Development of clear and decisive policies, which do not unduly financially burden the University or diminish its position within the educational market-place.

83610201.doc

3. Background
In order to be sustainable, a University must reduce its environmental impact via more efficient use of 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 to operate 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. While most 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 or redeployed to lesser tasks (ie rate of acquisition is greater than rate of disposal). Typically major technology advances stimulate turnover (e.g. deployment of Vista, MAC OSX etc). There is also a trend to replace more desktop PCs with laptops. This is coupled with increasingly restrictive treatment and disposal legislation across many countries and an increased public awareness and disapproval of transfrontier shipments of wastes to developing countries for treatment. The growth of commercially produced electronic waste is higher than that of domestic sources with a 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 the multiple waste fractions across of the domestic, commercial and domestic sectors, comprised of numerous 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 Meinhardt Infrastructure and Environment Group for the Environment, Australia, stated that there was a range of possible options that could be implemented within Australia to achieve environmental gains with respect 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, including correct disposal. While a University may recognise its role in effecting positive change across all three of these main areas there are currently no formal policies and guidelines for staff to follow. Such policies and guidelines 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

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 Materials Marking System (the optimum method of labelling, where components are etched with their material 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 waste hierarchy and preferred systems designated by the University.

83610201.doc

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 States and 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 other countries in the region and any national strategy would, most likely, be voluntary. Without strict regulation 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 takeback schemes there is even less motivation to implement green-design principles or active design for 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 major office machinery at www.esa.finance.gov.au. These suppliers have fulfilled a pre-qualification process which ensures listed suppliers comply with Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines and Best Practice Guidance. The Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments have also endorsed the 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 the time of requesting a quotation. Note: Each State/Territory has its own legislation and regulations which 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 least preferred 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, where possible, be borne by the waste generator; The "user-pays principle" all costs associated with the use of a resource should, where possible, 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 of the product. 83610201.doc 7

These principles and the waste management hierarchy provide a basis for ewaste management programs that may be required as a condition of approval for an environmentally relevant activity for industry, such as for voluntary industry waste reduction programs and for State and local government 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 Queensland under 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 an industrial, 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 left to regional authorities. Following on with the Queensland example, surplus and end-of-life electronic equipment generated by a Queensland University is deemed to be waste and is therefore subject to certain regulatory conditions. 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 by the local government under s369 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994. If the waste is a regulated waste as defined in the Environmental Protection Regulation 1998, the transporter must also be licensed by the EPA as a regulated waste transporter. If the waste is trackable waste as defined by s17 of the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000, the applicable waste tracking requirements must be complied with by all waste 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 will be required to be licensed as a regulated waste transporter if carrying more than 250kg of a regulated waste. The transportation of waste computer equipment or scrap within Queensland may require a permit under the Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000, as it is likely to contain materials that are considered Trackable Wastes. Tracking the transport of a waste stream can increase transport costs substantially. The lesson here is that Universities should stay away from transportation of electronic waste.

4.3 Definition of Hazardous Waste

The storage, transportation and disposal of computer components becomes subject to regulatory control when the materials that comprise these components are considered to pose an environmental or health hazard. Hazardous wastes are controlled through various State and Commonwealth Acts and Regulations. In general terms, the transportation of hazardous materials both between States and either imported or exported is controlled by the Commonwealth Government, whereas intrastate movement and handling of Controlled/Hazardous materials is subject to the specific State or Territory requirements. The Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 implements Australia's obligations under the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous

83610201.doc

Wastes and their Disposal. This Act defines waste as anything to be disposed of, including computers destined for disassembly followed by re-use, recycling, recovery or disposal. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal is an international agreement, ratified by 166 countries, (including Australia), contains definitions of hazardous waste. Under the agreement, there are two simple considerations for classifying a waste as hazardous. Firstly to determine if it has hazardous characteristics, for example, is it explosive, flammable, toxic, eco-toxic, corrosive, infectious, oxidising, poisonous or radioactive, and secondly, to determine the waste stream is hazardous. For example, clinical wastes, radioactive waste, and other wastes from industrial sources which contain hazardous characteristics. Despite the guidance offered under Basel, each Australian state has its own regulations and classifications of what is considered hazardous. This has clear geographical implications for the treatment and recovery of some waste streams that may be listed as hazardous in one state but not another. 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 that could 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 be mobilised in leachate. However, it was acknowledged that the management of the site as being the main 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 the boundary between hazardous and non-hazardous waste. Thus, small amounts of hazardous waste in the municipal, construction and demolition, and commercial and industrial 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 recovery operations 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. Other allowable imports/exports of waste electronic equipment or scrap such as nickel cadmium batteries and CRT glass which contain less than 0.5% (weight for weight) of lead or generate less than 1.0 mg/L of lead during a Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test, as they are considered 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 a permit if machines are in working order or require only minor repairs (e.g. replacement of broken parts 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 destined for export.

83610201.doc

Despite the financial costs associated with the responsible treatment of hazardous wastes within Australia 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, to the 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 requiring donations of working electronic equipment are not unfairly prejudiced within this framework, but care 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 the control 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 landfill will 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 recovery operations. The associated costs of landfill are also rising. As an example gate fees in the state of Queensland are 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 increasing costs to between $50-60 per tonne. The Waste Management Association of Australia is currently formulating a policy paper to impose a landfill tax in Queensland. Note that the cost of recycling computers 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 preowned/used electrical item needs to be subject to a Portable Appliance Test to ensure that it is in safe working order. If an item has not been tested, the seller is recommended to remove the plug or label 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 for any incident. A Queensland University also has a duty under the Queensland Electricity Act to ensure 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 member countries. 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 standards produced by a number of organisations including, but not limited to, Standards Australia, the International Standards Organisation, the International Electrotechnical Commission and the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineering. Standards of particular relevance to the ICT industry 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

Whilst the majority of standards refer to the minimum acceptable performance of a particular component rather than specifying the materials used in their construction, some standards provide an opportunity to improve the choice of materials. For example, ISO11469 Standardised Material Marking System provides a framework for identifying plastics used in the construction of a product and is used by several major computer companies to facilitate identification of parts for recovery. Some standards mention environmental considerations within design (e.g. Standards Australia HB98 - 1997 Guidance on Environmental Aspects in Specifications and Design Briefs for Electrotechnical Products, or IEC60249 Base Materials for Printed Circuits, which instructs designers of PCBs to consider the risk of emission of hazardous substances arising from combustion or incineration). However, many of these standards do not reflect current environmental best practice.

4.7 Legislation and Regulations Europe

The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) 2002/96/EC, relates to the endof-life stage of both electrical and electronic equipment. Article 3 of the Directive contains the definitions, Article 4 relates to product design, Article 5 the separate collections used to minimise the disposal to landfill of WEEE, and Article 11 of the WEEE Directive requires producers to provide treatment information to treatment operators when needed for each type of new equipment they put on the market. The guidance document that the above mentioned associations agreed upon sets some rules for a practical implementation of the requirements: 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 and sustained dialogue to discuss past and future technology trends in products as well as the technical 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 of implementation has been variable with some states experiencing logistical issues regarding full implementation, with governments, producers and retailers unable to reach mutually agreeable solutions. On the 24th March 2005, the UK Government delayed the implementation deadline for the producer 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 of the German legislation is an independent producer foundation, which acts as a national clearinghouse and overall authority. Any company/producer wishing to sell electrical and electronic equipment within Germany has to register with the clearing-house and provide commercial and compliance data in relation to their own products. Although German local authorities have financed the separate collection of waste electrical and electronic wastes from householders, individual companies are responsible for the end-of-life 83610201.doc 11

treatment of their own products, either opting for a brand return scheme or a payment, which reflects 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 of individual 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 their own products; for an accurate data on production and weight or volume of waste generated; a national collection system and finally; suitable technology to re-use and recycle electronic waste and waste components in an environmentally and socially acceptable manner. This will then encourage 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, directly influencing electronic equipment manufacturers to consider the green design and disassembly of their products carefully as they will have responsibility for treatment and disposal at their end-oflife. In the Australian Governments Productivity Commission, whos recent Draft Report on Waste Management released on the 23rd May 2006, criticised the philosophy of IPR. The report did however acknowledge that some products are problematic in normal waste streams, and that extended producer responsibility (EPR) and product stewardship (PS) can be a means of effectively addressing 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 unlikely to pass rigorous cost-benefit analysis and that much of the electronic equipment within Australia is imported, 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 as environmental pollution, site monitoring, and the costs of remediation amongst others, thus making any recycling or recovery options appear to be uncompetitive. Also, legislative drivers in Europe and the US will encourage 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. 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, EICTA have adopted a Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) approach to WEEE, deciding that the embedded energy of a product and/or materials should be addressed within any policy or strategy. Embedded energy 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 provide information for the review of the WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC). This process is due to close on the 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

uneven and discrepant set of laws relating to waste electrical and electronic equipment across Europe, 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 of regulations and policies, many reflecting State, Territory or regional legislative requirements. As an example in Queensland in accordance with the Financial Management Standard 1997, the university is required to manage its assets in an efficient and effective manner, and in accordance with the Non Current Asset Policies for the Queensland Public Sector. The aim is to ensure that the University achieves value for money on purchased assets and, in turn, ensures best practice relating to the use of public resources. Universities define what an asset is. For example Griffith defines an asset as an item which has a future service potential or economic benefit controlled by the University as a result of past transactions or other past events and where the useful life of the asset exceeds 12 months, (Griffith Financial Management Practice Manual). Increasingly, many of the electronic items currently on the market and those purchased by the University fall under $1,000 and/or have an expected life of less than twelve months, for example, mobile phones. At Griffith electronic equipment, including computers (including leased computers) are classed as non-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 Management System 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. Older working computers are generally replaced for three reasons: Technical obsolescence (wont run newer software versions, operating system no longer supported, 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 the University.

83610201.doc

13

Retirement by Sale through auction

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.

Contracted Suppliers
Contracts signed through a tender process. No terms & conditions dealing with specifically with ewaste but environmental issues are covered in selection criteria. In the tender process currently taking place new criteria was added dealing with ewaste

Responsibility of Head of Organisational 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.

Trade-in & Lease Return

End of Life
No terms & conditions currently included dealing with ewaste responsibilities. Final destination varies dependant on vendors response to dealing with ewaste

Purchases

Scrapped
Given to a scrap dealer. No terms & conditions currently dealing with ewaste responsibilities.

Cannibalised
While re-use of parts is good it is assumed parts replaced go into general waste bins on campus.

Other
Student Equity Schemse,donations, theft, insurance loss, transfer to external group.

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), as any item that isa) left over, or an unwanted by-product, from an industrial, commercial, domestic or other activity; 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 one accounting period. However, the same document also categorically defines the Facilities Management assigned responsibility as not including vehicles, communications and computing systems or hardware. Each University will need to check who has responsibility for electronic waste on their campus and whether changes need to be negotiated or clarified. Facilities Management Departments are generally responsible for the range of waste collection and removal, and any current recycling and waste reduction programmes across campuses (except perhaps for paper and printer ink cartridges). In general Facilities Management Departments have the most practical experience at addressing sustainability issues on campus and any solution addressing electronic waste would need to include them.

83610201.doc

14

4.8.3 IT Departments A survey was undertaken of a number of Universities. The survey was very detailed which was designed to gain an understanding of each Universitys organisational environment and to gauge the level of knowledge about sustainability issues. Responses seemed to indicate that sustainability and electronic waste is low on the priority list in IT departments and also that understanding of sustainability issues was at a basic level. However it should be noted that the high level of interest expressed by respondents indicated a willingness to learn more.

83610201.doc

15

5. Other Disposal Options

5.1 Supplier/Manufacturer Take-back Schemes
This is achieved by encouraging equipment manufacturers and suppliers to take-back their equipment 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 the manufacturer as they would be aware of their responsibility for active disassembly. In reality, a supplier may decide to refurbish the returned equipment for re-sale either within or outside Australia, essentially increasing the equipments life-span but still not addressing the end-of-life issues. There is likely to be a take-back service charge payable at end-of-life or added to the purchase/lease price 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 an effective mechanism for assigning take-back of future electronic wastes. Any mechanism would need to enable waste fractions, which could potentially contain products from a range of different manufacturers, to be re-allocated to those manufacturers. A mechanism of brand return would have 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 simply obligate suppliers and manufacturers to take-back their equipment at their end-of-life. Usually, the equipment 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 management and environmentally responsible disposal of equipment where redundant equipment (often regardless 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 of the proceeds retained by the asset management service) and secure procedures for removal of data from redundant equipment. A number of major manufacturers have introduced asset management services 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 potential donation/re-sale, refurbishment and donation/re-sale, component and material recycling and disposal.

5.4 Charitable Donation (direct)

This would require direct partnership working between the Universitys Community Liaison Department (CLD) and external stakeholders. The CLD would be responsible for identifying the needs and requirements of selected stakeholders requiring operational electronic equipment and who would mutually benefit from a direct relationship to the University. The additional benefits of direct rather than third party donations is that the University could maintain control over the donation 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

the individual campuses. A University may also specify that all equipment is returned to them upon end-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 University Schools. 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). Further considerations include the benefits gained in donation of discarded electronic equipment to charities versus 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 of that value in cash to the charity. Consensus for one single scheme or solution is an essential requirement. Individual Schools wishing to go-it-alone may not generate a sufficient quantity of surplus equipment to be economically attractive to either auction houses or for charity collections (economies of scale). The monitoring and management of a de-centralized scheme may also increase School workload and decrease transparency.

5.5 Internal Refurbishment

This option could be utilized to extend the in-service operational-life of equipment. It would also be a pre-requisite of some of the previous options such as the direct charitable donation, as any donated equipment would require testing to ensure operational status and compliance with recommendations contained within the regional authority electrical safety legislation. Data (including software) removal would also have to be undertaken. The disadvantage of this route is cost of personnel time and facilities to test and refurbish equipment where required, in addition to the cost of transport and retrieval. Assuming that donated equipment is returned to the University at end 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 the cannibalization of parts and computers. It would be difficult to justify this type of operation from a cost perspective due to the high cost of salaries and facilities relative to the low value of old computers.

83610201.doc

17

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 waste currently being generated on campus. A series of hybrid options are therefore proposed (Appendix A), utilising, wherever possible, options from the top of the waste hierarchy with disposal being reduced 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-term protection of the environment. It is commonly acknowledged that current costs associated with the purchase of electronic equipment 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 of disposal currently does not accurately cover all externalities such as environmental and social impacts. Also, the producers or importers of the electronic goods purchased by CAUDIT member Universities, 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 their own products; for accurate data on production and weight or volume of waste generated; a national collection system; and finally suitable technology to re-use and recycle electronic waste and waste components 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 Waste Management, 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 effectively addressing 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 unlikely to pass rigorous cost-benefit analysis and that much of the electronic equipment within Australia is imported, 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 as environmental pollution, site monitoring, and the costs of remediation, thus making any recycling or recovery options appear to be uncompetitive. Also, legislative drivers in Europe and the US will encourage 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 to dealing with ewaste acknowledging that it will be some time before a national approach is implemented through regulatory processes and local recycling industry delivers economical solutions.

83610201.doc

18

6.2 Ewaste and the Sustainable Organisation

Resolving the ewaste issue on campus should be seen in the context of achieving the goal of becoming 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 wider regulatory framework isnt yet in place. The Sustainability Helix is a non-linear, matrix style approach developed by the NaturalEdge Project (http://www.naturaledge.org.au/) that can be implemented 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 University Executive. The adoption of an ewaste policy would introduce guidelines for the social and environmentally responsible management of used and waste electronic equipment from all University premises. A policy would indicate top-down support and assign responsibilities to the management of ewastes. The aims of the policy would reflect the Universitys commitment for sustainability. A draft policy is attached in Appendix 2. A University needs to have a formal policy or strategy relating to the management of all solid wastes/resources generated across its campuses. Any strategy needs to cover all wastes including end-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 at Universities. As ewaste can be discarded to general waste streams and the Facilities Management Departments currently have waste management expertise and contacts in place, including the 83610201.doc 19

management of the current trade waste and recycling contracts, it is sensible to also make ewaste their 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 a reduction in the parts used for cannibalization or the number of non-operational units scrapped. It will also lead to a reduction in the amount of operational equipment suitable for re-sale or donation to various equity computer schemes. Generally laboratory computers currently make up the bulk of working computers being sold at auction. Student equity schemes and other donation schemes, will struggle to satisfy the demand for free (or cheap) computers especially to students experiencing financial difficulties. In comparison, alternative schemes such as those offered by external companies (such as Green PC) are not cost effective to students and although they can be made accessible 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 the student equity schemes will be better served by remaining an internal service but the cost of outsourcing 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 will offer a twelve month warranty on computers, there are indications that a financial contribution by the students will be required and additionally, supply may continue to be insufficient against demand. Also, such an option will still fail to address the issues of end-of-life disposal of student equity computer scheme equipment, which will only be resolved if the students return the equipment, regardless of condition, at the end of their studies, indicating a move to a lease-style system. With regards to disposal, Integrated Option C in Appendix A provides a solution that meets University needs and provides a solution dealing with ewaste from computers. By tendering for disposal 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 when the leave the University. To ensure electronic waste is dealt with in an appropriate manner, sale of operational electronic equipment to external agencies (e.g. refurbishers, recyclers, auction houses and brokers) should include 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 from any 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

All traces of ownership by the University will be removed, including the removal of University IDs, asset tags and any engravings that may identify the University as the equipment's original owner; All equipment is pulled apart and/or directly segregated into the appropriate recycling categories before forwarding to the various reprocessors; Where possible, selected and assessed re-useable computer components and equipment will be made available to the second hand market for re-use on the condition the purchaser can certify if will be disposed of in the correct manner. Again, all identification marks associated with the University will be removed; A detailed report providing details of the services performed and quantities will be sent to the University; The contractor will certify that no computers on-sold will be exported to countries where there are no acceptable recycling facilities; and The contractor will certify that discarded components will be sent to a recognised reprocessor and not sent to landfill.

In addition the University has an option to specify what percentage of outgoing computers are to be directed to specific organisations and individuals (eg numbers of machines donated to specific community organisations, or to students nominated to receive a computer under the equity scheme or to be made available for resale). Although there would be reduced income from resale of old equipment it must be remembered if the trend towards leasing continues the current income stream would fall off in any case. There is still the option to run the student equity scheme in-house if it was more cost effective to do so. It is also noted that if the numbers of working computers available for resale drop off it may be more cost effective to send all old equipment (working or not) 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 general waste. This will require separate waste collection points on campus and adjustments to existing waste 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 the subject of preferred supplier or other contractual arrangements, quotes have to be obtained. For items 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 contractual obligations relating to the environment or social responsibilities from the supplier/seller.

83610201.doc

21

Special conditions do exist for some items being purchased. For example, bulk purchase of computing equipment for the University is usually coordinated through a specific section/s and large orders are placed to turnover computing laboratory equipment. Generally computing equipment is usually purchased from approved suppliers. However, as stated previously, there are usually no specific contractual obligations specified in relation to sustainability in standard documents used. Universities that have centralised purchasing departments generally have a stronger purchasing power due to economies of scale and may be able to exert influence to promote product stewardship or an extended producer responsibility over vendors. In an attempt to address sustainability issues in new tenders for the supply of computers and printers, additional criteria can be added requesting potential suppliers to detail how they address environmental 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 of their products and services using the criteria in the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) sections 4.1 through to 4.5 available at http://www.epeat.net/Criteria.aspx. EPEAT was developed from the standard, IEEE 1680(TM), "Standard for Environmental Assessment of Personal Computer Products". However given that all electronic items add to ewaste stream on campus, a more holistic approach is 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 with inclusion of take-back programs requiring reuse and recycling of materials, and even minimum standards for upgrading machines. A University may also specify preferred suppliers, such as those accredited to the Blue Angel accreditation scheme in Germany. The introduction of new policy measures, coupled with the revision of existing procurement strategies, must ensure that the University meet sustainability criteria for environmentally responsible purchasing (ERPP). The revision 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 university responsible for purchasing and general management to adopt policies that will promote sustainability within the university. The adoption of a standard procurement scheme for all CAUDIT members would provide a strong incentive for collaboration with other major public sector organisations (e.g. Education Departments, TAFE sector etc). Under tender conditions for all electronic equipment, a University could specify conditions to include: 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

This would represent a significant move in incorporating environmental considerations in purchasing 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 to final disposal. It is recommended that the University align their current practice to the National Voluntary Tools for Environmental Purchasing which includes the Environmental Purchasing Checklists 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 an organisations 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 over time 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 and processing to ensure the process is transparent and repeatable for all stakeholders. Finally, they have to be realistic in terms of data acquisition and the resources required both monitoring and reporting 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 of disposal of waste electronic and computer equipment in relation to financial and regulatory guidelines, and issues relating to data protection. Whilst some users and Schools may be aware of their individual difficulty in locating an appropriate recycling or disposal pathway for their end-oflife electronic equipment, they may not be fully aware of the nature of hazardous materials used in computer manufacture and the requirement for special disposal, particularly if classified as hazardous waste.

83610201.doc

23

How to address the ewaste issue needs to be integrated into other staff development activities and campus programs to ensure it becomes a part of the culture in the organisation. Suggested avenues include 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, to academic, general, and sessional staff). There are also ongoing issues surrounding the timely disposal of equipment, which may be held in storage for several months before disposal (sale or scrap) after being written-off. This period of storage can effectively diminish the auction value of equipment sent for sale and can pose both storage 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 Sustainable Organization Program within the University. This could be developed through the establishment of a Sustainable Organisation Program Board comprised of senior staff from across the University including a permanent academic member from Environmental Sciences and Office of Facilities Management. Working groups undertaking specific activities could report to this Board. The Sustainability Helix could be used as the process for developing the University as a sustainable organization. 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 sustainable organisation 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 the partnerships for mutual benefit using ewaste as a starting point.

83610201.doc

24

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 in consumerables and a decrease in assets across the University. Consumerables, under most Financial Service guidelines are categorized differently from assets and are generally not recorded within asset management systems. Thus the monitoring of an increasing amount of electronic equipment is becoming harder. Therefore any long term solution to address ewaste must be designed to take into account consumerables rather than assets. Generally, staff are responsible for initiating acquisition and disposal of most consumerable items (including petty cash purchases and claims for re-imbursement of expenses) and therefore any solution will require their participation if there is to be a satisfactory response 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 to educate staff and students in how to select environmentally friendly products and how to dispose of old electronic equipment in the correct manner. In addressing electronic waste problems, there is an opportunity for the University to implement a broader sustainability program involving the whole organisation which would bring together current activities from around the organisation (eg print toner recycling programs, Facilities Management Department sustainability activities). The Sustainability Helix offers a suitable framework to implement solutions not only to address electronic waste but also to implement other programs to move towards a sustainable organisation. Finally, there is also an opportunity for the University sector to become a recognised leader in how to develop sustainable organisations. While much has been written on the topic there seem to be few examples of successful transitions that could be held out to be best practice transitions.

83610201.doc

25

8. Bibliography
Australia Government Treasury Department. (2006). Draft Waste Management Report. Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. (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). CAUDIT Research Report - Electronic Waste. Computer and Peripherals Materials Project Report. Environment Group for the Environment, Australia, (2001). Meinhardt Infrastructure and

Finance and Business Services. Financial Management Practice Manual. Griffith University. Office of Facilities Management (2005). University, Queensland. Strategic Asset Management 2005-2008. Griffith

Queensland Environmental Protection Act 1994. Queensland Government Treasury. (1997). Financial Management Standard. Queensland Government Treasury. (2005). Non Current Asset Policies for the Queensland Public Sector The Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989

83610201.doc

26

Appendix A - Options Summary Table

Option
0 Do nothing (carry on as present)

Advantages Retain Student equity and donation

schemes Auction income Dispense University liability on auction items Minimum University staff input required

Disadvantages
Unknown no. of units. Uncontrolled disposal to skips/other, which may leave University vulnerable to liability Scavenging from skips May not adhere to future legislation and regulation Auction income declining When legislation comes in dumped ewaste will increase dramatically Increased resource/overhead cost Only waste avoidance, no overall reduction No control over final destination of old equipment Loss of equipment for student equity and donation schemes

Approximate $ Value (+/-) Auction income in 2005

but income would fall dramatically if lab equipment is leased as lab equipment makes up bulk of auction items.

Actions Required Education of

staff on ewaste

Electronic Equipment Waste Avoidance (leasing)

No ewaste generation

No old machines up-to-date models Limited/no IT support required Immediate replacement of broken equipment No storage of old equipment Full equipment inventory Dispense University liability for equipment disposal Efficient re-deployment of computing resources

Direct Re-Use of equipment (inter and intradepartmental)

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 old equipment unusable/no resale value

Would be cost neutral if no take-back controls as it is assumed vendor will build scrap value into lower leasing costs Would increase costs if contractual obligations requires vendor to recycle as vendor would need to include recycling costs. Old out of warranty equipment requires approx. 45 PCs to FTE. Up to double current staff support levels in managed desktop environments of in warranty equipment. Loss of productivity of staff and students using old equipment (ie slow or in maintenance)

Identification of suitable service providers Contract clauses to include references to preferred disposal and hard-drive security issues

83610201.doc

27

Upgrade of equipment where possible for redeployment

Efficient re-deployment of computing resources Maximum use/maximised life-span of resources prior to disposal

100% Donation of write-off equipment

Dispense with University liability

Good Cause, positive PR Charity will have responsibility for disposal of unsuitable equipment Frequent collections no storage required May be able to specify preferred recipients of donated equipment

Staff intensive process Disposal problem still the same except most likely more non-working waste Cost of parts and labour versus new Increased maintenance and call-out Older equipment not suitable for upgrade Disposal still required 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 removal processes

More costly to support than option 2. Loss of productivity of staff and students using old equipment (ie slow or in maintenance)

Loss of auction income

Contract would

Auction (sale of all suitable working equipment)

Dispense University liability

Frequent collections no storage required Income stream Limited University resources required Ensure use of all useable resources No internal market within University for components Control over the data removal process if internal

Disposal still required as not all

equipment has value (approx. 33% were written off as scrap) Auction income declining No control of final destination No data removal services by vendor Resource/man-hour intensive Cost of parts < wages External purchaser required for components

Fall away if leasing

options pursued with take-back options

ensure liability is transferred from Uni Stipulate ethical social and environmental actions, including continuation of student equity schemes Fully accountable and auditable (destination and volume reports) Stipulate data removal processes Educate staff on ewaste Treat nonworking computers as a separate issue Appointment of staff if done internally Contract conditions

Recycling of electronic components (ie break down all old equipment for spares) (internal/external)

83610201.doc

28

 Possible donation of components to schools etc 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 complete destruction regardless of condition and order No control over final market for commodities (open market) Environmental costs Not sustainable Only landfill disposal available for ewaste Future of disposal routes limited due to legislative changes Limited control over scavenging $700 per tonne bulk (avg. 40 PC/CRT per tonne)

relating to data removal for external organisation Guarantee that all equipment is securely managed prior to destruction Need to secure transport

Disposal (ie dumped)

No data removal required (in theory) Lower costs Proximity to landfill sites

$30/ton gate fee + transport costs

Integrated Solutions Refining Option 0 (doing nothing) to include charitable donations

Many protocols already in place Increasing profile and position of University good PR Outsource the problem

Liability issues need to be addressed

Creation of internal charitable organisation (resource village)

Collaboration with internal and external stakeholders Control over decisions (including beneficiaries) Focus on local environment and population Expand student equity schemes to other local educational organisations such as schools and TAFES

Initial resources required for set-up Determination structure and position within University of organisation Determining responsibilities Liability issues Another service to manage

A formalised method for eauditing needs to be established Education to University staff at all levels regarding scheme Approach needs to be the same across the campuses Set objectives and vision for organisation Recruitment Increased communication

83610201.doc

29

Outsource problems (combination 3,4, and 6 upgrade, donation and component recycling) through a tendering process for a disposal solution (decide on retaining Student Equity program internally or outsource depending on tender responses).

Employment creation within programme (including training) Possible external funding opportunities Community partnership working Control to close-the-loop Fully transparent Contractual obligations Control over income and expenditure Incorporate resale, donation and student equity scheme in re-use Recycling of components where possible Simplify disposal process Possible to control percentage split of outgoing equipment to sale, recycling and donation (& close the loop).

Loss of auction revenue Tight contractual controls over final destination will reduce re-sale income

Ecxample: If 1,500 PCs

were sent to an outsourcer in 2007, those refurbished for resale would produce income which would offset the recycling cost of any non-working equipment and parts. If you assumed the worst case scenario in 2007, if all 1,500 PCs/CRTs nonworking are written off & recycled @ $700 per tonne (40 PCs/CRT per tonne) = $26,000 total cost although a bulk recycle contract may produce better pricing.

83610201.doc

30

Appendix B Draft Policy for the Disposal of Computer/Electronic Equipment

Approving Authority: Approval Date: Document Reference: Review Date: Policy Advisors: The Executive/Vice Chancellor, <University> University. TBC WEE/Pol.1.1 1st January 2008.

Description of Policy This document provides a full policy covering the collection and treatment of waste electronic equipment within <University> University. This document requires approval from The Executive in 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 be immediate and applies to all campuses. Related Policies and Documentation Policies Procedures Asset Policy Assets Overview Purchasing Policy Assets Non Current Assets Assets - Disposal Assets Equip taken off campus Assets - Stocktake Assets Loss Assets Transfer of Ownership Forms . Asset Disposal Form Internal Transfer/Sale of Asset Form

Rationale <University> University recognises the significant role that electronic equipment (including computers) currently plays in its activities (teaching and research) across its campuses. A study into how electronic equipment is currently managed within the University was undertaken in order to investigate areas for improvement, and to formulate new policy to ensure <University> moves towards its goal of achieving a sustainable campus. A key deliverable from the study was formulation of a preferred treatment hierarchy for electronic equipment and identification of key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure achievement against set goals. (Web link to finished report and other commissioned work). Definitions For the purpose of this policy the term electronic equipment refers to, and includes equipment which is dependent on electric currents or electromagnetic fields in order to operate and contains a hard-drive or significant electronic components/printed circuit board. Included Desk top computers* Lap top computers* VCRs Omitted Electrical only items including -Desk lamps -Kettles OHPs

83610201.doc

31

DVD players

Mobile phones (including chargers) Data Projectors Digital Cameras Printers and other Peripherals Small Bench-top Laboratory Equipment

Laboratory Equipment including -Electron microscopes -Splutter coaters -Scientific scales Leased equipment (such as photocopiers) All contractor equipment (including computers) Maintenance equipment External research equipment

* Many of the included items are classified as financial assets rather than consumables and are therefore the main focus for this policy due to their financial impact from purchase through to disposal. However, it is noted that smaller items such as mobile phones and cameras are classed as consumerables and, as such, are not catalogued or audited using the same methodology. Trends indicate that an increasing number of items will be classed as consumerables rather than assets due to falling costs. The environmental footprint of all of the selected items is significant based on several factors, including the resource consumption associated with manufacture; end of life treatments including use of landfill void space.

Electronic equipment only becomes a waste upon the point where it is permanently discarded by the owner or authorised person, (i.e. Head of Organisational Unit) and NOT the user. An item of equipment, once permanently discarded by the owner is classified as a waste, regardless if it is operational or non-operational. Please note that these definitions and item descriptions may be subject to change in accordance with new legislation and technology. Policy Issues There are four key issues regarding the disposal of computer/electronic equipment:1. 2. 3. 4. Data protection Protection of the Environment (Corporate) Social Responsibility Disposal of Assets

1. Data Protection For any computer equipment capable of storing information, compliance to both the Information Privacy Principles contained within the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988, and <State/Regional Legislation eg the Queensland Governments Information Standard Queensland Privacy is essential and mandates the removal of information>. The University have amalgamated the requirements of the state policy and federal legislation into their <Personal Information Privacy Plan> which includes the appointment of a <Privacy Contact Officer> and a <Privacy and Information Security Statement>. Personal information includes anything that can identify the individual and includes personal information contained within electronic media, including photographs. The University has a duty to secure and protect all personal information (student and staff) which it holds. Note that even old and obsolete equipment may hold sensitive information and licensed software and, as such, will need to be treated the same way as newer equipment, regardless of residual financial value.

83610201.doc

32

ALL <University> University data and all software licensed to the University must be removed prior to the equipment leaving the possession of the University. All data and software should be treated as sensitive and only specified data removal techniques, as specified by the <Division of IT>, should be employed by persons with the appropriate skill levels. Please note that simple deletion and reformatting techniques do not securely and permanently delete data from a hard-drive. It is the responsibility of the INDIVIDUAL USER to ensure that these guidelines are followed or that equipment is returned to INS for the removal of information under their core set of services. This process must not be delegated to any person outside the University without consultation with <responsible org unit> and strict contractual obligations being imposed. Each user is bound by the terms of their employment contract and for academic staff their confidentiality agreement. Additional terms may be specified within individual contracts (i.e. research grants) and it is the responsibility of the USER to ensure their compliance. Failure to adhere to these guidelines may result in disciplinary action, negative corporate image, and/or financial liability. Heads of Organisational Units have authority to write-off electronic equipment, and are responsible for ensuring that no equipment leaves the possession of the University prior to this procedure being employed and they are required to clearly indicate that this action has been completed on the Asset Disposal, or Asset Sale/Transfer form. <responsible org unit> is responsible under its core set of services for the provision of erasure software and services where required. <responsible org unit> is not responsible for the copy or storage of data prior to the erasure process and all required data should either be retained by the organisation unit or disposed of by secure means. The following table provides guidance on the levels of erasure available/required. Rating Information Examples 1 2 Work station computer with no information stored to hard-drive Staff computers Erasure options/solutions Re-formatting permitted User erasure permitted, using INS specified software Full erasure by <responsible org unit> using specified software Hard Drive Destruction Procedure Copy all required data. (specify format process) Copy any required data. Request software from <responsible org unit>. Copy required data. Secure storage, collection and process by <responsible org unit> Copy required data. Secure storage, collection by <responsible org unit> and livery to licensed recycler.

All information created by/for PVC and higher. High order intellectual property. High financial risk data Personal information. Financial information. Copyright/patent pending.

If in doubt which rating applies to your data, please contact <responsible org unit>.

83610201.doc

33

2. Protection of the Environment Wherever possible, computer equipment should be re-deployed, either in its current state or after upgrading, within the University, or where no internal markets exist, externally. Sold or donated equipment should be recycled or disposed of in an environmentally and socially-friendly manner not entailing excessive cost, and in accordance to the hierarchy set out in this policy <and the Facilities Management departments Strategic Asset Management Plan if applicable>. Additionally, the arrangements for the safe collection of such material are also described in the asset plan. The Australian Government has a mandatory list of Endorsed Suppliers when purchasing major office machinery at www.esa.finance.gov.au/. These suppliers have fulfilled a pre-qualification process which ensures listed suppliers comply with Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines and Best Practice Guidance. The Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments have also endorsed the 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. <Note that we need to see if these now incorporate EPEAT/IEEE1680 standard>. The University will review all equipment releases to ensure that the benefits of having the equipment outweigh the environmental impacts and aspects associated with the release. One method employed for doing this will be multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). The Vice Chancellor will have authority to make exceptions in the case of special examples. Only designated disposal points may be used for electronic wastes and NO electronic equipment may be placed into either the general bins or unsecured skips located on University property. Please contact <responsible org unit> or the Green Office Programme (add link) for information relating to the safe and legal disposal of electronic items. 3. Corporate Social Responsibility The University shall make all reasonable investigations regarding the final destination of all computer/electronic equipment which it either sells or donates, in order to ensure the recipients are fairly treated and will legitimately benefit from the equipment. To help ensure this, the University will request purchasers and beneficiaries of all electronic equipment to sign a contract specifying the final user, and objective (where known), in addition to guaranteeing the end-of-life procedures and destination. The University also recognises its responsibilities regarding the donation of electronic/computer equipment and will accept any university-donated equipment back from its beneficiaries upon their obsolescence. Where computer/electronic equipment is sent for disposal, the university will endorse the proximity principle wherever possible, and ensure that the equipment is either redeployed or disposed of, as close to the point of generation (University Campus) as possible within Australia. 4. Disposal of Assets Any disposal of computer/electronic assets will be in accordance with the procedures specified by the States <put relevant standard e.g. in Queensland Financial Management Standard and the Non-Current Asset Policies for Queensland Public Sector>. These regulations have been included in the Universitys Financial Management Practice Manual.

83610201.doc

34

These procedures specify the Universitys arrangements for regular collection of redundant computer/electronic equipment for re-sale, donation and recycling. Authority for the disposal of computer/electronic equipment must be obtained from the Head of School (or higher) that owns the equipment. Subject to University financial regulations, the University will endeavour to ensure maximum usage and value for money is obtained from all electronic items in order to close the loop where possible. <optional: Equipment having residual value may be offered for sale, firstly, to University students through the student equity scheme, then externally (usually by auction).> All equipment prior to release may be regulated by <responsible org unit> to ensure that financial data/software erasure procedures have been followed. Specific procedures and software programmes have been specified for this. In order to maximise potential opportunities for re-use and ensure maximum financial returns, equipment discarded by Schools and in the course of the audit process for assets, will be processed and released immediately.

83610201.doc

35