Moving forward on e-waste and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Introduction

One of the most pressing environmental issues facing Australia is waste.  The average Australian household owns more consumable products that have a shorter and shorter life span, presenting unprecedented challenges in the area of waste management.
Many of these consumable items pose dangerous risks to the environment and human health, if not disposed of in a responsible manner. Australia lags behind other regions in the world, particularly Europe, Japan and Canada, in the implementation of legislation that tackles the growing challenges of consumer waste. New South Wales places a particular burden on our environment. 
As the most populous state in the country we need to get serious about writing provisions into existing legislation that include Extended Producer Responsibility schemes.

Concept of Extended Product Responsibility (EPR)

The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001(the ‘WARR Act’) makes a provision for what is known as Extended Product Responsibility (EPR) schemes (Section 15). EPR schemes are vitally important in ensuring the responsibility of waste is also managed by producers, particularly those that create waste which can be harmful for the environment.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development defines EPR as:
'an environmental policy approach in which a producer's responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of the product's life cycle.'
Although New South Wales has implemented one EPR scheme (packaging waste in response to National Packaging Covenant NEPM) there is a multitude of other waste stream that have not be addressed notwithstanding their deleterious effect on the environment.
New South Wales has the opportunity to lead the country on waste management through the implementation of legislation that should include the reduction, non-creation and disposal of waste. Effective EPR schemes should include the elimination of the creation of hazardous wastes, good design that extends the life of consumer products, and joint consumer/producer responsibility for the product at the end of its life cycle.
Some voluntary EPR schemes have been implemented in Australia, such as the Mobile Muster, however, these are either not extended as far as they need to be to include the majority of waste, or there is simply not enough reliable data to conclude the effectiveness of the scheme.
According to Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA), who implemented the Mobile Muster Scheme, figures from the 2006/2007 period show that only 20 percent of discarded mobile phones in Australia were recycled, and only 6 percent of net imports. That’s 577,000 handsets from the 21 million subscribers in Australia. The figures of discarded mobiles are estimated only, based on 20 percent of net imports.
In 2005, the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC) expressed dissatisfaction with AMTA’s scheme and announced it would commence negotiations on a voluntary agreement with the industry with clear targets. The industry’s ‘Statement of Commitment’ has still not appeared and there is no information on whether it is still being considered.

The Greens’ policy on EPR schemes for hazardous waste in particular is clear: EPR, both physical and financial, must be required of all hazardous and intractable waste generators. Additionally:
· Hazardous waste generation should cease as soon as possible;
· Until hazardous waste has been eliminated, hazardous waste collection and treatment should be co-ordinated by government authorities and funded fully by those industries with which such waste originated;
· Intractable waste generation should cease immediately; and
· For that intractable waste that does already exist, guaranteed safe storage is the only appropriate means of ensuring the long-term protection of the wider environment.
(For more information on the Greens’ Waste Elimination Policy, go to: http://www.nsw.greens.org.au/policies/waste-elimination)

E-waste

E-waste is not confined to computers alone, but includes all kinds of electronic products – many of which have increasingly short life spans before they are upgraded or replaced. These include game consoles, portable music players, DVD players, televisions, microwaves, photocopiers, printers and other periphery equipment.
The Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA) estimates that the 21 million subscribers of mobile phones update their handsets every 18-24 months, with only the smallest percentage being recycled. In 2006, an estimated 1.6 million computers were placed into landfill, while only 500,000 were recycled. These figures, while being only estimates, show clearly that e-waste is one of the most pressing issues when it comes to waste management in Australia.
The biggest concern related to e-waste is its effect on landfill, and while Australia is one of the top ten countries in the world for IT and communications technology usage, it also happens to be one of the very few developed countries that also allows e-waste to be dumped into landfill. According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), a computer is on average made up of 23% plastic, 32% ferrous metals, 18% non-ferrous metals (lead, cadmium, antimony, beryllium, chromium and mercury), 12% electronic boards (gold, palladium, silver and platinum) and 15% glass.
Even when a computer is sent for recycling, only about 50 percent is actually recovered, while the remainder is dumped. The most toxic parts of a computer are the lead, mercury and cadium, with the non-recyclable lead being as much as 2mg for each unit. Most of the plastic also includes flame retardants, which makes it difficult to recycle. Dumped into landfill, this plastic eventually breaks down and contaminates the surrounding organic matter. 
A sensible approach to e-waste can no longer be put off in New South Wales. Extended Product Responsibility (EPR) schemes that insist upon consumer and producer cooperation will ensure that e-waste is no longer sent to landfill.

Lead batteries

According to the Basel Action Network, the foremost international organization on hazardous waste, lead is one of the most pervasive and toxic of all environmental contaminants. Acute and chronic exposure to lead has been shown to cause metabolic, neurological and neuropsychological disorders, including encepalopathy in children and peripheral neurotoxicity in adults.
Physiologically, lead interferes with the production of hemoglobin, resulting in anemia, and long-term exposure can also result in complete kidney failure. And the list of possible health problems related to lead exposure certainly does not end there. According to the Federal Government’s Department of the Environment and Heritage, exposure to lead can also result in nausea, gastric problems, sleep problems, concentration problems, headaches, and high blood pressure. Children and babies are particularly susceptible because they have smaller bodies and are still developing. Lead also travels straight across the placenta from mother to unborn baby.
The smelting of virgin lead also poses a health risk to both plant workers and the surrounding community. The smelter in Port Pirie, South Australia, emitted 47 tonnes of lead into the air in 2004-2005. Regular testing on children in the area discovered that nearly 60 percent had unsafe levels of lead in their blood. Even more damming, the notorious Xstrata lead smelter in Mt Isa emitted 290 tonnes of lead into the air during the same period. 
Secondary smelters release less lead into the air than virgin smelters and require up to 40 percent less energy. In effect, this means that for each tonne of lead recycled, 1.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in green house gas emissions are avoided.
Dumping lead batteries in landfill also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Australian Greenhouse Office, landfilling just one tonne of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) can produce as much as 1.14 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). If the dumping of just one car battery in landfill occurs, this results in elevated lead levels in approximately 6.5 tonnes of MSW. Essentially this translates to an estimated 7.4 tonnes of CO2e emissions because the organic component of the landfill can no longer be recycled.  As the lead leaches into the waste, it also contaminates groundwater and the surrounding soil. 
While the environmental and health ramifications of dumping of lead batteries in landfills cannot be underestimated, it also makes no economic sense. Since 2006 the price of lead has swung wildly, up to as much as $3000/tonne in 2007. The price of car batteries has also increased, with as much as 60 percent of the manufacturing cost being attributed to lead.
At present, the Australian Battery Industry Association (ABIA) estimates that nearly 96 per cent of car batteries are recovered for recycling either in Australia or overseas. However, due to under-reporting of consumption, these figures may in fact be as low as 77 per cent. This translates to approximately 700 milligrams of lead contamination per kilogram of waste.
An EPR scheme for the recovery and recycling of lead batteries should be written into the WARR Act, serving the dual operation role of resource recovery and detoxification of a residual waste stream, so that residuals can be processed and recovered also.
Lead-acid batteries were listed as a waste of concern in the 2005-06 Priority Statement but they continue to contaminate landfills and resource recovery operations. The Australian Battery Industry Association (ABIA), representing 90% of automotive battery suppliers, was requested to report on actions to engage the DIY market, householders and retailers to improve recovery rates.
In response to the 2005-06 Priority Statement, the ABIA has requested its members place ‘no wheelie-bin’ stickers on all batteries and this has been embedded in ABIA’s Code of Practice. ABIA’s claim that 96% of automotive batteries are recycled, however, has not been substantiated. The amount of batteries contaminating resource recovery operations and being exported illegally indicates that the real recovery rate is likely to be much lower.

Nickel Cadmium Batteries

Nickel Cadmium (NiCad) batteries have been used for many years in a wide range of electronic goods, from toys to mobile phones. The highly toxic nature of the battery is due to the cadmium, which is a heavy metal. When dumped into landfills or incinerators, cadmium presents an extreme environmental contamination risk.
Although the use of NiCad batteries is being increasingly overshadowed by the more efficient Nickel-Metal Hydride (Ni-MH) and lithium ion batteries (Li-ion), they present major challenges for the Australian environment because they can be found in the millions of mobile phones that make it to landfill each year alone.
Because there is only a voluntary recovery scheme put in place for mobile phone recycling (the Australian Mobile Telecommunication Association’s Mobile Muster), it is estimated that only 6 percent of the estimated 7.2 million handsets and their batteries were recycled in 2006/2007.
NiCad batteries were listed for priority focus as a waste of concern in the 2004 Priority Statement, and to date no EPR scheme has been established for their collection and recycling. In addition, they are continuing to enter the Australian market as the power source for emergency lighting, toys, cordless tools and other consumer electronics.
While it can be assumed that NiCad batteries will eventually be phased out, there is neither a concrete plan within Australia for this waste material to be eliminated at the manufacturing stage, nor are there any domestic plants that recycle them. This means that not only are we still allowing NiCad batteries to enter the country, but they must also leave our shores in order for them to be dealt with in an acceptable manner to our environment. As a signatory to the Basel Agreement, which concerns itself with the safe disposal of toxic waste between nations, it would seem that the most responsible action for Australia is to tackle the NiCad waste problem from both ends through a national EPR scheme.
New South Wales has an opportunity to begin this process and demonstrate to the rest of the country how the responsible elimination of waste can protect people and the environment by writing a provision for a NiCad EPR scheme into the WARR Act.

End of Life Vehicles (ELV)

According to Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimates, over 500,000 vehicles in Australia come to the end of their life every year. These “ELVs” only look set to increase, as the 12.5 million cars on Australia’s roads are likely to be upgraded in response to changes in government policy regarded fuel inefficient vehicles, as recommended in the CSIRO’s Fuel for Thought paper.
ELVs are already one of the most highly recycled post consumer products in Australia, with over 70 per cent of the vehicle offering some economic incentive as either replacement parts of scrap metal. However, because of the sheer geographical nature of Australia, many EVLs are simply left to rust, with toxic components simply leaching into the environment.
In addition, many newer cars contain more plastic, reducing the amount by weight that can be recycled. In effect, this increases the ‘flock’ of each car: that is, the reminder of the car that cannot be recycled that is shredded and sent to landfill. It is estimated that the non-recyclable portion of an EVL, including rubber, glass, seat foam and plastics, can be as much as 30 per cent of the vehicle. Based on ABS figures of de-registered vehicles annually, this amounts to approximately 195,000 tonnes of ‘flock’ each year making it to landfill.
The other problem presented by ELVs is even more worrisome. While the regulatory requirements governing the disposal of components such as oil, coolant, fuel, brake and other fluids; air-conditioning gases; and heavy metals including lead, hexavalent chromium, cadmium and mercury are being introduced in some jurisdictions, without a comprehensive EPR scheme across the board it is certain that these will continue to contaminate landfill and the surrounding environment.
In Europe, there has been an EPR scheme in place for a number of years, as ‘flock’ is considered a hazardous waste. According to a study by the Department for the Environment and Heritage in 2002, however, manufacturers of automobiles and the Federal Chamber of Automobile Industries (FCAI) have shown “substantial opposition” to any moves that mandate recycling levels through a European style ERP approach.
The ACT has already banned the dumping of ‘flock’ into landfill, and New South Wales should follow suit. Legislative steps need to be taken to ensure that an EPR scheme extends the responsibility of safe ELV disposal to the de-registering owner and the shredding operator. As nearly 7.5 per cent of the world’s plastic each year is manufactured for cars – using 4 per cent of the world’s oil – the recycling of ‘flock’ is important for the reuse of valuable resources. In addition, recycled plastics require up to 80 per cent less energy, which directly translates to reductions in green house gas emissions.

Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) 

In February 2007, the Australian government announced it would begin the phase out all incandescent light bulbs by 2015. In Australia, lighting represents around 25 per cent of all green house gas emissions generated by the commercial sector, and 12 per cent of the domestic sector. CFLs are estimated to use up to 20 per cent less energy than incandescent lighting, and are therefore considered an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
However, the disposal of CFLs creates its own unique problems. This is because each bulb contains 4.0mg of mercury, which is second only to nuclear materials on the most hazardous substances list of the EPA.
There are pros and cons to the CFL debate. Coal power stations also emit mercury, and it is estimated that over a five year life span, an incandescent light bulb will result in 10.0mg of mercury being emitted into the atmosphere via a coal power station. In comparison, a CFL is estimated to emit only 2.4mg from the power station, along with the 4.0mg found within the unit.
Currently the provision for CFL recycling in Australia is woefully inept. The Federal government advises consumers:
“CFLs can generally be disposed of in regular garbage bins - where the garbage goes to landfill. You should check with your local authority, who manages garbage collection, as to their advice on disposal of CFLs as different local authorities may have different arrangements. For example, some garbage is sent to waste processors and this may change the arrangements for disposal. Should you choose to dispose of your CFLs this way then it’s best to wrap them in newspaper to prevent them from breaking.”

The disposal of CFLs from state to state varies greatly, with at least three states offering no pick up whatsoever, and New South Wales offering only a ‘Cleanout’ program in various areas of Sydney once every six months. A second service, offered by CMA Ecocycle, ends in October 2008.
CFL disposal needs to be regulated by an EPR scheme that will result in each and every CFL being recycled in the proper manner. An effective EPR scheme will inform consumers of their responsibilities, as well as provide disposal services that are efficient and easy for consumers to access. If we consider that a single CFL tube can contaminate up to 30,000 litres of water, it is simply unacceptable that an estimated 99 per cent of all CFLs end up in landfill.
A provision for the proper disposal of CFLs must be written into the WARR Act.