Department of the Environment

About us | Contact us | Publications

Settlements Header ImageSettlements Header ImageSettlements Header Image

Publications archive - Waste and recycling

Disclaimer

Key departmental publications, e.g. annual reports, budget papers and program guidelines are available in our online archive.

Much of the material listed on these archived web pages has been superseded, or served a particular purpose at a particular time. It may contain references to activities or policies that have no current application. Many archived documents may link to web pages that have moved or no longer exist, or may refer to other documents that are no longer available.

Electrical and Electronic Products Infrastructure Facilitation

Nolan-ITU
Prepared in association with Centre for Design at RMIT and Product Ecology Pty Ltd
Department of the Environment and Heritage, January, 2004


Appendix F - Stakeholder workshop and survey responses

Stakeholder workshop and survey responses

A survey was sent to the list of stakeholders including industry associations, manufacturers and distributors of electrical and electronic products, retailers, service contractors, waste contractors and recyclers, State Government agencies, Councils and others. Their numerical responses are listed below.

Collection options

Respondents were asked to tick options they believed should be considered in a recovery and recycling program. Respondents were allowed to tick as many or few boxes as they liked.

Table AF1: Response to Collection Options
Type of collection Option
No. of positive responses
Retail collection Point of sale drop off, i.e. take-back or trade-in when buying a new product
17
  Drop-off at retail warehouses (Bunnings, etc) - permanent or periodic
10
  Collection of a used product on delivery of a new product (backloading)
16
Drop-off facilities Transfer station or recycling depot - permanent collection sites
13
  Drop-off at reprocessors' facilities - permanent collection sites
10
  One-day e-waste collection events at Council depots
8
  Drop-off facilities utilizing existing networks, eg Australia Post, transport companies
5
Rental and repair centres Permanent bins for at-call collection by reprocessor / sub-contractor
13
Kerbside collection Promotion of e-waste collection as part of existing Local Government hard rubbish collection services - without compaction
6
  Separate e-waste collection - biannual or quarterly - through reprocessors or contractors
10
  Collection through existing charity collection networks - i.e. charities sub-contracted to collect specified products
4
  On-line Internet facility to enable people to report used product ready for collection, and once there is critical mass in one area, to be advised of next collection date
6

Collection system criteria

Respondents were asked questions about the weighting each criteria should have for collection systems. Respondents were asked to select one answer for each question.

Table AF2: Responses to collection system criteria
 
Essential
Desirable
Not relevant
Meets policy goal of avoiding and reducing waste
14
3
2
Meets policy goals of reducing toxicity and safely managing hazardous substances
17
2
0
Meets policy goal of reducing litter and illegal dumping
13
4
2
Meets policy goal of increasing overall resource or materials efficiency
13
6
0
Meets policy goal of increasing use of renewable and recovered materials
12
7
0
Meets high occupational health, safety and environmental standards
11
8
0
Cost or value to the supply chain
4
15
0
Consumer convenience
12
7
0
Cost or value to the consumer
8
11
0
Capacity to collect high volumes
6
11
2
Capacity to operate effectively in rural and regional areas
5
13
1
Potential to expand to a wider range of products
5
10
4
Capacity to maintain product integrity for reuse (either complete or as components)
7
9
3
Supply chain acceptability (e.g. likelihood of retailers or other relevant group accepting responsibility for collection)
10
8
1
Compatibility with funding arrangements (i.e. can it be done with available funds)
5
10
4
Social equity (accessible to most people regardless of age, mobility, geographic location etc)
6
13
0

Reprocessing options

Respondents were asked what options they believe should be considered in a recovery and recycling program. Respondents were allowed to tick as few or as many as they liked.

Table AF3: Responses to reprocessing options.
Issue / material Option
No. responses
Availability of infrastructure for reprocessing Build up collection slowly in line with available processing facilities / capacity
11
  Build up collection quickly and stockpile products while facilities being established to provide economies of scale
8
CRT Complete disassembly and reprocessing of separate materials (e.g. front glass reprocessed separately for recovery as glass; leaded glass to smelter for lead recovery)
11
  Partial disassembly and some mechanical separation (plastics and cabling removed first; funnel crushed for recovery of metals & mixed glass to smelter) - volume processing
13
CPU Complete disassembly and reuse of separate components
11
  Complete disassembly and reprocessing of separate materials
13
  Crushing for recovery of metals only (10-15%); remainder to landfill
5
Plastics Separation for reprocessing in Australia or overseas where markets exist; remainder to landfill
16
  Waste to energy if and when facilities established in Australia
10

Reprocessing criteria

Respondents were asked questions about the weighting each criteria should have for reprocessing options. Respondents were asked to select one answer for each question.

Table AF4: Responses to reprocessing criteria.
 
Essential
Desirable
Not relevant
Meets policy goal of avoiding and reducing waste
14
5
0
Meets policy goals of reducing toxicity and safely managing hazardous substances
15
4
0
Meets policy goal of reducing litter and illegal dumping
12
5
2
Meets policy goal of increasing overall resource or materials efficiency
14
5
0
Meets policy goal of increasing use of renewable and recovered materials
10
9
0
Relevance of reprocessing technology to current waste streams
10
7
2
Adaptability of reprocessing technologies to future waste streams (i.e. greater design for environment, design for disassembly; LCD/flat screens etc)
9
10
0
Community acceptability of reprocessing technologies (perceptions of health, safety, environmental impacts)
9
10
0
Environmental impacts, e.g. energy consumption (precautionary principle)
8
11
0
Capacity to process large quantities, including orphan products, now and in the future
9
10
0
Security /robustness of markets for end products over time
6
13
0
Quality and value of end-products
11
8
0
Markets available in Australia (proximity principle / global equity)
8
9
2
Technical feasibility
13
5
1
Costs of reprocessing (economic feasibility)
14
5
0

Funding options

Respondents were asked what they believed should be considered in a recovery program. Respondents were allowed to tick as few or as many as they liked.

Table AF5: Responses to funding options
Issue Option
Tick the box √
Where fee is charged Fee included in purchase price (charged at wholesale level and passed on to consumer)
18
  Fee charged at point of disposal and paid by final user (recycling / landfill)
4
Visibility of fee Fee transparent to consumer, e.g. listed separately on sales receipt
19
  Fee invisible to consumer, i.e. incorporated into the total purchase price
2
Level of fee Single-level fee per product category (e.g. one fee for all TVs regardless of type / size / age)
10
  Multi-level fee based on weight
2
  Multi-level fee based on product or component category (e.g. TV/ computer monitor / CPU / printer etc) reflecting resale value or cost of reprocessing
11
When fee is applied At first purchase only
17
  At every sale, including sale of second hand goods
3
Level of fee Start low and build up as capacity to reprocess and funding needs increase
5
  Start at level required to fund total program, recognising that there are large up-front costs in R&D and infrastructure that need to be met
14

Funding criteria

Respondents were asked questions about the weighting each criterion should have for funding criteria. Respondents were asked to select one answer for each question.

Table AF6: Responses to funding criteria.
 
Essential
Desirable
Not relevant
Commercial neutrality / no competitive disadvantage to industry participants
15
3
1
Capacity to change behaviour through transparency to consumers
12
6
1
Simplicity of administration
13
6
0
Transparency and accountability
16
3
0
Simplicity for consumers
17
2
0
Ability to meet total net costs of the program
13
6
0
Consistency of fee over time
5
11
3
Potential to support policy goals
7
12
0

Management options

Respondents were asked to select the options that they believed should be considered in a recovery program. Respondents were allowed to tick as few or as many as they liked.

Table AF7: Responses to management options.
Issue Option
No. Responses
Management of program Managed by a government agency or department
3
  Managed by an industry association
8
  Managed by new organisation established for this purpose (e.g. 'E-Waste Australia')
17
Management Board / advisory group Shareholders only, with ability to involve other observers on Board
10
  Broad stakeholder involvement, including supply chain, government, NGOs
10
Management of collected funds Funds kept separate for discreet product categories
4
  Funds used for all products involved in program (not kept separate)
14
Application of funds to which products All products entering the waste stream now, including orphan products, to solve current waste problems
15
  Products entering the waste stream in the future (e.g. advance disposal fee / voucher for a specific product purchased today, to cover costs of recovery later)
10
Application of funds for specific purposes Grants for R&D / market development
12
  Grants for collection infrastructure (e.g. bins, trucks)
9
  Grants for reprocessing infrastructure (buildings, equipment etc)
12
  Grants for community information and education programs on e-waste
13
  Subsidy for collection and reprocessing based on clear guidelines, e.g. linked to value/cost of different components, levels reassessed quarterly
1

Management criteria

Respondents were asked questions about the weighting each criteria should have for management options. Respondents were asked to select one answer for each question.

Table AF8: Responses to Management criteria
 
Essential
Desirable
Not relevant
Transparency and accountability
18
1
0
Capacity to get industry engaged
18
1
0
Capacity to build and maintain public & consumer confidence
17
2
0
Ability to meet core system objectives
16
3
0
Potential for multi-stakeholder involvement
7
12
0
Capacity to run a national program
10
9
0
Capacity to expand to other industry sectors / products over time
7
9
3
Costs of administration
10
7
2

Policy options

Respondents were asked to select the options that they believe should be considered in a recovery program. Respondents were asked to select as many or as few as they liked.

Table AF9: Responses to policy options
Type of instrument Option
No. responses
Landfill bans Landfill ban on whole products, e.g. TVs, computers
16
  Landfill bans on CRTs computer monitors, TVs with CRTs)
13
Targets Recovery / recycling targets
16
  Infrastructure targets
5
Product design regulations Elimination of hazardous substances in line with European Union Directive
12
  Requirements for design for environment / design for disassembly and recycling / materials identification labelling
18
Extended Producer Responsibility Industry-wide voluntary environmental agreement (EEP sector) recognised by governments
11
  Sectoral voluntary environmental agreements (e.g. one for TVs, one for computers etc) recognised by governments
3
  Voluntary industry agreement(s) with back-up legislation to catch free-loaders (e.g. National Environment Protection Measure or NEPM)
12
Waste regulations National uniformity in hazardous waste classification of E-waste
19
Education Link to government waste / recycling education programs
16
Market development assistance Grants for R&D, eg plastics and leaded glass recycling
14
  Support for electronic tracking / management system for products - coordination of collection
9

Policy criteria

Respondents were asked questions about the weighting each criteria should have for policy criteria. Respondents were asked to select one answer for each question.

Table AF10: Responses to policy criteria
 
Essential
Desirable
Not relevant
Capacity to demonstrate measurable performance against targets or milestones
14
5
0
Capacity to drive sustainable change / provide incentives for action by supply chain and community
11
8
0
Capacity to support competition in the recovery / reprocessing market & avoid market distortions
11
7
1
Ease of administration
13
6
0
Capacity to achieve end-goals (political, social, environmental)
14
5
0
Ability to provide security of supply
9
8
2
Ability to support phased implementation to avoid stockpiles or other problems
7
12
0
Consistency with international regulations
7
12
0
Ability to get support and participation by whole supply chain
10
9
0
Ability to drive innovation for efficient and cost-effective outcomes
10
9
0