2014-11-11 Infrastructure & Services Committee Agenda

INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                           11 NOVEMBER 2014


3.   Current situation

1.   During the last two years the changeover from analogue to digital TV has caused a major
     increase in the volume of e-waste products.
2.   The percentage of funds allocated by industry in 2013/14 and 2014/15 have not been
     sufficient to cater for the significant increase in products available for recycling.
3.   CDS Recycling processes e-waste from Noosa by collecting, transporting to Brisbane and
     dismantling the waste. Television glass is the most difficult product to recycle as it contains
     lead and must be sent overseas for processing at a cost of $400 per tonne. CDS must pay
     this cost from the $700 per tonne they receive for processing the products.
4.   CDS Recycling advises that they have sustained the free collection in 2014/15 and
     stockpiled the products at their own cost, without full reimbursement of costs from the co-
     regulators.
5.   CDS has written to Council advising that they cannot continue to divert recyclable product
     past 31 October 2014 as the service is not financially sustainable. If Council wishes to
     continue diverting e-waste it will need to pay the costs of diversion which is $700 per tonne.
6.   A large number of local governments in Australia are currently being informed that they
     must now pay for diversion of e-waste or revert to landfilling the products.
7.   A new allocation of funds will occur in 2015/16 but there is already a glut of products
     awaiting recycling. It is likely that any free collection service in 2015/16 will close down
     shortly after commencement due to limited funds available.

A similar situation occurred at the end of 2013 when funds were exhausted. CDS then agreed to
continue the service of collecting material and stockpiling it expecting that a fresh allocation of
funds would occur early in 2014/15. Funds were allocated, but not sufficient to take up the
stockpile of material. The company directors advised that they contributed personal funds to
continue the service, but their personal funds have now been exhausted.


4.   Options available to Council

1.   Continue accepting e-waste without charge and lobby Federal/State Government and or
     industry to put more money into the system. If money is not made available the storage
     space at landfills will not be available and Council will need to landfill the products or pay
     the $700 per tonne.
2.   Inform the community that the free e-waste disposal has ceased for 2014/15. Charge for
     its disposal as general waste and landfill the products until 2015/16 when the free service
     may become available again.
3.   Charge an appropriate fee for e-waste disposal in 2014/15 to generate sufficient income to
     cover the processing costs at $700 per tonne.


5.   Decisions and impacts

1.   Sending mixed messages that products are recyclable and then not recyclable each year is
     counterproductive to educating the community about recycling.
2.   Burying the products after the community has segregated the products for recycling is
     counterproductive to encouraging the segregation of recyclable material.
3.   Paying $700 per tonne for e-waste recycling is not financially responsible when it can be
     landfilled for $137 per tonne. The products have limited impact on the landfill but a valuable
     resource is lost in the metals that make up components.




                                                                                    Page 32 of 33