Intent should not be criteria for distinguishing waste/non-waste
A position that holds that it is a mistake to attempt to impute the intent of the last owner of a discarded electronic item.
“[…] it is not possible to know if “the last owner has discarded with the view of its disposal.”  If I am looking at two identical fully functioning LCD displays or any other device in a container that is about to move across a national boundary there is no possible way I can impute the intent of the last owner.  In the US the average hard drive is only used for 40% of its designed life not because of lack of functionality but rather it has been replaced by new technology.  How can I possibly know if a hard drive that has been used for 20,000 hours but designed for a mean time failure rate of 50,000 hours was discarded with ‘a view of disposal.’”

From p. 2 of response by PC Rebuilders & Recyclers (PCRR) to Basel Secretariat. 2011. ‘Draft Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movement of E-Waste, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-Waste (Version: 21 February 2011 )’. http://archive.basel.int/techmatters/code/comments.php?guidId=78.
CONTEXT(Help)
-
Electronic Waste »Electronic Waste
Draft Technical Guidelines »Draft Technical Guidelines
Issues »Issues
Situations in which used equipment is or is not waste »Situations in which used equipment is or is not waste
Intent should not be criteria for distinguishing waste/non-waste
2011-02 Draft Technical Guidelines [2011 Feb] »2011-02 Draft Technical Guidelines [2011 Feb]
PCRR »PCRR
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About