“Notwithstanding the sovereignty of each party to define hazard criteria in their legislation as they consider appropriate and therefore can potentially come to different assessments, we recommend to provide common guidelines within this non-exhaustive annex as to the definition of hazards, their assessments and thresholds and propose to adopt a similar approach as outlined in e.g. EU Decision 2000/532/EC.”

From: P. 3 of response from GEEP-TechProtect Holding GmbH to Basel Secretariat. 2012. ‘Draft Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movement of E-Waste, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-Waste (Version 8 May 2012)’. http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Ewaste/TechnicalGuidelines/DevelopmentofTGs/tabid/2377/Default.aspx. 

“We are of the opinion that it is useful to have a non-limited list of hazardous components and substances in an appendix to the guideline. We believe that compiling a similar list of non-hazardous equipment is near impossible as E-waste is a complex and diverse waste category. Therefore it is difficult to state with any certainty that a general component or type of equipment is non-hazardous.”

From: P. 1 of response from Norway  to Basel Secretariat. 2012. ‘Draft Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movement of E-Waste, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-Waste (Version 8 May 2012)’. http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Ewaste/TechnicalGuidelines/DevelopmentofTGs/tabid/2377/Default.aspx.