“Unfortunately the footnotes and wording of the Annex VIII and IX entries are unclear.   It is hoped that this guidance will recommend amendments to them to make things far more clear.   BAN has some suggestions in that regard which we will offer at a later date in the development of this document.   First the Parties need to decide whether this document can make such recommendations.   BAN would hope so, as this is a unique opportunity to review the shortcomings of the text in the Annexes which are causing difficulties in implementation.   The basis for Annex VIII and Annex IX remain Annexes I and III and the fundamental question remains do they possess Annex I substances and Annex III hazardous characteristics?  If so then they are hazardous wastes.  In this context the footnotes 7,9,10, 11 are not appropriate and should never have been placed within this text.

Furthermore, there are areas of confusion in the text of these definitions.   For example guidance is needed to know what is meant by activated glass in A2010.  Does that mean leaded glass or does it mean glass coated with phosphor?  What is it that makes the CRT glass hazardous and if CRT glass does not possess that hazardous characteristic, why is there not a mirror entry for CRT glass?  Why does it sound like the second bullet of B1110 exempts circuit boards from being hazardous when they contain more readily available lead, and more BFRs then almost any part of the electronic waste stream?   These are but two examples causing great confusion which this guidance document needs to address.”

From p. 12 of response by BAN to Basel Secretariat. 2010. ‘Draft Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movement of E-Waste, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-Waste (Version 22 September 2010)’. http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Ewaste/TechnicalGuidelines/DevelopmentofTGs/tabid/2377/Default.aspx.