(Late additions in red)
When does "closing a loophole" crossover into "prosecuting the innocent"? What are the legitimate reuse applications for CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) monitors, and when do concerns over their high disposal cost make it an EPA, rather than Department of Commerce, issue?
These are the questions that
EPA's Newly Proposed CRT Export Rules are meant to resolve.
When the EPA CRT Rule was first issued in 2006, after a couple of years of investigation, it rightly allowed for the "determination" of waste to be made by the recycler, followed by EXPORT based on that determination.
At that time, despite false and fabricated claims that 80% of the CRTs exported wound up in primitive recycling operations like Guiyu, the commerce was mostly driven by three factors:
- Original CRT Manufacturing Plants (same as warranty repair) were buying back CRT monitors with key functions
- These refurbishing factories were selling the SKD CRTs to 3B3K nations - the 3 billion people who are neither richest or poorest, but who were gaining internet access at 10 times the rate of growth of OECD nations.
- The only places the factories could get decent, newer CRTs (at the time) were the wealthy countries, which were rapidly turning them over to replace with flat screens.
The ubiquitous photo of the Chinese woman hammering the yoke off with a hammer raised peoples concerns, but in the end EPA allowed export for reuse on two conditions:
A) One time notification
B) Maintenance of 3 years of records showing actual reuse.
The problem in implementation was B. I have kept meticulous records, and can't get anyone at EPA or Region I to show any interest in them. They aren't getting them from any of my competitors, either. This is how "reuse" becomes a loophole.
The EPA is now trying to close this loophole by creating an EPA-to-foreignEPA dialogue tracking the CRT to make sure that their sale is recorded and tracked. They also want the same reports to be generated by everyone in the transaction - buyer, broker, and seller.
Excuse my lack of enthusiasm... but is the solution to never having reviewed the 3 years of records really to demand more records from more people?
The other issue is that EPA appears to be leaving out Department of Commerce and US Trade Offices out of the discussion. Those entities know that when the Communist Party owns a factory making brand new CRTs, that they have a bias or incentive to ban USA Commerce. Working CRTs which are sold for refurbishment are USA products, governed by Commerce. The USA shouldn't set a precedent simply allowing a foreign nation to label our goods as a "waste" if they are not being discarded or speculatively accumulated.
See past post "Red Scare: Competent Authority Decision Trees"
If China bans import of a computer which could be used to display a photo of the Dalai Lama, does violating that ban really trigger USA EPA enforcement? These are "color orange" laws... a foreign nation can ban the color orange, but the USA should not draft a law which incorporates that into USA law by simple reference (making it illegal to export orange goods to a country banning the color orange). There needs to be a clear environmental case against reuse. Otherwise, another nation may use environmental laws to subterfuge WTO free trade agreements.
China is already being investigated by WTO for doing this with rare earth metals. If USA EPA makes it illegal to violate China's "environmental law" on trade in the commodity, then it doesn't matter if China loses the WTO case - you have now violated USA LAW by buying the "environmentally regulated" rare earth metals, which the USA made illegal based on the foreign nation's "competent authority" rule. Reuse of CRTs is not an environmental crime, and second-hand goods are not "waste"... the Department of Commerce knows the distinction, and needs to be involved in this.
But is CRT reuse still an important market? That is a bigger "question mark" today than it was ten years ago. The biggest difference is that foreign markets can now shrug the USA suppliers off... there are more displays in more places, new and used, than ever before. If the USA wants to cut off its own nose, off with it, say the long-insulted CRT refurbishing factories.
