NETHERLANDS CASE STUDY IN ENFORCEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IMPORT/EXPORT
J.R. Bouma
and J.J.A. Gerardu
Ministry of
Housing, Physical Planning and Environment
Enforcement
Division
Postbus 450
2260 MB
Leidschendam (The Netherlands)
SUMMARY
Some years
ago publicity was given to the fact that hazardous waste was transported on a
large scale from the rich industrialized countries to the developing
countries. It became also clear that
this was not happening occasionally, companies were planning to expand these
activities.
Also forced
by publicity, treaties have been made between a lot of countries in order to
put an end to these unwanted transports.
The
European Community has drawn up directives, which have been included in the
legislation of a lot of member states.
This also
happened in the Netherlands. The basic assumption is: In principle, no export of hazardous waste. In spite of the fact that it is emphasized
nowadays to reduce the development of hazardous waste and to stimulate re-use
and to expand the incinerator capacity, it will take a lot of time to realize
this, in consideration of the fact that a third of the Dutch hazardous waste is
exported. In order to prevent the
export of hazardous waste, it is essential to control the strict compliance
with the rules considering transfrontier shipments (1).
In the
Netherlands a special office (Office for the Enforcement of E.C. Directives)
has been established within the Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and
Environment in order to enforce the Regulation. This office will finally provide work for 18 staff members. The experiences which have been made in the
first year of enforcement will be discussed, as well as the conclusions which
could be drawn on behalf of the development of enforcement activities.
1. INTRODUCTION
As a result
of reporting and inspection by mainly environmental organizations, from half of
the eighties it became clear, that intercontinental transports of hazardous
waste took place on a large scale. In
particular the transports of hazardous waste from the rich industrialized
countries to the developing countries were mentioned.
The reason
of this kind of transports might be clear.
The processing of these waste substances without negative environmental
effects can be very expensive. The
developing countries were not aware of the risks; therefore, they almost didn’t
have requirements to control the way of processing. They needed the foreign exchange, which could be earned by
importing hazardous waste on a large scale.
The
companies which were involved with this kind of ‘trade’ could earn a lot of
money. Contrary to the environmental
organizations, the authorities in question were hardly aware of these
activities. As far as they knew about
this trade, it was not judged and the will and the judicial possibility to take
active measures were lacking.
Thanks to
the reporting of the environmental organizations, international attention was
paid to this kind of activity.
International Organizations like the European Community and the United
Nations Environmental Programme have formulated points of view, which were
subscribed by lost of countries. There
was a universal will to do something.
As a result, some countries adapted their regulation, in order to take
action against unwished transports of hazardous waste.
It remains
to be seen whether this has been successful or not. A lot of countries are subscribing to the viewpoints. However, both the will to act and the
implementation organization are still lacking.
An international exchange of information and international cooperation
will be necessary in order to take effective measures. This has hardly been realized yet.
Environmental
organizations could sometimes act more effectively. Compared with a lot of national authorities they are better
informed and they are coordinating their activities. Finally they can take effective measures by bringing their
conclusions to public attention.
Measures
will be necessary because companies are still trying to dump waste substances
into developing countries, in order to gain financial advantage at the cost of
the environment; measures will be necessary.
IT CANNOT
BE THAT OTHERS ARE SUFFERING FROM THE REMAINDERS OF OUR AFFLUENT SOCIETY.
This
contribution is giving a picture of the regulation of international hazardous waste
transports from the Dutch point of view.
The Dutch regulation came into being on the basis of an E.C.-directive
pertaining to the import, export, and transit of hazardous waste. In addition, an enforcement organization has
been established, which provides work for 18 staff members. On the basis of experiences made by this
enforcement organization, suggestions are made in order to get unwanted
transports of hazardous waste under control.
In order to
get a clear understanding of the Dutch circumstances, annex 1 shows the Dutch
environmental situation.
2. DEVELOPMENT AND REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE IN THE NETHERLANDS
In the
Netherlands the companies are producing about 1.000.000 tons of hazardous waste
yearly. Annex 2 shows the complete list
of hazardous waste according to Dutch regulation. About 500.000 tons are processed by these companies
themselves. The remaining 500.000 tons
must be processed by specialized processing companies in and outside the
Netherlands. Processing can be burning,
dumping, detoxifying, and re-using. As
a result of the requirements in order to protect the environment, as well as
geohydrological circumstances (like deep polders, high groundwater levels) and
the limited available space (the Netherlands is one of the most densely
populated countries in the world), processing of this kind of hazardous waste
is very expensive
Some
hundreds of guiders can be earned by processing hazardous waste in foreign
countries. Burning as well as dumping
is cheaper outside the Netherlands. The
distance or the costs of the transport do not play an important part (bulk
quantities are transported cheap).
Processing in foreign countries is cheaper, because there are no tight
requirements.
For this
reason a considerable part of the Dutch hazardous waste is processed in foreign
countries. This quantity is increasing
slowly and came to 190.500 tons in 1989.
This is almost 40% of the waste that should be processed by specialized
companies. Figure 1 shows the
quantities of waste which would have been exported in 1987, 1988 and 1989 and
the way of processing.
Figure 1: Export of hazardous waste from the Netherlands during the
years 1987-1989
The destinations of the hazardous
waste are:
COUNTRY Tons
Belgium 34.000
Federal Republic of Germany 20.500
Great Britain 17.000
France 27.500
German Democratic Republic 89.500
Others 1.500
Figure 2: Export to the country of destination in 1987-1989
Figure 2 shows in a diagram the exported quantities to each destination and the way of processing during the years 1987, 1988, and 1989.
Figure 3: Removal of exported hazardous waste in
1989
Figure 3
shows how the exported hazardous waste has been processed in 1989 (%).
We still
have a long way to go in order to reach the Dutch aim of having finished the
export of hazardous waste in about 1992.
In order to reduce the export, attention should be paid to the reduction
of the development of hazardous waste, re-use, development of incinerators and
dumping possibilities for hazardous waste.
In
Rotterdam two rotary tumble furnaces are in running, to a small degree some
categories of hazardous waste can be dumped.
Besides, about fifty companies are dealing with storage, treatment and
processing of hazardous waste. However,
it is difficult to develop new processing companies. On the one hand strong resistance has been felt against these
companies, in spite of the advanced techniques in order to protect the
environment. On the other hand the
business community is not willing to realize expensive ways to process
hazardous waste, because there are cheaper possibilities in foreign countries.
Recently a
dumping ground for hazardous waste has been finished. There are advanced plans to build a new incinerator and it is
tried to fit industrial waste dumping grounds for some categories of hazardous
waste. However, it is difficult to
realize and it remains to be seen whether realization of the processing
companies can compensate the growing quantities of hazardous waste following
from the open borders within the European Community in 1992 (freedom of goods,
included hazardous waste).
Considering
the above-mentioned, it will be clear that the import of hazardous waste to the
Netherlands is limited. In 1989, about
88.000 tons were imported, 17.500 tons from Belgium, 61.500 tons from the
Federal Republic of Germany (in particular polluted ground). Figure 4 shows how this waste is processed
in the Netherlands.
Figure 4: Import of hazardous waste into the
Netherlands in 1989 (1000 kg).
The transit
is considerable, given the fact that the Netherlands is an important country
with regard to transport and transit (50.000 tons/year).
It is
remarkable that the official statistics do not mention any export of hazardous
waste to the developing countries. Are
they not taking place (anymore) or do we not know about it? A possible export to these countries pales
into insignificance, when compared to the above-mentioned quantities, possibly
within the margin of error of the estimations.
However, we cannot be sure that this export will be zero. Will there be no containers loaded with
waste, among the thousands of containers which are put in at Rotterdam? Those who have ever visited such a ship will
confirm that it is almost impossible to control everything. It is not considered impossible that large
quantities of hazardous waste are transported under very creative raw material
names. The trade in the so-called
secondary raw materials is growing enormously.
It can be asked what it happening with the remainders, is everybody
handling them without negative environmental effects?
3. REGULATIONS CONSIDERING TRANSFRONTIER
SHIPMENTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN EUROPE
As a result
of problems, which were caused by dioxin-holding waste after the explosion in
the factory in Seveso, Italy, 1984 the European Community made guidelines in
order to control the processing and the transfrontier shipments of hazardous
waste. This hazardous waste disappeared
and was found accidentally in a shed in the North of France.
These
guidelines imply, among other things, that the authorities in question should
approve the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste before the actual
transport is taking place. These
transports should be notified (notification of disposal and notification of
receipt) and should be accompanied by special accompanying documents. Each member state is bound to include these
guidelines in national legislation.
Six years
later several countries still have not adopted these guidelines, in particular
France, Spain, Portugal and Greece.
Although the other countries in the European Community did include the
European directives in national legislation, the situation is not as bright as
it should be. Figure 5 shows this situation
in a diagram.
Each
country has its own definition of waste and hazardous waste. There is neither an effective implementation
organization in each country in order to approve the transports, nor an
enforcement organization in order to control the performance. Besides, several regulations are not brought
into agreement with each other.
Cooperation and exchange of information and experiences are minimal.
4. ADAPTATION OF THE REGULATION IN
CONNECTION WITH THE TREATY OF BASEL (THE UNEP-TREATY)
In the
beginning of 1989 appointments have been made in Basel about the transfrontier
shipments of hazardous waste. This
treaty has been signed by a lot of countries and the points of view should be
incorporated into national law. It is
expected that the European Community will do this by a regulation which will
have direct legal force. Consultation
and approval between the governments should still take place (each
E.C.-memberstate should agree), so it will take a lot of time. Besides, appointments about the way of
checking will be necessary. First of
all, before starting an implementation organization, all these conditions
should be fulfilled.
5. REGULATION ON IMPORT, EXPORT AND
TRANSIT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
The
Regulation on import, export and transit of hazardous waste entered into force
on 15 October 1988 (1). This regulation
came into being on the basis of the E.C.-directives pertaining to the import,
export and transit of hazardous waste (2).
The Regulation does not only imply procedures for permission,
notification and accompanying documents, the competent authorities may also
object to the export as such is in the interest of effective waste processing
in the own country. This could
stimulate the building of new processing installations, because use is
guaranteed in spite of cheaper processing possibilities in other
countries. However, (future)
neighborhoods are still opposed to the development of new installations,
besides it is not known for certain if it will be possible to object to the
export in the interest of effective waste processing in the own country after
1992.
5.1 Implementation organization for the
Regulation
Dutch
politicians have emphasized from the beginning, that the Regulation should not
be a “paper tiger.” Implementation
should be effective, the testing of the notification for the intended
transports as well as the check on compliance with the Regulation.
In the
Netherlands, an implementation organization consisting of three departments has
been established.
*Hazardous
Waste Notifications Bureau (BMGA)
This
department is responsible for registration and administration of all
notifications and the procedures which the Regulation requires in order to
judge the applications. This part of
the implementation has been put out to contract.
In 1989
about 1450 notifications of intended shipments (import or export) and 25.000
notification forms (notification of disposal and notification of receipt) have
been handled by this department. It
should be mentioned, that one notification of intended import/export can be
used for a lot of transports. These
activities provide work for five staff members.
Figure 6: Proportion between notification of
disposal and receipt in 1989
Figure 6
gives in a diagram the number of notifications of import, export and transit in
1989.
*Policy
Department Waste Products (BA)
This
department is responsible for the decisions whether to allow a transfrontier
shipment of hazardous waste. This
department is part of the Chemical Waste Section of the Ministry of Housing,
Physical Planning and Environment (VROM).
In 1989 this department has prepared 868 decisions, of which 100 were
negative. These activities provide work
for three staff members.
*Office for
the Enforcement of E.C.-Directives (BHER)
This
department is responsible for inspection and control on transfrontier shipments
of hazardous waste. This office forms a
part of the Main Department Enforcement of Environmental Legislation, part of
the Main Environmental Inspection, Directorate-General Environment. After the initial period, this office will
employ 18 staff members.
5.2 Enforcement of the Regulation on import,
export and transit of hazardous waste
The Office
for the Enforcement of E.C.-Directives will finally provide work for 18 staff
members, of whom 15 are/have been trained especially for control tasks and
direct support of the control tasks (solicitor and data analyst). This office has been established during 1989
and it is almost at full strength now.
For the
purpose of the control tasks, staff members have been engaged consciously from
the police organization, the customs and the Corps Inspectors Hazardous
Waste. These people, with a clear
inspection background, have attended special training courses in the field of
chemistry, safety, environmental legislation and behavioral skills. They are checking companies, which are
active in the field of transfrontier shipments of hazardous waste (producers,
carriers, agents and processing companies), making and maintaining contacts,
collecting information from other control organizations (police, customs,
environmental control and investigation services), checking the transports on
the road or at the border at random and taking action as a result of reportings
about potential illegal transports.
In
particular the last mentioned appears to be very effective. In connection with the specific character of
the companies being active with waste substances, the necessary knowledge and
experience as well as the necessity to show results in the short term
(politicians and public are interested and want to know this), the choice has
been made consciously to commission a special, well-educated and trained group
with this task, instead of bringing this task well under the control of another
organization in the field of environmental legislation.
5.3
Instruments
on behalf of enforcement of the Regulation
In case of
infringements, it is necessary to act directly, effectively and clearly. For this purpose the Dutch Regulation gives
the following judicial instruments: In
addition to information and warning, it is possible to take administrative,
criminal and civil action. Experience
has shown that criminal and civil action can be effective, however, in general
the effects are indirect. It appears to
be most effective to stop transports (if necessary by persuasion) and to forbid
transfrontier shipments, however, it is not always possible to give a judicial
basis to these actions. Strongly missed
is the direct competence to stop all transports, which do not comply with the
Regulation, to forbid transfrontier shipments or to suspend licenses in the
case of regular nonobservance of the Regulation.
5.4
Difficulties
of enforcement
In the
Netherlands we have both the judicial possibility to take action against the
unwanted transports of hazardous waste, and an effective enforcement
organization in order to control observance.
Nevertheless, as a result of some problems the desired result has not
been achieved completely.
This is
partly due to the fact that the use of the Regulation has brought some
deficiencies to light; on the other hand problems are caused by the fact that
some countries even do not have a regulation.
When they have regulations, the active performance is often lacking and
there is no coordination (differences in definition, among other things). The lack of transfrontier competences for
control officials is a large bottleneck, as well as the lack of an
international reporting and coordination center.
The
above-mentioned is felt in particular in the case of transport of hazardous
waste to developing countries and transports of the so-called secondary raw
materials. The insight into transports
of (classic) hazardous waste seems to be quite complete. The system is getting incredible however, as
a result of the fact that transports to developing countries are hardly found
anymore.
Environmental
organizations are better informed (3) and can better acquaint themselves with
the truth. Unfortunately it should be
mentioned that correcting by official means will take a lot of time. Would it not be possible for the active
control organizations to come to an (informal) cooperation and exchange of
information? Within four countries
(Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) a
consultative body has been established.
This example should be copied on a large scale.
6. EXAMPLES OF ENFORCEMENT
Annex 3 to
6 give a description of four cases which have been found in the Netherlands
during the past period. Besides the
above-mentioned information on the working of the E.C.-Regulation, some
important conclusions are:
7. CONCLUSIONS
The
above-mentioned describes the Dutch situation concerning the enforcement of the
legislation in regard to import, export and transit of hazardous waste. The Netherlands has included the
E.C.-directive in national legislation.
An enforcement organization has been established, which provides work
for 18 staff members. Besides the
necessity to reduce the development of hazardous waste (preventive), it is
necessary to realize enough processing possibilities within the Netherlands. The enforcement organization has examined a
large quantity enforcement cases. In
conclusion we can say that even though this organization works very
successfully, it will be necessary to fill in some prior conditions. In particular, the cooperation with other
public bodies is important, like the customs, the police and the Corps
Inspectors Hazardous Waste.
There is
uncertainty about the enforcement possibilities after 1992, when the internal
borders within the European Community will disappear.
8. REFERENCES
1. Regulation
on import, export and transit of hazardous waste, Ministry of Housing, Physical
Planning and Environment, 1988, The Hague.
2. E.G.-richtlijn
betreffende de afgewerkte olie, afvalstoffen, grensoverschrijdende overbrenging
van gevaarlijke afvalstoffen.
Publicatiebladen van de Europese Gemeenschappen o.a. nr. L 194/31, L
194/47, L 108/41, L 326/31, L 272/1, L 181/13, Europese Gemeenschap, Wetstraat,
Brussel.
3. Greenpeace,
The International Trade in Wastes, A Greenpeace Inventory by Jim Valette,
Washington, U.S., 1988.
4. Jaaroverzicht
1989, In-, uit- en doorvoer van gevaarlijke afvalstoffen, Directoraat-Generaal
Milieubeheer, mart 1990 Leidschendam.
ANNEX 1, p.1
Brief outline of the Netherlands and
the environment
The Netherlands is a small country with a surface area of about 37.000 km2. About 15 million people live here and they have about 5 million cars. Besides there are some 93 million chickens, 15 million pigs, 5 million cattle, 1 million sheep, 1 million turkeys and half a million ducks. Besides, there are all industrial activities, which can cause considerable pollution.
In the
Netherlands the implementation of Environmental legislation is highly
decentralized. The levels of government
are as follows:
14
ministries
12
provinces
50 water
(management) boards
700
municipalities
60
intermunicipal groups
23 police
districts
16
districts of the Public Prosecutor and railway police, Ministry of Transport,
Customs, fire brigade, Labour Inspection.
Through the
years a large quantity of environmental regulations came into being. This environmental legislation and the
bodies who are responsible for implementation are given.
The
organization of the environmental policy is broadly divided among the different
public bodies.
Environmental
policy development at central government
* Ministry
VROM (Housing, Physical Planning, Environment)
-
air,
waste, soil, noise, radiation, risk
-
coordination,
standards, enforcement
* Ministry
Transportation + Water Works
-
water
quality management
-
transport
risks
* Ministry
Agriculture + Fishery
-
nature
conservation
-
agricultural
quality management
* Ministry
Economic Affairs
-
mining
activities
ANNEX 1,
p.2
The other public bodies are responsible as follows:
* Provinces
-
Licensing
and control major polluting installations (" 2000)
-
Regional
physical planning
-
Coordination
rehabilitation programmes (soil, noise, water, air, city renewal)
* Municipalities
(700)
-
Licensing
and control small/medium scale population
-
Physical
planning/city renewal
-
Collection,
recycling solid waste
-
Sewage
systems
* Water
management boards (50)
-
Polder
and inland water control
-
Quality
surface waters (inland)
* Environmental
inspectorate
-
Supervision
enforcement environmental policies
The
organization of the Inspectorate of the Environment is as given in the
following diagram:
With the
nine Regional Inspectorates and the Main Department Enforcement Environmental
Legislation, it is possible to come to an optimal implementation of the
enforcement of environmental legislation.
ANNEX 2,
p.1
LIST OF
HAZARDOUS WASTES IN THE NETHERLANDS
1. Wastes,
including objects which have reached the waste state, which by virtue of the
Substances and Processes Decree under the Chemical Waste Act (Bulletin of Acts,
Orders and Decrees 1977, 435) are deemed to be chemical waste on the grounds of
the concentration of one or more of the following substances in those wastes:
Class A: 50 mg/kg
-
antimony
and its compounds
-
arsenic
and its compounds
-
beryllium
and its compounds
-
cadmium
and its compounds
-
chromium
VI and its compounds
-
mercury
and its compounds
-
selenium
and its compounds
-
tellurium
and its compounds
-
thallium
and its compounds
-
inorganic
cyanocompounds (cyanides)
-
metal
carbonyls
-
aromatic
polycyclic compounds
-
halogenated
polycyclic aromatics, such as polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated
terphenyls and their derivatives.
Class B: 500 mg/kg
-
copper
compounds
-
lead
compounds
-
organic
halogen compounds
-
organic
fluorine compounds
-
organic
chlorine compounds
-
organic
bromine compounds
-
organic
iodine compounds
-
organic
phosphorus compounds
-
organic
peroxides
-
isocyanates
-
phenol
and phenolic compounds
-
asbestos
(dust and fiber)
-
lead.
Class C: 20.000
mg/kg
-
inorganic
peroxides
-
chlorates.
ANNEX 2, p. 2
2. Chlorinated and organic solvents which have entered the waste stage, unless they are being regenerated by means of distillation for the purpose for which they were originally intended, provided:
-
a
written contractual agreement can be submitted which demonstrates that the
substances are being distilled, and
-
the
concentration in the substances of halogenated polycyclic aromatics, such as
polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated terphenyls and their derivatives, is
less than 50 mg/kg.
3. Spent
mineral lubricating and system oil which, on the grounds of the concentration
of polychlorinated biphenyls or the concentration of organic halogen compounds,
is regarded as chemical waste in the sense of the Chemical Waste Act by virtue
of section 2a of the Substances and Processes Decree under the Chemical Waste
Act.
4. Residues
of pesticides and medicines.
5. Waste
containing ether in concentrations of 50,000 mg/kg or greater of the dry
substance content of the waste.
6. Waste
produced by chemical processes in research or educational laboratories.
7. Acids
and base substances which are used in the treatment of metal surfaces and which
have reached the waste stage, containing concentrations of the dry substance
content of the waste of
-
50,000
mg/kg or greater of inorganic acids, or
-
50,000
mg/kg or greater of oxides or hydroxides, with the exception of those of:
hydrogen, carbon, silicon, iron, aluminum, titanium, manganese and magnesium.
8. Fly-ash
and flue gas-cleaning residues from incinerators for household waste or for
chemical or non-chemical industrial waste.
9. Shredder waste.
10. Polluted blasting grit.
11. Polluted soil.
12. Dredging spoil except for dredging spoil
which is dumped into the sea.
13. Batteries and car batteries.
ANNEX 2, p. 3
14. Construction
and demolition waste containing concentrations of non-bound asbestos (dust and
fiber) of 5000 mg/kg or more.
15. Waste
produced during the demolition of industrial installations which are part of
ovens and furnaces, excepting gas-fired boilers.
Non-ferrous
metals wastes
Non-ferrous
metals wastes are designated as:
Solid
wastes containing the following metals or metal compounds:
1.
Arsenic
or its compounds
2.
Mercury
or its compounds
3.
Cadmium
or its compounds
4.
Thallium
or its compounds
5.
Beryllium
or its compounds
6.
Lead
or its compounds
7.
Antimony
or its compounds
8.
Selenium
or its compounds
9.
Tellurium
or its compounds
ANNEX 3, p.
1
Case 1
Transport
of waste substances containing zinc from Europe to South-America.
Company X
made a contract with the South-American Company Y, concerning delivery of
materials containing zinc and copper.
Company Y should produce microelements in order to fertilize
agricultural land. These microelements
could be obtained from waste which contains copper and zinc, according to the
wet-chemical procedure.
The English
company X asks Dutch company Z to deliver these materials. The Dutch company buys waste containing zinc
from the steel producing Danish company A and the Belgium company B and slag
containing copper from the Italian company C.
All substances should be transported to Rotterdam, from where they will
be transported to South America, after being mixed. The Dutch company buys the materials at minimal prices; sometimes
the delivering companies even have to pay themselves in order to get rid of
their waste. These materials are being
sold at lucrative prices to the South American company.
The first
transport can leave the Dutch port without problems. The control authority for the transfrontier shipments of
hazardous waste has been informed. The
ships’ manifest is talking about zinc ore.
Samples have been taken in order to analyze the materials. After analyzing it became clear that the
materials were not only containing zinc and copper, but relatively high
concentrations of lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals as well. Processing in Europe is not expected to be
possible, due to the very low concentrations of zinc and copper.
Concerning
the second transport, the authorities are asking for further details, in order
to determine whether these materials should be considered as hazardous waste
and whether the materials will be re-used.
If such is the case, the transport only has to be reported, approval is
not necessary, according to the regulation.
In this case, there is no reason to stop the transport.
Greenpeace
has been informed about the second transport and is trying to prevent the
loading, by public happenings. The
liner cannot wait and is leaving without the cargo.
At the same
time, the first transport is arriving in South America. The local environmental organizations have
been well informed and are carrying on a campaign against this transport,
together with the striking laborers.
Besides, a judicial decision is asked.
Therefore, the South American company Y refuses to accept the
waste. As a result, the ship is
returning to the Netherlands.
ANNEX 3, p.
2
The Dutch
authorities are confronted with about 1,000 tons of waste containing zinc in
the port and a ship which is returning to the Netherlands with another 1,000
tons, no possibility to get rid of the materials in the short term and possible
soil pollution which is caused by careless storage. A civil action is started in order to keep the waste out of the
Netherlands and to send it back to the first owner.
Partly due
to actions in South America and information given by the local Dutch Embassy,
doubts have arisen about the actual re-using of the materials. It is not impossible that a limited part
will really be re-used, but it is not sure what will happen to the other part
(70%).
A summary
proceedings decision orders that the Dutch company Z should transport the
materials back to Denmark, Belgium and Italy within two weeks, in case of
non-compliance the fine will be 100.000 guilders a day.
Frantic
efforts are made to realize this decision.
The producers refuse to accept the waste and the concerning authorities
refuse to force them. As a result, the
imposed fine cannot be implemented.
This
happened almost one year ago, the materials are still in the Netherlands and
there are no prospects in order to process the materials in a safe way. Even when this would be possible, nobody is
willing to accept this waste because of the publicity given to this case. Besides, company Z should pay a lot of
money, instead of making a profit.
Anyway, the
judicial procedures which have been started are continued. The lawyer of the Dutch company gives his
opinion.
The English
company X should deliver 2000 tons zinc-residue. The Dutch company Z should look for the right materials, at the
request of the English company X. The
Italian company C could deliver the waste, which has been transported to
Rotterdam on behalf of the English company X.
Here the materials are mixed with zinc-residue from the Danish company
A, by order of the English company X.
The South American company Y would receive the waste in Rotterdam,
aiming to transport it to South America.
The second
transport has been resulted as well by mixing materials coming from foreign
suppliers, through the agency of the Dutch company Z.
The lawyers
of company Z are using the above-mentioned in order to demonstrate that they
have no responsibility. In their
opinion, the English company X and the European companies A, D and C and the
Brazilian company Y are responsible.
The Dutch company has only acted by order of the English
ANNEX 3, p.
3
company
X. The contacts with the several
authorities and the search for solutions were fully voluntary, without any
obligation or responsibility.
Besides, it
was a matter of re-using in South America.
The South American company should have all necessary licenses and the
remainders should be processed without negative environmental effects. This was confirmed by the statement of a
professor, who made an investigation in South America at the request of the
Dutch company. The materials should be
considered as positive valued raw materials instead of hazardous waste.
Anyway,
this explanation does not explain either way the South American judge imposed a
ban on the acceptation, nor why the South American company did not want to
accept their own materials.
Furthermore
it would be a matter of transit instead of import followed by export, in that
case it would be impossible for the Dutch authorities to take action. The question is, however, if this transport
can still be considered as a transit.
The waste has not been accepted by the South American company, as a result
it is returned to the Netherlands.
What can we
learn from this?
Activities
can be made untransparent and unverifiable for the authorities in question by
transactions on paper.
The fact
that a substance has a positive value, and will be re-used (partly) does not
imply a safe way of processing.
It is
really difficult to get an insight in what is going on in foreign
countries. Formal contacts between
authorities are often too slow to be effective.
In such
cases emotions are playing an important role.
ANNEX 4
Case 2
The
car-shredder in Boston does not function well.
The released non-ferro fraction has been polluted (till 70%) with
lacquer, plastics, rubber, wood, etc.
Investigation has shown the harmfulness for the environment, caused by
the extraction. Therefore, the
materials are considered as hazardous waste under the Dutch Regulation.
The company
in Boston sells these materials to a Dutch company, which has an installation
to extract the non-ferro metals.
Transport goes via Canada and Belgium.
At the Dutch-Belgium border it is found out that the necessary approval
is lacking (the materials are considered as hazardous waste), as a result the
transport is stopped. Considering the
low (possibly even negative) value, it is impossible to return the materials to
the United States.
What can we
learn from this?
Apparently,
it is profitable to transport very low-valued materials from a great distance
as well.
It is
difficult for both companies and authorities that there is no unanimity in the
several countries on the definition of hazardous waste.
Even when
you have the right to take corrective measures, execution is often only
possible when the authorities are paying the costs.
ANNEX 5
Case 3
An Italian
company collects in Italy all kinds of polluted solvents, dumps them in large
containers and transports this shipment to England, accompanied by all
necessary documents. No problem, until
liquid is leaking out of a container, polluting the soil at a railway
emplacement in the Netherlands.
On
inspection it appeared that the soil has been polluted with PCB’s, which has
obviously been caused by the waste substances.
However, this has not been filled in on the documents, so that
authorities did not know about it. The
Italian company did not report, because the Italian limit concerning PCB’s
(1000 mg/kg) has not been exceeded. However,
the Dutch limit is 50 mg/kg, the English limit is 100 mg/kg.
England is
informed that decides immediately to forbid all waste coming from this Italian
company and to return all materials which have not been processed yet. Clear action, with far-reaching
consequences. The board of directors,
accompanied by Italian experts, travels all over Europe to settle the dispute.
All goods
coming from Italy are staying in Rotterdam, all waste substances coming from
England are returned to Rotterdam. The
Dutch authority orders to return these waste substances to Italy. However, the Italian authorities refuse to
accept the import. As a result, large
quantities of hazardous waste have been stored in Rotterdam, with possible
negative effects for the environment.
After many weeks, all procedures have been finished, so the waste can
return to Italy.
What can we
learn from this?
The use of
different definitions is very difficult.
Vigor
action should be accompanied by consultation with other authorities.
The forms
do not always show reality. The
reporting system gives only an insight into legal actions. Tips and real inspection are necessary to
show illegal activities as well.
ANNEX 6
Case 4
The owner
of a Dutch company has an unemployed cousin who likes to have an additional
income. He is sent to Germany, where he
should collect batteries from jewelers.
Regarding the Regulation, batteries are considered as hazardous waste in
the Netherlands. On a Friday night, the
cousins’ caravan is stopped in a routine customs action. It turned out that he had 400 kg of
batteries in the boot, without the necessary accompanying documents.
The control
inspection is informed and an official report is made. Transfrontier shipment is not allowed. The car goes back to Germany and returns to
the Netherlands at another border crossing.
The batteries are graded in the Netherlands and are sold to
England. Silver oxide batteries cost a
lot of money. The public prosecutor
comes to a compliance of 600 guilders with the company in question.
What can we
learn from this?
Open
borders in the European Community will complicate the control. How could we have discovered the
above-mentioned transport?
It is very
difficult to discover small quantities of hazardous waste.