You are on page 1of 21

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.

500 1.2. Figure 1 shows the quantities of waste which would have been exported in 1987. This quantity is increasing slowly and came to 190.000 tons must be processed by specialized processing companies in and outside the Netherlands. For this reason a considerable part of the Dutch hazardous waste is processed in foreign countries. and reusing.500 17. Processing can be burning.000 20. processing of this kind of hazardous waste is very expensive Some hundreds of guiders can be earned by processing hazardous waste in foreign countries. As a result of the requirements in order to protect the environment.500 tons in 1989. DEVELOPMENT AND REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN THE NETHERLANDS In the Netherlands the companies are producing about 1. The remaining 500. high groundwater levels) and the limited available space (the Netherlands is one of the most densely populated countries in the world). Figure 1: Export of hazardous waste from the Netherlands during the years 19871989 The destinations of the hazardous waste are: COUNTRY Belgium Federal Republic of Germany Great Britain France German Democratic Republic Others Tons 34. Annex 2 shows the complete list of hazardous waste according to Dutch regulation.000.000 tons are processed by these companies themselves.000 tons of hazardous waste yearly. Burning as well as dumping is cheaper outside the Netherlands. 1988 and 1989 and the way of processing.000 27. Processing in foreign countries is cheaper. dumping. The distance or the costs of the transport do not play an important part (bulk quantities are transported cheap). detoxifying. This is almost 40% of the waste that should be processed by specialized companies. because there are no tight requirements. About 500.500 . as well as geohydrological circumstances (like deep polders.500 89.

included hazardous waste). about 88.500 tons from the Federal Republic of Germany (in particular polluted ground).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. 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. to a small degree some categories of hazardous waste can be dumped. 17. On the other hand the business community is not willing to realize expensive ways to process hazardous waste. it will be clear that the import of hazardous waste to the Netherlands is limited. On the one hand strong resistance has been felt against these companies. 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. Besides.000 tons were imported. in spite of the advanced techniques in order to protect the environment. Recently a dumping ground for hazardous waste has been finished. 1988.500 tons from Belgium. re-use. In Rotterdam two rotary tumble furnaces are in running. attention should be paid to the reduction of the development of hazardous waste. 61. In order to reduce the export. it is difficult to develop new processing companies. Figure 4 shows how this waste is processed in the Netherlands. because there are cheaper possibilities in foreign countries. about fifty companies are dealing with storage. treatment and processing of hazardous waste. development of incinerators and dumping possibilities for hazardous waste. However. and 1989. In 1989. . However. 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. Considering the above-mentioned.

Although the other countries in the European Community did include the European directives in national legislation. It can be asked what it happening with the remainders.Figure 4: Import of hazardous waste into the Netherlands in 1989 (1000 kg). when compared to the above-mentioned quantities. Portugal and Greece. Each member state is bound to include these guidelines in national legislation. Besides. These transports should be notified (notification of disposal and notification of receipt) and should be accompanied by special accompanying documents. nor an enforcement organization in order to control the performance. The transit is considerable. Will there be no containers loaded with waste.000 tons/year). However. The trade in the so-called secondary raw materials is growing enormously. the situation is not as bright as it should be. Six years later several countries still have not adopted these guidelines. Italy. several . in particular France. REGULATIONS CONSIDERING TRANSFRONTIER SHIPMENTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN EUROPE As a result of problems. among other things. 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 remarkable that the official statistics do not mention any export of hazardous waste to the developing countries. possibly within the margin of error of the estimations. These guidelines imply. Are they not taking place (anymore) or do we not know about it? A possible export to these countries pales into insignificance. 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. Figure 5 shows this situation in a diagram. Spain. that the authorities in question should approve the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste before the actual transport is taking place. It is not considered impossible that large quantities of hazardous waste are transported under very creative raw material names. we cannot be sure that this export will be zero. 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. given the fact that the Netherlands is an important country with regard to transport and transit (50. is everybody handling them without negative environmental effects? 3. which were caused by dioxin-holding waste after the explosion in the factory in Seveso.

appointments about the way of checking will be necessary. REGULATION ON IMPORT. This treaty has been signed by a lot of countries and the points of view should be incorporated into national law. This part of the implementation has been put out to contract. 5.C.1 Implementation organization for the Regulation Dutch politicians have emphasized from the beginning.-directives pertaining to the import. *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.regulations are not brought into agreement with each other.” Implementation should be effective. 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. an implementation organization consisting of three departments has been established. Besides. export and transit of hazardous waste (2). 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. First of all. the testing of the notification for the intended transports as well as the check on compliance with the Regulation. In the Netherlands. This could stimulate the building of new processing installations.000 notification forms (notification of disposal and notification of receipt) have been handled . 5. all these conditions should be fulfilled. In 1989 about 1450 notifications of intended shipments (import or export) and 25. because use is guaranteed in spite of cheaper processing possibilities in other countries. However. before starting an implementation organization. (future) neighborhoods are still opposed to the development of new installations.-memberstate should agree). 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. so it will take a lot of time.C. The Regulation does not only imply procedures for permission. notification and accompanying documents. export and transit of hazardous waste entered into force on 15 October 1988 (1). 4. EXPORT AND TRANSIT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE The Regulation on import. This regulation came into being on the basis of the E. the competent authorities may also object to the export as such is in the interest of effective waste processing in the own country. Cooperation and exchange of information and experiences are minimal. that the Regulation should not be a “paper tiger.

Figure 6: Proportion between notification of disposal and receipt in 1989 Figure 6 gives in a diagram the number of notifications of import. 5. with a clear inspection background. In particular the last mentioned appears to be very effective. environmental control and investigation services). This office has been established during 1989 and it is almost at full strength now. For the purpose of the control tasks. which are active in the field of transfrontier shipments of hazardous waste (producers. After the initial period. environmental legislation and behavioral skills. making and maintaining contacts. checking the transports on the road or at the border at random and taking action as a result of reportings about potential illegal transports. These activities provide work for three staff members. export and transit of hazardous waste The Office for the Enforcement of E.by this department. customs. export and transit in 1989. It should be mentioned.2 Enforcement of the Regulation on import. of which 100 were negative.-Directives will finally provide work for 18 staff members. part of the Main Environmental Inspection. this office will employ 18 staff members. These activities provide work for five staff members. In 1989 this department has prepared 868 decisions. the customs and the Corps Inspectors Hazardous Waste. the necessary . *Policy Department Waste Products (BA) This department is responsible for the decisions whether to allow a transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste. This office forms a part of the Main Department Enforcement of Environmental Legislation. *Office for the Enforcement of E. These people. that one notification of intended import/export can be used for a lot of transports. This department is part of the Chemical Waste Section of the Ministry of Housing. of whom 15 are/have been trained especially for control tasks and direct support of the control tasks (solicitor and data analyst).-Directives (BHER) This department is responsible for inspection and control on transfrontier shipments of hazardous waste.C. DirectorateGeneral Environment. agents and processing companies).C. They are checking companies. collecting information from other control organizations (police. have attended special training courses in the field of chemistry. staff members have been engaged consciously from the police organization. safety. carriers. Physical Planning and Environment (VROM). In connection with the specific character of the companies being active with waste substances.

it is necessary to act directly. The lack of transfrontier competences for control officials is a large bottleneck. and an effective enforcement organization in order to control observance. on the other hand problems are caused by the fact that some countries even do not have a regulation. however. as a result of some problems the desired result has not been achieved completely. criminal and civil action. Belgium. Strongly missed is the direct competence to stop all transports. in general the effects are indirect. to forbid transfrontier shipments or to suspend licenses in the case of regular nonobservance of the Regulation. It appears to be most effective to stop transports (if necessary by persuasion) and to forbid transfrontier shipments. For this purpose the Dutch Regulation gives the following judicial instruments: In addition to information and warning.4 Difficulties of enforcement In the Netherlands we have both the judicial possibility to take action against the unwanted transports of hazardous waste. it is possible to take administrative. Nevertheless. 5. effectively and clearly. however. The insight into transports of (classic) hazardous waste seems to be quite complete.3 Instruments on behalf of enforcement of the Regulation In case of infringements. Unfortunately it should be mentioned that correcting by official means will take a lot of time. the choice has been made consciously to commission a special. 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. among other things). When they have regulations. Experience has shown that criminal and civil action can be effective. it is not always possible to give a judicial basis to these actions. This is partly due to the fact that the use of the Regulation has brought some deficiencies to light. which do not comply with the Regulation. 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. as well as the lack of an international reporting and coordination center. the active performance is often lacking and there is no coordination (differences in definition.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). instead of bringing this task well under the control of another organization in the field of environmental legislation. 5. Environmental organizations are better informed (3) and can better acquaint themselves with the truth. Luxembourg and the Netherlands) a . as a result of the fact that transports to developing countries are hardly found anymore. well-educated and trained group with this task. The system is getting incredible however.

L 194/31.. CONCLUSIONS The above-mentioned describes the Dutch situation concerning the enforcement of the legislation in regard to import.C. Europese Gemeenschap. A Greenpeace Inventory by Jim Valette. L 181/13. L 272/1. afvalstoffen. U. L 326/31.-Regulation. Physical Planning and Environment. The enforcement organization has examined a large quantity enforcement cases. contact between authorities should become more effective. Ministry of Housing. 1. In conclusion we can say that even though this organization works very successfully.a. L 194/47. L 108/41.  In order to make enforcement effective. 7. In particular. export and transit of hazardous waste. it will be necessary to fill in some prior conditions. when the internal borders within the European Community will disappear.  It still is lucrative to transport waste of little value from great distances. 3.C. Greenpeace. EXAMPLES OF ENFORCEMENT Annex 3 to 6 give a description of four cases which have been found in the Netherlands during the past period.S. Washington. E. There is uncertainty about the enforcement possibilities after 1992. The Netherlands has included the E. like the customs. 1988. nr.  It is not clear what kind of effects 1992 will have on the transfrontier shipments within the E. The International Trade in Wastes. Besides the above-mentioned information on the working of the E. An enforcement organization has been established.G. the cooperation with other public bodies is important. Wetstraat.C. This example should be copied on a large scale. Publicatiebladen van de Europese Gemeenschappen o.-directive in national legislation. REFERENCES Regulation on import. 8. it is necessary to realize enough processing possibilities within the Netherlands.consultative body has been established. export and transit of hazardous waste. without paying the costs itself. grensoverschrijdende overbrenging van gevaarlijke afvalstoffen.  Re-use is hard to define.  The list of hazardous wate does not have to be the same for every country. Besides the necessity to reduce the development of hazardous waste (preventive). the police and the Corps Inspectors Hazardous Waste.-richtlijn betreffende de afgewerkte olie. The Hague. 1988. which provides work for 18 staff members. 2. some important conclusions are:  Several transactions on paper can complicate the control by authorities.  An authority cannot always take legal correcting measures. Brussel. . 6.

uit. Directoraat-Generaal Milieubeheer. .4. Jaaroverzicht 1989. In-.en doorvoer van gevaarlijke afvalstoffen. mart 1990 Leidschendam.

15 million pigs. Physical Planning. About 15 million people live here and they have about 5 million cars.transport risks * Ministry Agriculture + Fishery . noise. 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. Besides there are some 93 million chickens. Through the years a large quantity of environmental regulations came into being. fire brigade.air. p. This environmental legislation and the bodies who are responsible for implementation are given. Ministry of Transport. Labour Inspection. The organization of the environmental policy is broadly divided among the different public bodies. soil.agricultural quality management * - Ministry Economic Affairs mining activities . waste. radiation.1 Brief outline of the Netherlands and the environment The Netherlands is a small country with a surface area of about 37. Customs. 5 million cattle. standards. there are all industrial activities. enforcement * Ministry Transportation + Water Works .ANNEX 1.water quality management . 1 million sheep. risk . 1 million turkeys and half a million ducks.000 km2. which can cause considerable pollution.coordination.nature conservation . Environment) . Besides. In the Netherlands the implementation of Environmental legislation is highly decentralized. Environmental policy development at central government * Ministry VROM (Housing.

Collection. recycling solid waste . p.Licensing and control small/medium scale population . city renewal) * Municipalities (700) . noise.2 The other public bodies are responsible as follows: * - Provinces Licensing and control major polluting installations (" 2000) Regional physical planning Coordination rehabilitation programmes (soil. .ANNEX 1. air. it is possible to come to an optimal implementation of the enforcement of environmental legislation.Polder and inland water control .Physical planning/city renewal .Sewage systems * Water management boards (50) . water.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.

organic fluorine compounds . which by virtue of the Substances and Processes Decree under the Chemical Waste Act (Bulletin of Acts.organic peroxides . Wastes.organic phosphorus compounds .copper compounds .organic halogen compounds .organic chlorine compounds . 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.lead. p.1 LIST OF HAZARDOUS WASTES IN THE NETHERLANDS 1. Class C: 20.asbestos (dust and fiber) . . polychlorinated terphenyls and their derivatives.lead compounds .isocyanates .phenol and phenolic compounds . such as polychlorinated biphenyls. Class B: 500 mg/kg . Orders and Decrees 1977.inorganic peroxides .ANNEX 2.chlorates. including objects which have reached the waste state.organic iodine compounds .organic bromine compounds .000 mg/kg .

ANNEX 2. 3 . Batteries and car batteries. and the concentration in the substances of halogenated polycyclic aromatics. Polluted soil. 2 2. Acids and base substances which are used in the treatment of metal surfaces and which have reached the waste stage. 13. Waste produced by chemical processes in research or educational laboratories. Polluted blasting grit. Residues of pesticides and medicines. 10. 8. 4. with the exception of those of: hydrogen. 7. manganese and magnesium. such as polychlorinated biphenyls. Spent mineral lubricating and system oil which. p. titanium. aluminum. 5. 12. 9. 11. iron. Dredging spoil except for dredging spoil which is dumped into the sea. on the grounds of the concentration of polychlorinated biphenyls or the concentration of organic halogen compounds. a written contractual agreement can be submitted which demonstrates that the substances are being distilled. p. provided: - 3. Fly-ash and flue gas-cleaning residues from incinerators for household waste or for chemical or non-chemical industrial waste. polychlorinated terphenyls and their derivatives.50. carbon. silicon. unless they are being regenerated by means of distillation for the purpose for which they were originally intended. ANNEX 2.50. or .000 mg/kg or greater of oxides or hydroxides. is less than 50 mg/kg. Waste containing ether in concentrations of 50. containing concentrations of the dry substance content of the waste of . 6. Chlorinated and organic solvents which have entered the waste stage. 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.000 mg/kg or greater of inorganic acids.000 mg/kg or greater of the dry substance content of the waste. Shredder waste.

excepting gas-fired boilers. Antimony or its compounds 8. Waste produced during the demolition of industrial installations which are part of ovens and furnaces. Thallium or its compounds 5. Non-ferrous metals wastes Non-ferrous metals wastes are designated as: Solid wastes containing the following metals or metal compounds: 1. Construction and demolition waste containing concentrations of non-bound asbestos (dust and fiber) of 5000 mg/kg or more. Arsenic or its compounds 2. Cadmium or its compounds 4.14. Selenium or its compounds 9. Tellurium or its compounds . Beryllium or its compounds 6. Mercury or its compounds 3. Lead or its compounds 7. 15.

a judicial decision is asked. These materials are being sold at lucrative prices to the South American company.ANNEX 3. All substances should be transported to Rotterdam. Concerning the second transport. The ships’ manifest is talking about zinc ore. Therefore. Greenpeace has been informed about the second transport and is trying to prevent the loading. due to the very low concentrations of zinc and copper. Samples have been taken in order to analyze the materials. there is no reason to stop the transport. after being mixed. sometimes the delivering companies even have to pay themselves in order to get rid of their waste. The Dutch company buys the materials at minimal prices. Besides. 1 Case 1 Transport of waste substances containing zinc from Europe to South-America. the South American company Y refuses to accept the waste. the authorities are asking for further details. cadmium. If such is the case. by public happenings. As a result. 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. the transport only has to be reported. Processing in Europe is not expected to be possible. After analyzing it became clear that the materials were not only containing zinc and copper. in order to determine whether these materials should be considered as hazardous waste and whether the materials will be re-used. Company X made a contract with the South-American Company Y. Company Y should produce microelements in order to fertilize agricultural land. together with the striking laborers. but relatively high concentrations of lead. according to the wet-chemical procedure. 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. At the same time. p. These microelements could be obtained from waste which contains copper and zinc. . approval is not necessary. The liner cannot wait and is leaving without the cargo. The first transport can leave the Dutch port without problems. The English company X asks Dutch company Z to deliver these materials. The control authority for the transfrontier shipments of hazardous waste has been informed. from where they will be transported to South America. In this case. concerning delivery of materials containing zinc and copper. and other heavy metals as well. according to the regulation. the ship is returning to the Netherlands.

The Italian company C could deliver the waste. no possibility to get rid of the materials in the short term and possible soil pollution which is caused by careless storage. the imposed fine cannot be implemented. 2 The Dutch authorities are confronted with about 1. at the request of the English company X. Belgium and Italy within two weeks. by order of the English company X. D and C and the Brazilian company Y are responsible. Anyway. The Dutch company Z should look for the right materials. A summary proceedings decision orders that the Dutch company Z should transport the materials back to Denmark. aiming to transport it to South America. Even when this would be possible. but it is not sure what will happen to the other part (70%).000 tons of waste containing zinc in the port and a ship which is returning to the Netherlands with another 1. The lawyer of the Dutch company gives his opinion. instead of making a profit. nobody is willing to accept this waste because of the publicity given to this case. It is not impossible that a limited part will really be re-used. A civil action is started in order to keep the waste out of the Netherlands and to send it back to the first owner. The South American company Y would receive the waste in Rotterdam.ANNEX 3.000 tons. company Z should pay a lot of money. doubts have arisen about the actual re-using of the materials. Here the materials are mixed with zinc-residue from the Danish company A. The English company X should deliver 2000 tons zinc-residue. Frantic efforts are made to realize this decision. which has been transported to Rotterdam on behalf of the English company X. through the agency of the Dutch company Z. p. The second transport has been resulted as well by mixing materials coming from foreign suppliers. In their opinion. As a result.000 guilders a day. the materials are still in the Netherlands and there are no prospects in order to process the materials in a safe way. Besides. Partly due to actions in South America and information given by the local Dutch Embassy. in case of noncompliance the fine will be 100. This happened almost one year ago. The lawyers of company Z are using the above-mentioned in order to demonstrate that they have no responsibility. The Dutch company has only acted by order of the English . The producers refuse to accept the waste and the concerning authorities refuse to force them. the judicial procedures which have been started are continued. the English company X and the European companies A.

however. It is really difficult to get an insight in what is going on in foreign countries. if this transport can still be considered as a transit.ANNEX 3. What can we learn from this? Activities can be made untransparent and unverifiable for the authorities in question by transactions on paper. nor why the South American company did not want to accept their own materials. and will be re-used (partly) does not imply a safe way of processing. The question is. Besides. 3 company X. . The materials should be considered as positive valued raw materials instead of hazardous waste. p. it was a matter of re-using in South America. The fact that a substance has a positive value. who made an investigation in South America at the request of the Dutch company. Furthermore it would be a matter of transit instead of import followed by export. as a result it is returned to the Netherlands. this explanation does not explain either way the South American judge imposed a ban on the acceptation. In such cases emotions are playing an important role. The contacts with the several authorities and the search for solutions were fully voluntary. Formal contacts between authorities are often too slow to be effective. The waste has not been accepted by the South American company. without any obligation or responsibility. in that case it would be impossible for the Dutch authorities to take action. 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. Anyway.

Investigation has shown the harmfulness for the environment. 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).ANNEX 4 Case 2 The car-shredder in Boston does not function well. it is impossible to return the materials to the United States. the materials are considered as hazardous waste under the Dutch Regulation. . The released non-ferro fraction has been polluted (till 70%) with lacquer. as a result the transport is stopped. execution is often only possible when the authorities are paying the costs. The company in Boston sells these materials to a Dutch company. wood. it is profitable to transport very low-valued materials from a great distance as well. etc. rubber. Considering the low (possibly even negative) value. which has an installation to extract the non-ferro metals. caused by the extraction. Therefore. plastics. What can we learn from this? Apparently. 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.

the English limit is 100 mg/kg. All goods coming from Italy are staying in Rotterdam. . However. polluting the soil at a railway emplacement in the Netherlands. this has not been filled in on the documents. The Italian company did not report. The board of directors. However. The reporting system gives only an insight into legal actions. What can we learn from this? The use of different definitions is very difficult. the Italian authorities refuse to accept the import. However. with far-reaching consequences.ANNEX 5 Case 3 An Italian company collects in Italy all kinds of polluted solvents. accompanied by Italian experts. the Dutch limit is 50 mg/kg. which has obviously been caused by the waste substances. The forms do not always show reality. No problem. because the Italian limit concerning PCB’s (1000 mg/kg) has not been exceeded. 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. all waste substances coming from England are returned to Rotterdam. so the waste can return to Italy. travels all over Europe to settle the dispute. Clear action. Vigor action should be accompanied by consultation with other authorities. On inspection it appeared that the soil has been polluted with PCB’s. until liquid is leaking out of a container. After many weeks. dumps them in large containers and transports this shipment to England. with possible negative effects for the environment. Tips and real inspection are necessary to show illegal activities as well. The Dutch authority orders to return these waste substances to Italy. so that authorities did not know about it. large quantities of hazardous waste have been stored in Rotterdam. As a result. accompanied by all necessary documents. all procedures have been finished.

batteries are considered as hazardous waste in the Netherlands. How could we have discovered the above-mentioned transport? It is very difficult to discover small quantities of hazardous waste. where he should collect batteries from jewelers. The control inspection is informed and an official report is made. The batteries are graded in the Netherlands and are sold to England. Regarding the Regulation. The car goes back to Germany and returns to the Netherlands at another border crossing. . without the necessary accompanying documents. It turned out that he had 400 kg of batteries in the boot.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. Silver oxide batteries cost a lot of money. Transfrontier shipment is not allowed. What can we learn from this? Open borders in the European Community will complicate the control. The public prosecutor comes to a compliance of 600 guilders with the company in question. On a Friday night. the cousins’ caravan is stopped in a routine customs action.