Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:11 am
Time: 1:11 am
Results for hazardous waste
10 results foundAuthor: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of the Inspector General. Oversight and Review Division Title: A Review of Federal Prison Industries' Electronic-Waste Recycling Program Summary: This report describes the results of an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) into the health, safety, and environmental compliance practices of Federal Prison Industries’ (FPI) electronic waste (ewaste) recycling program. Federal Prison Industries, which is known by its trade name “UNICOR,” is a government corporation within the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) that provides employment to staff and inmates at federal prisons throughout the United States. UNICOR sells a variety of consumer products and services, such as office furniture and clothing, and industrial products, such as security fencing and vehicle tags. As of June 2010, UNICOR had 103 factories at 73 prison locations, employing approximately 17,000 inmates or 11 percent of the inmate population. Starting in 1997, UNICOR began to accept computers, monitors, printers, and other types of e-waste for recycling at federal prisons. UNICOR sold these e-waste items to its customers, sometimes following refurbishment, or disassembled the items into their component parts and sold the parts to recyclers for further processing. E-waste contains many toxic substances that can be harmful to humans and to the environment. For example, a computer can contain toxic metals, such as cadmium, lead, mercury, arsenic, and beryllium. Cathode ray tubes, which are found in televisions and computer monitors, typically contain between 2 to 5 pounds of lead. When e-waste is disassembled and recycled, workers can be exposed to toxic metals which can cause serious health implications. UNICOR’s recycling of e-waste resulted in complaints from BOP and UNICOR staff and inmates, most notably from Leroy A. Smith, Jr., a former Safety Manager at the United States Penitentiary (USP) in Atwater, California. In particular, the complaints asserted that UNICOR’s e-waste recycling practices were not safe and had made UNICOR staff and inmates sick. As a result of these complaints and at the request of the BOP, Department of Justice (DOJ), and attorneys for Mr. Smith, the OIG investigated the safety of UNICOR’s e-waste recycling operations, as well as other allegations of theft, conflict of interest, and environmental crimes that arose during our investigation related to UNICOR’s e-waste operations. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2010. 173p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2010 at: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/BOP/o1010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/BOP/o1010.pdf Shelf Number: 120160 Keywords: Hazardous WasteOffenses Against the EnvironmentPrison IndustriesPrison LaborU.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons |
Author: White, Rob Title: Key Vulnerabilities & Limitations in the Management of Hazardous Waste and Its Disposal Summary: This paper outlines the process of developing a matrix to assess overall environmental regulatory performance, in the context of key vulnerabilities and limitations in the management of hazardous waste and its disposal. Details: Hobart, Tasmania: School of Sociology and Social Work, University of Tasmania, 2011. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Paper No. 3: Accessed January 13, 2012 at: http://www.utas.edu.au/sociology/CRU/Briefing_Paper_3_Key_Vulnerabilities_and_Limitations_in_the_Management_of_Hazardous_Waste_and_its_Disposal.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.utas.edu.au/sociology/CRU/Briefing_Paper_3_Key_Vulnerabilities_and_Limitations_in_the_Management_of_Hazardous_Waste_and_its_Disposal.pdf Shelf Number: 123603 Keywords: Hazardous WasteOffenses Against the EnvironmentOrganized CrimeWaste Management (Australia) |
Author: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) Title: Illegal Trade in Environmentally Sensitive Goods Summary: Illegal trade in environmentally sensitive goods, such as threatened wildlife, timber, hazardous waste, and ozone-depleting substances, has been a long-standing issue in the international trade and environment agenda. The nature of such illegal trade makes it difficult to fully understand its extent and impact on the environment. Developing effective policies to reduce illegal trade requires a clear understanding of what drives this trade and the circumstances under which it thrives. In this report, evidence-based on customs data and information from licensing schemes is used to document the scale of illegal trade, as well as the economic and environmental impacts of such trade. National and international policies have an important role to play in regulating and reducing illegal trade and the report highlights a range of measures that can be taken at both levels. Details: Paris: OECD Publishing, 2012. 147p. Source: Internet Resource: OECD Trade Policy Studies, 2012. Accessed October 4, 2012 at: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/9712051e.pdf?expires=1349355092&id=id&accname=oid006203&checksum=68038CFB2A32D76B27CB3A01C5E7955F Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/9712051e.pdf?expires=1349355092&id=id&accname=oid006203&checksum=68038CFB2A32D76B27CB3A01C5E7955F Shelf Number: 126554 Keywords: Hazardous WasteIllegal LoggingIllegal Trade (Europe)Offenses Against the EnvironmentWildlife Crime |
Author: Rucevska, Ivea Title: Waste Crime -- Waste Risks: Gaps in Meeting the Global Waste Challenge Summary: A staggering 1.3 billion tonnes of food is produced each year to feed the world's 7 billion people. Yet, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), around US$1 trillion of that food goes to waste. With 200,000 new people added every day, the world can ill afford to waste such a massive amount of food. Global waste, however, does not stop at food. Consumers are increasingly buying products that are wrapped in plastics and paper. Much of this packaging - and eventually the products themselves - will end up in landfills. This trend has both health and environmental consequences, especially given the rapid rise of hazardous waste such as electronics. Innovative solutions to combat "e-waste" are emerging. Recovering valuable metals and other resources locked inside electronic products, for example, can reduce e-waste. Not only can recycling reduce pressure on the environment, it can also create jobs and generate income. Indeed, the global waste market sector - from collection to recycling - is estimated to be US$410 billion a year, excluding a very large informal sector. As with any large economic sector, however, there are opportunities for illegal activities at various stages of the waste chain. In the rush for profits, operators may ignore waste regulations and expose people to toxic chemicals. On a larger scale, organized crime may engage in tax fraud and money laundering. About 41.8 million metric tonnes of e-waste was generated in 2014 and partly handled informally, including illegally. This could amount to as much as USD 18.8 billion annually. Without sustainable management, monitoring and good governance of e-waste, illegal activities may only increase, undermining attempts to protect health and the environment, as well as to generate legitimate employment. The evolution of crime, even transnational organized crime, in the waste sector is a significant threat. Whether the crime is associated with direct dumping or unsafe waste management, it is creating multi-faceted consequences that must be addressed. Details: United Nations Environment Programme and GRID-Arendal, Nairobi and Arendal, www.grida.no, 2015. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: UNEP Rapid Response Assessment: Accessed June 7, 2016 at: http://www.unep.org/delc/Portals/119/publications/rra-wastecrime.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://www.unep.org/delc/Portals/119/publications/rra-wastecrime.pdf Shelf Number: 139301 Keywords: Electronic WasteHazardous WasteOffenses Against the EnvironmentOrganized CrimePlastic WasteWaste |
Author: Puckett, Jim Title: Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia Summary: Electronic waste or E-waste is the most rapidly growing waste problem in the world. It is a crisis not only of quantity but also a crisis born from toxic ingredients - such as the lead, beryllium, mercury, cadmium, and brominated-flame retardants that pose both an occupational and environmental health threat. But to date, industry, government and consumers have only taken small steps to deal with this looming problem. This report reveals one of the primary reasons why action to date in the United States has been woefully inadequate. Rather than having to face the problem squarely, the United States and other rich economies that use most of the world's electronic products and generate most of the E-Waste, have made use of a convenient, and until now, hidden escape valve - exporting the E-waste crisis to the developing countries of Asia. Rather than having to face the E-waste problem squarely squarely, the United States has made use of a convenient, and convenient, and until now, hidden escape valve - exporting the crisis to developing countries of Asia. Yet trade in E-waste is an export of real harm to the poor communities of Asia. The open burning, acid baths and toxic dumping pour pollution into the land, air and water and exposes the men, women and children of Asia's poorer peoples to poison. The health and economic costs of this trade are vast and, due to export, are not born by the western consumers nor the waste brokers who benefit from the trade. The export of E-waste remains a dirty little secret of the high-tech revolution. Scrutiny has been studiously avoided by the electronics industry, by government officials, and by some involved in E-waste recycling. This often willful denial has been aided by the cynical labeling of this trade with the ever-green word "recycling". The current U.S. system begins its path of failure before the electronics ever enter the marketplace. First, manufacturers refuse to eliminate hazardous materials or design for disassembly. Second, government policies fail to hold manufacturers responsible for end-of-life management of their products. Thus, finally, consumers, are the unwitting recipients of a toxic product abandoned by those with the greatest ability to prevent problems. Left with few choices, consumers readily will turn to recycling. But it appears that too often, this apparent solution simply results in more problems, particularly when the wastes are toxic. The open burning, acid baths and toxic dumping pour pollution into the land, air pollution into the land, air, and water and exposes the men, women, and children of Asia's poorer peoples to poison. poison. While there are many E-waste recyclers who espouse and practice sincere environmental ethics and are trying to make the most of poor upstream design, there are many others whose "recycling" claims offer false solutions recycling via export directly, or indirectly through brokers. Indeed, informed recycling industry sources estimate that between 50 to 80 percent of the E-waste collected for recycling in the western U.S. are not recycled domestically, but is very quickly placed on container ships bound for destinations like China. Even the best-intentioned recyclers have been forced, due to market realities, to participate in this failed system. They see that the real solution is producer responsibility Details: Basel Action Network; Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, 2002. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2019 at: http://svtc.org/wp-content/uploads/technotrash.pdf Year: 2002 Country: Asia URL: http://svtc.org/wp-content/uploads/technotrash.pdf Shelf Number: 155471 Keywords: E-Waste Electronic Waste Environmental Crimes Hazardous WasteOffenses Against the Environment Pollution |
Author: Basel Action Network Title: The Summary: INTRODUCTION The BAN e-Trash Transparency Project In 2016, BAN published its groundbreaking reports entitled "Disconnect: Goodwill and Dell, Exporting the Public's E-Waste to Developing Countries," (May) and "Scam Recycling: e-Dumping on Asia by US Recyclers," (September). These reports followed several years of research, development and implementation of GPS/cell phone-based tracking technology. They involved placing 205 different GPS tracking devices inside of old printers, LCD, and CRT monitors, delivering them to US charities, retailers and recyclers and following them to their endpoints across the globe. Such research activities and subsequent publication of the results can be said to be a form of citizen enforcement because the trade of hazardous wastes, including most electronic waste, to developing countries from developed countries is illegal under international norms (Basel Convention) and under laws of most developed countries. Certainly, under the rules of the Basel Convention, it is illegal for developing countries to import hazardous e-wastes from the United States. 96% of the exports revealed by BAN 's 2016 study were deemed as likely illegal. The study as summarized in "Scam Recycling" witnessed 34% of the 205 deployments moving offshore with 31% of the total going to developing countries. Looking at those that were exported only 93% of the exports went to developing countries. 87% to Asia, 3% to Africa and 1% to the Middle East, and 1% to the Latin America/Caribbean region. 7% moved to the developed countries of Mexico and Canada. Most of the exports ended up in Hong Kong's rural northern area called New Territories. BAN's investigators visited GPS locations where the trackers ended up and found hundreds of e-waste junkyards in New Territories where the hazardous equipment is unfortunately smashed by hand, exposing workers to dangerous mercury laden dust, vapors and hazardous toners. Much of the e-waste was simply dumped in fields and wastelands. Of the 152 trackers delivered directly to recyclers and not to charities, 40% were exported significantly higher than the 15% rate for the 53 trackers delivered to charities or retailers. In the course of the entire pathways (chains) of the 205 tracker movements, the trackers passed through the hands of 168 different identifiable US recyclers. Of these companies, over 45% were part of a movement that went offshore (export chain). That study revealed also that R2 certified recyclers had a higher-than-average export rate. Uncertified recyclers had a lower-than-average export rate, and e-Stewards Certified Recyclers had the lowest average export rate of all three categories. With respect to the Certifications held by the "last holder" (apparent exporter), R2 exceeded e-Stewards 9-1. Finally, the report reveals the false claims and "green washing" of many of the companies that claim that they never would allow the public's waste electronics to be exported. The complete reports and media generated from them, including the PBS Newshour video segment that followed BAN to Hong Kong, can be found on our website's Trash Transparency Project pages. These reports include in detail, a full disclosure of the study findings including lists of all companies involved, the environmental harm caused, methodology, conclusions, and recommendations. BAN's work tracking e-waste in the United States and around the world with GPS trackers continues. BAN's ethical recycling certification program known as e-Stewards now uses trackers routinely to verify performance of the trade requirements in the standard (e.g. no export of hazardous e-waste to developing countries). At the same time, BAN continues to deploy trackers across North America to reveal for consumers and lawmakers alike, the illegal and/or unethical trade practices of some recyclers. It is our intention to continue to report on these trackers. The most recent deployment involved 60 trackers deployed in Texas, Georgia, and Florida in the US. 31 of these were R2 Certified (52%), 4 were both e-Stewards and R2 (6.66%), 1 was eStewards only (1.67 percent), and 24 were uncertified (40%). On September 6 of 2017, the first update of new tracker findings since our September 15, 2016 report was published. In that report we revealed 16 more chains of export (15 LCD monitors and one printer) involving 7 target recycling companies. 5 of these were in California, one in Ohio and one in Texas. An additional two companies (Skill Office Machines and VKL Exports) were also identified. Details: Seattle, Washington: Basel Action Network, 2017. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2019 at: http://wiki.ban.org/images/1/13/TheScamRecyclingContinuesUpdate_1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: International URL: https://www.ban.org/trash-transparency Shelf Number: 155487 Keywords: E-Waste Electronic Waste Environmental Crime Green CriminologyHazardous Waste Illegal Dumping Illegal Waste Offences Against the Environment Pollution Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment WEEE |
Author: Palmer, Hayley Title: Illegal Export of e-Waste from Australia: A Story Told by GPS Trackers Summary: In September and October of 2017 BAN deployed 35 pieces of non-functional electronic waste equipment including CRT monitors, LCD monitors and printers with GPS trackers imbedded within them across Australia. All of the equipment qualified under the Basel Convention as hazardous waste. 14 units of equipment were deployed in the Brisbane area, 13 in the Sydney area, 3 in Adelaide, and 5 in Perth. Out of these 35 trackers 2 were exported (5.71%), 1 moved to a seaport and was likely exported (2.86%), 11 moved to a Recycler (31.4%), 4 moved to a landfill (11.4%), 7 never moved, (20%), 6 had no signal after delivery (17.1%) and 2 moved to an unknown location (5.71%). 2 are still reporting regularly and the rest have gone quiet, meaning they could be bulldozed into a landfill, buried deep in a warehouse, or shredded or disassembled by a recycler. Exports from OfficeWorks -- Three of the devices appear to have been exported, with two definitely going to Hong Kong's New Territories area. Both of these were LCDs monitors from the Brisbane area and one of these was later re-exported to an e-waste processing facility in Thailand. The two exported LCDs were deployed at different OfficeWorks stores in the Brisbane area. Officeworks' "Bring I.T Back" as a "Drop Zone" location is an official Australian Government public drop-off location that the public is encouraged to use for their electronic recycling. Officeworks, according to their website, considers itself to be a very sustainable company. The third device, another LCD left at Endeavor Foundation Industries, another government approved e-waste dropoff location, last signaled at a container dock at the port of Brisbane and was likely exported- though it has yet to signal again. Site Visits BAN traveled to the two locations in Asia where the two exported LCDs ended up. Both of these, without showing any other stopping points after their respective OfficeWorks deliveries, were joined in one intermodal container and shipped to the Ping Che area of New Territories, Hong Kong. Ping Che is an infamous area of Hong Kong for e-waste trafficking where most commonly undocumented laborers are involved in the crude and harmful breakdown of the equipment, often exposing them to dangerous toner dust, and, in the case of LCDs -- the toxic metal mercury. However, when we visited the location a few months after the arrival of the LCDs, there was no trace of e-waste in the facility - apparently, it had been cleaned out and one of the tracked devices stopped signaling. The other one, however, we visited its second location in Thailand. In Thailand that LCD monitor arrived at a location that was involved in crude smelting of circuit boards, creating deadly dioxins and furans, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Illegal Exportation There can be little doubt that these exports were illegal due to the fact that all three countries concerned, Australia, China (including Hong Kong), and Thailand are all parties to the Basel Convention. Due to the presence of mercury in the backlights of these LCD monitors and the lead in the circuit boards of the monitors, and because the equipment was rendered non-functional, the equipment was clearly a hazardous waste under the definitions of the Basel Convention. As such, all exports would require that they be notified prior to export by the government of Australia and consented to by the initially receiving government of Hong Kong. Thailand, in recent weeks, has made it abundantly clear that they are not happy receiving e-waste imported illegally en masse to primitive processing facilities that have been springing up all over their territory following China's own importation ban (see Current Trends in the e-Waste Trade). Details: Seattle, Washington: Basel Action Network, 2018. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2019 at: http://wiki.ban.org/images/7/7c/Australian_e-Waste_Report_-_2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://www.ban.org/trash-transparency Shelf Number: 155489 Keywords: AustraliaE-Waste Electronic Waste Environmental Crime Green CriminologyHazardous Waste Illegal Dumping Illegal Waste Offences Against the Environment Pollution Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment WEEE |
Author: Hammerle, Mara Title: Stopping the Spread: The Issue of Death by Plastic in Commonwealth Marine Areas and the Great Barrier Reef Summary: Plastic pollution, both land-based and in our oceans, is one of the most significant environmental challenges the world faces. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has even called it a critical problem, comparable to climate change. While plastic pollution is not the only type of marine litter, it is the most abundant form and poses a worldwide threat to marine environments. Mass production of plastic materials, coupled with inefficient disposal systems and widespread limited environmental awareness, exacerbate the issue. Marine litter is "any persistent, manufactured or processed solid material discarded, disposed of, or abandoned in, the marine and coastal environment". It is found across the planet, including in remote regions far from civilisation - such as Antarctica, remote mountain-tops and the deep-sea ocean floor. In marine environments, the litter accumulates in high densities posing detrimental consequences for marine life. Many species either accidentally swallow or become entangled in the litter, resulting in injury and sometimes death. It also has economic consequences, for example by limiting fishery productivity. There is an urgent need to address marine litter both through the strengthening of existing strategies and through new innovations and technology. As marine litter is rooted in production and consumption patterns and the disposal and management of waste, it is these areas where interventions are necessary. The aim of the report is to look at what could be done at the federal level to reduce marine litter in our oceans by examining lessons from international case studies. The strategies are categorised in five themes: prevention (preventing the production of plastic and other litter in the first place), mitigation (minimising the amount of litter entering water sources), removal (removing litter from marine environments), education (educating the public and other key stakeholders) and research (understanding the extent and impact of marine litter). It is however important that the potential negative impacts of any policy recommendations are assessed before adoption. However, the Constitution prescribes no specific environmental regulatory powers to the Federal Government and those powers that the Federal Government does have through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 are limited and weak. As stressed by numerous environmental organisations, including the Boomerang Alliance, Places You Love and Environmental Defenders Offices, there is an urgent need for national leadership both on marine litter and on environmental matters more generally. Details: Queensland, Australia: McKell Institute, 2018. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2019 at: https://mckellinstitute.org.au/app/uploads/Stopping-the-Spread-1.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://apo.org.au/node/204446 Shelf Number: 155492 Keywords: Australia Environmental Crime Green CriminologyHazardous Waste Marine LitterMarine Pollution Offences Against the Environment Plastic PollutionPolluted Oceans |
Author: Macfadyen, Graeme Title: Abandoned, Lost or Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear Summary: Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) is a problem that is increasingly of concern. Various United Nations General Assembly resolutions now provide a mandate for, and indeed require, action to reduce ALDFG and marine debris in general. Consequently, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) entered into an agreement to carry out a study in relation to ALDFG in order to raise awareness of the extent of the problem and to recommend action to mitigate the problem of ALDFG by flag states, regional fisheries management bodies and organizations, and international organizations, such as UNEP, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and FAO. This report reviews the magnitude and composition of ALDFG, and while noting that information is not comprehensive and does not allow for any global estimates, suggests that gillnets and fishing traps/pots may be the most common type of ALDFG, although netting fragments may also be common in some locations. The impacts of ALDFG are also considered and include: continued catching of target and non-target species (such as turtles, seabirds and marine mammals); alterations to the benthic environment; navigational hazards; beach debris/litter; introduction of synthetic material into the marine food web; introduction of alien species transported by ALDFG; and a variety of costs related to clean-up operations and impacts on business activities. In general, gillnets and pots/traps are most likely to "ghost fish" while other gear, such as trawls and longlines, are more likely to cause entanglement of marine organisms, including protected species, and habitat damage. The factors which cause fishing gear to be abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded are numerous and include: adverse weather; operational fishing factors including the cost of gear retrieval; gear conflicts; illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing; vandalism/theft; and access to and cost and availability of shoreside collection facilities. Weather, operational fishing factors and gear conflicts are probably the most significant factors, but the causes of ALDFG accumulation are poorly documented and not well understood. A detailed understanding of why gear is abandoned, lost or discarded is needed when designing and tailoring effective measures to reduce ALDFG in particular locations. A variety of measures are currently in place to reduce ALDFG, and these are profiled in this report. They include those which are preventative or ex-ante, and those which are curative or ex-post. Evidence suggests that while both are important, much of the emphasis to date has been placed on curative measures such as gear retrieval programmes and clean-up of beach litter, while preventative measures may generally be more cost-effective in reducing ALDFG debris and its impacts. This report concludes with a number of recommendations for future action to reduce ALDFG debris, be it on a mandatory or voluntary basis. It also considers at what scale and which stakeholders (e.g. international organizations, national government, the private sector, research institutions) might be best placed to address the wide range of possible measures to reduce the amount of ALDFG debris. Details: Rome, Italy: United Nations Environment Programme, 2009. 117p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2019 at: http://www.fao.org/3/i0620e/i0620e00.htm Year: 2009 Country: International URL: http://www.fao.org/3/i0620e/i0620e00.htm#Contents Shelf Number: 155493 Keywords: Crimes Against the EnvironmentEnvironmental Crime Fishing NetsGreen CriminologyHazardous Waste Illegal Dumping Illegal Unregulated and Unreported FishingIUU FishingMarine PollutionOceans Pollution Offences Against the Environment Pollution |
Author: European Commission Title: Study supporting the evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste. (Waste Shipments Regulation: WSR): Final report Summary: This report presents the findings of an evaluation study contracted by the European Commission concerning Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste as amended (the Waste Shipment Regulation or WSR) as well as Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste listed in Annex III or IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 to certain countries to which the OECD Decision on the control of transboundary movements of wastes does not apply. A combination of research methods and analytical tools have been used, including literature review and consultation via both open public questionnaires as well as targeted questionnaires and interviews. Overall, this study finds the regulations effective, relevant, coherent and adds value at EU level, although some issues remain including the lack of harmonised inspection regimes, diverging classifications of waste, and difficulties to adapt to circular economy. Conclusions on the efficiency of the WSR were mixed, with concerns over inefficiencies (including the review process of the Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007) and significant costs caused by the regulation, although little data came to justify the claims. Details: Brussels: Author, 2019. 248p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 5, 2019 at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/926420bc-8284-11e9-9f05-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-99087502 Year: 2019 Country: Europe URL: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/926420bc-8284-11e9-9f05-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-99087502 Shelf Number: 156843 Keywords: Electronic Waste Environmental Crimes Environmental Protection Hazardous WasteOffences Against the Environment Pollution Waste Management |