the toxic truth - Greenpeace

the toxic truth
Giving false or misleading
information about the waste
From the time the waste was created as a
result of caustic washing on board the Probo
Koala, Trafigura provided misleading, incorrect,
incomplete and contradictory information on
the nature of the waste, both to regulatory
authorities and to other companies. The
company has never disclosed the full
information it holds about the composition of
the waste.
False information to Univar
In April 2006 Trafigura told Univar, a US-based
supplier of caustic soda, that it planned to
conduct caustic washing of gasoline on board
a ship and dispose of the resulting waste on
arrival at the port of La Skhirra, Tunisia. 393
However, this was not true. Far from delivering
the waste to a company in Tunisia, Trafigura
expressly instructed the ship’s captain not
even to let the Tunisian authorities know of the
existence of the waste on board the ship. 394
False and incomplete information
to the Dutch authorities
At the time of the events in Amsterdam, both
Trafigura and the captain of the Probo Koala
made statements about the nature of the
waste. On 30 June 2006, a fax was sent to
the Dutch authorities notifying them that the
Probo Koala intended to discharge “554cbm
washwater gasoline/caustic.” 395 The waste
was described as “MARPOL Annex 1; oily tank
washings including cargo residues”. 396 This
is clearly an inaccurate description of waste
generated by washing coker naphtha with
caustic soda.
A few days later, on 4 July 2006, the captain of
the Probo Koala, when questioned by police,
declared that:
“ the slops consisted of washing water from
397
cleaning the tanks. ”
Nowhere in the official notification paperwork
did Trafigura, its agent, or the captain of the
Probo Koala provide information about the
caustic washing that had generated the waste.
Misleading information to APS
As noted in Chapter 3, Trafigura have tried
to claim that they told APS about the caustic
washing process that had taken place on board
the Probo Koala during a phone conversation
on 19 June 2006. 398
In 2010 the Dutch court rejected Trafigura’s
statement. The court rejected as
“implausible” 399 the claim of Trafigura Ltd’s
UK-based executive, Naeem Ahmed, that he
fully informed APS about the true nature of the
waste. The court instead found that Trafigura
had offered the waste to APS as gasoline tank
washing water, a substance that APS normally
processed and treated at its facility, 400 rather
than labelling the washings accurately as
“spent caustic”.
The court stated that:
“ In all likelihood, [Naeem Amhed] chose to
conceal the true composition of the waste due
to the fact that prior to this, repeated attempts
to get rid of the waste had proved unsuccessful.
He apparently lacked the willingness to accept
that he would have to pay higher costs to
401
adequately process the waste. ”
91
Chapter 7