Rita Penman - 31-Jan-2007 - Fish packing company Sealord
Caistor Ltd has been fined a total of £27,000 and
ordered to pay full Environment Agency costs of £2,286
for failing its environmental duty.
At its premises in Caistor, Lincolnshire, Sealord takes
fresh and frozen fish in cardboard or polystyrene boxes
(including imports) and re-packs in plastic packaging for
supermarket fresh fish counters and pre-packed fish. During
that process it deals with a large amount of packaging.
Under rules to control the amount of waste going into landfill,
companies which deal with more than 50 tonnes of packaging
in a year and have an annual turnover in excess of £2m
have a duty to pay for the recycling of a quantity of packaging
material.
Sealord handled 426 tonnes of packaging and had a turnover
of £12.5 million for 2002-3, and 593 tonnes with a
turnover of £15.9 million in 2003-4. The company admitted
six offences in Lincoln Magistrates’ Court today (Wed),
three offences for each qualifying year.
The offences came to light on a routine enquiry by the
Environment Agency, whose responsibility it is to enforce
the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste)
Regulations 1997 and 2005,
The aim of the regulations is to reduce the amount of waste
going into landfill sites and the failure of companies to
comply with this legislation undermines the UK’s ability
to meet targets set out in the European Directive.
Under the regulations, obligated companies are required
to: 1) register with the Environment Agency or a compliance
scheme by 7 April each year 2) provide evidence of recovery
and recycling of specific tonnages of packaging waste and
3) provide the Environment Agency with a certificate stating
that they have met their obligations.
It appears that the company has been obligated for several
years and would have saved a significant amount of money
during that time, estimated at around £14, 370. The
company is now registered.
Technical manager Katarina Peacock told investigating officers
that the previous managing director was very ‘hands on’
and when that changed, the management team was unaware of
the obligation.
After the hearing Environment Agency investigating officer
John Clifton said: ‘Under this law, businesses that useutilise
packaging above the thresholds, including from imports,
may be liable for registering and paying for it’s recycling.
This helps minimise packaging waste being landfilled and
funds the recycling industry.
‘Considering these regulations have been in effect since
1997 it is surprising that some large companies which handle
packaging seem unaware of their obligation. Our role is
to ensure compliance with this environmental law and we
will actively seek out and prosecute offenders.’
Sealord Caister Ltd pleaded guilty to:
1. That you the defendant as a producer under Regulation
3(2) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 1997 failed to register by 7 April 2004
as required by Regulations 3(5)(a) and 5 of those Regulations.
Contrary to Regulation 34(1)(a) and (5) of the Producer
Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations
1997 and Section 95 of the Environment Act 1995. Fined £4,500.
2. That you the defendant as a producer under Regulation
3(2) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 1997 failed to take reasonable steps
to recover and recycle packaging waste during the year ending
31 December 2004 as required by Regulation 3(5)(b)(i) of
those Regulations. Contrary to Regulation 34(1)(b) and (5)
of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste)
Regulations 1997 and Section 95 of the Environment Act 1995.
Fined £4,500.
3. That you the defendant as a producer under Regulation
3(2) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 1997 failed to furnish a certificate
of compliance in respect of the recovery and recycling obligations
by 31 January 2005 as required by Regulations 3(5)(b)(ii)
and 23 of those Regulations. Contrary to Regulation 34(1)(c)
and (5) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 1997 and Section 95 of the Environment
Act 1995. Fined £4,500.
4. That you the defendant as a producer under Regulation
3(2) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 1997 failed to register by 7 April 2005
as required by Regulations 3(5)(a) and 5 of those Regulations.
Contrary to Regulation 34(1)(a) and (5) of the Producer
Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations
1997 and Section 95 of the Environment Act 1995. Fined £4,500.
5. That you the defendant as a producer under Regulation
4(2) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 2005 failed to recover and recycle packaging
waste during the year ending 31 December 2005 as required
by Regulation 4(4)(b)(i) of those Regulations. Contrary
to Regulation 40(1)(b) and (9) of the Producer Responsibility
Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2005 and Section
95 of the Environment Act 1995. Fined £4,500.
6. That you the defendant as a producer under Regulation
4(2) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 2005 failed to furnish a certificate
of compliance in respect of the recovery and recycling obligations
by 31 January 2006 as required by Regulations 4(4)(c) and
21 of those Regulations. Contrary to Regulation 40(1)(c)
and (9) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 2005 and Section 95 of the Environment
Act 1995. Fined £4,500.
