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.