 |
| Related Articles |
|
|
Today (Monday 18 July 2011) at Walsall Magistrates’ Court, Greenstar Environmental Limited pleaded guilty to a charge under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Waste Packaging) Regulations.
The court fined Greenstar Environmental Limited of Westgate, Aldridge in the West Midlands £3,500 with £4,864.20 in costs and £15 victim surcharge.
The charges against Greenstar Environmental Limited were brought by the Environment Agency under Regulation 23(2) and 40(4) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Waste Packaging) Regulations 2007 (as amended).
Greenstar Environmental Limited operates a waste management facility and was an accredited exporter of packaging waste in 2009 and 2010. They applied to be an accredited exporter of packaging waste in May 2009 to export plastic packaging waste to France for reprocessing. The accreditation was granted in July 2009.
On 15 February 2010, during a routine compliance monitoring audit, the Environment Agency discovered that Greenstar Environmental Limited had exported 860 tonnes of plastic packaging waste to a company in China, for which it had not sought approval as part of its accreditation. Greenstar was unable to prove that the waste had arrived at its intended destination, or that the site it had gone to operated under broadly equivalent standards to those found in the EU. This meant that it was not possible to verify whether the waste ever arrived at its intended destination, or if it was treated in an environmentally acceptable manner, without harm to human health or the environment.
During an interview under caution on 9 June 2010 the company confirmed they were aware of the condition to have prior approval for any overseas reprocessors in non-OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries to which it sent packaging waste, and against which it intended to issue ePackaging Waste Export Recovery Notes (ePERN). The company said that it was an oversight on its part, that this had not been done. The company has extensive experience in waste management across the UK, and also runs a packaging compliance scheme to advise on compliance with the Regulations.
Speaking after the case at Walsall Magistrates Court, an Environment Agency Officer said: “This is an unusual prosecution for us, in that it relates to an accredited exporter rather than a producer of packaging waste. We cannot say whether the waste was treated appropriately, without harm to the environment or human health, because the company could not provide any evidence of the environmental standards to which the Chinese site was operating. We hope this case will prove a deterrent to others who send packaging waste overseas without ensuring that the overseas site is operating without risk to the environment or health. We will not hesitate to prosecute when circumstances warrant it.”
In mitigation, solicitor for Greenstar said the offence was an ‘oversight’ and would not be repeated now that the company was owned by a large waste management company who have more stringent controls in place. He told the Court that Greenstar had no prior history of offending and that a third party exporter, who bought the packaging prior to it leaving the port, had also been involved in arranging for the packaging to reach its destination.
