July 1, 2016 by Steve Eminton

Export charges to be heard in Caernarfon court

Charges relating to the export of waste materials are due to be heard next February at Caernarfon Crown Court, Wales, in an action brought by Natural Resources Wales against UPM Kymmene (UK) Ltd, Parry & Evans Ltd, Stephen Evans and Peter Dyer.

Court papers for the indictment list 17 Counts in the action by the regulator Natural Resources Wales, which has a role similar to the Environment Agency in England. The case is scheduled to be heard at Caernarfon, starting on 20 February 2017 and is expected to last for three weeks.

The case relates to 17 Counts brought by Natural Resources Wales

UPM Kymmene (UK) Ltd is based in north Wales where it operates a paper machine to make newsprint and also operates a materials recycling facility. Parry & Evans is a Welshpool-based family group which has been recycling paper and cardboard for over five decades.

Stephen Evans is with the Parry & Evans business. Natural Resources Wales (NRW) explained that while the indictment cites Failand Paper Services, the proceedings against this company have been discontinued as the company has gone into administration. However, the indictment will be proceeded with against Peter Dyer, the former director of Failand Paper.

UPM has told letsrecycle.com that it has put in place “a robust defence” against the charges.

In a statement issued with regard to the proceedings, Simon Walker, head of recovered paper for UPM UK, said: “UPM Shotton were made aware of alleged contamination of mixed papers following a shipment from the UK to China by a customer of UPM. UPM has fully cooperated with NRW at all times with full transparency and assistance throughout the supply chain. UPM has put in place a robust defence of the charges levelled by National Resource Wales. We have reviewed all of our procedures and our suppliers to identify any areas that needed attention or further action.”

Mr Walker continued: “We are unfortunately unable to comment on the full details of the case due to the legal proceedings in the Crown Court. On completion of the court case early in 2017, we will be able to outline the case in full.”

Pleas

Parry & Evans is also to defend the case. In a statement, the company said: “We have entered not guilty pleas and will be strenuously defending the case.”

Peter Dyer told letsrecycle.com: “I will be vigorously defending this action and I have entered a not guilty plea.”

According to the Indictment, UPM is facing five Counts, numbered Counts 1-5. Count 1 states that the particulars of the offence are that UPM “between the 1st day of March 2012 and the 30th day of April 2012, transported waste specified in Article 37(5) of Regulation No 1013/2006 of the

European Parliament and of the Council on Shipments of Waste, namely a container of mixed waste including plastics, metals, paper and cardboard, from the United Kingdom to China, a country to which the OECD Decision does not apply, the said waste being destined for recovery in China, without complying with the procedure of prior written notification and consent described in Article 35, in accordance with Article 37(5) of the said regulations.”

Permit

Count 2 is broadly similar but covers 12 containers. Count 3 refers to knowingly causing the operation of a regulated facility otherwise than as authorised by an environmental permit with reference to the facility run by Parry & Evans at the Deeside Industrial Estate, Flintshire.

Count 6 refers to Parry & Evans Ltd and the transportation of a single container of mixed waste including plastics, metals, paper and cardboard, from the United Kingdom to China, a country to which the OECD Decision does not apply, the said waste being destined for recovery in China, without complying with the procedure of prior written notification and consent described in Article 35, in accordance with Article 37(5) of the said regulations.

Count 7 also refers to Parry & Evans and involves 12 containers.

Container

Count 11 refers to Stephen Evans of Parry & Evans and the offence is: “Failing to comply with the procedure of prior written notification and consent described in Article 35 of Regulation No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Shipments of Waste, contrary to Regulations 23B and 55 of the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007.” Reference is then made to a single container of mixed waste and Count 12 refers to 12 containers.

Count 16 refers to Failand Waste Paper. The offence is stated as: “Failing to comply with the procedure of prior written notification and consent described in Article 35 of Regulation No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Shipments of Waste, contrary to Regulation 23B and 55 of the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007.”

The particulars of the offence refer to the transport of “twelve containers of mixed waste including plastics, metals, paper and cardboard, from the United Kingdom to China, a country to which the OECD Decision does not apply, the said waste being destined for recovery in China, without complying with the procedure of prior written notification and consent described in Article 35, in accordance with Article 37(5) of the said regulations, and that offence was committed with the consent or connivance, or was attributable to the neglect, of Peter Macaskill Dyer, the said Peter Macaskill Dyer being a director of the said company.”