Environmental lawBy Paul Sheridan, CMS Cameron McKenna, LondonRecent waste casesWaste legislation has consistently generated a considerable volume of legal proceedings.

The majority of these tend to be criminal prosecutions relating to unlawful depositing of waste and/or breach of the waste management licenses.

Most of these tend to result in guilty pleas and the quantum of the fines can vary considerably, although most tend to be at the lower end of the scale.

A recent example (November 2000) of a higher fine was that imposed on Spaldings Potatoes Ltd.

It admitted permitting the deposit of liquid effluent (containing high concentrations of pesticides) from its factory on to a farmer's land and failing to comply with the duty of care as respects waste (Sections 33 and 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990).

The company was fined 22,000 and ordered to pay 4,710 costs.

Enforcement under the packaging and packaging waste legislation has been evident over recent months.

There have been several prosecutions of small enterprises which have failed to register in accordance with the legislation and prosecutions of other companies which have failed to meet their recovery/recycling obligations.

So for instance in November 2000 Shepherd Neane admitted a twofold failure to comply with its obligations.

It had stipulated that its recovery/recycling target for the year in question was 710 tonnes.

This figure was too low, and in any event it could only evidence recovery of 482 tonnes.

The company was fined 4,000 and ordered to pay costs of 977.The packaging and packaging waste legislation also gave rise to significant civil proceedings in the form of a judicial review brought by Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd (MPR) against the Environment Agency (September and November 2000).

MPR recycles metals to produce what is commonly termed 'furnace feed'.

Furnace feed is used by metal manufacturers to produce new ingots, sheets, coils and the like in steel or aluminium, etcetera.

In an earlier case brought by MPR against the Environment Agency in 1998 the court held that processed scrap metal that could be used as furnace feed without any further processing lost its classification as waste and could be classified as a raw material.

In the light of that decision MPR sought from the Environment Agency accreditation as a reprocessor of waste packaging materials (since packaging waste ceased to be waste following MPR's processing, MPR should be the reprocessor).

Such accreditation would enable MPR to issue what are known as packaging recovery notes (PRNs).

These are potentially a valuable commodity as they can be sold to obligated companies as evidence of compliance with the packaging recycling/recovery obligations (so, for instance, in the example given above Shepherd Neane produced PRNs for only 482 tonnes whereas PRNs for a much greater tonnage were required).

The Environment Agency tends to accredit the steel or aluminium etc manufacturer as reprocessor rather than the scrap metal recycler.

It turned down the application by MPR.

In the judicial review proceedings the Environment Agency argued that the judge's decision in the1998 MPR case was not correct.

The judicial review gave rise to interesting issues as to whether there were potential conflicts in the interpretation and application of terminology appearing in EU Waste Framework Directive and the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive.

As a result the judge referred the matter to the European Court of Justice.

MPR applied to the court for an order that in the interim it be accredited as a reprocessor so that it could issue PRNs.

The judge refused to grant that order.November 2000 also saw what is thought to be the first successful prosecution under the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994.

In this case Sterling Lloyd Contracts Ltd pleaded guilty to importing from Sweden drums of flammable solvent waste without the required prior notification to the UK and Swedish competent authorities and without the appropriate accompanying documentation and financial provision.

There was also considerable criticism over the handling and labelling of the waste in question.

The company pleaded guilty to a charge of importing the waste without prior notification to the competent authorities.

It was fined 1,500 and ordered to pay 4,594.80 costs.The incineration of waste is an issue that generates considerable political and social debate.

That debate is only likely to increase in the UK following the passing of the 1999 EU Landfill Directive which is causing increased demand for incineration in this country.

Interestingly in December 2000, Italian magistrates ordered the closure of an energy from waste incinerator at Scarlino in Tuscany following long-running political and legal wrangles concerning the extent of authorisation of that incinerator and the adequacy of its monitoring.

It would not be surprising if the details of this Italian case are looked at carefully by all sides to consider what lessons can be learnt.