Under the regulations, obligated packaging businesses or their compliance schemes must normally purchase enough packaging waste recovery notes (PRNs) to pay for their responsibility of meeting UK recovery and recycling targets each year.
” SEPA can confirm that of the four SEPA registered compliance schemes, Wastepak and Valpak have, based on records, returns and recent audits, fulfilled their recovery and recycling obligations for 2004.“
– SEPA
PRNs are issued by reprocessors against tonnage of packaging waste recovered or recycled. By purchasing them, packaging producers provide revenue to grow UK recovery to ultimately reach targets under the European Packaging Directive.
There are four compliance schemes registered with Scottish regulator SEPA, and the regulator has confirmed that compliance schemes Valpak and Wastepack have purchased sufficient PRNs to meet their obligations.
However, SEPA has said the remaining two schemes registered with SEPA – Compliance Link and Recycle-Pak – “have not presented valid evidence of recovery”.
Reasonable steps
This does not mean the schemes have failed to comply for the year 2004 – Compliance Link and Recycle-Pak are claiming that they have taken “reasonable steps” to purchase the PRNs they needed. This is a valid approach under the current packaging regulations, in instances where unforeseen circumstances meant sufficient PRNs were not available for the schemes to purchase.
In a statement to letsrecycle.com, a spokesperson for SEPA said: “SEPA can confirm that of the four SEPA registered compliance schemes, Wastepak and Valpak have, based on records, returns and recent audits, fulfilled their recovery and recycling obligations for 2004.
“The other two schemes have not presented valid evidence of recovery and recycling to the full amount of their obligation and are currently being assessed,” SEPA said.
Compliance Link
Compliance Link was unable to comment on whether its claim for “reasonable steps” is likely to be accepted by SEPA, as negotiations are yet to be completed.
However, scheme manager Edward Cooke explained that he had purchased sufficient PRNs to meet the 2004 obligations of his members. The difficulty was that some of the plastic PRNs had been sourced from Penniston Plastics, a reprocessor that was suspended from accreditation late in 2003.
” We purchased PRNs from a reprocessor that at the time was on the SEPA website as an accredited reprocessor. “
– Edward Cooke, Compliance Link
At the time Mr Cooke's scheme purchased Penniston PRNs – prior to March 15, 2004 – he said Penniston had still been stated on SEPA's website as a fully accredited reprocessor.
On March 15, 2004, the regulators realised many in the compliance market did not know Penniston had been suspended, and alerted obligated parties to the situation (see letsrecycle.com story). Following this, the Environment Agency said it would accept Penniston PRNs if they were bought in good faith before March 15, 2004. But Mr Cooke said SEPA had taken a different view from the Environment Agency on this.
“SEPA and the Environment Agency have different views on what constitutes a valid PRN,” Mr Cooke said. “The Environment Agency accepted Peniston Plastics PRNs that were purchased in good faith before March 15, 2004. SEPA said they wanted to wait to the end of the year to make a decision.
“We have tried to get SEPA to make a decision for over a year now, and our solicitors have been in contact with SEPA. We purchased PRNs from a reprocessor that at the time was on the SEPA website as an accredited reprocessor.
“If they had told us on March 15 that they would not accept the PRNs, then we could have done something about it,” Mr Cooke added.
Recycle-Pak
David Duggan of Recycle-Pak declined to comment on the issue while negotiations were yet to be completed, except to confirm that he had been unable to purchase a “small” number of aluminium PRNs.
| Related links: |
It is thought that while aluminium reprocessors believe there were enough PRNs to go around in 2004, some compliance schemes may have purchased excess aluminium PRNs. These were not in plentiful supply, but may have been used towards obligated parties' general recycling obligations rather than their material-specific aluminium recycling obligations.
The Environment Agency has been unable to comment on whether schemes or obligated businesses in England are claiming “reasonable steps” concerning the 2004 compliance year.
Register for free to comment