Construction company, Sir Robert McAlpine Limited pleaded guilty to two waste management offences at Cardiff Magistrates Court last week (10 May). The company was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay £500 in prosecution costs to Environment Agency Wales who brought the prosecution.
The first charge related to an offence contrary to regulation 18 of the Special Waste Regulations 1996, where the company failed to complete proper paperwork for the movement of asbestos waste. The company was fined £1,000.
The second charge related to a breach of the company's Duty of Care obligations, under Section 34(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, where they failed to prevent the contravention of Section 33 by another. The company was fined £3,000 for this offence.
The court heard that between February and April 2004 the company was involved with site clearance works at the former Phoenix Works site at Caerphilly Road, Cardiff. The site was being developed for new houses.
Sir Robert McAlpine Limited was the principal contractor for the works and engaged the services of a local waste contractor to remove waste materials from the site. This included bonded asbestos and soils contaminated with Japanese Knotweed. Japanese Knotweed is an invasive species and under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 it is an offence to plant it or to cause it to grow.
Environment Agency Wales investigated a complaint that the waste was being taken to a site in Cardiff which was not licensed to receive such wastes.The investigation established that bonded asbestos, a special waste, had been removed from the site and that consignment notes for the movement of the waste had not been completed. The Agency is satisfied that the asbestos was eventually taken to a properly licensed site for disposal.
It further transpired that the company had not made sufficient checks with the waste contractor to ensure that their wastes were being disposed of at a properly licensed site. This included failing to asking to see a copy of an appropriate waste management licence. The company had therefore failed in their Duty of Care obligations.