Fine For SITA Tyre Recycling Ltd After Environmental Offences

On January 24, at Wolverhampton Magistrates Court, SITA Tyre Recycling pleaded guilty to five environmental offences in a prosecution brought by the Environment Agency (EA). The company was fined a total of £28,500 and ordered to pay costs of £15,392.50.

The SITA complex (formerly Elm Energy & Recycling) at Ettingshall was purpose-designed to burn whole tyres to produce electricity. Unfortunately, it never performed according to specification and, after numerous difficulties, the plant was acquired by SITA towards the end of 1998. Despite considerable investment, it was decided to close the plant in June last year for refurbishment.

This, investigations showed, would cost far more than was first estimated and the plant has remained closed and is up for sale. The first of the five offences happened in January 2000 and concerned a fire which took place, due to the inadequate maintenance of a safety device and failure to follow SITA’s own procedures for ensuring that this worked effectively. The incident resulted in the EA serving a Prohibition Notice.

Three further offences related to breaches of the limit of the amount of dust and particulate matter which could be released. These were caused by a failed filter bag and the EA said that this was clearly indicated by SITA’s own monitoring equipment, but the company failed to respond. Offence number five concerned the illegal storage of waste tyres on another local site towards the end of 1999.

Ten HGV trailers, carrying around 10,000 tyres from SITA’s site, were discovered on a site which did not have a waste management licence. The EA had some harsh words to say about SITA, calling the offences “Symptomatic of SITA’s failure to maintain proper standards of operation at the Ettingshall site.” Planning Manager Dr.

David Hudson went on: “The EA expects companies who operate waste burning plants to adhere to our high standards of operation and to report problems to us as they occur. We are pleased to see that the court has taken such a firm line in this case.”.