-Banks DIH hopes to do more shredding
By Johann Earle
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says its laws should ensure that importers and manufacturers of beverages packaged in plastic bottles have some responsibility for collection, treatment and disposal of empty bottles after consumption of their contents.
But the agency is yet to rigorously enforce its laws, and efforts are spent encouraging persons to reduce the amount of plastic used in packaging and to opt for bio-degradable packaging.
Mayor of Georgetown Hamilton Green said recently that he wanted the City to draw down from at least 25 per cent of the environmental tax collected so that he could pay for the clean-up of the plastic waste.
The Customs Act (1952 revised 1995) states: “(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in any other written law, there shall be raised, levied and collected a tax in this section referred to as an environmental tax, at the rate of ten dollars on every unit of non-refundable metal, plastic, glass or cardboard of any alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverage imported into Guyana and every importer of such beverage shall pay tax to the Comptroller of Customs and Excise at the same time when any customs duties are paid.”
But the EPA said that it doesn’t know how the Environmental Tax collected by Government on the importation or manufacture of plastic bottled soft drinks is used, implying that the tax is not filtered down to the agency.
Sharifah Razack of the EPA’s Education, Information and Training Division said that overall responsibility for solid waste falls within the ambit of the Local Government Ministry, with the Regional Democratic Councils (RDCs) and Municipalities being required to implement systems for the collection and disposal of solid waste.
“To assist the Ministry with this responsibility the EPA has provided guidelines on criteria for selecting landfill sites and assessed and approved fifteen (15) sites identified by various RDCs as suitable for landfills. It must be noted however, that the construction of a landfill is a separate process which requires the EPA approval,” she said.
Razack said that currently, the EPA is collaborating with the Ministry of Local Government in implementing an anti-littering programme. “Through this programme the Neighbourhood Democratic Councils (NDCs) are expected to provide information to the EPA on defaulting companies, businesses and individuals. The EPA could prosecute defaulters under its legislation,” she said.
She said that the other EPA initiatives on plastics include the coordination of a workshop/seminar for private sector entities, including Banks DIH Limited and Demerara Distillers Limited to present examples of recycling initiatives through case studies in Latin America and the Caribbean. This activity was held at the Tower Hotel in 2005 and was supported by the UNDP, UNICEF and PAHO.
Razack said too that following the workshop, the EPA launched a nation-wide competition for project proposals to recycle PET bottle waste at community and industry levels. “However, there was low participation particularly in the industrial category,” she said.
The EPA, she said, conducts a series of public awareness events on an ongoing basis through its outreach activities which include presentations and information material.
Razack said that the EPA is aware of two companies currently doing plastic shredding for shipment overseas. These are Envirotec Recycling which she says currently shreds and exports defective and post industrial PET waste from Banks DIH and Demerara Distillers Ltd; and C&R Enterprises situated on the West Bank Demerara which purchases, sheds and exports PET waste.
But on investigation, this newspaper found out that since the owner of the business, Chandra Salandy died two years ago, the business fell upon hard times and now concentrates on the scrap metal trade.
As to some of the laws governing plastic waste, Razack pointed this newspaper to Section (34) (1) of the EPA Act which states: “Any person who throws down, abandons drops or otherwise deposits or leaves anything in any manner whatsoever in circumstances as to cause, or contribute to, or tend to litter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to the penalties prescribed under paragraph (a) of the Fifth Schedule.” The penalty under paragraph (a) of the Fifth Schedule is a fine of not less than $10,000 or more than $50,000.
Part 7, (34) (1) (b) of the very Act states: “Any person responsible for any function which results in any litter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to the penalties prescribed under paragraph (b) of the Fifth Schedule.” The penalty under paragraph (a) of the Fifth Schedule is a fine of not less than $30,000 or more than $80,000.
Company official of Banks DIH Limited Henry Merchant said that his company hopes to expand its in-house shredding which has been ongoing since 2005. He said that the company has plans to purchase more shredding machines. He added that Banks collected between 13 per cent and 18 per cent of the bottles it generated and put into the market and the company hopes to increase this amount.
He that even though the company recognises the dangers of the PET bottles, the company is phasing out its glass bottle line.
But he said that the company is aware of the research and development work being done to come up with biodegradable alternatives to PET bottles but he said that the cost of these alternatives is unattractive. Further, he said that such products couldn’t yet stand up to the rigors of the industry and were unreliable.
Efforts by Stabroek News to reach senior company official at DDL, Loris Nathoo for a comment on that company’s PET bottle recovery and recycling efforts proved futile.
