Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Biffa Waste Services is the third largest waste management company operating in the UK—it is the largest wholly British owned waste management company and can justifiably claim to be the most diverse in terms of its spread of interest in industrial/commercial and domestic collection, landfill, liquid waste streams and specialist hazardous waste management systems. The company has a U.K. turnover in the region of £280 million at a current annualised rate and is also in the top three waste management companies operating in Belgium. We are a wholly owned subsidiary of Severn Trent Plc—ranked in the FT 100. As such we can claim to be a full environmental services management operation with experience in mainland Europe as well as the UK. As a company we have around 50 operating centres which are subject to Environment Agency supervision in the form of landfill sites (28), special and hazardous liquid waste treatment centres (3) and other locations where waste materials are stored, transferred or sorted. These are located throughout England, Wales and Scotland. We are thus in a good position to evaluate their overall performance in relation to the waste industry.

  Our observations are made on the basis of a "credit/debit" approach.

THE CREDIT SIDE

  (i)  There should be no doubt that the formation of a single integrated regulatory body covering air, ground and water in the UK was a bold and positive step. Environmental impacts in specific large single locations or throughout single companies with multi operating sties could be "switched" between air, ground and water and needed to be viewed in an holistic fashion. The Environment Agency has accelerated this focused approach within industry, albeit with certain geographic inconsistencies (q.v.).

  (ii)  Similarly the Agency has fostered a "one stop shop" approach to environmental issues which have stimulated recruitment policies and has made environmental regulation an attractive, structured career development area.

  (iii)  There is clear evidence that at least in some regions and sub regions operational managers have sought to develop effective round-tabling groups to evaluate policy developments and discuss in advance the future direction of regulatory initiatives.

  (v)  The Agency regions have sought to develop integrated policy roll-outs particularly in respect of waste minimisation initiatives working in conjunction with regional business clubs and similar organisations.

  (v)  We welcome the Agency's move to an OPRA (Operator Pollution & Risk Assessment) approach to bring a qualitative based system to bear in identifying high risk material streams and pollution sources. These initiatives are at an early stage and we would have welcomed wider consultation but nevertheless the move is in the right direction.

  (vi)  By developing regionally based action groups around particular areas of policy the Agency has sought to develop and improve technical competence and develop cross regional standardisation in policy implementation. In the solid waste management area these efforts have had limited benefit, however, as a consequence of staff turnover and drop out rates. Doubt must also be expressed with regard to how far best practice recommendations are adopted in the face of strong regional autonomy at local enforcement level.

  (vii)  We welcome the initiatives to develop work sharing arrangements and job swaps between Agency personnel and the waste sector. Subject to caveats with regard to transparency and conflicts of interest such initiatives can only foster a spirit of mutual understanding on the need for trust and understanding when implementing policy at operational level.

  (viii)  In a number of areas the Agency has expressed a willingness to act as a joint sponsor of various Landfill Tax initiatives where it's own funding base has otherwise prevented it from undertaking research or investigative work in a specific area. We believe there is scope to involve the Agency on a wider basis in respect of funding projects developed under the Landfill Tax Environmental Bodies initiative—particularly in respect of education, research and development and the natural environment.

ON THE DEBIT SIDE .....

  (i)  The personnel profile of the existing Agency has shifted in terms of experience and competence compared to 1995. For a variety of reasons ex local authority staff in the waste enforcement areas have retired or left whilst many well qualified ex HMIP personnel have become consultants. We feel that Agency staff operate in a framework of performance related incentives which attach more importance to quantity rather than quality of work done. This so called "tick sheet" mentality provides little substance for a genuinely strategic approach to matters of practical environmental impact—particularly in respect of landfill operations. Such a view—reinforced by the large number of new graduates in the regulatory role with little practical experience of hands on management in our area—might be resolved by a more strategic approach to job exchanges and placement.

  The competence of Environment Agency resources, particularly in waste management regulation, is a growing concern, particularly as the industry is becoming increasingly technically complex. Inexperienced officers are becoming more commonplace and internal reorganisations lead to a worrying trend of transfers across technical disciplines: increasingly, waste regulation is being performed by former National Rivers Authority staff who have little waste management experience.

  This inevitably leads to a dilution of essential skills and experience and poorer regulation. This is particularly incongruous at a time when the industry is required in law to demonstrate that it has "technical competence". Recent enquiries have indicated, that there appear to be no minimum qualifications or experience for Environment Agency Officers issued with a warrant card or for staff given responsibility for processing waste management licence applications. Both of these tasks account for the lowest technical tier of the Agency, are both customer facing, and undertake a task of considerable importance.

  At a number of sites OPRA inspections are being undertaken by Officers of the Environment Agency. Contrary to guidance, copies of inspection reports are not being provided to the operator but are being forwarded up to four weeks later. It is our view that the forms are being completed off site under the supervision of a more experienced Officer.

  The Agency's focus on efficiency improvements has resulted in repeated boundary changes between Areas and Regions. In some cases our sites have been allocated to three different Agency offices, and consequently different Agency staff, in the space of 12 months. From our perspective this is highly disruptive and all too often leads to a serious loss of regulatory continuity, consistency and proficiency.

  Whislt efficiency improvements are a characteristic of modern business, we would question the role of Government in relation to the manner in which tasks are allocated to the Environment Agency and whether these are to be delivered within existing funding or with additional income. The role of the Environment Agency has been extended significantly compared to the three former regulatory bodies. Of note is the Packaging Waste Directive and shortly IPPC and the Landfill Directive. It is unclear how the Environment Agency will discharge these obligations without additional resources.

  It is becoming increasingly clear that the pressure of the role is taking a toll. There is evidence of rising levels of illness and stress related absences leading inevitably to further delays. Coupled with flexible working and uncoordinated cover for leave creates an organisation that is increasingly unable to demonstrate continuity.

  (ii)  The activity upon which the Environment Agency exert their most significant regulatory impact is in relation to the development of new waste management facilities. The waste management industry is undergoing dramatic change and the provision of new facilities is critical to the commercial success of business and the delivery of sustainable waste management, recycling targets and higher waste hierarchy options. There is little evidence of a more holistic attitude or the acquisition of new skills relative to new technologies. This approach to emerging waste management systems does not compare favourably with the attitude of Officers from the former HMIP who demonstrate a far more practical and pragmatic approach.

  A reflection of (i) is the substantial backlog of waste management license applications and working plan amendments. The extent and wide ranging nature of these delays reported across our sector is indicative of a lack in strategic thinking and sensible forward resource planning in the Agency at national level.

  The Government's Better Regulation Guide includes a Policy which requires the setting of clear standards, service levels and the performance to be expected, helpfulness (including a courteous and efficient service), a requirement that applications should be dealt with efficiently and promptly, complaints procedures that are effective and timely, proportionality and consistency.

  The Agency are statutory consultees on planning applications. There is clear evidence from the Agency's responses that matters which are capable of being dealt with effectively under other legislation are being transferred to planning authorities leading to duplication of controls.

  A planning application for a landfill site in Southern Region was met with an objection until land drainage issues had been addressed. This was despite the fact that the development could not proceed without a Land Drainage consent.

  There is also evidence that responses are being prepared by inexperienced officers working in the absence of supervision.

  A planning application for a landfill site led to an Agency response to the planning authority expressing concern that issues raised in the Eurohazcon Study[7] had not been dealt with in the application, that the risk assessment model used was flawed (despite being previously agreed with the Agency), and that the proposed restoration scheme to woodland was inappropriate (despite planning approval). Despite the inaccurate and inappropriate nature of the response the local Area Office would not withdraw the comments and consequently detailed responses to the planning authority were required to address these issues leading to considerable delay.

  In the Environment Agency's first "Customer Charter" a commitment was given to process waste management licence applications within the statutory period; 4 months for new applications and 2 months for modifications. In the revised "Charter" the Agency state "We will make decisions on applications for waste licences within four months of receiving a fully filled-in application and all supporting information". This has led to an increasing incidence of Agency staff refusing to register applications until they are deemed complete which is contrary to the guidance contained in Circular 11/94[8]. Such an approach cannot provide any valid measure of the Agency's regulatory performance in this key area.

  In early 1998, three identical applications were submitted for material recycling facilities in three Areas in Midlands Region. Two applications were registered immediately but the third Agency Area refused to register the application claiming that it contained inadequate supporting information.

  In our experience, the processing of applications for and modifications of waste management licences are taking the Environment Agency longer than the former waste regulation authorities and there is no evidence that the situation will improve in the short term. Increases in application fees of 15 per cent for 1999-2000 were therefore a particularly bitter pill to swallow.

  An application for a modification to a waste management licence was not acknowledged by the Agency until after the expiry of the statutory determination period despite banking the application fee.

  In the processing of applications the Agency has sought to provide a single point of contact for applicants. However, the internal consultation process often involved 6-7 individuals from various disciplines who are required to comment on the technical content of the application. The reliance upon committee decisions and the removal of individual decision making powers introduces considerable bureaucracy, (about which warnings have been sounded by Government), and delay.

  Despite the requirements in the "Library of Licence Conditions" that an audit trail of decisions on an application is maintained by the Environment Agency, internal consultees are rarely required to provide technical justification of their comments. When face to face discussions do take place it is not unusual to find that technical information has been misinterpreted or misunderstood and Agency opinions cannot be supported. All too often, Agency officers cite a lack of prioritisation, resources, guidance and individual decision making powers. When all of these factors come together applicants are left facing considerable delay and frustration.

  An application made for a landfill site in Thames Region was transferred to Anglian Region after a risk assessment to an agreed specification had been carried out and approved. Anglian Region failed to progress the application for 6 months after transfer. Following a formal complaint, the Agency overturned the earlier decision on the risk assessment. Following further work, including field work and risk modelling, a further delay of 2 months was experienced despite assurances being given. Another complaint was made and led to the Agency initially rejecting the engineering design, then agreeing the risk assessment but insisting on a change to the engineering design to something they considered was "more robust". The delays resulted in lost revenue of over £1.5m and additional engineering costs of £0.5m.

  Improvements have resulted from the introduction of the "Library of Licence Conditions" but key supporting guidance is absent. Of particular note, despite implementation of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations on 1 May 1994, there is still no final published guidance from the Environment Agency on the interpretation of Regulation 15. The Agency have produced three internal guidance documents, but refused to consult industry on the first two. There is now clear evidence that despite an interpretation of the requirements, individual officers are actively imposing their own stricter interpretation of the Regulations and have registered objections to planning applications citing that the proposed development is contrary to Regulation 15 when their own guidance clearly indicates otherwise. Further delays and costs are inevitably incurred by the applicant.

  We have numerous specific examples we could disclose to the Committee if called upon to do so.

  (iii)  Approximately 12 months ago the Environment Agency published its new "Enforcement and Prosecution Policy". This reflects much in the Government's "Better Regulation Guide" and reiterates the need for proportionality, consistency, targeting and transparency. However, to demonstrate effectiveness, the Environment Agency rely upon their prosecution record and in introducing the revised policy reminded readers "that in the first 33 months of the Agency more than 1,000 companies or individuals were successfully prosecuted—and 11 people jailed".

  It is regrettable that the Agency has interpreted strength in regulation as a resort to "name and shame" strategies and league table approaches which seek to pillory specific industrial and commercial polluters on the basis that they are trying to exploit the environment on the cheap. The basis on which the Agency have drawn up their halls of shame appears arbitrary and is based on randomly selected time periods. The policy smacks of an immature approach designed to appeal to tabloid journalists and does not reflect any firm scientific basis using published criteria aimed at exposing organisations which have a genuine cynical disregard for pollution issues. Using fines based yardsticks is remarkably crude when one considers that the same organisation has laid the foundation for an OPRA, risk assessment based approach elsewhere in it's operations. We can only interpret the Agency's strategy in this area as one which seeks cheap publicity at the expense of scientific credibility.

  It is also arguable that the Environment Agency is failing to achieve consistency across regulatory activities. New heights for pollution fines were reached with the successful prosecution of the Milford Haven Port Authority on 15 January 1999 under the Water Resources Act 1991. A fine of £4 million was imposed in addition to clean-up costs of £60 million and a legal bill of £1.7 milion. Despite the unprecedented scale of the pollution incident, no individual was prosecuted or barred from trading.

  (iv)  Whilst the Agency's move to OPRA assessment systems is a good one we are disappointed that the Agency has yet to come clean on the extent to which it will take independently adopted external accreditation systems (particular EMAS) into account when arriving at it's evaluation of a particular operation. As a company we have invested significant sums of money in ISO14001 and EMAS accreditation systems but it remains the case that we have yet to see any substantive benefit in terms of more realistic approaches.

  The Environment Agency have stated "we would like everyone we regulate to volunteer to comply with the law[9]" but show no evidence to date of a "light touch" when their regulatory procedures provide examples. The more forward thinking in the Environment Agency seek to encourage industry to adopt ISO14000 and EMAS registered environmental management systems but in practice there is only "stick" and no "carrot".

  Our landfill operation at Patteson Court, Redhill is the only landfill operated in accordance with the EC Eco-management and Audit Scheme. The site has been registered under the Scheme since August 1996 but there has been no alteration to the Agency's regulatory regime at the site.

  (v)  The Agency has appeared to move slowly in a number of strategic management areas where action early in its history would have given a far clearer framework for action to companies in the waste sector or significant individual waste generators. Nowhere is this more evident than on the issue of data collection and capture. It was left to Friends of the Earth to produce their Factory Watch—a national overview of the pollution load created by industrial processes in the UK. Information in the public domain could quite easily be more proactively managed by the Agency and presented on a scientific basis to an interested national audience. Biffa spent around £100,000 of its own money on producing "Great Britain plc: The Environmental Balance Sheet"—a national overview of pollution burdens and resource consumption. The Agency has now begun to grasp this nettle but we believe the message should have been adopted at strategic level much earlier. We have long campaigned for the Agency to develop a comprehensive framework of information data capture and management within an agreed set of information technology communications protocols so that national flows of material—hazardous and non hazardous—could be collated with ease and speed by a central agency. All the major waste management companies in the UK currently collate such data by internally driven standards (both for solid and liquid waste flows) and a national framework is long overdue. Clearly there would need to be safeguards with regard to commercial confidentiality but we see no reason why the Agency should not have been far more proactive in developing an on-line database management system. This data should also be freely available for evaluation at county level by interested external parties—indeed much of it should be freely available on the Internet. As we have already commented—a weak regulator exposes our industry to accusations from outside of complacency and poor management. We have no interest in fostering such a view.

  (vi)  Over the years we have also invested considerable time and expense in developing standard licence clauses for contractual agreements/consent frameworks on a "one stop shop" basis for all out sites relating to such matters as operation, finance and other standard issues. Despite achieving reasonable agreement at national level we then find that individual regions seek to introduce their own autonomous variations thus making the whole process pointless. This is an inevitable effect of the matrix management structure the Agency appear to operate within.

  The waste management licences for the landfill sites we operate require us to provide environmental data at intervals to the Environment Agency. This data provides valuable information on the environmental performance of each site. However, despite published guidance (albeit Waste Management Paper 26D on monitoring appears to have sunk without trace), there is an almost total absence of standardisation of reporting requirements, and of many other facets of the individual operations. This arises largely from the historic legacy of waste management licences being drafted, in isolation, by the former 83 waste regulation authorities. Over 3 years on we should be doing better. At one site we are required to sample groundwater at monthly intervals following purging and using pumped sampling equipment, to undertake analyses in accordance with specified techniques and detection levels at an accredited laboratory and to provide an interpretation at 3 monthly intervals. At a second site we are permitted to obtain samples at 3 monthly intervals with no control over the sampling techniques, analytical methods or detection levels and there is no requirement for interpretation.

  The environmental data that we provide for the Environment Agency is usually accompanied by an annual (or more frequent) interpretation report. Considerable work (and cost) goes into the provision of this data and information. However, the norm is that it rarely receives more than scant attention, may be ignored, or the data subjected to inexperienced evaluation.

  Monitoring of an existing landfill site indicated the presence of low levels of contamination in the groundwater, including upstream of the site. The site had been subject to a detailed site investigation, formal risk assessment and the hydrogeology was well characterised. The presence of the contamination was recorded on an Environment Agency site inspection report which was then placed on the public register. Due to public interest, allegations were made in the press including requests from politicians that Biffa be prosecuted and the site closed. The Agency were requested to provide their interpretation of the data; our interpretation is that the contamination was to historic land use upstream of the landfill. The Agency subsequently claimed that because the hydrogeology was complex they could not interpret the data and commissioned consultants to prepare a report. Their report supported our interpretation but by this time considerable local harm had been caused.

  Performance targets exist for some monitored parameters; (leachate depths, gas levels in boreholes, noise, dust levels etc). These are rarely based upon sound science or an assessment of risk, the Agency preferring to resist change and place rather more emphasis on a traditional "elements" approach to regulatory control.

  At a site in the North West Region we were requested to undertake a risk assessment for methane migration. However, regardless of the outcome control levels would remain at the levels specified in Waste Management Paper 27[10].

  (vii)  A House of Lords recommendation that the Executive Board of the Agency appoint a representative from the waste industry has been completely ignored and—as far as we are aware—not even received the courtesy of a formal response.

  (viii)  The Agency is now committing substantial resources to a national waste analysis on a "bottom up" approach driven by surveys rather than discussing with major waste companies how the information database we already possess— at disposal and collection points—can do this work electronically. Instead they appear to have opted for a bureaucratic process relying on responses to waste surveys. The latter tend to be inaccurate and they have to be undertaken indefinitely because the composition of waste material streams alters in response to waste minimisation and product design decisions occurring with intense frequency further up sectoral supply chains.

  (ix)  There are repeated examples of cases where the Agency seeks to consult with its various constituencies in industry and commerce but—at various points in the consultation process—it then issues policies as an edict, almost out of the blue, without sharing their final proposals with consultees. Examples include the extended public consultation process on "difficult" planning issues where the Agency appears to be taking onto its shoulders responsibilities which cut across established democratic procedures involving local government. A second example is related to our experience with landfill site visit assessments where proactive dialogue was suddenly terminated and internal policy frameworks were issued to enforcement officers on a "take it or leave it" basis.

  (x)  Examples of geographic variations of interpretation in standardised policies are legion throughout our industry. Policy formulation which emphasizes round-tabling approaches and involvement are suddenly overturned and subjected to a "command-control" approach but without the strict internal enforcement disciplines and standardised procedures that one associates with such management styles, best typified by those operating (for all the right reasons) in the Armed Forces.

  (xi)  The Agency appears to have no clear understanding of its role in the context of wider environmental strategy. There appears little willingness to become involved in issues impacting on our area two-three years ahead (for instance in relation to the Landfill Directive and various Producer Responsibility initiatives in specific areas such as electronics, automotive, etc). By way of example we can cite cases where the regional enforcement staff of the Agency appear to be taking a considerably laxer approach to the landfill of tyres in advance of the forthcoming landfill ban on tyres.

  We cannot understand why the Agency does not introduce a firmer policy line on outright bans on these substances or at least accelerate dialogue on how they can be diverted. We can only assume that they are pursuing a line of least defence—knowing that there are many operators in the landfill area that are keen to continue taking these materials for reasons of short term gain against what we regard as clear evidence that their exclusion from landfill is nothing but correct. It is for this reason that we unilaterally banned a range of materials over the last 10-15 years, even though our site licence conditions allow us to accept them (fluorescent lamps, whole tyres (except in extremely limited quantities for drainage in line with Environment Agency guidance) and hazardous waste liquids are but three examples). We might even be cynical and suggest they are trying to stem the substantial stockpiling of tyres in ex Defence establishments by companies which display less balance sheet strength than the landfill sector.

  (xii)  We look forward in the Environment Agency's Annual Report and Accounts to a far greater level of transparency in respect of it's charging structures, geographically by industry sector and by enforcement regime. At the moment we believe the Agency does not always offer best value in terms of costs to our sector in areas such as special waste and other licensing fees.

  (xiii)  Many waste management licences were issued several years ago; some over 10 years ago. Inevitably, standards change over time and this creates cost advantage for some operators and therefore market distortions. Despite this, the Environment Agency have made it quite clear that there are no plans to undertake a thorough review in order to bring about greater consistency and thereby ensure competition on level terms. Perpetuation of this variability flies in the face of the Government's "Better Regulation Guide", the Environment Agency's enforcement policy, and any commitment to ensure equity for business.

SUMMARY

  The Agency encourages what we regard as short term, technically flawed arguments on the one hand and then uses the "name and shame" approach where it suits its own publicity objectives. Where do we stand? Such lack of strategic interest is to be regretted. There is considerable scope for the emergence of a nationally focused body with the ability to consider the planning and licensing implications of current predictable future trends for end life resource management across the whole spectrum of burial, incineration and recycling. The Agency have a key part to play in that process but—thus far—there is little publicly available evidence that they wish to take the process forward formally with bodies such as the Regional Development Agencies. Considerable scope exists for the Agency to facilitate sectoral voluntary agreements—particularly where licensing issues are a key element in any "reverse logistics" recovery plan in particular industries (automotive, electrical and electronics for example). A clear exception is in Scotland where SEPA have been far more proactive in this area and are likely to develop an integrated framework more quickly as a result.

  SEPA also gives the impression of being far more pragmatic in it's approach and although we have little direct experience on the ground they take a more constructive approach in respect of cost benefit evaluation.

  Examination of the Agency web site merely confirms for us the underlying defensive approach they adopt—typified by overemphasis on their prowess in prosecution and a lack of any substantive commitment to work in a progressive, proactive manner with the corporate sector—especially those seeking to drive best practice.

8   Department of the Environment Circular 11/94, Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part II, Waste management Licensing, The Framework Directive on Waste, April 1994. Back

9   Environment Agency "Firm but fair" Environment Action Issue 17, December 1998. Back

10   Department of the Environment, Waste Management Paper No. 27 "Landfill Gas" 1991. Back