SUMMARY

  1.  ESA has been a long-term proponent for creating the Environment Agency. The difficulty of assimilating 83 separate Waste Regulating Authorities was recognised. But after more than three years, the planned one-stop-shop for integrated environmental management in England and Wales in not working effectively for waste.

  2.  "The waste management industry will be the primary player in delivering the Government's strategy for waste" (A Way With Waste, June 1999). One of the key factors affecting industry's ability to have the confidence and ability to make the necessary investment in new technology, facilities and services will be the standard of service provided by the Environment Agency.

  3.  Integrated, logical, transparent, efficient, value for money and fair waste regulation is a pre-requisite for sustainable national policies.

  4.  The professionalism and commitment of many Environment Agency staff is high. However, the overall quality of service must be improved if the country is to achieve the Government's sustainable waste management objectives. There are too many inexperienced officers working within a somewhat ill-defined structure, who are unable adequately to manage waste management regulation and ESA is actively working with the Agency to seek to improve the practical knowledge of Agency staff.

  5.  Former Environment Minister Angela Eagle MP agreement with the Committee "on the importance of placing a high priority on training for Agency staff" is supported by ESA.

  6.  Failure to provide prompt responses on waste management licensing issues and inconsistent enforcement practices leave essential facilities in limbo. Industry is picking up the ever-increasing bill and environmental protection is suffering as a result.

  7.  The Agency should provide a charter with binding service delivery commitments for licence production, maintenance time scales, monitoring and inspection, and enforcement practices tailored to the needs of each paying authorisation holder.

  8.  ESA is working with the Agency on a variety of training, policy development and regulatory initiatives. This on-going consultative approach is the way forward.

WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENSING

1.   Current Status

  1.1  Delays and inefficiencies in processing waste management licences are costing industry millions of pounds and are undermining sustainable waste management—as sites stay closed or work is halted. Shaping Up—Report of the Environmental Protection Service (CBI, July 1999) estimated that 81 per cent of respondents said their waste management licence applications were not dealt with within the four month statutory limit.

  1.2  Waste management facilities controlled under the Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) regime have experienced far fewer problems. This is reflected in the CBI study, which found that 39 per cent of all respondents complained that the Agency missed the statutory time scales for processing authorisations.

  1.3  The main causes for delays are:

—  regular changes to information requirements from operators;

—  regular changes to internal Agency procedures;

—  waste inspectors who often lack training and need more understanding of the industry they are regulating; and

—  confused communication channels and lack of accountability between the licensing and enforcement teams caused by creating an artificial divide between these two key activities.

2.   ESA Recommendations for Action by the Agency

  2.1  A substantive response should be provided within one month of receiving an application or request from industry and no new issues should be introduced after two months.

  2.2  A draft licence should be supplied by the Agency at an early stage, as this would help clarify the information needed for the supporting Working Plan and indicate the level of financial provision required.

  2.3  A substantive response to proposed Working Plan amendments should be provided within 30 days or approval deemed after this time, so that industry is not left in an information and operational limbo.

  2.4  A customer charter with binding service delivery commitments tailored to the needs of each paying authorisation holder should be developed.

  2.5  Project teams, including individuals with the necessary expertise and experience, should process waste management licence applications under a recognised and empowered leader.

3.   ESA Action

  3.1  ESA is working with the Agency to develop a Library of Licence Conditions that will meet the needs of industry, the Agency and environment.

STAFF SKILLS

4.   Current Status

  4.1  ESA agrees with the Committee's that a "considerable number of the inspections which are now being carried out are being undertaken by insufficiently trained staff" (Sustainable Waste Management, July 1998). The result is often a poor standard of service.

  4.2  This problem must be urgently addressed, as sustainable development is just as much about the development of people, of job opportunities, of skills enhancement, as it is about sustainable use of environmental resources.

  4.3  The main problems are:

—  inspection officers are often not qualified to give advice to operators or to take decisions;

—  newly created separate teams for site licensing and monitoring has confused the chain of responsibility and created a barrier to learning;

—  complex matrix management is ineffective;

—  waste expertise has been diluted between the Agency's different functions, so issues may not be addressed by appropriately qualified personnel;

—  a few well-qualified individuals are unable to be effective due to pressure of work and a system that discourages empowerment.

5.   ESA Recommendations for Action by the Agency

  5.1  ESA supports the Committee's conclusion that "audits of training should continue as a high priority for the Environment Agency" and that these "should be backed by implementation of appropriate training at all levels, from new entrants to senior management" (Sustainable Waste Management Inquiry, July 1998).

  5.2  Agency recruits should undertake a comprehensive induction programme designed to meet the specific needs of their job before being given active responsibility.

  5.3  Officers monitoring sites and writing licences must be specialists familiar with both disciplines for each type of facility.

  5.4  Since 10 August 1999, waste managers have been legally required to hold specific Certificates of Technical Competence (CoTC) at NVQ level 3 or 4 to demonstrate that they are sufficiently skilled to carry out their duties, protect environmental standards, and safeguard workers and human health. Agency personnel should be required to obtain similar qualifications.

  5.5  Secondments between industry and the Agency would help to raise awareness about customer service issues and about how the industry operates in practice.

6.   ESA Action

  6.1  ESA and the Agency are piloting a programme of four one-week secondments to landfill sites for Environmental Protection Officers from the Thames Region. The aim is to promote mutual understanding, improve levels of expertise and encourage high regulatory standards. The first round of placements in spring 1999 was of real practical benefit to operators and officers and a second set is planned for autumn 1999.

  6.2  ESA is working to develop a National Training Organisation for the sector. ESA's aim is to help employers and employees meet their training and education needs in the increasingly competitive world utilities market. People are a primary resource and partnership with all interested organisations is the way to maximise the waste management industry's assets and potential.

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT

7.   Current Status

  7.1  So-called "gate rattling" or "drive past" visits by Agency officers are not about environmental protection. They are about meeting a set of apparently arbitrary visit targets for licensed facilities set by DETR in Waste Management Paper 4.

  7.2  ESA supports strong, fair enforcement. However, the so-called "Hall of Shame" league table is misleading for the public. They are based on court fines, which are not based on a nationally consistent formula. They will tend to focus on larger companies, simply because they have more operations. They are retrospective and give no indication of any clean-up measures. They do not include Agency action against incidents at unlicensed facilities.

  7.3  The Agencies' move towards risk based regulation should improve this situation by applying scientific logic and helping to target Agency resources to where they are most needed.

8.   ESA Recommendations for Action by the Agency

  8.1  ESA supports the CBI recommendations that the Agency should give priority to improving waste inspection and that improvements should be based on efficiency savings not increased costs to industry (Shaping Up—Report of the Environmental Protection Service, July 1999).

  8.2  Agency proposals to review inspection frequencies are long overdue. Meanwhile, operators continue to struggle with an opaque system, which is failing to provide prompt responses and processing on licensing issues and inconsistent enforcement standards.

  8.3  ESA supports Agency plans to develop a risk-based system of regulation in consultation with industry. This should create a more responsive, more targeted regulatory regime. But OPRA's effectiveness in freeing up Agency resources will largely depend on the default inspection frequency baseline. In addition, monitoring practices and standards are to be monitored independently.

  8.4  Compliance Cost Assessment and Regulatory Impact Appraisal must be carried out and kept under review to ensure that risks, costs and benefits are fully assessed before new requirements are introduced.

  8.5  Provision of integrated, consistent, transparent, efficient and fair waste regulation could be aided by:

—  single site permits covering all aspects of a site;

—  creating common public registers;

—  rationalising charging systems to deliver a single charge for each authorised installation.

  8.6  A clear and pragmatic enforcement policy, including transparent functional guidelines, is needed so that industry understands exactly what the Agency expects.

  8.7  Unlicensed and exempt waste disposal "sites" have environmental impacts and often directly compete with the waste management industry. It would be logical for the Government to consider introducing registration and monitoring charges for theses sites to ensure that environmental protection standards are not undermined.

  8.8  Geographical consistency could be improved by national auditing and undertaking ongoing customer satisfaction surveys.

  8.9  The Agency should review plans to publish annual Hall of Shame league tables and the basis for ranking companies.

  8.10  The Agency should publish and give equal prominence to league tables identifying environmental achievements.

9.   ESA Action

  9.1  ESA is working with the industry to develop risk-based regulation.

FEES AND CHARGES

10.   Current Status

  10.1  The Agency is effectively acting as a monopoly. The 15 per cent subsistence fees increase in 1999-2000, after a 20 per cent increase the previous year, must be fully justified to operators paying for what can at best be described as a patchy service.

11.   ESA Recommendations for Action by the Agency

  11.1  Risk based regulation offers scope to rationalise site licence fees. Plus, consistent achievement of high standards could be encouraged by introducing reduced or refunded fees based on performance standards.

  11.2  The Agency should be required to provide an itemised invoice to explain their charges to operators and should be subject to penalty clauses in the event of failure to deliver licences within the specified timescale.

NATIONAL POLICY GUIDANCE

12.   Current Status

  12.1  Implementation and interpretation of guidance is often inconsistent. Development of impractical guidance undermines industry's ability to provide sustainable waste management.

13.   ESA Recommendations for Action by the Agency

  13.1  A clear statement on the relationship between the Government's policy-making function and the Agency's implementation role.

  13.2  Agency guidance should be developed in consultation with industry.

  13.3  Waste Management Paper 4 (WMP4) is used as the basis for interpreting legal requirements. It must be urgently revised. It bears little relation to waste management today and does not meet the needs of industry or the Agency.

  13.4.  The Agency should carry out compliance cost assessment and regulatory impact appraisal in advance of introducing guidance. Agency policies have significant implications for the viability of commercial operations.

  13.5  When guidance is trialed in advance of national adoption, this should be done on a voluntary and open basis.

  13.6  It is inappropriate for the Agency to exercise judgement about the sustainability of individual proposals on an ad hoc basis. For example determining licence applications should be purely technical.

  13.7  The status of Agency guidance and how it should be applied, should be clearly defined.

14.   ESA Action

  14.1  ESA is working with the Agency to identify areas of policy work (eg transposition of the Landfill Directive) where industry experts could assist by providing technical advice.

INFORMATION AND RESEARCH

15.   Current Status

  15.1  There is still a dearth of data and information about waste. This is undermining progress, as decisions should be based on sound science. The Agency's research work (eg National Waste Production Survey and life cycle assessment tool) is welcome.

16.   ESA Recommendations for the Agency

  16.1  Data collection and research should be a priority action for the Agency.

17.   ESA Action

  17.1  Forward-looking landfill operators are channelling landfill tax credits through the Environmental Services Association Research Trust (ESART). The aim is for ESART to co-ordinate strategic technical and socio-economic research projects.

  17.2  For example ESART is working in partnership with the UK Environment Agencies to pilot a new UK-wide scheme for classifying waste. This will also provide an important new tool to refine the data from the ongoing national waste production survey. Field trials are expected to begin at 40 waste management facilities across the country in autumn 1999. The project is being jointly funded by ESART and the Environment Agency's waste research programme. This is the first time the Agencies and the waste management industry have worked in partnership on a research project.

  The primary aims of the project are to:

—  provide a firm foundation for a nationally consistent system of returns from waste management facilities on the types and amounts of waste they receive;

—  develop an accurate set of volume to weight conversion factors to improve the results of the Environment Agency's national waste production survey.

  17.3  ESA is working in partnership with the Agency and other organisations to develop a range of information initiatives. These include the National Waste Awareness Initiative and an anti fly tipping campaign.

LEGISLATIVE BARRIERS

18.   Current Status

  18.1  There is inconsistency between Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) and Waste Management Licensing (WML) standards. Under IPC, the emphasis is essentially on control of emissions at the process boundary supported by rigorous self-monitoring requirements. But under WML control ranges from site inputs, to on-site processes and off-site emissions.

  18.2  Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) regime offers an excellent opportunity to harmonise environmental protection standards across industry sectors. The waste management sector has considerable experience of developing an integrated approach to pollution control. Strict rules covering certificates of completion for facilities, licensing and monitoring by independent regulators are nothing new.

  18.3  But Government has not taken the opportunity to require all 5,000 IPPC regulated installations to comply with the "fit and proper person" requirements needed to hold a waste management licence. For example, landfill operators must ensure adequate funds are available to finance any future environmental remediation work that may be needed. But other IPPC facilities, such as power stations and oil processing installations, are not being required to meet these environmental protection standards. There is no scientific logic to such an approach.

October 1999