Enviroman


Marco Muia: Direct and to the point www.oaktree-environmental.co.uk


ONLY days ago I was discussing this month’s article with the Editor, when along came a new government consultation which aff ectted the way the Environment Agency regulates sites - eff ectively trumping my original idea. The Agency intends to replace their Operator Risk Appraisal (OPRA) scheme for permitted sites, which will impact on all waste permit holders. I support getting rid of OPRA, as it is far too imprecise to be risk based.


But I am worried we could be faced with a much worse option if it is not implemented in a manner that encourages co-operation. This change is part of an overall review of government regulation, which encourages an evolution from compliance to performance based regulation, which will take a broader view of operator performance.


The Agency’s aim is to identify early indicators of poor performance, allowing intervention and focusing resources where they are most eff ective. They will also “Recognise and celebrate those exemplary performers, who voluntarily go beyond compliance, and their sustained high performance will require little regulatory eff ort on our part.”


Hopefully, it will be better than the paltry 5% reduction in subsistence fees which is currently applied to sites with a perfect inspection record.


The proposal is to replace current A to F compliance bands with four descriptive bands sites will be placed in: Exemplary, Expected, Improvement Needed and Signifi cant Improvement Needed.


• Exemplary – sites that voluntarily go above and beyond compliance will receive light-touch regulation and a reduction in subsistence fees


• Expected – always cooperative, positive attitude, cooperative and polite, meet deadlines


• Improvement Needed – typically co-operative with occasional problems, gaps in data, occasionally fails to pay subsistence fees


• Signifi cant improvement needed – uncooperative, misses or ignores deadlines, refuses to seek advice


My response to Attitude was: “The attributes are still very subjective, so detailed comment is not yet possible. Are the various criteria going to be scored?


“The fl aw is that each attitude has criteria 40 SHM June, 2017


which sites in the other categories may display. How will sites be treated if they fail on a single issue within ‘signifi cant improvement needed’ for example, if they fulfi l all but one in the exemplary category?”


COMPLIANCE


The Compliance table lists the criteria against which sites will be measured


• Exemplary – No non-compliances in the last 5 years


• Expected – Subject to annual inspection which will identify none or very few breaches.


• Improvement needed – Likely to have non- compliances and exhibits lack of awareness.


• Signifi cant Improvement Needed – consistently non-compliant, no management system.


There is too much variability in the performance of inspectors


My response to Compliance was: “The grouping of criteria is too prescriptive in that sites can demonstrate levels of compliance, that fall in all four categories.


“Rather than grouping criteria, a system of scoring the various compliances so that good sites will achieve a high score rather than fail to meet a potentially unachievable standard. As presented it would be far too easy to place sites in the improvement needed category. “


CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY


• Exemplary – publicly available management structure, 3rd party audited accounts


• Expected – compliant with companies house requirements, viable business plans


• Improvement needed – history of late returns and no written business model


• Signifi cant improvement needed – to seek advice.


My response was : “I fi nd this section confusing, as it presents criteria that do not necessarily make a site a poor performer. “


A site may be able to perform well without a formal business plan or audited accounts.


Partial or late returns made to Companies House have little to do with environmental compliance, and sanctions are already available to the registrar if companies are in default and should not be double regulated by the Agency. The criteria is heavily weighted towards large companies.


There are further categories which also require a mention, listed below, which show the detail of criteria that are not currently marked under OPRA.


• Relationship with the Community, • Compliance with other regimes • Wider Environmental Performance


The online response form fi nishes with some general questions, which include: “What can we do to make the way we assess performance clear, consistent and transparent?”


The simple answer I gave was “Be more consistent. There is too much variability in the performance of inspectors throughout England which makes any scoring system unreliable.”


If the Agency seeks to introduce a Rolls Royce


compliance benchmarking scheme, they need to be subject to the same standards.


In relation to a zero tolerance policy I responded :“I do not support revocation for failing to pay fees as the county court system is available for debtors to be chased in the same way as any commercial debt. “ The idea of a zero tolerance policy will only work if every person inspecting sites works to the same standard. The formal consultation will take place in July 2017 .


MARCO MUIA Marco Muia BSc (Hons) MSc MCIWM is


a Director of Oaktree Environmental Limited. He specialises in all aspects


of waste planning and regulation


consultancy. He also holds the level 4 COTCs for Hazardous Waste Treatment and Transfer. You can contact Marco on: 01606 558833.


If you have any questions about this article, e-mail him via:


marco@oaktree-environmental.co.uk Follow him on Twitter @wastechat


www.skiphiremagazine.co.uk


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68