Enviroman


“NOT another consultation” were the words everyone in the offi ce heard. After a rant we had a look at the latest and decided consultations aren’t what they used to be.


Once upon a time you just responded, in your own words. Now you have to read volumes and answer 99 questions.


This January, Defra and the Welsh Government consulted on proposals to tackle waste crime, improve performance in the waste sector, and introduce a new fi xed penalty for the waste duty of care.


I’ve reproduced some of the comments (starting from question 7) I made in response to the consultation (focused more on the EA, because of the number of sites involved).


Whether you agree with me or not, I urge you to respond to this - as it proposes the most signifi cant changes to waste exemptions in many years, which cannot be dealt with here. The consultation closes on 26 March 2018.


Question 7: Do you think it would be benefi cial for all waste permit holders to operate in accordance with a written management system?


My Response: Yes, but encouragement should be given to operators to comply with their EMS, for example, have a diff erent scoring system as we have seen high scores on CAR forms for non-compliance with EMS sections – when no other permit conditions have been breached.


Operators that do not have the EMS linked by condition, are not having to work to the same standard.


Question 8. Do you think an explicit requirement in the EPRs for permitted waste sites – to demonstrate technical competence through a scheme approved by government – will address the current gap in technical competence?


My Response: It will address the gap only if the regulator does its job. There are numerous sites in England that don’t have a TCM or are using someone’s certifi cate without their knowledge. It is quite simple to check whether a site has a TCM so more legislation isn’t going to make that happen.


Question 9: Do you think that inserting a requirement into the EPRs for operators to inform the regulators of the TCM at their waste site will address the current gap in technical competence?


My Response: Same comment as above. 30 SHM March, 2018


Why do we need more legislation to address what is in eff ect a regulatory failure? The Agency should know who the TCM is for each site they regulate. Question 10: Do you think the current competence schemes should be amended to include a TCM registration process to address the current gap in technical competence?


My Response: No, because it would be overly bureaucratic and there’s nothing stopping the EA having a database of TCMs.


Question 11: Do you have any information about the proportion of sites not currently adequately covered by a TCM?


My Response: Read my comments in 9 and 10. There are a lot of them.


Better regulation is the key. There’s a lack of consistency and a presence on the ground, which is a contributory factor


Question 12: Do you think that an independent report that rates business solvency and risks will enable the regulators to confi rm operators are fi nancially able to meet their permit obligations?


My Response: No. The biggest fi nancial obligation is having to pay for waste that leaves the site. Having a form of bond or insurance similar to TFS may be a way forward. Credit checking may be out of date and a business can get into fi nancial trouble in a very short space of time.


Question 20: Do you think alternative funding should be found to cover the costs of managing sites in the absence of the operator? How is this best achieved?


My Response: Use landfi ll tax money in the interim, regardless of whether the site is subject to POCA proceedings.


Question 28: Do you think the proposal to restrict registration of exemptions at permitted waste operations would help tackle illegal activity, and stop waste operators expanding their activity without appropriate controls?


My Response: If the sites are permitted they should be inspected, which would pick up any issues.


Question 30: Do you have further evidence on the current unlawful use of


exemptions at permitted sites? Do you have any comments?


My Response: They are not particularly regulated, so having an annual inspection fee, or fee similar to the T11, would help.


Question 68: Should operators be required to keep the records in an electronic format, and/or in a system identifi ed by the regulator?


My Response: Some operators cannot manage a smartphone or do email, so having a paper option is essential.


Question 71: Do you have any suggestions on how you think the exemptions registration service can be improved further?


My Response: The system doesn’t identify duplicate registrations, and renewals should be exactly that. I should be able to renew exemptions by simply signing a declaration to say nothing has changed.


“Do you have further evidence on the current unlawful use of this exemptions?” was asked 10 times.


Yes, I know of loads because I spend my time driving around looking for...oh, wait that’s the regulator’s job.


I like exemptions, not because it allows people to get away with anything, but because they were set out in the legislation for a reason; they were intended and aren’t a loophole.


Better regulation is key. There’s a lack of consistency and a presence on the ground, which is a contributory factor.


As always these views are my own.


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


MARCO MUIA: DIRECT AND TO THE POINT www.oaktree-environmental.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