WASTE regulator DOMINIC McNABB
Dominic is an experienced solicitor in private practice with MJP solicitors. He has more than 20 years of experience defending both individuals and companies, in both criminal and regulatory legal-related matters.
07733 264226 |
dominic.mcnabb@
mjpsolicitors.co.uk LAW
Getting a fair deal after no-deal
I HAVE been deliberately avoiding any speculation on the Brexit decision and how that might aff ect the waste industry in the hope that some common sense prevails. As a lawyer dealing with regulatory matters there is a need to have certainty in order to give good advice and avoid scare-mongering.
However, I was intrigued to learn of the Environmental Agency (EA)’s reaction to potential problems for the waste industry as a result of a no-deal Brexit. There was a media report based on leaked EA emails asking for EA volunteers to staff crisis management centers to deal with incidents in the event of a no-deal.
For operators, the scenario they are bracing for is one in which the export of waste ceases for a period, resulting in stockpiled waste causing licence breaches. The main area of concern relates to the shipping of recycled waste to be burned in incinerators that generate electricity in the EU. It is believed that problems will escalate as operators will have no means to move the waste.
Clearly there are already safeguards in place to prevent criminal fraudsters
and the industry welcomes that but the fact that there could now be increased problems doesn’t mean that breaches of permit will be tolerated.
It is perfectly possible that some operators will feel unfairly targeted as a result and will need to deal with matters promptly
Given the circumstances, operators should have a robust system in place and, if unhappy about the decisions or scoring applied in respect of Compliance Assessment Reports, seek advice on appealing or reviewing the same if problems are encountered. It is quite likely to lead to a more diffi cult management issue for operators and, practically, operators should remember that the policy inspectors and operators should adopt at all times is the Regulators Code.
This suggests that the EA will work in partnership to create a cleaner, healthier environment but the government
requires it to recover the costs of its main regulatory services from the businesses they regulate. As operators will be aware, this is levied at the permit stage and a good operator performance can result in reduced charges. So, there is a need to review and (where necessary) appeal any assessments if there has been more regulatory scrutiny than previously. These have to be performed on a risk-based approach and should accord with the EA’s own principle that "the regulatory eff ort is proportionate to the environmental risk".
So, even where a potential emergency situation occurs, it is perfectly possible that some operators will feel unfairly targeted as a result and will need to deal with matters promptly in order to avoid further problems being identifi ed which could result in enforcement action.
I have frequently dealt with such complaints and resolved then with the regulator when involved at an early stage. In fact, I am presently advising and preparing to assist with any issues concerning operators and their relationship with the EA inspectors over this uncertain period.
42 SHWM March, 2019
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
