Memorandum submitted by Augean Plc
INTRODUCTION
1. Augean Plc is one of the UK's market
leaders in the management of hazardous waste, providing advice
and cost-effective solutions to UK businesses' waste problems.
We work in partnership with our clients to provide long-term answers
to the treatment and disposal of their waste.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 The work of the Environment Agency is
essential.
2.2 Management of the Agency needs to focus
on bringing more consistency to regulation across the country.
2.3 The current industrial climate seems
to punish those who want to deliver compliance whilst ignoring,
knowingly or not, those who choose to break the law.
2.4 The Agency is much segmented with each
area applying different standards of regulation.
2.5 The Agency might consider being staffed
by fewer better trained officials who can not only understand
the science but also take good measure of threats to the environment.
Industry experience would be a significant benefit to the skill
set of staff at the Agency.
2.6 The Agency need to focus on assisting
compliant operators not seeking to "trip them up" to
prove their value.
2.7 Independent annual review of the Agency's
overall performance should be complemented by a quick appeals
and arbitration mechanism for the rapid resolution of disputes
between Agency officials and regulated entities.
2.8 The Agency's reputation within industry
is poor. Anyone setting out to deliver innovation within the sector
first has to consider the Agency's detrimental effect on the development.
AUGEAN PLC
RESPONSE
3.1 Our comments on the performance of the
Environment Agency are restricted to the company's direct experience
of its people and regulatory procedures. While we believe strongly
in the need for good environmental regulation, we also believe
that, in many respects, the Environment Agency could improve on
being a strong, effective and evenhanded regulator.
3.2 We make the following points in response
to the request for evidence issued by the select committee.
How successful the Environment Agency has been
in its role as enforcer of environmental regulation and controls,
and how well it manages its wide range of activities;
4.1 The arbitrary manner in which officials
conduct their work can result in companies being targeted for
investigation without the existence of objective evidence to warrant
such action. It appears common that the Agency targets organisations
that, by their own objectives, are easy to score against whilst
turning a blind eye to the real criminal waste operators.
4.2 We and many of our colleagues in the
industry cannot understand why the Agency cannot regulate the
known criminals in the sector. The Agency seems not to focus on
targeting real environmental crime. This is often brought about
by the Agency's inspection regime which views organisations on
their presentation rather than auditing the waste streams which
are actually handled.
4.3 Local Agency officials appear to have
little guidance as to how to apply a risk-based model of regulation.
Instead of looking for regulatory breaches which might result
in genuine harm to the environment, some officials give the appearance
of preferring to uncover minor transgressions which do not involve
material harm to the environment. [This may be because it enables
officials to show their superiors that they are doing their job,
while avoiding the difficult task of confronting genuine polluters.]
4.4 We do not consider it acceptable for
officials to take more than three weeks to read or even receive
company mail. Moreover, we are concerned about the care taken
with company forms and documents which can in some circumstances
be commercially sensitive. They should not be carried between
office and home but be properly filed in locked cabinets on secure
Agency premises.
4.5 The compliance costs for companies that
the Agency brings in its wake are excessive. These can take the
form of management time, legal, economic, public relations and
other consultancy costs.
Whether the Agency operates efficiently and provides
good value for money
5.1 Our key efficiency concerns about the
Agency centre on the technical competence of the officers dealing
with waste management operations. We have found on numerous occasions
that the time it takes to resolve a technical issue with the Agency,
and the ability of the officers to efficiently understand the
objectives, add both time and cost to the operator and the Agency.
We have also experienced over zealous officers involved in over
regulation to create more issues than necessary therefore creating
avoidable costs.
The structure, governance and accountability of
the Agency
6.1 The current structure of the Agency
is difficult to understand. As a waste manager, Augean Plc ought
to be able to understand the Agency's structure, its governance
and accountability—but this is not clear nor fully understood.
Therefore other organizations who may not interface with Agency
as regularly as Augean are even less likely to understand the
Agency's structure.
6.2 The Agency operates on an Area Team
basis, with a National Team lead. While the Area Team dominates
the regulation of operations, it is rarely qualified to take on
all the complex technical issues involved in waste management.
Augean finds it difficult to access the right person with the
right aptitude to deal with assisting the company on its operations.
6.3 While the structure, governance and
accountability of the Agency could be strengthened, the biggest
improvement the Agency could make would be to improve the training
of its staff. We do not see the need for a new body to replace
the Environment Agency—just a need for better and more consistent
application of regulation. Any changes to governance structures
should be geared towards the consistent application of regulation
across the country.
6.4 Safe regulation of the hazardous waste
industry requires a level of scientific understanding which is
rarely found in the Environment Agency. Too often, companies like
Augean Plc have to explain to the Agency how the science works.
Misunderstanding of the science can both delay our operations
and result in competitor companies being allowed to breach regulations.
For example, some hazardous waste operators are able to perform
"sham" treatments to turn hazardous waste into non-hazardous
waste without the Agency intervening.
6.5 The Agency should employ scientific
specialists with experience of working in business who can act
as referee for local Agency officers faced with decisions involving
complex scientific processes.
Its relationships with Defra, Defra-sponsored
bodies and the rest of Government, including the Agency's role
in the planning system
7.1 The Agency does not appear to have officers
who are trained to understand the planning system. When the Agency
has crossed responsibility boundaries with other Government bodies,
it has created avoidable issues and costs to all parties. Where
the planning system is effective and well understood, we have
seen frustration from other Government bodies at the lack of understanding
displayed by the Agency when it is consulted on planning matters.
The Agency's relationship with non-Governmental
stakeholders and the general public, and how the Agency monitors
satisfaction with its services
8.1 The integrity of the Agency's relationships
with non-Governmental stakeholders depends upon the consistent
application of regulatory principles. Organizations which deal
with the Agency should receive feedback as to how the Agency is
improving its services.
8.2 The Agency is inconsistent in the manner
of its conduct in different geographical regions. Relations with
Augean's landfill sites in the North East of England, for example,
are cordial and regulatory work is carried out relatively efficiently;
whereas in the East of England, work at Augean's sites has been
delayed by a heavy handed and excessively bureaucratic approach
of local Environment Agency officials.
8.3 The Agency is also inconsistent in the
way it treats different companies. For example, a derogation was
granted by the Agency to Waste Recycling Group to enable it to
win a contract to dispose of chemical waste from batteries. Augean
applied for the same derogation and was refused without a consistent
explanation from the Agency, despite winning the contract.
8.4 The monitoring of Agency services could
be conducted by an independent body which would consult stakeholders
on its performance. Under the current arrangements, few companies
would dare criticize their inspectors for fear that they would
then be targeted for over-zealous inspection in future. The independent
body could report to the Secretary of State and Parliament annually.
8.5 If a body disputes the view taken by
the Environment Agency, it has little recourse to justice except
through judicial review or the Parliamentary Commissioner for
Administration. These processes can often take months and the
delay can impact detrimentally on commercial operations. We therefore
recommend that a quick appeals and arbitration mechanism be introduced,
whereby a company can lodge a claim with an independent arbitrator
who can help resolve disputes that arise without prejudice to
future legal proceedings.
The Agency's responsibilities for flood defence
and flood mapping, including guidance to the public
9.1 No comment.
How the organisational changes brought about by
the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill will affect
the role of the Environment Agency
10.1 No comment.
How the Agency's work in improving wildlife habitats
will tie in with Natural England's work on biodiversity
11.1 No comment
The Environment Agency's forthcoming corporate
strategy 2006-11
12.1 The corporate strategy for 2002-07
presented great goals for the development of the Agency but its
subsequent performance does not seem to have been reviewed thoroughly
against the objectives set. The corporate strategy should target
key deliverables. The strategy statement is not easily accessible
for the public. Stakeholders have not been made aware of the strategy
and its objectives.
Augean Plc
November 2005
| 
