Managing Risk and Delivering Outcomes through Environmental Regulation

Mr. Dara Lynott BE, MSc, PE, Ceng, FEIDirector

Office of Environmental EnforcementEnvironmental Protection Agency

All or part of this publication may be reproduced without further permission, provided the source is acknowledged.

Outline of Talk

Development of Enforcement Strategy

Industry

Drinking water

Wastewater

The Challenge for Regulators 1

To deliver the objectives and outcomes set down in statute.

To develop a comprehensive risk assessment system which can deal with a wider range of risks both high level and facility specific so as to inform judgements about the application of resources to different areas of risk.

To understand the effectiveness of their activities – to strike the right balance between enforcement activity and other means of achieving compliance.

Note 1 – National Audit Office - UK

Or to put it another way1

“Regulators, under unprecedented pressure, face a range of demands, often contradictory in nature: be less intrusive – but more effective; be kinder and gentler – but don’t let the bastards get away with anything; focus your efforts – but be consistent; process things quicker – and be more careful next time; deal with important issues – but do not stray outside your statutory authority; be more responsive to the regulated community – but do not get captured by industry.”

.

Note 1 – “The Regulatory Craft”, by Malcolm Sparrow (2000)

Policy to action 1 – Traditional approach

Note 1: focus on Enforcement Report 2006/08

Enforcement of Regulation is more complex 1

Note 1: focus on Enforcement Report 2006/08

2005 report by Hampton on effective inspection and enforcement1

Recommended a risk based regulation

with a renewed focus on advice and education

less emphasis on inspections and enforcement for its own sake.

Note 1 Reducing administrative burdens: Effective inspection and enforcement, Hampton, P., HM Treasury, March 2005,

Risk based outcome focused enforcement 1

Note 1 – Regulatory Quality: How Regulators are implementing the Hampton Vision, National Audit Office 2008 - UK

Intermediate Outcomes 1

Note 1: focus on Enforcement Report 2006/08

Example 1

Industry

Background

To improve the standard of environmental protection within the whole of the EU

"Achieve integrated prevention and control of pollution""Prevent or... reduce emissions in the air, land and

water" ....... "including waste""to achieve a high level of protection of the

environment taken as a whole"

Purpose of the IPPC Directive

Licence Applications received & granted:

Legislation (EPA Act) enacted in 1992. First IPC Licence issued at end of 1994.

Applications received 10051

Licenses issued 878 Rejected/Refused/withdrawn/abandoned 84 Under consideration 43

Note 1 – As of November 2010

Wide range of sectors and industries – A need for effective environmental regulationFocus resources where the risks are highest

Risk based approach to licence enforcement required to:provide consistent, transparent and tangible rationale for level of enforcementresult in improved use of resources within OEE

2004 - Plan to Develop Risk Based Approach

Development timeline

Sept 2004 - Consultants appointed Steering Committee established – internal/external members Review of International Best Practices & current OEE licence

enforcement methodology; Proposed Irish system combination of English and Norwegian systems

Mid 2005 - Draft methodology developed based on best practice review;

2006 - Methodology Tested Training of key personnel Finalise guidance documentation Consultation and conference with stakeholders

Risk Enforcement & Assessment Methodology

Complexity complexity grade assigned to each activity some automatic high risk activities

Emissions The quantity of PRTR substances that are emitted to all media Location - fixed

attribute and risk is based on Location

Proximity to sensitive receptors, ecological sites; Operator Management

Environmental Management System No. of Notificable incidents

Enforcement Record No. of enforcement notices issued or legal actions Soil/groundwater contamination issues on site

IPPC Risk Assessment Methodology

Complexity Emissions Location Operator Management

Enforcement Record

High RiskMeduim Risk

Low Risk

High RiskMedium Risk

Low Risk

High RiskMedium Risk

Low Risk

High RiskMedium Risk

Low Risk

High RiskMedium Risk

Low Risk

Overall Risk Classification of Facility

High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk

A1 B1 C1

A2 B2 C2

A3 B3

OEE - ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

IPPC Risk Distribution

Note 1: Measuring the environmental performance of IPPC industry I & II (2009) - David Styles, Eileen O’Leary and Michael B. Jones

Intermediate Outcomes 1

Note 1: Measuring the environmental performance of IPPC industry I & II (2009) - David Styles, Eileen O’Leary and Michael B. Jones

Progress is published…

Drinking Water

Example 2

SI 278 of 2007 Published March 2007:

•EPA now the supervisory authority approx. 1,000 public water supplies (PWSs) •EPA must be notified of a failure to meet a DW quality standard within 24 hours•EPA can issue legally binding Directions in respect of PWSs•Failure to comply with a Direction can result in prosecution•EPA must produce legally binding guidance on monitoring, sampling and corrective actions

Design of Regulation

•E. coli detected intermittently in 5% of public water supplies (PWSs) in 2007

•Boil water notices in 53 PWSs (of 952) in 2008 affecting 118,000 persons

•60% of supplies had no chlorine monitor as part of the disinfection system

The Quality of Drinking Water in 2007

• Failure to meet E.coli standard

• Inadequate barriers to cryptosporidium

• Elevated levels of chemical parameters

• Monitoring results or EPA Audits identified lack of operational control at the treatment plant

• Identified by Health Service Executive as requiring improvement

Risk Assessment Methodology

2008 EPA report identified and published the names of:

339 public water supplies (36% of the national supply) required examination from source to consumer to determine whether replacements or upgrades were needed, or whether operational practices should be improved.

This list of 339 water supplies became the Remedial Action List

Origin of the Remedial Action List (RAL)

Media Interest

Newspaper Headlines

Intermediate Outcome

42% of supplies identified by the EPA have undertaken the necessary remedial actions Remedial works complete in 172 supplies serving over 500,000 persons in two years

All supplies on RAL have been prioritised for funding with €274 allocated

•Water Services Investment Programme (WSIP) 2010 – 2012 investment in Water Services is to increase despite overall decrease across all public services•Additions to the RAL can be added to the WSIP as part of the annual review process•Rolling programme to allow for reprioritisation if required•€1.5 m funding for WSTG in 2010 for training in water treatment/conservation

Intermediate Outcome

Status of Action Plans

Remedial actions identified and agreed timeframes

in place for this remedial work in 84% of supplies on the RAL.

Intermediate Outcome

Drinking water supplies need to be Safe and Secure;

Safe – meets the quality standards each time the supply is tested

Secure – management system in place that has identified all potential risks and reduction measures to manage these risks

Based on the World Health Organisation Water Safety Plan Approach

First Plan has been completed by Galway City Council this month

Final Outcome

31

New Model:

Example 3

Urban Wastewater

Design of regulation

Statutory Instrument 684 of 2007 in response to adverse ECJ judgement issued May 2007 Introduced a new system of licensing & authorisation for ALL

local authority controlled wastewater discharges – large and small.

Licences required for all discharges >500 p.e.

Certificates of Authorisation required for all discharges < 500 p.e. …..

…lower threshold has not been specified and EPA is currently discussing this with the CCMA Water Sub-Group….

Kick-off date was December 2007 for > 10,000 p.e.

Licence Applications received & granted:

Agglomeration size Relevant Date

No. Aps No. granted

>10,000 p.e 14th Dec 2007

64 41

2,001 to 10,000 p.e. 22nd Sept 2008

149 42

1,0001 to 2,000 p.e. 28th Feb 2009 140 18500 to 1,000 p.e 22nd June

2009171 14

< 500 p.e 22nd Dec 2009 435 1 21Σ = 959 Σ = 136

Note 1 – Must be processed by 22nd June 2011

Dynamic Risk Enforcement & Assessment Methodology (DREAM)

Allocates an enforcement category to waste water discharges on the basis of five attributes:1. Level of Treatment (Complexity)2. Observed Impacts3. Possible Impact (Location)4. Discharge Compliance (Emissions)5. Enforcement Record

DREAM: Screen shot of enforcement categories

DREAM: Screen shot of a single WWTP

DREAM: Screen shot of a single WWTP

Compliance with Urban WWTP Directive for BOD, COD, TSS

Number of WWDLs operating over and under capacity

Provision of infrastructure at WWDL facilities

Number of discharges discontinued as required by licence

Number of Storm Water Overflows meeting DOEHLG criteria

Status change in receiving water or bathing water; assimilative capacity

Intermediate Outcomes

Outcome sought

EPA State of Environment Report 2008

Progress wil be published…