Land Remediation

• Management of contaminated sites and environmental information to determine whether the CSP staff complete regulatory work according to program policy and procedures, ensures regulations and standards are applied consistently at headquarters and in the regions, and ensures workflow and resources are utilized efficiently.

• Fee revenues and expenditures to determine whether they are recorded completely and accurately, and in a manner to facilitate monitoring cost-recovery performance.

Objective

The CSP staff complete regulatory work according to policy and procedures, ensuring that regulations and standards are applied consistently at headquarters and in the regions, and that workflow and resources are utilized efficiently.

Overall Conclusion

The matrix-management structure of the ministry and policies of the CSP do not support the efficient coordination of workflow and resources to provide timely services to clients, or ensure consistent practices amongst the regions. Details are provided below.

1.1 Program Coordination and Monitoring

The matrix-management structure of the ministry impedes program coordination and monitoring. Consequently, we found that central systems are not in place to ensure:

The impacts of the lack of these controls are discussed in the following sections of the report.

Currently, the Assistant Regional Managers (ARM) are responsible for co-ordinating and monitoring the contaminated site portfolios within their respective regions and for the day-to-day operational activities. The Director, Pollution Prevention and Remediation Branch is responsible for the successful implementation and administration of the contaminated sites program. However, under the matrix-management structure, the director only has a direct line of authority over headquarters staff. Staff delivering the Contaminated Sites program in the regions report directly to their Regional Managers who have many different operational priorities. As a result, this structure makes it difficult for the director to fulfil his responsibility for the program.

The ministry is not prepared at this time to address this issue through changing its program delivery method. However, the ministry has informed us that it intends to address some of the shortcomings identified with the matrix system by improving communications and accountability in the appropriate responsibility centres in the line and functional relationships. We believe that the ministry could improve accountability for the program by assigning responsibility for program implementation in the regions to the respective Regional Directors.

Recommendation

(1)	To improve program coordination and monitoring, we recommend that the ministry assigns accountability for program implementation in the regions to the respective Regional Directors.

1.2 Allocation of Program Funds

The CSP's fee split policy provides regions with incentive to maximize their fee revenue by completing as much work as possible. As a result, regions are reluctant to share workloads at the expense of providing more timely service for clients.

Furthermore, the policy discourages the regions from seeking additional help or expertise from headquarters or other regions. Overall, the policy is in conflict with the CSP's objectives to promote consistency and manage program resources effectively.

Resources are allocated in regions based on revenue recoveries in prior years and anticipated in the current year. Regions retain 100% of fees charged to the client when they provide entire reviews. Regions and headquarters split fees when headquarters provides assistance. Given the various levels of complexity of reviews and areas of expertise of staff within the Unit, there is a risk that regions may be providing entire reviews for clients who could benefit from the involvement of another region or headquarters.

By disassociating fee revenue allocated to the regions from services provided, the ministry will remove the incentive for regions to perform reviews when they may not have the resources. For example, the CSP fee revenue could be collected centrally and allocated as required to the various locations based on a predetermined formula agreed to by the regions.

An allocation method that disassociates fee revenues from services provided will result in:

Discussion

There was general agreement that efficiencies could be gained by using one system to track fees.

Response

The ministry intends to identify options and select the most appropriate method for tracking of revenues and to develop a simpler way of allocating revenues among regional offices and headquarters. In addition, it intends to adopt a policy of dedicating a set percentage of all Contaminated Sites Program revenues for staff training.

1.3 Utilization of Resources

The environmental management of contaminated sites is an evolving field that involves a number of diverse disciplines (such as Toxicology, Soil Sciences, Hydrogeology, Agrology and Environmental Engineering). If at all possible, CSP reviews should be matched with the individual's professional experience. The ministry's matrix management, compounded by the lack of central coordination for the CSP, does not allow for effective allocation of resources or for the development of in-depth competence and technical specialization.

We understand that each region receives its share of simple to more complex service requests, and has varying levels and areas of expertise. Further, we understand that only a few regions have the opportunity to allocate work to staff with expertise that match the type of review performed.

For instance, in one region, less complex tasks such as Site Profiles, Independent Remediations, and Specific Site Information Requests (SSIRs) are mostly assigned to technical or administrative staff. In comparison, professional staff in the smaller centres can be responsible for a wider range of tasks from handling large complex reviews to SSIRs. As a result, highly qualified personnel are performing tasks that could be performed by lesser-qualified people.

A move towards creating one or two larger pools of highly skilled professionals can assist the ministry to further maximize utilization of its staff. Other advantages of this model include:

Recommendation

(3)	We recommend that the CSP pool its resources to realize gains in efficiency and greater access to staff expertise.

Discussion

There was agreement that regions and headquarters should share more with one another in delivering Contaminated Sites Program activities. There was disagreement on further steps that should be taken.

Response

It is suggested that some centralization of expertise would occur in centres such as Nanaimo, Surrey and Victoria based on the location of complex sites. Other regional offices would maintain a minimum of one FTE to address contaminated sites and conduct site inspections. Staff in some regions with the ability to address complex sites will be made available to assist those regions that don't have the expertise. The reallocation of complex sites among regions and the progress in reviewing these files will be facilitated through regular conference calls and use of a new policies and procedures discussed in section 1.4.

1.4 Prioritizing Sites

The CSP does not have a systematic way to queue service requests. Consequently, the CSP is at risk of being accused of preferential treatment.

According to the Contaminated Sites draft business plan, an objective of the CSP is to identify and prioritize contaminated sites in accordance with risk to the environment and to human health, and ensure that high-risk sites are remediated first. However, in the regions we visited and headquarters, work received is mainly handled on a first-come-first-serve basis. Occasionally, review applications will jump the queue for reasons such as a potential to cause further harm to human health or environment, or for political or economic reasons. Without criteria in place, this process may create perceptions of unfairness or lack of commitment to protect human health and environment.

Recommendation

(4)	We recommend that the ministry develop ranking criteria for performing reviews and for fast-tracking specific files.

Discussion

There was general agreement that a procedure should be written to address this recommendation, and that such a procedure should address factors such as environmental, human health, business and political needs.

Response

The ministry intends to draft and implement policies and procedures to be followed by regional and headquarters staff to prioritize work on service requests.

1.5 Backlogs

The CSP has not been able to eliminate backlogs at headquarters and in the regions. Consequently, clients perceive service to be untimely.

We found that most of the offices were experiencing substantial backlogs. Although we could not verify the actual backlog, regions and headquarters estimated a three to five month delay in processing reviews. In response to excessive delays in the past, the ministry introduced alternative review processes: External Review and Expert Roster. Clients are charged an additional fee for these options.

To date, these processes have not been effective in reducing the backlogs. Staff also commented that it was questionable whether the use of external reviewers reduced the amount of time necessary to complete the review, particularly in cases where the external reviewers' and the clients' opinions differed. These cases seemed to require as much time as if the ministry had initially handled the review; in addition to reviewing the external reviewer's report often a more thorough review of the original documents was needed. Also, heavy caseloads cause further delays, both at the initial stage (when application is received) and the final stage (ministry's review). The expert roster option has been in place for less than a year, and therefore, it is too early to determine its effectiveness.

Until alternative review processes prove to be effective in managing workloads, the CSP must rely on internal staff to provide more timely service. Both regional management and headquarters expressed concern over the shortage of staff and the lack of flexibility to hire short-term auxiliary staff or contractors to alleviate heavy workloads. Excessive delays could interfere with redevelopment or business transactions, and as such, we believe that the ministry should pursue more flexible staffing arrangements for the CSP.

Recommendation

(5)	We recommend that the ministry explore more flexible options for hiring personnel to improve the CSP's service delivery.

Discussion

There was general agreement with this recommendation. A number of suggestions were made in support of hiring additional staff, in a timely manner. These include:

• the use of eligibility lists to reduce the time required to hire staff
• a meeting with PSERC to discuss options for addressing staff shortages
• hiring greater than the current FTE allocation, based on anticipated vacancies
• deficit financing new staff based on funding from other sources

Headquarters is already overhiring several toxicologists to help address the backlog in risk assessment reviews.

Response

The Contaminated Sites Program will adopt where feasible, new ways to ensure more staff are available for service delivery by:

• using eligibility lists,
• working with PSREC to develop solutions to staff shortages,
• hiring staff above current FTE allocations, and
• working internally with Human Resources and Adaptive Service Delivery staff to develop solutions to staff shortages

1.6 Compliance and Consistency

The CSP headquarters is responsible for providing technical and administrative guidance to headquarters and regional staff, developing training materials, and training regional staff. However, there is no requirement for headquarters to monitor consistency and compliance. Inconsistent practices may result in complaints of inequitable treatment.

As part of the audit, we reviewed operational files to determine whether certain procedures were being followed. We also reviewed job descriptions and discussed training with staff in an attempt to determine whether practices were in place to promote consistent application of the regulations from region to region. We did not, however, assess the quality of the work or the consistency in the interpretation of the legislation.

To enforce compliance with policy and regulations in the regions, the CSP needs to increase its monitoring efforts by performing regular quality assurance reviews, management reviews and staff training.

We found the following:

• Files contained the relevant documents, the appropriate signing authority approved documents and evidence of supervisory review. Also, we found that CSP staff verified fees, sites were entered into SITE and relevant agencies were notified.

• Site inspections are not performed consistently. One region we visited inspects 90% of sites related to Site Profile reviews. Other regions only perform site inspections when circumstances warrant it.

• Some regions perform site information searches for clients from Site database instead of Site Registry. Although there is only a small risk of releasing inappropriate information to the public, the practice by some regions of using Site database reduces fee revenues to BC Online, which has the rights for distribution of Site information.

• Our review of job classifications showed that the educational requirements for performing site evaluations varied among the three regions we visited. While we are not able to comment on the adequacy of the professional requirements, these findings raise the question of whether staff throughout the province has the experience and knowledge to effectively handle all site assessments and remediations and whether these evaluations are handled consistently. The Business Council of British Columbia (April 1999) expressed a similar concern in its submission to the ministry. A review of the educational level requirements and experience will need to be undertaken to ensure that staff has the appropriate knowledge and training to effectively evaluate submissions.

• Staff in all three regions indicated that there is a need for formal training sessions when changes to the regulations occur. There were also comments that, at times, staff were not given advance notice of amendments to the regulations. Other suggestions included: sessions focusing on new investigative techniques and clean-up technologies; methods for handling complex sites; and environmental science courses. The last training sessions took place in June 1999 for staff located in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island regions. The most recent province-wide training sessions took place January through March 1998.

• The Pollution Prevention and Remediation Branch 1999-2002 Contaminated Sites Business Plan (Draft) contains draft procedures for liasing with industry representatives and staff to identify training needs and for developing core courses. The policy is comprehensive and includes timeframes and training budget provisions. Implementation of these procedures would address these concerns.

• The CSP does not have adequate monitoring for additions to the Site Registry. A recent change in procedures for updating the Site Registry allows the Registrar at headquarters instead of the Assistant Regional Manager to remotely check the Assistant Regional Manager Approval box for (Certificates of Compliance) CoCs and (Approvals in Principle) AiPs. Since the Registrar does not have access to supporting documentation, there is a risk that CoCs and AiPs added to Site Registry could be invalid.

• The CSP does not monitor independent remediations to ensure that clients notify the Regional Manager when remediation has been completed as required by guidelines. A report can be created from the Site database on independent remediations outstanding, which would allow staff to monitor sites where client notification has not yet been received.

Recommendations

(6)

We recommend that the ministry: implement a process for ensuring compliance and consistent application of the legislation (quality assurance controls). ensure that all staff has the level of experience, knowledge and training required to effectively evaluate and remediate contaminated sites in their respective portfolios. approve and implement the draft policy "Staff Training Procedures for Contaminated Sites" set out in the 1999-2002 Business Plan.

Discussion

The discussion focussed on two general approaches to auditing the program. One is the stewardship model, where audits could be carried out by external organizations such as the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists, or the Comptroller General's office. The other model involves self auditing, where Contaminated Sites Program staff develop and implement auditing procedures. It was noted that the former could be expensive.

There was agreement that more staff training was desirable. While the Committee appointed by Corporate Committee agreed that a percentage of Program revenues be dedicated to training, some regions disagreed with the proposal. Others suggested that application be made for corporate funds to train program staff.

Sugto deliver training will be considered lagestions for the type of training required were offered, and it was noted that a needs assessment for training would be very helpful in developing a training strategy. Options for contracting out, or partnering with other agencies ter.

Response

There are a number of actions planned to address this recommendation:

• A needs assessment for staff training will be carried out.

• A training strategy will be developed, which would include pursuing partnerships, and external and internal training delivery

• Funding support will be sought from corporate sources and from a training fund created from service fees received by the Contaminated Sites Program.

• The draft policy "Staff Training Procedures for Contaminated Sites" set out in the 1999-2002 Business Plan will be reviewed, approved and implemented.

• The ministry will develop and implement a self-auditing process to ensure better compliance and consistency of program delivery across the province.

• The Contaminated Sites Program Business Plan will be finalized and implemented.

Objective

Fee revenues and expenditures are recorded completely and accurately, and in a manner to facilitate monitoring cost-recovery performance.

Overall Conclusion

CSP fee revenues are complete and accurate. However, the CSP's method for recording expenditures does not ensure that all contaminated sites costs are allocated to the program's accounts nor produce sufficient information for monitoring cost-recovery performance. Details are provided below.

2.1 Cost Recovery

The current process for monitoring cost recovery does not track expenditures by fee revenue item. Consequently, the CSP does not have detailed cost information to evaluate their fee rate structure, and identify non-recoverable activities.

The Fee and Licence Advisory Committee (FLAC) recommended the fee structure for the contaminated sites program that became part of the regulations. In April of 1999, at the request of FLAC, the Pollution, Prevention and Remediation Branch prepared an evaluation of program fees. The program has achieved 65 and 55 per cent recovery in the last two fiscal years and anticipates recovering 74 per cent in fiscal 1999/2000. To further improve cost recovery, the branch proposed to:

• change the fee system to reflect staff time and legal costs; and
• create separate fee categories for certain types of reviews.

Changing the current fee structure or adding additional fee categories requires knowledge of the costs associated with fee revenue in order to make recommendations to FLAC.

One method of obtaining this cost recovery information would be to undertake a short-term study tracing costs by activity. This will require that staff record the amount of time spent on projects as well as any other associated costs such as legal costs or travel expenses. Staff working for the CSP program used to keep timesheets. This practice has been discontinued in recent years.

We believe that tracking staff time and all related administrative and legal costs by fee category and non-recoverable activities is important to determine whether fee rates are sufficient to cover costs of providing the service. Detailed cost recovery information would support the ministry's fee proposals to the FLAC. Also, tracking costs would allow the ministry to identify which costs are not recoverable and to set reasonable recovery goals for the CSP.

Recommendation

(7)	We recommend that the ministry implement a cost tracking system for a period of time sufficient to gather information to evaluate the CSP fee structure and costs of non-recoverable CSP activities.

Discussion

There was general agreement with this recommendation and with the observation that revenues generated by the contaminated sites service fees do not cover the costs of delivering the program. Several regions are already using a time recording system, and other regions indicated willingness to do time recording for a period of time. A standard time recording system would be needed.

Response

Program staff will implement a common time recording system for a set period, which together with existing financial systems to record costs, will be used to examine more closely the accountability and costs of program delivery relative to the revenues it generates.

2.2 Revenues

We found that CSP revenues were complete and accurate.

Each region maintains their own system for recording revenues. On a monthly basis, the regions forward deposit slips, receipts and a copy of their revenue reports to headquarters. Revenue reports in the regions are maintained on an Excel spreadsheet format or Access. Headquarters then reconciles this information and re-enters the data into Quicken (the CSP's revenue recording system).

If the ministry accepts our recommendation to change its budget allocation process as discussed above, the regions will no longer need to maintain their systems for recording revenues. Under the current system, regional systems were necessary to monitor revenues for budget allocation and estimating future needs. A central system would provide the necessary information as well as reduce duplication.

2.3 Expenditures

Regional financial reports did not provide sufficient detail to assess the costs incurred by the region to perform CSP activities. Consequently, we were unable to determine whether expenditures were complete and accurate.

Total expenditures reported for the CSP were $3.2 million in fiscal 1999; about 62% were incurred by the regions and the remainder by headquarters. We found that records did not reflect actual staff time spent on CSP activities, legal expenses and administrative costs.

Recommendation

(8)	We recommend that the ministry ensure that the costs associated with CSP activities are allocated to the program.

Discussion

Refer to the discussion for section 2.1.

Response

Refer to the response for section 2.1.