Consultation outcome

Standard rules consultation no 21: response document

Updated 24 August 2020

1. Introduction

We consulted with relevant stakeholders to get their views on our proposed new standard rules permits for mattress recycling, tyre recycling, and paper, card and plastic bulking.

We believe that these standard rules permits may be attractive to operators anticipating the changes government may make to waste exemptions following its public consultation in 2018 ‘Reducing crime at sites handling waste, and introducing fixed penalties for waste duty of care’.

Our consultation also included proposals to change certain rules in some of our published standard rules permits.

2. How we ran the consultation

We shared a pre-consultation draft of the new standard rules permits with key trade associations in autumn 2019. Their comments helped us develop the rules on which we formally consulted.

We ran the formal online public consultation on the Environment Agency Citizen Space website for 15 weeks, from 21 October 2019 to 31 January 2020.

The questions we asked in the consultation are set out in this document, along with a summary of the responses we received, and what we will do as a result.

We have provided a list of the organisations that responded to the consultation in the annex at the end of this document.

3. Scope of the consultation

Part of this consultation is on proposals for 3 new standard rules permits. We developed these permits in case government decides to change or remove certain waste exemptions. This would mean a permit is required instead.

Where an operator can meet the rules, the standard rules permit will provide an alternative to a bespoke permit.

The government are currently considering the options for reforming exemptions. We have consulted ahead of the government’s decision. This is so the standard rules permits are available, if needed, as soon as a decision is made.

When answering the consultation questions, respondents repeatedly commented that it was difficult to respond adequately due to the timing of the government’s decision.

The decision on changing or removing certain waste exemptions is for government, not the Environment Agency. It is therefore outside the scope of this consultation and we have not commented further where this was raised.

4. Summary of main findings and actions we will take

Proposed new standard rules for mattresses – SR2019 No 4

We were told that the proposed waste quantity limits were too low to be viable. We will raise the limits to:

• 4,000 tonnes per annum
• 80 tonnes or 2,500 mattresses for the maximum quantity of waste in treatment or awaiting treatment
• 260 tonnes for the maximum quantity of waste on site

As a result of comments received, we will also increase the maximum waste storage duration to 3 months. This is consistent with our fire prevention plan guidance. We will also add waste code 04 02 22, restricted to textile fibres from mattress manufacture.

We believe these changes are proportionate and will still prevent pollution of the environment and harm to human health.

Proposed new standard rules for paper, card and plastic – SR2019 No 5

We were told that the waste quantity limits are too low to be viable. We will raise the limits to 120,000 tonnes per annum, which remains lower than allowed under the current T4 exemption. This will increase our annual subsistence fee to £5,794 under our 2019 to 2020 charging scheme. We will raise the maximum quantity of waste on site to 2,400 tonnes.

Following comments received, we will increase the maximum storage duration to 3 months to be consistent with our fire prevention plan guidance. We will also add waste codes 19 12 01 and 19 12 04, the latter limited to plastic only.

We believe that these changes are proportionate and will still prevent pollution of the environment and harm to human health.

We were told that our proposed requirement to unload loose waste and to load it in a building will place significant costs on businesses, to the extent that many sites will become nonviable. We will remove this requirement, but will add operating techniques that require litter control infrastructure around designated loading and unloading areas.

Respondents suggested that we broaden SR2019 No 5 to match the breadth of activities under the current T4 exemption. This is not the purpose of this standard rules permit. SR2019 No 5 is primarily designed for sites feeding recyclate to paper mills as feedstock. Initial consultation with the sector told us that these sites also handle plastic packaging, using the same equipment as for paper and card, and as required by their customers. We have therefore restricted these rules to related waste streams and activities.

Proposed new standard rules for tyres – SR2019 No 6

We were told that the waste quantity limits are too low to be viable. We will raise the limits to 5,000 tonnes per annum. We will raise the maximum quantity of waste on site to 100 tonnes.

Following comments received, we will change the rules to allow manual sorting of tyre casings outside the building. We will also expand the retreading activity to ’cleaning, repair, re-grooving and retreading’.

We believe that these changes are proportionate and still prevent pollution of the environment and harm to human health.

Proposed changes to standard rules SR2008 No 12 and SR2008 No 13

Our proposals to add 2 new permitted waste types (tyres and mixed construction and demolition waste) were unanimously supported. We will make these changes to the 2 rules sets.

Proposed changes to rules set SR2015 No 18

The proposed change to add storage of intact catalytic converter storage to the rules set was unanimously supported.

There were mixed views on the proposed change to remove oil filters and brake pads from the list of permitted waste types. These wastes may be produced at sites through the dismantling process where they form part of the end of life vehicle. However, the data we have demonstrates that these waste types are not being accepted as separate waste types. Therefore they do not need to be specified in the rules set as a permitted waste type.

We will remove these waste types from the standard rules set. This is consistent with the approach we have taken for similar rules sets.

Proposed changes to standard rules sets SR2008 No 20, SR2011 No 3, SR2012 No 14, SR2015 No 13, SR2015 No 17 and SR2015 No 18

Our proposals to change the interpretation of waste motor vehicle in the rules sets were supported. We will proceed with making these changes to the rules sets.

4. Responses to consultation questions

Proposed SR2019 No 4 – Treatment of waste mattresses for recovery

Q1. Do you agree with our approach to use standard rules to cover mattress recycling?

• yes: 6
• no: 3
• do not know: 0
• not answered: 24

Of those that answered this question, the majority were supportive. One person who said “no” was worried that the proposed standard rules permit would make it harder to manage this waste stream, leading to increased fly-tipping. Another made the case for keeping exemptions available for mattresses.

Neither of these matters are within the scope of this consultation.

Q2. Do you understand the requirements of the proposed standard rules for mattress recycling?

• yes: 8
• no: 0
• do not know: 0
• not answered: 25

One of the respondents to this question suggested that we have underestimated the average weight for mattresses. Given this feedback, and responses to other questions suggesting the proposed limits may not be financially viable, we will change the quantity limits as follows, the:

• annual throughput to 4,000 tonnes from 3,500 tonnes
• maximum quantity of waste in treatment or awaiting it, to 2,500 mattresses or 80 tonnes, whichever is least
• maximum quantity of waste on site to 260 tonnes

Q3. Do you agree with the requirements of the proposed standard rules for mattress recycling?

• yes: 6
• no: 1
• do not know: 1
• not answered: 25

Of those that answered this question, there was strong support for the standard rules. The respondent that said “no” asked whether waste mattresses caused a fire issue, and said red tape would impede legitimate operators. Mattresses are combustible and fires may and do occur. Red tape is not within the scope of this consultation.

Q4. Please let us know what you think would prevent people from using the proposed mattress recycling rules sets

There were 7 responses to this question. One respondent was worried that action to tackle fly-tipping was under resourced. This is not in the scope of this consultation. The other responses all referenced the increased costs of getting and complying with a permit, including infrastructure such as buildings and fire prevention measures.

All operators under exemptions must comply with the relevant objectives, so already need measures sufficient to prevent risk to water and air, or nuisance through noise or odours. Operators moving from exemptions to this standard rules permit should already have sufficient infrastructure to meet many of the requirements of the permit. But we accept that our permits set more prescriptive requirements than exemptions, so costs will inevitably be greater compared to a free exemption.

It is also proportionate that permitted activities, which pose a greater risk to the environment than exempt activities, meet higher standards for control measures. The requirement for a fire prevention plan, in line with our published guidance, is a standard condition in permits for activities relating to combustible waste.

The requirement for a building is a condition that we are increasingly adding to our standard rules. It is a highly effective control measure for a variety of pollution risks which impact on people and the environment. By making standard rules available, we will be reducing the permit application fee for operators compared with a bespoke permit.

Q5. Do you agree that the waste quantity limits are viable for mattress recycling, that is the annual tonnage limits and the limits on the amount stored at any one time?

• yes: 3
• no: 1
• do not know: 4
• not answered: 25

The respondent saying “no” said they thought the proposed limits may not be financially viable given the increased costs of a permit compared to an exemption.

They did not propose alternative limits. Nevertheless, we will increase the proposed limits, as set out in our response to question 2 above.

Q6. Do you agree that the waste storage duration limits provide a viable throughput for mattress recycling?

• yes: 3
• no: 2
• do not know: 3
• not answered: 25

One of the respondents saying “no” noted that the proposed duration limit of 28 days, is different to the 3 months specified in our fire prevention plan guidance. Another said there were seasonal peaks, such as the end of the academic year, which would be hard to manage within the proposed limit. It is right that we set limits for how long waste is stored on site, as failure to turn around waste quickly enough exacerbates pollution risks and can be a precursor to abandonment of a site. But we will increase the proposed limit in the proposed rules set so that it is consistent with the 3 months set out in the fire prevention plan guidance.

Q7. Do you believe the requirements for having certain activities carried out within a building are proportionate to the pollution risks?

• yes: 7
• no: 1
• do not know: 3
• not answered: 25

There was broad support for requiring a building. Respondents said that this would preserve recyclate quality and reduce pollution.

However, there were concerns about the costs of fire prevention requirements. The respondent opposing this requirement stated that the Environment Agency wants all activities to occur in a building, regardless of the risk. This is not the case. Our fire prevention guidance is risk-based and proportionate. Having a well defined risk profile is important for standard rules permits as we do not carry out site-specific assessments (except for fire prevention plans). Specifying the use of a building for certain activities forms an important part of defining that profile. Operators wishing to operate outdoors can apply for a bespoke permit and justify to us why their control measures are appropriate in their location.

Q8. Please list any other types of treatment or processing activities that you believe should be included in the mattress recycling rules set

There were 5 responses to this question. Only 1 made suggestions for additional activities: shredding, disassembly and storage of residues. These activities are adequately covered by Table 2.1: R13 for storage and R3 and R4 for separation and shredding.

We had a suggestion from our initial consultation to remove the R4 activity code. We will retain this to cover activities like baling of springs.

Q9. Do you agree that the right waste codes have been listed for mattress recycling?

• yes: 6
• no: 1
• do not know: 1
• not answered: 25

The respondent that said “no” suggested the addition of 04 02 22 ‘wastes from processed textile fibres’. We will add this code, restricted to textile fibres from mattress manufacture.

Q10. Would the exclusion distances from receptors prevent you from finding a site from which to operate?

• yes: 2
• no: 2
• do not know: 4
• not answered: 25

One respondent observed that this is likely to affect sites currently operating under exemptions, rather than new sites. Another said this would not be an issue if planned for. We reviewed the proposed 10 metre exclusion of sites from watercourses based on the responses received to SR2019 No 5 and No 6. We will withdraw this exclusion from SR2019 No 4 too, for consistency. We believe the rules still prevent pollution sufficiently, given other conditions relating to infrastructure and fire prevention.

Q11. Please let us know your views on our proposals for operating techniques in Table 2.4, relating to the site’s surfacing and drainage requirements, and where different types of waste can be stored or treated

There were 5 responses to this question. One raised the viability of these operations given the costs. Another said their sites met these standards anyway. The other responses made no specific comments.

Q12. An alternative option for the operating techniques would be to require all wastes to be stored and treated on an impermeable surface with a sealed drainage system at all times. Would you support this option? If so, why?

• yes: 4
• no: 2
• do not know: 1
• not answered: 26

Those respondents supporting this proposal referred to the risk from fire water and the cost of water pollution to the tax payer. Those saying “no” and “do not know” said this should be reserved for activities involving hazardous substances, and that the Environment Agency needed evidence to justify this requirement for mattresses. We will not change the operating techniques relating to surfacing and drainage in the proposed rules, noting that some mattresses may be chemically treated with fire retardants.

Q13. Do you intend to apply for a mattress recycling standard rules set when published?

• yes: 1
• no: 6
• do not know: 1
• not answered: 25

Respondents were generally unclear at this time, wanting more information about the proposed changes to exemptions. One respondent thought the proposed limits would not be viable as a standalone activity.

Q14. Do you think the introduction of the new standard rules or the revisions to the existing standard rules sets will have a significant financial impact overall on your business?

• yes: 3
• no: 3
• do not know: 2
• not answered: 25

One of the respondents saying “yes” said there is no justification for the change from exemption to standard rules, and that the Environment Agency should not be putting obstacles in the way of business. This is not within the scope of this consultation.

Other respondents raised concerns about fire prevention costs, and asked the Environment Agency for a pragmatic approach to these. We are aware that some mattresses may be treated with fire retardant. We still consider fire to be the most significant pollution risk from the activities under the proposed standard rules. We therefore believe a condition requiring a fire prevention plan is appropriate for this activity. When assessing fire prevention plans, we will consider alternative measures if they offer equivalent protection to our published standards and do not contradict the standard rules. Our fire prevention guidance is risk-based and proportionate.

Proposed SR2019 No 5 – Treatment of waste paper, cardboard and plastic for recovery

Q1. Do you agree with our approach to use standard rules to allow the treatment of waste paper, cardboard and plastic?

• yes: 14
• no: 3
• do not know: 2
• not answered: 14

There was broad support for introducing a standard rules permit. Several respondents said moving from exemptions to permitting would protect legitimate business from illegal competition.

Several respondents raised their uncertainty about the changes being made to the T4 exemption. We note this concern, although this matter is outside the scope of this consultation.

Several respondents said that the proposed rules set would not be viable, given the small margins in this sector, leading operators to apply for bespoke permits. They said that the Environment Agency should issue standard rules permits that reflect compliant well run sites, but that the proposals would penalise them instead. They said it was not reasonable or proportionate to expect businesses to move from an exemption to a bespoke permit. We disagree with these views.

We are under no obligation to make standard rules available. If we do decide to publish standard rules, we will set limits at a level that businesses can use without the need for us doing a site-specific assessment. Our primary aim when designing a standard rules permit is to set a well defined environmental risk profile. This means we do not need to carry out any site-specific assessment when determining applications (except for fire prevention plans). Also, we cannot easily account for market volatility. If an operator needs more capacity than is allowed under a standard permit to deal with volatility and improve margins, they should apply for a bespoke permit.

One respondent suggested having a chargeable exemption for relatively low risk activities. We note that the Environment Bill provides for future regulations that could reintroduce charges for exemptions. This is outside the scope of this consultation.

One respondent said that the proposals for new standard rules permits were about the Environment Agency generating fees, rather than environmental risk. We do not agree. Application fees for standard rules permits are lower than those for bespoke permits. Our charging scheme is agreed annually with government and reflects our recovery of regulatory costs.

Q2. Do you understand the requirements of the proposed standard rules for the treatment of waste paper, cardboard and plastic?

• yes: 18
• no: 1
• do not know: 0
• not answered: 14

The responses suggested a good level of understanding of the proposed requirements.

Q3. Do you agree with the requirements of the proposed standard rules for the treatment of waste paper, cardboard and plastic?

• yes: 11
• no: 8
• do not know: 0
• not answered: 14

Several respondents raised concerns about the costs of the requirement to unload and load loose waste within the building.

They also raised potential difficulties, such as with landlords, planning permission for building changes, and increased business rates. We will address these concerns in our response to question 7.

The same respondents also raised concerns about the restrictions on plastic storage. We will address these concerns in our response to question 7.

The same respondents also suggested that the annual throughput of 75,000 tonnes should be raised to 120,000 tonnes to be viable, given tight margins. They also wanted a corresponding increase in the limit on the quantity of waste stored at any time. Based on this feedback, we will raise the quantity limits in the proposed standard rules to 120,000 tonnes per year, and 2,400 tonnes at any time. This will increase the annual subsistence fee to £5,794 under our 2019 to 2020 charging scheme. We believe these increased limits still give adequate control of pollution risks (in combination with the other rules) and note that they remain less than allowed under the current T4 exemption.

One respondent suggested changing the proposed rules set to reference a point source emission from extraction of particulates due to shredding. We believe this is adequately controlled by conditions in section 3.2 Emissions of substances not controlled by emission limits.

Q4. Please let us know what you think would prevent people from using the proposed rules set for treatment for waste paper, cardboard and plastic

Several respondents raised the exclusion distances set in the permit as being a potential barrier. We will address this in our response to question 10.

Some respondents noted that the T4 exemption covers a wider range of wastes than the proposed standard rules. The proposed rules set was developed primarily to support the paper recycling industry, and we have already published standard rules for materials recycling facilities (for example SR2015 No 21) which cover the waste types in T4.

The respondents’ main concern was cost, primarily of improving buildings and meeting fire prevention requirements. We acknowledge that weakening the requirements of the proposed rules set would lower costs. However, this would reduce our confidence in the risk of pollution these facilities would pose to the environment. We therefore believe we could not issue permits for them without site-specific assessment (except for fire prevention plans).

One respondent was concerned about the time required to upgrade infrastructure. We expect government to change the regulations such that transition arrangements are built in, giving businesses time to adapt. We encourage businesses to review government’s proposals as soon as they are published, and to start planning for the necessary changes as quickly as possible.

Q5. Do you agree that the waste quantity limits are viable for the treatment of waste paper, cardboard and plastic?

• yes: 8
• no: 8
• do not know: 3
• not answered: 14

The responses to this question were balanced. There was support for the proposed limits, especially with reference to not wanting to increase the fire risk if limits were larger.

Those unhappy with the proposed limits said they needed larger capacity to stockpile waste to account for fluctuations in paper mill activity, export shipping availability and market value. As per our response to question 3, we will raise the limit at any time to 2,400 tonnes, which remains below the current exemption level. We believe the requirement to follow an approved fire prevention plan will deal with the risk from fire adequately.

Q6. Do you agree that the waste storage duration limits provide a viable throughput for the treatment of waste paper, cardboard and plastic?

• yes: 8
• no: 10
• do not know: 1
• not answered: 14

The majority of respondents asked for the proposed 28 day limit to be made consistent with the 3 month limit in our fire prevention guidance. We will adopt this approach.

Q7. Do you believe the requirements for having certain activities carried out inside a building are proportionate to the pollution risks?

• yes: 11
• no: 7
• do not know: 0
• not answered: 15

The respondents supporting the requirement for a building said that risks of pollution would be reduced, that a building was proportionate to risks like fire, and also that recyclate quality would be improved.

The respondents opposing the requirement for a building were broadly consistent in raising 3 themes:

• the requirement to unload inside the building is unnecessary and costly, as it might require building extensions to accommodate the necessary height for vehicle tipping activities
• the risk from windblown litter is too small to justify a building, and that litter can be contained more cheaply using fencing, netting and housekeeping
• the requirement to store plastic in the building is not justified in terms of fire risk, that fire risk should be managed through the fire prevention plan

We will revise the proposed rules set to remove the requirement for baled plastic to be stored in the building.

We will also remove the requirement to load and unload loose waste inside a building. Instead, we will add operating techniques that require litter control infrastructure to enclose designated loading areas to prevent litter escaping from the loading area into the wider site or into neighbouring property.

We believe these measures are necessary because tipping out loose lightweight waste like paper from a tipper lorry in an open yard poses a significant risk of windblown litter, as the waste will be falling from a height.

Our experience shows us that management systems often rely on control measures such as not unloading during windy weather, maintaining perimeter litter netting and frequent litter picking. But these measures are rarely effective. Business pressures mean that waste is unloaded during windy weather. Damage to perimeter litter netting is often not repaired quickly enough. Litter sweeping and picking is often left to the end of the day, when vehicle movements have eased and it can be done more safely.

Requiring operators to load and unload in a dedicated area screened with litter control infrastructure achieves a risk level that is suitable for standard rules.

Q8. Please list any other types of treatment or processing activities that you believe should be included in the treatment of waste paper, cardboard and plastic rules set

Several respondents suggested the activities should reflect those under the T4 exemption. The proposed standard rules were developed primarily to support the paper recycling industry, and we have already published standard rules for materials recycling facilities (for example SR2015 No 21) which allow a wider range of activities.

One respondent asked for compaction to be added. We will add this.

One respondent noted that the specified wastes for outdoor storage do not include waste code 19 12 01. This was an oversight. Given our intention to remove the restriction on plastic storage, we will simplify the operating techniques to require that ‘waste shall only be stored outdoors if securely baled or in a fully enclosed container’.

Q9. Do you agree that the right waste codes have been listed for the treatment of waste paper, cardboard and plastic?

• yes: 8
• no: 9
• do not know: 2
• not answered: 14

We comment on the waste codes suggested by respondents as follows:

• 03 03 07, 03 03 08, 03 03 99: these codes relate to wastes from paper and card manufacture, that is wastes not suitable for recycling into paper or card – they are not consistent with the proposed rules set, which was developed primarily to support the paper recycling industry by supplying feedstock for recycling
• 02 01 04, 07 02 13, 12 01 05, 16 01 19, 17 02 03: these codes are non-packaging plastics and, as such, are not consistent with the proposed rules set
• 19 12 01, 19 12 04: we will add these codes, limiting 19 12 04 to plastic only

Q10. Would the exclusion distances from receptors prevent you from finding a site from which to operate?

• yes: 8
• no: 3
• do not know: 8
• not answered: 14

Many respondents mentioned the exclusion of sites within 10 metres of a watercourse as being likely to be a problem for existing sites moving from exemption to permit. We will withdraw this exclusion. We believe the rules still prevent pollution sufficiently, given other conditions relating to infrastructure and fire prevention.

Q11. Please let us know your views on our proposals for operating techniques in Table 2.4, relating to the site’s surfacing and drainage requirements, and where different types of waste can be stored or treated

There was broad support for the proposals.

Q12. An alternative option for the operating techniques would be to require all wastes to be stored and treated on an impermeable surface with a sealed drainage system at all times. Would you support this option? If so, why?

• yes: 6
• no: 9
• do not know: 4
• not answered: 14

Responses were divided. A majority noted that many sites in this sector will already have concrete surfaces with sealed drainage. Others noted that this may be a requirement for fire prevention plan approval. A majority of respondents also worried about imposing costs without sufficient evidence. We will leave the proposed requirement unchanged.

Q13. Do you intend to apply for a treatment of waste paper, cardboard and plastic standard rules set when published?

• yes: 4
• no: 11
• do not know: 4
• not answered: 14

The majority of respondents suggested they would not be applying given the limits as proposed, or could not say with confidence until government has clarified its intentions for the exemptions regime.

Q14. Do you think the introduction of the new standard rules or the revisions to the existing standard rules sets will have a significant financial impact overall on your business?

• yes: 10
• no: 3
• do not know: 6
• not answered: 14

Several respondents noted it was hard to estimate the impact without knowing how the exemption regime was going to change.

There was widespread concern about increased costs. These were quoted as potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds per facility, and many respondents said there would be closures of sites as a result.

They said the costs would fall unfairly on smaller independent operators compared with larger waste management companies who were already permitted, meaning less competition in the sector. One response gave this summary: “The [move to permitting] combined with the requirement to produce [a fire prevention plan] will introduce an unwarranted, disproportionate and onerous cost on a business sector already operating on low margins.” We accept that our permits set more prescriptive requirements than exemptions, so costs will inevitably be greater compared to a free exemption.

It is also proportionate that permitted activities, which pose a greater risk to the environment than exempt activities, meet higher standards for control measures.

The requirement for a fire prevention plan in line with our published guidance is a standard condition in permits for activities relating to combustible waste.

The requirement for a building is a condition that we are increasingly adding to our standard rules permits as it is a highly effective control measure for a variety of pollution risks.

By making a standard permit available, we will be reducing the permit application fee for operators compared with a bespoke permit.

One respondent asked for at least 3 years to give businesses time to adapt their business models. We expect government to change the regulations so that transition arrangements are built in, giving businesses time to adapt.

One respondent said that the administrative costs of fulfilling permit reporting requirements are onerous. We do not agree – operators should already be collating most of this information to comply with their Duty of Care for waste, and to ensure they remain within exemption limits.

One respondent thought that the proposed standard rules were disproportionate for paper, card and plastic. Again, any decision about changing the T4 and S2 exemptions, such that a permit may be required in some cases, is outside the scope of this consultation.

Proposed SR2019 No 6 – Treatment of waste tyres for recovery

Q1. Do you agree with our approach to use standard rules to cover the treatment of waste tyres?

• yes: 15
• no: 0
• do not know: 0
• not answered: 18

There was broad support for introducing a standard rules permit, and that the move into permitting would raise standards and protect legitimate business from illegal competition.

Q2. Do you understand the requirements of the proposed standard rules for the treatment of waste tyres?

• yes: 15
• no: 0
• do not know: 0
• not answered: 18

The responses indicated a good level of understanding of the proposed rules set.

Q3. Do you agree with the requirements of the proposed standard rules for the treatment of waste tyres?

• yes: 14
• no: 1
• do not know: 1
• not answered: 17

There was widespread support for the requirements as drafted.

One respondent interpreted the permit’s introductory note to mean that either car or van tyres could be stored, but not both. This was not our intention, and we will revise the wording to make it clearer that either type can be accepted.

Q4. Please let us know what you think would prevent people from using the proposed rules set for treatment for waste tyres

Several respondents said the proposals would be problematic for marginal or illegal operators to comply with.

Several respondents said the proposed quantity limits were too low, given the increased costs of a permit compared to the exemption. They did not propose alternative limits in their answers to this question.

Respondents also raised exclusion distances and sealed drainage, which we will address in our responses to questions 10 to 12.

Q5. Do you agree that the waste quantity limits are viable for the treatment of waste tyres?

• yes: 5
• no: 6
• do not know: 4
• not answered: 18

Several respondents said the limit on the storage of waste at any time was too low, one relating it to numbers of HGV container loads. We will increase the tonnage limit at any one time from 60 to 100 tonnes. This remains in line with the current T8 exemption’s combined allowance.

Several respondents objected to an annual acceptance limit, saying this was unnecessary with a clear limit on waste storage at any time. None proposed an alternative annual limit. We will retain the condition as it is a standard requirement across our permits which helps to control facility throughput. But we will raise the limit to 5,000 tonnes a year, in line with the increased limit on storage at any time.

One respondent proposed alternative charging arrangements relating to the quantity of waste accepted each quarter. This is beyond the scope of this consultation.

Q6. Do you agree that the waste storage duration limits provide a viable throughput for the treatment of waste tyres?

• yes: 11
• no: 1
• do not know: 2
• not answered: 19

The majority of respondents supported the 3 month limit. One suggested having different limits for different types of waste, but we will remain consistent with our fire prevention plan guidance. One respondent suggested that a shorter limit would be better, and noted that enforcing such limits would be difficult. We think it will be possible to get evidence if this limit is abused.

Q7. Do you believe the requirements for having certain activities carried out inside a building are proportionate to the pollution risks?

• yes: 12
• no: 1
• do not know: 2
• not answered: 18

There was strong support for the requirement to have a building.

However, one respondent suggested that waste tyre casings are often sorted whilst on a lorry trailer outside, that this was a low risk activity and common practice. We agree this appears sufficiently low risk for us to amend the proposed rules set to allow this.

Q8. Please list any other types of treatment or processing activities that you believe should be included in the treatment of waste tyres rules set

Several respondents suggested the retreading activities should be broadened to cover re-grooving and repair. We will add these activities to Table 2.1, along with cleaning.

Several respondents suggested adding inspection as an activity. It is implicit that operators should inspect the waste arriving at their facility. They must do this to ensure that they are permitted to accept the waste and are able to treat it effectively.

One respondent suggested adding in the removal of rims, valves and deflation sensing equipment. We will not add these activities. We expect this kind of separation activity to be done at upstream sites, for example permitted end of life vehicle dismantlers.

Q9. Do you agree that the right waste codes have been listed for the treatment of waste tyres?

• yes: 13
• no: 2
• do not know: 0
• not answered: 18

Two respondents suggested adding waste codes for metal rims. As per our response to question 8, we will not add these waste codes. We expect sites operating under the proposed rules set to accept only casings.

Q10. Would the exclusion distances from receptors prevent you from finding a site from which to operate?

• yes: 1
• no: 6
• do not know: 6
• not answered: 20

Several respondents were not sure. One specifically raised the exclusion of sites within 10 metres of a watercourse as being a particular problem. We will withdraw this exclusion. We believe the rules still prevent pollution sufficiently, given other conditions relating to infrastructure and fire prevention.

Q11. Please let us know your views on our proposals for operating techniques in Table 2.4, relating to the site’s surfacing and drainage requirements, and where different types of waste can be stored or treated

There was broad support for the proposals.

Q12. An alternative option for the operating techniques would be to require all wastes to be stored and treated on an impermeable surface with a sealed drainage system at all times. Would you support this option? If so, why?

• yes: 5
• no: 2
• do not know: 5
• not answered: 21

Responses were divided. Several respondents supported the proposal as giving the highest level of protection. An equal number thought that the wastes were low risk, and that the risk from fire water should be dealt with by the fire prevention plan. We will leave the proposed requirement unchanged.

Q13. Do you intend to apply for a treatment of waste tyres standard rules set when published?

• yes: 2
• no: 8
• do not know: 4
• not answered: 19

The majority of respondents suggested they would not be applying as they were trade associations, regulators, or that tyre recycling was not in their business model. The respondents that appeared to be tyre recyclers said they would consider applying, or had a bespoke permit already.

Q14. Do you think the introduction of the new standard rules or the revisions to the existing standard rules sets will have a significant financial impact overall on your business?

• yes: 4
• no: 5
• do not know: 4
• not answered: 20

Those respondents answering “no” raised the cost of the permit compared to the free T8 exemption. One said increased costs would raise tyre collection prices, but that this would lead to increased investment in the sector. Another said the changes would make things harder for illegal competitors.

Revisions to SR2008 No 12 and SR2008 No 13

These proposals relate to the addition of waste codes for tyres and some construction and demolition wastes to standard rules permits for household waste amenity sites.

Q1. Do you agree with the addition of the new waste codes for SR2008 No 12?

• yes: 6
• no: 0
• do not know: 0
• not answered: 27

There was unanimous support for this proposal. We will continue with the proposal to add the waste codes to the standard rules set.

Q2. Do you agree with the addition of the new waste codes for SR2008 No 13?

• yes: 5
• no: 0
• do not know: 0
• not answered: 28

There was unanimous support for this proposal. We will continue with the proposal to add the waste codes to the standard rules set.

Revisions to standard rules set SR2015 No 18

These proposals relate to changes to conditions of this standard permit for metal recycling and vehicle depollution and dismantling facilities.

Q1. Do you agree with our proposals to add catalytic converters and associated conditions to the permit?

• yes: 5
• no: 0
• do not know: 1
• not answered: 27

There was unanimous support for this proposal. We will continue with the proposal to add catalytic converters and associated conditions to the standard rules set.

Q2. Do you agree with our proposal to remove 16 01 07* oil filters?

• yes: 2
• no: 3
• do not know: 1
• not answered: 27

There were mixed views on this proposal.

Of those respondents answering “no”, one asked what evidence there was to support removing the waste type. Another respondent suggested it would be sensible to retain the waste code to avoid difficulties should such wastes be received.

Our proposal was to remove the waste type from the waste acceptance table. The waste type is accepted at sites as part of an end of life vehicle. The treatment process on site then produces it as a separate waste. Unlike batteries and catalytic converters, authorised treatment facilities do not accept these wastes as a separate waste stream on to site.

This is evidenced by the waste returns.

We will continue with our proposal to remove the waste type as a separate waste stream.

Q3. Do you agree with our proposal to remove 16 01 11* brake pads containing asbestos?

• yes: 2
• no: 3
• do not know: 1
• not answered: 27

There were mixed views on this proposal.

Of those respondents answering “no”, one suggested it would be sensible to retain the waste code to avoid difficulties should such wastes be received.

Our proposal was to remove the waste type from the waste acceptance table. The waste type is accepted at sites as part of an end of life vehicle. The treatment process on site then produces it as a separate waste. Unlike batteries and catalytic converters, authorised treatment facilities do not accept these wastes as a separate waste stream on to site.

This is evidenced by the waste returns.

We will continue with our proposal to remove the waste type as a separate waste stream.

Q4. Do you agree with our proposal to remove 16 01 12 brake pads other than 16 01 11*?

• yes: 1
• no: 4
• do not know: 1
• not answered: 27

There were mixed views on this proposal.

The responses and our views were the same as set out in question 3.

In addition a further respondent who answered “no” asked how to code brake pads and shoes, if the brake part is removed for resale and the brake pads are not required?

As with other parts removed by the dismantling process, if brake pads are removed and are suitable for re-use (and are re-used as brake pads), we would not view them as waste once removed. In the case of brake pads this is unlikely to happen other than at DIY yards where customers remove parts from end of life vehicles themselves.

We will continue with our proposal to remove the waste type as a separate waste stream.

Q5. Please tell us if you have any comments or views on our proposals to add in some extra conditions around battery storage

We received 2 comments in support of these proposals. No further comments were received

We will continue with our proposals to add additional battery storage conditions.

We will revise standard rules sets SR2008 No 20, SR2011 No 3, SR2012 No 14, SR2015 No 13, SR2015 No 17 and SR2015 No 18.

Q6. Do you agree with our proposal to change the interpretation of ‘waste motor vehicle’?

• yes: 4
• no: 0
• do not know: 2
• not answered: 27

There was unanimous support for this proposal.

We will continue with our proposal to change the interpretation of ‘waste motor vehicle’.

Q7. Please tell us if you have any other comments on these proposed rules that have not been covered by previous questions

We received a number of comments. Some of which have already been addressed elsewhere in this document and others that are outside the scope of this consultation.

One respondent did comment on Table 2.5 of standard rules set SR2015 No 18, in relation to aligning the fluid storage requirements with Defra guidance. Whilst this was outside the scope of this consultation, we have noted this point and we will look into this as part of any future reviews and consultations.

5. Next steps

We have published our consultation summary. We will now publish the new standard rules and amended standard rules on the GOV.UK website.

Where appropriate, we will make the new standard rules sets available ahead of the waste exemption changes.

Individuals who wish to follow up their responses, or points made within this document, in more detail are welcome to contact us:

email [email protected]

6. Annex

List of consultation respondents (by organisation name):

• Biffa Waste Services Ltd
• DJ Riley Environmental Consultants Ltd
• DS Smith Paper Ltd
• DS Smith PLC
• Erith Contractors Limited
• Fraser Evans & Sons ltd
• Leicestershire County Council
• Medway Drums Ltd
• ProLogistics Ltd
• Rethinking Waste
• Riverdale Paper PLC
• Rubber Recycling Solutions Limited
• Saica Natur UK Ltd
• Shred-it Ltd
• Smart Resources Recycling Limited
• SUEZ Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd
• The Confederation of Paper Industries
• The Recycling Association
• The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders
• The Tyre Recovery Association
• Viridor Waste Management Ltd
• Yorwaste Limited