Consultation outcome

Standard rules consultation No.25: summary of consultation responses

Updated 31 July 2024

1. Introduction

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 allow us to make standard rules (SR) permits. This reduces the administrative burden on business while maintaining environmental standards.

We consulted with stakeholders to obtain their views on the following proposals. These were to:

• consolidate the existing suite of SR permits for waste operations in the non-hazardous and inert waste sector from 28 to 8
• make changes to SR permits for the metals recycling sector
• amend the distance criteria to foul sewer in SR2010 No 3

2. How we ran the consultation

We consulted from June 2022 until November 2022 using our Citizen Space consultation website. We ran several workshops with trade bodies and interested parties to discuss the proposed changes to the non-hazardous and inert sector SRs.

We asked 57 questions. We set up the consultation so that respondents could answer all the questions or just those relating to the permits they were interested in. The questions were grouped as follows:

• 1 to 5 asked questions about the respondent
• 6 to 14 related to permit SR2022 No.1
• 15 to 17 related to permit SR2022 No.2
• 18 to 19 related to permit SR2022 No.3
• 20 to 28 related to permit SR2022 No.4
• 29 to 32 related to permit SR2022 No.5
• 33 to 34 related to permit SR2022 No.6
• 35 to 38 related to permit SR2022 No.7
• 39 to 45 related to permit SR2022 No.8

• 46 related to the proposed charges

• 47 to 50 related to the proposed changes to the following metals recycling SR permits (SR2008 No.20, SR2008 No.21, SR2011 No.2, SR2011 No.3, SR2012 No.14, SR2015 No.3, SR2015 No.13, SR2015 No.14, SR2015 No.16, SR2015 No.17, SR2015 No.18, SR2008 No.22 and SR2009 No.7)
• 51 related to the proposed changes to SR2010 No.3 discharge to surface water
• 52 related to the potential financial impacts from the proposed changes and we stated in the consultation we would not publish these responses
• 53 asked for any further information and comments relating to the proposed changes
• 54 to 57 related to the consultation process

We received 43 responses to the consultation from a mix of waste management companies, local authorities, industry bodies, consultants, and individuals. Not all respondents provided answers to all the questions.

Of the 43 responses we received:

• 8 from individuals

• 34 responses on behalf of an organisation, group or a business

• 1 from an environmental consultant

We also received responses outside of the Citizen Space website which we have taken into consideration.

3. Summary of key findings and actions we will take

3.1 Proposed changes to SR2010 No.3 discharge to surface water

We received 13 responses. All except one were supportive of our proposed changes. We will make the proposed change to SR2010 No.3 We will refer directly to the screening distance of 800 metres to foul sewer in the permit.

3.2 Proposed revisions to the metal recycling permits

The 13 responses we received were supportive of our changes to all the SR metal recycling permits.  

We will make the proposed changes and will:

• change the wording in the permits to “There shall be no treatment of batteries, other than sorting and separating from other wastes”
• add a fire prevention plan (FPP) condition to SR2008 No.22: storage of furnace ready scrap and SR2009 No.7: storage of furnace ready scrap
• remove waste codes 12 01 02 – ferrous metal dust and particles and 12 01 04 – non-ferrous metal dust and particles from SR2008 No.22 and SR2009 No.7
• add the definition of hardstanding into the interpretation section in condition 4.1.1

3.3 Proposed consolidation of 28 standard rules permits into 8 and the associated changes

We intend to publish our revised SR permits during 2024. Our detailed consultation response is set out in section 4. 

4. Summary of the consultation responses

Questions 1 to 5 requested information about who was responding. We will not summarise those responses here.  

4.1 Summary of the responses we received for questions 6 to 14 relating to SR2022 No.1 – treatment of waste to produce soil, soil substitutes and aggregate

Q6 Do you support restricting this SR permit to recovery only?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 20
• no – 8

Several of the responses suggested we should include disposal operation D15: Storage pending any of the operations numbered D1 to D14 (excluding temporary storage, pending collection, on the site where it is produced).

The addition of the D codes was suggested to cover instances where treated waste does not meet the required specification or standard of the end user. Although the intention of the operator using this permit is to recover waste with disposal of waste a last resort, there needs to be the flexibility of a D code.  

Q6 Our response

This permit allows waste to be processed to produce soil, soil substitutes and aggregate. This is a recovery activity and disposal is not the main activity or purpose of the permitted activity. It is accepted that although the activity is recovery a small amount of treated waste may fail quality control and therefore be sent for disposal. It is not necessary to add the D15 code.

Q7 Do you support removal of the 99 codes from this permit?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 25
• no – 3

Some respondents suggested that European Waste Catalogue (EWC) 19 08 99 may be a valuable resource of stone. It was suggested that limiting the waste description for 19 08 99 to ‘stone filter media if free from sewage contamination only’ would be sufficient to make sure only suitable material is accepted.

Q7 Our response

Waste codes ending in 99 are used as a last resort if no other suitable code is available. In the absence of any suitable codes in Chapter 19 08, we code based on the waste classification when the stone filter media is first brought into the wastewater treatment site. 

The stone filter media with the biofilm and sewage contamination removed should be coded 17 05 04. If blast furnace slag has been used as the filter media, the cleaned blast furnace slag media should be coded as 10 02 01. These codes will be included in the permit with the accompanying waste description.

Q8 We have separated out wastes which are suitable for the production of aggregate from those suitable for the production of soil and soil substitutes. Do you support this?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 21
• no – 9

Two respondents commented that separating the wastes into 2 lists will help ensure waste producers and operators do not mix wastes and use the correct recycling route to maximise recovery. An example was given that wastes are often imported under waste code 17 05 04 but are a mixture of soil and stones, including demolition material or concrete. It was suggested that guidance is given to producers and operators to help them use the correct codes to help maximise the sustainable use of aggregates.

Three respondents supported the separation of the waste types into 2 lists but disagreed about how we had split the lists. It was suggested that the waste types for aggregates should mirror those listed in the aggregates protocol.

Respondents who did not support the separation of waste types into 2 lists said that inputs to the treatment processes are usually a mix of wastes, which are then separated to create soils and aggregate products. Also, it was overly complicated and unnecessarily restrictive on operators. Permits should control the waste types and impacts of the activity but not the end-product. 

It was suggested that the 17 09 04 waste code for a mixtures of soils, concrete, brick and tiles should be allowed for both aggregate and soil production. For example, BS3882 allows for a range of manufactured soils and stone content.

There were concerns that waste code 17 05 04 and 20 02 02 were not included for soil production or 19 12 09 minerals (for example sand, stones) or 01 04 09 waste sand and clays.

Q8 Our response

We will set out the waste codes suitable for aggregate and soil production in separate tables. We will include waste codes 01 04 09, 17 05 04, 17 09 04, 19 12 09 and 20 02 02. 

We will include a third schedule and specify waste types that are subject to the groundwater protection requirements set out in condition 2.4.1.

We will add the wastes listed in the Aggregates Quality Protocol, however, the protocol is under review so the list of waste types within it could change.

Q9 Have we separated the wastes correctly?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 16
• no – 13

It was suggested that some reusable aggregates waste types were missing such as waste codes 10 11 03, 17 05 06, 17 09 04 which are included in the Aggregates Quality Protocol. Waste code 17 05 04 should also be included in the Schedule 2 list of wastes suitable to produce soils and soils substitutes.

A respondent commented on the proposed maximum annual tonnage. Permit SR2009 No.6 has an annual throughput of 250,000 tonnes but the new SR permit replacing it restricts this to 75,000 tonnes per year. The point was made that a higher annual throughput does not increase the risk if a storage limit is placed on the permit. They also commented that the planning permission for their sites will provide additional controls through operating hours and vehicle movements.

One respondent suggested that it would be beneficial to have an additional soil treatment permit rather than it being grouped with aggregates.

Q9 Our response

We will add wastes currently listed in the Aggregates Quality Protocol and the waste types mentioned in our response to question 8. 

We will increase the annual tonnage to 250,000 tonnes for Schedule 1 wastes, but we will keep the 75,000 tonnes limit for Schedule 2 wastes.

With the changes to the list of wastes in the rule set, we do not consider it necessary to publish an additional SR permit specifically for soil production. 

Q10 Are there any treatment activities missing from this rule set?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 4
• no – 23

Three respondents asked for aggregate washing to be included as this is used to improve the quality of the aggregate. Another suggestion was to include in-situ and ex-situ recycling of cold coated road planings.

Q10 Our response

The washing of soil and aggregate is not a sorting or separation process, it is a cleaning and decontamination process. Higher quality aggregate output is welcomed but a washing process has risks. The risks will vary between types of plants and processes so they need to be identified and mitigated for the specific process and plant and permitted as a bespoke activity.  

In relation to in-situ and ex-situ recycling of cold coated road planings, this is already covered by other permits:

• SR2022 No.1 allows sorting, separation, screening, crushing and blending of waste for recovery as a soil, soil substitute or aggregate and includes 17 03 02 road base and road planings (other than those containing coal tar)
• SR2022 No.2 permit is the equivalent but for mobile plant treatment can take place using mobile plant which is moved from site to site where the waste is either produced or is going to be used, provided a deployment has been agreed

Q11 Do you agree with the requirement that treatment must be carried out within an enclosed building on sites situated within 200m of a workplace, residential dwelling, and not within an air quality management area (AQMA)?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 6
• no – 22

Most respondents disagreed with treatment in a building for sites situated within 200m of another workplace or residential dwelling.

One respondent suggested that for operations within the 200m limit, a bespoke permit should always be required to assess and characterise all potential impacts.

It was also suggested that a risk assessment should be required to determine the sensitivity of the receptors and the receptor pathway. An example given was that there would be no benefit in erecting a building for waste treatment for a site located within an operational quarry.

Several respondents suggested that the requirement for a building is not justified against the risks posed by treatment activities. Key emissions will be noise and dust and this can be mitigated without the need of a building using alternative measures.  

It was suggested that a building would be restrictive and result in the closure of some very long-established businesses. Small-scale operators would not be able to fund the construction. 

Small-scale operators operate for intermittent periods and do not cause any harm to neighbours, and it was suggested that a separate SR permit without a requirement for a building would be appropriate for activities below 25,000 tonnes.

A respondent stated that they have a long-established crushing operation and would have objected to any development close to their site if the requirement for a building was in place.

It was also pointed out that many aggregate recycling facilities are in industrial areas. It therefore does not seem appropriate to require a building in these instances.

Further concerns raised were:

• planning permission may be required which can often take 12 months or more – it would not be possible to comply with the timescale of 3 months to move from old to the new SRs
• the size of the building would have to be a height of around 8m to 10m tall to allow for safe operation and to accommodate an excavator, crusher, screener and loading shovel to allow tipping and screening
• no guarantee of permission to construct buildings by landlords where the site is rented
• significant ventilation and lighting would need to be included in an enclosed building and noise levels would increase
• the moisture content of soils may become too low if processed in a building – the soil would require water and managing run-off would be another issue

Clarification

Respondents asked for clarity on the 200m limit from the site to a workplace or dwelling. It was viewed as unreasonable to expect the waste activity to be in a building when it could be several hundred metres from the site boundary and therefore from any off-site workplace or dwelling.  

Respondents also asked if different business activities adjacent to a permitted activity or workforce at an adjoining and unrelated facility which are all owned or operated by the same company, will be classed as a different workplace for the purposes of the requirement for a building.

Similarly, where waste activities are all co-located, would the 200m limit apply as they are different workplaces?

AQMA (Air Quality Management Area) 

A respondent made the point that for any AQMA, the majority of PM10s and PM2.5s are generated from road traffic emissions, not from recycled aggregate production.

Also, AQMAs are designated for specific pollutants of concern, such as nitrogen dioxide. A blanket ban on the use of this SR within all AQMAs will not necessarily contribute to the objectives of that AQMA. An exclusion would be better applied to sites located within an AQMA designated for particulate matter.

Q11 Our response

Our proposed definition of ‘workplace or residential dwelling’ is a place where people are likely to be present for more than 6 hours. It does not apply to the operators of the permitted facility, staff or visitors as this will be covered by Health and Safety at Work legislation.

For the 200m limit, this is from the boundary of the treatment activity, not the site boundary, which for larger sites is likely to be different. 

For multiple businesses carrying out waste treatment activities on the same site or on an industrial estate, they are all different workplaces and so the 200m limit applies. Operators are responsible for their emissions and should not have an impact on neighbouring businesses and properties. We must also consider the cumulative impact of a number of activities taking place in close proximity to one another.

For any workforce at an adjoining facility that is also owned and operated by the same company as the waste activity, the 200m limit applies. The adjacent workforce is different to the workforce running the permitted facility and the 200m limit applies to any unconnected business to the operation of the waste activity. This remains the same even if all are owned by the same company. 

Building

We will change our requirement for treatment to be carried out in a building to, treatment in a building or treatment where specified mitigation measures are put in place. Operators now have an option when using this SR permit, rather than having to apply for a bespoke permit. 

We will now include mitigation measures in a SR permit condition as an alternative to treating waste in a building. Examples of these mitigation measures include:

• enclosures or hoods on the feed hoppers and conveyor outlet points to minimise dust releases
• point-source water misting systems or water sprays installed over the feed hoppers and outlet points
• all drop heights from equipment and conveyors minimised
• a combination of fixed and mobile dust suppression units used to control point sources of dust
• wind breaks installed to minimise wind whip and particulate escape from the treatment and stockpile areas
• plant inspected daily and managed to ensure it is operating to minimise the generation of dust
• plant and the areas around it and including access roads regularly cleaned to prevent dust generation

We will require a Dust and Emissions Management Plan as set out in our guidance Control and monitor emissions for your environmental permit.

We will give existing permit holders additional time to implement changes and raise standards beyond the 3-month SR permit transitional period. This will be achieved by setting out time limited improvement conditions in the permit.

AQMA

Permit SR2022 No.1 is consolidating current SR permits (SR2008 No.11, SR2009 No.6 and SR2010 No.12). These permits are not currently available for sites which are located within an AQMA designated for PM10 so there is no change to this requirement.

The AQMA is defined in the permit in condition 4.3.1 as “Air Quality Management Area” means an air quality management area within the meaning of the Environment Act 1995 which has been designated due to concerns about particulate matter in the form of PM10.  

If the AQMA has been designated for a different reason, for example dealing with nitrogen dioxide, that AQMA would not be relevant for this SR permit. We will make this clear in the introductory note.

Q12 We have included a definition of enclosed building in condition 4.3 – interpretation. Do you agree with this definition?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 17
• no – 11

Respondents that disagreed raised several points. 

For operator safety and operational efficiency, a four-sided building will impact on the number of vehicle movements around the doorway.

Costs will be prohibitive particularly for multi-site operators.

Planning permission, tendering, construction and commissioning of a building will take longer than the 3-month SR transition period.

An open-fronted building is just as effective as a four-sided building, providing other considerations such as building orientation are considered. If a four-sided building is required, what is considered acceptable for a door size which is as small as practicable.

Aggregate stockpiles can be significantly dustier than recycled asphalt planings and have been managed for many years without any issues.

We were asked to provide examples to help with interpreting the definition of a building as design and performance of buildings will vary.

Q12 Our response

As discussed in question 11, we have considered the responses made and will give operators the option of carrying out treatment within a building or installing specified mitigation measures.

For existing SR permit holders, we will set improvement conditions to allow more time to implement any upgrades or changes to infrastructure.

We will require a Dust and Emissions Management Plan as set out in our guidance Control and monitor emissions for your environmental permit.

Q13 We want to ensure that this SR provides the right protection measures for people and the environment without the need for a site-specific and bespoke assessment. Are there any limits or restrictions you disagree with?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 13
• no – 14

The majority of respondents disagreed with the requirement for an enclosed building for activities within 200m of a dwelling or workplace and the exclusion of sites operating with an AQMA. 

It was noted that our 50m buffer distance to Ancient Woodland is more restrictive than planning guidance of 15m. These should be aligned.

Respondents also challenged Condition 2.3.1(d) in the SR permit and said that there is no requirement to sample soils and soil substitutes if background information, for example desktop studies, sufficiently characterises the material, then sampling and analysis is not required.

Q13 Our response

We will change the requirement for use of an enclosed building as the only option. Permit SR2022 No.1 is consolidating current SR permits (SR2008 No.11, SR2009 No.6 and SR2010 No.12). These permits are not currently available for sites which are located within an AQMA designated for PM10 so there is no change to this requirement.

We will not change our setback distance to ancient woodland from 50m to 15m. The 50m distance has been set using the Source-Pathway-Receptor risk assessment model. The distances are agreed by technical experts, based on a combination of legal protection, scarcity (or rarity), sensitivity (to the activity) and likelihood of impact. The 50m distance has been deemed suitable to try to ensure no damage to the woodland. If sites and are closer than 50m we will require a site-specific risk assessment and assess this as part of a bespoke permit application. 

Condition 2.3.1(d) applies to soils other than from domestic premises. Soils from domestic premises are absolute non-hazardous, so no characterisation is required. For other soils the Waste Classification and Assessment Technical Guidance (WM3) requires that they are assessed by the producer before they can be categorised as either hazardous or non-hazardous waste. This SR permit requires that soils imported for treatment are non-hazardous and they must be suitable for treatment.

WM3 states you can use other methodologies to determine the composition of a waste, but this does not apply in relation to soils where the third bullet set out below applies.

WM3 says – You get information on the composition of a waste:

• from the manufacturers safety data sheet if the waste is a manufactured product whose composition has not changed – if the composition has been altered during storage or use you should not rely fully on this information
• when the waste is from a well understood industrial process and the composition of the wastes produced are well understood
• by sampling and analysing the waste to determine its composition – you must read Appendix D before undertaking any sampling, to ensure that sampling is appropriate, representative and reliable

Q14 This permit requires the operator to manage and operate the activities in accordance with the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance unless alternative measures have been submitted and agreed in writing. Do you agree with our approach?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 23
• no – 5

Several concerns were raised.

The notification provisions in the permit will mean that operators will need tell us of any breaches of the guidance which is onerous.

Condition 1.1.3 allows the operator to agree alternative measures and therefore contradicts the strict rule of operating in a building if there is a receptor within 200m.

Q14 Our response

We will link the SR permits to the non-hazardous and inert waste: appropriate measures for permitted facilities guidance. In doing this we make sure the permits provide a current and appropriate level of environmental protection.

The main requirements set out in our appropriate measures guidance for emissions, storage and treatment arrangements have been incorporated within the permit conditions. Other sections such as management systems, staff competence, accident management plans, contingency planning, waste acceptance and tracking are standard good practice requirements. These elements should be reviewed by operators and where necessary, updated to meet the current standards set out in the guidance.

We will revise permit condition 1.1.3 to make it clear which section of our appropriate measures guidance we are referring to. We have already incorporated the relevant infrastructure and emission control conditions from our appropriate measures guidance into the SR permit including alternative measures to a building.

Summary of the responses we received for questions 15 to 17 relating to SR2022 No.2 – mobile plant for treatment of waste to produce soil, soil substitutes and aggregate

Q15 We have identified several 99 codes in this permit which we have removed. 99 codes are too general and we consider that more specific codes can be used. Do you support us removing these waste codes?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 19
• no – 1

One respondent asked for a justification for the removal of 19 08 99 and why 99 codes are ‘too general’. They also questioned why waste code 17 02 01 and 19 12 05 should be removed with no justification or associated consultation question.

Q15 Our response

We do not consider 17 02 01 – wood, as a suitable input for production of soil, soil substitutes or aggregates.

19 12 05 is glass from waste treatment activities. This is often contaminated with other contraries which are not suitable for aggregate production. We will retain this code, but it will be restricted to clean uncontaminated glass only. We are aware of glass from materials recycling facilities and other waste treatment sites that are being misdescribed as 19 12 05 because they still contain non-glass wastes. In some cases, this misdescribed waste has caused issues with odour, pests, litter and leachate. Glass which has been processed but contains contraries must be coded as 19 12 11* or 19 12 12 and is not suitable inputs for this permit. 

Waste codes ending in 99 are used as a last resort if no other suitable is available. We will remove the 99 codes and use the appropriate and specific waste codes.

19 08 99 – we do not use 99 codes in permits except as a last resort. In the absence of any suitable codes in Chapter 19 08, we code on what the waste would be coded as when it was first brought into the wastewater treatment works and used as a media. Where natural stone has been used as the filter media, the stone filter media with the biofilm and sewage contamination removed should be coded 17 05 04. If blast furnace slag has been used as the filter media the cleaned blast furnace slag media should be coded as 10 02 01. 

Q16 Are there any treatment activities missing from this rule set?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 2
• no – 16

Two respondents suggested we include soil and aggregate washing because it is now a fundamental part of the process of producing aggregates. Washing should be carried out on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage. It was suggested that washing is also allowed under SR2008 No.27.

Q16 Our response

The washing of soil and aggregate is not a sorting or separation process, it is a cleaning and decontamination process. Higher quality aggregate output is welcomed but a washing process is not without risks. The risks will vary between types of plants and processes, so they need to be identified and mitigated for the specific process and plant and permitted as a bespoke activity.  

SR2008 No.27 is a mobile plant permit for soil treatment and lists several physico-chemical treatments including washing. The bespoke deployment process for this process assesses washing and other treatments for contaminated soils at each site when the permit is deployed, whereas SR2022 No.2 does not. 

Q17 We want to ensure that this permit provides the right protection measures without the need for a site-specific and bespoke assessment. Are there any other limits or restrictions you disagree with?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 5
• no – 13

One respondent asked why there was no requirement for enclosure where treatment was within 200m of a property.

Others suggested that the permit should allow mixtures of soil, bricks, concrete and blast furnace slag (as a waste generated by refurbishment of filter bed media), waste code 10 02 01.

We were also asked to confirm if this SR permit requires that our appropriate measures guidance must be followed.  

Q17 Our response

There is no 200m restriction in this permit due to the temporary nature of the activity using mobile plant. The SR permit is also subject to a site-specific deployment before the mobile plant can be used on a site, so any additional dust control measures can be covered by a site-specific dust and emissions management plan. See the guidance Control and monitor emissions for your environmental permit.

We will include waste code 17 09 04 restricted to mixtures of soil, brick, stone and concrete.

Provided all the biofilm has been removed, filter bed media is effectively unchanged from the material that was used to construct it. If blast furnace slag has been used as the filter media the cleaned blast furnace slag media should be coded as 10 02 01. We will add this waste code to the mobile SR permit and also include 17 05 04 cleaned natural stone filter media.

Mobile plant is currently not included within the scope of our appropriate measures guidance. However, operators can choose to follow the guidance in relation to their activities, particularly Section 2 on management systems, accident management plans and contingency plans, and section 3 on waste pre-acceptance, acceptance and tracking.

Summary of the responses we received for questions 18 and 19 relating to SR2022 No.3 – inert and excavation waste transfer below 250,000 tonnes per year.

Q18 We are removing the SR permit with the lower annual throughput do you agree?

• yes – 18
• no – 1

Responses were supportive, removing the lower annual throughput creates opportunity for economies of scale whilst retaining effective environmental controls.

Q18 Our response

We will remove the SR permit with the lower annual throughput and set the annual tonnage for this permit to up to 250,000 tonnes per year.

We have altered the distance criteria to reflect this change. Where more than 75,000 tonnes of waste is being accepted per year, a site cannot be within 500m of a:

• European site
• Ramsar
• Site of Special Scientific Interest
• Marine Conservation Zone

Existing operators who are within 200m of a European site, Ramsar, Site of Special Scientific Interest or Marine Conservation Zone can continue to operate provided they accept less than 75,000 tonnes of waste per year.

New applicants must meet the 500m criteria.

We noted a couple of anomalies in the associated generic risk assessment. These will be corrected. 

Question 19 This permit requires the operator to manage and operate the activities in accordance with the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance unless alternative measures have been submitted and agreed in writing. Do you agree with this approach?

• yes – 17
• no – 2

Summary of comments received

The majority of respondents were supportive or reiterated their comments to the question for SR2001 No.1

One respondent suggested that where any specific requirements in the appropriate measures guidance are needed, they should be included in the permit as a condition.

AQMA

One respondent noted that the AQMA restriction had the potential to shut down many waste transfer stations including rail hub sites in and around London. The AQMA are designated by the local authority based on the emissions from the road network. As this will be a new restriction, we were asked what would happen if existing operators were in an AQMA.

Q19 Our response

We will link the SR permits to the non-hazardous and inert waste: appropriate measures for permitted facilities guidance. In doing this we make sure the permits provide a current and appropriate level of environmental protection.

The main points of the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance around emissions, storage and treatment will be incorporated within the permit conditions. Other sections such as management systems, staff competence, accident management plans, contingency planning, waste acceptance and tracking are standard good practice requirements, and they should be reviewed and updated by operators to meet the current standards set out in the guidance.

Where improvements are needed to infrastructure at sites who hold one of the permits that are being consolidated, we will build in timescales to enable operators to make those changes. This will be done using improvement conditions and will be specific to the existing permit holders. New applicants must meet the standards when the permit is issued.

AQMA

We will remove the AQMA restriction. This is because the permit is storage and transfer with treatment limited to manual sorting and manual separation only. For sites that are in an AQMA we will require a dust and emissions management plan as set out in the Control and monitor emissions for your environmental permit guidance. We will put an improvement condition in for existing operators who are in an AQMA designated for particulate matter PM10 to allow time for them to produce a dust and emissions management plan.

Summary of the responses we received for questions 20 to 28 relating to SR2022 No.4 – Non-hazardous waste recycling with asbestos, hazardous batteries and hazardous waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) storage

Q20:

We originally called this SR permit: Non-hazardous waste recycling and asbestos storage. We think calling it ‘non-hazardous waste recycling with asbestos, hazardous batteries and hazardous WEEE storage’ better reflects the activity and is the terminology commonly used by industry. Do you support the proposed title?

• yes – 15
• no – 3

Summary of comments received

Most respondents agreed with the title and that it provides clarity. One respondent stated that the risk characteristics and hazards associated with asbestos, WEEE and battery wastes are significantly different and should not be managed under the same SR.

Q20 Our response

We will keep the two separate permits; one will be for non-hazardous waste recycling and the other will be for the same but with added specified hazardous wastes. We will use our proposed title.

Only small quantities of asbestos can be accepted and temporarily stored. Treatment of asbestos is not allowed under this permit. We have incorporated the requirements of the Chemical waste appropriate measures for permitted facilities applying to asbestos transfer stations as conditions in this permit.

We have done the same with the WEEE: appropriate measures guidance which has been published since this consultation concluded.

For asbestos transfer there is also a specific SR permit for asbestos transfer stations SR2008 No.9 – asbestos waste transfer station.

Q21:

We have added hazardous battery and hazardous WEEE waste codes to this permit because it reflects the increase in batteries and WEEE being classified as hazardous waste and will allow greater flexibility of waste types accepted. Do you support the inclusion of these waste types?

• yes – 18
• no – 11

Summary of comments received

Most respondents agreed with adding these codes and waste types recognising they are commonly used household items.

A suggestion was made by a couple of respondents to include the waste codes for lead acid batteries (16 06 01*) because these wastes are commonly received at a transfer station.

Q21 Our response

We will keep the hazardous WEEE and battery codes and add lead acid batteries and include code 16 06 01. We have also added the hazardous cable code 17 04 10 because non-WEEE electrical and telecommunications cables are now classified as hazardous waste.

Q22:

Amenity issues, such as noise, dust, odours and pests have arisen from activities allowed by this permit. We consider that all treatment and handling, with the exception of waste listed in Schedule 2 shall take place in an enclosed building. Do you agree with this principle?

• yes – 7
• no – 12

Summary of comments received

Wastes listed in Schedule 2 were agreed as less of a risk than the waste types listed in Schedule 1.

It was noted that pests are likely to occur where the household waste is managed. There needs to be good segregation and site management to reduce these impacts and it should be in an enclosed building. But if there are no receptors, pests may be irrelevant.

Several respondents considered it unnecessary for batteries and WEEE to be in an enclosed building and stored within leak proof secure containers. Handling batteries is unlikely to create noise, dust, odours or pests so no need to carry out indoors. Asbestos waste should arrive already bagged so again no need to be inside a building.

Other respondents recognised that our proposals would raise standards at poorly managed sites.

One respondent suggested that a building would not be financially viable or practicable and that planning permission would be a barrier. 

One respondent suggested street cleaning residues 20 03 03 and glass 20 01 02 should be in Schedule 2 not Schedule 1 due to the potential for odour and odour complaints. It was also noted that there was duplication across the two schedules, for example Chapter 17 waste codes which should be handled outside.

Several respondents suggested that the requirement to handle Schedule 2 wastes in a building should include an option to use alternative measures. A building will impact on the ability to operate efficiently and the health and safety of workers. Comments were also made on additional energy usage and impact on climate change.

We were also told that the requirement for a building will be in direct conflict with the principles of the Growth Duty Statutory Guidance and Regulators’ Code. We were reminded that we already have the regulatory powers to suspend activities that we consider are causing pollution and can require infrastructural and operational changes to control emissions on a site-specific basis.

The 3 month transition period to comply with the new SR permit was raised as a concern, particularly with the requirement of a building. 

Q22 Our response

We note SR2008 No.6 and SR2008 No.8 do not require a building but we do not currently have any permits issued under these rule sets. SR permits SR2015 No.8 and SR2015 No.10 however, both require buildings.

We consider that many of the waste types under this permit should be handled within a building. If alternative measures are to be agreed, the operator will need to apply for a bespoke permit so that we can assess those measures on a site-specific basis.

We will move some of the chapter 17 wastes to Schedule 2 which will allow them to be stored and treated other than in a building. We will update this SR permit to ensure the permit conditions reflect the now published WEEE: appropriate measures guidance. We will add conditions to allow asbestos to be stored in containers either within a building or outside. We will amend the permit to allow some baled post treatment wastes to be stored outside on impermeable surface with sealed drainage for example baled and wrapped RDF.

Buildings should be designed and maintained to provide a safe working environment for employees and employers have a duty under health and safety legislation to do this.

Where improvements are needed to infrastructure at sites, we will include improvement conditions to enable operators more time to make those changes. New applicants will need to meet the standards when the permit is issued.

Q23 We consider that treatment of wastes listed in Schedule 2 (soils, concrete bricks etc) should be carried out in an enclosed building if the site is situated within 200m of a residential dwelling or workplace or within an AQMA. Do you agree with this principle?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 10
• no – 9

Several respondents noted that the treatment of Schedule 2 wastes is likely to create dust. Residential dwellings, workplaces and AQMA should be considered with respect to the location of the site and measures like treatment in a building should be taken to reduce the impact on them. 

Others agreed based on the source-pathway-receptor principle that it was best to control pollution and environmental health risk at source.

Respondents also disagreed that treatment should be carried out in a building where the site was within 200m of a workplace or dwelling. The reasons given were:

• many sites have operated without causing problems and because of poor regulation we are targeting all operators with a higher standard
• it is not possible financially or practically to store all material in an enclosed building
• planning permission would be a barrier
• many sites do not have the footprint to construct a building of suitable size to allow processing
• dust would be hazardous to staff
• this type of waste is best processed outdoors and measure can be put in place to minimise emissions, primarily noise and dust and their impacts

Q23 Our response

We will require that treatment is carried out either within an enclosed building or specified mitigation measures are put in place. We have given examples in our response to question 11 of what these measures are.

We will give existing permit holders additional time to implement changes and raise standards beyond the 3-month SR permit transitional period. This will be achieved by setting out time limited improvement conditions in the permit.

Q24 We have included a definition of enclosed building in Section 4.3 of the permit. Do you agree with this definition?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 10
• no – 9

Most of the comments received raised concerns about this requirement. Meeting our definition of a building will require significant capital investment and that the 3-month transition to the new SR permit cannot be met.

Several respondents stated that many sites already operate within partially enclosed buildings. These buildings have been proven to be effective at storing waste and managing emissions. It was suggested that this should be an option and that our appropriate measures guidance states ‘a partially enclosed building may be an appropriate measure on its own or in combination with other measures’. 

We were also asked to clarify what we meant by doorways being as small as practicable and justify the 200m distance to sensitive receptors.

Q24 Our response

For existing operators, we will use improvement conditions to allow infrastructure changes.

We will require that treatment is carried out either within an enclosed building or specified mitigation measures are put in place. We have given examples in our response to question 11 and question 23 of what these measures are.

Q25 We have reviewed waste return data for the SR permits that this rule set will replace. We are proposing to remove waste codes listed below. Do you agree with excluding these waste types?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 10
• no – 8

One respondent noted that the removal of any EWC code reduces the operational flexibility.

Also 20 01 41 should be retained – wastes from chimney sweeping. This is because more households are installing wood burners. 

Food waste codes should remain as local authorities will be required to collect food waste separately. Waste codes 20 01 08 should be retained.

Q25 Our response

We will retain 20 01 41 – wastes from chimney sweeping.

We will retain 20 01 08 – separately collected food waste.  We will add additional conditions to safeguard against odours and pests.   

Q26 We want to ensure that this permit provides the right protection measures for people and the environment, without the need for a site-specific and bespoke assessment. Are there any other limits or restrictions you disagree with or think we should include?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 7
• no – 10

Throughput limits

Several respondents wanted daily throughput limits to be removed, noting that there was an installation threshold. It was requested that the throughput limits are aligned with the annual limit.

We were also asked for a clear distinction between manual sorting and separation and mechanical treatment. It was noted that the daily throughput limit would therefore restrict the practical use of the SR permit if manual sorting and separation is defined as treatment and subject to this daily limit.

Storage of wastes

We were told that further clarity on the storage of wastes in a building, container or externally would be helpful. 

WEEE and batteries.

We were questioned about storing WEEE in buildings or closed containers. Issues raised were that:

• there would be loading problems for transport elsewhere with less WEEE being moved per movement as net weights will decrease by up to 70%
• it is harder to deal with a WEEE fire when stored in an enclosed container or building
• batteries should not be stored in a building because of fire risk, but should be stored in covered waterproof and leak proof containers

CIRIA C736

We were asked why the wording in the SR permit to CIRIA C736 differs to that in our appropriate measures guidance. We were also asked to remove CIRIA C736 for Schedule 1 wastes which pose no risk of contaminating surface or groundwater.

For older sites, we were asked how operators would need to demonstrate compliance with CIRIA C736 or an equivalent standard.

Condition 2.3.1 and analysis

We were told that WM3 sampling and testing is not required if other supporting information is available.

Housekeeping

It was suggested that a condition to clean storage bays and containers is unnecessary as this always forms part of general housekeeping and best practice.

Emissions to sewer

3.1.1(a) should include ‘owner’ as the sewer maybe a private sewer.

Shredding of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) containing waste

One respondent considered that shredding of POPs wastes should not be allowed under the SR permit and should be dealt with as a bespoke activity and subject to all appropriate measures.

Q26 Our response

We will remove the daily throughput limit, keep an annual tonnage and maximum limit for waste stored at any one time.

Storage of wastes

We will review Schedule 1 wastes and provide clarification around the storage of wastes listed in Schedule 1. We will also amend the permit conditions in relation to the storage of batteries and WEEE. These changes have been set out in our response to question 22.

WEEE and batteries

We have updated the SR permit to incorporate the requirements of the WEEE: appropriate measures guidance which has now been published. 

We will include further conditions in 2.4 which incorporate the requirements of the appropriate measures guidance for WEEE and the hazardous wastes listed in this SR permit. These will mirror the requirements in the published appropriate measures guidance.

We will require batteries to be stored separately and securely from other waste including WEEE. We will remove the requirement for WEEE or batteries to be stored in a building and the storage requirements in the SR will mirror the requirements in WEEE: appropriate measures for permitted facilities.

These can be summarised as batteries must be stored in leakproof containers to prevent leakage and spillage and the containers must be closed or stored under cover to prevent the accumulation of rainwater. Storage of lithium-ion batteries, stored separately or as mixed batteries, must be recognised as a fire hazard and marked and stored accordingly. Lead acid batteries shall be stored in containers with an impermeable, acid resistant base.

Shredding POPs containing wastes

Operators with buildings and point source emissions from shredding waste domestic seating containing POPs will be able to use the SR permit. Fugitive particulate emissions from the shredding process will need to be abated unless monitoring has been agreed to show fugitive emissions are below the level requiring abatement. A condition requiring abatement in line with our guidance and the emission limit will be set in the permit. See guidance on managing waste domestic seating containing POPs

CIRIA C736 and drainage

Wastes must be stored and treated on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage system. The new SR permit does not change this requirement. The impermeable surface and sealed drainage must be fit for purpose and maintained. CIRIA C736 provides a standard for installing and maintaining this infrastructure, however, we will not require CIRIA C736 this will enable alternative standards which provide an equivalent level of protection to be used.

Condition 2.3.1 and analysis

Condition 2.3.1(d) applies to soils other than from domestic premises. Soils from domestic premises are absolute non-hazardous, so no characterisation is required. For other soils WM3 requires that they are assessed by the producer before they can be categorised as either hazardous or non-hazardous waste. This SR requires that soils imported for treatment are non-hazardous and they must be suitable for treatment.

WM3 states you can use other methodologies to determine the composition of a waste, but this does not apply in relation to soils where the third bullet set out below applies.

WM3 says – You can get information on the composition of a waste:

• from the manufacturers safety data sheet if the waste is a manufactured product whose composition has not changed – if the composition has been altered during storage or use you should not rely fully on this information
• when the waste is from a well understood industrial process and the composition of the wastes produced are well understood
• by sampling and analysing the waste to determine its composition – you must read Appendix D before undertaking any sampling, to ensure that sampling is appropriate, representative and reliable

Housekeeping

Clearing and cleaning storage bays and containers should be detailed in the site management system. However, we consider regular cleaning is a critical and effective measure to prevent odours and pest infestations and should be set out as a permit condition.  

Sewer

This is standard wording across standard rules permits. If a discharge is into a private sewer, we would need to assess the risk and nature of the discharge. This would require a bespoke permit.  

Q27 We are minded to add hazardous waste wood codes 17 02 04* and 20 01 37* to this permit. Do you agree with this proposal?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 16
• no – 3

One respondent said that hazardous waste wood should be treated separately to prevent contamination levels in clean wood.

Most respondents supported adding hazardous waste wood codes as it allows ongoing management and segregation of wood. We were told that there is little risk of leaching from these wastes as they will have already been used in the environment. Any risks will be managed if stored on impermeable surface with sealed drainage and shredded in a building.

We were told that we should not require a hazardous waste technically competent manager because many operators deal with hazardous waste daily as non-compliant waste and have measures in place to handle the waste and store appropriately.

Q27 Our response

Following discussions with the Wood Recyclers Association and other stakeholders, we will not include hazardous waste wood (HWW) codes in the SR permits. We were told that most operators do not handle HWW and including these codes will lead to poor segregation and misdescription. Operators that handle HWW will need to apply for a bespoke permit. Misdescribed HWW received on site should be quarantined and sent to a site able to process it. We expect good systems and procedures in place and good pre-acceptance and acceptance checks.

Q28 This permit requires the operator to manage and operate the activities in accordance with the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance unless alternative measures have been submitted and agreed in writing. Do you agree with this approach?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 13
• no – 4

We were asked if we should use our appropriate measures guidance on asbestos, WEEE and batteries rather than our non-hazardous and inert guidance.

We were asked if appropriate measures should only apply to new applications and not existing operations (condition 1.1.3)

Statutory 3 month implementation period for revised standard rules permits

We were told that the default statutory period of 3 months for revised SR would not give operators time to ensure compliance or agree alternative measures, particularly with the requirement for a building and any associated abatement. We were also told that it would take time to secure agreement for any improvements by the private sector operating transfer stations under contract with local authorities.

We were asked if point source emissions from a building are allowed under the SR permit.

If our SR permit is linked to our appropriate measures guidance, we were asked what would happen if we changed our guidance in the future. It was suggested that we set out any specific requirements in our appropriate measures guidance as a SR permit condition.

Q28 Our response

Where improvements are needed to erect a building and other infrastructure changes, we will include improvement conditions to enable operators more time to make those changes. New applicants will need to meet the standards when the permit is issued.

Operators with buildings and point source emissions from shredding waste domestic seating containing POPs will be able to use the SR permit. Fugitive particulate emissions from the shredding process will need to be abated unless monitoring has been agreed to show fugitive emissions are below the level requiring abatement. A condition requiring abatement in line with our guidance and an emission limit will be set in the permit. See guidance on managing waste upholstered domestic seating containing POPs.

We will link the SR permits to the non-hazardous and inert waste: appropriate measures for permitted facilities guidance. In doing this we make sure the permits provide a current and appropriate level of environmental protection.

The main points of the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance around emissions, storage and treatment have been incorporated with the permit conditions. We have done the same with the chemical waste appropriate measures guidance for asbestos and we will revise the conditions in the draft permit to reflect the published WEEE appropriate measures guidance. 

Other sections of the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance such as management systems, staff competence, accident management plans, contingency planning, waste acceptance and tracking are standard good practice requirements, and operators should review and update them to meet the current standards set out in the guidance.

We consult on our appropriate measures guidance and any revisions before we make the changes and publish. We aim to consult with all stakeholders and will inform you of this consultation, but you should also keep abreast of regulatory developments.

Summary of the responses we received for questions 29 to 32 relating to SR2022 No.5 – non-hazardous waste recycling

Q29 This permit is identical to SR2022 No.4, but without any hazardous waste codes. If we did not have a corresponding permit that is restricted to non-hazardous codes then operators would need to demonstrate they had appropriate technical competence to manage hazardous wastes. Do you support the inclusion of this rule set without any hazardous waste codes?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 14
• no – 6

Most respondents supported a second permit without the hazardous waste codes and therefore a technically competent manager (TCM) with a non-hazardous waste award.

One respondent suggested that the management of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes should be covered by a non-hazardous waste award. Hazardous wastes routinely come on to site and are managed as non-compliant, misdescribed waste. We were also told that all operators should have technical competence to manage hazardous wastes. The suggestion was made for an additional topic in the qualification, rather than a full, expensive hazardous waste TCM.

Q29 Our response

We will publish 2 standard rule sets, one for transfer of waste only and one for transfer and treatment. Both SR will have hazardous waste codes:

• SR2022 No.4 will allow the transfer and treatment of non-hazardous wastes and include the storage and transfer only of asbestos, WEEE, cable and batteries which are hazardous waste
• SR2022 No.5 will allow the transfer only of non-hazardous wastes and include asbestos, WEEE, cable and batteries which are hazardous waste

We have done this because we recognise that transfer stations routinely handle WEEE and WEEE cable. We also recognise that non-WEEE electrical and telecommunications cable has now been reclassified as hazardous waste. SR2022 No.5 therefore can be used by more operators, and we have the ability of adding further waste types which in future may be reclassified as hazardous.

We have not combined the 2 SR sets into one. We recognise that by doing so, the subsistence costs for transfer activities would have increased by 47% to match the subsistence costs for transfer and treatment. We therefore decided to keep the SR separate and retain the associated subsistence charges.

Not all the wastes listed in the SRs will be accepted by the operator. Where an operator does accept a hazardous waste, for example asbestos, or small mixed WEEE, they will need to comply with the permit and the associated conditions relating to that waste type.

We will allow time for existing permit holders to obtain any additional TCM qualifications required. We will publish a regulatory position statement setting out transitional arrangements for this.

Recognising these changes, we have still responded to consultee responses to questions 30 to 32.

Q30 We have reviewed waste return data for the SR permits that this rule set will replace. We are proposing to remove waste codes listed below. Do you agree with excluding these waste types?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 10
• no – 9

One respondent noted that the removal of any EWC code reduces the operational flexibility, noting that the cost and time to add waste codes is prohibitive. No waste codes should be removed from SR rules permits unless they can be added for free.

Food waste codes should remain as local authorities will be required to collect food waste separately. Waste codes 20 01 08 for food waste should be retained.

20 01 41 – wastes from chimney sweeping should be retained. This is because more households are installing wood burners. 

Respondents wanted further justification on the EWC codes that we propose to remove – what waste return data had been used (that is time-period, number of operators, number of permits) and what thresholds have been used to justify their removal. We were asked that if these wastes do not pose any environmental risk and there is no justification for their removal.

Q30 Our response

We will retain 20 01 41 – wastes from chimney sweeping.

We will retain 20 01 08 – separately collected food waste. We will add additional conditions to safeguard against odours and pests.   

Q31 This permit requires the operator to manage and operate the activities in accordance with the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance unless alternative measures have been submitted and agreed in writing. Do you agree with this approach?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 16
• no – 4

Most respondents agreed with this condition.

We were asked for clarity on what alternate measures would be accepted and how they would be approved.

The concerns raised in response to question 28 for SR2022 No.4 were again raised. 

Q31 Our response

We will link the SR permits to the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance.

The main points of the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance around emissions, storage and treatment have been incorporated within the permit conditions. Other sections such as management systems, staff competence, accident management plans, contingency planning, waste acceptance and tracking are standard good practice requirements, and operators should review and update them to meet the current standards set out in the guidance.

We will revise the condition to make it more specific to the relevant sections of the guidance that are applicable for the activities specified by the permit. The permit incorporates the relevant infrastructure and emission control conditions from the appropriate measure guidance. There is no need to agree alternative measures because the requirements and conditions have been risk assessed as necessary to control the risks posed by the activity being carried out. 

We consult on our appropriate measures guidance and any revisions before we make the changes and publish. We aim to consult with all stakeholders and will inform you of this consultation, but you should also keep abreast of regulatory developments.

Q32 We want to ensure that this permit provides the right protection measures for people and the environment, without the need for a site-specific and bespoke assessment. Are there any other limits or restrictions you disagree with or think we should include?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 10
• no – 8

Several respondents wanted daily throughput limits to be removed, noting that there was an installation threshold. It was requested that the throughput limits are aligned with the annual limit.

We were also asked for a clear distinction between manual sorting and separation and mechanical treatment. It was noted that the daily throughput limit would therefore restrict the practical use of the SR permit if manual sorting and separation is defined as treatment and subject to this daily limit.

We were told that dust and litter risks can be mitigated if outdoors and that requiring operations to take place in a building would be costly and would need time to implement.

Requiring all Schedule 1 wastes to be handled in a building is not possible for many sites and should be reviewed.

CIRIA C736

We were asked why the wording in the SR permit to CIRIA C736 differs to that in our appropriate measures guidance. We were also asked to remove CIRIA C736 for Schedule 1 wastes which pose no risk of contaminating surface or groundwater.

For older sites, we were asked how operators would need to demonstrate compliance with CIRIA 736 or an equivalent standard.

Housekeeping

An additional condition has been included for ‘storage bays and containers shall be regularly cleared and cleaned to prevent a build-up of aging waste’. It is considered that this condition is not necessary as cleaning of storage bays and containers forms part of general housekeeping and best practice.

We were asked for clarity in relation to the 2 thresholds applied to Schedule 1 waste.

Q32 Our response

We will remove the daily throughput limit, keep an annual tonnage and maximum limit for waste stored at any one time.

Storage of wastes

We consider that many of the waste types under this permit should be handled within a building. If alternative measures are to be agreed, the operator will need to apply for a bespoke permit so that we can assess those measures on a site-specific basis.

We will move some of the chapter 17 wastes to Schedule 2 which will allow them to be stored and treated other than in a building. We will update this SR permit to ensure the permit conditions reflect the now published WEEE: appropriate measures guidance. We will add conditions to allow asbestos to be stored in containers either within a building or outside. We will amend the permit to allow some baled post treatment wastes to be stored outside on impermeable surface with sealed drainage for example baled and wrapped RDF.

CIRIA C736

Wastes must be stored and treated on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage system. The new SR permit does not change this requirement. The impermeable surface and sealed drainage must be fit for purpose and maintained. CIRIA C736 provides a standard for installing and maintaining this infrastructure, however, we will not require CIRIA C736 this will enable alternative standards which provide an equivalent level of protection to be used.

Housekeeping

Clearing and cleaning storage bays and containers should be detailed in the site management system. However, we consider regular cleaning is a critical and effective measure to prevent odours and pest infestations and should be set out as a permit condition.  

Summary of the responses we received for questions 33 and 34 relating to SR2022 No.6 – household waste recycling centre

Q33 We have defined a Household Waste Recycling Centre in the introductory note for this permit. Do you support the permit title and the definition given in the introductory note?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 15
• no – 4

Most respondents supported the revised permit title and definition.

We were asked to include unitary authorities.

One respondent suggested we should limit the SR permit to household waste only. Allowing waste from commercial and industrial sources which should be similar to household waste may result in a cheaper disposal route and encourage an outlet for trade waste and misdescription.

We were asked to include waste code 16 05 04* gas cylinders and 16 06 01* lead acid batteries.

Several respondents noted that the daily limit of 10 tonnes for hazardous wastes (cement bonded asbestos, cooling appliances, cathode ray tubes, engine oil, batteries, WEEE) will be exceeded at a reasonably busy site. The current limit of 10 tonnes was only for hazardous waste that would be disposed of. Most would be recycled.

Infrastructure and CIRIA C736

One respondent suggested that a canopy over wastes stored outside will decrease leachate. An alternative method to C736.

Q33 Our response

We will use our revised SR permit title and definition set out in the introductory note. Our definition covers unitary authorities.

We will change the tonnages for the storage of hazardous waste to no more than 50 tonnes at any time. Treatment of hazardous waste will be limited to no more than 10 tonnes per day. This limit does not include the manual sorting and removal of plugs, batteries and cables from items of WEEE or the repair and refurbishment of WEEE.  

We note that local authorities can charge for wastes. The SR permit will allow the flexibility for local authorities to accept trade waste that is similar in nature to household waste.

We will add 16 05 04* for gas cylinders. 

We will not add 16 06 01. We have included 20 01 33 which allows all types of batteries and accumulators to be accepted from householders.

We will include the code for waste cable, 17 04 10* Cables containing hazardous substances other than oil or coal tar.

Following the recent publication of regulatory position statement (RPS) 282 for the storage of coffee pods we will add in the waste code 20 01 99. 

CIRIA C736

Wastes must be stored and treated on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage system. The new SR permit does not change this requirement. The impermeable surface and sealed drainage must be fit for purpose and maintained. CIRIA C736 provides a standard for installing and maintaining this infrastructure, however, we will not require CIRIA C736 this will enable alternative standards which provide an equivalent level of protection to be used.

Q34 This permit requires the operator to manage and operate the activities in accordance with the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance unless alternative measures have been submitted and agreed in writing. Do you agree with this approach?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 11
• no – 8

Most respondents agreed with this requirement.

One respondent stated that our appropriate measures guidance is already covered in environmental management procedures.

Another respondent said that if permit holders are required to operate in accordance with the guidance, more conditions are effectively added leading to potentially more notifications of breaches.

One respondent noted that the proposed conditions would result in a significant number of current SR permits having to be varied to bespoke permits.

Several respondents expressed concern about the default 3 month period to comply with the revised SR permit.

Other comments not related to the appropriate measures condition

We were asked to include waste code 16 05 04* gas cylinders and 16 06 01* lead acid batteries.

We were told that the daily limit of 10 tonnes per day for hazardous wastes was too restrictive.

We were told that if treatment includes manual sorting and separation, the daily treatment limit of 50 tonnes would be too restrictive.

We were asked to clarify if all WEEE must be kept in secure, leak proof containers.

It was noted that small WEEE should not be compacted or compressed but containers are often subject to light compaction being transported off site. Respondents want to know if this practice could continue.

Some respondents suggested that although surfaces should be impermeable there is little advantage for this to meet an industry standard. Waste is stored in bunded containers. There is no benefit from sealed drainage with daily inspection of collection point when run-off from the impermeable surface is uncontaminated surface water. The requirement for CIRIA standard drainage is a potential significant infrastructure requirement and does not seem proportionate for household waste recycling centres (HWRC). We were asked to set out what would be an alternative acceptable standard.

We were asked to increase the storage limit for tyres from 1 tonne to 10 tonnes.

We were asked to increase the storage limit for wastes from 3 months recognising that some wastes have no environmental risk by being stored longer.

It was recognised that a fire prevention plan is necessary, but that some requirements may be excessive. For example, storage of sufficient water to deal with any deep rooted fire that effects the whole site is unnecessary as such fires are usually confined within the container it is stored. 

Q34 Our response

Where improvements are needed to infrastructure at sites, we will build in timescales to enable operators to make those changes. This will be done using improvement conditions. New applicants will need to meet the standards when the permit is issued.

We will link the SR permits to the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance.

The main points of the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance around emissions, storage and treatment have been incorporated within the permit conditions. Other sections such as management systems, staff competence, accident management plans, contingency planning, waste acceptance and tracking are standard good practice requirements, and operators should review and update to meet the current standards set out in the guidance.

We will revise the condition to make it more specific to the relevant sections of the guidance that are applicable for the activities specified by the permit. The permit incorporates the relevant infrastructure and emission control conditions from the guidance. There is no need to agree alternative measures because the requirements and conditions have been risk assessed as necessary to control the risks posed by the activity being carried out. 

We consult on our appropriate measures guidance and any revisions before we make the changes and publish. We aim to consult with all stakeholders and will inform you of this consultation, but you should also keep abreast of regulatory developments.

Other comments

We will update this SR permit to ensure the permit conditions reflect the now published WEEE: appropriate measures guidance.

The permit will restrict the storage of hazardous waste to no more than 50 tonnes at any one time. In addition, no more than 10 tonnes of hazardous waste can be treated per day except for manual sorting, repair and refurbishment of WEEE and the removal of plugs, batteries and cables from items of WEEE.

We will increase the storage limit for tyres from 1 tonne to 10 tonnes

We will increase the storage time to 6 months for hazardous waste and 12 months for non-hazardous waste.

Wastes must be stored and treated on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage system. The new SR permit does not change this requirement. The impermeable surface and sealed drainage must be fit for purpose and maintained. CIRIA C736 provides a standard for installing and maintaining this infrastructure, however, we will not require CIRIA C736 this will enable alternative standards which provide an equivalent level of protection to be used.

Fire prevention plans should be proportional to the risks posed by the operations and waste types handled at the site.

Summary of the responses we received for questions 35 to 38  relating to SR2022 No.7 – materials recycling facility

Q35 Amenity issues, such as noise, dust, odours and pests have been a particular cause of complaints. We consider that all treatment, handling and storage shall take place in an enclosed building. Do you agree with this principle?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 8
• no – 6

Responses were mixed. We were told that noise, dust, odours and pests are common issues and that wastes are best stored and treated in an enclosed building. If not stored in an enclosed building many of the materials will absorb water and lose any commercial value.

We were asked to allow the storage of baled waste or containerised waste outside.

Respondents that disagreed said we should allow alternatives measure to be used as set out in our appropriate measures guidance. A building will have significant financial and practical implications and is not in line with the statutory Growth Duty or Regulators Code. We were reminded that we already have the regulatory powers to suspend activities that we consider are causing pollution and can require infrastructural and operational changes to control emissions on a site-specific basis.

A building will impact on the ability to operate efficiently and the health and safety of workers. Comments were also made on additional energy usage and impact on climate change.

Concerns were raised about timescales for implementing the requirements of the SR permit.

Q35 Our response

We will amend the permit to allow some baled post treatment wastes to be stored outside on impermeable surface with sealed drainage for example baled and wrapped RDF.

All other storage and all treatment activities shall be carried out within a building. Operators that carry out these activities outside will require a bespoke assessment and permit. We will set out improvement conditions to allow more time to make changes. 

This SR permit incorporates SR2008 No.14, and SR2015 No.21 which already require that waste storage and treatment must be carried out within a building. SR2008 No.15 does not require a building, but we do not appear to have issued any of these SR permits and it has not been available for new applicants since 2015.

Where improvements are needed to infrastructure, we will build in timescales to enable operators to make those changes. This will be done using improvement conditions and will be specific to the existing permit holders. New applicants will need to meet the standards when the permit is issued.

Q36 We have included a definition of enclosed building in Section 4.3 of the permit. Do you agree with this definition?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 9
• no – 4

Most respondents agreed with our definition.

Some respondents told us that not all existing buildings will comply and capital investment will be required. Time scales was raised as a concern.

We were asked for clarification on doorways being as small as practicable.

Q36 Our response

We will retain the following definition of enclosed building “enclosed building” means a construction designed to provide sheltering cover and minimise emissions of noise, particulate matter, odour and litter. It must be enclosed on all sides and doorways must be as small as practicable.

Doorways being as small as practicable means that they are as small as possible to minimise amenity impacts whilst maintaining vehicle and plant access.  

Where improvements are needed to meet the definition of enclosed building, we will build in timescales to enable operators to make those changes. This will be done using improvement conditions and will be specific to the existing permit holders. New applicants will need to meet the standards when the permit is issued.

Q37 We want to ensure that this permit provides the right protection measures for people and the environment, without the need for a site-specific and bespoke assessment. Are there any other limits or restrictions you disagree with or think we should include?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 2
• no – 10

All respondents questioned the 75 tonne daily day limit on Schedule 1 waste when there is an annual limit and a storage capacity limit.

Permit storage limits were challenged and the condition on regular cleaning as not needed as would be done anyway.

Inclusion of waste code 20 01 08 was raised.

Q37 Our response

We will remove the daily throughput limit and use an annual tonnage and maximum amount of waste to be stored at any one time.

Clearing and cleaning storage bays and containers should be detailed in the site management system. However, we consider regular cleaning is a critical and effective measure to prevent odours and pest infestations and should be set out as a permit condition.  

Waste code 20 01 08 is food waste. Food waste should be going for in-vessel composting or anaerobic digestion. We do not consider it should be going to a materials recovery facility (MRF) plant under a SR permit.

Q38 This permit requires the operator to manage and operate the activities in accordance with the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance, unless alternative measures have been submitted and agreed in writing. Do you agree with this approach?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 10
• no – 3

Most respondents agreed with this requirement. One respondent noted that we were following up on our response to the appropriate measures guidance consultation which stated “We are reviewing the existing standard rules that apply to operations involving non-hazardous and inert waste. This review will ensure those standard rules provide an appropriate level of environmental protection and include appropriate measures and standards”.

A concern was raised that changes may have to be made to a facility for it to comply with Condition 1.1.3 requiring compliance with the appropriate measures guidance or for alternatives to be submitted and approved in writing. The concern was the requirement for an enclosed building and the associated possible implications for odour control, emission points and agreement of fire prevention plans.

It was noted that the conditions in the permit do not allow point source emissions, but the appropriate measures guidance requires negative pressure within an enclosed building. This would result in point source emissions. Clarification or additional wording to allow flexibility was requested.

Requiring operators to manage and operate the activities in accordance with non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures would increase the regulatory burden and potential for capital intensive improvements to comply with the standard rules sets.

The wording in the condition was considered too general and undermines the purpose of the standard rules set. This is because it requires activities to be operated in accordance with the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance unless alternative measures have been submitted and agreed in writing. It was suggested if there are any specific requirements required in the appropriate measures guidance to be applied to the standard rules set then it is included as a condition.

Concerns were raised about subsequent revisions to the appropriate measures guidance and how any subsequent updates would be accounted for.

Q38 Our response

We will link the SR permits to the non-hazardous and inert waste: appropriate measures for permitted facilities guidance. In doing this we make sure the permits provide a current and appropriate level of environmental protection.

The main points of the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance around emissions, storage and treatment have been incorporated with the permit conditions.

We have set out a definition of enclosed building within the permit. Where improvements are needed to meet the definition of enclosed building, we will build in timescales to enable operators to make those changes. This will be done using improvement conditions and will be specific to the existing permit holders. New applicants will need to meet the standards when the permit is issued.

Other sections of the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance such as management systems, staff competence, accident management plans, contingency planning, waste acceptance and tracking are standard good practice requirements, and operators should review and update them to meet the current standards set out in the guidance.

We consult on our appropriate measures guidance and any revisions before we make the changes and publish. We aim to consult with all stakeholders and will inform you of this consultation, but you should also keep up to date with regulatory developments.

Summary of the responses we received for questions 39 and 45 relating to SR2022 No 8 – waste wood treatment

Q39 We have restricted this SR to sorting, separation, cutting, pulverising, shredding, chipping and blending activities. We think these are the activities undertaken during waste wood processing. Have we missed any processing activity?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 2
• no – 10

We were asked to include pelletising and briquetting.

Q39 Our response

We will include pelletising and briquetting.

Q40 Due to our increased understanding of self-combustion in waste wood stacks, we consider that we can increase the throughput limit of wood from 5,000 tonnes to 25,000 tonnes per year. We have incorporated specific fire prevention conditions in this permit. Do you agree with this approach?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 11
• no – 1

One respondent suggested we increase the SR permit limit to at least 50,000 and a similar permit in Wales allows 75,000 tonnes.

We were told that the daily processing limit of 75 tonnes a day would make it difficult to reach the 25,000 tonnes annual limit. We were also told that seasonal fluctuations and local authority contracts mean that volumes received vary significantly during the year and daily. A weekly limit of around 1,000 tonnes would be more applicable. 

The incorporation of specific fire prevention conditions was supported.

Q40 Our response

We are satisfied that the fire prevention conditions will control risk. We will increase the permit limit to 50,000 tonnes per year with a weekly maximum throughput of 1,000 tonnes.

Q41 We have included a definition of ‘stack’ in Section 4.3 of the permit. Do you agree with this definition?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 12
• no – 0

We received one comment to endorse our term ‘on balance’ as there will always be a small percentage of wood that doesn’t comply with the stated measurement.

Q41 Our response

We will retain the term `on balance’ in the interpretation of a stack in the SR permit.

Q42 The proposed permit includes stack dimensions and associated storage periods. Do you agree with the permit having specific limits on stack volumes and storage periods?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 11
• no – 1

We had one disagreement. That tighter controls would not allow for unexpected occurrences for example machinery breakdown where extra capacity would be needed.

We were also asked to specifically reference our fire prevention guidance to safeguard against any future updates.

Q42 Our response

We will retain the fire prevention limits around stack volumes and storage periods. Contingency plans within the management system should be in place to manage volumes during unplanned outages. This may involve a stop on incoming waste. 

Further information around contingency planning can be found in section 2.4 of the Non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance.

We will review the SR permit conditions in the event of changes to our fire prevention guidance or other material changes.

Q43 Are there any other limits or restrictions you disagree with?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 0
• no – 12

No comments were received.

Q44 We are minded to add hazardous waste wood codes 17 02 04* and 20 01 37* to this permit. Do you agree with this proposal?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 11
• no – 1

Most respondents supported adding hazardous waste wood under this SR permit.

There were concerns around outlets for shredded hazardous waste wood and public perception of operators having a hazardous waste codes in the permit.

We were asked to keep 17 09 04.

Q44 Our response

Following discussions with the Wood Recyclers Association and other stakeholders, we will not include HWW codes in the SR permits. We were told that most operators do not handle HWW and including these codes will lead to poor segregation and misdescription. Operators that handle HWW will need to apply for a bespoke permit. Misdescribed HWW received on site should be quarantined and sent to a site able to process it. We expect good systems and procedures in place and good pre-acceptance and acceptance checks.

We will remove 17 09 04. This SR permit is for waste wood treatment only. Waste received should be separately collected waste wood, or waste wood that has been segregated from other wastes elsewhere. 17 09 04 is a mixed construction demolition waste. It is not appropriate for this permit.

Q45 This permit requires the operator to manage and operate the activities in accordance with the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance unless alternative measures have been submitted and agreed in writing. Do you agree with this approach?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 11
• no – 1

Most respondents supported our approach. 

We were asked what would happen if the appropriate measures guidance were changed and that compliance with our guidance would add to our regulatory burden and the potential for capital-intensive improvements. We were also told that any specific requirements in the appropriate measures guidance should be set out as a condition in the SR permit.

Q45 Our response

We will link the SR permits to the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance.

Where improvements are needed to infrastructure at sites, we will build in timescales to enable operators to make those changes. This will be done using improvement conditions. New applicants will need to meet the standards when the permit is issued.

The main points of the non-hazardous and inert waste appropriate measures guidance around emissions, storage and treatment have been incorporated within the permit conditions. Other sections such as management systems, staff competence, accident management plans, contingency planning, waste acceptance and tracking are standard good practice requirements and operators should review and update them to meet the current standards set out in the guidance.

Q46 Do you agree with the proposed charges for these permits?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 20
• no – 4

Most respondents supported our charge band.

We were asked why the application fee is higher than the subsistence fee.

We were asked what the variation fees would be for operators varying their existing SR permit to a bespoke permit.

We were also asked for further details on how the charges were calculated particularly the subsistence fees which have generally increased when compared with the previous SRs.

We were also asked about the increase in subsistence fees for SR 2022 No.5 for added treatment activities that may not be used.

Q46 Our response

The charges for the consultation were based on charges used for the current SR permits. We have increased subsistence where tonnage has increased, or additional activities have been added. This is to reflect the regulatory effort.  

For operators varying their existing SR permit to a bespoke permit, information can be found in section 3.2.1 of the environmental permitting charges guidance.

Our subsistence charge reflects regulatory effort which includes inspections. The permit application reflects the amount of resource our National Permitting Service uses to determine the application for that permit. It will be less than for a bespoke permit.

We have sent the general comments relating to permit application fees to our Waste Charges Team. See the current charging scheme, details of recent charges consultations can be found in the section changes to Environment Agency charging.

Summary of the responses we received for questions 47 to 50 relating to the proposed changes to the metals recycling and end of life vehicle (ELV) standard rules permits.

Q47 We have amended the wording in table 2.1 of the following permits: SR2008 No.20, SR2008 No.21, SR2011 No.2, SR2011 No.3, SR2012 No.14, SR2015 No.3, SR2015 No.13, SR2015 No.14, SR2015 No.16, SR2015 No.17, SR2015 No.18. This is to make it clear that the permits do not allow the treatment of any battery chemistry. Do you agree with this amendment?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 13
• no – 0

All the respondents agreed.

Q47 Our response

We will implement the changes. Table 2.1 will be changed from ‘There shall be no treatment of lead acid batteries, other than sorting and separating from other wastes’ to ‘There shall be no treatment of batteries, other than sorting and separating from other wastes’.

The SR permits prohibit battery treatments other than sorting and segregation for onward recycling.

Q48 We have included a definition of ‘hardstanding’ in the interpretation section of these permits. Is it useful to include this definition?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 13
• no – 0

All the respondents agreed. 

Q48 Our response

We will include the new definition of hardstanding.

Q49 We have amended the wording in table 2.3 of the SR2008 No.22 and SR2009 No.7 to include a condition relating to fire prevention and fire prevention plans. Do you agree with the proposed condition?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 13
• no – 0

All the respondents agreed.

Q49 Our response

We will include a condition relating to fire prevention and fire prevention plans.

Q50 Do you have any further comments on our proposed changes to these metal recycling permits?

Summary of responses:

Respondents noted that the waste codes for SR2015 No.18 had changed - 16 01 21* and 16 01 22 had been removed and 16 01 11* and 16 01 12 had been added. We were asked to confirm these changes.

Q50 Our response

16 01 21* and 16 01 22 will not be removed.

16 01 11 and 16 01 12 will not be added.

The waste codes will remain the same as published in SR2015 No.18: metal recycling, vehicle storage, depollution and dismantling facility.

Summary of the responses we received for the proposed changes to the proposed changes to standard rule SR2010 No 3

Q51 Do you agree with the proposed changes to this standard rule permit?

• yes – 12
• no – 1

Summary of responses:

One respondent disagreed with the proposed change stating the distance of 800m is too long. If there were blockages it would be hard to determine the point of the blockage. This distance would require approximately 4 manholes which may have to go through people’s homes.

Q51 Our response

A distance of 800m has been used to reflect the distance applicable to the maximum discharge rate of 20 cubic metres a day that would be authorised by any standard rules permit that may be granted.

If a proposed discharge is within 800m, a standard rules permit would not be granted. However, the applicant may apply for a bespoke permit.

As part of the bespoke permit application, the Environment Agency will carry out a bespoke assessment to determine whether the discharge can reasonably be made to the foul sewer. As part of the bespoke assessment, the Environment Agency will consider the practicality of connection to the public foul sewer including any physical, or technical barriers to connection that cannot be overcome.

Q52 Are there any other significant financial impacts, either positive or negative, that the introduction of the new or revised standard rules could have on your overall business?

This question related to the potential financial impacts of the proposed changes. We stated in the consultation we would not publish these responses.  

Q53 Please use the box below if you have any further comments or observations that you would like us to consider as part of this consultation.

Summary of responses:

There were several responses to this question reiterating concerns about the following:

• the requirement for an enclosed building
• throughput limits
• transfer of food waste
• CIRIA C736 standard for impermeable surfacing and drainage
• extra waste types for HWRCs

A suggestion was made about considering alternative options to meeting the existing TCM criteria or Competency Management System (CMS).

There were also suggestions made relating to our permit application system.

Q53 Our response

We have responded to issues relating to the requirement for a building, through put limits, CIRIA C736, food waste transfer and extra waste codes in the detailed responses to the specific questions.

The suggestions about alternative options to demonstrating TCM or CMS and our permit application system have been forwarded to colleagues to consider.  

5. Next steps

Responses from this consultation will be used to:  

• inform the consolidation of the existing suite of SR permits for waste operations in the non-hazardous and inert waste sector
• make the proposed changes to SR permits for the metals recycling sector
• amend the distance criteria to foul sewer proposed in SR2010 No.3

If you want to discuss your consultation response or the points made within this document, please email [email protected]