Consultation on three new and two amended standard rules permits

Do you agree with our approach to use standard rules to cover the new activities?

Do you understand the requirements of the proposed standard rules?

Do you agree with the requirements of the proposed standard rules?

Please let us know what you think would prevent people from using the proposed standard rule sets.

Do you agree that the waste quantity limits are viable?

Do you agree that the waste storage duration limits provide a viable throughput?

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

Please list any other types of treatment or processing activities that you believe should be included in the standard rule sets.

Do you agree that the right waste codes have been listed? If no, please let us know which ones to include and why.

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

Please let us know your views on our proposals for operating techniques in Table 2.3, relating to the site's surfacing and drainage requirements, and where different types of waste can be stored or treated.

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

Do you intend to apply for one of the standard rules sets when published?

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

Do you agree with the addition of the new waste codes for SR2008 No 12 and SR2008 No 13?

A number of responses disagreed with the proposed changes to the exemptions regime.

There were a number of responses expressing concern that the exemption changes may impact on the ability of small businesses to operate and for Local Authorities to meet their recycling targets. One respondent proposed a new type of interim permit/exemption which is registered and paid for similar to current WEEE exemption.

There was a need for clear and concise communications relating to any changes in respect of permitting.  Respondents also expressed concerns that the location criteria for the SRPs were too restrictive, for example in comparison to the older SRPs

It was suggested that there could be ‘Standard Rules Fire Prevention (and Mitigation) Plans’ to speed up the processing of applications.

Concerns were expressed that no new SRP has been introduced to replace the T9 exemption which is being removed as part of the exemptions review

There was a comment about alignment with other requirements, such as fire prevention and mitigation plan (FPMP) guidance regarding storage of waste limits.

There was a request to include farm plastics in SR2024 No.3.

The importance of definitions was raised.

There was a comment that requiring an impermeable surface may be onerous for some applicants who may handle very low risk wastes.

A number of responses disagreed with the proposed changes to the exemptions regime, which are not in the scope of this consultation. Those changes have been consulted on separately by Welsh Government and DEFRA. This consultation is limited to the introduction of the three new SRPs and amendments to two existing SRPs.

Most respondents support these Standard Rules Permits (SRPs) in general, and in particular as a pragmatic approach as a response to the proposed changes to waste exemptions. 

There were a number of responses expressing concern that the exemption changes may impact on the ability of small businesses to operate and for Local Authorities to meet their recycling targets. One respondent proposed a new type of interim permit/exemption which is registered and paid for similar to current WEEE exemption. Again, these issues are beyond the scope of this consultation.

We note the responses highlighting the need for clear and concise communications relating to any changes in respect of permitting.  Respondents also expressed concerns that the location criteria for the SRPs were too restrictive, for example in comparison to the older SRPs We are working to review all our SRPs to ensure consistency.

One respondent suggested providing ‘Standard Rules Fire Prevention (and Mitigation) Plans’ to speed up the processing of applications. We don’t support the introduction of Standard Rules Fire Prevention and Mitigation Plans. While SRPs are not site specific, an operator must understand and explain clearly how they will manage waste on site to reduce fire risk. We believe the best method to understand and mitigate the risk posed by the activity is to work through the FPMP process and produce an FPMP. We are also concerned that the Fire and Rescue Services across Wales and insurance industry may see this as increasing the risk of fires, which have been a high-profile issue in recent years.

Concerns were expressed that no new SRP has been introduced to replace the T9 exemption which is being removed as part of the exemptions review. We are satisfied that our SRP SR2011 no. 2 is already in place to handle scrap metal and most T9 operations should be able to use this existing SRP.

We note the comment about alignment with other requirements, such as fire prevention and mitigation plan (FPMP) guidance regarding storage of waste limits. The storage limits are based on the risk profile posed by the activity and explained in the Generic Risk Assessment. It should also be noted that the FPMP guidance is currently under review and we will monitor any changes to amend SRPs as required should there be inconsistencies.

There was a request to include farm plastics in SR2024 No.3. We have now added List of Waste code 02 01 04 for waste plastics (except packaging) to this SRP.

We note the comments on the importance of definitions. For example for surfacing – in particular the difference between ‘hardstanding’ and ‘impermeable surface’. These definitions are already provided for each of the SRPs. Where we find any terms that are unclear to operators, we can consider providing definitions in future.

There was a comment that requiring an impermeable surface may be onerous for some applicants who may handle very low risk wastes. However, for most waste types an impermeable surface is only mandatory within Source Protection Zone 2. Otherwise,  waste can be kept on hardstanding, provided the risk from this is fully assessed and dealt with in the operator’s management system.

All the respondents who answered question 18 agreed with the addition of the new waste codes for SRPs SR2008 No 12 and SR2008 No 13.

Based on the consultation responses received, we have decided to publish the three new and two amended rulesets. We will continue to review the permitting process including experiences arising from these new and amended permits.