Standard Rules Consultation No.21

We are very supportive of the development of a standard rules permit to cover treatment of used paper, cardboard and plastic. We believe this is a necessary intervention in order to preserve legitimate collection and "bulking up" infrastructure within the UK, whilst preventing illegal or environmentally damaging operations.
However, we also believe that some of the proposed requirements placed upon operators who may wish to seek a standard rule permit are excessive and disproportionate, and may demonstrate a misunderstanding by the Agency of the nature and economics of the industry. Even well-run paper for recycling operations operate on fine margins in a volatile global market. Many do not have financial reserves to afford additional costs arising from a disproportionate assessment of risk from their operations. Standard rules should reflect best practice on a well-run site. Without this, the purpose of the Standard rules Permit is lost. We believe some of the proposals go well beyond what should reasonably be required when combined with proper risk assessment and an approved Fire Prevention Plan (FPP).
The potential consequence of the proposals could be to close some well managed operations and undermine existing collection and reprocessing infrastructure to the detriment of the UK economy and environment.

We understand the proposed requirements.

We are supportive of the need for competent general management of paper for recycling operations, underpinned by a written management system and by appropriate record keeping, reporting and an employee competence scheme. We also agree with the application of the waste hierarchy, which is a driver towards the best outcomes for the UK economy and environment.
However, we do not agree with the following:
- The requirement that all loose material be unloaded and loaded within a building. Whilst it is usual for processing operations to undertake baling operations inside, the requirements of space and eave heights of 12 meters [1] necessary to accommodate commercial vehicles with tipping capacity often means that building costs are prohibitively expensive.
A survey of CPI members alone estimates that the capital costs of constructing the necessary buildings to enclose tipping operations would exceed £10 million, excluding recurring space costs such as building maintenance, insurance and increased rates. For the sector as a whole, including independent operators in the industry, costs would exceed £15 million. This is could result in the closure of a number of well managed facilities owned by CPI members and also a far higher number of independent operators.
The risk of windblown litter from most sites is relatively small and the ambition to reduce it is achievable without fully enclosing operations within a building, and may be effected by the presence of perimeter walling, wind baffles and well-maintained netting at much lower cost. In our opinion, the requirement that all loose material be tipped inside is disproportionate to the risk.
- The maximum limit of 75,000 tonnes per annum (1,500 tonnes per week) placed on the size of operation eligible for a standard rules permit. The paper for recycling industry often operates on "paper thin" margins. The economics of the industry provide that greater efficiency and profitability are often a consequence of increasing throughput volumes. Therefore, the proposal limits the potential optimisation of operational costs and profitability. One possible consequence could be that material from one site is transported by road to sister operations with concomitant unwanted traffic and environmental impacts. CPI considers this is an unnecessary and unwarranted limitation on business. We believe the maximum limit should be 120,000 tonnes per annum, allowing throughput of 2,400 tonnes per week.
- Storage of Plastics inside a building. The requirement that plastics should be stored inside is an unnecessary general stipulation. The storage of plastics would be determined as part of a holistic Fire Prevention Plan, based on risk. It may be that on particular sites, storage in the open, away from buildings and sensitive receptors is the option of least risk. In other words, requiring plastic material to be stored inside may contradict the recommendations of the risk analysis undertaken as part of the site FPP.
- The requirement that no material shall be stored on site for longer than 28 days. We believe it would be proportionate to align this requirement with the demands of the FPP and allow a maximum duration of onsite storage of 3 months.

[1] Handbook for Processing and Recycling Municipal Waste, p66 Manser & Keeling, CRC Press, 1996

Operators are likely to be prevented from using the proposed rule set largely as a consequence of limitations on tipping and loading loose material outside, and volume limitations on throughput.
In the view of the CPI's members, a standard rules permit should not define a "Gold Standard". Rather it should describe an acceptable and achievable operating regime for a well-managed, low risk operator, offering them the possibility to minimise costs, within a supervised system. The proposals do the opposite, effectively requiring operators to accept additional costs where they cannot meet prescribed building requirements. The consequence will inevitably force operators to seek a bespoke permit or to close, and undermine the purpose of a widely used, low cost, easy to administer standard rules permit.
The additional costs associated with meeting the disproportionate requirements of the rule set will likely cause even big multinational businesses to review their cost of operations and perhaps judge the additional costs too great to warrant continuing.

Please see above in our response to Q3. We regard the limitations as somewhat arbitrary and undermining of the economics of the industry.

On some occasions, when some special, high value paper grades are recovered for recycling, it can take time to collect the necessary 40 bales required to make up an economic load. This could extend over 28 days and be held as a breach of the standard rules permit for a small amount of material.
Moreover, we would consider it logical to align limits on storage duration with the requirements of the FPP and extend them from 28 days to 3 months.

As our response to Q3 above indicates, we do not believe the necessity to unload or load loose material inside a building is proportionate and we believe it may cause the closure of well-run businesses. We believe the risk of litter can be addressed in other less costly ways.
The risk of windblown litter from most sites is small and the ambition to reduce the risk of it is achievable without fully enclosing operations within a building, and may be effected by the presence of perimeter walling, wind baffles and well-maintained netting at a proportionate cost.
We do not understand the logic applied to the requirement that plastics should be stored inside. This will not reduce the amount or type of emissions given off once it is burning, nor will it necessarily reduce the likelihood that it will be set alight, since there are sources of ignition both inside and outside buildings.
We believe that the appropriate storage area for plastics should emerge from the site FPP which will be founded on a risk assessment of the site and determine the best place to minimise the risk of ignition and ameliorate the environmental impact of fire.

None

We believe the following codes should be included:
For Paper: 150101, 191201 (paper and board extracted from MRF operations), 200101
For Plastic. 020104, 191204 (waste plastic derived from MRF sorting operations), 200139

Exclusion distances are a concern, particularly the requirement to be more than 10m from a water course. Many paper for recycling operations already operate in cities and may be close to watercourses or canals. These sites are already in situ as exempt activities and therefore will be affected by the proposed rule changes.
In circumstances where the exclusion distances would make an operator ineligible for a standard rules permit they may investigate other options. The costs of ameliorating risk to achieve a bespoke permit could be sufficiently onerous as to cause the facility to shut. Alternatively, such businesses may wish to move. The availability of suitable alternative sites locally is a matter for individual operators, but it is possible that the costs of removing a business to a new site, with the resultant difficulties of finding appropriate premises, with associated business disruption costs, could result in discontinuation of the business.

We broadly concur with the operating techniques in Table 2.3, with the notable exceptions raised above. In particular we believe that it should not be a requirement to load and unload loose material inside a building.

Whilst most operating sites have concrete hard-standing and sealed drainage systems, it would seem unnecessary to require all paper for recycling wastes to be stored at all times on an impermeable surface with a sealed drainage system, if this is not a necessity to protect local groundwater sources. There is no evidence that leachate from paper for recycling is toxic or harmful to the environment.

We are a trade association

We understand that operators will have a choice. They can either adapt their sites to conform with the requirements of the standard rules permit, seek a bespoke permit or close their operation. As stated earlier, we believe standard rules permits should reflect best practice for a well-run, low risk site but not a gold standard. Without this, the purpose of the Standard Permit is lost. If the capital or recurring costs of meeting standard rules render an operation unviable it may close. If operators opt to apply for a bespoke permit, the same logic will apply.
Whilst the industry is mindful and supportive of the need to prevent unlawful behaviour and to ameliorate the environmental impact of its activities, one purpose of any standard rules permit should be to facilitate and encourage improved and expanding operations, not close the existing infrastructure or make the cost of entry sufficiently high as to prevent competition from new entrants and SME, thus favouring established and capital intensive existing waste management businesses.
The new permitting system combined with the requirement to produce an FPP will introduce an unwarranted, disproportionate and onerous cost on a business sector already operating on low margins.