Response 1018968977

Back to Response listing

About You

What is your name?

Name
Beth Clayton

Are you responding as an individual or an organisation?

Please select one item
(Required)
Individual
Ticked Organisation

What is your organisation?

Organisation
SUEZ Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd

Part 2: Policy Overview

1. Do you agree with the benefits set out here?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

2. Are there any other comments you would like to make on Part 2?

Are there any other comments you would like to make on Part 2?§
No

3. How could SEPA better support the uptake of new technologies?

How could SEPA better support the uptake of new technologies?
Enable the undertaking of trials without a formal application process, but via e.g. time limited agreement with local officers subject to conditions.

Part 3: Key features of the new framework for authorisation holders.

4. Do you agree that the framework should include a set of universal outcomes?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

5. If so, are the outcomes proposed the right ones?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

6. Do you see any opportunities within your sector for industry- led guidance to be produced to support this approach and how could it support you to deliver better?

Comments:
To ensure industry-led guidance was acceptable practice there would have to be a form of SEPA agreement of that guidance to ensure its acceptance within the industry otherwise the guidance may not be used due to uncertainty of its status.

7. Do you understand the descriptions of the regulated activities in Annex 2?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

8. Do you agree that these are the right factors for SEPA to consider?

Comments:
In principle yes

9. Do you agree that SEPA should consult on the guidance setting out the likely tier of authorisation for particular activities?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Do you agree that SEPA should consult on the guidance setting out the likely tier of authorisation for particular activities?
Agreed, it is important to consult on this topic.

10. Do you agree that standard rules will deliver the benefits we have set out?

Comments:
The benefits may be seen by some operators, and while we have no issue in principle with standard rules, our experiences to date of (Environment Agency) standard rules permits have highlighted that the benefits can be limited. In many cases the standard rules permits only fit a handful of sites due to restrictive conditions. Changes to site operations often result in a move towards converting the standard rules permit to a bespoke permit. With this knowledge and assuming similar restrictions, the benefits would have to be significant (e.g. reduced subsistence fees and significant time saving benefits) for SUEZ to continue to use standard rules permits in the future. Alternatively SEPA may view that standard rules conditions may be less stringent (compared to existing EA rules) and this would then prove more useful. We welcome consultation on the detail of the conditions proposed in standard rules permits.

11. Do you agree with the procedure for making standard rules?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
Agreed

12. Do you agree that SEPA and Scottish Ministers should have the ability to make GBRs?

Comments:
We are unsure as both options can provide benefits and dis-benefits dependent upon the proposed nature of the change to GBR’s. If the GBR’s are set in regulations then this does provide certainty to an operator.

13. Do you agree that all regulated activities should have an authorised person responsible for overall compliance and that this person should be named in a permit and registration?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not why not?
Agreed

14. Do you think it is proportionate to require the person in control to be the person that notifies an activity in the notification tier?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Agreed

15. Do you agree that SEPA should include more than one person as the authorised person where appropriate?

Comments:
Responsibility should be clear for all parties and having more than one person may cause additional confusion

16. Do you have any views on how SEPA should decide if a person is in “control”?

Comments:
Responsibility should be clear for all parties and having more than one person may cause additional confusion

17. Question 17 – Do you think the core requirements set out here will deliver the right approach to FPP for the integrated authorisation framework?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
In principle yes

18. Do you think that the criteria set out above will achieve the stated purpose of the FPP test?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
In principle yes

19. Do you agree with the proposed application processes?

Comments:
The proposed process highlights the importance of good pre-application discussion/advice. Can SEPA confirm if there are any time/cost limits associated with pre-application advice?

20. Do you agree with the proposal to have a statutory determination period of four months for the majority of permit applications?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, what do you think the determination period should be?
Agreed, again highlights the requirement for detailed pre-application discussions and important of availability of resources to achieve this.

21. Should the legislation make a clear distinction for applications for “non-standard” activities?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Agreed

22. What other alternative arrangements would you suggest for managing non-standard applications?

Comments:
Again this highlights the requirement for detailed pre-application discussions and ensuring sufficient available resources for this to be achieved.

23. Do you agree with the proposals for variations?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
Agreed, and please see comments on Q.10

24. Do you agree with the proposals for transfer?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
Agreed, however consideration should be given as to how to prevent large numbers of notifications being registered and possibly unused if not de-registered as this could be a potential outcome of the notification process.

25. Do you agree with the proposals for surrender?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
Agreed

26. Do you agree with the proposed approach to enforcement notices set out above?

Comments:
This would aid more effective control on waste crime which is welcomed.

27. Do you agree a notice used in the way set out in 3.7.10 to 3.7.12 is a different type of notice and should be therefore be called something different, such as an improvement notice?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Agreed

28. What benefits and drawbacks do you foresee from SEPA using enforcement notices in the way set out at 3.7.10 to 3.7.12?

Comments:
The proposal should result in longer term behavioural change to a compliant culture.

29. Do you agree we should retain suspension notices for use in circumstances where we wish to suspend an activity in order to protect the environment, but the authorised person is not being ‘enforced’ against?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments
Agreed

30. Do you agree SEPA should have the power to revoke authorisations in these circumstances?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Agreed

31. Do you agree that appeals against SEPA decisions should continue to be heard by the DPEA on behalf of Scottish Ministers?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, which alternative body do you think should hear such appeals and why?
Agreed

32. Do you have any views on the proposed policy principles for transitional arrangements?

Comments:
The proposal in agreeable in principle however we would request full and timely engagement with operators regarding this matter in line with para 3.9.3.

33. Do you have any suggestions for how SEPA might manage the workload to implement integrated, and corporate, authorisations?

Comments:
In a staged manner

Part 4: Key features of the new framework for the public

34. Do you support SEPA having more flexibility in how information is made available to the public?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Agreed on the assumption that there is no additional burden to the operator

35. Do you agree that a consistent, flexible and proportionate approach to public participation should be adopted?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Agreed

36. Do you agree that the procedural arrangements for third party call-in under CAR should be extended to all regulated activities?

Comments:
We have little experience of this and are unsure of the necessity.

Part 5: Pollution Prevention and Control

37. Do you consider that the provisions of the universal outcomes contain equivalent protection as BAT in relation to domestic activities?

If not, why not?
It is agreed that this is issue is confusing and clarity is best sought.

38. Do you have any comments on the potential impact of this change for other industrial pollution risk activities?

Do you have any comments on the potential impact of this change for other industrial pollution risk activities?
No comment

Part 7: Radioactive Substances

39. Do you agree that it is appropriate to have controls on radioactively contaminated materials whilst they remain on the premises where they were contaminated?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
Although not directly applicable to our operations this seems to be a logical approach to add regulatory control to this previously exempt material.

40. Do you foresee any practical implications of the proposal to have controls on radioactively contaminated materials whilst they remain on the premises where they were contaminated?

Do you foresee any practical implications of the proposal to have controls on radioactively contaminated materials whilst they remain on the premises where they were contaminated?
Not our area of specialism – unable to comment.

41. Do you agree that all substances associated with NORM industrial activities should be subject to control under the integrated authorisation framework, where they exceed the out-of-scope values, irrespective of whether or not they are classed as radioactive material or waste?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
Yes to avoid confusion/requirement for regulation under a different framework.

42. Do you foresee any significant implications of this proposed change, e.g. are there any finished products (consumer products or construction materials) that would become classified as radioactive material?

Do you foresee any significant implications of this proposed change, e.g. are there any finished products (consumer products or construction materials) that would become classified as radioactive material?
Not our area of specialism – unable to comment.

43. Do you agree that we should continue to exclude the public from the scope of the radioactive substances regulatory regime?

If not, why not?
Yes this is currently the case and appears sensible to continue the exclusion of consumer products or the limited occasions the public may have radioactive sources that are not consumer products.

44. Do you agree with the proposed radioactive substances regulated activities?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
Yes this seems to better describe transfer and treatment and management of waste rather than disposing of waste. This adds clarity to the public and operators.

45. Do you agree with the proposals for applying the new regulatory regime to nuclear licensed sites?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
Yes in principle however we do not undertake these activities.

46. Do you foresee any problems with removing the requirement to display certificates?

Do you foresee any problems with removing the requirement to display certificates?
No

47. Do you agree that SEPA should have the power to impose conditions in an authorisation requiring the permit holder to carry out operations off their site?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
Yes, this seems a very sensible approach and as detailed in the consultation this provision already exists in PPC 2012.