Consultation outcome

Appropriate measures for permitted facilities that accept chemical waste: summary of consultation responses

Updated 1 August 2022

1. Introduction

The purpose of this consultation was to engage with stakeholders and get their views on our draft technical guidance. The draft guidance sets out the appropriate measures for permitted facilities that transfer or treat chemical waste.

Currently, the measures and standards for permitted facilities that take chemical waste for transfer or treatment set out in Sector Guidance Note S5.06: recovery and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. The proposed draft guidance will replace this guidance note – we will publish it on GOV.UK.

The guidance aims to improve the design and operation of permitted facilities in the chemical waste sector. It will make sure that appropriate measures are applied consistently. The guidance also incorporates the relevant requirements of the waste treatment ‘best available techniques’ (BAT) conclusions document, made under the European Industrial Emission Directive (2010/75/EU) – this applies to waste installation facilities permitted under the Directive.

We shared an early pre-consultation version of the draft guidance with key stakeholders in June 2019 to get initial comments and concerns. We incorporated these when we prepared the formal consultation.

Unless specifically stated in the guidance, the appropriate measures will apply to all permitted waste facilities that accept chemical waste for transfer or treatment (to both waste installation and waste operation facilities).

Once published, the guidance will apply to new permitted, or substantially changed, chemical waste management facilities. We will implement it through the environmental permit application process. We will also apply the guidance to existing chemical waste management facilities through permit reviews.

We will review the existing standard rules that apply to operations involving treatment or transfer of chemical waste once we have published the revised guidance. This will make sure they provide an appropriate level of environmental protection and refer to appropriate measures and standards.

2. How we ran the consultation

We ran a formal online consultation on the Environment Agency Citizen Space website from 3 February to 6 April 2019.

The consultation asked 14 questions relating to specific aspects of the draft guidance (questions 4 to 17 of the consultation). We also asked for additional comments.

We received 11 responses to the questions in the online consultation, although not all responses provided an answer to all of the questions.

We received 8 responses from operators of chemical waste management facilities. We also received:

• 1 response from a private individual
• 2 responses from a trade association

See the list of organisations that responded to the consultation.

3. Summary of main findings and actions we will take

The guidance note was based on:

• Sector Guidance Note S5.06
• the new waste treatment BAT conclusions and associated BAT reference document

Most respondents agreed that the measures set out in the management system section were appropriate to facilities that store or treat chemical wastes.

Most of the respondents wanted fire prevention measures for hazardous waste sites included in the fire prevention plan guidance. We will discuss this with the fire prevention team.

Including contingency planning in the guidance was generally accepted, but we amended the section so that facilities do not need to share the plan directly with customers.

We changed the pre-acceptance section to exclude wastes received directly from householders. We changed the acceptance section so that wastes received directly from a householder would not need to be sampled when the householder handed it over to the waste site.

Many of the respondents did not agree that acceptance sampling and checking needed completing within a day of receiving waste on site. However, it’s very important that the reception area is cleared of all waste as soon as possible, because reception is not usually a segregated storage area.

If an operator wishes to deviate from this requirement they can agree an alternative approach with the Environment Agency where this maintains the same level of control as set out in the appropriate measure.

Whilst we recommend that wastes are stored under cover, we agree with respondents that we will not make this a mandatory appropriate measure except for certain high risk wastes, for example wastes that are sensitive to air or water.

Some respondents felt that the guidance was too prescriptive. The guidance is written so that all operators operate to the same general standards to protect the environment and human health. Where a measure is not considered suitable for a specific site, an operator can propose alternative measures that achieve the same level of environmental protection. Or they can provide an explanation of why a specific measure is not relevant. This will form part of the permit review process for the waste site. The alternative measures agreed will be built into the site’s management system.

4. Responses to consultation questions (4 to 17)

Q4. Is it clear which types of waste site have to follow the guidance?

• yes: 8
• no: 1
• do not know: 2

Most respondents agreed that the title was clear. But we have amended the guide to make some sections clearer as to what applies.

Q5. Do you think that the fire prevention plan (FPP) guidance should apply to storing flammable and hazardous combustible wastes at permitted chemical waste facilities?

• yes: 6
• no: 2
• do not know: 3

Most respondents wanted the FPP guidance to include hazardous waste sites. We will discuss this with the fire prevention team.

Whilst we discuss whether to amend the FPP guidance, we consider that the accident and fire prevention measures specified in this guidance are appropriate measures for minimising the fire risks of chemical waste.

If you have a permit to carry out an activity that involves storing other non-hazardous combustible wastes, you may need a fire prevention plan. This must meet the requirements of our FPP guidance. You must send it to us for approval.

Q6. Are there any additional measures that you think we should include in the management system section to protect people and the environment for the chemical waste sector?

• yes: 4
• no: 6
• do not know: 1

Some additional measures were proposed and we have considered them. For example, 2 respondents said that all management systems should be ISO 9001, 14001 and 18001 (45001). Whilst use of these standards is helpful, we do not expect their use to be mandatory.

Q7. Are there any measures included in the management system that you feel are not relevant to the chemical waste sector?

• yes: 1
• no: 6
• do not know: 3
• not answered: 1

Most respondents felt that the measures were relevant. We made some minor changes to the management system section following comments made during the consultation.

Q8. Is the list of waste types that do not need to be assessed specifically by a chemist at pre-acceptance appropriate?

• yes: 4
• no: 6
• do not know: 1

The pre-acceptance section now excludes wastes directly received from a householder. Most comments to this question were about the education level of the person making the pre-acceptance assessment – this was the subject of another consultation question.

Q9. Do you think that equivalent qualifications to Higher National Certificate (HNC) chemistry are acceptable?

• yes: 7
• no: 1
• do not know: 3

Some suggestions were made during the consultation to reduce the qualification levels below the existing requirement, which is to have a HNC in chemistry (or its equivalent). A HNC is a level 4 qualification and is the minimum standard that we can accept for staff who pre-accept or accept chemical waste.

Where operators want their staff to hold alternative qualifications to chemistry or alternative levels to HNC, they need to justify and agree this with their regulatory officer.

Q10. Do you think that having and implementing a contingency plan that meets the requirements of the proposed guidance represents best practice and is an appropriate measure?

• yes: 5
• no: 4
• do not know: 2

Whilst the requirement to have contingency plans was generally accepted, it was universally agreed that sharing all of it with customers was not acceptable. This is primarily because of commercial confidentiality.

We have removed the requirement to inform customers of the plan. We have also reduced some of the absolute requirements in this part of the guidance where reasonable.

Q11. Do you think that obtaining details about who the waste producer is should be an appropriate measure?

• yes: 8
• no: 3

The specific requirement for the operator to obtain producer details was accepted by most respondents. It is important to find out who the producer is for a waste so that contact can be made with them, where necessary, to get better details about a waste.

Q12. Do you think that there are other wastes that should be included as examples of wastes that do not need to be sampled during pre-acceptance?

• yes: 6
• no: 3
• do not know: 2

We recognise that pre-acceptance would not apply to waste received directly from a householder – we have changed the pre-acceptance section.

There are some wastes that do not need to be sampled at pre-acceptance – these are listed in the guidance document.

Getting robust pre-acceptance information about a waste is critical for the safe operation of a waste transfer or treatment site. Many accidents have occurred at waste sites where the operator was not fully aware of the contents of waste they are storing or treating. The information can be received directly from the waste holder but it must be supported by robust testing. Otherwise, the sampling and analysis must be done by the permitted operator.

Some respondents asked for wastes in low volume to be excluded, but this is unacceptable because low volume waste can be equally dangerous.

Q13. Do you think that the requirement to decide at the pre-acceptance stage which parameters need to be checked at acceptance, is an appropriate measure to protect people and the environment?

• yes: 6
• no: 2
• do not know: 2
• not answered: 1

Most respondents agreed that the acceptance parameters should be decided at the pre-acceptance stage. Some of the comments made against this measure did not relate to the question asked. Each of these comments were considered.

Q14. Do you think one working day is sufficient time to complete the acceptance checks?

• yes: 3
• no: 7
• do not know: 1

Most of the respondents to this question did not agree that acceptance should be done within a day of receiving the waste on site. However one respondent said:

A reception is for reception only and once all acceptance checks are complete then the waste can be moved to a processing area or a dedicated storage area. Speaking from experience we prefer a fast turnaround of wastes and having wastes sat in a reception area for more than one day limits the available space for further acceptance.

We have had serious incidents in reception areas. It is very important that the reception area is clear of all wastes as soon as possible. Reception is not usually a segregated storage area. Wastes should be checked, or sampled and checked, to see they match the pre-acceptance information as soon as possible, and moved to the appropriate storage area.

If an operator wishes to deviate from the one day turnaround time, which is the suggested time in the waste treatment BAT reference document, they will need to justify to us why they wish to do so. They will also have to tell us how this maintains the same level of control as set out in the appropriate measure.

Q15. Do you think that there are other wastes that should be included in the list of wastes that do not need to be sampled and analysed at the acceptance stage?

• yes: 8
• no: 1
• do not know: 2

Getting the acceptance process right is critical for the safe operation of a waste transfer or treatment site. Many accidents have occurred at waste sites where the operator was not fully aware of the contents of waste they were storing or treating.

At acceptance the operator needs to verify that the waste is the same as that expected so that they can store or treat it safely. They can do that quickly by referring to the pre-acceptance information and cross-checking criteria decided upon at the pre-acceptance stage (for example colour, odour, pH and metals content).

Some wastes do not need to be sampled at acceptance – these are listed in the guidance document. Some respondents asked for wastes in low volume to be excluded, but this is unacceptable because some low volume waste can be equally dangerous.

We have amended the list so that wastes received directly from a householder do not need to be sampled at acceptance.

Q16. Do you think that certain wastes need to be stored in sealed, ventilated metal containers?

• yes: 5
• no: 5
• do not know: 1

Use of ‘ventilated’ containers was questioned by respondents. Self-reactive or self-heating waste should be stored in sealed but not ventilated containers. We have amended the guidance accordingly.

Some respondents were concerned about contaminated oily rags and filter materials being considered self-reactive or self-heating. Waste fires have been caused by such materials but not all oily rags or filter materials have the potential to be self-reactive or self-heating. The main risks are where they are contaminated with metal swarf, mixed metal swarf or low boiling point oils.

An operator has to get a clear response from their customer whether their waste is potentially self-reactive or self-heating. If the waste has this potential it must be stored in sealed metal containers. Even where the waste is not self-reactive or self-heating, you must not use open-topped intermediate bulk containers or other open-topped containers to store them. However, you can store them in bulk if they are kept under cover.

Q17. Do you think that storage of all chemical waste must be under cover regardless of waste type or packaging?

• yes: 2
• no: 8
• do not know: 1

Most respondents said that it should not be an absolute requirement to store waste under cover. We are not making it an absolute requirement to store waste under cover except for particular types of waste, for example containerised waste that is sensitive to air, light, heat, water or extreme ambient temperatures. We do, however, recommend under cover storage for waste as it protects the integrity of waste containers and stops rain getting in.

Q18. Please let us know if there are any other sections that are unclear and say how we can improve them.

We received many additional comments to the guidance which we have fully considered. We have amended the guidance where necessary.

The main additional comment was that the guidance is too prescriptive. Many of the appropriate measures given in the guidance are written so that all operators will operate to the same standards to protect the environment and human health.

Where a measure is not considered suitable, an operator can propose alternative measures that achieve the same level of environmental protection. Or they can provide an explanation of why the specific measure is not relevant. This will form part of the permit review process for the specific site.

The alternative measures agreed will be built into the site’s management system.

5. Next steps

Now we have considered the consultation responses received, we will finalise the guidance document for publication.

We will publish the finalised guidance on GOV.UK.

We will convert the PDF document that was used for the consultation to HTML format so that the guidance is fully accessible.

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

[email protected]

6. Annex

List of consultation respondents (by organisation name):

• an individual
• The Industrial Packaging Association
• Midland Oil Refinery Ltd
• Suez Recycling & Recovery UK Ltd
• Chloros Environmental Ltd
• Veolia UK
• Environmental Services Association
• WasteCare Ltd
• Cleansing Service Group Ltd
• Totus Environmental Ltd
• RE:Group Ltd