Consultation outcome

Standard rules permit consultation No 23: summary of consultation responses

Updated 1 August 2022

1. Introduction

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 allow us to make standard rules to reduce the administrative burden on business while maintaining environmental standards. The purpose of this consultation was to engage with relevant stakeholders to obtain their views on these proposals:

• revise the standard rules permit for clinical and healthcare waste transfer stations (SR2008 No 24) to make sure it provides an appropriate level of environmental protection – the revised permit refers to the standards set out in ‘Healthcare waste: appropriate measures for permitted facilities’, which updates and replaces ‘EPR: 5.07 Clinical waste: additional guidance’ for the healthcare waste sector

• revoke the standard rules permit for the treatment of healthcare waste (SR2008 No 25) as the take up for this rule set has been minimal

• revoke the standard rules permit for the treatment of healthcare waste (SR2013 No 1) for which there has been no take up

2. How we ran the consultation

The formal online consultation ran on the Environment Agency’s Citizen Space website for 6 weeks from the 29 March 2021 to 12 May 2021.

The consultation asked 10 questions relating to specific aspects of the standard rules detailed in the introduction:

• Q1 to Q5 asked specific questions on the proposals for varying SR2008 No 24

• Q6 and Q7 asked for views on the proposal to revoke SR2008 No 25 and SR2013 No 1

• Q8 asked for views on the revised generic risk assessment

• Q9 and Q10 asked for views on how businesses would be impacted and for any other comments

We received 10 responses to the questions. However, not all responses provided an answer to all the questions asked.

Of the 10 responses, 5 were from operators of healthcare waste management facilities or proposed healthcare waste management facilities. We also received:

• 2 responses from trade associations
• 1 response from a healthcare business
• 1 response from a consultancy
• 1 response from a local authority

We received 2 of the responses by email which we manually uploaded to the Citizen Space website. The remaining 8 responses were received through the Citizen Space site.

A list of the names of the organisations that responded to the consultation is provided in the annex at the end of this document.

3. Summary of key findings and actions we will take

Following consideration of the consultation responses received, we will amend SR2008 No 24 and the associated generic risk assessment in line with the proposals in the consultation including:

• reducing the maximum quantities of waste to 5,000 tonnes a year

• limiting the maximum quantity of non-hazardous waste stored on site to 20 tonnes at any one time

• storing aerosol canisters with rules limiting how long they can be stored on site

• meeting the requirements of the updated guidance ‘Healthcare waste: appropriate measures at permitted facilities’

We have considered the consultation responses about withdrawing SR2008 No 25 and will withdraw this rules set with immediate effect for new entrants. The 2 current operators of the standard rules set can continue to follow them until we issue them with a bespoke permit.

For SR2013 No 1, we considered the responses and available options and still intend to withdraw the rules set with immediate effect. However, where appropriate, we will work with industry (including innovative technology providers) and the National Permitting Service to support applications for low risk, low volume healthcare waste treatment activities that promote the recovery of waste. For example, by clarifying the potential for abatement of permit application fees. We will consider developing a new standard rules permit for the specific treatment of healthcare waste in the future, if there is evidence of need. We will also consider issuing a regulatory position statement while we develop it if required.

4. Responses to questions 1 to 10 and our response to these

Questions 1 to 5 relate to the proposed changes to SR2008 No 24.

Q1. We are proposing to reduce the maximum quantity of waste accepted at the site from 75,000 to less than 5,000 tonnes per year. Do you agree with this reduction?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 7

• no – 2

• do not know – 1

Summary of comments received

The majority of respondents (7) answered ‘yes’ to this question. They recognised that this would help to prevent the accumulation of stored waste on site. In some cases, they acknowledged that, as holders of one of these permits, they could manage this change. Of the 2 respondents that answered ‘no’, neither hold one of these permits, so would not be impacted. Before including this in the permit consultation, we did a review of the annual quantity of waste accepted by existing permit holders. No permit holders exceeded this suggested limit. We therefore consider that this is an appropriate limit to set.

Q2. There is no quantity limit in the existing permit for the amount of non-hazardous waste that can be stored at any one time. We are proposing to limit the maximum quantity of non-hazardous waste stored to 20 tonnes at any one time. Do you agree with this storage limit?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 6

• no – 2

• do not know – 2

Summary of comments received

The majority of respondents (6) were supportive of this proposal, with one respondent suggesting this was a sensible limit that allows for sufficient waste to be handled. Of the 2 respondents that answered ‘no’, neither have one of these permits so would not be impacted by the decision. One suggested a bespoke permit may be required but gave no supporting information. The other respondent suggested this would impact on NHS Trusts who they suggest store more offensive waste than this limit on their sites. However, this should not be an issue for NHS Trusts as they do not have or require these permits. We therefore consider that this is an appropriate limit to introduce.

Q3. We have extended the waste types in the standard rules permit to include storage of aerosol canisters from the servicing of washrooms and similar hygiene facilities. We recommend limiting the quantity to no more than 3 cubic metres of aerosol containers. Do you find this quantity acceptable?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 8

• no – 0

• do not know – 2

Summary of comments received

This proposal was supported by 8 of the respondents. 2 stated that it was not applicable to them and so they did not know. One respondent stated that it would be reasonable and would in fact ‘enhance better fire risk controls and any potential accidental emissions’. Another thought this would be supported by the hygiene suppliers of the healthcare sector. We therefore consider that this is an appropriate limit to introduce.

Q4. We recommend a maximum storage time of 3 months for aerosol containers. Is this an acceptable timescale?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 8

• no – 0

• do not know – 2

Summary of comments received

The timescale was supported by 8 of the respondents, with 2 stating that it was not applicable to them and so they did not know. We therefore consider that this is an appropriate limit to introduce.

Q5. Are there any other wastes from healthcare or similar premises that we should include in the standard rules permit that would allow more operators to use the standard rules permit?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 2

• no – 2

• do not know – 6

Summary of comments received

Most respondents (6) did now know whether there were other wastes that should be included.

One permit holder supported the proposed waste list.

One respondent who said there were other wastes that should be included, supported the change to include lead foils from the dental waste stream. They also suggested we should include waste codes to take account of the pandemic waste stream. We have agreed to amend the waste types list to include the dual coded vaccination wastes.

The other respondent thought that ‘single use disposable plastics that are deemed offensive waste and carry the EWC code 18 01 04’ should be included to ‘allow recovery of the plastics in innovative plastic recovery equipment…at source of hospital’. However, storage at source does not require a permit. This is a permit for transfer and includes the 18 01 04 code.

Following this consultation, we discussed the coding for lead foils with coding and classification colleagues. They told us that this waste is non-hazardous and has the code 15 01 04 (not 15 01 10*). We have amended the standard rules set accordingly.

Q6. Do you agree with the proposal to withdraw the existing standard rules set: SR2008 No 25: 75Kte clinical waste and healthcare waste treatment and transfer station?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 6

• no – 2

• do not know – 2

Summary of comments received

The majority of respondents (6) agreed with the proposal to withdraw this standard rules set. Two respondents did not know whether it should be removed or not.

The rule set has been available for use since 2008 but only 2 permits have been issued. Of the 2 respondents who disagreed with removing the set, one holds this permit. They suggested that the current permit works well. The other company who disagreed does not hold this permit, so will not be impacted by the decision. However, they are concerned that removal of this permit will increase costs for NHS Trusts if they have to pay for a permit in the future. The respondent suggested the application charge would be ‘disproportionate to any value for the recovery of offensive single use disposable plastic waste, and has now become a barrier for innovative resource recovery solutions in the UK’. However, this rule set has been available since 2008 with no take-up from any NHS Trusts and so we still think the permit should be withdrawn.

Q7. Do you agree with the proposal to withdraw the existing SR2013 No 1: treatment of 100 tonnes a year of clinical and healthcare waste?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 5

• no – 2

• do not know – 3

Summary of comments received

The majority of respondents (5) agreed with the proposal to withdraw this standard rules set. Three respondents did not know. SR2013 No 1 has been available since 2013 with no take up.

Two of the respondents disagreed with removing the set. One respondent felt that this permit is suitable for a particular innovative plastic recovery technology. However, we would have to amend the permit by changing the waste types accepted. This would mean holding another consultation. A further respondent suggested that ‘there are currently a number of companies looking at new ways of treating personal protective equipment (PPE) and for the small tonnages that are likely to arise for niche areas this standard rule would allow investment for a small tonnage’. They also suggested that the Chapter 18 waste codes are expanded to allow for such innovation. They believe SR2013 No 1 is ‘good for small scale, niche recycling and recovery like that being considered in the private sector – like foil blister pack recycling’.

Based on the responses received we have carried out an options appraisal to consider whether to:

• amend the permit to meet the standards in the new appropriate measures guidance but restrict it to the treatment of non-hazardous PPE only

• amend the permit to meet the standards in the new appropriate measures guidance and expand it to other wastes including non-hazardous healthcare wastes

• withdraw the permit as put forward in the consultation

Following the appraisal, we decided to withdraw the permit. However, where appropriate, we will work with industry (including innovative technology providers) and the National Permitting Service to support applications for low risk, low volume healthcare waste treatment activities that promote the recovery of waste. For example, by clarifying the potential for the abatement of permit application fees.

If in the future there is a more definitive need for a standard rules permit for the treatment of non-hazardous healthcare waste, we can review this.

Q8. Do you agree that the revised generic risk assessment reflects the risks posed by this activity?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 7

• no – 1

• do not know – 2

Summary of comments received

Most respondents (7) agreed with the revised generic risk assessment. Only one respondent suggested that the requirement for impermeable surfacing with a sealed drainage system did not reflect the risk to the environment from the types of wastes proposed.

We have considered this response and feel that there is sufficient risk from these activities to require impermeable surfacing with a sealed drainage system in the standard rules permit. If an applicant does not want to keep to this requirement they can apply for a bespoke permit. This will allow operators to propose alternative measures to those set out in the guidance. However, they will need to justify and show they are providing an equivalent level of environmental protection, based upon a site-specific risk assessment. Operators can also explain and justify why certain measures in the guidance are not relevant, on a site-specific basis.

Q9. Please tell us about any financial impact on your business of making this proposed change.

Summary of comments received:

Comment 1

Application and subsistence charges of a bespoke permit cost more money. Permitting activities such as completing applications and satisfying pre-operational conditions are demanding on business time.

Our response

We appreciate the additional cost of applying for a bespoke permit for some small scale treatment activities. However, we do propose, where appropriate, to work with industry (including innovative technology providers) and the National Permitting Service to support applications for low risk, low volume healthcare waste treatment activities that promote the recovery of waste. For example, by discussing the potential abatement of permit application fees. Subsistence fees will remain unaffected.

Comment 2

One respondent has already had an NHS Trust withdraw their sales order because of the cost implications and additional permit application. Several senior personnel within other UK NHS Trusts are also discouraged by the uncertainty over the inclusion of mandatory permits for single use plastic waste recovery solutions. In addition to this, major UK plastic reprocessors are engaging with the respondent to source their output product that is recovered through their process.

Our response

Our response is the same as for comment 1.

Comment 3

The respondent also stated that there would be considerable capital financial implications for any new facility that a local authority brings on line, through the implementation of the proposed controls, estimated to be in excess of £100,000, that does not seem proportionate to the level of risk involved. Furthermore, there would be significant on-going revenue financial implications through the need to transfer waste less efficiently (weekly or fortnightly regardless of volume). If these controls are rolled out in the future to existing facilities, then the above implications would apply to those sites. The respondent would encourage the Environment Agency to ensure any costs that Local Authorities have to bear, are proportionate to the overall risks involved. In terms of collections, perhaps consider some additional flexibility rather than the absolute cut off, such as collections on a 2-weekly cycle where robust contingency arrangements are in place.

Our response

Our response is the same as to comment 1. Also see the responses to the Healthcare waste: appropriate measures guidance consultation.

Q10. Please provide any other comments you wish to make about the revised rules and risk assessment.

Summary of comments received

Comment 1

One respondent is concerned about the types of waste permitted for repackaging into a bulk container. Condition 2.1.8 allows repackaging into a bulk container for offensive waste types only, with condition 2.1.9 listing all other permitted waste types as only allowed for repackaging into non-bulk containers. This restriction would impact operators of most standard rules transfer stations. This is because most of them bulk up waste (including infectious and medicinal waste) before onward transfer to a disposal site. This practice should be allowable under the standard rule and is already subject to the restriction on storage in bulk trailers that is covered by condition 2.4.1(c). The respondent seeks clarification on this point – otherwise most transfer stations (currently operating under this standard rules permit) would not be able to operate under the new proposed rules. They would require a bespoke permit to allow them to repackage clinical waste into a bulk container for transfer to a disposal site.

Our response

We have reviewed this point. However, this requirement has not changed from the existing permit and therefore, all operators of an existing standard rules permit should be meeting this requirement.

Comment 2

One respondent questioned paragraph 2.1.7 – you shall not remove, transfer or separate waste from its primary packaging (for example bags, bins, boxes and blister packs). It repeats 2.1.6 (b).

Our response

We thank the respondent for highlighting this, we have removed paragraph 2.1.7 as it repeated 2.1.6 (b).

5. Next steps

Following this consultation, we propose to amend SR2008 No 24 and the associated generic risk assessment in line with the proposals detailed in this response document. The updated rules set will apply for new entrants with immediate effect once published. Existing permit holders will have 3 months from the date the updated rules set is published to comply. We will send a letter to all existing permit holders providing them with the required information.

We will withdraw SR2008 No 25 with immediate effect for new entrants. Existing permit holders will be required to apply for a bespoke permit.

We will withdraw SR2013 No 1 with immediate effect.

Individuals who wish to follow up their responses, or points made within this document, in more detail are welcome to contact us. Email [email protected]

6. Annex

List of consultation respondents (by organisation name):

• Bruntwood Property Development
• Chris James
• Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM)
• Healthcare Waste Management Association (HWMA)
• Leicestershire County Council
• Sharpsmart Ltd
• Stericycle Ltd
• Suez Recycling and Recovery
• Thermal Compaction Group
• Westbury Environmental Ltd