Metal shredders appropriate measures guidance – a summary of consultation responses
Updated 1 August 2022
© Crown copyright 2022
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected].
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/metal-shredders-appropriate-measures-for-permitted-facilities/public-feedback/d159a2db-c289-4c04-872c-50dc6f8f6ee8
1. Introduction
The purpose of this consultation was to formally engage with relevant stakeholders to seek their views on draft technical guidance for facilities mechanically treating metal wastes in shredders.
We shared a pre-consultation version of the draft guidance with key stakeholders during August 2020. This was to collate initial comments on the draft guidance. We reviewed comments received and incorporated them into the draft technical guidance for the formal public consultation.
The guidance aims to:
- improve the design and operation of permitted facilities mechanically treating metal wastes in shredders
- make sure appropriate measures are applied consistently
Unless specifically stated in the guidance, the appropriate measures apply to all permitted waste facilities mechanically treating metal wastes in shredders. This means it applies to both waste installation and waste operation facilities.
The guidance incorporates the relevant requirements of the waste treatment best available techniques (BAT) conclusions document, made under the European Industrial Emission Directive (2010/75/EU). The BAT conclusions document applies to waste installation facilities permitted under the Directive.
Once published the guidance will apply to newly permitted, or substantially changed, metal shredding facilities from the date of publication. It will be implemented through the environmental permit application and variation process. The guidance will be applied to existing metal shredding facilities through a process of permit reviews.
We will review the existing standard rules permits that apply to facilities mechanically treating metal wastes in shredders once we have published the revised guidance. This is so we can make sure those permits provide an appropriate level of environmental protection and refer to appropriate measures and standards.
2. How we ran the consultation
The consultation was open from Monday 30 November 2020 until Monday 8 February 2021. It was a formal consultation accessible online via the Environment Agency Citizen Space website.
The consultation asked 26 questions. Questions about specific aspects of the draft guidance were set out in Q5 to Q25 of the consultation. We also asked for any additional comments on the guidance.
We received 2 responses to the consultation from the following organisations:
- East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service (ESFRS)
- Chartered Institute of Waste Management (CIWM)
3. Responses to consultation questions (5 to 25) and our response to them
Here is a summary of responses for all the questions within each section of the consultation, followed by our responses.
Q5. This guidance applies to both metal shredding installations and waste operations. Do you agree that it should cover activities at both waste operation and installation sites?
Summary of responses
Both respondents supported the guidance and the need for sector specific guidance for mechanically treating metal wastes in shredders.
One respondent stated that metal shredding is by its nature a higher risk process and so the process precautions are important for risk reduction. Detailed sector specific guidance would help operators demonstrate compliance.
Our response
The guidance will apply to all facilities mechanically treating metal wastes in shredders.
Q6. Section 1 – introduction (section 1.3)
Is it clear what ‘new’ and ‘replacement plant’ means for existing facilities?
Summary of responses
Both responses agreed the definition was clear. A comment was made that whether something is a substantial change will always be a subjective question, and there is a risk that operators could avoid making substantial changes so as not to fall within the guidance.
Our response
We will keep the definition of ‘new installations’ at the end of section 1.3. This links to our guidance where we have set out what constitutes a substantial variation in relation to both waste operations and installations.
Q7. General management appropriate measures (section 2)
This section of the draft guidance is generic to the waste treatment sector. Are there any additional measures relating to this section that you think we should include for the treatment of metal wastes in shredders? Alternatively are there any measures included in this section that you feel are not relevant to this sector?
Summary of responses
The requirements were considered to be generic. Neither of the respondents were aware of any particular measures we should include and they did not consider any as not relevant.
Our response
We will keep this section of the guidance as it is currently written.
Q8. Management system (section 2.1)
Every permitted site must have a management system (MS). The standards for the MS are the same for all waste treatment sites whatever waste sector they are in.
Are there any additional or alternative specific measures for shredding metal wastes that you think we should include in the MS section to protect people and the environment?
Summary of responses
Responses received suggested that this was generic and that no additional or alternative specific measures were needed.
Our response
We will keep this section as it is currently written.
Q9. Management system (section 2.1)
Are there any measures included in the management system that you feel are not relevant to the metal shredding sector? Please detail why.
Summary of responses
Responses received suggested that this was generic and that no additional or alternative specific measures were needed.
Our response
We will keep this section as it is currently written.
Q10. Management system (section 2.1)
We have not required a deflagration management plan for all metal shredder sites. We will however require a deflagration plan at sites with a history of deflagrations or ongoing issues with deflagrations. Do you agree with this approach?
Summary of responses
The respondents both agreed with our approach. One response questioned the lack of reference to process fire precautions for what is a higher risk activity.
Our response
We require operators to identify and assess the risks of fire as part of the accident management plan, required under section 2.3. Also, in section 2.4 we require each site to have a fire prevention plan (FPP) which meets our FPP guidance and its 3 objectives.
We will review section 2.1 following these comments and consider if, for clarity, we should reference fire prevention and risks in this section.
Q11. Contingency plan and procedures (section 2.5)
Each site must have a contingency plan that they share with their customers which explains how they will manage waste if there is a problem at their site, or at sites where they send waste for onward treatment.
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? If not please explain why and an alternative approach.
Summary of responses
Both respondents agreed that contingency plans and procedures should also be required. One respondent commented that it is important to make contingency plans to avoid excessive build-up of materials at the site if there are issues at the site, or the sites where waste is sent.
Our response
We will keep this section as it is currently written relating the requirement for a contingency plan.
Q12. What are or would be the practical and financial implications of meeting these standards?
Please identify if there are any contingency plan requirements that you think are unnecessary. Explain why and how alternatives can achieve the same level of environmental protection.
Summary of responses
No responses received.
Our response
We will keep this section.
Q13. Accident management plan.
Do you agree with the measures and standards prescribed for an accident management plan? What costs and benefits do you think would come from meeting these standards?
Summary of responses
Both respondents agreed with this requirement and the measures we have prescribed.
The respondents both suggested that a benefit of this requirement could be that it potentially reduces insurance premiums and could make it easier to get insurance.
One respondent suggested that it could also reduce the business interruption.
It was also suggested a key element to accident prevention is pre-acceptance checks, and whilst covered in section 3, these should be referenced here as part of the prevention measures.
A further comment was that the accident management system section does not cover health and safety.
Our response
We will keep this section. However, following the comment about pre-acceptance checks we have altered the wording in section 2.3 ‘Accident management plan’ to emphasise pre-acceptance and acceptance checks and have cross referenced to section 3.
We do not cover health and safety requirements in our guidance because they are regulated by the Health and Safety Executive. However, we may review health and safety procedures and records if a worker safety incident has resulted in an environmental impact which we are investigating. We do not propose to amend this section to cover health and safety.
Q14 Fire prevention plans and guidance
This guidance requires each site to develop and implement fire prevention plans in line with our FPP guidance.
Do you think we need some further sector specific guidance relating to metal recycling and metal shredding sites?
Summary of responses
Both respondents agreed with this requirement and supported the development of further sector specific guidance for metal recycling and metal shredding sites.
They expressed the view that metal shredding is by its nature a higher risk process and detailed sector specific guidance would help operators. Also, any guidance produced by the sector must be supported, and any guidance produced by the regulator must have input from the sector.
Our response
We will work with the sector and other interested parties to develop metal sector specific guidance.
Q15. Accident prevention measures (section 2.4)
We have stated you must keep apart incompatible wastes. Examples could include but are not limited to, storing lead acid batteries separately to nickel metal hydride batteries, segregating flammable gas cylinders in cages away from oxygen cylinders. Are there any other examples we should include that are specific to metal shredding sites?
Summary of responses
We received 1 response which stated that an important element to accident prevention is pre-acceptance checks and whilst they are covered in section 3, they should be referenced here as part of the prevention measures.
Our response
We will review this section in light of this comment to determine if it should cross reference the measures in section 3.
Q16. Waste pre-acceptance and characterisation (section 3.1)
We require sites to have waste pre-acceptance procedures to make sure they have enough information about a waste before it arrives at the facility. This is needed to assess and confirm the waste is technically and legally suitable for the facility and processes. We require that the procedures must follow a risk-based approach, considering:
- the source and nature of the waste
- its hazardous properties
- potential risks to process safety, occupational safety and the environment (for example, from deflagrations and other emissions such as noise or particulates)
Do you agree with this approach and will it reduce the risk of deflagrations occurring? If not please suggest alternative measures which could be implemented to reduce deflagrations and to meet the objectives of this section set out above.
Summary of responses
Both respondents agreed with this requirement and the measures we have prescribed. One respondent commented that removing contamination prior to shredding is an important risk reduction and accident prevention measure.
Our response
We will keep this section.
Q17. Quarantined wastes (section 3.2)
We have required in the guidance that operators must establish quarantine areas. We have set out that quarantine storage must be for a maximum of 14 working days. We have also said in some limited and specific cases (for example gas cylinders and beer barrels) you can extend quarantine storage time if the Environment Agency agrees.
Do you agree with this approach and will it give operators enough time to repatriate unauthorised and quarantined wastes? If not please suggest alternative measures and provide further information to support your answer.
Summary of responses
Both respondents agreed with this requirement and the measures we have prescribed. One respondent commented that it is important that quarantine areas are suitably contained or isolated to prevent the spread and escalation of an accident or emergency. They agreed that quarantined materials should be removed from the site at regular intervals to avoid stockpiling materials.
Our response
We will keep this section.
Q18. Waste pre-acceptance, acceptance and tracking (section 3.3)
The guidance requires a waste tracking system and inventory to be in place. This is a requirement of BAT 2c and section 2.3.2.5 of the BAT Reference Document (BREF).
Are there any measures included in this section that will be difficult to achieve for metal shredding facilities? If so please detail why and suggest alternative measures that will achieve the same environmental and process safety standards.
Summary of responses
No responses received
Our response
We will keep this section.
Q19. Waste treatment appropriate measures (section 5)
Are there any additional measures relating to this section that you think we should include for the treatment of metal wastes in shredders. Alternatively are there any measures included in this section that you feel are not relevant to this sector?
Summary of responses
One respondent agreed with the measures and did not suggest any further measures to include. One respondent suggested that we need to include the design and operation of process precautions and emergency procedures.
Our response
We consider that this has been covered in section 5.1 under the subheading ‘Metal shredding plant and downstream processes’.
Q 20. Waste treatment appropriate measures (section 5)
What benefits do you think would come from meeting the appropriate measures set out in section 5? Are there any dis-benefits? Please identify these.
Summary of responses
Both respondents suggested that this will lead to enhanced business continuity and protection. One respondent suggested that understanding the waste coming in allows for the correct and appropriate treatment to be carried out.
Our response
We will keep this section.
Q21. Waste treatment appropriate measures (section 5)
Will there be any additional costs associated with meeting the appropriate measures set out in section 5? If so please identify these.
Summary of responses
Both respondents suggested that additional costs would be likely but that there are associated business benefits such as protection of the environment and potential business opportunities.
Our response
We will keep this section.
Q 22. Emissions control appropriate measures (section 6)
Will there be any additional costs or practical implications associated with meeting the appropriate measures set out in section 6? If so please identify these.
Summary of responses
We received 1 response which stated that additional costs associated with the enhanced measures will be likely. But there would be associated benefits to the business and protection of the environment.
Our response
We will keep this section.
Q 23. Emission limits, monitoring and appropriate measures (section 7)
Will there be any additional costs or practical implications associated with meeting the appropriate measures set out in section 7? If so please identify these.
Summary of responses
We received 1 response which stated that additional costs associated with the enhanced measures will be likely. But there would be associated benefits to the business and protection of the environment.
Our response
We will keep this section.
Q 24. Additional guidance.
Are there any omissions from the draft guidance or areas where you would like more guidance that you have not already included? If so, please suggest how the guidance should be changed to address them.
Summary of responses
We received 1 response stating that metal shredding is by its nature a higher risk process and therefore the process precautions are key to risk reduction. Detailed sector specific guidance would help operators to demonstrate compliance.
Our response
The responses we received supported the guidance and the proposed measures set out within it. We will now review the draft and produce a final version for publication on GOV.UK.
Q 25. Unnecessary requirements.
Are there any requirements in the draft guidance that you feel are unnecessary, and that you have not already discussed? If so, please identify them and explain why you feel they are unnecessary.
Summary of responses
No responses received.
Our response
The responses we received supported the guidance and the proposed measures set out within it. We will now review the draft and produce a final version for publication on GOV.UK.
4. Next steps
After considering the consultation responses we received we are now finalising the guidance document and will be publishing this shortly. We will publish the final guidance on GOV.UK.
If you have any questions or comments relating to this consultation response please contact us at [email protected]. Please include ‘Metal shredders appropriate measures guidance’ in the subject of your email.