Consultation outcome

WEEE: appropriate measures for permitted facilities – a summary of consultation responses

Updated 1 August 2022

1. Introduction

The purpose of this consultation was to engage with relevant stakeholders to get their views on draft technical guidance. The draft guidance set out the appropriate measures for permitted facilities that transfer or treat waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE).

The guidance aims to improve how permitted facilities in the WEEE sector are designed and operated. It will also make sure that, where relevant, appropriate measures are applied consistently. The existing Best available treatment recovery and recycling techniques (BATRRT) document includes standards for WEEE treatment. The new guidance is consistent with these standards but in some cases is more detailed. It also incorporates the relevant requirements of the waste treatment best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, made under the European Industrial Emission Directive (2010/75/EU). These apply to waste installation facilities permitted under the Directive.

Unless specifically stated in the guidance, the appropriate measures set out will apply to all permitted waste facilities that accept WEEE for transfer or treatment, including both waste installation and waste operation facilities.

From it’s publication date, the guidance will apply to newly permitted, or substantially changed, waste management facilities that accept WEEE. The Environment Agency will implement this through the environmental permit application process. The guidance will also apply to relevant existing waste management facilities. The Environment Agency will do this through permit reviews.

Once we have published the new guidance, we will review the existing standard rules for operations that treat or transfer WEEE. This will make sure these standard rules provide an appropriate level of environmental protection and require operators to meet appropriate measures and standards.

2. How we ran the consultation

The Environment Agency shared an early pre-consultation draft of the guidance with stakeholders in August 2020. This was to get initial comments and concerns which could feed into preparing the guidance for the formal online consultation.

The Environment Agency ran the formal online consultation on the Citizen Space website for 8 weeks, from 12 July 2021 until 5 September 2021.

At the same time, the Environment Agency also consulted on the associated, proposed technical guidance ‘Waste Cooling Equipment (WCE) - appropriate measures for permitted facilities’.

Questions 1 to 21 asked about specific aspects of the draft guidance and asked for any additional comments.

We received 25 responses to the online consultation. Not all responses provided an answer to the questions asked, however we have considered all responses received.

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

• 7 responses from WEEE producer compliance schemes
• 5 responses from WEEE trade associations, bodies and forums
• 2 responses from consultancies
• 1 response from a WEEE refurbishment and repair company
• 1 response from a local waste disposal authority
• 1 response from a water industry company

3. Summary of main findings and actions we will take

This is a summary of the key findings from the consultation and the actions the Environment Agency will take in response.

3.1 Lack of clarity on scope of guidance

A number of the responses raised concerns about the lack of clarity on the scope of the guidance. They said it wasn’t clear whether it applied to sites such as household waste sites which, although they don’t specialise in WEEE treatment, still handle WEEE. Having considered those comments, we will amend the introduction to make it clearer that the guidance applies to any site that transfers or treats WEEE. We will use metal recycling sites and household waste sites as examples of these.

3.2 Operators with exemptions

Several of the responses also challenged the statement that sites transferring or treating WEEE under an exemption should follow the relevant parts of the guidance. Some felt that this was an unreasonable regulatory burden on exempt operators. However, others wanted the wording strengthened to make it compulsory.

We cannot make the guidance mandatory for operators with exemptions but we recommend that they follow the relevant parts. We will amend the wording to make it clearer that if operators of exempt sites (particularly those with T11) follow the guidance, this will help them to:

• comply with the exemption
• comply with BATRRT
• avoid endangering human health or the environment

3.3 Fire risk from lithium-ion batteries

There was overwhelming support for measures intended to reduce the fire risk posed by lithium-ion batteries in WEEE. Everyone expressing an opinion supported the measure to ban using compaction or pressure to increase payloads of small mixed WEEE (SMW) in containers.

3.4 Removing replaceable batteries in SMW

The requirement to remove replaceable batteries from SMW before mechanical treatment also received strong support. Some argued that you should remove batteries at the point of collection, or that you should collect SMW containing batteries separately from that which does not. Whilst these are both reasonable steps to help achieve the outcome required, we think it would be too prescriptive to specify them in the guidance at the current time.

3.5 Process monitoring

On process monitoring, there was overwhelming support for the proposal to include an annual mass balance exercise for all WEEE streams being treated at a site. We will keep this as a tool to monitor the performance of sites and to make sure they are performing optimally.

Proposals for limits on certain contaminants in output materials, along with associated monitoring, attracted a range of comments but most were supportive in principle. We had proposed a limit of 10 mg/kg for mercury in recycled metals from processing gas discharge lamps. This was challenged strongly and having reconsidered, we will change this to 100 mg/kg. Details of this and responses to the questions concerning other limits are set out in the next section.

3.6 Potential conflicts with BATRRT

Some consultation responses suggested there were potential conflicts between the appropriate measures guidance and the BATRRT guidance on treating WEEE. The main example concerned the wording on removing batteries from WEEE. Under BATRRT (which is now more than 15 years old) you only have to remove batteries whole if they:

• can be removed before mechanical treatment
• are internal hazardous batteries

Other batteries can be removed as materials.

Because of the fire risk associated with treating lithium-ion batteries (which are non-hazardous waste) we no longer believe this is a reasonable position to take. The appropriate measures guidance stipulates that all batteries should be removed whole, that is, intact and identifiable.

4. Responses to consultation questions (1 to 22) and our response to them

This section provides a summary of the responses to the consultation questions asked and how we have taken them into account in finalising the appropriate measures guidance.

4.1 Question 1

Section 1 of the guidance provides an introduction to when and where the guidance applies. Do you think it is clear about the types of facility it applies to?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 6
• no: 12
• do not know: 0
• not answered: 5

Most respondents (12) answered ‘no’ to this question. Some said it was not clear whether it applied to sites such as household waste sites which, although they do not specialise in WEEE treatment, still handle WEEE. Having considered those comments, we will amend the introduction to make it clearer that the guidance applies to any site that transfers or treats WEEE. We will use metal recycling sites and household waste sites as examples.

Several of the responses also challenged the statement that sites transferring or treating WEEE under an exemption should follow the relevant parts of the guidance. Some felt that this was an unreasonable regulatory burden on exempt operators. However, others wanted the wording strengthened to make it compulsory.

We cannot make the guidance mandatory for operators with exemptions, but we recommend that they follow the relevant parts. We will amend the wording to make it clearer that if operators of exempt sites (particularly those with T11) follow the guidance, this will help them to:

• comply with the exemption
• comply with BATRRT
• avoid endangering human health or the environment

4.2 Question 2

WEEE is more readily characterised than some other wastes but there is still a need to undertake pre-acceptance assessments, so that treatment and transfer facilities fully understand the nature of the wastes they are receiving. Do you agree the information requirements in section 3.1 achieve this?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 5
• no: 10
• do not know: 3
• not answered: 5

Most respondents answered ‘no’ to this question and they gave a number of reasons.

Some were concerned about having to provide details of the source and producer of the waste. They felt this broke competition law, particularly where the WEEE was handled by multiple contractors in the chain. This is because they would be required to pass on details of their customers. This is not what we intended. The information required under 3.1.2 is about the current holder of the WEEE and where it currently is. We will amend the guidance to make this clearer.

Some also expressed concerns about requiring details of the ‘composition’ of the waste because this suggests a detailed chemical breakdown of what is present. This would not normally be required for WEEE.

We will remove the word ‘composition’ from 3.1.2, but we will still require a full description of the waste including details of any restricted chemicals such as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) that may be present. Guidance on where POPs are likely to be found is already available on GOV.UK.

Some raised concerns about having to keep pre-acceptance records together with acceptance records. They felt it didn’t matter where they were kept, provided they were available for audit. We will amend the guidance to reflect this.

There were a few comments about the paragraph on radioactive substances. It was suggested the guidance needed to recognise there could be other low level radioactive sources in WEEE apart from ionisation smoke detectors such as xenon lamps. We will amend the guidance to include these.

4.3 Question 3

Do you agree the requirements set out in section 3.3 on waste tracking are appropriate measures for a WEEE facility?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 3
• no: 12
• do not know: 3
• not answered: 5

The majority of responses did not support the proposed measures on waste tracking. The reasons given were that they were:

• too prescriptive
• unnecessary
• too costly to implement
• impractical

Respondents expressed particular concerns about the impracticality of tracking individual appliances through a process.

We have given this extensive consideration and we do recognise it is unreasonable to require the tracking of individual appliances. However, the BAT conclusions stipulate that a waste tracking system and inventory is BAT for all waste treatment installations. As a result, we will keep the need for a waste tracking system in the guidance but make it clear that it relates to loads received.

4.4 Question 4

Section 4.1 identifies the WEEE and WEEE derived material that must be stored under cover. Do you think any other WEEE or materials derived from WEEE should normally be stored under cover?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 6
• no: 12
• do not know: 0
• not answered: 5

Most respondents answered ‘no’ to this question with some feeling it went too far. However, a number of respondents answered ‘yes’ arguing that the requirement should be extended to include other types of WEEE.

The WEEE Directive requires that weatherproof covering is provided for ‘appropriate areas’ and we want to provide as much clarity as we can about what we think this means. But at the same time, we do not want to be unnecessarily prescriptive. Having considered all the responses, we will keep the specific examples in the guidance where we believe weatherproof covering is always required. But we will also make clear there may be other circumstances where weatherproof covering is also necessary. We will also remove the inconsistencies on flat panel displays that some respondents highlighted.

4.5 Question 5

Fires caused by damage to batteries is a major concern across the waste sector. To minimise this risk from collections of SMW, section 4.2 requires that there must be no compression or compaction of untreated and unsorted SMW, such as that sometimes carried out to increase payloads. Do you agree this is an appropriate measure?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 16
• no: 0
• do not know: 3
• not answered: 4

All respondents expressing an opinion on this supported the proposal so we will keep this.

4.6 Question 6

Section 5.1 relates specifically to the preparation of WEEE for re-use. Do you think any additional measures should be included for this activity?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 4
• no: 9
• do not know: 5
• not answered:5

Most respondents answered ‘no’ to this question. One of those answering ‘yes’ provided very detailed comments on extra criteria that should apply to WEEE being prepared for reuse. While the appropriate measures guidance does set out high level requirements for reuse, we do not believe it is the right place to set out detailed reuse standards and specifications. We will make some minor amendments to the guidance to reflect the comments received.

4.7 Question 7

Section 5.2 sets out those components that must be removed whole from WEEE to minimise release of contaminants either into the recycled materials or into the environment. Other components can be safely removed as materials following treatment. Do you agree the guidance strikes the right balance?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 7
• no: 9
• do not know: 2
• not answered: 5

This section is based on the existing BATRRT guidance, so in the main it represents current standards. Those answering ‘no’ were predominantly concerned with points of detail rather than basic principles. We will incorporate many of the suggestions made in the final guidance.

A number of respondents commented on the requirement to remove batteries ‘whole’ from WEEE. The draft guidance restricted this to ‘batteries that can be removed without the use of specialist tools’. Respondents suggested that ‘batteries designed to be accessible by the user’ was a better term but, in any case, all batteries should be removed intact and identifiable. We agree, particularly in view of the fire risk associated with mechanical damage to lithium-ion batteries. We will amend section 5.2 so that it requires all batteries to be removed whole, that is intact and identifiable. In section 5.8 where there is a specific measure to remove batteries from SMW before mechanical treatment, we will use the phrase ‘batteries designed to be accessible by the user’.

4.8 Question 8

To minimise the fire risk associated with the storage of lithium and lithium-ion batteries, section 5.2 requires that they are packed in inert material once they have been removed from equipment as part of the treatment process. Do you agree this is an appropriate measure?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 9
• no: 8
• do not know: 2
• not answered: 4

Opinions were split on this question. There was overall support for the requirement to pack batteries in a way to minimise fire risk. However, respondents expressed concerns that this was prescriptive and whether it was compatible with legislation on the carriage of dangerous goods (often referred to as ‘ADR’). Having considered these comments we will amend the guidance so that it sets out the objectives (to minimise the likelihood of electrical shorting, physical impact and overheating) but is not prescriptive about how that should be achieved.

4.9 Question 9

We have engaged extensively with industry over POPs in WEEE in the last 2 years and have already published guidance on GOV.UK. Does section 5.3, in conjunction with that already published, provide sufficient guidance on the management of POPs in WEEE?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 15
• no: 1
• do not know: 3
• not answered: 4

There was overwhelming agreement that the guidance on POPs is clear so we will keep this section.

4.10 Question 10

Do you support the inclusion of the requirement to undertake a mass balance exercise for the treatment of all WEEE categories at least once a year as set out in section 5.4?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 16
• no: 0
• do not know: 3
• not answered: 4

There was overwhelming support for the proposal to include an annual mass balance exercise for all WEEE streams being treated at a site. We will keep this as a tool to monitor the performance of sites and to make sure they are performing optimally.

4.11 Question 11

Section 5.5 sets out the measures that must be taken to minimise contamination of recycled materials with mercury when treating gas discharge lamps. Limits of 10 mg/kg have been set for mercury in the plastic, glass and metal fractions but there is some evidence that standard analytical methods give rise to highly variable results in the metal fraction making the setting of a meaningful limit a challenge. Do you agree that 10 mg/kg is an appropriate limit value for mercury in the metal?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 2
• no: 8
• do not know: 10
• not answered: 3

Most of the consultation responses opposed the proposed limit of 10 mg/kg of mercury in recyclable metals from treating waste lamps. Arguments put forward included the:

• unreliability of analytical methods to measure mercury accurately and precisely enough at such a concentration
• likely need for additional heating to get below this concentration

In view of the fact the Cenelec standard sets a limit of 100 mg/kg and this doesn’t restrict the recycling of the metal, we will amend the guidance to set a limit of 100 mg/kg. However, we will keep this under review.

4.12 Question 12

At the moment, opportunities for recycling the phosphor powders from gas discharge lamps are limited and they are usually landfilled. Evidence we have seen shows mercury concentrations may be lower than 200 mg/kg but anecdotally we have heard of substantially higher concentrations. Mercury concentrations can be reduced by heating the powders in a retort but the benefits of reducing the amount of mercury being landfilled may be offset by increased carbon emissions resulting from the additional energy requirements associated with that treatment. Do you agree with the limit value of 200 mg/kg in section 5.5? Additional treatment to remove mercury would only be required if this value is exceeded.

Summary of responses:

• yes: 7
• no: 2
• do not know: 11
• not answered: 3

The majority of respondents expressing an opinion supported this limit. Those who disagreed were concerned about the environmental impact of landfilling mercury bearing wastes and called for further research. In principle, there is no reason why powders containing mercury at 200 mg/kg should not be landfilled, as long as they meet the relevant waste acceptance criteria. Currently there is no limit specified, no requirement to retort the powders, and practice amongst operators varies. We believe setting a limit of 200 mg/kg provides clarity and achieves an appropriate balance.

4.13 Q13.

Cathode ray tube (CRT) devices are a diminishing waste stream but are likely to be present for the foreseeable future. One of the key requirements when treating CRTs is to remove the fluorescent coating from the screen. Do you agree with the limit of 5 mg/kg sulphur specified in section 5.6 to demonstrate the effective removal of coating from the screen?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 5
• no: 1
• do not know: 13
• not answered: 4

We received few responses to this question but the majority supported the proposal. Some queried the chemical form of the sulphur present. Zinc sulphide is the principal sulphur-containing compound used in the activated coatings, so we will amend the guidance to refer to sulphide rather than sulphur.

4.14 Question 14

One of the main concerns with the treatment of flat panel display (FPD) devices is the mercury that is present in cold cathode fluorescent lamp backlights. A significant proportion of this is retained in the phosphor powders. In any mechanical process where the backlights are not removed whole, the powders end up in a dust or fines fraction which is disposed of. Do you agree with the limit of 200 mg/kg mercury for this fraction set in section 5.7?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 1
• no: 9
• do not know: 10
• not answered: 3

The majority of respondents expressing an opinion answered ‘no’ to this question even though it is the same limit as specified for lamp fluorescent powders. The main reason was that lamps only make up a small proportion of a TV or monitor, so any limit should be proportionally lower than for lamps alone. Respondents suggested a limit of 2 mg/kg.

However, mercury concentrations in the lamp materials are likely to be similar whether they come from conventional lamps or from backlights in a display device. You must separate this mercury from the materials being recycled. You must capture it in abatement systems or concentrate it in specific fractions for disposal. In the case of FPD treatment this is the phosphor powders and fines. So we will keep the 200 mg/kg limit but make it clear that it relates only to the powder and fines fraction destined for disposal.

4.15 Question 15

Section 5.8 requires that batteries that can readily be removed from devices found in SMW are removed before the SMW is processed mechanically to reduce fire risk. Do you agree this is an appropriate measure?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 15
• no: 3
• do not know: 2
• not answered: 3

The majority of respondents (15) answered ‘yes’ to this. Suggestions were made to mention power packs as well as batteries and also to change ‘internal batteries that can be removed without the use of specialist tools’ to ‘internal batteries designed to be accessible by the user’. We will amend the guidance to include both of these.

Some argued that you should remove batteries at the point of collection or that you should collect SMW containing batteries separately from that which does not. Whilst these are both reasonable steps to help achieve the outcome required, we think it would be too prescriptive to specify them in the guidance at the current time.

4.16 Question 16

Section 5.8 sets out a monitoring requirement and a limit for mercury when treating SMW. This is intended to demonstrate the effective removal of mercury-containing components. Do you think any other monitoring should be specified?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 6
• no: 6
• do not know: 7
• not answered: 4

Opinions were divided on this. Some considered additional monitoring was necessary and suggested monitoring the weight of batteries removed per tonne of input material to demonstrate effective removal. But there is a separate requirement for mass balance assessment to include all output streams so this will include batteries. Others suggested testing for other heavy metals such as cadmium. We think this is a good idea and will include testing for cadmium with a limit value of 100 mg/kg.

4.17 Question 17

Section 5.9 sets out a monitoring requirement and a limit for mercury when treating IT and telecommunications equipment. This is intended to demonstrate the effective removal of mercury-containing components. Do you think any other monitoring should be specified?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 7
• no: 6
• do not know: 6
• not answered: 4

This proposal reflects the one for SMW in question 16 and the responses were also very similar. We will include the same testing and limit value for cadmium.

4.18 Question 18

Photovoltaic panels (solar panels) are set to become a significant waste stream in the coming years but at the moment we have very little experience of treating them in the UK. Do you think there are any measures in addition to those set out in section 5.11 that should be set for the treatment of photovoltaic panels?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 4
• no: 0
• do not know: 14
• not answered: 5

We only received 4 responses to this question but they all felt that we should specify additional measures. There is limited information available about the treatment of photovoltaic panels and at this stage we will not make any changes. But we recognise this is a developing area and will work with industry in the future to develop more appropriate measures, where needed, for this waste stream.

4.19 Question 19

Post shredding treatments are covered by the relevant preceding sections of the guidance. Section 5.12 sets out principles primarily regarding waste classification. Do you think there are any additional measures that should be specified?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 0
• no: 11
• do not know: 8
• not answered: 4

None of the respondents suggested any additional measures in this section. Other than minor drafting amendments we will leave this unchanged.

4.20 Question 20

Section 6 outlines a range of measures that must be used to control emissions to the environment. Not all will be applicable to all facility types. Do you agree section 6 includes all the measures that are likely to be relevant to the full range of WEEE treatment facilities?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 9
• no: 1
• do not know: 9
• not answered: 4

The majority of the respondents expressing an opinion on this answered ‘yes’ and few additional comments were made. The one answering ‘no’ did not propose any additional measures but were concerned about whether the measures in 6.2.5 are reasonable requirements, in particular the need for enclosed storage and transfer systems. We have already qualified this with ‘where necessary to prevent fugitive emissions to air’ and we don’t believe any further change is required.

4.21 Question 21

Our guidance (including the additional sections on waste cooling equipment) is complementary to the Guidance on BATRRT and Treatment of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) published in November 2006 and generally provides more detailed guidance. Do you think there are any conflicts between the two pieces of guidance?

Summary of responses:

• yes: 7
• no: 5
• do not know: 6
• not answered: 5

Opinions were divided on this question. Some of those answering ‘yes’ felt that including contamination limits for recycled materials was inconsistent because BATRRT does not include any. We do not agree and maintain that setting these limits, for mercury in materials recycled from lamps for example, is consistent with the WEEE Directive and BATRRT obligations to remove specific substances and components.

The other main example concerned the wording on removing batteries from WEEE. Under BATRRT (which is now more than 15 years old) you only have to remove batteries whole if they:

• can be removed before mechanical treatment
• are internal hazardous batteries

Other batteries can be removed as materials.

Because of the fire risk associated with the mechanical treatment of lithium-ion batteries (which are non-hazardous waste) we no longer believe this is a reasonable position to take. The new guidance will state that you should remove all batteries whole, that is, intact and identifiable (see question7).

4.22 Question 22

We really value your feedback on our proposed guidance. Please tell us if you have any further comments and provide as much information as possible to support your answer. Many respondents used this section to reiterate or develop points that they had made under the previous questions. One concern raised many times was about the term ‘sealed containers’. Respondents said this term was not defined and it was not clear whether a sealed container needed to be airtight for example.

Although the term has been quite widely used in environmental permits, in view of the strength of feeling, we will amend the wording in the guidance. Where a container needs to prevent the escape of any liquid we will use the word ‘leakproof’. Where it needs to prevent the escape of gas or vapour we will use the term ‘gas-tight’.

Two consultees did not respond to any of the questions but simply made comments on the text of the guidance. These have all been considered and where appropriate amendments will be made.

5. Next steps

After considering the consultation responses we received we will finalise the text of the guidance document for publication. We will publish the finalised guidance on the GOV.UK website.

So that the guidance is fully accessible and can be published on the website, we will convert the PDF document that was used for the consultation to HTML format.

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