Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 4 April 2024

Introduction

This document summarises the responses that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) received to its consultation on potential amendments to the Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Regulation. The consultation exercise ran for 8 weeks before closing on 27 April 2023.

There were 112 questions in the consultation document. Eight of these were background questions about the respondents, providing important contextual information. This summary is a high-level overview of the main messages from the consultation responses, reflecting the views offered. The summaries are presented in the same order as the consultation document and a government response is provided at the end of each section.

Defra is grateful to everyone who took the time and effort to respond. The responses have been analysed by Defra staff dealing with the consultation proposals.

Purpose of the consultation

The purpose of this consultation was to seek stakeholders’ views on a number of government proposals and policy options to amend the POPs Regulation in upcoming and future legislation. Some of these changes related to recent additions or amendments to the Stockholm Convention which the UK, as Party to the Convention, must implement at a national level. Other potential amendments were proposed:

• following recent reviews of the POPs Regulation
• in response to scientific or technical progress
• to generate evidence to inform future policy positions and potential responses to upcoming and future amendments to the Stockholm Convention

Analysis methodology

A qualitative thematic analysis of the open-ended questions was undertaken, which identified the key issues raised. Where feasible, a numerical estimate of those in support and against each proposal has been provided alongside a breakdown of responses by sector.

The consultation was published on the online digital platform Citizen Space which recorded responses through an online questionnaire. Responses were also received by email. Email responses which directly responded to individual questions were entered into Citizen Space manually and treated in the same way as other responses on that platform.

All responses received within the consultation deadline were counted and the views presented were included in the analysis. All responses were read individually except:

• closed-ended responses (for example, yes or no responses) received through Citizen Space, which were analysed using automated methods
• identical responses from campaign responses, which were automatically identified based on consistency of their content

A full record of all questions is available in the consultation document.

Three campaigns – where multiple respondents submitted near-identical responses – were identified in the responses. There were 18 responses across these 3 campaigns, which overall formed 22% of total responses to the consultation. Campaign responses have been included within the analysis and treated in the same way as responses from organisations or individuals. Where campaign responses have not been identical, any additional evidence has been considered. The organisations who responded to the consultation are listed in Annex A. Some organisations were umbrella groups whose responses represented the collective views of their member organisations. These responses counted as a single view in the analysis. However, their members also responded separately in some cases, and these were included in addition.

Seven letters were also received. Letters were considered separately and, where input was most relevant to specific questions, these views have been identified in our summary of responses to those specific questions. In contrast, letters from organisations who had already submitted Citizen Space answers were read, but details have not been identified in this summary of responses beyond what was already presented in their Citizen Space answers.

As we received consultation responses in a variety of forms, some responses addressed the consultation questions more directly than others. Our analysis considers all responses in relation to the consultation questions and its key themes. While we have considered all information provided, we have not been able to respond in this summary to every point raised.

Overview of the respondents

A total of 58 responses to the consultation were received. 48 were submitted by the Citizen Space website and 10 by email. Of those received by email, 7 were in letter form, while 3 were submitted in the consultation document.

Respondents were asked where their organisations are based or in operation. They were able to select more than one option. Table 1 shows how respondents answered this question.

Table 1 – Operating locations of respondents

Operating location	Number of respondents	Percentage of respondents
England	40	69%
Wales	18	31%
Scotland	18	31%
Northern Ireland	12	21%
Outside the UK (EU)	11	19%
Outside the UK (non-EU)	11	19%
Not specified	10	17%

Respondents were also asked the category of respondent which they felt best represented them. It is important to note that respondents self-identified as belonging to each of these groups, and that no verification has been conducted. Table 2 shows the number of responses for each respondent type. A list of organisations that responded can be found in Annex A.

Table 2 - Breakdown of how respondents self-identified

Respondent type	Number of respondents	Percentage of respondents
Industry association	14	24%
Large business (250 or more employees, including global operations)	9	16%
Local authority	9	16%
Not answered	9	16%
Other	5	9%
Charity	3	5%
Small or micro business (less than 50 employees, including global operations)	3	5%
Medium business (50 to 249 employees, including global operations)	2	3%
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)	2	2%
A government body	1	2%
Consultancy	1	2%

Summary of responses on proposals for waste concentration limits

(i) - Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)

Lead option: A waste limit of 1mg per kg for PFOA and its salts, and 40mg per kg for PFOA related compounds. And, in Waste Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF), a waste limit of 0.025mg per kg for PFOA and its salts, and 1mg per kg for PFOA related compounds.

Summary of responses

Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with the lead proposal set out above. Of the 28 respondents who answered this question, 7 agreed with the lead proposal (2 strongly), while 7 disagreed (3 strongly). Of the remainder, 11 neither agreed nor disagreed, while 2 did not know and one preferred not to say.

Of the respondents in support of the lead proposal, most cited that it would reduce risks to health and the environment. There was also some support because the lead proposal is not expected to impact textiles recycling.

Some respondents who were not in support of the lead proposal said that the proposed waste limit is too high and would not prevent risks to the environment. One respondent proposed an alternative limit for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (and its derivatives) (PFOS), PFOA and PFHxS and their salts at a level of 0.025mg per kg and one limit value of 10mg per kg for the total sum of these 3 substances and their related compounds.

Several respondents raised concerns about needing to test for PFOA in waste as a result of the proposed lower waste limit. These concerns related to the practicality and costs of testing, the lack of laboratory capacity in the UK, and the need for standard test methods. One respondent said that UK industry needs clear guidance on types of waste that are likely to contain POPs and that it is not practicable to test all possible waste streams for the presence of PFOA.

Some respondents said that there are risks of higher costs from the lead proposal but were unable to quantify the impact because they lack concentration data for PFOA in waste. Increased costs could be expected to arise from testing, waste segregation, increased disposal costs of articles that contain PFOA, and time resource in identifying impacted waste streams. Lack of high temperature incineration capacity was also identified as an issue by several respondents.

No respondents provided information on hydraulic fluids, to suggest whether PFOA falls above or below the proposed waste concentration limit level. Similarly, no respondents provided evidence to suggest the suitability, or otherwise, of introducing waste concentration limits specific to one type of waste, although 2 respondents indicated support for this as an idea. One respondent said that the introduction of waste concentration limits specific to one waste type would provide UK industry with more certainty regarding which waste streams and articles require testing to determine disposal routes.

(ii) - Perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS)

Lead option: A waste limit of 1mg per kg for PFHxS and its salts and 40mg per kg for PFHxS related compounds.

Summary of responses

Respondents were also asked to what extent they agreed with the lead proposal set out above. Of the 26 respondents who answered this question, 14 agreed with the lead proposal (3 strongly), while 5 disagreed (one strongly). Of the remainder, 3 neither agreed nor disagreed, while 3 did not know and one preferred not to say.

The majority of respondents in support of the lead waste limit option were local authorities, responding as part of a coordinated campaign. One respondent in favour of the lead waste limit raised concerns about the robustness of detection for PFHxS, particularly if it was used in furniture. In their experience detecting POPs in waste domestic upholstery is not an easy or reliable task.

Several respondents indicated that the lead waste limit option is too high and raised concerns that a waste limit set above the general level of contamination in soils, for example, would allow untreated bulk soil to be disposed of in landfill.

Two alternative limits were proposed:

1. One limit value for all PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS and their salts at a level of 0.025mg per kg and one limit value of 10mg per kg for the total sum of these 3 substances and their related compounds.

2. A limit value in the range of 10µg per kg for bulk soil containing PFHxS.

Waste containing PFHxS above the waste concentration limit will require high temperatures to destroy the POP. Local authority campaign responses indicated that incineration could cost in excess of £2,000 per tonne and highlighted that there is a lack of incineration capacity in England, Scotland and Wales. Another respondent said that incineration could cost between £2,000 per tonne and £6,000 per tonne, depending on the complexity of the waste. One respondent indicated that disposal rates are typically in the range of £250 to £1,000 per tonne but that there are additional costs associated with handling waste. They also suggested that in most cases, high-temperature incineration is a non-viable disposal route for PFAS contaminated soils.

No evidence was provided to suggest the suitability, or otherwise, of introducing waste concentration limits specific to one type of waste (such as aqueous film-forming foams).

(iii) - Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (SCCPs)

Lead option: A waste limit of 1,500mg per kg for SCCPs.

Summary of responses

Of the 26 respondents to this proposal, there were 8 responses which were identifiable as part of a coordinated campaign from several local authorities.

Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with the lead proposal set out above. Of the 27 respondents who answered this question, the majority neither agreed nor disagreed (10) or did not know (5), while 5 agreed with the lead proposal (none strongly), and 7 disagreed (4 strongly).

Of those who indicated opposition to the lead option:

• one respondent favoured a lower limit
• others raised concerns about its prevalence in other waste materials such as adhesives and sealants
• another suggested waiting for a decision at the Conference of the Parties

There was concern expressed by some respondents about the potential for SCCP to be found in a variety of waste streams. Some respondents also noted that Local Authorities and waste management companies were unaware of the need to test for this chemical under existing requirements, which contributed to a lack of knowledge of its prevalence and potential impacts. Other respondents raised the impact on the recycling of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) cable granulate, from sources other than waste electrical devices, and suggested that the technical challenges of incinerating this waste was due to its halogen content.

(iv) - Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE)

Lead option: A waste limit of 350mg per kg, dropping to 200mg per kg 5 years after entry into force for PBDEs.

Summary of responses

Of the 26 respondents to this proposal, there were 7 responses which were identifiable as part of a coordinated campaign from several local authorities. Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with the lead proposal set out above. Of the 34 respondents who answered this question, 12 agreed with the lead proposal (2 strongly), while 18 disagreed (15 strongly). Of the remainder, 2 neither agreed nor disagreed, while 2 did not know.

The majority of respondents opposed the lead proposal. Some respondents indicated that the waste limit in the lead proposal is too high and will not protect public health or the environment, and they provided evidence from existing studies to support this view.

Many respondents stated that the waste limit in the lead proposal was too low and would have significant impacts on plastic recyclers and reprocessors. Respondents raised general concerns around lack of incineration capacity and the impact on disposal costs. Several respondents anticipate that an increase in the incineration of waste would also impact recycling targets and carbon emission targets. Concerns were raised about the lack of accurate and validated test methods available for use on an industrial scale, which reduces certainty on compliance.

Many respondents supported the lead proposal and, in general, there was support for the staggered waste limit approach as it would help to achieve compliance.

Several respondents provided information on the potential costs associated with the disposal of PBDE-contaminated wastes. One respondent reported that the costs associated with the disposal of PBDE-contaminated plastics is between £250 and £400 per tonne, whereas the costs for disposing of other dense plastic that is not POPs waste is between £50 and £100 per tonne. Another respondent indicated that it costs an additional £300 per tonne for municipal incineration, in addition to extra costs from segregating POPs waste, and storage prior to treatment and emissions control.

(v) - Pentachlorophenol (PCP)

Lead option: A waste limit of 100mg per kg for PCP.

Summary of responses

Of the 36 respondents to this proposal, there were 8 responses which were identifiable as part of a coordinated campaign from several local authorities.

Of the 20 respondents who answered this question, 12 agreed with the lead proposal (one strongly), while none disagreed. Of the remainder, 4 neither agreed nor disagreed, while 4 did not know.

Respondents were predominantly in support of the lead proposal. The local authorities that coordinated a response indicated that the overall impact on the waste industry is likely to be limited and the lead proposal aligns with the waste limit already in Basel Convention guidelines.

No new evidence was provided in the responses.

(vi) – Dioxins, Furans, and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Lead option: A waste limit of 0.005mg Toxic Equivalency Factor (TEQ) per kg, including dioxin-like PCBs.

Summary of responses

Of the 23 respondents to this proposal, there were 6 responses which were identifiable as part of a coordinated campaign from several local authorities.

Of the 20 respondents who answered this question, 5 agreed with the lead proposal (one strongly), while 2 disagreed (both strongly). Of the remainder, 9 neither agreed nor disagreed, while 4 did not know.

The respondents who disagreed with the proposed limit expressed concerns that it was too high to adequately protect the environment. Some of those who agreed with the proposal highlighted the impact that the proposal might have on Air Pollution Control (APC) residues. Respondents also highlighted other potentially impacted waste streams, including:

• ash from waste site fires
• waste oil for recycling
• low-level radioactive waste

(vii) – Dicofol

Lead option: A waste limit of 50mg per kg for Dicofol.

Summary of responses

Of the 20 respondents to this proposal, there were 7 responses which were identifiable as part of a coordinated campaign from several local authorities.

Of the 19 respondents who answered this question, 12 agreed with the lead proposal (one strongly), while none disagreed. Of the remainder, 2 neither agreed nor disagreed, while 4 did not know and one preferred not to say.

Respondents were predominantly in support of the lead proposal. Some respondents felt that it would be appropriate to adopt waste limits already agreed by the Basel and Stockholm Conventions, and one respondent suggested that the UK should align with the waste limit set by the EU. No respondent was able to provide evidence to support or oppose the lead proposal.

(viii) – Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD or HBCD)

Lead option: A waste limit of 500mg per kg for HBCDD.

Summary of responses

Of the 27 respondents to this proposal, there were 3 responses which were identifiable as part of a coordinated campaign from several local authorities.

Respondents were also asked to what extent they agreed with the lead proposal set out above. Of the 26 respondents who answered the question, 6 respondents were in favour of the proposals, 7 disagreed, while 13 were unsure, or chose not to say. Where respondents disagreed, 3 wanted to retain the existing limits, 3 wanted a much lower limit, while one wanted to align with the EU’s approach.

Responses focussed on HBCDD in extruded (XPS) and expanded (EPS) foam used in construction. Packaging and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) were thought unlikely to be affected by the proposals.

Some respondents from the local government sector highlighted the economic, segregation and management challenges in addressing compliance with existing requirements, as well as any additional impacts that might arise from changing the limit. In this instance they believe that scope to further reduce the limit would be constrained by any uncertainty over the presence of and approach to analysing HBCDD in coatings and adhesives and mixed waste.

Some respondents expressed concern over the validation of analytical methods for measuring levels of HBCDD in insulation foam.

(ix) – UV328, Dechlorane Plus, and Methoxychlor

Respondents were asked if they had any evidence or information that would support the proposal of new waste limits for 3 substances soon to be listed as POPs: UV328, Dechlorane Plus and Methoxychlor.

Summary of responses

Of the 27 respondents to this proposal, there were 7 responses which were identifiable as part of a coordinated campaign from several local authorities.

No respondent was able to provide evidence to suggest a suitable waste limit for any of these substances. The local authority campaign response referred to importance of local authorities’ understanding what might be required of them regarding municipal waste management.

Some respondents voiced general concern about the practicality of identifying articles and waste that contain any POPs substances, and suggested that guidance is required to support UK industry with the correct disposal of waste. This includes information on where and when to test impacted waste streams and the labelling or certification for “items” that contain POPs substances. One respondent identified general costs of £2,000 per tonne of waste disposed through high temperature incineration. There was a suggestion that any additional costs associated with testing or ultimate disposal should be recovered through use of extended producer responsibility and the producer pays principle. Realistic implementation timelines were also mentioned.

(x) - Other POPs

Respondents were asked if they were aware of any evidence to suggest that any of the other waste concentration limits listed in the POPs Regulation should be amended in upcoming or future legislation.

Summary of responses

There were 21 respondents who answered this open question, including 7 responses which contained identifiably identical phrasing as part of a coordinated campaign from several local authorities.

No respondent was able to provide evidence to suggest that any of the other waste concentration limits listed in the POPs Regulation should be amended, as identified by either not responding to the question, or actively responding with specific reference to a lack of awareness of further relevant evidence.

One respondent encouraged the UK to follow the limits set by the EU for several substances, though proposed limits for these substances were already covered elsewhere in the consultation.

Government response on waste concentration limits

The government is committed to protecting human health and the environment from the harmful impact of persistent organic pollutants, in line with the objective of the UN Stockholm Convention, to which the UK is a Party. This consultation proposed changes to POPs waste concentration limits as one of a number of approaches to reducing the prevalence of these substances in our environment.

Support for the 8 proposed waste limits was varied and responses have been considered alongside additional evidence and context, including, for example:

• international conventions, guidelines, and decisions
• scientific and technical progress
• consideration of uncertainties surrounding our evidence base
• UK priorities

Moving forward, we intend to prioritise implementation of the lead proposals for Dicofol, PFOA, PFHxS, and PCP, and proposal 3 (500mg per kg) for PBDE. Respondents were broadly supportive of the proposed concentration values for Dicofol, PFHxS and PCP, while responses to the proposal for PFOA were more balanced. No compelling evidence was submitted to suggest more appropriate values for these substances. Regarding the lead proposal (350mg per kg dropping to 200mg per kg after 5 years) for PBDEs, respondents submitted new evidence on the impact this would have on plastic recyclers and therefore we intend to adopt the 500mg per kg value for this substance in order to provide more time to consider further evidence on introducing a lower limit.

We will continue to consider and assess opportunities and potential impacts of proposals for:

• HBCDD
• SCCPs
• Dioxins, furans, and dioxin-like PCBs
• UV328
• Dechlorane Plus
• Methoxychlor substances

We are not prioritising amending or adding the existing waste concentration limits for these substances because there are still uncertainties around potential impacts and most appropriate values, including those raised by respondents to this consultation. We will continue to review existing waste limits, including for these substances, with due consideration of the potential impact on UK stakeholders as well as our intention to minimise emissions of POPs to protect human health and the environment. This will be in line with the Stockholm Convention and the Basel Convention’s technical guidelines on the environmentally sound management of wastes consisting of, containing or contaminated with POPs. The responses received through this consultation will supplement this work and will inform potential amendments and additions to waste concentration limits for these substances in future updates of the POPs Regulation.

Removal of existing specific exemptions

Lead option: To remove existing exemptions for certain specified uses for PFOS, SCCPs, PFOA and decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE) from the POPs Regulation.

Summary of responses

Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with the lead proposal to remove all of the cited exemptions from the POPs Regulation. Of the 22 respondents who answered this question, 8 agreed with the lead proposal (5 strongly), while 2 disagreed (one strongly). Of the remainder, 2 neither agreed nor disagreed, while 9 did not know and one preferred not to say. Of the exemptions described in the consultation document, exemptions for PFOA, SCCPs and DecaBDE were identified as possibly being needed by 3 respondents.

Of those who agreed with the lead proposal, many cited the environmental benefits of removing the exemptions and the additional simplicity this would provide for waste handling. Others mentioned that there were now viable alternatives, making the use of these specific exemptions unnecessary. Six respondents were undecided about the removal of exemptions.

Only one respondent stated they believed they were still using an exemption, though some other respondents cautioned against the premature removal of certain exemptions in case of unforeseen circumstances.

For example, another respondent expressed concerns about the removal of exemptions for SCCPs and DecaBDE in case it had an impact on the recycling of PVC cable granulate. A small number of respondents asked for an exemption related to the use of PFOA in the production of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) for certain applications (exemption 5(e)) to be retained. This was due to concerns that it was still required in aspects of their supply chains or operations, however, evidence was not provided to support this.  

Government response on specific exemptions

Specific exemptions allowing the continued use of prohibited POPs are rare, apply only to very specific activities, and are generally time-limited with expiry dates as deemed appropriate under the Stockholm Convention. Once these specific exemptions are no longer required by Parties, there is an expectation that these exemptions are removed from relevant legislation, as well as the register of specific exemptions listed on the Stockholm Convention website.

This consultation presented no new compelling evidence that these exemptions were still required by industry in Great Britain .

However, some industry members raised concerns that these substances may be in their supply chains and therefore the current exemptions may still be required. As such, we are not prioritising removal of some of these specific exemptions ahead of their existing expiry dates, especially where potential impacts remain uncertain. This is the case for certain exemptions for DecaBDE and SCCPs, where uncertainties remain regarding potential impact on activities such as the recycling of PVC cable granulate. We do not intend to amend the currently available specific exemptions for DecaBDE and SCCPs at this time. All respondents who answered questions on the proposed removal of an exemption for the use of PFOA (exemption 7, covering the use of perfluorooctyl bromide containing perfluorooctyl iodide for the purpose of producing pharmaceutical products) supported the removal of this exemption. We therefore intend to amend it by bringing forward its ultimate potential expiry date from 31 December 2036 to 31 December 2026 (this earlier date being specified as a one of a series of review-by dates in the current Regulation).

We also received no compelling evidence that Exemptions 5(e) i, ii, and iii under the PFOA listing (covering uses including in gas filter membranes and industrial sealants and industrial waste heat exchanger equipment) were still required. These exemptions expired on 4 July 2023.

The proposed removal of an exemption for the use of PFOS (exemption 4, which covers use as a mist suppressant) was also supported by respondents, with no objections. Accordingly, we currently have no intention to prolong this derogation beyond its default expiry date of 7 September 2025, as is currently provided for in the POPs Regulation, though relevant competent authorities have until 7 September 2024 to justify whether they view this exemption as still required.

Amendments to Unintentional Trace Contaminant (UTC) exemptions

(i) and (ii) – removal and amendments to UTC exemptions for PFOA

Lead option:

• the removal of a UTC exemption for PFOA in transported isolated intermediates
• amendments to a UTC exemption for PFOA in PTFE micro-powders

Summary of responses

Respondents were asked if these proposals were of particular importance to them or the organisation they represented. Very few identified it as having an impact on their activity (2 respondents for (i) and 3 respondents for (ii) said it was). Of the 19 respondents to (i) 4 responses were identifiable as part of a coordinated campaign from local authorities. There were only 4 responses to proposal (ii).

Respondents were also asked to what extent they agreed with the lead proposals set out above. Of the respondents who answered these questions, 9 agreed with the lead proposal (2 strongly) for (i), while 4 agreed with the lead proposal (2 strongly) for (ii). No respondents disagreed with the proposals.

No new evidence was provided in the responses, but some respondents agreed with the proposal on the basis that it would reduce the risk of PFOA entering the environment. Others supported alignment with EU legislation.

While they agreed with the proposal, some respondents warned that it may be necessary to support industry to transition to new alternatives.

One respondent set out the importance of including a limit of 1mg per kg to the manufacture, placing on the market and use of PFOA and its salts where they are present in PTFE micro-powders that are being transported or treated in order to reduce the concentration of PFOA and its salts below the limit of 0.025mg per kg. They highlighted that without this specific 1mg per kg limit, the processing of the PTFE micro-powders would not be possible.

Government response on UTC exemptions proposal (i and ii) PFOA UTC levels

Unintentional trace contaminant levels provide clarity to industry. Often they are generic UTC levels applying to a range of articles, substances and mixtures, but in some cases, as with a UTC for use in transported isolated intermediates, they have specific applications.

Derogations of this type are in place to provide clarity to business, but once they are no longer required there is the expectation on the UK, as a Party to the Stockholm Convention, that they are removed from the relevant legislation. This is in line with the ambition of the Stockholm Convention, to which the UK is a Party, to reduce or eliminate releases of POPs from intentional production and use.

The proposal to remove the UTC for the use of PFOA in transported isolated intermediates received strong support in the consultation on the basis that it was no longer required and that the tightening of regulations was beneficial to the environment. This proposed amendment will be a priority for inclusion in future legislation.

We had strong engagement on the proposed amendments to the UTC limit for PFOA in PTFE micro-powders. Industry demonstrated that the proposed changes were achievable, while other respondents including environmental NGOs supported the proposals as they would reduce the risk of PFAS pollution. The proposals to remove the phrase ‘of up to 400 kilograys’ from this exemption also received no objection. Therefore the proposed amendments to the UTC for PFOA in PTFE micro-powders will also be progressed as a priority in future legislation. 

(iii) and (iv) – call for evidence regarding UTCs for hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and PCP

Respondents were asked a series of questions to determine whether UTCs of 10mg per kg (0.001% by weight) for HCB and 5mg per kg (0.0005% by weight) for PCP would have an impact on their activity, and for evidence to support any views.

Summary of responses on parts (iii) and (iv) – call for evidence regarding UTCs for HCB and PCP

All respondents who were impacted by the HCB proposal agreed that a UTC level for HCB is required and that 10mg per kg (0.001% by weight) was an appropriate limit.

There was general support for the lead option as it aligns with EU legislation. Two respondents said they believed the total quantity of HCB present as a trace contaminant in organic pigments across the UK market equals 300 tonnes per year.

In addition to agreeing with the proposed HCB limit, 2 industry associations proposed a further UTC exemption limit of 100mg per kg specifically for HCB in chlorinated raw materials for industrial production and transported intermediates. They believed that this exemption should be in place as the concentration of HCB in raw materials can be reduced during processing, before subsequently being safely incinerated in accordance with the waste limit (50mg per kg) set in Annex IV of the POPs Regulation.

Respondents were asked if the PCP proposal was of particular importance to them or the organisation they represented:

• one said it was
• 8 said that it was not
• 9 did not know
• 34 did not answer the question

A respondent who was in favour on the PCP proposal mentioned that a PCP UTC could benefit sustainability, whilst another cited consistency with EU legislation as a benefit.

(v) – Call for evidence regarding other POPs

Respondents were asked a series of questions to determine if they were aware of any evidence to suggest new or amended UTC levels were needed for any other POPs. This included those POPs which do not currently have a specified UTC level, as well as those which do, and also 3 substances which were anticipated to be listed as POPs under the Stockholm Convention (UV-328, Dechlorane Plus, Methoxychlor) and subsequently added to the POPs Regulation.

There were 18 responses to this question. Two industry associations provided answers suggesting that a UTC level of 50mg per kg should be introduced for PCBs as they believe this is consistent with Annex IV of the POPs Regulation (which covers waste management). As the amount of PCBs can be reduced during processing, they suggested a low limit of 10mg per kg for chlorinated raw materials for industrial production and transported intermediates was not necessary as the concentration of PCBs could be reduced below the waste limit (50mg per kg) set in Annex IV of the POPs Regulation. These respondents provided an estimate of the quantity of organic pigments containing PCBs as a UTC in the UK market of 600 tonnes.

Another respondent suggested that a blanket 50mg per kg limit should be the default across all POPs where otherwise not specified, rather than assuming a limit of zero.

Respondents were asked if they were aware of any evidence to suggest that UTCs currently listed for any POPs needed amending.

There were 20 responses to the above request. An industry association stated that the current UTC level for the sum of PBDEs, set at 1,000mg per kg, is appropriate. They suggested a lower limit could have negative impacts on recycling and that as this limit has only been in place in the UK for a few years, any change could create uncertainty.

Another industry association stated that the current HBCDD UTC limit of 100mg per kg was appropriate. They suggested that a lower limit is not workable as a validated test method to demonstrate compliance at 100mg per kg or lower remains to be developed. They also mentioned that a lower limit could have negative repercussions for the circular economy, and that the impact of this level of HBCDD on environmental and human health is negligible. 

In addition, 2 industry associations gave coordinated answers suggesting that setting the same universal limit for materials, mixtures and products would not be beneficial due to the dilution effect in finished articles. They mentioned that a strict one size fits all UTC level would disrupt the UK market.

Respondents were asked if they were aware of any evidence to suggest a UTC would be needed for 3 substances soon to be listed as POPs (UV-328, Dechlorane Plus, Methoxychlor).

Summary of responses on Part (v) – Call for evidence regarding other POPs

There were 17 responses to this part of the question, with the majority being unaware of any evidence to support the introduction of UTCs for these substances.

One respondent suggested that a blanket 50mg per kg should be the default across all POPs where otherwise not specified, rather than assuming a limit of zero.

Government response on UTC exemptions proposals (iii, iv and v) for PCP, HCB and other POPs

Legislating on UTC exemptions and/or limit thresholds provides industry with clarity while also aligning with the UK’s obligations as a Party to the Stockholm Convention to eliminate, prohibit or restrict chemicals listed as POPs.

In our consultation we asked for evidence regarding proposed UTC levels for HCB and PCP. We also invited comments on UTC levels for any other POPs.

UTC exempted levels (iii) HCB and (iv) PCP

Overall, respondents supported the proposed UTC levels for PCP and HCB and felt the proposal was appropriate, though some respondents requested an additional limit for HCB in chlorinated raw materials for industrial production and transported intermediates.

The proposed UTC level will provide greater clarity to industry and will provide industry with the additional clarity of regulatory alignment with the EU. We intend to introduce a UTC level of 5mg per kg for PCP and 10mg per kg for HCB at the next opportunity. We will continue to consider the case for additional limits, though there are no plans to introduce any at this stage.

UTC exempted levels (v) call for evidence regarding other POPs

We received a number of informative responses regarding the introduction of UTC levels for other POPs, and the introduction of a generic UTC level for all POPs.

There are currently no plans to introduce a generic UTC level across all POPs, but we will continue to review the potential need for new UTC levels on an ongoing basis, including for those substances referred to by respondents to this consultation. This work may inform potential amendment of waste concentration limits for these substances in future updates of the POPs Regulation.

Toxic Equivalency Factor (TEF) values

Respondents were asked for further information and evidence to help us identify what TEF value for dl-PCBs could be suitable for Great Britain.

Summary of responses

Respondents were asked if the proposal was of particular importance to them or the organisation they represented:

• 2 said it was
• 3 said that it was not
• 13 did not know
• 34 did not answer the question

No respondents expressed strong support or rejection of the TEF values presented in the consultation. A number of respondents said more information was needed in the consideration of the proposals. No assessment of impacts, alternative views or options were provided.

Government response on addition of Toxic Equivalency Factor (TEF) values

On the proposed changes to the TEF table, very little new data was gathered through this consultation. We are grateful to respondents who engaged with this question and recognise the request for greater detail. Defra will continue to explore opportunities and potential impacts of amending the POPs Regulation in this way.

Proposals on maximum concentration limits (for hazardous waste landfill)

The POPs Regulation includes a derogation that allows for an application to permanently store certain wastes (as listed in Annex V of the POPs Regulation) in designated landfill for hazardous waste or salt mines, where it can be demonstrated that destruction is not the environmentally preferred option. The consultation invited views on 3 proposed changes to the Annex V. In brief, these were:

1. Extending the scope of the derogation by adding 2 European Waste Catalogue (EWC) codes and descriptions to Part 2 of Annex V.
2. Amending the scope of maximum concentration limits for some substances, while retaining the existing limit values.
3. Adding substances PCP, Dicofol, PFOA and PFHxS to Annex V along with new maximum concentration limits.

Summary of responses

Respondents were asked if the new European Waste Catalogue (EWC) code and Maximum Concentration Limits proposals (1, 2, and 3 above) were of particular importance to them or the organisation they represented:

• 8 said it was
• 5 said that it was not
• 8 did not know
• 31 did not answer the question

We received 4 responses to proposals on maximum concentration limits, 2 in support and 2 against. One respondent raised concerns that the proposed levels would prevent the effective analysis and management of contaminated soils.

Government response on proposals to maximum concentration limits (for hazardous waste disposal)

Since our consultation a respondent has clarified that land is unlikely to be contaminated with POPs at levels in excess of the waste concentration limits in Annex IV of the POPs Regulation, which means the proposed amendments to Annex V will not be relevant to the management of contaminated land. Further, if waste concentration limits are exceeded, an operator would need to apply to the regulator to make use of the alternatives to destruction that Annex V provides for. Regulators would, among other things, consider the availability of treatment technologies that could reduce the risk posed by the POP content of any waste.

The proposed amendment to the scope of the maximum concentration limit for dioxins and furans to include dioxin-like PCBs (the first part of Proposal 2) will be further considered at a future date, alongside potential future amendments to Annex IV to include dioxin-like PCBs. All other proposed amendments to Annex V will be prioritised for inclusion in upcoming legislation.

Finally, we received no objections to the proposed changes to the maximum concentration limits. We intend to continue with the addition of concentration limits for PCP, Dicofol, PFOA and PFHxS in line with their addition to Annex IV. We will also continue with the proposal to add new European Waste Codes to Annex V (proposal 1) and clarify the scope of 2 substances in Annex V (proposal 2).

Conclusions

Many of our proposals received support from the majority of those who responded to them, some of whom also provided additional information and evidence to help us assess the potential impacts of these proposals. Other proposals received some opposition which has been considered in the responses above. Our calls for further information and evidence on some areas generated some additional information, although they highlighted that there are still some areas with evidence gaps and uncertainty.

We have considered all responses to our consultation, alongside other factors (including global context and subsequent developments in the Stockholm and Basel Conventions). We intend to proceed with many of the proposed changes to the POPs Regulation as set out in the consultation documents as soon as parliamentary time allows.

For other proposals and areas of interest highlighted by our calls for further evidence, we will continue to review potential amendments to the POPs Regulation on an ongoing basis. We will give due consideration to potential impact on UK stakeholders as well as to our intention to eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs, to protect human health and the environment, in line with the Stockholm Convention.  

Any organisations requiring further information regarding implementation of the requirements under the POPs Regulation should get in touch with their relevant regulator in:

• England - Environment Agency
• Wales - Natural Resources Wales
• Scotland -Scottish Environment Protection Agency

Next steps

The UK government intends to move forward with a number of the proposed changes to the POPs Regulation when parliamentary time allows. These include:

• new waste concentration limits for PFOA, PFHxS, PCP, and Dicofol, and amended limits for PBDEs
• new maximum concentration limits for PFOA, PFHxS, PCP and Dicofol and amended limits for PBDEs, and additional EWC codes in Annex V
• new UTC limits, or amendments to existing limits, for PFOA, PCP, and HCB
• finalising expiry dates for existing specific exemptions for PFOA

We will continue to review other potential amendments to the POPs Regulation moving forward, including in response to generation of new evidence and relevant international decisions and guidelines such as those of the Stockholm and Basel Conventions.

Annex A – List of responding organisations

• AATF Forum
• ADEPT
• AGC Chemicals Europe, Ltd
• AO Recycling
• ARC 21
• Biffa
• British Metals Recycling Association
• British Plastics Federation - Recyclers & Product Safety Groups
• British Plastics Federation EPS Group
• BSEF - The International Bromine Council
• Cambridgeshire County Council
• CIWM (Chartered Institution of Wastes Management)
• Clean Rivers Trust
• Charity Retail Association
• Cumberland Council
• East Hants District Council
• EDF Energy
• Enva England Ltd
• Environmental Services Association (ESA)
• ETAD
• Eurocolour e. V.
• European Electronics Recyclers Association
• Fidra
• FRETWORK - The Flame Retardant Textiles Network Ltd
• HBCD Industry Group
• International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN)
• Kirklees Council
• Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee (LARAC)
• Leicestershire County Council
• Local Government Association
• Mineral Wool Insulation Manufacturers Association (MIMA)
• MUS UK Ltd
• National Association of Waste Disposal Officers (NAWDO)
• NDC Certification Services Ltd
• Natural Resources Wales 
• Nuclear Waste Services
• Plastics Recyclers Europe (PRE)
• Portsmouth City Council
• Restructa Ltd
• RDF Industry Group
• S. Norton & Co Limited
• Sackers Limited
• Salvation Army Trading Company Limited
• Sellafield Ltd
• Sostenplas SL
• South Yorkshire Waste Partnership
• Southampton City Council
• SUEZ Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd
• Surrey County Council
• The Cancer Prevention and Education Society
• The National federation of Demolition Contractors
• UK Remediation
• United Kingdom Without Incineration
• Network (UKWIN)
• Veolia
• Wates
• Willmott Dixon