Consultation outcome

Updating the UK plan for shipments of waste: government response

Updated 16 September 2021

Introduction

The UK Plan for Shipments of Waste implements the government policy of self-sufficiency in waste disposal. There is, therefore, a general prohibition against the export of UK waste for disposal. The UK plan outlines the exceptions under which shipments for disposal may be allowed. The UK plan was last updated in 2012 and is now due another update. This will reflect the UK’s departure from the European Union (EU), certain policy changes and minor technical amendments. The government sought views on these proposals through the consultation, Updating the UK Plan for Shipments of Waste. This document summarises the responses received and actions the government will take as a result.

This consultation was open for 6 weeks from 18 January to 1 March 2021.

The consultation sought views on government proposals to:

• align the UK plan with the government’s Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) waste strategy by allowing imports of NORM waste of UK origin for disposal, and restricting other shipments of NORM waste for disposal
• clarify that interim disposal operations should be carried out within the UK where possible
• remove the existing exception relating to the export of contaminated river sediment waste for disposal
• add a new exception relating to the export of mercury and mercury-contaminated wastes for disposal

Proposals and policy background

The first proposal is to amend the UK plan to align it with the government’s Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) waste strategy. The NORM strategy prohibits the shipment of radioactive waste to or from the UK, except for the recovery of reusable materials or for prior treatment. The latter allows the most appropriate facility to treat NORM-contaminated waste, while supporting the UK to be self-sufficient in disposing of its waste. This change would also add detail to existing exceptions in the UK plan to specify the conditions under which NORM waste can be imported and exported from the UK.

The second proposal is to specify within the UK plan that interim disposal operations should be carried out in the UK where there is capacity. The UK plan currently allows for interim disposal operations abroad, which may not be the best option environmentally and should be discouraged where there is suitable UK capacity.

The third proposal is to remove the exception allowing contaminated river sediments (CRS) to be exported for disposal, which has never been used. Following informal consultation, the government understands this exception is no longer necessary as more domestic disposal options for CRS waste have become available.

The fourth proposal introduces a new exception allowing the export of mercury waste and mercury-contaminated wastes for disposal. Previously, the export of mercury waste for disposal has been permitted under an existing, more general exception. As the UK works towards eliminating legacy mercury waste, Defra is receiving increasing numbers of requests to export mercury waste. Defra therefore proposes this new exception specific to mercury wastes and mercury-contaminated wastes.

Defra also proposed amendments to update the UK plan following the UK’s departure from the EU and the end of the transition period. This primarily involved replacing references to EU legislation with references to the relevant legislation. (These references may require further updating at the time of final publication of the plan).

Finally, the government proposed further minor technical amendments to the UK plan: for example, updating the list of UK overseas territories and the contact details section.

Summary of responses and next steps

Six organisations responded to this consultation. Four responded through the CitizenSpace portal and 2 by email.

The respondents were:

• 4 individual businesses
• 1 trade association
• 1 non-governmental organisation (NGO)

Question 1: What are your views on the proposal to update the UK plan to make it consistent with existing government policy which allows the repatriation of UK-generated NORM waste and specifies criteria for other shipments of NORM waste?

One business and one trade association responded to this question. Both expressed support for the proposed amendment. The business requested that Defra go further by requiring that all UK-generated NORM waste be repatriated to the UK.

The government intends to proceed with this amendment and to separately consider the proposal to require UK generated NORM waste be repatriated to the UK.

Question 2: Do you have any comments on the proposal to require that any interim disposal operations on wastes being exported for disposal should be carried out in the UK, where there is capacity?

Three businesses, one trade association and one NGO responded to this question. Four expressed support for the proposal, and one response was neutral.

One business requested that the Environment Agency allow UK incinerators to issue R codes for energy recovery from hazardous waste. This response is out of scope of the present consultation. The Environment Agency is currently investigating whether hazardous waste incinerators could gain R1 status in future.

The NGO asked the government to make sure the UK has sufficient capacity to conduct all interim disposal operations. Generally, the UK does have the resources to dispose of its own hazardous waste. However, in some instances the UK does not generate enough of certain hazardous wastes to make providing the specialised disposal facilities economically viable.

The NGO also requested the government outline how the UK will make sure there is environmentally sound management of exported wastes. The waste shipments regulators are responsible for assessing environmentally sound management on a case-by-case basis.

Question 3: Do you agree with the proposal to remove the exception which currently allows the export of contaminated river sediments for disposal?

One trade association and one NGO responded to this question, expressing support for this proposal.

Question 4: What are your views on the introduction of a specific exception which will allow the export of mercury waste and mercury-contaminated wastes for disposal?

Two businesses and one trade association responded to this question. The trade association were in support of the proposal. The 2 businesses raised concerns about exporting mercury-contaminated wastes for disposal. They felt the UK has adequate capacity to treat most mercury-contaminated wastes prior to final disposal of elemental mercury.

Defra never intended to suggest we would allow exports of mercury-contaminated waste where suitable treatment or disposal facilities exist in the UK. We will amend the revised UK plan draft to clarify this point.

Currently, whenever businesses request a UK plan exception to export hazardous wastes for disposal, they must show why the waste cannot be managed in the UK. From now on Defra will, in addition to verifying this information with the 4 UK regulators, also verify this information with relevant trade associations and the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management’s (CIWM) Hazardous Waste Special Interest Group.

Question 5: We have made amendments to the UK plan to reflect the UK’s departure from the EU and the end of the transition period. Do you have any views on these amendments?

Two businesses responded to this question. One business was in support of the amendments. The second business did not directly address these amendments. They requested that the UK plan continue allowing imports of hazardous waste to the UK from Ireland for disposal via high temperature incineration (HTI). The respondent understood that EU legislation prohibits such movements following the end of the transition period.

There is no impediment in the UK plan to the import of hazardous waste for disposal from EU member states. Any requests Defra receive from an EU member state will be considered on a case-by-case basis, with due consideration of the updated UK plan.

Question 6: We have made minor technical amendments throughout the UK plan, for example, to update contact details and the list of overseas territories. Do you have any concerns regarding these minor technical amendments?

Two businesses, one trade association and one NGO responded to this question. Three of these confirmed they had no concerns with these proposed amendments. One business was concerned the proposed amendments might inhibit repatriation of UK waste from the British Antarctic Territory (BAT). It is a requirement of the Antarctic Treaty that the UK repatriates its own waste from BAT and nothing in the revised UK plan will prevent the repatriation of these wastes.

The NGO also suggested including a contact list for the overseas territories and crown dependencies referenced within the UK plan. Such a list would quickly become out of date and consequently we do not propose to include one in the UK plan.

Question 7: Are there any other matters covered by the UK plan that you would like us to consider?

One NGO and one business responded to this question. The response from the NGO covered a range of issues which were out of scope of the consultation.

The business sought to confirm whether requirements for imports of waste to the UK from the Falkland Islands and Ascension Island would remain the same under the updated UK plan.

From 1 January 2021, imports of hazardous wastes to the UK for disposal from all UK overseas territories need a bilateral agreement or arrangement with the UK and the approval of a duly reasoned request. This includes the Falkland Islands and Ascension Island. These changes reflect existing requirements under Article 11 of the Basel Convention. They are not a result of the proposed amendments to the UK plan.

Final approach

Government intends to proceed with the approach to amending the UK plan proposed in the consultation document. We believe that this will meet the policy aim of maintaining UK self-sufficiency in waste disposal activities.