Consultation outcome

Standard rules permit consultation no 24: summary of consultation responses

Updated 1 August 2022

1. Introduction

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 allow us to make standard rules to reduce the administrative burden on business while maintaining environmental standards.

The purpose of this consultation was to engage with relevant stakeholders to obtain their views on 2 proposed new standard rules permits which include fire prevention plans (FPPs). These were:

• small metal recycling facility (less than 5,000 tonnes) with associated FPP

• small end-of-life (ELV) vehicle depollution and dismantling facility (less than 750 tonnes) with associated FPP

2. How we ran the consultation

We shared pre-consultation draft versions of the permits with key stakeholders during summer 2021. We reviewed their comments and used them to produce the draft permits and associated FPPs for this consultation.

We formally consulted from 28 June 2021 until 20 September 2021, using our online Citizen Space consultation website.

In total we asked 42 questions. Questions relating to the small metal recycling facility (less than 5,000 tonnes) were set out in Q1 to Q16 of the consultation. Questions relating to the small ELV depollution and dismantling facility (less than 750 tonnes) were set out in Q19 to Q42.

We received 6 responses to the consultation. However, not all respondents provided answers to all the questions.

Of the 6 responses we received:

• 2 were from trade associations

• 1 was from an individual

• 1 was from a business

• 2 were from operators of waste management facilities

All the responses were received through the Citizen Space website.

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

3. Summary of the main findings and actions we will take

The consultation responses received were supportive of the 2 proposed new permits and associated FPPs.

We are now reviewing the draft permits with reference to the comments received and we will produce final versions for publication on GOV.UK. We hope to publish these 2 permits in spring 2022.

4. Responses to questions 1 to 16 and our response

Questions 1 to 16 relate to the proposed new permit for a small metal recycling facility (less than 5,000 tonnes) with associated FPP.

Q1. We have produced this standard rules set for: sorting, separation, grading, manual feed shearing, baling, compacting, and cutting using hand-held equipment only of ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals.

We have identified these as some of the typical activities carried out by a small scale metal recycling facility. Can you identify any other processing activities?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 3

• no – 3

• do not know – 0

Summary of comments received

Of the 3 respondents who answered ‘yes’ to this question

• one respondent suggested small-scale cable granulation is often carried out at these sites

• other respondents identified breaking ELVs down for parts and activities outside of the T9 or U16 exemptions such as handling undepolluted ELV and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)

Our response

We have included non-hazardous cable in the list of waste types and granulation in the permitted activities. This permit does not cover breaking of ELVs or the storage and treatment of WEEE, these activities are covered in other standard rules permits.

Q2. We have set the following limits to ensure that the permit and its fire prevention plan provide the right protection measures for you, our stakeholders, the public and the environment.

The limits allow us to permit the activity without the need for a site-specific and bespoke assessment.

Limits

a) no more than 5,000 tonnes of waste shall be accepted each year

b) no more than 100 tonnes of waste shall be on site at any one time

c) no more than 500kg of waste vehicle batteries (waste code 16 06 01*) shall be stored at the site at any one time

d) no more than 1 tonne of intact waste vehicle catalytic converters (waste code 16 01 21* or 16 01 22) shall be stored at the site at any one time

Summary of responses to question

All respondents agreed with a), b) and c).

One respondent disagreed with d).

Summary of comments received

One tonne of intact catalytic waste is a considerable amount of individual units and we consider that 500kg would be more suitable.

Our response

We have considered this response. Given the small-scale nature of the permit we intend to reduce the limit to no more than 500kg or 100 units of intact waste vehicle catalytic converters (waste code 16 01 21* or 16 01 22) shall be stored at the site at any one time.

Q3. Schedule 1 of the permit sets out the waste types that can be accepted and treated in accordance with this permit. We have restricted the waste types to those listed because we want to permit the activity without the need for a site-specific and bespoke assessment. Do you agree with our proposed waste types in Schedule 1?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 3

• no – 3

Summary of comments received

No comments received.

Our response

Although no comments were made in relation to this question, including non-hazardous waste cable as a permitted waste type has been mentioned in answers to other questions. We intend to include non-hazardous cable waste in Schedule 1.

Q4. Schedule 3 of the permit sets out the fire prevention conditions that must be complied with as part of this permit. Do you agree with the list of combustible wastes and materials included in section 5 of schedule 3?

Please refer to the list of combustible wastes included in the Fact Bank at the end of this document.

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 5

• no – 0

• do not know – 1

Summary of comments received

No comments or suggestions were received on combustible waste. We therefore propose to keep the list as it is.

Q6. Do you agree with the requirements for accepting and storing lead acid batteries included in section 7.1 of schedule 3?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 4

• no – 1

• not answered – 1

Summary of comments received

Although the respondent answered no, they do agree with the requirements. They propose batteries stored in containers should, along with having terminals insulated (with electrical tape and so on), have some form of electrical insulating material separating the layers when or if stacked inside a container.

Our response

We intend to add a rule under 2.4 of the permit requiring lead-acid batteries to be stored upright in containers with the electrical connectors taped or capped and pointing upwards. The containers must be impermeable with an acid resistant base and a lid, unless they are stored under weatherproof covering. We will not require an insulating layer because this is not a requirement for safe transport, and we have required that the terminals should be taped or capped.

Q7. We have listed the requirements for hot works in section 7.2 of schedule 3. Do you agree with these requirements?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 6

• no – 0

Summary of comments received

No comments or suggestions were received on the combustible waste. We therefore propose to keep the list as it is.

Q8. Do you agree with the requirements for fuel storage tanks and mobile fuel storage tanks to be shaded from direct sunlight as for section 7.7 of schedule 3?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 5

• no – 1

Summary of comments received

One respondent commented it would be useful to understand the risk assessment that indicates that this is required, and such an outcome could lead to dual regulatory standards.

Our response

We have consulted with petroleum licensing colleagues and confirmed that diesel tanks (static or mobile) are not covered by the Petroleum Regulations. We consider that if the diesel tanks are double skinned that this should be sufficient protection against direct sunlight because diesel has a relatively high flash point (52 to 82°C). We will remove this requirement.

Q9. Do you agree with the requirements for waste acceptance and rejection set out in section 7.8 of schedule 3?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 4

• no – 1

• do not know – 1

Summary of comments received

One respondent raised a concern that there is no definition of uncontaminated ferrous and non-ferrous wastes which is linked to the storage infrastructure requirements. They stated attempting to define and manage uncontaminated metals would be difficult.

Our response

We have considered this and we will revise the infrastructure requirements to require impermeable surfacing for all storage and treatment activities.

Q10. Do you agree with the quarantine requirements for unauthorised lithium or lithium ion batteries?

Please refer to the information on lithium and lithium ion batteries in the Fact Bank at the end of this document.

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 5

• no – 1

Summary of comments received

Two respondents raised concerns that 5 days for removal of quarantined batteries, especially lithium ion batteries is not practical.

Our response

We have considered these responses and will amend the FPP to require batteries are removed from site as soon as is practicable, and within 1 month.

Q11. Do you agree with the requirements for pile sizes we have set out in section 8 of schedule 3?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 6

• no – 0

Summary of comments received

No comments or suggestions were received on combustible waste. We therefore propose to keep the list as it is.

Q12. Do you agree with the separation distances we have set out in section 8.2 of schedule 3?

Please refer to the information on separation distances in the Fact Bank at the end of this document.

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 5

• no – 1

Summary of comments received

One respondent, although they agreed with the distances in principle, wanted us to reduce the separation distance when using fire retardant screens, boards or bays. They suggested that this would enable the use of smaller sized sites and so increasing revenue from sites that would otherwise not be suitable. This should not be seen as a compromise but an effective way to utilise such sites while offering the same protection to the environment.

Our response

We have considered the response and have decided to keep the requirements in section 8.2. This is because if using screens and other measures to reduce separation distance are proposed we would need to assess those proposals. For these proposals the operator should apply for a different standard rules permit and submit a bespoke FPP for the site, including the proposed alternative measures to reduce the separation distances.

Q13. Do you agree with the requirements set out in section 13 of schedule 3 relating to the firefighting water supplies required for the site?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 5

• no – 1

Summary of comments received

One respondent suggested that particular attention should be given to managing fires from lithium ion batteries. These can result in very high temperature run away incidents that can spread because they do not respond to conventional firefighting techniques.

Our response

The permit does not allow lithium ion batteries to be accepted so the FPP does not consider the firefighting techniques. Traction batteries pose the greatest risk. These are large and should be spotted when inspecting or depositing loads and rejected immediately.

In the FPP we have required that any battery that is, or is suspected to be, a lithium or lithium ion battery, shall be checked for damage and stored in a watertight, lidded container filled with sand or vermiculite. The container shall be capable of protecting the battery or batteries stored within it from damage, and:

• the container shall be located at least 6 metres away from any buildings, plant equipment, waste or combustible materials

• if the 6 metre distance cannot be achieved, the battery container shall be stored within a fire resistant enclosure

We believe this should minimise the risk of fire and fire spread if unauthorised batteries are accepted and quarantined.

Q14. If you are an existing operator of a permitted site or sites, would you be able to comply with these conditions and wish to vary your permit to this new rules set?

If yes, how many of your permitted activities are you likely to want to vary?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 2

• no – 1

• do not know – 2

• not answered – 1

Summary of comments received

This is a small pool of responses and only 1 respondent indicated they would probably vary between 3 to 5 permits.

Our response

We consider that this permit will be suitable for new applicants who are operating small sites. In addition, during 2018, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Welsh Government, carried out a public consultation ‘Reducing crime at sites handling waste, and introducing fixed penalties for waste duty of care’. The consultation proposed making substantial changes to the waste exemptions regime including changes to exemptions T9 (recovering scrap metal) and U16 (using depolluted end-of-life vehicles for parts).

Although the outcome of the consultation has not yet been published, the aim of introducing these new standard rules is to help operators, should they be required to transition from these exemptions into environmental permitting.

Q15. Are there any further comments you would like to make relating to this permit and fire prevention plan?

Comment 1

“The EA should offer a free variation to existing permit holders for the next 12 months because this will allow better regulation of operators - for example, by ensuring they have a FPP & allowing the EA to enforce its conditions. I suspect that the vast majority of ELV ATFs do not have a FPP”.

Our response

This could potentially result in a lot of unfunded work for our National Permitting Service which we do not have the resource to carry out. We will consider what charging options are available should existing permit holders wish to vary their permit to this one.

Comment 2

“The permit should include 17 04 11 (non-hazardous cables)”.

Our response

We are proposing to include this waste code in the permit following the responses to this consultation.

Comment 3

“It would be very important that the plan is heavily scrutinised and that operational capabilities match the plan”.

Our response

We agree. We plan to check the operations are being carried out as prescribed by the FPP in the permit as part of the first inspection of the site.

Q16. Our draft rules are accompanied by a generic risk assessment. Does the assessment adequately cover the risks associated with this activity?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 6

• no – 0

Q17. Are you likely to incur any third party monetary costs to prepare a permit application, such as having to hire consultants, access external advice? If so, please give an approximate estimate of this cost in pounds sterling (£).

Please provide your best estimates of time or costs entailed in certain activities - we appreciate these may be estimates only. We do not intend to publish the responses to questions 17 and 18 of this section as part of this consultation.

Q18. Are there any other significant financial impacts, either positive or negative, that the introduction of the new standard rules could have on your overall business?

As stated, we are not publishing any responses received to these 2 questions.

5. Responses to questions 19 to 42 and our response to these

Questions 19 to 42 relate to a proposed new standard rules permit for the operation of a vehicle storage, depollution and dismantling facility accepting less than 750 tonnes each year with associated FPP.

Q19. We have produced this standard rules set for: depollution of waste motor vehicles and sorting, separation, grading or cutting of waste into different components for recovery.

We identified these as some of the typical activities carried out by a small scale ELV facilities.

Can you identify any other processing activities?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 1

• no – 4

• do not know – 1

Summary of comments received

One respondent identified that small scale ELV sites may carry out the handling of scrap metal and WEEE.

Our response

The proposed standard rules permit does not authorise the acceptance of scrap metal or WEEE. These are covered by other standard rules permits. Otherwise a bespoke permit is required.

We will limit the processing activity of cutting to using hand-held equipment only.

Q20. Are there any processing activities that you think should be excluded?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 1

• no – 5

Summary of comments received

One respondent told us catalyst cutting and processing should be excluded. The respondent was also concerned about fire risk from hybrid or electric vehicles and their batteries (whilst acknowledging excluding electric or hybrid vehicles may make the standard rules permit of limited value).

Our response

The standard rules permit includes a rule that there shall be no treatment of catalytic converters, including decanning, other than manual sorting and separating from other wastes.

We acknowledge the risk from electric vehicles (their batteries). The FPP associated with this standard rules permit includes additional measures to prevent the risk of fires from electric vehicles and their batteries. If necessary, in the future we may revisit the standard rules permit and (after a consultation process) revise them where appropriate.

With year on year growth in numbers of electric and hybrid vehicles, we will increasingly find these types of vehicles arriving at ELV sites. Excluding electric vehicles or hybrids from the standard rules will limit its use for operators.

Electric or hybrid vehicles are not currently excluded from other standard rules permits. We do not propose any changes to the standard rules to exclude electric or hybrid vehicles.

Q21. We have set the following limits to ensure that the permit and its fire prevention plan provides the right protection measures for you, our stakeholders, the public and the environment. The limits allow us to permit the activity without the need for a site-specific and bespoke assessment:

Please indicate whether you agree with the following limits:

(a) no more than 750 tonnes of end-of-life vehicles shall be accepted each year

(b) no more than 10 waste motor vehicles shall be depolluted and dismantled each week

(c) no more than 10 waste motor vehicles shall be stored at the site at any one time

(d) the maximum quantity of hazardous waste stored at the site recovered from waste motor vehicles shall not exceed 2 tonnes at any one time

(e) no more than 1 tonne of intact waste vehicle tyres (waste code 16 01 03) shall be stored at the site at any one time

(f) no more than 500kg of waste vehicle batteries (waste code 16 06 01* or 16 06 05) shall be stored at the site at any one time

(g) no more than 100 catalytic converters (waste code 16 01 21* or 16 01 22) shall be stored at the site at any one time

If no, please explain why you do not agree with any of the limits, if applicable. Please also provide details of alternative limits and how the risks can be managed.

Summary of responses to question

All respondents agreed with the limits or did not provide a response to each question, with the exception of one respondent who disagreed with (f). This respondent told us there were potential inconsistencies in the proposed standard rules for electric vehicle traction batteries. One other respondent questioned whether the limit for batteries represented a commercially viable load (for collection).

Our response

We agree the quantity limit for storage of waste batteries is impractical from a commercial load perspective based on the weight of electric vehicle batteries. For example, one model of electric vehicle has batteries weighing 600kg. We will revise the battery storage limit to 10 tonnes at any one time. This is less than the storage limit for batteries in other standard rules permits for ELV recycling.

Q22. We have restricted the permit so that it is not allowed within a certain distance from receptors.

Please indicate whether you agree with the following limits:

a) 200m of a European site, Ramsar (wetland site of international importance), Site of Special Scientific Interest or Marine Conservation Zone

b) a groundwater source protection zone 1 or 2, or where a source protection zone has not been defined then not within 100 metres of any well, spring or borehole used for the supply of water for human consumption, including private water supplies

c) 10 metres of a watercourse that has not been culverted

If no, please explain why you do not agree with any of the limits, if applicable. Please also provide details of alternative limits and how the risks can be managed.

Summary of responses to question

All 6 respondents agreed with the above restrictions on distance from receptors. However, one respondent questioned how realistic the restrictions are, as they may lead to a permit no-one can comply with.

Our response

The distances to sensitive receptors are necessary to minimise the risk of significant pollution. We do not propose any changes to this part of the standard rules permit.

Q23. We have set the following requirements to prevent pollution to land and groundwater, particularly in a situation where a fire may occur and firewater needs to be contained.

Please indicate whether you agree with the following requirements:

a) all un-depolluted end-of-life vehicles, contaminated parts (for example engines) and tyres shall be stored on an impermeable pavement with a sealed drainage system

b) all wastes shall be treated on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage system

c) fully depolluted end-of-life vehicles, uncontaminated plastic, glass and ferrous and non- ferrous metal wastes arising from the treatment of end-of-life vehicles shall be stored on an impermeable surface with:

i. a sealed drainage system; or

ii. a drainage system which discharges to surface water or to groundwater and is designed, constructed and maintained so discharged run-off does not adversely impact the water quality of receiving water bodies, both during construction and when operational

If no, please explain why you do not agree with any of the requirements, if applicable. Also provide details of how fire water can be contained in areas that do not have impermeable surfaces and sealed drainage, including how you consider the risks could be managed.

Summary of responses to question

All 6 respondents agreed with the requirements for a) and b). Four respondents agreed with the requirements for c) and 2 respondents did not agree.

One respondent told us they were unsure why sealed drainage would be required for fully depolluted ELVs, given if all potentially polluting fluids had been removed then hardstanding would be sufficient. The respondent also told us in the event of a fire, where firewater had been used, it would be clean and free from pollutants. The respondent also pointed out that a hardstanding for fully depolluted ELVs is considered sufficient for existing environmental permits.

Another respondent told us that depolluted vehicles should be stored on an impermeable surface to make sure that any residual leaks or run-off are contained.

Our response

A fire involving fully depolluted ELVs has the potential to cause pollution. For example, from firewater run-off contaminated with chemicals produced by plastics and seating foam burning in ELV shells.

The standard rules permit has rules to minimise the risk of pollution. This includes a requirement to store fully depolluted ELVs, uncontaminated plastic, glass and ferrous and non-ferrous metal wastes arising from the treatment of ELVs on an impermeable surface.

The drainage from the impermeable surfacing needs to be managed through a sealed drainage system or a drainage system which discharges to surface water or to groundwater. It must be designed, constructed and maintained so that discharged run-off does not adversely impact the water quality of receiving water bodies.

Storing these wastes on an impermeable surface helps facilitate the containment of firewater and prevent its loss to ground. The fire prevention plan includes measures to manage firewater in the event of a fire. Impermeable surfacing also reduces the post depollution risk to ground from residual oil or fuel leaks from ELVs.

We do not propose any changes to this part of the standard rules permit.

Q24. Schedule 1 of the permit sets out the waste types that can be accepted and treated in accordance with this permit. We have restricted the waste types to undepolluted and depolluted end-of-life vehicles only, to ensure we can permit the activity without the need for a site-specific and bespoke assessment. Do you agree with our proposed waste types in Schedule 1?

Summary of responses to question

All 6 respondents agreed with the waste types in Schedule 1 of the proposed standard rules.

Our response

We do not propose any changes to this part of the standard rules permit.

Q25. Schedule 3 of the permit sets out the fire prevention conditions that must be complied with as part of this permit. Do you agree with the list of combustible wastes and materials included within section 5 of the fire prevention plan?

Please list other combustible wastes and materials you consider should be included and how the risks associated with them could be managed.

Summary of responses to question

All 6 respondents agreed with the list of combustible wastes and materials included within section 5 of the fire prevention plan.

Our response

We do not propose any changes to this part of the standard rules permit.

Q26. The permit and fire prevention plan allow for the management of end-of-life electric vehicles (ELEVs). ELEVs present specific fire risks which have been referred to in the fire prevention plan. Do you agree with the inclusion of ELEVs in this permit and FPP?

Please explain why you agree or disagree that electric vehicles should be included.

Summary of responses to question

Three respondents agreed with including ELEVs and 3 did not know.

One respondent told us they agreed with including ELEVs, but special consideration should be given to them as they become more commonplace. The respondent also told us the standards we set now will become the benchmark for the future.

We were also told the majority of existing ELV sites will have handled little or no ELEVs and suggested guidance is needed for the ELV sector on the dangers of ELEVs.

Another respondent told us they were concerned about hybrid or electric vehicles and their batteries, as they presented a higher fire risk. The respondent also acknowledged that the exclusion of ELEVs may make the permit of limited value. The respondent highlighted the weight of ELEVs batteries, how the weight varies and told us ELEV batteries for reuse should not be handled in the same way as ‘scrap’ batteries.

Another respondent told us an increasing number of hybrid and ELEVs were coming through the supply chain, so their inclusion reflected what is happening on the ground.

Our response

We refer you to our response to Q20. It is necessary to include ELEVs in the standard rules set and we do not propose further changes barring some minor amendments to the battery handling requirements.

Q27. Do you agree with the requirements for site plans and maps as detailed in schedule 2?

Summary of responses to question

Five respondents agreed with the requirements for site plans and maps as detailed in schedule 2 and one respondent did not know.

Our response

We do not propose any changes to this part of the standard rules.

Q28. Do you agree with requirements for managing common causes of fires at end-of-life vehicle sites included in section 7 of schedule 3?

Please list other causes you consider should be included and how the risks associated with them could be managed.

Summary of responses to question

Five respondents agreed with the requirements for managing common causes of fires at ELV sites and one did not know but commented that the Environment Agency does not share information on the common causes of fire at ELV sites.

Our response

We do not propose any changes to this part of the standard rules permit. We identify the common causes of fire in section 6 of the fire prevention plan:

The following are common causes of fires at ELV sites:

• batteries short circuiting and causing a fire
• poor or unsafe practices, including during depollution
• smoking
• arson
• poor storage of oils and fuels
• poorly maintained plant and equipment
• electrical faults
• oily rags stored in direct sunlight
• fuel ignition during hot works

We have given feedback to our fire prevention lead and ELV recycling sector lead on the lack of information about the common causes of fire. However, the cause of a fire may not be known, depending on its severity and to what extent the Fire and Rescue Services and site operators investigate the fire.

Q29. Do you agree with the requirements for managing waste piles included in section 8 of schedule 3?

Please list other measures you consider should be included and how the risks associated with them could be managed.

Summary of responses to question

Five respondents answered the question, and all agreed with the requirements for managing waste piles.

Our response

We do not propose any changes to this part of the standard rules permit.

Q30. Do you agree with the requirements to prevent fire spreading included in section 9 of schedule 3?

Please list other measures you consider should be included and how the risks associated with them could be managed.

Summary of responses to question

All 6 respondents agreed with the requirements to prevent fire spreading.

Our response

We do not propose any changes to this part of the standard rules permits.

Q31. Do you agree with the requirements to detect fires included in section 10 of schedule 3?

Please list other measures you consider should be included and how the risks associated with them could be managed.

Summary of responses to question

All 6 respondents agreed with the requirements to detect fires.

Our response

We do not propose any changes to this part of the standard rules permit.

Q32. Do you agree with the requirements to suppress fires included in section 11 of schedule 3?

Please list other measures you consider should be included and how the risks associated with them could be managed.

Summary of responses to question

Five respondents agreed with the requirements to suppress fires and one did not know. The respondent who did not know questioned the mandatory requirement to have a specialist fire blanket and how practical this was.

Our response

A fire blanket specifically for vehicle fires is a simple and cost effective method to help suppress a fire and prevent it spreading. FPPs presented to the Environment Agency for other ELV sites have included fire blankets as a means of suppressing fires. We do not propose any changes to this part of the standard rules permit.

Q33. Do you agree with the requirements on firefighting techniques included in section 12 of schedule 3?

Please list other measures you consider should be included and how the risks associated with them could be managed.

Summary of responses to question

Five respondents agreed with the requirements on firefighting techniques and one respondent did not know. One respondent told us that deploying clay mats and drain blockers should only be done if it is safe to do so. Another told us particular attention should be given to fires from ELEVs.

Our response

We agree that responding to a fire incident should only be carried out where it is safe to do so. We do not propose any changes to this part of the standard rules permit.

Q34. Do you agree with the requirements on water supplies included in section 13 of schedule 3?

Please list other measures you consider should be included and how the risks associated with them could be managed.

Summary of responses to question

Five respondents agreed with the requirements on water supplies and one respondent did not know. One respondent told us they were not clear how many operators would be able to comply with the hydrant requirement. They understood mains water supply could provide 15 litres a minute, compared to a requirement of 75 litres a minute in the fire prevention plan.

Our response

The fire prevention plan requires a hydrant, conforming to British Standard 750 or equivalent, to be located within 100 metres of the site access. It must be maintained by the Fire and Rescue Service or another competent maintenance organisation.

A fire hydrant should be capable of providing water at a flow rate of 2000 litres a minute. If a fire hydrant is not available, a minimum of 18,000 litres of water over a 4 hour period must be available to help fight a fire.

This water supply can be through both mains water and storage tanks.

We do not propose any changes to this part of the standard rules permit.

Q35. Do you agree with the requirements on managing firewater included in section 14 of schedule 3?

Please list other measures you consider should be included and how the risks associated with them could be managed.

Summary of responses to question

Four respondents agreed with the requirements on managing firewater and 2 respondents did not know. One respondent told us they were not clear whether the managing firewater requirements were practical.

Our response

Potentially polluting firewater needs to be contained on site and sent for off-site disposal, rather than escaping into the environment. We do not propose any changes to this part of the standard rules permit.

Q36. Do you agree with the measures to take during and after a fire included in section 15 of schedule 3?

Please list other measures you consider should be included and how the risks associated with them could be managed.

Summary of responses to question

Five respondents agreed with the measures to take during and after a fire and one did not know. One respondent questioned whether the requirements for persistent organic pollutants (POPs) were realistic or practical.

Our response

POPs are an environmental concern and operators managing waste containing POPs must follow the POPs regulations. Further information on identifying and disposing of waste containing POPs can be found at Identify and dispose of waste containing persistent organic pollutants.

We do not propose any changes to this part of the standard rules permit.

Q37. If you are an existing operator of a permitted site or sites, would you be able to comply with these conditions and want to vary your permit to this new rules set? If yes, how many of your permitted activities are you likely to want to vary?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 2

• do not know – 2

• not answered – 2

Four respondents did not tell us how many permits they would potentially want to vary. One respondent told us they would vary one permit. Another said they would vary between 3 and 5 permits.

Our response

The limited responses to this question suggest that some operators may decide to vary their existing permit to the proposed new rules set if they can meet the relevant rules. We know the new standard rules permits will allow small scale ELV recycling operators to have a more streamlined application process with the generic FPP.

Q38. Are there any other requirements within the permit or schedules which you disagree with? If so, what are they and what are your alternative proposals?

Please provide evidence to support your alternative proposals and how the risks can be appropriately managed.

Summary of responses to question

One respondent suggested fluids removed during the depollution process should benefit from secondary containment. Another respondent referred to previous communications sent by them to the Environment Agency concerning the proposed rules set.

Our response

Rule 3.1.3 of the standard rules permit states ‘All liquids in containers, whose emission to water or land could cause pollution, shall be provided with secondary containment, unless the operator has used other appropriate measures to prevent or where that is not practicable, to minimise, leakage and spillage from the primary container’.

This rule applies to the removal of fluids from ELVs. We do not propose any changes to the standard rules permit to address secondary containment.

We have reviewed previous communications received before and after the consultation and have revised the standard rules where appropriate.

Q39. Our draft rules are accompanied by a generic risk assessment. Does the assessment adequately cover the risks associated with this activity? If no, please state the reasons.

Summary of responses to question

Five respondents agreed that the generic risk assessment covered the risks adequately and one respondent did not know. The respondent who did not know referred to previous communications with the Environment Agency outside of the formal consultation process.

Our response

We consider that the generic risk assessment is fit for purpose and reflects the potential risks from the activity described in the standard rules permit.

We have reviewed previous communications received before and after the consultation and have revised the standard rules permit where appropriate.

We do not propose making any changes to the generic risk assessment.

Q40. Are you likely to incur any third party monetary costs to prepare a permit application, such as having to hire consultants, access external advice? If so, please give an approximate estimate of this cost in pounds sterling (£).

One respondent told us applicants are likely to face significant costs to prepare permit applications and this is one reason why there are illegal operators.

The respondent also acknowledged making permit applications too simple will result in a system where no effort or understanding is required.

The respondent told us that the minimum cost for a simple permit application is likely to be more than £10,000. Preparing a fire prevention plan for a permit application can be between £2,000 to £5,000. Therefore, including a generic fire prevention plan in the standard rules benefits industry.

Q41. How many hours do you estimate it will take you to:

• prepare a standard permit application

• provide support for our compliance assessment visits, including accompanying one of our officers and follow-up actions we may require?

Summary of responses to question

One respondent said that this question depends on who is producing the application.

Q42. Are there any other significant financial impacts, either positive or negative, that the introduction of the new standard rules could have on your overall business?

Summary of responses to question

One respondent told us their annual subsistence charges were high and their permitted activities allowed for a higher throughput than they needed. The respondent commented that the proposed standard rules permit would have a positive impact on their business, with potentially lower subsistence charges. The respondent welcomed, in principle, the introduction of the standard rules permit as it would help to ensure a level playing field in the industry, increase standards and ensure depolluted vehicles only come from permitted facilities.

6. Next steps

The responses we received supported issue of the 2 new permits and associated FPPs. We will now review these draft permits to produce final versions. We plan to publish them on GOV.UK in spring 2022.

If you wish to follow up on your responses or have questions relating to this consultation response document, then please contact us at [email protected] and include ’Standard rules consultation no 24’ in the subject of your email.

7. Annex

List of consultation respondents (by organisation name):

• Amaks Motors Ltd
• Anonymous
• British Metals Recycling Association
• European Metal Recycling Ltd
• Vehicle Recyclers’ Association
• member of the public