Consultation outcome

Standard rules consultation 26: response document

Updated 29 March 2023

Standards rules consultation 26 closed on the 8 January 2023. Here is our response to the feedback we received.

1. Introduction

We consulted with relevant stakeholders to get their views on our proposed new and amended standard rules permits for medium combustion plant (MCP) and specified generators.

These permits are for operators who must:

• have a permit under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 SI No. 1154 (EPR) by the 1 January 2024

• comply with emission limit values (ELVs) for existing MCP with a thermal input equal to or greater than 5 MWth and less than 50 MWth by the 1 January 2025

Standard rules permits have these benefits when compared to bespoke permits:

• applicants provide less information when applying

• the costs are lower – both application fees and subsistence charges

• the Environment Agency is likely to determine them more quickly

2. How we ran the consultation

We shared pre-consultation proposals verbally and by email with relevant stakeholders and trade bodies from March to September 2022 to obtain their views. Their comments helped us develop the proposals on which we formally consulted.

We ran the formal online public consultation on the Environment Agency Citizen Space website for 9 weeks, from 3 November 2022 to 8 January 2023.

This document sets out:

• the questions we asked in the consultation

• a summary of the responses we received

• what we will do as a result of the consultation

We have provided a list of the organisations that responded to the consultation in the annex at the end of this document.

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

Proposal to introduce a new standard rules SR2022 No 9 for new and existing MCP which are boilers burning natural gas for heat only

Respondents supported our proposal to introduce a new standard rules permit for new and existing MCP which are boilers burning natural gas for heat only. We will publish the new permit with some minor amendments to the rule set and generic risk assessment.

Proposed additions and amendments to standard rules SR2018 No 7

Respondents generally supported all the proposed additions and amendments to SR2018 No 7. We will publish the new rules set with some minor amendments to the errors identified.

Proposed changes to standard rules SR2018 No 4 and No 5

We only develop new standard rules, or make changes, when there is enough demand. During the consultation we only received 2 requests to change SR2018 No 4 and No 5 to add existing MCPs. For this reason, we believe the amendments would not be well used.

Responses also showed that stakeholders want us to consult on any revision to these rule sets. But there is not enough time to consult before we need to start accepting permit applications to meet the deadlines set by EPR.

We will therefore not be publishing revised rule sets for standard rules permits 2018 No 4 and No 5. Applicants will need to make a bespoke permit application if they operate a specified generator (SG) and have existing MCPs which need permitting.

Proposed changes to charging for MCP and SG standard rules permits

Respondents supported the proposed changes for MCP and SG permits. The charges for SR2022 No 9 will now be the default standard facility charge. We will update the charging scheme.

Ref	Activity	Permit application	Minor variation per plant	Normal variation	Substantial variation	Transfer application	Surrender application
1.10.19.1	1 plant	£446	N/A	N/A	N/A	£169	£125
1.10.19.2	Up to 3 plant	£520	N/A	N/A	N/A	£169	£125
1.10.19.3	Up to 5 plant	£620	N/A	N/A	N/A	£169	£125
1.10.19.4	Up to 8 plant	£720	N/A	N/A	N/A	£169	£125
1.10.19.5	Up to 10 plant	£779	N/A	N/A	N/A	£169	£125
1.10.19.6	Up to 15 plant	£813	N/A	N/A	N/A	£169	£125

Business impact of the proposed changes

Responders said the proposed changes will have a positive impact on businesses. We will continue to review how we can reduce costs to operators, taking into account the comments we have received. We will publish the revised and new standard rules sets without carrying out any more financial impact assessments.

General responses to the consultation

We received several general questions in response to the consultation. We have answered these in more detail in section 4 of this document.

4. Responses to consultation questions

Proposal for the introduction of a new standard rules SR2022 No 9 for new and existing MCP which are boilers burning natural gas for heat only

Q1. The proposals set an appropriate level of environmental protection particularly to protected habitats, do you agree?

• yes: 7

• no: 0

• I am unsure: 1

Seven respondents agreed that the proposals set an appropriate level of environmental protection to protected habitats. One respondent was unsure and commented:

“It is not clear how the permit is protective of human health as it would allow combustion plants to be located next to human receptors with no restriction on stack height. The EA should be clear in their guidance whether their modelling concludes this is acceptable or whether other regulatory regimes would apply to human health.”

We have set out the measures for protecting human health in the generic risk assessment.

Schedule 25A of EPR and article 6 (9) of the Medium Combustion Plant Directive (MCPD) allow the regulator to set lower ELVs, or require specific stack heights where air quality is challenged (or do both). For example, in an air quality management area (AQMA), and where there is a published plan enacted through the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010, where this is the case, a bespoke permit would be required.

Because the comments are about human health and do not disagree with the statement that the proposals set an appropriate level of environmental protection to protected habitat sites, we will proceed on the basis that no respondents disagreed with the proposals. We have improved the generic risk assessment for both SR2018 No 7 and SR2022 No 9. These improvements clarify how we have assessed the risk to local human populations.

Q2. Do you agree that the generic risk assessment reflects the risks posed by this activity?

• yes: 7

• no: 0

• I am unsure: 1

Seven respondents agreed that the generic risk assessment reflected the risk posed by the activity. One respondent commented:

“Our understanding is that the MCPD is designed to improve air quality at a transboundary level. However, the generic risk assessment includes human health impacts for those living close to the site. There are no screening distances for human health and no stack height requirement, so the GRA is not clear.”

MCPD is designed to improve air quality at a transboundary level. The generic risk assessment includes the assessment of human health impacts for those living close to a site. It recognises that there are controls which will afford some level of protection for the local human population.

We are not able to take the human health risk assessment further and impose screening distances or stack height requirements under a standard rule permit. This is because Schedule 25A of the EPR only allows this in specific circumstances where there is a published plan enacted through the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010. In these cases, a bespoke permit would be required.

We have improved the generic risk assessment of both SR2018 No 7 and SR2022 No 9. These improvements clarify how we have assessed the risk to local human populations.

Q3. Do you understand the requirements of the proposed standard rule (not including any measures introduced by SI 2018 No 110 The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2018)?

• yes: 8

• no: 0

• I am unsure: 0

All respondents said that they understood the requirements proposed in the standard rule. There was no further feedback to this question.

Q4. Do you agree with the requirements of the proposed standard rule (not including any measures introduced by SI 2018 No 110 The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2018)?

• yes: 4

• no: 0

• I am unsure: 2

This question was an error and duplicates Q3. However, the responses given did vary from question 3.

Two respondents said they were unsure, and some feedback was provided.

One respondent commented:

“The standard rules NOx limits for existing gas boilers might not be met by old equipment.”

The NOx limits in the permit are taken from the requirements of the MCPD and cannot be altered, the same limits would apply for a bespoke permit. Where operators find that they cannot meet these limits they will need to either replace or modify plant or add abatement to achieve the ELVs. We recommend that operators monitor plant as soon as possible to make sure they can meet compliance limits. If they cannot meet compliance limits, they can plan to modify or replace plant and seek advice from the manufacturer.

A different respondent commented that the permit “…states ‘boiler to produce heat’ – is steam production included in that definition?”

Yes, steam is included if it is used for heat. Where steam is used at a refinery it is excluded from the MCPD controls - see the guidance Medium combustion plant: when you need a permit.

Another operator responded to say that:

“There seems to be an error in Table 3.3 where no emission limit value should apply. The Table currently refers to a limit of 200 mg/Nm3 for NOx.”

We agree this was an error for limited operating hours MCP and we will replace this with ‘no limit’ in the published rule set.

Q5. Are there any barriers to the use of the standard rule which you think we could resolve?

• yes: 4

• no: 3

• I am unsure: 1

Of the respondents who answered ‘yes’ one commented:

“Out of the number of sites that we have already identified as needing a new permit by 1st January 2024, only 45% would fit the proposed SR permits no 7 or 9. Approximately 40% wouldn’t because specified generators > 5 MWth that are not backup are present at the site in addition to boilers. These are hospital sites, which typically have existing boilers and one or two existing or new baseload CHPs.

“A SR permit that covers that type of site would be very helpful. This could for instance consider minimum stack height for the generators. There is currently no solution to permitting these sites other than a complex bespoke permit requiring detailed modelling.

“Please can the EA provide details about the scope and applicability and screening approach for simple bespoke permits. MCPD phase 1 relied heavily on detailed dispersion modelling as part of the application process which was resource intensive. The EA indicated that there would be some changes to the simple bespoke application process including for example use of the SCAIL model (critically including stack height as a factor) which would capture more plants where the standard rules permits do not apply. The simple bespoke approach should be made available to mixed sites i.e., those with boilers and engines. Without understanding the EA’s complete approach to MCPD phase 2 permitting it is difficult to assess the resource requirements including third party consultants. If the majority of sites require dispersion modelling again this will create a considerable bottleneck in the application (and determination) process.”

Since 2019, we have produced a range of standard rules permits that cover situations which we believe are low risk and common operations. However, it is not possible to cover all of the numerous possible situations and set ups in this sector. We will keep this under review, especially for phase 3 for permitting of existing plant with 1 to 5 MWth thermal input.

We will be amending the air emissions risk assessment guidance for bespoke permits before the permitting window opens. For bespoke MCPs, this is likely to mean the operator using a:

• first stage screen using MCP specific distances according to plant technology type and size

• second stage screening tool called ‘SCAIL combustion’

We will not change the approach for SGs which involves using the Tranche B screening tool. This will also be made available for Tranche A SGs.

We are planning to have enough resources in place to assess the expected number of determinations involving air dispersion modelling. We will do this to prevent bottle necks in the determination process.

Another comment received stated:

“We welcome the additional flexibility proposed within SR 2022 No 9, through the use of a wider range of ‘distance to protected sites’ screening criteria based on thermal input. However, there is clearly a regulatory overlap between the proposed amended SR 2018 No 7 (and the current version of SR 2018 No 7 for new plant only) as both SRPs cover new natural gas boilers in the 1-20 MWth size range existing natural gas boilers in the 5-20 MWth size range. This leads to an inconsistency in the distance to protected sites screening criteria. As all other conditions for natural gas boilers are consistent between SR 2022 No 9 and the proposed amended version of SR 2018 No 7, this could be resolved by simply incorporating the size and distance criteria in Table 2.2 of SR 2022 No 9, into Table 2.2 of the proposed amended version of SR2018 No 7, rather than introducing a separate SRP.”

We have proposed separate rule sets with different screening distances for the same plant because in SR2018 No 7 it is possible there will be sites with mixed plant technology types on the same permit, for example:

• engines

• turbines

• boilers

• a variety of fuel types

The modelling and therefore screening distances we have used take this broad mix into account. In SR2022 No 9 we can offer reduced screening distances as the modelling is limited to one type of plant technology and fuel type – natural gas boilers only. Whilst we appreciate this might look inconsistent, it is because this permit has a limited scope compared to SR2018 No 7.

Another respondent commented that “SR should be widened out to include existing boilers >1 <5Mwth.”

And another said:

“The rules all will need updating again to cover units within the 1 – 5MW size. Could you not include sub 5MW existing units, so that if an operator wants to bring a unit in early, it’s possible? For example, if a site has a 1MW boiler and 2 5MW boilers, could the 1MW be added at the same time, cutting down on future EA consultation needs and permit variation resources?”

We decided not to include existing plant equal to or greater than 1MWth and less than 5MWth because the requirement for 1-5 MWth plant is still a considerable period of time away (2029 to 2030). We would have to charge extra application fees to cover the assessment of these plant and it would not be reasonable to do this so far ahead of the requirement. There is also a risk there may be more changes before implementation. There will be no extra cost to permitting the plant later compared with permitting early. This is due to the way the charges work for standard rules permits (on plant number) compared to bespoke permit applications (a set fee regardless of plant numbers).

Where you are applying for a new (or to vary) a bespoke MCP, SG or Industrial Emissions Directive permit you will be able to add 1-5 MWth MCP. This will be at your discretion and is likely to depend on the site circumstances. For example, you may want to do this if you think that plant will still be there and unchanged in 2029 to 2030. However, we cannot guarantee this will prevent you from needing to vary your permit again should the requirements change between now and 2029. The approach for bespoke permits is different to SRs mainly because of the application fees and complexity of the determination, so this approach is more efficient for operators and the Environment Agency.

“The header given in table 2.2 and 2.3 is unclear. The ranges given within the minimum distances leaves some element of uncertainty for MCP that are borderline.”

We will amend tables 2.2, 2.3 and the ranges given so they are clearer. If you need more guidance on the size of your plant you can find this in the capacity section of the guidance Medium combustion plant: when you need a pemit.

Finally, one respondent stated they were unsure and asked if there were “details on backup fuel”. The permit states the circumstances when the operator is allowed to use backup fuel and for how long.

Q6. Is it clear what is meant by the term ‘new existing MCP’ in the permit?

• yes: 5

• no: 2

• I am unsure: 1

One respondent commented “…a confusing definition – it is explained, but could a simpler one be used”.

Another said:

“This can be understood but is unnecessarily confusing. We would suggest ‘Existing MCP complying with new MCP ELVs’ instead. It would be better to have a section in the permit explaining that existing MCP can use screening distances for new MCP if they can comply with the new limits (but they will still need to comply with the 5-year rolling average for operation using backup fuel if applicable).”

Five respondents have said that the term ‘new existing MCP’ was clear. We have also received feedback from working with trade bodies which said it was clear, so we are not planning to change the term as we believe it is understood. When we carry out our communications, we will make sure this term is well promoted and explained clearly. We will keep this under review for future consultations if we receive further feedback to the contrary.

We have however added some more explanation to the interpretation of ‘new existing MCP’ and ‘New MCP’ in table 4.1 in both SR2018 No 7 and SR2022 No 9.

Q7. Is it clear which emission limit values would apply to ‘new existing MCP’ if the operator confirmed they would comply with these standards for their existing MCP?

• yes: 8

• no: 0

• I am unsure: 0

All respondents said that emission limit values are clear, we do not propose to change anything in the permit as a result.

One respondent commented that:

“The 3 emissions limit values tables could be more simply laid out. Currently the tables extend unnecessarily over several pages making it difficult to compare values. It would be simpler to merge the columns containing monitoring frequency and standards.”

We are not sure how merging the columns containing monitoring frequency and standards would help to make it simpler or extend over less pages so this will remain unchanged.

Q8. In the new standard rule SR2022 No 9 and in the revised SR2018 No 7 we have introduced an interpretation of hydro-treated (or hydrogenated) vegetable oil (HVO) as a gas oil and specified that where HVO is used it must meet the standards set out in EN15940. Do you have any comments or concerns about the interpretation of HVO and its use as a gas oil for medium combustion plant?

• yes: 3

• no: 4

• I am unsure: 2

Two respondents were unsure, one was unfamiliar with HVO and its use as a gas oil and the other asked:

“Why only vegetable oil? Standard rules no 7 allows a range of fuels, but not tallow (animal fat derived fuel oils) – why not?”

The reason we chose to provide an interpretation for HVO is because operators often ask about using this in MCP. The legislation is unclear if it can be used as a form of gas oil or other type of fuel, so we want to make sure that we provide a clear specification so operators can use it with confidence.

We could also consider tallow under the interpretation of gas oil or other type of fuel in the standard rules, but only if we had enough evidence of a market demand.

We develop SRs to cover the majority of popular fuel types. We have not received any other requests or enquiries about tallow and this is why we have not considered it yet.

Operators may first need to demonstrate that tallows can meet the end of waste test and criteria. Operators can apply for a bespoke permit for fuels not covered by the standard rules.

Another respondent said:

“On the aspect of extending the SR permit to HVO, while its welcomed, could this be extended to specific grades of Kerosene also, or would this require bespoke permit?”

We already think that specific grades of Kerosene are included under the definition of ‘gas oil’ as taken from the medium combustion plant directive definitions. You need to look closely at the combined nomenclature codes to make sure that the specific grade of Kerosene you want to use is included in that definition. HVO was not included in the MCPD definition of gas oil and this is why we wanted to add a definition and standard so that operators could potentially use it under standard rules permits.

Another three respondents said ‘yes’ in answer to this question, one gave no comments for us to act on and another said:

“We welcome the proposal to include HVO as a ‘drop-in’ fuel, equivalent to gas oil. We do, however, have concerns about including HVO within the definition of gas oil as: a) This directly associates HVO with gas-oil, which may create negative perceptions and diminish recognition of the low-carbon credentials of HVO. b) It introduces a regulatory inconsistency with the definition of gas oil in other permitting regulations, as well as in the original European Directive. As an alternative, we recommend that HVO is taken out of the definition of gas oil in the Section 4.4 Interpretation and references to gas oil in the preceding sections are replaced with ‘Gas Oil / HVO.”

Another said:

“On a point of clarification, the standard should be the UK version of the HVO standard, which is BS EN 15940, rather than the CEN version without any appropriate national requirements, EN 15940.

“It can be problematic to include references to standards in legally binding regulations – effectively it means that unelected experts in CEN and BSI set legal precedents without an oversight from the legal or political system. This includes changes in the standard which naturally occur over time as the standard is systematically reviewed and updated under the CEN and BSI rules.

“Including a reference to a standard also raises questions on what happens if product if out of specification (for example if the HVO sulphur content is 5.1 mg/kg then it would be illegal to use.) This may mean that product which is technically suitable for use may need to be disposed of rather than used for its intended application. It would be helpful to include some guidance in this regard – for example whether the acceptability of BS ISO 4250 Part 2 (Petroleum and related products – Precision of measurement methods and results – Part 2: Interpretation and application of precision data in relation to methods of test).”

“It may be better to recommend a definition that references but does not require the standard directly – for example as per the new Renewable Fuel glossary

“A paraffinic diesel very similar to petroleum diesel but made by the hydrotreatment of vegetable oils or other lipids, typically meeting the requirements of BS EN 15940.”

Given the responses to this consultation, and after more discussion with trade bodies and other devolved administrations, we have decided we need to do more work before we can incorporate a standard for HVO into standard rules permits. The responses provided will be very useful in helping us make this assessment and we may contact respondents as part of an informal consultation on this in future. We will issue a statement about using HVO that will be relevant to all MCP and SG permits as soon as we can.

As a result, HVO interpretations will not be included in the published version of SR2018 No 7 and SR2022 No 9.

Proposed additions and amendments to standard rules SR2018 No 7

Q9. Do you agree with the proposal to amend SR2018 No7 to allow for existing medium combustion plant which is greater than 5 MWth and less than 20 MWth to be permitted under this rule set?

• yes: 8

• no: 0

• I am unsure: 0

All respondents agreed with the proposal to amend SR 2018 No 7 to allow existing MCP 5 to 50 MWth. There was one comment which said:

“Yes, but please can you make it explicit that this SR permit (and SR permit No 9) can be used for sites that also have existing combustion plants with a rated thermal input less than 5 MWth which don’t yet need permitting.”

We will make sure that briefings and guidance make this point clear.

“One of the limits in Table 2.1 is that ‘No MCP shall generate electricity as a specified generator under these standard rules unless the power is used as a ‘backup generator’. This exclusion limits the use of this SR permit as indicated in response to question 5.”

Please see question 5 for information about the limits for use with SG.

Q10. Is it clear what is meant by the term ‘new existing MCP’ in the permit?

• yes: 7

• no: 0

• I am unsure: 1

We received the same comments as for question 6, so our response is the same as for question 6. We will keep the term but will keep it under review.

Q11. Is it clear which emission limit values would apply to ‘new existing MCP’ if the operator confirmed they would comply with these standards for their existing MCP?

• yes: 8

• no: 0

• I am unsure: 0

All respondents said that ‘yes’ emission limit values are clear; we do not propose to change anything in the permit as a result.

One respondent commented:

“From the current tables 3.1 to 3.7 the only tables to apply to new existing MCP would be tables 3.1 and 3.4. The titles of tables 3.2 and 3.6 are the same, as are the titles to tables 3.3 and 3.7 but the emission limits in the pairs of tables are different. Should there be more tables referring to new or new existing MCP?”

There was an error in the table titles, we have corrected this.

Another respondent said:

“These can be understood but the 7 emissions limit values tables could be more simply laid out. Currently the tables extend unnecessarily over several pages making it difficult to compare values. It would be simpler to merge the columns containing monitoring frequency and standards.”

We are not sure how merging the columns containing monitoring frequency and standards would help to make it simpler or extend over less pages.

Q12. Do you agree with the proposals for protected habitat screening distances?

• yes: 5

• no: 1

• I am unsure: 2

Two respondents were unsure one commented that it was ‘not a specific skill area for me to comment on’ anther said:

“As noted in the answer to Q5, there is a regulatory overlap between SR 2022 No 9 and the proposed amended version of SR 2018 No 7 for natural gas boilers. We propose that the protected habitat screening distances in SR 2022 No 9 for natural gas boilers are incorporated into the proposed amended version of SR 2018 No 7, to avoid this overlap and maintain the greater flexibility on protected sites screening distances as set out in SR 2022 No 9.”

We have answered this comment in our response to question 5.

One respondent said they did not agree with the proposals for protected habitat site screening and commented as follows:

“I am not supportive of the screening distances for backup generators operating on <50hrs per year. At this frequency of operation, the effect on local habitats should be negligible.”

Our assessment has concluded that backup generators can have very high emissions which can cause long-term and short-term impacts on local habitats despite their low usage. The proposed distances are taken from a risk assessment using air dispersion modelling results. They balance the low likelihood of short-term impacts with making sure that long-term contributions are insignificant at protected sites for up to 50 hours of operation. The respondent has not provided any evidence to back up their statement so we will be proceeding with the screening distances as they are.

There was also another response which said that:

“The title of column 3 in both tables 2.2 and 2.3 is the same “Minimum protective distance from new MCP and new existing MCP to a protected habitat in metres” but the distances for technologies are different. Should the heading for column 3 in table 2.3 refer to existing MCP as per 2.2.2 (b).”

This was an error and we have corrected it in the final version of the permit.

Q13. Do you agree with the removal of the maximum distances to a protected habitat requiring a minimum stack height of 3m above ground level?

• yes: 5

• no: 0

• I am unsure: 2

Two respondents were unsure, but both stated that they had a lack of expertise or skills in this area to comment which is why they were unsure.

Another wrote:

“The boiler references don’t appear to have a minimum stack height – condition 2.3.1 sets out the requirements, and this includes the stack is unimpeded by caps or cowls, but as far as I can tell, there is no minimum stack height or minimum effective stack height. Is this correct? As the omission of this data at this point means it’s difficult to know if the SR permits are usable.”

We have removed the minimum stack height requirement for SR2018 No 7 and the new natural gas boiler standard rule set. Our re-assessment of the air quality modelling showed that stack height did not have a meaningful impact on dispersion for low-risk plant under the standard rules. There is still a requirement for them to be vertical with no caps or cowls.

As there are no objections, we plan to continue with our proposal to remove the requirements for a minimum stack height of 3 metres.

Q14. We have added several new and amended interpretations in section 4.0 of the SR2018 No7 permit. Do the new and amended interpretations make the meaning of the terms used clear? If not, can you suggest alternative wording to improve clarity? We may use your suggestion either in the interpretation or guidance.

• yes, they are clear: 5

• no, I’d like to make some suggestions: 2

• I am unsure: 1

Five respondents were clear, one was unsure and commented that:

“The wording of the definition for new and new existing is clear here, but it is cumbersome and could be improved for added clarity when in use.”

Another who answered ‘no’ said “I think the term ‘new existing’ is not a great term.”

See our response to question 6.

A respondent said:

“Firstly, as set out in our answer to Q8, we recommend that HVO is taken out of the definition of gas oil in the Section 4.4 Interpretation and references to gas oil in the preceding sections are replaces with Gas Oil/HVO.”

See our response to question 8.

“Secondly, the ELV Tables now refer to ‘protected habitats’ rather than ‘SAC, SPA, Ramsar Sites and SSSIs’, as in the current version of Standard Rules Permits. Whilst the meaning is defined in the same way in Section 4.4, the previous approach was clearer and consistent with other SRPs, and we propose that this is retained.”

We appreciate that this is inconsistent with other published permits at present however this is how the Environment Agency would like to present this in future, Other standard rules permits will be amended the next time we consult on them. We are following legal advice on good drafting practice because it simplifies the text in the operational part of the permit.

Q15. As stated in the consultation, we have amended several of the permit conditions to make them clearer to understand, do you think the proposed amendments achieve this aim or can you make further suggestions?

• yes, they are clear: 7

• no, I’d like to make some suggestions: 1

• I am unsure: 0

Seven respondents stated that the permit conditions which were amended are clearer to understand. One respondent said ‘no’ and commented:

“Condition 2.2.1 - This condition should refer to MCPs that can be permitted under these standard rules permit not to MCP natural gas boilers only.”

This is an error which we have now corrected.

“Condition 2.2.2 - It should be made clear that the minimum distances don’t apply to gas oil when used by dual fuel boilers as the backup fuel.”

We have added the word ‘primary fuel’ to condition 2.2 to make it clear that the minimum distances only apply to the primary fuels and not backup fuels.

“Table 2.3 - 3rd column title should refer to existing MCP not new MCP.”

This was an error which we have now corrected.

“Table 2.3 - Could minimum distances be given separately for engines and turbines? As different ELVs apply to these fuels, we would assume the minimum distances would be different too.”

We have modelled on engine ELVs to derive the minimum distances to protected habitats for engines and turbines. We have not modelled turbines separately as they are not a common technology type used by operators applying for standards rules permits. The standard rule permit rule sets aim to cover majority situations rather than minority and doing this would make the permit more complex, which we do not feel is necessary.

“Table 3.2 should apply to new or new existing MCP not existing.”

This was an error which we have now corrected.

“Table 3.3 should apply to new or new existing MCP not existing.”

This was an error which we have now corrected.

Q16. If you are a current permit holder will the proposals mean you will no longer be able to use the standard rules?

• yes: 0

• no: 4

• I am unsure: 1

All respondents state that they will be able to continue using the standard rules. This is in line with what we were expecting.

Proposed changes to standard rules SR2018 No 4 and No 5

Q17. At the moment SR2018 No 4 and No 5 do not allow these specified generators to also be an existing medium combustion plant. Do you think we need to amend them to include existing medium combustion plant?

• yes: 3

• no: 0

• I am unsure: 3

We do not consider that 3 responses show there is a need for us to act and there is no evidence or details of the number of plant this might affect.

Also, responses to other parts of this consultation show that stakeholders would prefer to see more consultation or engagement with industry before making further changes. The requirement to have a permit by 1 January 2024 means that we will not have enough time to this before operators need to apply.

So, we plan not to make this change to the SR2018 No 4 and No 5 rule sets. However, we will keep this under review until we receive more evidence from operators that there is a need for the change, especially as we move to phase 3. Please complete the following survey to tell us about your plant and help us build an evidence base.

Proposed changes to charging for medium combustion plant and specified generator standard rules permits

Q18. Do you have any comments of concerns about the proposed charges in this consultation?

• yes: 1

• no: 3

• I am unsure: 2

All the responses suggest that there is no concern about the proposed charges.

As a result, we will put these into the charging scheme.

There was one comment:

“The consultation document indicates: We expect lots of operators will already have permits issued for new MCP. They may want to add existing MCP 5 to 20 MWth at the same permitted location to meet the requirements of the regulations under phase 3 implementation. In these instances, operators will need to make a new permit application for that qualifying plant and pay the charge relevant to the number of plant they want to add. Please can the EA advise on their position for operators who already have permits issued for new MCP which are bespoke permits, and they want to add existing MCP 5 to 20 MWth at the same permitted location that would on their own meet one of the proposed SR permits no 7 or 9?”

If you have an MCP or SG bespoke permit, you must apply for a variation to add existing plant to that permit. You should follow the bespoke air emission assessment process to work out if you can apply for a simple or bespoke permit. You cannot add a standard rules permit to a bespoke permit. This is because we need look the combined impact or aggregation of all the combustion plant at the site.

The default standard facility charges for SR2022 No 9 are as follows.

Ref	Activity	Permit application	Minor variation per plant	Normal variation	Substantial variation	Transfer application	Surrender application
1.10.19.1	1 plant	£446	N/A	N/A	N/A	£169	£125
1.10.19.2	Up to 3 plant	£520	N/A	N/A	N/A	£169	£125
1.10.19.3	Up to 5 plant	£620	N/A	N/A	N/A	£169	£125
1.10.19.4	Up to 8 plant	£720	N/A	N/A	N/A	£169	£125
1.10.19.5	Up to 10 plant	£779	N/A	N/A	N/A	£169	£125
1.10.19.6	Up to 15 plant	£813	N/A	N/A	N/A	£169	£125

We will update the at the next opportunity to include the above charges.

Business impact of the proposed changes

Q19. Will the proposed changes in this consultation have a financial impact on operators which you would like to make us aware of?

• yes: 5

• no: 1

• I am unsure: 1

Whilst 5 respondents stated that there would be a financial impact only 2 made comments.

One respondent said:

“Sites falling outside of the screening distances will have greater financial implications for each application. It’s assumed a bespoke permit would be required in these instances, which feels very conservative for a backup generator operating<50 hrs per year.”

Another said:

“Whilst the changes proposed allow some existing plants to be captured under standard rules permits, a large proportion will not, which will result in unnecessary financial impact due to the higher application and subsistence costs required for bespoke permits (including dispersion modelling).”

We have carried out revised modelling of the potential impacts on protected habitats as part of this consultation and have been able to refine and improve screening distances compared to the previous version of SR2018 No 7. We recognise that there will still be plant which cannot meet this criterion.

For MCP only sites which need a bespoke permit we plan to update our guidance on air emission assessment. It will have revised screening distances to protected habitats which can be used as a first stage screen. We will also make available to operators a tool called ‘SCAIL combustion’ as a second stage screen. We hope this will allow more operators to apply for simple bespoke permits by screening out low risk sites.

We understand there are financial implications for operators, and we have been doing everything we can to increase the number of people that can qualify for a standard rule or simple bespoke permit. We think this will include a lot more operations than in phase 1 and that this is proportionate to the risk from these operations. We will review our charges in future if we have evidence that they are not in line with the work needed to permit and regulate these sites.

General Question

Q20. Please tell us if you have any other comments on these proposed rules that have not been covered by previous questions (not including any measures introduced by SI 2018 No110 The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2018).

We have received the following questions:

“Clarification required if a MCP standard rules permit number 7 has already been issued for a new natural gas boiler, what would be the process to change to the new standard rules permit number 9.”

To do this you must apply for a new standard rules permit.

You will only need to pay for plant which you are adding to those already included in your existing SR2018 No 7 permit. Please state on your application that you wish to move to the No 9 permit instead – there will be a box for you to do this.

If you do not need to add any plant to your permit then there is no advantage to moving to SR2022 No 9 as the conditions will remain the same and you will already comply with the required criteria. Subsistence is also the same.

If you meet the criteria, you can move from a bespoke MCP permit to SR2022 No 9 (or another standard rules permit). You must pay the relevant application charge for the standard rules permit and for all the relevant plant on site, not just those that you are adding. This is because we will need to carry out a full assessment to make sure you meet the criteria of the permit you are applying for.

“Whilst HVO has been considered in SR no7, it would be useful to also include other gas oil replacement fuels for instance IHO (Industrial Heating Oil). Please could the EA give their position on this?”

We are aware that IHO is also a commonly requested fuel as a gas oil replacement. We are currently assessing the environmental impacts of this fuel and will issue a separate statement when we have completed this.

“Could the EA give their position on plants which will be decommissioned prior to the 01 January 2025 deadline. Will these still need to be permitted during 2023 given the resource requirement on business and the EA?”

No, if they will be decommissioned before 1 January 2025 you do not need a permit for them.

“Could the EA give their position on existing plants which will be upgraded prior to the 01 January 2025 deadline in order to comply. Will the upgraded plant only need to be permitted during 2023? Can the deadline for permitting be delayed where details of replacement plant will not be available until beyond 01 January 2024?”

You must have a permit for your existing plant by 2024 and if necessary, upgrade it to comply with emission limit values by 1 Jan 2025. This will not affect your permit provided it does not change the annex 1 data provided and it does not become ‘new’ plant. If you replace the plant you must make a further application to amend the annex 1 data provided, as shown in appendix A of the permit.

“Could the EA give their position on permitting of existing generators which are already permitted as tranche B generators (operating under capacity agreement) but not yet as existing MCPs? WiIl the EA vary the permit or will the operator be required to initiate a permit variation? “

In this case the operator must make a permit variation.

“Could the EA give their position on development of standard rules permits for mobile plants?”

We are still considering how to address permitting for mobile plants. This work has not been prioritised yet so we cannot provide an update at this time.

“Table 3.2 of SR 2018 No 7 appears to have the incorrect title of ‘Table 3.2 emission limit value requirements for existing MCP which is not new existing MCP which are engines’. Presumably this should be ‘Table 3.2 emission limit value requirements for new MCP or new existing MCP which are engines”

Yes, it was an error which we have now changed.

“Table 3.3 of SR 2018 No 7 appears to have the incorrect title of ‘Table 3.3 emission limit value requirements for existing MCP which is not new existing MCP which are gas turbines’. Presumably this should be ‘Table 3.3 emission limit value requirements for new MCP or new existing MCP which are gas turbines”

Yes, it was an error which we have now changed.

“Table 3.5 SR 2018 No 7 for consistency should be titled ‘Table 3.5 emission limit value requirements for existing MCP which are not new existing MCP other than engines or gas turbines”

Yes, it was an error which we have now changed.

“A new category of ‘New existing MCP’ has been introduced in SR 2018 No 7 and SR 2022 No 9, defined as ‘An existing MCP specified in Appendix A in respect of which the operator has confirmed that it will comply with the standards applicable to new MCP’. Given that this is not a category required by the MCPD or specified generator elements of the Environmental Permitting Regulations, it is important that classifying an existing plant into this category would be at the operator’s discretion, as the procurement and emissions management of such plant will have been planned within the existing regulatory context.”

We agree, this is at the operator’s discretion. We provided this option because we believe that many plant will be able to meet the tighter ELVs and could benefit from decreased distances to protected habitats in the standard rule set. The application form for these standard rules will ask the operator to confirm if this is something they would like to do.

“With respect to the proposal to amend SR 2018 No 4 and No 5, whilst we support the simplification of permitting from low impact plant, it is important that the changes are subject to separate consultation, so it is clear exactly what changes are proposed.”

We have decided not to amend the rules sets for standard rules permits 2018 No 4 and No 5 at this time. We agree that if we want to make changes, we should carry out a separate consultation for full transparency.

5. Next steps

We have published our summary of the main consultation findings. We will now publish the new standard rule and amended standard rule on the GOV.UK website.

If you wish to discuss your responses, or points made within this document, in more detail you are welcome to contact us:

Mcpdhelp@environment-agency.gov.uk

6. Annex

List of consultation respondents (by organisation name):

• Leo Group Ltd

• IBC Vehicles Ltd

• Yorkshire Water Services Ltd

• Anglian Water Services Ltd

• Veolia UK Ltd

• Energy UK

• Severn Trent Water PLC

• United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association