Response 143412100

Back to Response listing

About You

What is your name?

Name
Jeremy Stewart

Are you responding as an individual or an organisation?

Please select one item
(Required)
Ticked Individual
Organisation

Part 2: Policy Overview

1. Do you agree with the benefits set out here?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

2. Are there any other comments you would like to make on Part 2?

Are there any other comments you would like to make on Part 2?§
For waste, I think the current system of waste transfer notes does not adequately capture the end destination of the waste. The transferee can be simply a waste carrier and the waste producer has no real visibility on where the waste will go. As a waste manager I think the whole waste transfer system would benefit from an overhaul.

3. How could SEPA better support the uptake of new technologies?

How could SEPA better support the uptake of new technologies?
Needs to quicker to the market with for example Edoc. Private companies have introduced different strategies and systems and it is probably now too far down the line to introduce a nationwide system which would fulfil the needs of all users.

Part 3: Key features of the new framework for authorisation holders.

4. Do you agree that the framework should include a set of universal outcomes?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

5. If so, are the outcomes proposed the right ones?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Preventing the use of loopholes or other avoidance of fees, controls etc etc could also be considered.

6. Do you see any opportunities within your sector for industry- led guidance to be produced to support this approach and how could it support you to deliver better?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Sepa is sometimes distant from commercial considerations and it would therefore be helpful to have industry insights into how processes and procedures should work.

7. Do you understand the descriptions of the regulated activities in Annex 2?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
While I understand the need to focus more on higher risk activities, there needs to be controls to stop lower risk activities becoming unregistered and unregulated. For example, 2 companies both processing WEEE, one could have a full WML and one could legally operate under an exemption, with different controls and costs. Either regulate all or regulate none.

8. Do you agree that these are the right factors for SEPA to consider?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Any waste related activity should not be permitted in lowest tier as this would encourage bending the rules to allow fitting into this category.

9. Do you agree that SEPA should consult on the guidance setting out the likely tier of authorisation for particular activities?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

10. Do you agree that standard rules will deliver the benefits we have set out?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Standard rules will need to be well thought out at the start, and flexible enough to allow new technologies to be introduced. For example if a preparation for reuse type company starts up, they should be able to have rules introduced to fit their needs quite quickly, and allow other companies to use the same rules

11. Do you agree with the procedure for making standard rules?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

12. Do you agree that SEPA and Scottish Ministers should have the ability to make GBRs?

Please select one item
Yes
Ticked No
Comments:
GBRs to my mind are open to abuse as an individual could operate a process under them, but Sepa would not be aware of the process. And then the individual could include more things in their operations, but still work to GBR, even though licensing would now be appropriate

13. Do you agree that all regulated activities should have an authorised person responsible for overall compliance and that this person should be named in a permit and registration?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

14. Do you think it is proportionate to require the person in control to be the person that notifies an activity in the notification tier?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
The notifier needs to understand the system fully

15. Do you agree that SEPA should include more than one person as the authorised person where appropriate?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
There needs to be allowance for holidays and other staff changes especially at the higher levels of authorisation

16. Do you have any views on how SEPA should decide if a person is in “control”?

Comments:
Person in control should have some level of commercial decisions over the operating of the site on a daily basis, including the power to veto if required

17. Question 17 – Do you think the core requirements set out here will deliver the right approach to FPP for the integrated authorisation framework?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

18. Do you think that the criteria set out above will achieve the stated purpose of the FPP test?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

19. Do you agree with the proposed application processes?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Digital applications are definitely the only way forward. A degree of automated checks as the application proceeds will also speed the approval process up, i.e. check that all the documents are attached, check all fields are filled in correctly

20. Do you agree with the proposal to have a statutory determination period of four months for the majority of permit applications?

Please select one item
Yes
Ticked No
If not, what do you think the determination period should be?
3 months would be better

21. Should the legislation make a clear distinction for applications for “non-standard” activities?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
There will be a longer period required to fully assess a complex case. This should be made clear at the outset

23. Do you agree with the proposals for variations?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

24. Do you agree with the proposals for transfer?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

25. Do you agree with the proposals for surrender?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

26. Do you agree with the proposed approach to enforcement notices set out above?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

27. Do you agree a notice used in the way set out in 3.7.10 to 3.7.12 is a different type of notice and should be therefore be called something different, such as an improvement notice?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

28. What benefits and drawbacks do you foresee from SEPA using enforcement notices in the way set out at 3.7.10 to 3.7.12?

Comments:
There needs to be sufficient time allowed to let the improvements be carried out; similarly the offender must be seen to be working hard to meet the terms of the improvement

29. Do you agree we should retain suspension notices for use in circumstances where we wish to suspend an activity in order to protect the environment, but the authorised person is not being ‘enforced’ against?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments
There may be a scenario where the person is not directly at fault therefore no action is due against them

30. Do you agree SEPA should have the power to revoke authorisations in these circumstances?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Revoking a permit should available as a last resort

31. Do you agree that appeals against SEPA decisions should continue to be heard by the DPEA on behalf of Scottish Ministers?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

33. Do you have any suggestions for how SEPA might manage the workload to implement integrated, and corporate, authorisations?

Comments:
None, other than it is quite evident that Sepa is quite pushed already and a large project like this will take a great deal of work. Although ultimately if done correctly the new system should hopefully need less management. I would not be in agreement with the relaxation of licencing to be used as an excuse to reduce Sepa's workload. This is not meant in any way to be derogatory to Sepa; I fully understand no government bodies have all the funds and resources they would wish for or need.

Part 4: Key features of the new framework for the public

34. Do you support SEPA having more flexibility in how information is made available to the public?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Freedom of information is an important part of society. Commercial information should of course not be freely published, however the raw data such as total weights, area of origin etc is essential for companies and councils to build business cases

35. Do you agree that a consistent, flexible and proportionate approach to public participation should be adopted?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Public should have some say, but they should not be allowed to hamper progress just for the sake of it. Waste management is still a dirty word in our country and no one wants it in their backyard, however I would suspect very few members of the public would have much detailed knowledge so it would perhaps not be beneficial in allowing them to veto decisions?

36. Do you agree that the procedural arrangements for third party call-in under CAR should be extended to all regulated activities?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Agreement in principle, however as in a previous answer the available resources must be taken into account. There may be situations where Sepa have been unable to act due to lack of resources, inability to gain access, out of hours reporting etc, so it cannot be the default position to escalate the matter because Sepa were unable to act. Equally, where there is a genuine nuisance which is already known to Sepa then actions must be seen to be taken, and if not, then escalation may be required.

Part 5: Pollution Prevention and Control

37. Do you consider that the provisions of the universal outcomes contain equivalent protection as BAT in relation to domestic activities?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

38. Do you have any comments on the potential impact of this change for other industrial pollution risk activities?

Do you have any comments on the potential impact of this change for other industrial pollution risk activities?
No comment

Part 7: Radioactive Substances

39. Do you agree that it is appropriate to have controls on radioactively contaminated materials whilst they remain on the premises where they were contaminated?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

40. Do you foresee any practical implications of the proposal to have controls on radioactively contaminated materials whilst they remain on the premises where they were contaminated?

Do you foresee any practical implications of the proposal to have controls on radioactively contaminated materials whilst they remain on the premises where they were contaminated?
The materials must be known to Sepa or other bodies in advance so that controls can be monitored

41. Do you agree that all substances associated with NORM industrial activities should be subject to control under the integrated authorisation framework, where they exceed the out-of-scope values, irrespective of whether or not they are classed as radioactive material or waste?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
Where radiation exceeds safe levels it must always be regulated

42. Do you foresee any significant implications of this proposed change, e.g. are there any finished products (consumer products or construction materials) that would become classified as radioactive material?

Do you foresee any significant implications of this proposed change, e.g. are there any finished products (consumer products or construction materials) that would become classified as radioactive material?
Outwith my experience, but it is not unforeseeable that such products may exist

43. Do you agree that we should continue to exclude the public from the scope of the radioactive substances regulatory regime?

Please select one item
Yes
Ticked No
If not, why not?
Any radioactive substances must be regulated

44. Do you agree with the proposed radioactive substances regulated activities?

If not, why not?
Can't comment either way

45. Do you agree with the proposals for applying the new regulatory regime to nuclear licensed sites?

If not, why not?
Can't comment

46. Do you foresee any problems with removing the requirement to display certificates?

Do you foresee any problems with removing the requirement to display certificates?
Can't comment

47. Do you agree that SEPA should have the power to impose conditions in an authorisation requiring the permit holder to carry out operations off their site?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
If the operations relate to material still in the permit holder's control then yes they should still be responsible