Response 178229558

Back to Response listing

About You

What is your name?

Name
David Sutton

Are you responding as an individual or an organisation?

Please select one item
(Required)
Individual
Ticked Organisation

What is your organisation?

Organisation
NHS Tayside

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?§
The concept of tiers of authorisation as set out in Figure 1 make considerable sense as a strategic vision. The challenge will be in developing an operational framework that is fit for purpose and proportionate. It will be very important to ensure that the general binding rules and standard rules are developed in such a way that there is not an upward ‘ratchet effect’ introduced by, for example, the adoption of goal setting rules with unclear associated guidance. There is a considerable risk of producing regulation that is not outcome focussed. Although SEPA state that the new framework will help it support innovation, this seems entirely aspirational. There is no evidence in Parts 2 to 4 or in part 7 (to which we are also responding) of any evidence that the framework act as an enabler for the support of innovation. Some reasons for the statement should be presented.

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

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:
Most certainly. This is the opportunity to produce guidance that is relevant and proportionate, rather than aspirational. For example, guidance that suggests that a QMS is a good idea is of little value. IF SEPA require operators to have a QMS, that should be a requirement, not guidance. (See for example the HSE distinction between ACOP and Guidance).

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

Comments:
We understand 6,7 & 8 which represent the section of the consultation that applies specifically to our interest.

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

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:
In principal, yes. The key will be successful consultation

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
Ticked Yes
No

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?

If not why not?
The name ‘Authorised Person’ is very confusing as it doesn’t have to be a person at all. This is a recipe for misunderstanding and misinterpretation. We are confused by the Authorised Person / Fit & Proper Person distinction. The idea of multiple authorised persons is hard to understand! This all needs to be redone

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:
Yes, but please see comment above re persons

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

Please select one item
Yes
Ticked No
Comments:
No. Cannot see how this would result in better regulation at all. A recipe for bureaucratic process.

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

Comments:
Yes. You should rethink your entire approach.

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
Yes
Ticked No

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

Please select one item
Yes
Ticked No

19. Do you agree with the proposed application processes?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

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

If not, what do you think the determination period should be?
The four month period is presented without any obvious rationale. It is not possible to provide any alternatives without knowing why the period was decided on. Is it a result of analysis of current performance? Three months sounds better, but may not be feasible

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

Comments:
If that clarifies the process, then yes

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:
The proposals should lead to a better regulatory environment.

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

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

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

32. Do you have any views on the proposed policy principles for transitional arrangements?

Comments:
No

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

Comments:
No, but consultation would be welcome

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

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

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

Comments:
Would require more understanding of how this affects the RS sector. At present cannot comment due to lack of information

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?
No

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?

If not, why not?
No comment

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?
No comment

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
Ticked Yes
No

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

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

If not, why not?
No 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?
No

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