Response 188675912

Back to Response listing

About You

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?§
An integrated framework requires uniformity and consistency in the sense that what is allowed when the radiological risk is considered but is not allowed in another part because of the chemical risk should be taken into account and the amounts limited by the most restrictive one.

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

How could SEPA better support the uptake of new technologies?
By ensuring that regulation creep does not occur.

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:
Care should be taken to ensure there is no conflict with other safety legislation when considering the third outcome listed regarding incidents and accidents.

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
Yes
Ticked No
Comments:
My experience of industries that are cost driven is that they will not support the writing of guidance if they think it would be to the advantage of a competitor.

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

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
Do you agree that SEPA should consult on the guidance setting out the likely tier of authorisation for particular activities?
This is very important to ensure that users are part of the process of introduction.

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

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?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not why not?
The definition of "authorised person" must be made clearer in its current form it is subject to interpretation. In the regulations it is used to apply to inspectors and registration and permit holders.

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

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

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

Comments:
With regard to current RSA permits the use by SEPA of a company house address as the holder as this is the route for a prosecution can often have little direct relationship with the part of the company that actually controls the operation in Scotland. A way of reconciling the two must be introduced.

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

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
Ticked Yes
No

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

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

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

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?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

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?
If controls required quantification of activities and detailed record keeping a substantial administrative burden would result in some areas

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?
The level of control will however need to be carefully considered. Industries, such as the oil and gas industry, which have no control over the amount of NORM they produce would not be able to comply with a holding limit unless it was so large as to be meaningless. Quantifiying the NORM present in say tubulars from an off-shore installation can only be done after they have been cleaned and the mass and specific activity of the NORM measured. This equally applies to NORM inside vessel. Without the detail of a proposed authorisation it is not possible to say if this approach is possible or does infact serve any purpose.

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

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