Response 23132908

Back to Response listing

About You

What is your name?

Name
Michael Watt

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?§
Adequate resources will need to be available within SEPA to support the transition to the new regulations.

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

How could SEPA better support the uptake of new technologies?
Rapid production of guidance

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?

Comments:
Currently there is already guidance produced within the medical sector with the cooperation of the UK environment agencies, such as the IPEM-published Medical & Dental Guidance Notes, Report 109: Radiation Protection in Nuclear Medicine and notes such as the excretion factors guidance published on the IPEM website. This guidance must continue to be produced with the involvement of the environment agencies, but where SEPA will place particular requirements on operators this must be made explicit.

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

Comments:
More description is required for radioactive substances, in particular the scope of “production of radioactive materials” and whether this will include activation products from the use of radiotherapy linear accelerators or medical cyclotrons. Annex 2 refers to Part 7 of the consultation, in which Figure 9 expands upon the regulated activities; on page 21 Figure 9 appears to draw a distinction between “Radioactive waste management” and “management of radioactive waste” which is not at all clear.

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?
Yes, strongly agree

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
In principle yes, but there must be meaningful consultation on the standard rules.

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
Yes, provided there is meaningful consultation and clear timescales.

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?
In many organisations such as the NHS which have complex management structures, it will not be clear which individual person should be made responsible; in these cases it would be more appropriate to name the organisation as being responsible. In this case the term “authorised person” is not appropriate and a different designation should be used. In the February consultation event it was stated that an “authorised person” would not in fact need to be an individual named person. As such, the term “authorised person” is problematic and misleading and should be replaced with a clearer definition, for example authorised organisation, authorised body or authorised employer.

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?

Comments:
As noted in Q13, the term “authorised person” is problematic.

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

Comments:
As noted in Q13, the term “authorised person” is problematic. It may be more appropriate to name the organisation rather than individual persons.

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

Comments:
As noted in Q13, the term “authorised person” is problematic. A clear solution and detailed guidance will be required on this issue, particularly for large organisations such as the NHS.

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

Comments:
As noted in Q13, the term “authorised person” is problematic. It is not clear how this concept would work in the case of large organisations where there is not an individual person made responsible.

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

Comments:
As noted in Q13, the term “authorised person” is problematic. It is not clear how this concept would work in the case of large organisations where there is not an individual person made responsible.

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
If not, what do you think the determination period should be?
Yes, but 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:
Yes, but only if these activities are well defined (or else “standard” activities must be well defined).

23. Do you agree with the proposals for variations?

If not, why not?
Paragraph 3.6.14 states that “SEPA may also initiate variation…at any time”; it is essential that permit holders are consulted on such changes and that clear timescales are given.

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
Comments
Yes, however it should be made clear that suspension is not the result of wrongdoing. The process must be carried out in consultation with permit holders as there could be significant consequences of suspension, for example delays to patient treatments or diagnosis

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

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?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

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
If not, why not?
In general yes, but more description is required on the scope of “production of radioactive materials” and whether this will include activation products from the use of radiotherapy linear accelerators or medical cyclotrons. Figure 9 appears to draw a distinction between “Radioactive waste management” and “management of radioactive waste” which is not at all clear.

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No

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
If not, why not?
Yes, but there must be clear provision for support from SEPA to enforce this should the off-site landowner fail to cooperate.