Response 355923221

Back to Response listing

About You

What is your name?

Name
David Cameron

Are you responding as an individual or an organisation?

Please select one item
(Required)
Individual
Ticked Organisation

What is your organisation?

Organisation
EDF Energy

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?§
We would like clarification that the terms ‘authorisation holder’ and ‘Fit and Proper Person’ could apply to a role within an organisation (e.g. site director, environmental compliance manager), rather than a named individual (assuming that the individual taking the role is a Suitably Qualified and Experienced Person). This would avoid the unnecessary process of re-designating the authorised person as individuals move roles within their organisation. This approach is particularly relevant in instances where SEPA identifies more than one authorised person. Furthermore, this would be consistent with the approach used for the authorisation holder in current authorisations under the Radioactive Substances Act. Identifying individuals on a permit granted to a Nuclear Licensed site, particularly with regards to access to radioactive waste, would be of concern from a Nuclear Security and a personal data protection perspective. We find figure 1 slightly misleading, and recommend the following amendments:  The bubble to the right of the ‘future’ pyramid states that there will be “more resources focused on most hazardous and highest risk” activities. This is inconsistent with the text which focuses on the risk that activities pose, as opposed to the hazard. In line with the principles of Better Regulation, it is appropriate to consider the overall risk posed by an activity (as outlined in the text), rather than focusing on either the likelihood or hazards associated with an activity. We therefore recommend that the text in the bubble be amended to read “More resources focused on highest risk”.  The bracket to the right of the ‘future’ pyramid incorrectly gives the impression that only the General Binding Rules, Notification and Registration tiers of the new framework will be automated, simplified and focus on risk. We therefore recommend that this bracket is removed from the diagram. Furthermore, EDF Energy understands that the implementation of the radioactive substances framework is planned to be completed by February 2018. This is a challenging timescale for such a fundamental change. We request that a comprehensive programme of engagement is put in place during this to ensure detailed implementation of framework is good.

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

How could SEPA better support the uptake of new technologies?
EDF Energy believes that SEPA should actively work to identify best practice across industries, and facilitate multi-sectoral discussions, as appropriate, to share this. SEPA should also ensure that guidance, standards, expectations and permit variations are developed in a timely manner as new technologies emerge to support their uptake on an industrial scale. This is an area in which SEPA can lead by example. We recommend that SEPA develops a high quality, user friendly web based portal to support this new framework.

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?

Comments:
We believe that these outcomes appear to be reasonable, although there is insufficient detail for us to agree or disagree with these outcomes. We find the use of terms such as “appropriate measures” and “necessary measures” confusing, as this implies that there is a difference in the measures that should be taken to achieve different outcomes. We recommend that the term “reasonable measures” be used in place of “appropriate measures” and “necessary measures” to ensure consistency within the framework. The best practice guidance and specific authorisation conditions supporting these objectives should be risk-based and include feasibility tests to define which measures should be considered “reasonable”. We also believe that there may be confusion over the use of the terms “incidents” and “accidents”. While these terms could be specifically defined in the guidance supporting these outcomes, a simpler solution for the sake of consistency may be to replace the terms “incidents” and “accidents” with a single, proportionate term such as “environmental events”.

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:
EDF Energy would like to highlight the good history that the nuclear industry has of producing and contributing towards guidance. We expect this to continue under the new framework, so do not expect a step change in industry led guidance in our industry.

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
We understand the overview of the proposed regulated activities listed in Annex 2, but note that the descriptions are an overview and not an exhaustive list. We believe that the Scottish Government should consult industry when producing a definitive list.

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
EDF Energy agrees that these are the right factors for SEPA to consider, but would like more information on how SEPA intends to screen activities against these factors, and whether this would be qualitative in nature, or use some sort of scoring system including weighting factors.

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?
We agree that SEPA should consult on the guidance setting out the likely tier of authorisation. This is important to ensure transparency in the process, but it is also important that industry is able to feedback to SEPA on the likely level of regulatory interaction that their proposals would require and the level of resource that SEPA should allocate to deal with this.

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

Comments:
We believe that, if the wording of the standard rules is carefully considered and is produced in consultation with industry, then standard rules could deliver the intended benefits. We would appreciated more detail on how extensively SEPA intend to use standard rules under the new framework, as well as how SEPA intend to engage with industry to develop these. However, we would also like to highlight that including standard rules which cannot be varied in ‘bespoke’ permits may cause confusion and create unnecessary burdens for industry, especially for large Part A processes or complex sites with multiple processes and operators. Consideration should therefore be given to allowing operators to request the replacement of standard rules with bespoke conditions in certain circumstances, on a case by case basis.

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

If not, why not?
Due to the lack of detail in the consultation document, we cannot definitively agree or disagree with the proposed procedure. However, based on the information available, we do not foresee any particular problems with this procedure.

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

Please select one item
Yes
Ticked No
Comments:
EDF Energy does not agree that both SEPA and Scottish Ministers should have the ability to make GBR’s because this is liable to lead to confusion. We believe that SEPA has the expertise for defining General Binding Rules (GBRs) and will be able to respond more quickly if changes are required. Scottish Ministers should have the power to approve or reject GBRs. This approach would prevent confusion arising over the appropriate points of contact for industry when seeking advice on GBRs.

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?
We agree with this proposal, provided that an authorised person could apply to a role within an organisation (e.g. site director, environmental compliance manager), rather than a named individual. This would avoid the unnecessary process of re-designating the authorised person when individuals move roles within their organisation. This approach is particularly relevant in instances where SEPA identifies more than one authorised person. Furthermore, this would be consistent with the one used for the “Authorisation Holder” in current authorisations under the Radioactive Substances Act. Identifying individuals on a permit granted to a Nuclear Licensed site, particularly with regards to access to radioactive waste, would be of concern from a Nuclear Security and a personal data protection perspective. We believe that more detail is needed on how an authorised person is designated as a Suitably Qualified and Experienced Person (SQEP), as the consultation document does not identify whether SEPA or the regulated organisation is responsible for identifying SQEPs, and the level of influence that the other party may have on this. Anyone who is nominated as an authorised person should be supported by very clear guidance on the expectations and responsibilities put upon them, given the seriousness of the consequences that they could face if they fail to uphold these. More clarity is also required as to what sanctions might be imposed on an authorised person who is an employee of a large organisation, and what sanctions might be imposed on the organisation itself. For example, in instances where a large fine is to be imposed, it should be clarified how the discrepancy in the ability to pay of the two parties would be taken into account when imposing a fine upon either, or both, parties.

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
Yes
Ticked No
Comments:
We do not believe that it would be proportionate to require the person in control to be the person that notifies an activity in the notification tier. In large organisations, central support functions may make certain notifications and registrations on behalf of station staff. Retaining the ability to do so is necessary to reduce the burden on station staff and ensure that compliance is managed consistently across the company. The person in control should therefore be allowed to delegate the requirement to notify an activity in the notification tier to other SQEPs within their organisation.

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

Comments:
EDF Energy agrees that SEPA should include more than one authorised person where appropriate, provided that an authorised person could apply to a role within an organisation (e.g. site director, environmental compliance manager), rather than a named individual. This would avoid the unnecessary process of re-designating the authorised person when individuals move roles within their organisation.

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

Comments:
We believe that a distinction should be made between routine control, and overall responsibility. The authorised person should have an overall responsibility for ensuring regulatory compliance and be ultimately accountable for this, but may delegate routine control to other SQEPs within their organisation. We would like clarification that it is the Scottish Government’s intention that the applicant would nominate the Authorised Person, and that SEPA would approve this application, provided that the nominee met all of their relevant criteria. SEPA’s existing process for determining competence should be used to assess whether an individual is suitable to be in routine control of an activity. The individual should also have the relevant authority within their organisation to control the environmental impact of the activity. It is important that once a person has been designated as being in control, they must be supported by very clear guidance on the expectations and responsibilities put upon them, given the seriousness of the consequences that they could face if they fail to uphold these. Where a site has a formal management system (which may incorporate a distinct environmental management system); these arrangements should provide evidence of the allocation and delegation of responsibilities, and the processes and procedures to manage this. An effective management system should demonstrate clearly who has direct control, and who has ultimate responsibility, for the management of an activity.

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:
We do not believe that there is sufficient detail in the consultation document for EDF Energy to determine if the requirements will deliver the right approach. In particular, we are unclear as to how the arrangements are intended to work in cases where a number of roles are involved in supporting compliance with an authorisation.

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

Comments:
We do not believe that there is sufficient detail in the consultation document for EDF Energy to determine if the requirements will deliver the right approach. Further explanation of the term ‘good repute’ is necessary in order for this test to be applied. For example, we are unclear as to how being of ‘good repute’ would differ from having no criminal convictions and being technically competent.

19. Do you agree with the proposed application processes?

Comments:
EDF Energy broadly agrees with the proposed application processes, although the process should include an opportunity for the applicant to review drafts of new permits. It is unclear if the process of ‘SEPA considering the application, and consulting where necessary’ is intended to include sharing the draft permit with the applicant. We also believe that Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) may, in some circumstances such as extended illness of key individuals, have difficulty in responding to a SEPA request for additional information in a standard timeframe. SEPA should therefore consider allowing ‘the clock to be stopped’ under certain extenuating circumstances so that SMEs are not disadvantaged under the new application process.

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?
We agree that a statutory determination period of four months is likely to be appropriate for the majority of permit applications. This is consistent with the Environmental Permitting Regulations in England & Wales.

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

Comments:
EDF Energy believes that it is important that non-standard activities which require longer determination periods are granted these; however, as noted in paragraph 3.6.13, these activities do not necessarily require longer determination periods. Therefore, the legislation should make it clear that the non-standard activities which require more than the statutory four month determination period can be granted a longer period by agreement. However, extending the determination period beyond four months does not necessitate an entirely separate category of application for non-standard activities simply to enable this option. This should be achievable by stating in the legislation that the statutory determination period is not applicable to non-standard activities, with a list or definition of non-standard activities left to Regulatory Guidance. This would ensure that non-standard activities are subject to the appropriate determination period, while maintaining the Scottish Government’s aim of simplification of the framework as far as possible.

22. What other alternative arrangements would you suggest for managing non-standard applications?

Comments:
In some cases, low risk novel or innovative activities might be considered to be “non-standard”. In such cases, it would be disproportionate to extend the permitting process beyond the four month determination period, especially where these applications have gone through pre-application with SEPA and have provided all necessary and appropriate supporting information. However, in other cases, a “non-standard” activity may reasonably be expected to take more than four months to process. In these cases, it is desirable, but not always possible to set a longer determination period early on in the application process.

23. Do you agree with the proposals for variations?

Please select one item
Yes
Ticked No
If not, why not?
EDF Energy does not entirely agree with these proposals. We believe that there should be an ability to remove or alter a location or activity via a variation. This would reduce the administrative burden associated with the cessation of an individual activity or closure of a site. We also believe that given the potentially minor nature of some variations, it would be unreasonable for the same timescales (28 days / four months) to be applied to permit variations as new applications, and that a fast-track process should be available for minor or administrative variations. We would also appreciate clarification that where SEPA is required to revoke and reissue a registration, in line with paragraph 8.3.9, this would be done simultaneously so as not to leave an operator unregistered between the revocation of the old registration and the issue of the new one.

24. Do you agree with the proposals for transfer?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
We agree with the proposals for transfer, but would like to reiterate that we believe that the term ‘authorised person’ should be able to refer to a role rather than a named individual.

25. Do you agree with the proposals for surrender?

Please select one item
Yes
Ticked No
If not, why not?
We do not entirely agree with these proposals for surrender, as they do not describe a process for partial surrender. We believe that partial surrender is an important process, which give SEPA the flexibility to remove from the authorisation an activity or site which is no longer relevant. Unless it is intended that activities and sites could be removed from an authorisation via a variation (which does not appear to be the case – see our response to Q23), this would significantly reduce the administrative burden on both SEPA and the authorisation holder, as the only other option appears to be full authorisation surrender followed by reapplication for authorisation. We would also appreciate more detail on the responsibilities of the authorisation holder for the restoration of land which has been contaminated by neighbouring activities. We assume that in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the authorisation holder would only be responsible for restoration associated with their activities, but in instances where activities have had an impact beyond the site boundaries on an adjacent and neighbouring site, it would be the authorisation holder whose activity caused these impacts who would be responsible for restoration.

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

Comments:
EDF Energy believes that the ability to issue enforcement notices even where there is no authorisation in place could be an effective alternative to prosecution, which can be the only option open in terms of enforcement action where no authorisation is in force. However, we are concerned that the less prescriptive nature of the proposed permits may increase the likelihood of SEPA needing to use enforcement notices. Furthermore, paragraph 3.7.11 suggests that an enforcement notice is the only tool at SEPA’s disposal for dealing with an authorised person who has failed to adequately manage their activity. However, such a limited approach is not proportionate for all non-compliances. We therefore seek reassurance that, in addition to enforcement notices, SEPA will continue to use a range of measures which are proportionate to the non-compliance in question. SEPA’s 2015 Guidance on the use of enforcement action is a good reference for SEPA to follow to identify when it is proportionate and appropriate to issue notices, or to issue guidance and advice. Enforcement action can potentially cause significant reputational damage to a company, so the circumstances in which they can be used need to be made very clear, and only used where absolutely necessary. More detail is required to clarify what would constitute a failure to manage an activity, and at what levels of harm or risk of harm it would become appropriate for SEPA to issue an enforcement notice with short and/or long term prescriptive steps. We would also like to highlight that authorisations under the Radioactive Substances Act issued to nuclear sites require the application of Best Practicable Means (BPM) to waste generation, disposal and discharge. It is difficult to envisage a scenario occurring where “harm has arisen, or might arise, even though the activity is being carried on in compliance with the conditions of an authorisation”, as this would imply a failure to apply BPM, and therefore, a failure to comply with the conditions of an authorisation. We recommend that SEPA carefully considers the wording of its authorisation to minimise the chances of harm arising despite an activity being compliant with the conditions of the authorisation.

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
Comments:
EDF Energy believes that there is a strong need for the notice described in paragraphs 3.7.10 – 3.7.12 to be differentiated from current enforcement notices, as current enforcement notices are often seen as a last resort before referral to the Procurator Fiscal. We agree that ‘improvement notice’ seems like an appropriate term for this alternative notice. More information is also required to put these notices into context i.e. where in the enforcement hierarchy will they be used.

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:
We believe that the ability to use enforcement notices when no authorisation in place is a positive step. This will allow SEPA to act to protect the environment without resorting to prosecution. This is particularly important where an operator has not acted irresponsibly, but where unintended consequences have arisen from actions which seemed reasonable when they were taken, especially if those consequences were difficult to foresee. The drawbacks are that having less prescriptive permits could lead to a rise in the use of enforcement notices. This may occur if a less prescriptive permit fails to clearly define the circumstances which would result in the issue of an enforcement notice. This would mean that the use of enforcement notices may no longer be limited to those circumstances which currently result in enforcement action being taken, and operators may have enforcement action being taken against them for activities which were compliant with their previous permit. A new system of authorisation which leads to an increase in the use of enforcement action while there has been no deterioration in environmental performance would have the potential to do substantial reputational damaged to both Scottish industry and to SEPA.

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?

Comments
EDF Energy recognises that there may be extraordinary circumstances where such measures require suspension notices to be used, despite the authorised person not being ‘enforced’ against. Before such a notice is imposed, the impact of the notice and the circumstances which would lead SEPA to impose it should be made clear to the affected authorisation holder.

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
We agree that SEPA should have the power to revoke authorisations as described in the consultation document. However, we would like to highlight that care should be taken to ensure that the revocation of an authorisation does not increase the likelihood of an Authorised Person leaving a problematic site that could have been better dealt with through the use of enforcement notices.

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

If not, which alternative body do you think should hear such appeals and why?
EDF Energy has no comment to make in response to this question.

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

Comments:
We believe that it is important that the transitional arrangements should be as simple as possible, and that the need for new applications to be submitted for activities with existing authorisations should be minimised. We would also like to highlight the importance of allowing sufficient time and support from Regulators during the transition to the new framework. To ensure as smooth a transition as possible, we would appreciate specific guidance on the transition process.

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

Comments:
In general, we believe that the clearer the requirements and guidance, the easier it will be for both authorisation holders and SEPA to implement these authorisations. We recommend that SEPA agrees a plan with each company that requests integrated/corporate authorisations. Where SEPA intends to initiate integration, they should consult the organisation beforehand to determine if the organisation wants the integration authorisation, as there may be circumstances in which an organisation would prefer to keep their authorisations separated. If an organisation does want their authorisation to be integrated, then SEPA should work with them to agree the timescale for this work. SEPA should also ensure that there is a process in place to appeal against the integration before starting work on integrations.

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:
We agree in principle that SEPA should have more flexibility in making information available to the public. However, we do not believe that there is sufficient detail in the consultation document for us to fully understand this proposal.

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:
We agree in principle with this approach, but we do not believe that there is sufficient detail in the consultation document for us to fully understand this proposal.

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:
In principle, we agree with the procedural arrangements for third party call-in under the Controlled Activities Regulation (CAR) being extended, provided that arrangements are in place such that this is limited to genuine cases and only where SEPA’s ability to objectively determine an application is in doubt.

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
If not, why not?
We believe that the provisions of the universal outcomes contain equivalent protections as BAT in relation to domestic activities.

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?
EDF Energy believes that it is important that as the various regimes are brought together, the respective scopes of the Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) and Radioactive Substances Regulation (RSR) pollution inventory submissions are defined in instances where both occur on a single site. This will allow the submission of non-radiological emissions data relating to the PPC permitted activity to remain focussed on only that installation. This will avoid scope confusion with the RSR authorisation under which radiological data is submitted in relation to a different activity on the same site.

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
If not, why not?
We agree in principle that, it is appropriate to have controls on radioactively contaminated materials whilst they remain on the site where they were contaminated in order to be able to control the generation of radioactive waste. However, controls are already applied at nuclear licensed sites through Licence Condition 4 (Restrictions on nuclear matter on the site) of the site licence. As a result, control of such materials on nuclear licensed sites under the Radioactive Substances Act is exempted. EDF Energy would seek assurance that this exemption will continue to apply under the proposed framework in order to avoid dual regulation.

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?
EDF Energy understands that the current exemption for radioactive material on nuclear licensed sites will continue. If this is the case, we have no further comment to make in response to this question. We would welcome confirmation that our understanding of this exemption is correct.

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?
EDF Energy has no comment to make in response to this question.

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?
EDF Energy has no comment to make in response to this question.

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

If not, why not?
EDF Energy agrees that the public should continue to be excluded from the scope of the radioactive substances regulatory regime. We would also like to highlight that there is an opportunity to address an "unintended consequence" of the current arrangements for self-employed people who have ingested medical radioisotopes, e.g. radioactive tracers. Many self-employed people’s home address is also their business address, so there is an "undertaking" at this address and the premises fall into scope of the regime (irrespective of the nature of the undertaking). In such circumstances, the exemption provision for patient excreta takes effect, but this has four conditions, two of which the individual is unlikely to be able to comply with (i.e. keep an adequate record of the waste which is disposed of from any premises and Allow the regulator access to such records or such premises as the regulator may request in order to determine that all of the conditions that apply are complied with). We believe the Scottish Government should use this opportunity to remove these requirements for the self-employed at home.

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
EDF Energy agrees in principle with SEPA’s aim to regulate the management of radioactive waste in order to effectively control waste which needs to be disposed of, however, we are concerned that there is the potential to introduce a degree of double regulation between the new framework, and the Nuclear Site Licence at nuclear licensed sites. This is expanded further in our response to question 45.

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
EDF Energy agrees in principle with SEPA’s aim to regulate the management of radioactive waste in order to effectively control waste which needs to be disposed of, however, we are concerned that there is the potential to introduce a degree of double regulation between the new framework, and the Nuclear Site Licence at nuclear licensed sites. Accumulation of waste is the explicit subject of Licence Condition (LC) 32 (Accumulation of radioactive waste). While paragraph 7.3.25 of the consultation document states that "there is no intention, or desire, to duplicate any of the functions or responsibilities of the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) or impose additional regulatory burden on nuclear licensed site operators", regulation of the same wastes by different regulators for different purposes raises the potential for an operator to be given conflicting directions in relation to such wastes. We note that discussions between the Scottish Government and the ONR are ongoing, and seek reassurance that the expansion of SEPA’s powers on nuclear licensed sites in this regard would only be implemented once it is clarified how such conflicts would be avoided.

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?
In principle, EDF Energy does not foresee any problems with the removal of the requirement to display certificates, as this is an outdated requirement which was initiated before it was practicable to use a computer system to hold and distribute these. However, we would appreciate more clarity on the proposed move to require that an authorisation is made available to anyone who needs it.

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?
In principle, we agree with this proposal; however, we believe that more detail is required as to how SEPA would deal with circumstances where the authorisation holder is denied access to off-site areas.