Response 602950327

Back to Response listing

About You

Are you responding as an individual or an organisation?

Please select one item
(Required)
Ticked Individual
Organisation

What is your organisation?

Organisation
NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde

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?§
Transition may be challenging and I'm not sure yet how this will integrate across all sectors of our organisation.

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

How could SEPA better support the uptake of new technologies?
Provide guidance in a timely manner.

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:
Need clear & consistent guidance

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:
Yes - guidance on how to ensure compliance with the regulations is always a positive thing.

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

Please select one item
Yes
Ticked No
Comments:
I understand the sections that are related to my field, although further information is required on 'production of radioactive materials' - does this also include unwanted materials from radiotherapy linacs etc?

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:
But this needs to be involved in a consultation process to ensure they are relevant to all working environments.

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
Yes - as long as there is meaningful consultation.

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Exemption & GBRs: there was talk in the Exemption Workshop of there being an activity limit set for exemption that would be the same for all radionuclides. I don’t think this is the best route to take and would prefer to see a table with different exemption levels for different radionuclides.

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?
But the term 'authorised person' is ambiguous & misleading as it is not necessarily one individual person but can relate to an organisation or company. I suggest changing this term to 'authorised holder' or 'authorised body'.

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:
But again, this term 'person' is problematic.

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:
But again, the term 'person' is problematic.

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

Comments:
It should be up to the employer to decide who is 'in control'.

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
Comments:
I have the same issue with the terminology here as I did for 'authorised person'. Also, some of the grounds for determining ‘FPP’ are very subjective (e.g. good repute, technically competent).

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
Comments:
But: again, I don't like the use of 'person'. or the subjective nature of the FPP (e.g. good repute, technically competent).

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?
Although 3 months would be preferable.

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
As long as it is clear & well-defined.

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

Comments:
Agree an extension to the determination period at the start of the process.

23. Do you agree with the proposals for variations?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
Yes, but: - SEPA must have a way of communicating any changes to standard rules to users, with a reasonable time for implementation of these changes. For user-led changes, I agree and cannot see any issue.

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:
- It could be challenging to receive an enforcement notice relating to an activity that was not your fault, but affects your land. - danger of inconsistency in the approach to enforcement as it could be dependent on the inspector's interpretation.

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:
Seems reasonable, no strong opinion.

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

Comments:
- allow plenty time - publish good guidance - utilise consultations like this one

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?
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?
Yes. I particularly agree with the change to the terminology ‘Management of RA waste’, ‘disposal’ and ‘transfer’ – it’s much clearer.

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 - I support this decision.

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