Response 617678790

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?§
I'm a fan of the corporate authorisations. Section 7.3.31 mentions the possibility of a combined single notification with the HSE. I am delighted to see this is being discussed as there is a lot of potential cross over with the HSE's proposed licencing system. It would significantly reduce the administrative burden on stakeholders.

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

How could SEPA better support the uptake of new technologies?
The ability to check the progress of an application online including how long there is left in the 4 month / 28 day determination period.

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
Yes
Ticked No

5. If so, are the outcomes proposed the right ones?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
I've no real objection to the Universal Outcomes but I'm not convinced they're necessary on top of the guidance and authorisation conditions. They seem vague enough to cover everything though.

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

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
I understand the radioactive substances ones I'll be using (6, 7, 8)

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

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
Yes
Ticked No
Comments:
SEPA Only. SEPA have a very good understanding of the sectors I have been involved with, I would not welcome uninformed ministerial interference.

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

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:
With radioactive substances it may be preferable for the Radiation Protection Adviser (RPA) to make the notification as it shows they have been appointed and will be ensuring operations remains compliant with the legislation. Many RPAs currently make HSE notifications on a clients behalf.

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:
For radioactive substances, look at the local rules & risk assessments.

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?

Comments:
No opinion

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?
But I would always support shorter determinations

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
Yes
Ticked No
If not, why not?
Under what circumstances would SEPA initiate variations?

24. Do you agree with the proposals for transfer?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
It should be as simple as possible, particularly when only the only change is the authorised person.

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
In principle, depends on circumstances.

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?

If not, which alternative body do you think should hear such appeals and why?
I don't really know enough about the process to comment.

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

Comments:
No objections although a lot of the proposals are quite vague. I approve of the consolidation of multiple permits/registrations.

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

Comments:
Hire more people!

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:
I would prefer it is minimised, particularly for radioactive substances.

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

Comments:
No preference

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
Yes
Ticked 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
Yes
Ticked No
If not, why not?
For the reason mentioned in 7.3.7, there is the potential for a large administrative burden. What are the proposed "proportionate controls"? However responsible users should have systems of work in place that minimise the spread of contamination, even secondary contamination from equipment. I have no objection to that sentiment being formalised.

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?
See above

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
Yes
Ticked No
If not, why not?
Working as I do in the oil and gas industry I am strongly in favour of the existing Type 1 and Type 2 NORM types. If "the distinction between radioactive waste and material is not always clear" then a better definition is required. Oil and gas NORM is never ‘used’ and applying for an authorisation to come under the proposed “Keeping and use of radioactive material” activity is unnecessary. An authorisation for “Radioactive waste management” covers everything any user would want to do with the stuff.

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?
See above

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
If not, why not?
Although I have long been of the opinion the radiation protection community should do more to educate the public about radiation.

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
If not, why not?
I particularly like the Offshore installations registration regulated activity. Although there are many onshore oil and gas terminals that experience the same NORM problems and would be permitted rather than registered under the proposal.

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?
I approve of the proposal although there is maybe increased risk of them getting lost.

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