Response 669792311

Back to Response listing

About You

What is your name?

Name
Andy Brennan

Are you responding as an individual or an organisation?

Please select one item
(Required)
Individual
Ticked Organisation

What is your organisation?

Organisation
Health Physics, NHS GG&C

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?§
None

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

How could SEPA better support the uptake of new technologies?
What do you mean by ‘support’, you’re an enforcer & Statutory Authority.

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:
Possibly, Guidance required.

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:
Difficult, as existing & proposed Regs now not aligned with rest of UK.

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

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Yes, but Part 7 Figure 9 also lists ‘radioactive waste management’ as well as ‘ management of radioactive waste’???

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

Comments:
Probably, but absence of Guidance on ‘Production of Radioactive Material’ (proposed new regulated activity) leads to considerable uncertainty on how this will be interpreted & regulated, & the attendant & additional costs to the organisation & to Scotland. I note the absence of an Impact Assessment, & associated Cost Benefit Analysis. Redacted text described this as ‘creation of radionuclides’ but said nothing about Tc/Mo generators (is this production, creation or just elution?) & ‘creation of contaminants co-incidental & concomitant to production’. In Healthcare for the latter, 2 examples spring to mind, co-incidental to Production & Treatment. 1. Cyclotron Production, the activation of the Havar foils & target applicators. 2. Linear Accelerators, the activation of components in the treatment head Currently these may be regarded as ‘contaminated materials (contained, & ) remaining on the premises whilst contaminated’, para 7.3.6, & are store-decayed if removed. Prior consultation on Guidance is a MUST to ensure that a) Conditions are proportionate, & b) Conditions are not out-of-step with those imposed by other Environment Agencies in UK, to avoid economically disadvantaging Users in Scotland, when disposing of said items.

9. Do you agree that SEPA should consult on the guidance setting out the likely tier of authorisation for particular activities?

Do you agree that SEPA should consult on the guidance setting out the likely tier of authorisation for particular activities?
No, SEPA MUST consult….., but has yet to consult on a lot (Guidance, GBR, SR. Conditions…).

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

Comments:
To be determined, as not as yet consulted on SRs

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

If not, why not?
To be determined, as not as yet consulted on SRs.

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?
No, not should have but MUST have….Name is a Misnomer, as does not necessarily mean a ‘Person’. Should be more correctly called ‘RS Authorisation Holder’, & identified by Name & Role.

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:
Yes, or a nominated person

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

Comments:
No ‘MUST’, individually & jointly.

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

Comments:
You need to be clear in Guidance whether or not ‘control’ is ‘financial & strategic’ or ‘operational & supervisory’. Possibly 2 different people or a range of people. If more than 1 person, roles & responsibilities need to be clear & unequivocal.

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:
Don’t know, no Guidance for FPP, nor how it is demonstrated, assessed or appealed.

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

Comments:
Don’t know, unlikely, as no Guidance for FPP, how it is demonstrated, assessed or appealed.

19. Do you agree with the proposed application processes?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes
No
Comments:
Yes, in the absence of Guidance.

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

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

Comments:
Don't know

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

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

Comments:
None

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

Comments:
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?

Comments:
Don't know

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?

If not, why not?
Don't know

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, but in the absence of Guidance, difficult to foresee anything with certainty.

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?
Don't know

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, but Annex 2 & Part 7 Figure 9 do not align. Latter also lists ‘radioactive waste management’ as well as ‘ management of radioactive waste’???

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, with direction & support from SEPA.