Publication - Consultation analysis
Better environmental regulation programme - integrated authorisation framework: consultation responses
Analysis of responses to a consultation on the Better environmental regulation programme's proposals for an integrated authorisation framework.
Annex A
| QUESTIONS | YES | NO | NOT ANSWERED |
| Q.1 - Do you agree with the benefits set out above? | 40 | 2 | 19 |
| Q.2 - Are there any other comments you would like to make on Part 2? | - | - | - |
| Q.3 - How could SEPA better support the uptake of new technologies? | - | - | - |
| Q.4 - Do you agree that the framework should include a set of universal outcomes? | 35 | 5 | 21 |
| Q.5 - If so, are the outcomes proposed the right ones? | 30 | 6 | 25 |
| Q.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? | 27 | 4 | 30 |
| Q.7 - Do you understand the descriptions of the regulated activities in Annex 2? | 41 | 1 | 19 |
| Q.8 - Do you agree that these are the right factors for SEPA to consider? | 34 | 2 | 25 |
| Q.9 - Do you agree that SEPA should consult on the guidance setting out the likely tier of authorisation for particular activities? | 46 | 0 | 15 |
| Q.10 - Do you agree that standard rules will deliver the benefits we have set out? | 33 | 2 | 26 |
| Q.11 - Do you agree with the procedure for making standard rules? If not, why not? | 37 | 1 | 23 |
| Q.12 - Do you agree that SEPA and Scottish Ministers should have the ability to make GBRs? | 32 | 9 | 20 |
| Q.13 - Do you agree that all regulated activities should have an authorised person responsible for overall compliance and that his person should be named in a permit and registration? If not why not? | 31 | 2 | 28 |
| Q.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? | 23 | 11 | 27 |
| Q.15 - Do you agree that SEPA should include more than one person as the authorised person where appropriate? | 28 | 3 | 30 |
| Q.16 - Do you have any views on how SEPA should decide if a person is in "control"? | - | - | - |
| Q.17 - Do you think the core requirements set out above will deliver the right approach to FPP for the ntegrated authorisation framework? | 27 | 7 | 27 |
| Q.18 - Do you think that the criteria set out above will achieve the stated purpose of the FPP test? | 28 | 6 | 27 |
| Q.19 - Do you agree with the proposed application processes? | 27 | 8 | 26 |
| Q.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? | 39 | 6 | 16 |
| Q.21 - Should the legislation make a clear distinction for applications for "non-standard" activities? | 27 | 4 | 30 |
| Q.22 - What other alternative arrangements would you suggest for managing non-standard applications? | - | - | - |
| Q.23 - Do you agree with the proposals for variations? If not, why not? | 33 | 4 | 24 |
| Q.24 - Do you agree with the proposals for transfer? If not, why not? | 40 | 2 | 19 |
| Q.25 - Do you agree with the proposals for surrender? If not, why not? | 33 | 3 | 25 |
| Q.26 - Do you agree with the proposed approach to enforcement notices set out above? | 26 | 5 | 30 |
| Q.27 - Do you agree a notice used in the way set out in 4.7.10 to 4.7.12 is a different type of notice and should be therefore be called something different, such as an improvement notice? | 34 | 4 | 23 |
| Q.28 - What benefits and drawbacks do you foresee from SEPA using enforcement notices in the way set out at 4.7.10 to 4.7.12? | - | - | - |
| Q.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? | 37 | 0 | 24 |
| Q.30 - Do you agree SEPA should have the power to revoke authorisations in these circumstances? | 37 | 0 | 24 |
| Q.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? | 31 | 3 | 27 |
| Q.32 - Do you have any views on the proposed policy principles for transitional arrangements? | - | - | - |
| Q.33 - Do you have any suggestions for how SEPA might manage the workload to implement integrated, and corporate, authorisations? | - | - | - |
| Q.34 - Do you support SEPA having more flexibility in how information is made available to the public? | 39 | 2 | 20 |
| Q.35 - Do you agree that a consistent, flexible and proportionate approach to public participation should be adopted ? | 34 | 2 | 25 |
| Q.36 - Do you agree that the procedural arrangements for third party call-in under CAR should be extended to all regulated activities? | 20 | 7 | 34 |
| Part 5 - Pollution Prevention and Control | |||
| Q.37 - Do you consider that the provisions of the universal outcomes contain equivalent protection as BAT in relation to domestic activities? | 13 | 4 | 44 |
| Q.38 - Do you have any comments on the potential impact of this change for other industrial pollution risk activities? | - | - | - |
| Part 7 - Radioactive Substances | |||
| Q.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? | 24 | 1 | 36 |
| Q.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? | - | - | - |
| Q.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? | 15 | 2 | 44 |
| Q.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? | - | - | - |
| Q.43 - Do you agree that we should continue to exclude the public from the scope of the radioactive substances regulatory regime? | 21 | 3 | 37 |
| Q.44 - Do you agree with the proposed radioactive substances regulated activities? | 23 | 0 | 38 |
| Q.45 - Do you agree with the proposals for applying the new regulatory regime to nuclear licensed sites? | 17 | 2 | 42 |
| Q.46 - Do you foresee any problems with removing the requirement to display certificates? | - | - | - |
| Q.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? | 24 | 3 | 34 |
Contact
Email: Joyce Carr, joyce.carr@gov.scot
Phone: 0300 244 4000 – Central Enquiry Unit
The Scottish Government
St Andrew's House
Regent Road
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback