PROTECTFP6-036425 PROTECT Questionnaire Responses Jo Hingston.

transcript

FP6-036425FP6-036425PROTECT PROTECT

PROTECT Questionnaire Responses

Jo Hingston

The Questionnaire

• Two questionnaires were generated– one for regulators & advisory bodies– one for industry

• Circulated to approximately 70 organisations in total so far

The Regulatory Questionnaire

• Ten sections to capture information – Regulatory role– Why and how regulators regulate– Protection goals– Methodology– Compliance– Criteria– Flexibility– Does it work– Future regulation– Radioactive substances vs chemicals

The Industry Questionnaire

• Nine sections to capture information – Nature of business– Why and how regulated– Protection goals– Methodology– Compliance– Criteria– Does it work– Future regulation– Radioactive substances vs chemicals

Nature of Business

Questionnaire Respondents

Regulators

Advisory Bodies

NGOs - International Bodies

Industry

Why & how you regulate/are regulated

Regulation

• Legislation• Guidance• Background to policy decisions• Key documents• Other regulators involved

Do the regulators regulate to protect the environment?

Yes60%

Protection Goals

• Wide ranging response from global – Protection of ecosystems– Maintenance of habitats with reasonable populations

of species – Pollution prevention– Sustainable development

• to specific– Protection of sites with rare species of low population

Methodology& Compliance

Methodology & Compliance

• Methods used to achieve protection goals• Formally described approaches• Models used• Environmental factors taken into account• Stakeholder involvement• Demonstration of compliance with protection

goals– monitoring – ensuring discharge limits are not exceeded

Criteria

• Use of numerical limits• Use of non-numeric criteria• Derivation• Conservatism

Is the Criteria Conservative Enough?

Regulatory View

Suitably conservative

Would not say

Did not answer question

Industry View

Suitably conservative

Would not say

Criteria

• Use of numerical limits• Use of non-numeric criteria• Derivation• Conservatism • Revision

New Work & Revision of Criteria

• 93% of regulators said they be willing to revise new criteria in light of new work

• (The remaining 7% did not state either way)

• 25% of industry said they undertake research related to standards in order to challenge the regulators

Criteria

• Use of numerical limits• Use of non-numeric criteria• Derivation• Conservatism • Revision• Cost benefit• Stakeholder involvement

Should Stakeholders be Included in Criteria Setting?

• 87% of regulators said yes • (13% did not answer the question)

• 75% of industry said yes

Flexibility & Does it Work?

• What works well• What areas could be improved• How these areas could be improved

Future Regulation

• Responses included – No change envisaged– Specific consideration of non-human species– Lowering of current protection criteria– Influence of REACH regulations (chemicals)– Increase in the number and use of environmental

quality standards

Radionuclide v Chemicals

Radionuclides v Chemicals

• Similarities & Differences• Environmental Protection Endpoints• Criteria Setting & Extrapolation• Where one area of regulation can learn from

another

What Next?

Additional Questionnaires

• Incorporate questionnaires in draft– Canada, Sweden, Norway, UK, Republic of Ireland– SKEP

• Continue to liase with current respondents

• Accept new questionnaires until 1 August 2007

PROTECTFP6-036425 PROTECT Questionnaire Responses Jo Hingston.

Documents