This snapshot, taken on 21/12/2003, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSED RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES (NATURAL GAS) EXEMPTION ORDER 2002.
BACKGROUND
The Government published a consultation paper in September 2001 seeking views of interested parties on the introduction of a Natural Gas Exemption Order made under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (RSA 93). The Order would mean that businesses using natural gas and its products would not be required to seek registration or authorisation under RSA 93. A draft Statutory Instrument was included as an appendix. The proposals set out in the document are that:
- the Order should cover radon-222 in natural gas from extraction to use and should apply to concentrations of up to 5 becquerels per gram;
- the Order should include the decay products of radon present in natural gas and natural gas products at the same concentration level;
- the Order should include products made from natural gas; and
- the Order should not include other waste streams arising from the keeping and use of natural gas or natural gas products, that may occur during the processes of extraction, treatment and transmission as they are currently controlled satisfactorily by the RSA 93.
The consultation was undertaken for Great Britain. The consultation document was sent to 241 consultees, including government departments, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), regulatory bodies, learned societies, trade associations, interest groups and industry. It was also posted on the Defra website for public access. 25 responses were received, 16 by letter and 9 through an e-mail account set up for this purpose. The largest number of responses came from industry. A list of respondents is attached at appendix A. The responses can be viewed at the following libraries:
- Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Whitehall Place West, London, SW1A 2HH.
- Department for Transport, Local Government and Regions, Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6DE.
- Scottish Executive, Broomhouse Drive, Edinburgh, EH11 3XD.
- The National Assembly for Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3NQ
ANALYSIS
Agreement for or against the EO is set out in tabular form below.
Those who support the EO and/or accept the proposals
Those who support the EO but object to some of the proposals
Those who do not support the EO
Those with no comments to make on the proposals
NDPBs
2
1
Regulatory Bodies
2
1
Trade Associations
2
1
1
1
Learned Societies
2
Interest Groups
1
Industry
4
5
Public
1
1
Summary
Of the 21 respondents with comments to make, all but two supported this EO.
All those who supported the EO (19 respondents), accepted proposals iii and iv above, that is that the exemption from registration and authorisation should extend to products made from natural gas, but that other waste streams arising from the keeping and use of natural gas or natural gas products, that may occur during the processes of extraction, treatment and transmission of natural gas should not be included.
The seven respondents who objected to proposals i and ii - that the EO should cover radon-222 and its decay products when present in natural gas and natural gas products, up to concentrations of 5 becquerels per gram (Bq/g) - did so on the basis that the proposed concentration level was too low.
Of those who did not support the EO, one, the Radon Council, thought that the 5 Bq/g concentration level was too high and might allow too much latitude for future developments in the natural gas industry. The other, a member of the public, did not detail his objections.
The following paragraphs highlight the main issues raised and set out the Government's response to them.
Concentration Level
The proposed 5 Bq/g concentration level was the issue of most concern. Seven respondents, including the UK Offshore Operators Association, who represent those in the offshore oil and gas industry, and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, who will ensure compliance with the EO in Scotland, recommended that the level be set at 10 Bq/g. Concerns were raised about the impact the 5 Bq/g level might have on the industry, in terms of both cost and time, as exemplified by the need for increased monitoring in order to demonstrate compliance with the level. Two respondents noted that the possible consequent burden on industry resulting from the 5 Bq/g level was not in keeping with the objectives of the joint DTI and industry PILOT initiative. This is a programme whose aim is to develop strategies to capitalise on the UK's oil and gas resources against the background of the mature nature of the North Sea. In contrast to these arguments, however, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC), thought that review and monitoring should be encouraged to ensure all reasonable steps are taken to avoid unjustified increases in radon levels and so that significant developments or trends could be anticipated.
- On balance, since current monitoring has not revealed any point at which the concentration level is above 4.5 Bq/g, as stated in the consultation document, the Government intends to retain the 5 Bq/g concentration level. Monitoring arrangements are matters for the regulators and industry to agree.
The majority of industry respondents objecting to the proposed concentration level argued that a level of 10 Bq/g would be in line with the Euratom Basic Safety Standards (BSS) Directive.
- This level is not appropriate for radon in natural gas because the scope of the Directive's reporting requirements does not extend to natural radionuclides where these are not processed for their radioactive properties.
Alternative Approach to the Problem
One respondent suggested that a review of Schedule 1 of RSA 93 was needed to rectify the situation the gas industry found themselves in, as the levels therein were too low.
- Whilst the Government acknowledges that the same result could be achieved by amending Schedule 1, there are no advantages in doing so. Provision is made in the Act for exemption to be allowed in certain defined situations where the safety of the public can be assured. It was therefore envisaged when the Act was introduced that EOs would be used rather than making frequent changes to primary legislation.
Legal Drafting of SI
There were 2 recommendations by industry and industry representatives for the legislation to be sufficiently explicit that there was no room for misinterpretation. It was suggested that clause 2(1) read "Natural Gas" includes natural gas in gaseous, liquid or solid forms, and products derived by manufacture from natural gas.
- On legal advice, the Government believes that the definition is sufficiently explicit and should not be changed.
Differing Approaches to the Use of EOs in Different Industries
Two respondents commented that a different approach was being taken with the oil and gas industry in this EO to waste emanating from the nuclear industry. Both stated that dealing differently with comparable levels of radioactivity lay the department open to charges of unfair treatment towards two competing energy industries.
- The Government acknowledges that higher exemption levels are applied to natural radionuclides in the existing suite of EOs compared with artificial radionuclides. This reflects legislative endorsement at national and European level of more tightly controlling releases of artificial radionuclides than natural radionuclides which are ubiquitous and less amenable to control.
Presentation of Information in the Consultation Document
One respondent, RWMAC, thought that the provision of information on the scientific considerations was inadequate. It criticised the lack of quantitative information on radiation doses within the document to support the assertion that there was "no radiation danger". It was also critical of the fact that the NRPB report 'Radon Exposures from the Use of Natural Gas in Buildings', referenced in the document, was still in press during the consultation period. RWMAC pointed out that risk models for radiation and health were currently being reviewed by the Committee Examining Radiation Risk for Internal Emitters (CERRIE), a working group of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, and they questioned whether the proposals in the consultation document would be revisited in light of CERRIE's findings.
- Technical information supporting the assertion 'no radiation danger' was given in the named NRPB report which was referenced in the consultation document and subsequently published in volume 97 of 'Radiation Protection Dosimetry'. Work carried out within Defra has confirmed these calculations. The Government acknowledges that it would have been better had the paper been published by the time the consultation was underway, but the delay in it's publication was not a sufficient reason for delaying the consultation exercise. The NRPB document (in press) was supplied on request. Whether the EO will be reviewed is of course dependent on the findings of CERRIE, whose report is expected in early 2003.
Radioactive Substances Division
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
April 2002
Appendix A
List of Respondents to Consultation Exercise
Organisation
Name of Respondent
BG Group
David Ord - Environmental Manager
Bryan Donkin RMG Gas Controls Ltd
Alan Clark - Operations and Engineering Director
Centrica plc
Mike Garstang - Director of Health, Safety & Environment
Consort Resources Ltd
David Judd - Q, EH & S Manager
Environment Agency
Mike Garratt - Parliamentary & Government Relations Officer
ExxonMobil
Keith Gutteridge - Advisor
Gas Industry Safety Group
David Wilson - Assistant Director
Health and Safety Executive
Tim Holt - Ionising Radiation Policy Unit
Innogy
David Crookes
International Institution of Gas Engineers & Managers
Chris Bleach - Chief Executive
Law Society of Scotland
Michael Clancy - Director
Low Level Radiation Campaign
Richard Bramhall
Marathon Oil UK Ltd
M J Ash - Manager, Energy, Sales and Trading
National Radiological Protection Board
Frances Fry
OFGEM
Alan Curran - Assistant Director, Technical
Phillips Petroleum Co UK Ltd
C J Freeman - Safety and Environmental Manager
Public
Paul Payne
Public
Stuart Walsh
Radon Council
Frederick Fryer - Chairman
Royal Society of Edinburgh
Marc Rands - Research Officer
Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
Robert Jackson - Head of RWMAC Secretariat
Scottish Consumer Council
Donna Heaney - Policy Manager
Scottish Environment Protection Agency
E J Tooley - Radioactive Substances Unit Manager
Transco
Steve Gay - Head of Health, Safety & Environment
UK Offshore Operators Association Ltd
Mike Madden - UKOOA consultant on gas issues
Published 14 May 2002
Environmental Protection Consultation Index
Radioactivity Index
Environmental Protection Index
Defra Home Page