1. PROTECTFP6-036425 PROTECT Questionnaire Responses Jo Hingston

2. PROTECTFP6-036425 The Questionnaire Two questionnaires were generated –one for regulators & advisory bodies –one for industry Circulated to approximately 70 organisations in total so far

3. PROTECTFP6-036425 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

4. PROTECTFP6-036425 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

5. PROTECTFP6-036425 Nature of Business

6. PROTECTFP6-036425 Questionnaire Respondents

7. PROTECTFP6-036425 Why & how you regulate/are regulated

8. PROTECTFP6-036425 Regulation Legislation Guidance Background to policy decisions Key documents Other regulators involved

9. PROTECTFP6-036425 Do the regulators regulate to protect the environment?

10. PROTECTFP6-036425 Protection Goals

11. PROTECTFP6-036425 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

12. PROTECTFP6-036425 Methodology & Compliance

13. PROTECTFP6-036425 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

14. PROTECTFP6-036425 Criteria

15. PROTECTFP6-036425 Criteria Use of numerical limits Use of non-numeric criteria Derivation Conservatism

16. PROTECTFP6-036425 Is the Criteria Conservative Enough?

17. PROTECTFP6-036425 Criteria Use of numerical limits Use of non-numeric criteria Derivation Conservatism Revision

18. PROTECTFP6-036425 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

19. PROTECTFP6-036425 Criteria Use of numerical limits Use of non-numeric criteria Derivation Conservatism Revision Cost benefit Stakeholder involvement

20. PROTECTFP6-036425 Should Stakeholders be Included in Criteria Setting? 87% of regulators said yes (13% did not answer the question) 75% of industry said yes

21. PROTECTFP6-036425 Flexibility & Does it Work?

22. PROTECTFP6-036425 Flexibility & Does it Work? What works well What areas could be improved How these areas could be improved

23. PROTECTFP6-036425 Future Regulation

24. PROTECTFP6-036425 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

25. PROTECTFP6-036425 Radionuclide v Chemicals

26. PROTECTFP6-036425 Radionuclides v Chemicals Similarities & Differences Environmental Protection Endpoints Criteria Setting & Extrapolation Where one area of regulation can learn from another

27. PROTECTFP6-036425 What Next?

28. PROTECTFP6-036425 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