SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS
Implementation of the Flooding Act
Reservoir flood plans
Q1. What should be the criteria for determining whether a reservoir requires preparation of a flood plan?
Q2. Should there be different levels of flood plans for high, medium and low risk reservoirs? If not, what alternative system should be adopted?
Q3. If 3 different categories are used, what information should be included in a flood plan for each of them?
Q4. Should all flood plans include an inundation map?
Q5. Should SEPA prepare basic inundation maps for all reservoirs over 10,000 cubic metres?
Q6. How often should plans be reviewed and updated?
Q7. How often should plans be tested?
Q8. Should Panel engineers have a role in the preparation, testing and approval of flood plans? If so, what should their role be?
Q9. Should the Scottish Government provide financial assistance towards the preparation of reservoir flood plans in order to assist smaller private businesses and individuals to comply with new legislation?
Q10. Who should have access to flood plans?
Q11. Who should have access to inundation maps?
Incident Reporting
Q12. Do you agree that the criteria proposed are the correct criteria for determining whether an incident should be reported? If not, please suggest the criteria which should be used and why.
Q13. What information should be provided in the report?
Q14. Who should be made responsible for reporting the incident?
A Risk-Based Approach to Reservoir Safety
Q15. Do you agree that the minimum volume figure should be 10,000 cubic metres, or another figure? If you are proposing a different figure, please explain why.
Q16. Do you agree that the criteria for inclusion and/or exemption can be based on other objective criteria such as embankment height, elevation, type of construction etc?
Q17. What information should be requested at the point of registration to enable an effective risk-based approach thereafter?
Q18. How can we design the registration process to minimise the burdens imposed by registration?
Q19. Do you agree with the proposed risk based classification for reservoirs? If not, on what basis do you think risk should be defined on?
Q20. Do you consider that particular categories or types of reservoirs should be exempt from the proposed regulatory regime? If so, what are the categories or types and why?
Q21. How can the financial burden on owners of reservoirs which are being brought into the regulatory regime for the first time be minimised?
Q22. Should there be a flat rate charge for registration, or should the charge be proportionate to the risk/consequence of an uncontrolled release of water from the reservoir?
Q23. Should registration be free for an initial period to encourage new sites to register?
Q24. Should existing reservoirs have to be re-registered?
Q25. Should SEPA's ongoing enforcement costs be recovered through subsistence fees and should they be on a sliding scale?
Q26. Should SEPA be able to reclaim costs of emergency works from the undertaker for measures taken in the interests of public safety?
Q27. Which is your preferred implementation model and why?
Q28. Are there any elements of the other models which could be usefully incorporated into your preferred model?
Q29. If you think another approach not outlined here would deliver reservoir safety more efficiently, please provide details of the approach and how it will deliver reservoir safety.
Q30. Do you agree with the proposed arrangements for creating panels of engineers?
Q31. What lessons can be learnt from the current appointment process of panel engineers?
Q32. Do you agree with each of the proposed minor amendments?
- The proposed changes to reporting requirements; and
- The proposed requirement to erect notice boards.
Q33. Are there any other minor changes to the current regime you would recommend?