Chemical and Downstream Oil Industries Forum (CDOIF) - Meeting 23 June 2004

04/06 minutes

Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 23 June 2004 at HSE, Room 1102, Daniel House, Bootle

• HSE industry and topic advisory groups

Present:

Chair:	Kevin Allars	HSE, HID
Secretariat:	David Kyle	HSE, HID CI 4
Advisors:	Anton Wilson Alan Tyldesley	HSE, HID CI 4 HSE, HID CD 5
Members:	Nick Berentzen John Galbraith Doug Leech Martyn Lyons Mike Murray Mark Scanlon Clive Sheil Wayne Smith Ron Wood	CIA CIA BCDTA TSA ABPI EI UKPIA BCF TGWU
Speakers:	Tim Beals Graham Atkinson Peter Marlow	HSE, HID CD 2A HSL HSL
Observers:	Tony Killen	HSE, HID CI 4
Minutes Secretary:	Gill Chambers	HSE, HID CI 4

1. Welcome and introduction and opening remarks

1. Kevin Allars welcomed all to the meeting. He introduced Anton Wilson from HID CI4 to update on item 3 (4.1), Tim Beals from HID CD2A for agenda item 5, Graham Atkinson and Peter Marlow from HSL for items 6 and 7 and Tony Killen from HID CI4 who has been appointed to further the work on stakeholder engagement. He also advised that Alan Tyldesley was representing Keith Wilson (HSE CD5)
   
2. It was noted that the new contact at Amicus is Paul Reuter replacing Roger Jeary who has new responsibilities. GMBU will notify the secretary when a replacement has been found for Sean Bussey.
   
3. There has been a change within the management structure of the Hazardous Installations Directorate which has reverted to three divisions. The Chair will now have additional responsibilities in connection with Land Use Planning.
   

2. Apologies

Apologies were received from Kevin Dixon-Jackson (CIA),  John Garraway and Ian Haskell (EA), Duncan Foster (ABPI), Phillip Lewis (CIA), Jim Mowatt (TGWU), Paul Reuter (Amicus) and Paula Woolgar (SEPA)

3. Minutes

1. There were no amendments to the minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2004.
2. Matters arising

3.2 (10.1) OIAC Safe Isolation of Plant and Equipment - work is taking place to resolve the selection tool issue. It is anticipated that members of the working group will be contacted shortly. CDOIF members will be sent the document when it is available.

Action: Secretariat

3.2(10.2) Permit to Work guidance - this has not been published yet. A decision is awaited on the business case and other options for publication are being considered.

3.2(14.4) Draft Health and Safety (Employee Consultation and Safety Representatives) Regulations   - the statement has been published on HSE’s website. http://www.hse.gov.uk/workers/involvement/index.htm

4.1 COMAH (Hydrazine) - members were given a brief update on a meeting between a leading supplier of Hydrazine and the power generation industry on the potential inclusion of a number of sites within COMAH. Alternatives to the use of Hydrazine are being considered. The main supplier is producing a CD for clients to attempt to resolve their problems.

4.2 Research by Liverpool John Moores University on bunding - the planned workshop has been held. The issues concern future bund design rather than compliance with current requirements.

4.4 Chemical Industries Association - it was noted that there has been a further reorganisation within CIA. A new organogram will be produced in due course.

Action: N Berentzen

4.7 LPGA Guidance - progress is being made. The Energy Institute is looking at its work programme to assess the level of support it can provide. HSE has offered to support this initiative.

5 Safety Performance Indicators - there has been a successful pilot project in Scotland with positive results following which the CIA has drawn up an action plan to jointly roll out the scheme and involve more people. This is a good example of HSE and CIA working together. The minutes of the recent meeting between HSE and CIA will be sent to CDOIF members with the minutes of this meeting.
(now attached to minutes) 

Action: Secretariat

6 Occupational Exposure Limits - the secretary was requested to provide an update on the consultation on the new Occupational Exposure Limits and any possible changes to the COSHH regulations.

Action: Secretariat
(See interim note attached to minutes)

11.1 Select Committee on the Work of HSC/HSE - the Committee has finished taking evidence. When the report is published the link to the website will be sent to members.

Action: Secretariat

11.4 Accident Investigation - the guidance in support of the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 is due to be published on 7 July 2004. The link will be sent to members when it is available.

Action: Secretariat

11.5 Enforcement Policy Statement - an update went to the Health and Safety Commission on 8 June 2004. Members should contact the secretary if they wish to see a copy of the report.

Action: Members

All other matters arising are covered by agenda items.

4. Conferences and workshops

1. The Chair gave members information about three conferences/workshops that HSE is in the process of planning.
   
   • The first workshop is for one day, planned for Spring 2005 and is intended for stakeholders. Details on this workshop will be available shortly and will be forwarded to members.
   • It is hoped to hold an EU Competent Authority conference in Autumn 2005 which will compare consistency in implementation of Seveso II throughout member states. The duration of this conference is likely to be three days.
   • The third workshop is likely to be for three days in Spring 2006 and is looking at consistency in compliance within the Petroleum Oil Refining sector.
2. Information on the above conferences/workshops will be forwarded to CDOIF members as soon as it is available.

Action: Secretariat

5. Review and revision of COMAH safety reports

1. Members were updated on progress with respect to the proposed amendments to COMAH.  Consultation on the proposals will be via the internet.  The Consultative Document will be available on HSE’s website from 12 July 2004 and there will be a 12 week consultation period.
   
   • Members were given details of the responses to the review and revision strategy paper placed on the internet at the beginning of April.
   • Interim guidance on the review and revision of safety reports will be available in October 2004, which is the earliest practical date for publication. Members were given an outline of what the guidance would contain.  Concern was expressed by some members on the timing of this because work on the review of safety reports may have already started, and the guidance needs to be available in time to inform the process.
   • Review of safety reports will be required five years from the date of the first submission.
   • Where the assessment of certain safety reports has not been fully concluded, the focus of activity may change from assessment to inspection, with outstanding issues being incorporated into the intervention plan.

6. Intermediate bulk containers

1. Graham Atkinson from the Health and Safety Laboratories (HSL) gave a review of recent accidents involving flammable and combustible liquids stored in IBCs. He also reviewed recent full scale testing work on the ignitability of such IBCs and rate of liquid drainage. Consultation is taking place with industry about options for reducing risks.
2. It was noted that any changes recommended need to be Europe wide and should be referred to the EU. BCDTA is working to resolve these difficulties and Doug Leech agreed to provide an update at the next meeting of CDOIF on progress.

            Action: D Leech

7. Chemical sector manual handling performance

1. Peter Marlow from HSL reviewed the earlier manual handling exercise within the Chemical Sector in which baseline data was gathered. There is a proposal to undertake another survey and compare the data.
2. There was a discussion on whether it would be appropriate for a questionnaire to be sent to companies purely in respect of manual handling when the company may have other priorities, for example stress or violence on forecourts.
3. Peter Marlow agreed to produce a note for members on the background to the exercise and then members can consult within their organisations.

Action: P Marlow/Members

8. CEMAP

1. Nick Berentzen from CIA gave members an overview of the aims of the Chemical Enforcement Meeting Action Plan (CEMAP) process and the outcomes from the four workshops held with regulators and operators in March 2004 which looked at enforcement and mechanisms for consultation.
2. The key messages from the workshops were:  
   
   • More communication is needed at all levels
   • Guidance needs to be timely and in place before regulations come into force
   • Regular face to face contact is important
   • Regulators expect to be questioned and challenged
   • Where there is disagreement, the issue should initially be taken up with the Inspector and if not resolved, discussion with the Line Manager then Head of Unit if necessary.
3. The CEMAP Operational and Policy subgroup will formulate a plan to deal with the points raised at the workshops.
4. HSE and EA/SEPA are now looking to see how to roll out to other parts of industry the lessons that have been learned through the CEMAP process, and will advise members of progress when appropriate. Action: Secretariat
5. HID CI4 is committed to furthering engagement with stakeholders within the chemical and downstream oil sector and a new post has recently been created within this unit to assist with this work.

9. Incidents and events

The only incidents since the last meeting of CDOIF are still under investigation. If any issues arise that would be of interest they will be forwarded to members in due course.

10. Information items

1. Stress Management Consultation - CDOIF members were given the following link to HSE’s page on stress management - www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/stressms.htm.  The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) set out a programme of work in 2000 to tackle work-related stress. HSE has developed standards of good management practice - a voluntary approach to tackling a major cause of sickness absence. This consultation gives the opportunity to make sure the solutions are practicable and effective in the workplace.
2. Revision and Renaming of Level 3 COMAH Guidance - members have been sent the following link to the technical SRAG www.hse.gov.uk/comah/sragtech/index.htm
3. Draft Leadership for Major Hazards Industries Leaflet - this was sent to members in March 2004.
4. Strategy 2010 - areas where HSE and Local Authorities will not be proactive. Members were invited to submit comments on this to John Ewins. Action: Members
5. Public Service Agreement Targets - comments have been received from CDOIF members on how industry views the targets. These have been included in the HSE consultation input.

11. Public information

1. Comments received from members on the draft leaflet will be passed to the author. If members have any more comments they should send them to the secretary. This will be discussed more fully at the next meeting of CDOIF.

Action: Members/Secretariat

12. Thanks

The Chair expressed his thanks to Gill Chambers who will shortly be leaving HID CI4 to take up a position on promotion within the Policy Group.

13. Dates of next meetings

Wednesday 20 October 2004 (London)
Wednesday 23 February 2005 (Bootle)
Wednesday 22 June 2005 (London)
Wednesday 19 October 2005 (Bootle)

Item 3.2.5

Notes of a meeting to discuss process safety performance measures - held at HSE Offices, Grove House, Manchester, on Friday 11 June 2004 at 10.45 am

Attendance

Mr I Travers - HSE
Ms V Beckett - HSE
Mr K Morris -HSE
Mr A Watkins - Basell/CIA
Mr C Chambers - CIA
Mr N B Berentzen - CIA
Mr A Herbert - ExxonMobil Chemicals/CIA

Key points raised in discussion

Desired outcomes

• To understand the outcome of the pilot project in Scotland & to decide whether CIA can endorse the recommendations of the pilot and implement them throughout its membership.
• To understand HSE’s current thinking on process safety performance measures  and on how a reporting system can be put into practice.
• To produce a plan of action that CIA can take forward with member companies.

General

• The Scottish pilot proved beneficial in teasing out the essential factors involved developing and using KPIs for process safety. This has meant that there is a much clearer understanding both within industry and HSE on the use of process safety indicators. On this basis CIA felt that it could endorse the recommendation of the Scottish pilot and implement them throughout its membership.
• The key focus for the short to medium term should be on developing site or organisation specific KPI’s and on sharing good practice and learning amongst chemical companies.
• As part of its field programme for 2004/05 HSE inspectors would be reviewing the extent to which process safety indicators had been adopted within company safety management systems.
• HSE’s longer term aim is to be able to describe and indicate positive performance within the sector rather than relying on failure data.

Scottish pilot study - analysis of outcome

• The study led to the conclusion that there is no single set of process safety measures applicable to the industry, because the nature of operations on member company sites varies so widely; we need to encourage sites to develop their own indicators.
  
• Feedback from the pilot is on the HSE Performance Measures website;
  
  • the processes and discussions in management teams is critical in determining the desired outcome of risk management systems - indicators can then be set against these outcomes;
    
  • indicators need to have the right scope and balance and reflect the process risk profile of the activity , they need to be a mixture of leading and lagging, and the number needs to be manageable;
    
  • much of the information needed to set process safety indicators was already available within organisations;
    
  • the aim should be to get the best value in terms of managing/stewarding process safety
    
  • there was benefit in sharing ideas, good practice and examples of process safety indicators between individual organisations.
• HSE made clear that they have dropped the concept of reporting against a core set of measures (it may be introduced at some time in the future, but would probably be sector based).
• The study concluded that it is worthwhile collecting accident causation information in a structured way, although the pilot itself had not produced a large number of examples of incidents or near misses.
• Within the study, although both leading and lagging indicators were piloted most were expressed in negative terms eg failure to meet scheduled activities such as plant inspection. More work was needed to develop measures expressed in terms of success.
• The CIA Indicators of performance survey ask for numerical data, mainly relating to RIDDOR reportable events, with very little information on detail. One of the recommendations from the Scottish study has been to expand the IoPs to ask companies to specify numbers for named relevant reportable dangerous occurrences.

Other discussion points

• The main focus for a wider programme supported by the CIA should be on developing process safety indicators at site and organisational level. To support this CIA members will be encouraged to share ideas, good practice and examples of suitable indicators by joining the HSE Process Safety Performance website.
  
• Any communication to CIA member companies encouraging them to participate needs to spell out key benefits to them, to enable SHE professionals to ‘sell’ the benefits of participating to their managers.
• The long-term aim is to introduce some leading indicators, perhaps around inspection and maintenance, competence, and availability and use of safety devices. HSE will consider the scope in due course. If an indicator is to work, it has to be understood by plant operators, and field verification is needed to show that what you think is happening is actually happening

Action points

• The Group supported the idea of a joint letter to companies, encouraging them to participate in the on-line discussion forum and in the voluntary LOC reporting system. HSE will undertake the admin work involved in posting out the letters; two separate letters would be sent, one to Site Directors and the other, giving more detail, to SHE professionals. HSE would redraft the text they had already prepared and send it to CIA: CC and NBB would use this as the basis for drafting two separate letters (to include reference to the Responsible Care commitment to share best practice) & would try & secure inclusion of a supportive quotation from Judith Hackitt. CIA would also provide HSE with a list of recipients (to which HSE would add its own contacts), and would prepare a press release to coincide with the release of the letters, which would be sent no later than the end of June. CIA will also consider submitting a possible letter or magazine article to the ‘Chemical Engineer’ magazine.
• HSE will issue guidance to Inspectors, advocating a ‘softly softly’ approach to reviewing progress with implementing performance measures.
• Andrew Herbert would provide some feedback from the Scottish study to accompany the letters, and for possible use at the Responsible Care Cells
• HSE and CIA will develop further ideas in the form of a toolkit/guidance to accompany the initiative which could be used as a way of meeting the Responsible Care guiding principles.
• CIA (SAG?) would recommend the adoption of process safety KPIs within the annual IOP return (based on Andrew Herbert’s proposals).
• Where a CIA company reports a DO to HSE, HSE would be willing to share information with us provided the company agrees, but we would need a collective agreement by member companies first. This principle will need endorsement by the CIA Responsible Care Board.
• It would be particularly useful if lessons could be shared as quickly as possible after an incident. HSE will consider how this might best be done.
• HSE to check the potential for providing a link from the CIA Extranet site to the incident reporting website and to check the number of hits.
• CIA to ask members of its Safety Advisory Group to consider the question ‘What is a process safety management system?’, with involvement from members of the Responsible Care Implementation Group and Management Systems Advisory Group.
• CIA to consider running a series of workshops early next year to promote the initiative, in January/February; HSE would provide venues: CIA to check with Events Team on their willingness to help.

CDOIF Meeting minutes

Item 3.2.6 - Occupational exposure limits.

Members requested an update on progress.

The views of CDOIF were fed back as part of the consultation and were very influential in suggesting changes to the proposals which include:

1. Removing the direct link between the W.E.L and “ COSHH Essentials”. This is to avoid the misunderstanding that the “Essentials” take on a higher status than required. It is clear that the proposals will refer to the need for “ good practice” and “essentials” is one way but not the only way of achieving this.
2. The concern for the removal of existing OELs and appearing to undermine current risk assessments has meant that most of the OELs will be retained, not dropped. However, there are about 50 OELs where HSE has concern for the basis for the limit and these will either be updated or removed from the list, but most will remain in place.

Next steps,

1. A revised paper will be put to ACTS next week at which the above changes will be discussed.
2. Members will be kept informed of any decisions and further consultation.

David Kyle

29.06.04.