Chemical and Downstream Oil Industries Forum (CDOIF) - Meeting 29 June 2005

06/05 Mins

Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 AT HSE, Globe Room, Rose Court, London

• HSE industry and topic advisory groups

Present:

Chair:	John Murray	HSE, HID CI4
Secretariat:	Keith Morris	HSE, HID CI4
Members:	Ian McPherson Jeff Watson Ron Wood Jim Mowatt Doug Leech Martyn Lyons Mark Wayne Smith Nick Berentzen Karen Reay Robin Chapman	UKPIA LPGA TGWU TGWU BCDTA TSA (Simstor) Scanlon Energy Institute BCF CIA AMICUS BASF
HSE staff:	Colette Fitzpatrick Mark Witt Dr Dil Sen	HSE, HID CI4 HSE, HID CI2 HSE, CHSD5
Speakers:	Chris Keen	HSL, Buxton
Observers:	Clive Tayler	EEMUA
Minutes Secretary:	Tony Killen	HSE, HID CI4

NB, members will be sent, along with these minutes, electronic copies of the following PowerPoint presentations made during this meeting: NW Occupational Health Pilot; Exposure to Carcinogens; HSE Backs Campaign. Members will also be sent the text of Mark Witt's presentation on legionella; copies of the photos from this presentation will be sent on request by Colette Fitzpatrick in disk format.

1. Welcome and introduction and opening remarks

1.1. John Murray welcomed all to the meeting. He explained that he had taken over from David Kyle as head of HID CI4, and would be chairing this meeting in the absence of Kevin Allars. Kevin was attending the conclusion of the CONOCO trial and therefore had sent his apologies. John also introduced Dr Dil Sen, the Senior Medical Inspector from HSE's Corporate Medical Unit in Manchester; Mark Witt from HSE's Worcester office; and Chris Keen from the Occupational Hygiene Unit at HSL in Buxton. All three were to make presentations to the meeting.

1.2 Clive Tayler, Executive Director of the Engineering Equipment and Material Users' Association (EEMUA) was attending part of the meeting as an observer.

2. Apologies

Apologies were received from Tony Watkins and Roger Aylesbury (CIA) and Bill Mayes (UKPIA), with deputies attending; and also from Karen Clayton (HSE, Head of HID SI5), Andrew Hitchings (EA), and Doug Russell (USDAW).

3. Minutes

3.1 There were no amendments to the minutes of the meeting held on 23 February 2005, and all action points from the meeting had been discharged, with the exception of the response to the Hampton Review, which was due to be addressed at today's meeting.

3.2. Matters arising

(9.3) FOI Requests re: COMAH sites - Nick Berentzen asked how many requests had been received under FOI for information relating to COMAH sites. John Murray replied that the numbers of requests had been smaller than had been anticipated, and that for many COMAH sites, the information available was limited by agreement with the security services. CDOIF secretariat would collate the figures on requests received and forward these after the meeting.

Action Point 3.2 - Secretariat

4 Members' issues

4.1 Doug Leech reported on the first meeting of the consultative group, including both BCDTA and SIA, looking into the storage of flammable liquids within IBCs. Further tests had been carried out by HSL with a wide range of results. The deadline for production of the guidance would be 31/12/2005, and there would be two rounds of consultation, including with fire brigades' representatives and with the Environment Agency, before the guidance would be issued. The intention was to retain or make reference to existing guidelines where possible, with the development of entirely new guidance a last resort. He reported that there would also be consultation with European counterparts.

4.2 Doug also referred to the fact that updated guidance on 'First Aid at Work' contained less specific reference to the treatment of incidents involving chemicals. There followed a discussion on the relationship between first aid and the subsequent professional care of injuries related to chemicals, and in particular the use and availability of health and safety data sheets. Robin Chapman mentioned that BASF had produced a series of sheets, A-D, each of which was aimed at an individual player within an incident - first aider/ambulance staff/A&E hospital staff/injured party. John Murray suggested that these be obtained and circulated amongst CDOIF members as a possible example of good practice on this topic.

Action Point 4.2 - Robin Chapman and secretariat

4.3 Doug also reported his membership had noted the audits approach was being applied to lower-tier COMAH sites, the possible overlap between HSE and EA/SEPA, and the position with regard to the auditing of companies with multi-sites where there was potential for the duplication of effort. John Murray said this issue had already been addressed with regard to the top-tier sites, and that he would bring these concerns before the Joint COMAH Competent Authority Steering Committee. In response to a request to see the site audit plan in order to assist with companies' forward budget planning, John said that any such requests should be sent to the local inspection team and that he considered they would be unlikely to be refused.

Action Point 4.3 - John Murray

4.4 Martin Lyons expressed concern over the changes to the Hazardous Substances Consent Regulations which had arisen from changes to the Seveso/COMAH regs. John Murray explained that the HSCR were owned by the ODPM, and that HSE consequently had limited influence on them. Jeff Watson quoted as an example a recent case where the merger of three caravan sites meant that they now came within scope of the regs.

5 Update on amendments to COMAH

5.1 Keith Morris said that members had been sent a copy of a draft SPC prior to the meeting. The amended regulations are available from the HMSO as Statutory Instrument no. 2005/1088. The main amendments applied to three main areas: new named substances; general categories of substances; and aggregations of classes. It was anticipated that around 250 existing sites might be affected by the changes.

5.2 There had also been amendments to the storage of Ammonium Nitrate and Potassium Nitrate as a result of the Toulouse incident in 2001; to carcinogens, in particular Hydrazine; to petroleum products; to explosives (as a result of Enschede) and to the rules on aggregations. These were now regarded as falling into three broad areas: Toxics and very toxics; flammables, corrosives and oxidisers etc.; and substances dangerous to the environment.

5.3 There were other miscellaneous changes to do with the acceptance of correspondence by e-mail, and the review of safety reports. Keith invited any views from CDOIF members.

5.4 Wayne Smith asked whether the guidance would be amended to reflect the changes to the CHIP Regulations coming into effect this October. John Murray said there would be approximately 150 new entrants, of which 20-30 would fall within the top tier. Guidance for inspectors on the implications for COMAH sites would be updated and it would be shared with CDOIF members. New HSE guidance would be published on the amendments to CHIP and these would be distributed to members when available.

Action Point 5.4 - Secretariat

5.5 Wayne also asked about how COMAH might develop in future. For example, might a site with substances contained within 5L containers, and within a bunded area, be exempted? John replied that there was no enthusiasm as yet for Seveso 3. HSE would continue to push for a level playing field across Europe, and for clear interpretation of the Seveso directive.

5.6 Nick Berentzen asked what was the status of the L111 for the COMAH Regs. Keith Morris replied that the guidance was now with the publishers and would be available soon. Members will be notified when the guidance is available.

Action Point 5.6 - Secretariat

6 Stakeholder engagement - Hampton Review/Stakeholder conference

6.1 The Hampton Report had been published in March 2005 and a copy of the Executive Summary, along with a copy of Bill Callaghan's press release welcoming the report, was presented to members.

6.2 Keith Morris reiterated some of the main points of the executive summary: HSE was already working along the right lines, and that a risk-based assessment approach to inspection and enforcement had been applied within HSE for some time. He quoted the work on the inspection of hazardous waste sites as an example of joint working to avoid overlap/duplication with EA. Nick Berentzen also referred to the working group being led by the CIA on this issue. EA were reviewing the scope for introducing fixed penalty systems in their new legislation. Ron Wood asked that a copy of the TUC response to Hampton be included with the minutes.

Action Point 6.2 - Ron Wood and Secretariat

6.3 John Murray then reviewed the CID stakeholder conference which had taken place in Birmingham in March. It had been a good event, with plenty of lively discussion on the day. A conference report had been produced, which had also been circulated to CDOIF members, and a good response had been received to the action points. CID had set up a number of working groups to work through the key issues arising out of the conference and the Hampton Review. It had been agreed that CDOIF would be used to monitor progress on the key issues.

6.4 October's CDOIF meeting would include a formal report on the progress made since the conference in four major areas of work. These were:

1. Common issues - the regulatory approach and the management of safety reports

2. The competency base for new inspectors, and the development of specialists and more experienced inspectors

3. Working with others - such as Responsible Care Cells and safety Representatives

4. Regulatory performance and earned autonomy.

Action Point 6.4 - Secretariat

6.5 John said that the conference had also identified actions for employer and employee representatives and it proposed that members should report on progress at the October CDOIF meeting. There followed a discussion of those actions which were on employer and employee representatives. Nick Berentzen pointed out that care would be needed in order to ensure their production in time for the October meeting. John Murray proposed that Keith Morris would coordinate the reporting arrangements and that all members should report progress by 16 September.

Action Point 6.5 - all members to report progress by 16 September

7 Health issues - NW Occupational health pilot

7.1 Dr Dil Sen advised CDOIF of the pilot study he had conducted on occupational health within the chemical industry in North-West England (See separate PowerPoint attachment for the details). CDOIF members found the presentation interesting and expressed the hope that it may prove possible to roll-out the pilot across other regions of the country - possibly built into wider inspection visits. Robin Chapman felt that that the question-set upon which the study was based could be used to promote self-improvement amongst CDOIF Members' companies, and this was supported by Jeff Watson. Dil Sen said he would like to first review the question-set and modify if necessary to ensure it was a suitable tool for use by members.

Action point 7.1 - Dil Sen and Secretariat

7.2 In response to a question from Ron Wood, Dr Sen confirmed that, wherever a named safety representative had been available on site, they were spoken to, and in the absence of a formal safety rep., ordinary employees were interviewed. Finally, it was agreed that it would be useful for Dr Sen to present his findings to the CIA's Health Networks and the question set could be reviewed at this stage.

Action point 7.2 - Dil Sen

Legionella project - Worcester

7.3 Mark Witt, of HID CI2 and based in Worcester, presented the results of a survey into the inspection of cooling towers within chemical plants in the Midlands for evidence of the conditions conducive to the development of the Legionella bacteria. Despite money spent on securing the services of water treatment engineers, the results were in many cases disappointing.

7.4 One Prohibition Notice served, and 14 Improvement notices were testament to deficiencies in both the design and physical inspection of the towers, and in the cleaning regimes which frequently failed to comply with the HSE code of practice.

7.5 Mark concluded his presentation with a short explanation of how the conditions within badly designed and/or maintained cooling towers present an ideal environment for Legionella bacteria to survive and thrive. In response to a request from Nick Berentzen, his presentation would be made available for dissemination within the various sectors that comprise CDOIF. NB, the text element will be attached to these minutes as a PowerPoint file - the photographs associated with it will be available in disk format on request from Colette Fitzpatrick, HID CI4, 4th Floor, St Anne's House, Bootle, Merseyside L20 3RA.

Action Point 7.5 - Secretariat

Exposure to carcinogens

7.6 Chris Keen from HSL in Buxton gave a presentation on the initial results of an HSL research project which investigated the control of task-specific exposures to carcinogens in the chemical industry. He had made visits to 40 chemical companies handling carcinogens, mutagens, and reprotoxins in significant quantities. In many cases companies had only completed limited monitoring of workplace exposure. Where monitoring had been undertaken it had mainly focused on TWAs rather than looking at exposure for specific tasks, eg taking samples and charging vessels. In a few cases WELs were likely to be exceeded particularly for the duration of the task, and more fundamental action could have been taken to reduce exposure in many cases. The final report will be published on the HSE web site when complete and the Secretariat will advise CDOIF when it is available. CDOIF members were asked to consider the implications of the report for their sectors.

Action Point 7.6 - Secretariat

HSE Backs! 2005 campaign

7.7 Tony Killen from HID CI4 then gave an update on HSE's current and ongoing Backs! 2005 campaign. He explained that CID did not intend completing a large number of targeted inspections as would our colleagues in the Field Operations Division. However visits might be paid to dutyholders known to have a poor record in this area, on a reactive basis in response to incidents, and where issues were identified during visits on other topics. CID would concentrate its effort towards raising the awareness of the issues, and of promoting potential solutions, with stakeholders. This was the start of a three-year campaign and progress would be monitored.

7.8 He also referred to a survey of manual handling within the LPG industry in South Wales, which had been carried out by Paul Hopkins of HID's Carmarthen office. Tony Killen has copies of both the full report and a summary version. He proposed to circulate a copy of the summary version to members, once assured that senior HS&E managers within the participating companies were aware of the report.

Action Point 7.8 - Secretariat

8 Safety issues - 'Slips and Trips' campaign - October 2005

8.1 Tony introduced the above campaign focusing on 'Slips and Trips' which would be commencing in October 2005. Once again, HID will seek to publicise and raise awareness in concert with its stakeholder partners. There was agreement around the table that a high proportion of RIDDOR-reportable incidents fell under either manual handling, or slips and trips nationally, and were also represented within the individual sectors represented within CDOIF. Tony reiterated his willingness to assist in promoting and producing any educational initiatives under either campaign. Members were asked to consider the extent to which their sectors can get involved in these campaigns and get in touch with Tony if assistance was required.

Action Point 8.1 - Members

9 Review of RIDDOR Regulations

9.1 All CDOIF members had been sent the CD announcing the review. Keith Morris said that the review was wide-ranging and that it offered the opportunity for some fundamental 'blue skies' thinking. One proposal was to have a single category of 'work related absence' to report, rather than the relatively complex categories currently used. It was proposed that 'Dangerous Occurrence' (of particular significance to the chemical sector) would undergo a wide-ranging review. Nick Berentzen suggested that there was currently some vagueness in defining what exactly constituted a DO.

9.2 Robin Chapman observed that there was an inconsistency across Europe in respect of the way in which that accidents involving travel in connection with work were reported and investigated. Keith Morris replied that the police were seen to be the experts in respect of the investigation of RTAs and it was important to avoid duplication of effort. However the HSWA certainly applied to all people who needed to travel in the course of their work, and he described some of the steps companies could take to ensure they complied with this requirement. John Murray encouraged all attending to reply formally to the review.

Action Point 9.2 - Members

10 Incidents/events

10.1 Keith Morris then referred to a number of events of particular interest to CDOIF members since the last meeting in February. These included:

• The explosion at the BP Texas City oil refinery in USA on 23 March 2005, which left 15 people dead and 170 injured. Initial investigations had revealed operational and supervisory failings, including the use of a blow-down stack as a pressure relief system, and the siting of contractors' trailers in close proximity to the plant. The investigation was ongoing in America.

• Mercury contamination in some crude oil streams from the North Sea was causing serious corrosion at terminals in the North East.

• A serious incident at BP Coryton on 20 April, in which a scaffolder had been injured whilst dismantling scaffolding near an extractor fan.

• On 27 April, Shell UK had been fined £900K for breaches of HSWA following an incident on the North Sea Brent Bravo Production Platform on 11 September 2003 in which two employees were engulfed in a large release of hydrocarbon gas.

• On 11 February, Rhodia was fined £100K for breaches of HSWA after a chlorine leak at their Staveley plant on 3 November 2003 which resulted in a loss of 3 tonnes of the substance into a storage area.

11 Information items

11.1 Keith then proceeded to flag up a number of brief information items to the meeting:

• CDOIF members have been consulted over proposed revision of the OIAC governing the safe isolation of plant and equipment. It was anticipated that publication would now be in October 2005. CDOIF members would be kept informed.

• The 'Working at Height regulations 2005' came into effect on 6 April 2005 and a brief guide to them is available on the HSE website, and also via HSE Books. Jeff Watson sought clarification on whether standards set out in the guidance covered the access of lorry drivers to their cabs. The Secretariat will clarify the position.

Action Point 11.1 - Secretariat

• The amendments to the COSHH regulations came into effect on 6 April. The main changes included the introduction of workplace exposure limits (WELs) and eight new principles of good practice for the control of exposure to substances hazardous to health. The new guidance was published in April 2005, and more information is available at HSE's COSHH Essentials website.

• Kevin Myers has been appointed as Director of Hazardous Installations within HSE with effect from 13 June, and Keith gave some background information on the new Head of HID. Also Mike Weightman had recently been appointed to the equivalent post within HSE's Nuclear Safety Directorate.

• The Tank Integrity project was about to commence. Visits will be completed to selected sites and would be likely to mainly include members of TSA and UKPIA.

12 AOB/next meeting

12.1 There were no other issues under 'Any Other Business', the date and venue for the next meeting of CDOIF were confirmed as being Wednesday, 19 October in Bootle. It was anticipated that by this date HSE's new HQ Building in Bootle, Redgrave Court, would be operational.

12.2 John Murray thanked all for attending this meeting, and in particular those who had provided presentations and handouts.