Health, Safety and Environment Committee

 

 

Minutes of the Eighty-eighth Meeting of the Health, Safety and Environment Committee held on 9 June 2004.

 

                                                            Mr J Blood (Chair)

Mrs K Bedwell               Dr E D Brown                Mr M C Brown

Ms E Carter(ab)            Mr M Clarson                Dr S E Dann (ab)         

Mr A R Eyre                  Mr M Harris                   Dr R A Haskins

Mr R A Hill                     Mrs W Jones                Mr D Jordan                 

Mr R Kirkwood (ab)        Mrs W E Llewellyn (ab)  Mr T M Neale                

Mr H M Pearson            Professor I Reid                        Mrs L Sands                 

Mrs G Scholes (ab)        Dr B L Sharp (ab)          Mr M Stringfellow          

Mr J M Town                 Mr D W Wilson             Mr R Wilson (ab)                      

 

In attendance: Mr C Dunbobbin, Committee Secretary

 

Apologies for absence were received from: Ms E Carter, Mr M Harris, Mr R Kirkwood, Mr R Wilson

 

04/12    Minutes

 

The Minutes of the Eighty-seventh meeting of the Committee held on 8 April 2004 were confirmed and signed by the Chair.

 

04/13    Matters Arising from the Minutes

 

i)                 Asbestos Update

The Committee received a report from a meeting of the Asbestos Working Group, held on 28 May 2004. The Working Group felt that its initial objectives had been met, and that it had reached the end of its useful life. However, it had agreed to meet again in six months to review the position at that point.

 

The Committee approved the draft Guide on the Management of Asbestos in buildings, which was intended to accompany the Policy on the Control of Asbestos. It was agreed that this document would become part of the University’s Health and Safety Policy, and would be circulated to Heads of Department, and Departmental Safety Officers, with a covering letter emphasising the importance of this issue.

ACTION: MH

 

            A member asked why the removal of asbestos from the old swimming pool and plant room had been deferred, despite funds for the work being approved. The Director of Estates Services noted that in order for this asbestos to be removed, the research work being undertaken in the building needed to be relocated. It was unlikely that this would be possible until the end of the year, and extra care would need to be taken in managing the asbestos in the building in the meantime.

 

            A member noted that with regard to the removal of equipment containing asbestos, individual departments were responsible for the cost, and queried the position where a department was in deficit and had insufficient funds to finance the appropriate work. Some discussion ensued and it was noted that departments with such equipment would need to plan its budget accordingly to incorporate the cost of removal. In the case of a deficit department, a proposal would need to be put forward, which explained why removal was a priority, in order to justify the allocation of funds.

 

ii)                Fumes from Combustion Rig (Aeronautical Engineering)

The Director of Estates Services reported that a bid had been made to EMG to cover the consultancy fees to investigate the problems caused by exhaust fumes from the Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering jet engine. However, EMG had decided to refer the issue back to the Dean of the Engineering Faculty for further consideration, rather than to allocate the funds that had been requested. It had been felt that the problem could be managed out without further significant expenditure being incurred, by ensuring the existing operating protocol was adhered to.

 

iii)              Electrical Safety

The Deputy Health, Safety and Environmental (HS&E) Officer reported that the actions outlined in the HS&E Priorities document circulated at the last meeting, including those required in pursuance of the improvement notice issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had either been completed, or were underway. In particular, the existing Code of Practice on Electrical Safety had been re-drafted, and a number of training sessions for all staff who undertook electrical work would be held prior to the end of June 2004. It was intended that feedback would be obtained from those who attended the training courses before the Code of Practice was finalised. The HS&E Office would report back to the HSE following the training sessions, to confirm that all the action points had been met. It was agreed that the letter to the HSE should be copied to EMG for information.

ACTION: MH

 

A member asked whether all departments had responded to the questionnaire circulated by Mike Ellis on 24 March 2004. The Deputy HS&E Officer reported that only two significant departments had failed to return the questionnaire or volunteer anyone for training. These Departments would be pursued for a response.

 

It was noted that it was difficult to establish that all relevant personnel had received the appropriate training, particularly in relation to PAT testing. However, in order to prevent a repeat of the accident that had occurred in Burleigh Court, it was essential for managers to ensure their staff did not carry out tasks for which they had not received the appropriate training, particularly in relation to complex electrical work, where formal training was required.

 

It was noted that in 2003, the HS&E Committee had established the ‘small works’ policy, which aimed to ensure that work was only carried out by those with the appropriate training or expertise. The Committee agreed that a review of the policy should be undertaken to ensure that this objective was being met, and noted that this was on the list of H&S Priorities agreed at the last meeting in any case. It was anticipated that the review would involve requesting Heads of Departments to report on a periodic basis (probably annually) on the small works undertaken in their Departments. The Registrar and Deputy HS&E Officer would report back on progress in this area at the next meeting.

ACTION: JMT, MH

 

            It was suggested that a reminder should be given to all users of electrical equipment, to ensure that any equipment they used had been properly PAT tested. It was felt that this was an issue of general awareness amongst users, and as there was an existing policy in this area, the most appropriate response initially was to ask Heads of Departments what steps were being taken to promulgate this information.

ACTION: MH

 

iv)              Radiation Protection – Environment Agency visit and disposal of radioactive sources

Representatives of the Environment Agency had visited campus in April, and conducted a thorough 7 hour inspection. No formal feedback had yet been received, but the inspectors were generally satisfied with their findings.

 

The Environment Agency had also intervened to expedite the removal of a number of large, sealed radioactive sources held on campus. At least 15 sources were due to be removed by the disposal agency in the week following the meeting.

 

With regard to the security of radioactive sources, improved arrangements had been introduced in the Graham Oldham building, and improvements to the security of the Ann Packer building were due to be carried out before the beginning of July 2004. In response to a suggestion from a member that Universities UK might be able to offer general advice on the security of radioactive sources, the RPO noted that the police anti-terrorist unit had visited every establishment in Leicestershire where radioactive sources were held, and that the University was very much reliant on the police to pass on intelligence on potential risks. There were a number of generic protocols, and a community of those involved in radiation protection work who met regularly, but each institution had its own specific areas of risk.

 

v)               Health and Safety Priorities

The Deputy HS&E Officer noted that there had been some action on all of the 16 priorities identified in paper SAF04-P4, including:

(1) Compulsory Health and Safety Induction / Training for Heads of Departments. The Registrar had offered a training course to Heads on legal responsibilities, and this had included a section on health and safety. It was noted that although this was a start, more needed to be done to meet Council’s directive in this area. It was anticipated that a training programme, provided by the Registrar, together with a health and safety professional would be in place, and possible partly delivered by the next meeting of the Committee.

(4) HSE Campaign – Work at Heights. Through the Risk Improvement Task Group, a working group had been set up to consider this campaign, develop policy, and assess training needs.

(5) Appointment of replacement HS&E Officer. An advert was due to appear in the July 2004 edition of Health and Safety Practitioner, and in other publications. It was hoped that interviews would take place in the first week of August 2004.

(6) H&S Policy. It was anticipated that the new HS&E Officer would review the H&S policy as one of their first tasks.

(8) Management of Asbestos Claims. There were ongoing asbestos-related industrial illness cases, one of which the University had decided to defend, and which was therefore likely to be decided by the courts. The University’s insurers were handling this case.

(9) Budgets 2004. The H&S budget submissions had been approved.

(12) Occupational Health Provision. In principal, it had been agreed that the Occupational Health Adviser (OHA) and Occupational Physician would be relocated to the Edward Herbert Building.

(14) H&S Training. General H&S training courses would continue to be offered to Departmental Safety Officers (DSOs) through Professional Development in February / March each year. The Deputy HS&E Officer had also initiated regular meetings of DSOs within each faculty to share good practice and discuss H&S issues.

(15) Devolution of Responsibilities and Policy / Procedures for Invasive Work Upon Buildings, Plant and Services. This would be monitored through the Risk Improvement Task Group.

(16) Machinery Safety. The policy on safeguarding machinery needed to be reconsidered, and a memorandum on this would be circulated to Heads of Departments.

 

vi)              Environmental update / Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability

Professor Reid tabled a paper containing a report on the Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability Closing Conference. A summary of the University’s sustainability profile was included, and showed that Loughborough performed well in terms of energy usage, but less well in some other areas.

 

Professor Reid was unable to report any progress on the proposed audit of the management of environmental issues at Loughborough, because the consultant employed to benchmark the University’s position had recently retired, and had not yet scheduled this project. However, it was hoped that a report would be ready for submission in time for the next meeting.

 

04/14    Health and safety management in the Sports Development Centre and performance testing

 

The Committee received a paper from the Deputy HS&E Officer, which responded to concerns raised by the Risk Improvement Task Group (RITG) about health and safety management within the Sports Development Centre (SDC). In particular, the rapid growth of the SDC had given rise to concerns about the increase in associated liabilities, arising from the University’s responsibilities as facilitators of sporting facilities and landlords.

 

A member questioned whether the University retained responsibility for the activities carried out within a building, once it had been let to an outside group. However, it was noted that in many cases, the activities in tenanted buildings on campus were closely linked to the work of the University, and University staff were often required to use the buildings as part of their normal work. It was agreed therefore, that while this issue required further investigation, it should be assumed that the University would retain basic health and safety responsibilities for all buildings on campus.

 

The Committee agreed to follow the RITG’s recommendation, and ask the Director of the Sports Development Centre, the Head of the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, and the Chair of the Ethical Advisory Committee to undertake a review as a matter of urgency, taking advice from the University’s insurers if necessary, and report back with an appropriate protocol.

ACTION: MH

 

04/15    Fire Risk Assessments and Fire Emergency Action Plans

 

The Committee received a paper from the Deputy HS&E Officer containing a draft fire emergency action plan. It was proposed that every building on campus should adopt its own plan, depending on assembly points and procedures that were specific to that building. Every building should also have a nominated person or persons to co-ordinate fire evacuations along with fire wardens, as appropriate. There were already some buildings on campus where fire emergency evacuation procedures based on fire co-ordinators/wardens were operated. However, it was noted that these were single occupancy buildings, and it was acknowledged that in some large, multi-occupancy buildings it might be more problematic to introduce such a system.

 

Discussion followed on the issue of sweeping buildings, and accounting for all potential occupants in the event of a fire. It was noted that particularly where a building contained lecture rooms, it was virtually impossible to check that everyone was present at the assembly point. However, this was thought to be the case in respect of all public buildings. The proposed plan required that fire wardens checked that everyone was present at the assembly point, as far as was practical, and this was the most that could be done. However, the practice of ‘sweeping’ areas of a building was helpful in this context, as even if it all potential occupants could not be accounted for, it would be possible to confirm to the fire brigade upon their arrival at an incident that certain areas of a building were clear.

 

Some concern was expressed about fire wardens undertaking sweeping in buildings where dangerous materials were stored, rather than getting out as quickly as possible. It was noted that it was helpful to the fire brigade on arrival at an incident to be advised of areas of a building that were known to be clear, and it was stressed that fire wardens would normally only sweep areas that were on their way out of a building. However, further advice could be taken on this issue, and plans modified to take into account the greater risks that might exist in some buildings.

 

It was proposed to send the fire emergency action plan to Heads of Departments and Sections following approval by the Committee. It was anticipated that negotiations would be required in drawing up the plans for buildings shared by two or more Departments. It was likely that the Head of Department with responsibility for the largest amount of floor space would be required to assume ultimate responsibility for the fire emergency action plan in such buildings.

 

The Committee agreed to adopt the proposed plan, and asked for an update on progress at the next meeting.

ACTION: JMT, MH

 

The Deputy HS&E Officer indicated that sessions on basic fire safety training, including the operation of extinguishers, were likely to be held in October 2004.

 

04/16    Health, Safety and Environmental Officer’s Report

 

i)                 Training

Additional asbestos awareness sessions would be held during Summer 2004, sessions for manual handling assessors and trainers would be provided in September 2004, and the OHA intended to offer training for Display Screen Equipment (DSE) assessors and possibly users.

 

ii)                Occupation health issues

The OHA noted that the University’s existing accident statistics did not provide useful data on occupational health injuries, despite the fact that she regularly saw members of staff in relation to RSI and upper limb disorders. In future, these injuries would be formally reported, and reflected in the University’s accident statistics.

 

Some concern was expressed as to whether in assessing a member of staff as having an RSI-related injury, the University would be accepting liability for the condition. However, it was noted that the assessments would go no further than to suggest that RSI injuries might be in part work-related, or might have been aggravated by work, and that an expert opinion would be required to determine liability in any case.

 

The OHA expressed concerns that more could be done to ensure the University complied with national DSE  regulations. Assessors with responsibility for assessing individual workspaces had been nominated and received training. However, assessments needed to be carried out on a one-to-one basis, and the process was therefore very onerous for assessors. The University was also required to train all DSE users, and although useful information was available on the internet, there was concern that most staff were unaware of it.

 

It was suggested that it would be useful in promoting awareness of good practice in relation to DSE for the OHA to liaise with Chris Earle of the SDC to see if a link could be forged with the ‘Healthy Campus’ initiative.

 

04/17    Any other Business

 

It was suggested that hard copies of the University’s H&S policy should be distributed again, given the number of new policies that had been introduced since it was last circulated. The Deputy HS&E Officer noted that the policy was available on the web, and that it was very expensive to circulate a hard copy annually. It was also likely that the new HS&E Officer would review the policy as one of their first tasks.

 

04/18 Date of Next Meeting

 

            Wednesday 17 November 2004, 2pm

 

Author: C. Dunbobbin

Date: June 2004

Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved.