Health, Safety and Environment Committee

SAF05-M1

Minutes of the Ninetieth Meeting of the Health, Safety and Environment Committee held on 23 February 2005.

Mr J Blood (Chair)

Mrs K Bedwell (ab) Dr E D Brown (ab) Mr M C Brown

Mr M Clarson Dr S E Dann (ab) Mr A R Eyre

Mr T Fleming Mr C Gamble (ab) Mr M Harris

Dr R A Haskins (ab) Mr R A Hill (ab) Mrs W Jones

Mr D Jordan Mr R Kirkwood (ab) Mrs W E Llewellyn (ab)

Ms J Marsden (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 (ab) Mr J M Town

Mr D W Wilson Mr R Wilson

In attendance: Mr C Dunbobbin, Committee Secretary, Mr N Elkington (in place of Mr R Hill)

Apologies for absence were received from: Dr E D Brown, Dr S E Dann, Mr R Hill, Mr R Kirkwood, Mrs W E Llewellyn, Ms J Marsden

05/1 Minutes

The Minutes of the Eighty-ninth meeting of the Committee held on 17 November 2004 were confirmed and signed by the Chair.

05/2 Matters Arising from the Minutes

i) Fumes from combustion rig (Aeronautical Engineering)

Since the last meeting of the Committee, the Health, Safety and Environmental (HS&E) Officer had received a report from the Dean of the Engineering Faculty, and (with the assistance of a small working group, established to deal with this issue) had conducted further investigations into the sources of both the fume-based and acoustic problems associated with the rig. It had become clear that the acoustic issues were more difficult to resolve than had been initially envisaged (even by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Inspector who had visited the site), and it was apparent that they had been at least in part self-created, by locating the rig in unsuitable premises.

Quotations were being sought for work to resolve the problems, but this was a time-consuming process, and it was likely to be a further month before full figures were available. At that stage, it was proposed that the HS&E Officer, along with the Dean, would present Operations Sub-Committee with three fully-costed options:

1. Take no action, in which case it was likely that the HSE would ultimately take the matter out of the University’s hands and close down the rig.

2. Undertake work to resolve the problems while keeping the rig in its existing location.

3. Move the rig to another, more appropriate site.

If funding was agreed, it was likely that remedial work would take at least a further six months, and would need to take into account the commitments of those running the rig under the terms of their research contract. Continued efforts to manage the problems would therefore be required in the meantime, although it was noted that none of the problems created a serious and immediate risk to health.

The Committee endorsed the HS&E officer’s long-term plan for resolving the matter, providing a clear timescale was set for reaching a decision on the appropriate action to be taken. However, several members felt the existing protocol for using the rig in the meantime was unsatisfactory, because it allowed the possibility of ongoing disruption to staff and students. The Committee therefore agreed that the HS&E Officer should liaise further with the Dean to encourage open dialogue between the parties involved. It was hoped that this would help to prevent further disruptive incidents pending the implementation of a long term solution.

ACTION: TF

ii) Small Works Policy

Only six responses had been received to a questionnaire sent by the Deputy HS&E Officer to all Department and Section Heads, asking for details of building or engineering work carried out under the Small Works Policy, and it therefore remained difficult to ascertain the full extent of any problem in this area. It was agreed that the HS&E Office would attempt to improve the response rate by chasing-up Heads, and clarifying that details were required on small works undertaken by Departments where contractors were recruited on the recommendation of Estates Services, but not through Estates Services in a formal sense.

ACTION: MH

iii) Student placements overseas

The Deputy HS&E Officer noted that the Guidelines on Health and Safety When Working Overseas had been circulated to all Department and Section Heads. All the comments received had been positive, and a small number of minor suggested improvements had been incorporated into the final version. The Committee approved the guidelines.

05/3 Asbestos Update

The Deputy HS&E Officer reported that the evacuation of areas surrounding the Old Sports Hall Swimming Pool was likely to be completed before the end of April, and work on the removal of asbestos insulation material could then commence. It was a large project, but concerns had been held for some time about the deteriorating state of the asbestos in the location, and it was important that it was removed without further delay.

05/4 Radiological Protection

The Radiation Protection Officer presented her annual report for the year ending 31 December 2004, and highlighted the following:

· A busy year had begun with a thorough inspection by the Environmental Agency (EA) on work with open radioactive sources. The inspector had noted that the University’s existing waste disposal system did not comply with current working practices, as it did not include an outline of the best practical means of disposal. A new waste authorisation application was therefore requested, and this had subsequently been produced and sent to the EA. An unauthorised discharge of radioactive waste had occurred, but this had been only a technical infringement.

· As a result of heightened concerns relating to terrorist activities involving the use of radioactive material, security at two sensitive sites on campus had been increased in accordance with advice from Leicestershire Police. Security had also been improved through the disposal of 15 old radioactive sources over the course of the year.

· API Foils, a spin-out company based on campus, had successfully applied to the EA for authorisation to hold radioactive sources, and was now responsible for its own holdings. Advantica also held a number of small radioactive sources, and discussion ensued on the procedures in place to ensure the University was aware of any hazardous materials kept by tenant organisations. It was noted that in the event of an emergency such as a serious fire, the University would need to be able to advise on any special risks in order to comply with its health and safety obligations. It was agreed that a report should be submitted to the next meeting on whether the appropriate reporting clauses existed in the lease agreements between the University and its tenants, and if so, whether these clauses were being properly adhered to.

ACTION: HS&E Office, Estates Services

· Through the persistence of the Radiation Officer, the University had received from the EA a rebate of 50% of the cost of disposing of its old radioactive sources in 2004.

There was discussion on the processes involved in acquiring new radioactive sources. Some risk was involved in increasing the University’s stock of radioactive material, because the future cost of disposal was unknown. It was very important, therefore, that careful consideration was given to any proposal to purchase new sources, and the Registrar had been involved in this process.

05/5 Work at Heights Policy

The Deputy HS&E Officer presented the proposed new Work at Heights Policy, which had been developed by a working group set up by the Chair of the Asset Risk Improvement Task Group, and was intended as an introduction to the Work at Height Regulations 2004. There were additional Codes of Practice not included in the paper received by the Committee.

The Vice-Chancellor’s comments that the policy was lengthy, and that a more compact version was likely to help with achieving understanding and ownership were noted, and it was suggested that these concerns could be met in two ways:

1. The working group had also produced an executive summary, which could be circulated to senior managers with the policy.

2. The index could be enhanced to provide more detail on the main areas covered by the policy.

Subject to these modifications, the Committee felt the policy was an excellent and detailed source of information and agreed to endorse it.

05/6 Fire Safety Policy

The HS&E Officer presented the proposed new policy on Fire Prevention, Precautions and Emergency Evacuation Procedures, which was part of a wider strategy to address the risk of fire across campus. Another strand to this was the expected appointment by April 2005, of a full-time Fire Safety Officer (FSO). The main focus of the FSO’s job would be to carry out fire risk assessments, and it was anticipated that s/he would complete the initial round of assessments and bring the University up to date with its statutory obligations in this area within 12 months of being appointed. (It was noted that recruiting consultants to undertake the assessments would have been quicker, but not necessarily more effective, as those involved in the assessments would not then be involved in dealing with the issues identified. It was felt that it was better for the University to take full ownership of this process).

One of the main problems with the University’s existing fire safety arrangements was that procedures differed from building to building, and in some locations (such as halls of residence), varied depending on the time of day. The proposed reforms were triggered in part by pressure from the local fire service; there had been 360 incidents on campus to which the fire service had been alerted in the previous year, and only one of these had been a genuine fire. (Most of the false alarms originated in halls, and were caused by burnt toast, aerosols and showers). The policy was intended to encourage occupants of buildings to take ownership of their fire safety procedures at a local level, with assistance from the HS&E Office. It was therefore broken down into manageable sections to help managers to allocate responsibilities appropriately.

There was some discussion on section 2.5. It was noted that some academics lectured in several buildings (not just their own department), so while there was a role for Departmental Safety Officers in providing training to staff on fire safety issues in their own building, it was also important that lecturers were aware of evacuation procedures in other buildings. Information on the location of fire exits was already posted by the entrance to lecture rooms, although it was acknowledged that in some cases, this could be improved by providing better directions to assembly points for those unfamiliar with the location. Ultimately, it was agreed that academics should bear responsibility for ensuring they were familiar with the fire safety procedures for any room in which they lectured, and for knowing that they were responsible for clearing the room in the event of an alarm.

One member asked whether localised training, co-ordinated by the HS&E Office would be reinstated in conjunction with the new policy. The HS&E Officer noted that a new programme of this nature had already been started in halls of residence and it was likely that it would be extended to all departments and sections. Once the new policy was approved, it would be crucial to train all of those with responsibilities under it as quickly as possible.

In relation to section 2.6, there was some discussion on appropriate procedures for temporarily disabled people (e.g. those using crutches because of a sporting injury). Such individuals were often unaware of the risk created by their immobility, and it was important that they were identified so that appropriate arrangements could be made for their evacuation. It was agreed that the onus had to be placed on individuals to alert their department if they were affected by a temporary immobility issue, and that awareness-raising on this issue should be incorporated into evacuation drills. There was also some discussion on refuges (e.g. stairways) within buildings. Concern was expressed that in many locations, there was no means of getting a message out from these areas. The HS&E Officer noted that until the fire risk assessments were completed, it would not be possible to ascertain the number of people with mobility issues, who needed a personal evacuation strategy, and it was therefore difficult to identify the level of resource that was required. When this information was available, it would be possible to take appropriate steps, such as the installation of intercom systems, or the provision of walkie-talkie facilities.

The Committee agreed to endorse the policy.

05/7 Laser Safety Policy

The Committee endorsed the proposed new Laser Safety Policy, which had been updated to take into account of developments in technology, and new regulations.

05/8 Health, Safety and Environmental Officer’s Report

There were no additional items in the HS&E Officers report.

05/9 Accident Statistics

The Committee agreed that the new presentation style of the accident statistics represented a great improvement, as it allowed easy comparisons with data from previous years.

05/10 Any Other Business

It was noted that from 1 April 2005, the Occupational Health Advisor would be joining the University on a full-time basis.

05/11 Date of Next Meeting

Wednesday 15 June 2005, 2pm.

Author: C Dunbobbin

Date: February 2005

Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved.