Health, Safety and Environment Committee

SAF04-M3

Minutes of the Eighty-ninth Meeting of the Health, Safety and Environment Committee held on 17 November 2004.

Mr J Blood (Chair)

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

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

Mr A R Eyre Mr C Gamble (ab) Mr M Harris

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

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

Ms J Marsden 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(ab)

Mr D W Wilson Mr R Wilson (ab)

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

Apologies for absence were received from: Mr M Clarson, Mr R Hill, Mr R Kirkwood, Mrs W E Llewellyn, Dr B Sharp, Mr JM Town, Mr R Wilson

The Chair began by welcoming Tom Fleming, who had taken over the role of Health, Safety and Environmental (HS&E) Officer in October 2004, and thanking Mike Harris for his efforts while the post had been vacant.

04/19 Minutes

The Minutes of the Eighty-eighth meeting of the Committee held on 9 June 2004 were confirmed and signed by the Chair.

04/20 Matters Arising from the Minutes

i) Fumes from combustion rig (Aeronautical Engineering)

There had been continuing problems with the running of the jet nozzle rig sited in a part of S-Building used for a research project by Aeronautical Engineering. In particular, the noise associated with running the rig ‘cold’ (i.e. with no fuel) had caused significant disturbance to the occupants of S-building. Two separate complaints had been made to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) about the noise problems, and Roger Amery, the Health and Safety Inspector at Northampton had visited the campus to inspect the rig. Mr Amery had expressed a reluctance to become involved in a detailed investigation, preferring that the matter was resolved internally. However, he had requested a report from the University before the end of the year on a conciliation process, the introduction of engineering and administrative controls, and other management actions to ensure there was a formula for resolution of the problem.

The Deputy HS&E Officer felt the noise produced by the rig was well below the daily noise exposure action levels outlined in the Noise at Work Regulations 1999. However, the noise was annoying, and distracting, and there was potential for harm to the well-being and health of individuals affected over a period of time.

It was noted that the Director of Estates Services had approached EMG to seek funds to investigate means of resolving the problems caused by fumes emitted from the rig when run ‘hot’ (i.e. with fuel), but the matter had been referred back to the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, as it was felt that the matter could be managed out without significant expenditure being incurred. It was apparent that the design of the nozzle had recently been changed, and it was now producing a noise with a much higher pitch than previously. A member confirmed that it was this high pitched humming that was now causing significant disturbance in the Chemical Engineering department, and concern was expressed about the level of disruption to student activities in particular, especially when the situation had been ongoing for such a lengthy period.

Doubts were also expressed about the statement in the Deputy HS&E Officer’s paper that there had been no further problems with regard to fumes when running the rig hot. It was apparent that an evacuation of part of S-Building had occurred at 4.35pm on 27 October 2004 because of emissions from the rig, but the accident report forms that had been used to log the incident had not been forwarded to the HS&E Office. The Deputy HS&E Officer noted that action was planned to ensure that accident report forms were not stored in departments without being properly referred to the HS&E Office, and suggested that the evacuation referred to may have been consistent with the existing operating protocol for the rig which allowed for running hot after 4.30pm. Nonetheless, it was noted that the protocol had only been intended as a short-term fix pending a permanent resolution to the fumes issue.

The Committee recognised that those running the rig were under pressure to conform to the terms of their research contract. However, the potential for the situation to develop into a serious health and safety issue was clear, and it was therefore agreed that the Committee would ask the Dean of the Engineering Faculty to produce a report outlining progress in respect of the new issue of noise from the rig, and providing an update on the disruption caused by fuel emissions, with proposals to resolve both aspects of the problem. It was felt that action on this matter was required prior to the next meeting of the HS&E Committee, so it was agreed that the Dean’s report should be submitted to the HS&E Officer within two weeks.

ii) Electrical safety

The requirements of the HSE improvement notice, issued following an electrical incident in Burleigh Court had been fully completed to the satisfaction of the HSE.

All Departments had been asked by the HS&E Office to complete a questionnaire outlining their arrangements for portable appliance testing to ensure compliance with the University’s policy and guidance. The Deputy HS&E Officer had received positive responses from all but two Departments, with whom ongoing discussions were taking place to resolve areas of inconsistency with the existing guidance.

iii) Small Works Policy

At the last meeting of the Committee, the Registrar and Deputy HS&E Officer had been asked to review the Small Works Policy, in the light of incidents involving workers contracted by Departments without the involvement of Estates Services, where the University’s Health and Safety standards had not been met. The Deputy HS&E Officer had subsequently asked all Heads of Department/Section and Departmental Safety Co-ordinators to provide details of any projects instigated solely by Departments that involved building or engineering works in the previous year. Only three responses had been received.

The HS&E Officer noted that even small jobs often involved interfering with the fabric of buildings, and that this raised the possibility of electrical wiring being affected, firebreaks being disrupted and so on. If Estates Service staff were not aware that such work had been carried out, they could be endangered when undertaking work on buildings where such small works had been carried out. It was therefore important to address this issue, and the fact that only three Departments had been able to respond to the Deputy HS&E Officer’s request was not satisfactory. It was proposed that the HS&E Officer would follow up the request for information on small works with those Heads of Department who had not responded. The Committee recognised that Heads of Department/Section were very busy, but agreed with this proposal, as Heads could delegate responsibility for this task.

ACTION: TF

iv) Environmental update / Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability

The Committee received a report on Sustainable Development Activity within Loughborough University, produced by Dr Vicky Lofthouse under the direction of Professor Ian Reid and Dr Eddie Norman. The report had been commissioned by EMG following a presentation by Professor Reid and Dr Norman on the implications for the University of the DfES document ‘Sustainable Development Action Plan for Education and Skills,’ launched by the Secretary of State in September 2003. It summarised the existing level of Sustainable Development activity in the University, as audited against the Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability’s on-line reporting tool framework, developed by Forum for the Future in collaboration with 18 UK based universities and colleges (including Loughborough). The indicators used in the reporting tool provided a way of identifying areas where the University was performing well, and highlighting areas where sustainability practices could be improved.

Professor Reid and Dr Norman had met with the Vice Chancellor and the Director of Estates Services earlier in the week, and the Vice Chancellor had been particularly keen to see agreement on an action plan with prioritised, realistic actions that would make a difference.

Professor Reid drew the Committee’s attention to the five recommendations on page 3 of the report, noting that they should be replaced with the following amended recommendations:

1. Loughborough University should formulate an Action Plan to
facilitate sustainable development. This should include development
of specific policy and the incorporation of Sustainable Development
in the Strategic Plan.

2. A section on Sustainable Development should be included in the
Annual Report.

3. The University should appoint a Sustainable Development Officer
with responsibility for leadership in this area.

4. A Sustainable Development Action Group should be established,
reporting to the Health, Safety & Environment Committee. This Group
should be chaired by the Deputy Chair of the Health, Safety &
Environment Committee. Membership should represent as many
constituencies as appropriate with members being nominated by the
Deputy Chair of the Health, Safety & Environment Committee.

The Chair felt the report was excellent, and suggested that given the heavy demands on the time of the authors, it would be appropriate to allocate top priority to the appointment of a dedicated Sustainable Development Officer. It was noted that there were obvious resource implications related to such an appointment, but that as part of a restructuring in Estates Services it was possible that half of an existing post would be allocated to this area. However this had yet to be confirmed, and in the meantime, it would be important to continue to capitalise on the efforts of those who were prepared to add some work on Sustainable Development to their existing portfolio of duties, to keep the momentum going.

The Committee enthusiastically endorsed the report and its recommendations, particularly the appointment of a Sustainable Development Officer.

It was noted that the reference on page 9 of the report, to the University using electricity from British Energy, which was principally a nuclear power provider, was incorrect. The University’s agreement with British Energy was actually nuclear-free.

v) Health and safety management in the Sports Development Centre and performance testing

The Deputy HS&E Officer reported that there had been a great deal of progress on actions recommended in relation to an audit of activities in the Sports Development Centre (SDC). There was evidence of a renewed enthusiasm on the part of the SDC to tackle the issues raised, with most actions having been completed or progressing well. Completed actions included the compilation of an up to date list of individuals trained and competent in venous blood sampling, and risk assessments undertaken in SDC facilities.

vi) Fire Risk Assessments and Fire Emergency Action Plans

The Deputy HS&E Officer reported that Fire Risk Assessments (FRAs) continued to be carried out, but at a slow pace, because the University’s Fire Safety Consultant was contracted for only one day per week. However, the University had a clear obligation under existing legislation to undertake these assessments and resources were therefore being sought to hasten their completion. It was also likely that in the light of new legislation which aimed to reduce the number of false fire alarms, the University would need to revisit its policy and procedures for the evacuation of residential and other buildings. It was anticipated that a paper on this would be presented to the next meeting of the Committee.

ACTION: MH

The HS&E Officer noted that the University should have begun addressing its obligations in relation to FRAs in the late 1990s, and was therefore around 6 years behind in this area. Taking into account new buildings and refurbishments, it was thought that it would take the existing Fire Consultant up to 10 years to complete the assessments that were required, in which time a serious incident could occur. The HS&E Officer had therefore arranged for the Fire Safety Consultant to prioritise assessments of new buildings and refurbishments to ensure that new problems were not being brought online. In the meantime, quotes would be sought from fire safety consultants to undertake FRAs in a full sweep of buildings on campus. Concern was expressed that such action would be expensive, and the HS&E Officer acknowledged that it was likely that a premium would be paid for the contracting of external fire safety consultants. However, this action was required by statute, and it was preferable for the work to be undertaken immediately rather than in the aftermath of a major incident.

One member asked for clarification on whether any risk assessments were already in place, and expressed concern that a full sweep of buildings on campus might uncover serious problems in existing arrangements. It was noted that full FRA reports had been completed for 16 buildings. Risk assessments had been carried out on other buildings, but they were outdated or in a format that did not comply with current legislation.

vii) Student placements overseas

The Committee received a paper from the Deputy HS&E Officer containing guidelines on health and safety when working overseas. The guidelines were intended to complement the recently completed policy and guidance on the placement of students, but it was hoped that they would also provide useful guidance to all who travelled or worked overseas.

The Vice Chancellor had asked whether the relevant Departments had been consulted on the document, and expressed concern that it might inappropriately inhibit student or staff opportunities for experience overseas. The Deputy HS&E Officer noted that the document had not yet been circulated to Departments, and accepted that it might be regarded as lengthy and/or unwieldy. However, it had been extracted in part from a document produced by Universities UK, and many other Universities had in place guidance that was just as lengthy, or longer.

Professor Reid noted that as the Head of a Department that offered overseas student placements, he was not worried about the length of the guidelines, and suggested that cutting the document unduly could lead to the omission of important information. The guidance was crucial in acting as a trigger to prompt thought about potential hazards, and the University’s reputation was at stake if an incident occurred.

Another member expressed concern that the document raised certain issues without giving an appropriate solution. For example it referred to a health questionnaire, but there was no guidance for Heads of Department/Section or Departmental Safety Officers on how to administer such a tool.

It was agreed that Committee members would be allowed an opportunity to give further consideration to the document and to submit comments to the HS&E Officer, before it was circulated to relevant Departments for comment.

ACTION: All, TF

04/21 Asbestos Update

The Deputy HS&E Officer provided an update on asbestos issues, and noted that removal work was taking place in the James France and Wavy Top buildings. The one building where significant amounts of sprayed asbestos insulation material remained was the Old Sports Hall Swimming Pool. However, work to remove this was due to commence imminently. There were some other buildings where removal work was also required, but these jobs were insignificant in comparison, and it was anticipated that the resources required would be found from existing budgets.

One member noted that the area around the Old Sports Hall was a major thoroughfare and hoped that it would not be blocked off when removal work began. The Deputy HS&E Officer noted that the removal would be a major project, but anticipated that every effort would be made to minimise disruption.

The University had received a number of compensation claims for asbestos-related ill-health; one had recently been settled, but three others were being investigated and were ongoing. It was noted that present exposure could lead to a claim in 30 years time, so even when all removal work on campus was completed, the potential for future claims would remain for some time.

04/22 Outline Strategic Health and Safety Plan

The HS&E Officer presented an outline health and safety strategy, focussing on the following areas:

1. A review of the University’s Health and Safety Policy, to clarify for all staff and students what the University intended to achieve in terms of health and safety, the responsibilities of each manager in achieving those targets, the policies and procedures to allow targets to be met, and the procedures for monitoring to ensure movement towards the achievement of those stated aims.

2. The construction of a health and safety training programme to ensure staff at all levels were sufficiently aware their health and safety responsibilities, and sufficiently skilled to discharge those responsibilities.

3. The establishment of a full programme of health and safety information sessions for academic and non-academic managers to help ensure management competency and accountability for health and safety responsibilities in their units.

4. The instigation of a University-wide health and safety audit programme.

5. Building on the existing good relationship between the HS&E Office and the trades unions.

6. The opening of a dialogue with, and establishment of a network of Departmental Safety Officers.

7. The establishment of a more robust accident/’near miss’ investigation system. In view of earlier comments about accident report forms not being forwarded to the HS&E Office, it was particularly important to stress that there was only one system for reporting accidents.

It was anticipated that detailed action plans would be put into place around this broad strategy, if approved.

The Committee welcomed and endorsed the plan. One member indicated support for point 6 in particular and suggested that DSOs would appreciate feeling part of a network or line of responsibility. Another member suggested that more reporting was needed on fire evacuations. Most buildings were evacuated at least once per year, and it was felt that the results of these exercises should be reported to the Committee on an annual basis. It was also suggested that the ‘near miss’ concept should be developed. It was important to gather as much information as possible on such incidents so that action could be taken where appropriate to prevent real accidents.

04/23 Health, Safety and Environmental Officer’s Report

This was incorporated into item 04/22.

04/24 Accident Statistics

This item was unstarred to take note of comments from the Vice Chancellor, that it was difficult to assess the significance of the numbers without comparison with previous quarters and explicit graphing of trends. Members suggested that comparisons with other institutions and/or national figures would also be helpful, and that statistics presented in graphical rather than tabular form tended to be easier to digest. It was noted that this was the first report to include figures on occupational health, and it was likely that these incidents were still under-reported. Members also felt that the ‘Other’ column in the breakdown of types of accident / dangerous occurrence should be broken down further to reveal any trends that might otherwise remain hidden. A high incidence of accidents involving visitors was noted, and it was felt that the apparent increase in this area could be directly related to the significant increase in the number of visitors coming onto campus in recent years. Finally, it was suggested that time and effort in the production of statistics could be saved by giving consideration to the adoption of improved computer software facilities for use by all with reporting and/or recording responsibilities.

The HS&E Office had produced accident statistics showing a 5 year trend previously, and it was proposed that statistics for 2004 would be presented to the next meeting, including comparisons with previous years and other institutions.

ACTION: TF, MH

04/25 Any other Business

Concern was expressed about the apparent increase in accidents and near misses involving individuals on bicycles, often riding dangerously, and/or without lights. There was general agreement that not all such incidents were being reported, and some consternation as to what could be done, when the Security Office had already taken steps to raise awareness amongst the student population in particular of the importance of road safety for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. Despite such efforts, anecdotal evidence suggested that the message was not getting through, and it was noted in particular that there were a large number of students on campus from countries where there was less emphasis on road safety than in the UK, and that the situation was exacerbated by the fact that the 15mph speed limit that applied on campus for all vehicles was often not observed. Although it was acknowledged that individuals ultimately had to take some responsibility for their own safety, there was a feeling amongst some members that if the situation continued, there could be a very serious incident. The Committee noted its concern on this issue, and agreed that the HS&E Officer should discuss the matter again with the Security Office to consider whether any further action could be taken.

ACTION: TF

04/26 Date of Next Meeting

Wednesday 23 February 2005, 2pm.

Author: C Dunbobbin

Date: November 2004