HSE/20/A02

18-Mar-20 FOI Status Closed s36

2020/15857

Open Board meeting Presenter

14:15 5 Welcome and introductions

Declarations of interest

Chair's update Verbal update

Chair

14:30 6 Chief Executive's Report

Finance and performance review

HSE/20/09

HSE/20/10

Sarah Albon

David Murray

15:00 7 HSE Business Plan 2020/21 HSE/20/11 Sarah Albon

15:30 8 Tackling disproportionate health and

safety rules (‘blue tape’)

HSE/20/12 Jeremy Bevan

16:00 9 HSE Science Review HSE/20/13 Andrew Curran

16:30 Meeting ends

HSE Research Summaries HSE/20/14Paper for

information

Health and Safety Executive Board

Meeting date

AGENDA

HSE Board Meeting 17/18 March 2020

Location:

17 March - HSE Sheffield Office - 13:30 - 15:30

18 March - Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, Sheffield

CM9 Ref

Twitter: @H_S_E Facebook: hsegovuk Instagram: @hsegovuk

HSE Health and Safety Executive Board HSE/20/09

Meeting Date: 18 March 2020 FOI Status: Partially open

Type of Paper: For discussion Exemptions: S35 (annex)

CM9 Reference: 2020/71681

Chief Executive’s Report

This report highlights recent HSE activities and achievements to take forward our Business Plan for 2019/20.

Lead and engage with others to improve workplace health and safety

Coronavirus: Coronavirus is a public health issue and Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC), working closely with Public Health England (PHE) and the devolved administrations, is the lead government department for the response. HSE is working closely with DHSC, PHE and others as part of the UK Government’s response and stands ready to offer information and advice on workplace and workforce issues. For example, we have already provided advice on personal protective equipment for healthcare workers and others. PHE has provided guidance for the public and workers in a range of sectors on gov.uk and HSE has worked with them to ensure that work related guidance is compatible with health and safety requirements.

Welding Fumes: Following the recognition that inhaling mild steel welding fumes gives rise to a risk of developing lung cancer and our subsequent safety alert, we have promoted the new welding fumes guidance to relevant employers. This has resulted in 17,581 downloads of our guidance. We have also written to businesses who carry out mild steel welding incorporating Behavioural Insights in our approach. We have introduced a ‘commitment device’, asking respondents to reply to confirm that they have taken appropriate action ahead of targeted inspection activity taking place until the end of March 2020. This will be fully evaluated to allow us to understand the impact of pre-inspection activity, and in particular differences in responses, which might lead us towards better and more effective targeting.

Agriculture: The communications strand of our blended approach to interventions in agriculture is helping to deliver guidance around managing four significant risk areas in agriculture: managing livestock; children on farms; falls from height; and machinery and transport. In quarter 4 of 2019/20, we are focusing on machinery and transport risks. We worked in collaboration with key stakeholders including the Farm Safety Partnership, NFU and Farm Safety Foundation to identify and target key online farming influencers and to deliver user led content, including ‘What a good farm looks like’ which over the last year of our communications campaign has led to 5,750 downloads.

Lone workers: A new leaflet and dedicated webpages for Lone workers were launched on 2 March 2020. Lone workers face the same hazards at work as anyone else, but there is a greater risk of these hazards causing harm as they may not have anyone to help or support them if things go wrong. This is an important piece of

Twitter: @H_S_E Facebook: hsegovuk Instagram: @hsegovuk

guidance which has been updated to reflect the changing world of work, recognising the increase in lone workers across all sectors and will help employers manage risks and keep lone workers healthy and safe. The guidance and new web pages are for anyone who employs lone workers or takes them on as contractors, including some self-employed people who work alone, and for lone workers. The updated guidance includes a new section on how to protect lone workers from the risk of work related violence; new advice on the impact lone working can have on stress, mental health and wellbeing and more information on how managers should keep in touch with lone workers.

Provide an effective regulatory framework

Transition period with the European Union: The UK left the European Union at 11pm on 31 January under the Withdrawal Agreement and entered a transition period until 31 December 2020. Under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, European Union law will apply in the UK until the end of the transition period. Information was placed on our website to inform stakeholders what the transition period means for compliance with their duties. We also held a webinar for our staff to inform them about exit day and to answer questions about the change in the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union. During the transition period the government will negotiate with the European Commission about the future relationship that will apply after the end of December. We will contribute to the government’s work to prepare for the outcome of those negotiations.

Secure effective management and control of risk

Securing compliance with the law: We completed 77 prosecutions between 1 December 2019 and 29 February 2020, with 73 of these resulting in at least one guilty verdict (conviction rate 95%). Violence and aggression to HSE staff: In February 2020, Jacob Alexander Thompson, a dutyholder from a recycling facility, pleaded guilty to an offence under Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986, after he threatened one our inspectors attempting to conduct an inspection at the facility. Mr Thompson was ordered to pay £100 in compensation to our inspector, and to pay costs of £85. He also received a conditional discharge, meaning that should he commit a further offence within the next six months, the court may reconsider the sentence in this matter. Whilst these serious cases are rare, HSE will not tolerate violence, aggression or abuse of our staff and we will look to the police and Crown Prosecution Service to pursue such cases through the courts.

Reduce the likelihood of low-frequency, high-impact catastrophic incidents

Chevron Pembroke explosion: We have published an overview report on the amine regeneration unit explosion in 2011 which killed four employees. In the report, we share further information about the underlying causes of this catastrophic failure of safety management systems so that everyone in major hazard industries can learn from this incident.

Twitter: @H_S_E Facebook: hsegovuk Instagram: @hsegovuk

Parliamentary activity/engagement:

HSE’s Chair and Chief Executive appeared before the Work and Pensions Select Committee to answer questions on the work and performance of HSE. The session was the first public evidence hearing held by the Committee in the new Parliament. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions also visited our Redgrave Court headquarters on 6 March and learnt more about our work in the Major Hazards sector, Hydrogen Safety – Helping to Achieve Net Zero and workplace mental health. She also visited colleagues in our Concerns and Advice Team and witnessed three main areas we deal with: general enquiries; requests for advice/technical advice; and health and safety concerns.

Page 1 of 4

Health and Safety Executive Board HSE/20/10

Meeting Date: 18 March 2020 FOI Status: Open

Type of Paper: For discussion Exemptions:

CM9 Reference: 2020/77856

Performance and Finance Review

David Murray

FOR DISCUSSION

The Board is invited to discuss the Month 11 Performance and Finance Review.

KEY INFORMATION

Key Performance Indicators and Targets

1. Annex A summarises the forecast performance against the 2019/20 Business Plan KPIs and Targets. Key points to note:

i) The forecast for the 54 milestone deliverables is that we will deliver 85-87% in the financial year. A small number of deliverables will not be achieved due to events outside our control.

ii) The targets for fatal, non-fatal investigations and concerns are all expected to be achieved. This represents a considerable amount of effort and we have seen a small increase in the number of investigations compared to prior years which have impacted upon other regulatory outputs.

iii) The stretch target for average working day lost of 6 days will not be achieved with a forecast of 7 days for the year. Short-term performance is in line with expectations, but long-term absence is higher than anticipated.

Month 11 Financial Review

2. The summary financial position at Month 11 is set out in Annex B and shows a net resource underspend of £2.4m and a capital underspend of £1.8m. The capital budget is forecasted to be fully utilised. Overall the forecast position at year end will be a £6.6m underspend with the main reasons as follows:

• £3.9m of DWP EU Exit funding for a No Deal scenario which has been allocated but not utilised

• £1.0m overachievement against commercial income target

• Continued delays in recruitment

The underlying financial position overall will be a small underspend.

Spending Review

3. HMT have determined that SR19 will be a one-year rollover of budget and an update has been provided in the draft 2020/21 Budget paper. No commission has yet to be received for SR 20.

Page 2 of 4

Cost Recovery Regimes

4. At the June meeting, the Board agreed to the cost recovery proposals. The consultation document is being finalised and further discussions held to progress.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS/OPPORTUNITIES

5. Management Board is undertaking a risk workshop following the production of the Business Plan to consider the strategic and operational risks to HSE. This will be presented for consideration to the April 2020 Audit and Risk Assurance Committee and HSE Board.

HANDLING AND COMMUNICATIONS

6. Month 11 financial position will be discussed at the March Management Board with a specific focus on milestone delivery. MB members will cascade key messages to their respective Divisions.

ANNEX A: Key Performance Indicators and Targets

ANNEX B: Month 11 Summary Financial Position

Page 3 of 4

Key Performance Indicators and Targets for 2019/20 ANNEX A

DESCRIPTION 2019/20 TARGET

FORECAST OUTTURN

Milestones in plan

90% 85-87%

Fatal investigations Completed within 12 months of HSE assuming primacy

80%

81-83%

Non-fatal investigations: Completed within 12 months of the incident

90%

90%

Health and safety concerns: Completed within agreed timescales

75%

74-75%

Financial: Deliver a balanced budget

Yes

Achieved

People: Engagement Engagement Index (as measured by the Civil Service People Survey)

57%

54%

People: Health and safety of our staff: Average working-days lost per full-time equivalent

6.0 days

7.0 days

People: Bullying, harassment and discriminations Percentage of staff who have personally experienced Bullying and harassment at work during the past 12 Months (as measured by the Civil Service People Survey)

10%

13%

Page 4 of 4

Month 11 Summary Financial Position ANNEX B

YTD Budget Variance Feb

Forecast *Budget Variance

Staff Costs 130,857 131,627 -770 143,080 147,454 -4,374

Non Payroll 61,822 65,076 -3,254 72,707 71,796 911

Depreciation 6,457 6,489 -32 7,400 7,400 0

Total Expenditure 199,136 203,192 -4,056 223,187 226,650 -3,463

Fees and Charges 52,128 54,342 -2,214 60,055 57,405 2,650

Commercial 17,755 17,350 406 20,425 19,460 965

Other Income 13,624 13,513 112 14,850 14,335 515

Total Income 83,507 85,204 -1,697 95,330 91,200 4,130

Net Expenditure 115,628 117,988 -2,360 127,857 135,450 -7,593

Capital 4,002 5,834 -1,832 7,700 6,700 1,000

Total Expenditure 119,631 123,822 -4,192 135,557 142,150 -6,593

*includes DWP EU Exit funding

Page 1 of 2

Health and Safety Executive Board HSE/20/11

Meeting Date: 18 March 2020 FOI Status: Closed

Type of Paper: For Decision FOI Exemptions (if applicable):

S36

CM9 Reference: 2020/77883

HSE Business Plan 2020/21

David Murray

FOR DECISION

The Board is invited to approve the 2020/21 Business Plan at Annex A.

KEY INFORMATION

1. The Business Plan 2020/21 (Annex A) brings together our key actions and deliverables as the national regulator for health and safety. These are brigaded under five themes of:

• Lead and engage with others to improve workplace health and safety

• Provide an effective regulatory framework

• Secure effective management and control of risk

• Reduce the likelihood of low frequency, high-impact catastrophic incidents

• Enable improvement through efficient and effective delivery.

2. While the themes of the plan are consistent with previous years, we have provided more context for the reader in terms of what we do and why; as well as seeking to make it more visually appealing.

3. The plan recognises our broadening role beyond worker safety to encompass public safety assurance on a wide range of issues, enabling businesses, protecting the environment and ensuring critical national infrastructure to function. It also attempts to strike a balance between maintaining current levels of regulatory work and that establishing the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) and a new UK chemical regime will complement HSE rather than detract from our core role.

4. The plan aims to give a sense of balance across the breadth of our work – from leadership & influence through to direct interventions. The contents are consistent with priorities set out in our core strategic documents: Helping GB work well, sector plans, and the health and work programme. There is also closer alignment with key government priorities such as energy transition and hydrogen economy.

5. All Board comments have been addressed where possible including:

• Further justification for 15,000 inspections which will be an increase on 2019/20 performance

• Increasing and strengthening the deliverables in respect of BSR specifically around engagement

Page 2 of 2

• Highlighting the opportunities of BSR

• Stating interventions for major hazards

• Highlighting stretch of HR targets

• Significantly strengthening the role of science throughout the plan

• Infographic to include work with stakeholders (not yet reflected in the Annex A version)

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS/OPPORTUNITIES

6. The plan, as presented, is affordable within our planned financial resources for 2020/21. Discussions continue with DWP, DEFRA and MHCLG in respect of funding for transition period work (EU) and establishing the BSR.

IMPACT ON DEVOLVED GOVERNMENTS/REGIONS

7. Implications of this plan on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been considered. Any specific actions relating to the Devolved Administrations have been included as appropriate including continuing engagement on building safety.

EQUALITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION CONSIDERATIONS

8. There are no wider equality, diversity and inclusion considerations.

HANDLING AND COMMUNICATIONS

9. The Business Plan has been shared with DWP Partnership Team and any significant points raised will be presented at the meeting.

10. The plan will be subject to further proof reading and full review of content and design. Our current proposal is to publish the plan in early April subject to Ministerial clearance.

Annex A: Draft business plan

HSE BUSINESS PLAN 2020/21

Figure 1: The challenge and how we are tackling it

Introduction

1

Our purpose to prevent work-related death, injury and ill health is as valid today as it has always been. Over time though, our role though has broadened to encompass public safety assurance on a wide range of issues, enabling business, protecting the environment and ensuring critical national infrastructure to function through our major hazard permissioning approaches and our work on cyber security. As the infographic in Figure 1 indicates, we apply a range of regulatory tools to improve health and safety, bringing together different interventions to achieve impact. We influence and engage stakeholders, create knowledge and awareness of health and safety risks and encourage behaviour change through assessments and direct interventions including inspections, investigations and prosecutions. Our science, engineering and analytical capability complements our policy and operational activities. It is internationally recognised in developing and supporting practical solutions to workplace health and safety problems. Our commercial work is fully aligned to our purpose and is a further intervention which positively impacts health and safety outcomes. In the last year we have made significant strides towards our future undertaking a strategic review to ensure that we remain relevant in the ever-changing world of work and that our activities are closely aligned to key government priorities. At the same time, we have continued to deliver a wide range of regulatory activity. In January 2020, the government announced a package of measures that will help ensure that high-risk buildings are safe for people to occupy, following the Grenfell Tower tragedy. These measures include a new Building Safety Regulator (BSR) in England that will oversee the design, construction and occupation of high-risk buildings and the BSR will be established as part of HSE. We are proud the government has asked HSE to establish the new BSR and this decision recognises our skills and experience regulating safety issues and our track record working with industry and other regulators. It will give us the opportunity to extend our reach and influence on issues that impact on many people’s lives, and in areas where we already operate, such as construction and gas safety. It will enable us to utilise our existing infrastructure to support more regulation as well as the ability to create new roles and opportunities. We will continue to engage with the devolved administrations on building safety. The year ahead will be significant in supporting government-wide activities including developing a new chemicals regime during the transition period with the European Union (EU) and establishing the BSR. This Business Plan for 2020/21 is designed to ensure that the establishment of the BSR and our transition period work will compliment, and not detract from, our core regulatory and business functions. The plan outlines our key areas of work for 2020/21; reinforcing our existing commitment to:

• lead and engage with others to improve workplace health and safety;

• provide an effective regulatory framework focusing on BSR and to prepare for the outcome of the transition period with the EU;

• secure effective management and control of risk;

• reduce the likelihood of low-frequency, high-impact catastrophic incidents;

• enable improvement through efficient and effective delivery.

Introduction

2

Our work builds on the sound regulatory framework HSE has helped develop and on our focus on reducing harm. We will continue to tackle long-standing problems such as work-related ill health and help smaller businesses to manage risks proportionately. We will also deal with emerging risks such as the decommissioning and dismantling of offshore oil and gas infrastructure. We recognise the world of work is evolving and we will prepare for Energy Transition so we can regulate and support the government’s priority of achieving Net Zero carbon and the emerging Hydrogen economy. We will continue to work collaboratively with other regulators where our interests align. We will hold people to account and take enforcement action when they fail to manage work-related risk. The world and our approach may change but one thing remains the same – the commitment of those who work for HSE to reduce risk, protect people and the environment and to save lives. We are privileged to lead them to deliver on the commitments outlined in this plan.

Martin Temple Chair

Contents

3

4 5

Our plan on a page Summary of milestone delivery

7 Lead and engage with others to improve workplace health and safety 12 Provide an effective regulatory framework 16 Secure effective management and control of risk 21

Reduce the likelihood of low-frequency, high-impact catastrophic incidents

25 Enable improvement through efficient and effective delivery 29 Financial outlook for 2019/20 30 Monitoring our delivery

Our plan on a page

4

Our mission The prevention of death, injury and ill health to those at work and

those affected by work activities

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Our objectives

Lead and engage with others

to improve workplace health and

safety

Provide an effective

regulatory framework

Secure effective management and

control of risk

Reduce the likelihood of low-frequency, high-impact catastrophic

incidents

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Our priorities for

2020/21

Continue to focus our activity on tackling ill health as part of the

Heath and Work programme

Establish the Building Safety Regulator in

shadow form ahead of legislation

Target our inspections on specific issues and activities, including a

sustained focus on work related ill health

Provide assurance that dutyholders are

identifying and managing the major hazard risks

they create

Share the learning from our expert science and

research with those who can influence workplace

health and safety performance

As part of transition period, establish the full operating capability of a new UK chemical regime

Investigate to swiftly tackle and reduce risks, securing accountability

for victims and their families

Strengthen major hazard leadership and worker

engagement

Embed learning on business to business burdens into policy

design and communication

Prepare and contribute to the Energy Transition (Net Zero) government priority and development of the

renewables sector

Operate effective statutory schemes,

ensuring the safe use of potentially harmful

substances

Deliver a robust and consistent regulation of decommissioning and

dismantlement of oil and gas infrastructure

Raise operators’ focus on cyber security to ensure appropriate protection against major incidents

↑ ↑

Our Enablers

Enable improvement through efficient and effective delivery

↑ ↑ ↑

Invest in our infrastructure focussing on IT to ensure we are fit

for the future

Support our people to be the best they can by

improving inclusion and wellbeing

Secure a sustainable financial future for HSE

by improving performance through

data

Summary of milestone delivery

5

Our areas of focus and milestone deliverables in the plan can be summarised as follows: Lead and engage with others to improve workplace health and safety Continue to focus our activity on tackling ill health as part of Health and Work programme ❖ Respond to green paper: Advancing our Health Prevention in 2020s ❖ Engage with DWP to respond to Health is Everyone’s Business ❖ Publish improved guidance on implementing good quality health surveillance ❖ Establish partnership agreement with new Public Health Scotland organisation ❖ Deliver survey to track employer awareness and action on HSE’s three health priorities ❖ Promote MSDs through Reducing risk through design award (2020) ❖ Publish bespoke work-related stress materials for public sector organisations Share the learning from our expert science and research with those who can influence ❖ Deliver an agreed communications plan to disseminate findings ❖ Ensure measures in place to assess impact of health and work programme and publish ❖ Share our capability in a key government priority areas ❖ Deliver commercial training content in two defined topic areas Embed learning on business to business burdens into policy design and communications ❖ Support launch of a reformed Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register Provide an effective regulatory framework Establish the Building Safety Regulator in shadow form ahead of legislation ❖ Design a proportionate safety case system ❖ Develop a communications plan and deliver first phase ❖ Agree roles and responsibilities through the Joint Regulators Group ❖ Support development of policy and legislation to establish BSR As part of the transition period, establish the full operating capability of a new UK chemical regime ❖ Agree funding and capability programme for new UK chemical regime ❖ Establish effective regulatory framework for UK chemicals by January 2021 Prepare and contribute to the Energy Transition (Net Zero) government priority ❖ Review regulatory framework for carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) ❖ Engage with industry and stakeholders regarding regulatory changes for CCUS ❖ Evaluate effectiveness of BEIS Hydrogen Programme Delivery Secure effective management and control of risk Target our inspections on specific issues including work related ill health ❖ Undertake a programme of c. 15,000 proactive inspections which includes specific focus

on: o c. 700 in woodworking sector o c. 200 on control of flour dust o c. 1,100 on control of welding fumes o c. 355 in waste and recycling sector o c. 400 in agriculture o c. 1.000 in one major health-focused construction initiative o c. 255 to fixed and travelling fairgrounds including inflatables

Investigate to swiftly tackle and reduce risks, securing accountability for victims and families

Summary of milestone delivery

6

❖ Complete 80% of fatal investigations with 12 months of primacy ❖ Complete 90% of non-fatal investigations within 12 months Operate effective statutory schemes, ensuring the safe use of potentially harmful substances ❖ Complete 90% of plant product evaluations and authorisations ❖ Complete 80% of biocide product evaluation and authorisations ❖ Establish pesticide enforcement function ❖ Programme of inspections to ensure compliance with Control of Asbestos Regulations ❖ 90% of asbestos licence applications completed to time Reduce the likelihood of low-frequency, high impact catastrophic incidents Provide assurances that dutyholders are identifying and managing their major hazard risks ❖ A programme of inspections to address priority areas at major hazard sites ❖ Assess 75% of safety cases and reports to agreed timescales ❖ Assess licences, classifications, notifications and authorisations to timescales Strengthen major hazard leadership and worker engagement ❖ Targeted inspections to assess leadership in major hazard control ❖ Targeted inspections focused on offshore tier 1 contractors Deliver robust and consistent regulation of decommissioning and dismantling of oil and gas infrastructure ❖ Provide training in regulation of onshore decommissioning and dismantlement ❖ Engage stakeholders to clarify regulations of decommissioning and dismantlement Raise operators’ focus on cyber security to ensure appropriate protection against major incidents ❖ Programme of cyber security inspections ❖ Programme of inspections to assess risks from accidental introduction of malware Enable improvement through efficient and effective delivery Invest in our infrastructure focussing on IT to ensure we are fit for the future ❖ Complete network redesign project supported by external assurance ❖ Deliver data centre migration project to external hosting ❖ Redesign and replace outdated IT infrastructure in Buxton ❖ Complete five office moves ❖ Develop an agreed HSE information governance framework Support our people to be the best they can by improving inclusion and wellbeing ❖ Embed arrangements for prevention of mental ill health and promotion of wellbeing ❖ Reduce average working-days lost (AWDL) to 6.0 days per FTE (7 days in 2019/20) ❖ Deliver a programme of leadership events ❖ Hold a series of all staff events ❖ Achieve an Engagement Index score of 57% (6% improvement) ❖ Develop an agreed, robust and evidence-based pay business case ❖ Improve recruitment process by reducing time to hire by 11 days ❖ Reduce instances of bullying and harassment by 23% Secure a sustainable financial future for HSE by improving performance through data ❖ Develop our Spending Review 2020 case ❖ Consult on cost recovery proposals and put enabling legislation in place ❖ Develop visual Performance Hub

Lead and engage with others to improve workplace health and safety

7

The Helping Great Britain (GB) work well strategy1 recognises a need for broad ownership of health and safety. Anyone who carries out or influences workplace activities or behaviours has a key role. We are committed to playing our part in enabling others to create healthier, safer workplaces and, through our expertise, reduce the cost of workplace injury and ill health to the economy while helping improve productivity. We have a key role in advising the GB and devolved governments’ wider health and work priorities. As the governments’ chief occupational health adviser2, we have expertise in the causes of work-related ill health, and the measures which can prevent or minimise it. However, the health of the working population is not solely related to workplace conditions. Our aim is to reduce work-related ill health through the application and enforcement of health and safety legislation, and by supporting and seeking to influence wider health interventions where they are linked with work and employment. For example, we provide advice to the joint Work and Health Unit at the Department for Work and Pensions and Department of Health and Social Care

We see opportunities in bringing our expertise to work with others across government departmental boundaries to address national issues, for example, improving health outcomes as described in the NHS long term plan (for England).

As well as tailoring direct interventions with individual businesses to achieve behavioural change we provide: ❖ focused engagement and collaboration across networks with a strong interest in

improving work-related health and safety. This includes employees and employers, trade unions, industry associations, professional institutions and third-sector bodies, alongside other government agencies and regulators;

❖ specific, insight-led behaviour change campaigns to achieve tangible improvements in awareness and action on the key issues and themes set out in our strategies;

❖ guidance and advice which is accessible, understandable, meet the needs of users, and encourages proportionate risk management. This includes working with others to tackle disproportionate business to business burdens, which for many SMEs can outweigh the needs of regulation;

❖ world-class science and evidence to support our regulatory activities. We will provide a number of routes to enable others (other Government Departments, public and private sector organisations) to access our know-how, specialist facilities and research to improve workplace health and safety performance.

We continue to work closely with local authorities (LAs) as co-regulators. Our joint LA/HSE Statement of Commitment sets out the shared vision for the ongoing co-regulatory partnership. This describes how working together as effective, modern and professional regulators, will secure the positive benefits of world-leading workplace health and safety. Our priorities for 2020/21 ❖ Continue to focus our activity on tackling ill health as part of the Heath and Work

programme

1 www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/strategiesandplans/index.htm

2 www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/strategiesandplans/health-and-work-strategy/health-and-work-strategy.pdf

Lead and engage with others to improve workplace health and safety

8

❖ Share the learning from our expert science and research with those who can influence workplace health and safety performance

❖ Embed learning on business to business burdens into policy design and communication

Priority: Continue to focus our activity on tackling ill health as part of the Health and Work programme

Overall approach to ill health

• 2020/21 marks the fourth year of our focus on tackling three major causes of work-related ill health – musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs); occupational lung disease (OLD) and work-related stress (WRS).

• Our success will be measured through overall changes in attitudes, behaviour and use of control measures. Each of the areas of ill health has its own priority plan.3

• Alongside our primary regulatory role, we

will continue to foster collaborative relationships with other parts of government in England, Scotland and Wales. Joining up approaches will build better outcomes on common health problems, occupational health advice services and the wider wellbeing agenda.

Our deliverables When ❖

❖

To deliver targeted contributions to the government’s business growth agenda, highlighting the impact health and work has in improving productivity and competitiveness by: ❖ delivering a HSE contribution for government response to Green

Paper Advancing our Health: Prevention in 2020s

❖ engaging with DWP to deliver the government’s response to the occupational health-focussed proposals in Health is Everyone’s Business

❖ publishing improved guidance for employers and professionals on implementing good quality health surveillance and its contribution to the overall management of health in the workplace

To deliver and foster new health and work partnerships across Great Britain and its member countries, that will comprise: ❖ establishing a Partnership Agreement with the new Public Health

Scotland organisation (from 1 April 2020

Q1

Q2

Q4

Q2

3 www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/strategiesandplans/health-and-work-strategy/index.htm

Lead and engage with others to improve workplace health and safety

9

❖

To deliver the second Health & Work panel survey to track employer awareness and action on HSE’s three health priorities since the 2018 baseline services

Q3

Musculoskeletal disorders

• MSDs are the second most common reported cause of work-related ill health in Great Britain, accounting for 36% of all cases and 29% of all working days lost due to ill health.

• 2020/21 continues to build on our work from previous years and inform future years’ activity.

Our deliverables When ❖

❖

Deliver and promote musculoskeletal disorders through Reducing risk through design award (2020)

Q4

Occupational lung disease

• Occupational respiratory disease is estimated to result in approximately 12,000 deaths each year.

• Our work in 2020/21 focuses on reducing exposure to carcinogens and asthmagens, through the use of integrated intervention campaigns, with a particular emphasis on reducing lung disease risks in metal working.

Our deliverables When ❖ Complete a programme of Occupational Lung Disease inspections focusing on

metal fabrication and woodworking sectors. See ‘Secure and effective management and control of risk’ (pages 16-20)

Q4

Work-related stress

Lead and engage with others to improve workplace health and safety

10

• Stress, depression or anxiety is the most commonly reported cause of work-related ill health in GB, accounting for 43% of all cases, and 54% of all working days lost due to ill health.

• Our focus is on supporting the provision of appropriate tools to support the management of stress.

Our deliverables When ❖ Publish bespoke work-related stress material for public sector organisations,

including additional ‘Talking Toolkits’

Q3

Priority: Share the learning from our expert science and research with those who can influence health and safety improvement

Our approach is outlined in our Science and evidence strategy.4 which will be updated in line with HSE’s developing strategy for 2020 onwards.

• It will include a greater focus on Government priorities for Energy, Data Science, Occupational Health and bespoke product testing. We will seek to build on our existing capability to create a national capability centre in one of these areas.

• We will continue to underpin the health and safety system through evidence from applied health and safety research. Our work to address challenges from new working practices to enable the healthy and safe introduction of new technologies continues to demonstrate our commitment to being an enabling regulator.

• We will make our science available to those who need it, in a form which meets their needs.

• We will ensure that the data and knowledge we generate is promoted and made available to a wide range of organisations via publications, presentations, training courses and funded programmes such as Discovering Safety. This will help dutyholders improve their performance while protecting the health and safety of their employees and the public.

Our deliverables When

4 www.hse.gov.uk/research/content/science-evidence-strategy-1620.pdf

Lead and engage with others to improve workplace health and safety

11

❖ Map activities against our measuring strategy framework, using the health and work programme as a model, to ensure we have the appropriate mix of measures to assess the impact of the programme and its key interventions and publish this to demonstrate our impact. This will be presented to the HSE Board. Deliver an agreed communication plan to disseminate the findings of our work to those who will benefit from it

Q3

Q4

❖ ❖

We will work with government and appropriate commercial partners to share our capability in one of the key government priority areas of energy, data, occupational health and bespoke product testing. This will be evidenced by a multi-year funded programme We will engage commercially with appropriate partners to deliver training content in two defined topic areas.

Q4

Q4

Priority: Embed learning on business to business burdens into policy design and communication

• Our ‘blue tape’ evidence report Understanding the impact of business to business health and safety ‘rules’ showed how impacts from non-regulatory rules can exert more influence than regulation for many SMEs, impacting more directly what businesses do, and how they do it. Rules can lead duty holders to take positive and proportionate action on health and safety. However, they are also contributing to disproportionate business burdens and to ineffective risk management.

• We have continued to work with a wide range of others in the health and safety system to tackle disproportionate and ineffective practices, and help businesses struggling with unnecessary burdens. Further work is now required to maintain strong momentum and influence key systemic drivers in the system and secure lasting reforms.

[Picture needed here].

Our deliverables When ❖ Support the launch of a reformed Occupational Safety and Health Consultants

Register

Q2

Provide an effective regulatory framework

12

Good regulation is essential to successful businesses, and HSE will be working to achieve the right regulatory balance between supporting excellent business practice and protecting workers.

The goal-setting and risk-based regulatory framework is founded on two enduring principles:

• those who create risks have a responsibility to manage them;

• action should be proportionate to the risks that need managing.

To complement this, we will support businesses by sharing examples of good practice, helping to build a common understanding of what a proportionate management approach to health and safety looks like. We will contribute towards the Government’s Reforming Regulation Initiative, and continue to ensure that health and safety regulation remains targeted, proportionate, and always considers the needs of small businesses. During 2019/20 we have made extensive contributions to the government’s fundamental reform of the building safety system following the Grenfell Tower disaster. On the 20 January 2020, it was announced that a new Building Safety Regulator will be established within the Health and Safety Executive. We will continue to engage wit the devolved administrations on building safety. On 31 January 2020, the UK left the European Union and entered a transition period until 31 December 2020. We will contribute to the government’s work during the transition period to prepare for the outcome of the future relationship negotiations with the EU. This will include ensuring that a UK Chemical Regime is operable from 1 January 2021. We have a significant role to support the Government deliver its Net Zero priority. As an enabling regulator HSE will ensure that new energy technologies are introduced safely by keeping its policy, regulation and science up to date and alert to future developments. Our priorities for 2020/21

• Establish the Building Safety Regulator within HSE, initially in shadow form ahead of the required legislation

• At the end of the transition period, establish a new UK chemical regime

• Prepare and contribute to the Energy Transition (Net Zero) government priority and development of the renewables sector

.

Provide an effective regulatory framework

13

Priority: Establish the Building Safety Regulator in shadow form ahead of legislation

• Based on the findings of Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent5 review, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) published Building a Safer Future – An Implementation Plan6 in December 2018. We have has worked closely with MHCLG during 2019/20 to take the review findings forward.

• On the 20 January 2020, it was announced by the Housing Secretary that a new Building Safety Regulator will be established within HSE.

• Ahead of the legislation, the regulator will initially be in shadow form. Dame Judith Hackitt will chair a Board to oversee the transition to the new regime.

• The Building Safety Regulator will have three key functions:

• Leading the implementation of the new, more stringent regulatory regime (for High Rise Residential Buildings in scope)

• Promoting competence among industry professionals and regulators who have key roles in delivering safe, high-performing buildings

• Oversight of building safety and performance system

Our deliverables:

When

❖

❖

❖

Design a proportionate safety case system for existing High Rise Residential Buildings and new build Develop a communications plan and deliver the first phase which includes raising awareness and communicating with duty holders and residents Agree roles and responsibilities of the multi-disciplinary teams that will deliver the regulatory effort through the Joint Regulators Group

Q2

Q2

Q2

❖ Support MHCLG in developing policy and legislation to ensure the Building Safety Regulator is prepared for Royal Assent

Q4

5 www.gov.uk/government/collections/independent-review-of-building-regulations-and-fire-safety-hackitt-

review#final-report

6 www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-a-safer-future-an-implementation-plan

Provide an effective regulatory framework

14

Priority: As part of the transition period, establish the full operating capability of a new UK chemical regime

• The development of standards on health and safety is increasingly global and HSE will develop its international engagement to ensure it continues to deliver strong influence on outcome-focused standards.

[Picture needed here].

• The UK’s withdrawal from the EU on 31 January 2020 requires changes to the chemicals regime to ensure its continued operability for the UK.

• During the transition period, we will initiate a programme of work to achieve full operating capability to enable HSE to deliver an effective regulatory framework for the supply and use of chemicals from 1 January 2021.

Our deliverables When ❖ Funding agreed for capability programme and for cost of functions previously

undertaken by EU

Q1

❖ Deliver a programme of work to ensure an effective regulatory framework for the supply and use of chemicals for the UK is in place for January 2021

Q4

Priority: Prepare and contribute to the Energy Transition (Net Zero) government priority

and development of the renewables sector

• Energy transition is a blueprint for achieving the Net Zero target and sets out a clear description of how all stakeholders will be an integral part of the net-zero future.

• The passing of legislation by the UK and Scottish governments to set legally binding targets for net-zero carbon emissions was a significant milestone for energy policy.

• The UK is the first major nation to commit to ending its contribution to climate change and the pace at which the economy needs to deliver solutions is set to increase.

• A significant proportion of the industry and supply chain already have direct involvement in developing and supporting the rapid growth in low-carbon solutions, from carbon capture to offshore wind, electric vehicles to biofuels and hydrogen. These new technologies need to be scaled up rapidly to achieve net-zero.

Provide an effective regulatory framework

15

• Through our science, policy and regulation we will need to play a central role in these new sectors to help tackle the impact of energy use in society by contributing to their development into safe, reliable and affordable solutions. This will build on past and existing programmes of work on Carbon Capture Usage and Storage (CCUS), hydrogen and battery safety enabling our world class expertise to focus on this national priority

Our deliverables When ❖

❖

❖

Carry out an internal review of the suitability of the existing regulatory framework for Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) Engage with industry, OGDs and other stakeholders to develop proposals for any regulatory changes required for wider consultation Work with BEIS on their Clean Heat Programme, to assure the safety of proposed new technologies using policy, regulatory and science expertise

Q2

Q4

Q4

Secure effective management and control of risk

16

One of the foundations of our role as a regulator is to secure the effective management and control of risk. We use different interventions to assess and secure effective management and control of hazards and remove risk from the workplace. These include inspections, investigations, permissioning and licensing regimes. Our activities are based on intelligence and targeting in line with published sector strategies. Informed by insight with impact amplified by communications and engagement with local and national stakeholders to gain broader leverage, we consider it is appropriate to undertake a total of c. 15,000 inspections during 2020/21 (c. 14,000 in 2019/20) which will cover all the specific initiatives set out below as well as targeting through the use of local intelligence.

Our oversight of the chemicals industry enables the safe and sustainable use of thousands of pesticides and biocides. Through our work we reduce the potential harm to people or the environment and to maximise the benefits to ensure essential products remain on the market and can be used safely. We investigate incidents, causes of ill health and health and safety concerns (complaints), in line with our published selection criteria. In addition to drawing upon our science and engineering specialists and facilities to provide forensic analysis, we work with other regulators, the police and local authorities, to determine causes, learn and share lessons and ensure necessary measures are in place to prevent recurrence. Where businesses are not managing risks to people’s safety or health, we secure improvements in line with our enforcement policy and enforcement management model. Through proportionate enforcement action, we seek to prevent harm, secure sustained improvement in the management of health and safety risk and hold people to account when they fail to meet their obligations to protect people. Where appropriate, we prosecute those who behave in a reckless way or where there has been a serious breach of duty. Our approach supports fairness for those who invest appropriately in managing risk and work safely, deterring those businesses who fail to meet their obligations or deliberately break the law and place people at risk. We use data and evidence to better target our regulatory work, and amplify the outcomes from our frontline inspection, investigation and enforcement activity with modern communication techniques. Our Measuring Strategy helps to ensure that we collect the right information to support a culture of continuous ensuring that benchmarking and evaluation are built into our approach. Our priorities for 2020/21 ❖ Target our inspections on specific issues and activities, including a sustained focus

on work related ill health ❖ Investigate to swiftly tackle and reduce risks, securing accountability for victims and

their families ❖ Operate effective statutory schemes, ensuring the safe use of potentially harmful

substances

Secure effective management and control of risk

17

Priority: Target our inspections on specific issues and activities, including a sustained focus on work related ill health

Our inspection campaigns for 2020/21 align with the specific issues outlined within our sector plans7 and health priorities. These will be supported by communications activity and, where appropriate, we will revisit sites previously inspected to evaluate whether there is evidence of sustained and improved compliance. We will collect data in a consistent way to enable appropriate evaluation.

Manufacturing Fabricated metals

• Previous inspection campaigns found significant levels of uncontrolled risk, particularly in relation to activities and processes that can cause ill health.

• Inspections will focus on the control of carcinogens and asthmagens specifically associated with welding fumes, flame cutting, paint-handling processes and metalworking fluids.

Food manufacture

• We will deliver an increased focus on the control of asthmagens arising from flour dust in bakeries

• Inspections will also focus on the movement, storage and handling of heavy loads and from repetitive tasks which cause MSDs.

Woodworking

• Inspections will focus on ill-health risks, particularly occupational asthma and sino-nasal cancer which can result from poor control of exposure to wood dusts.

Our deliverables When ❖ Manufacturing - Woodworking

Programme of c. 700 inspections with significant health focus

Q4

❖ Manufacturing - Food Programme of c. 200 inspections to focus on control of flour dust

Q3/4

7 www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/strategiesandplans/sector-plans/

Secure effective management and control of risk

18

❖ Manufacturing - Fabricated metals Programme of c. 1,100 inspections with a specific focus on control of welding fumes

Q2

Waste and recycling

• Building on previous campaigns, inspection activity will focus specifically on the management of transport, maintenance activities and safe isolation practices to prevent fatal and serious incidents within this industry.

• We will also inspect selected premises to assess how effectively the health risks associated with exposure to bioaerosols are being managed.

Our deliverables When ❖ Waste and recycling

Programme of c.355 inspections to approximately one third of premises where intelligence received from other regulators indicates known poor performance with a specific focus on transport and maintenance activities

Q3

Agriculture

• The agriculture sector continues to have a

high rate of workplace fatalities, injuries and ill health.

• Inspections will include those businesses invited to attend our insight-led agricultural compliance events (ACEs) and will focus on the range of workplace risks covered in those events.

• We will also inspect selected premises to assess the management of risks associated with livestock in response to persistent fatal incident rates in this area.

Our deliverables When ❖ Agriculture

As part of a wide strategic intervention programme direct inspection of c. 400 businesses invited to attend an agricultural compliance event (ACE). Focus will be on the full risk profile of the business aligned with ACE content

Q4

Construction

• Construction remains a hazardous industry, and while performance has improved, the level of incidents and ill health remain high. Our inspection activities will focus on: ▪ SMEs carrying out refurbishments; ▪ embedding the requirements of the

Construction Design and Management Regulations 2015 (CDM) through targeted inspections of dutyholders providing principal designer services;

Secure effective management and control of risk

19

▪ prevention and control of occupational lung disease (especially asbestos and dust) and MSDs.

Our deliverables When ❖ Construction

One major health-focused initiative of c. 1,000 inspections covering a representational range of site types and activities

Q3

Fairgrounds

• Industry performance in relation to public safety is comparatively good, given the number of visitors to fairgrounds and theme parks, and number of rides taken annually. However, recent incidents highlight the risk of failure or incorrect operation of some rides which can result in fatalities and multiple serious injuries.

• Public safety is our inspection priority alongside the control of risks to the public both from fixed and travelling fairgrounds, with emphasis on the standards of inspection and maintenance of rides and the control of risks associated with inflatables.

Our deliverables When ❖ Fairgrounds

Programme of c. 225 inspections both to fixed and travelling fairgrounds including inflatables

Q3

Priority: Investigate to swiftly tackle and reduce risks, securing accountability for victims and their families

• Doing investigation work, whether measured by its impact on health and safety or by the speed, ease and efficiency of our processes, remains a priority..

• We will continue to investigate incidents and health and safety concerns in line with our published selection criteria and we will seek timely completion of both fatal and non-fatal investigations.

• When consistent with HSE’s enforcement policy, we will prosecute those who commit serious breaches of the law.

Our deliverables When ❖ Fatal investigations

Complete 80% of fatal investigations within 12 months on HSE receiving primacy Non-Fatal investigations

Ongoing

❖ Complete 90% of non-fatal investigations within 12 months of the incident Ongoing

Secure effective management and control of risk

20

Priority: Operate effective statutory schemes, ensuring the safe use of potentially harmful substances

Chemicals industry

• Our oversight of the chemicals industry enables the safe and sustainable use of thousands of pesticides and biocides.

• HSE has a statutory role to identify chemical risks and ensure those responsible reduce these risks to levels that are acceptable to society.

• We will continue to evaluate and make regulatory decisions on the authorisation of biocide and plant protection products, the approval of active substances, and monitor maximum residue levels of pesticides in food, before they can be sold on the UK market.

• As part of official control regulations, we will establish a pesticide enforcement function and deliver an enforcement plan

Our deliverables When

❖ Complete 90% of plant protection product evaluations and authorisations within the relevant deadlines

Ongoing

❖ Complete 80% of biocide product evaluation and authorisations within the relevant deadlines Establish pesticide enforcement function

Ongoing

Q1

Asbestos licensing

• Work with asbestos requires a high degree of regulatory oversight. Asbestos can still be present in any building built or refurbished before the year 2000.

• Classed as a category 1 carcinogen, asbestos-related disease still kills around 5000 people each year.

• As part of this oversight, HSE operates a statutory asbestos licensing regime – granting and renewing licenses to carry out higher-risk work with asbestos subject to sufficient demonstration and assessment that required standards can be met.

• We evaluate all licence applications and carry out a proportionate inspection programme of notified licensed asbestos removal work to ensure compliance.

Our deliverables When

❖ Programme of c. 900 inspections of individual licensed contractors to ensure compliance with Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 by individual licensees

Q4

❖ 90% of asbestos licence applications completed to time Ongoing

Reduce the likelihood of low-frequency, high-impact catastrophic incidents

21

Great Britain has highly specialised, strategically important industries which are essential to the country’s economy and social infrastructure but whose processes and hazard potential can cause great harm to their workers, the environment and the public. A single incident with catastrophic consequences can undermine entire sectors by eroding public trust and acceptance of the need for such activities. HSE’s regulatory approach is to provide assurance that risks are being properly managed. The approach is described in our Major Hazard Regulatory Model.8 The aim of our regulatory activities in major hazard sectors is to:

• confirm dutyholders have properly focused their risk management efforts on major accident hazards, are controlling risks and complying with the law;

• take proportionate action, including enforcement, to ensure dutyholders make improvements where there is evidence of significant shortfalls in control measures;

• provide advice to the planning system to protect people around major hazard sites, major hazard pipelines and licensed explosive sites.

We work collaboratively with other regulators, agencies, government departments and devolved administrations to promote cooperation, minimise duplication, coordinate joint regulatory activities, and share information and intelligence. We will not intervene if another regulator has specific responsibility. We work closely with established stakeholder fora in major hazard industries to drive and influence behavioural change. We will ensure that our approach is based on the best available data and evidence including foresight analysis to consider the future world of work. We plan to deliver c. 650 offshore and onshore major hazard interventions, whilst recognising that delivering safety case and safety report assessments and investigations which meet our incident selection criteria will take priority. Our priorities for 2020/21 ❖ Provide assurance that dutyholders are identifying and managing the major hazard

risks they create ❖ Strengthen major hazard leadership and worker engagement ❖ Deliver a robust and consistent regulation of decommissioning and dismantling of oil

and gas infrastructure ❖ Raise operators’ focus on cyber security to ensure appropriate protection against

major incidents

8 www.hse.gov.uk/regulating-major-hazards/major-hazards-regulatory-model.pdf

Reduce the likelihood of low-frequency, high-impact catastrophic incidents

22

Priority: Provide assurance that dutyholders are identifying and managing the major hazard risks they create

• We use intelligence from multiple sources to deliver a programme of regulatory activities including: ▪ targeted Inspections to test

dutyholders’ risk management systems;

▪ assessment of safety cases and reports by which dutyholders demonstrate how they control major hazards;

▪ issuing licences, classifications and authorisations for explosives manufacture, storage and transport and genetically modified organism assessments;

▪ advising planning authorities on proposals for hazardous substance consents and developments around major hazard sites.

Our deliverables When ❖ ❖ A programme of proactive inspections to address priority areas at major

hazard sites Q4

❖ ❖ Assess 75% of safety cases and safety reports within agreed timescales

Ongoing

❖ ❖ Assess licences, classifications, notifications and authorisations to statutory or published timescales

Ongoing

Priority: Strengthen major hazard leadership and worker engagement

• Our priority is to promote effective leadership across high hazard industries and gain commitments to sustained improvement, so that ownership of risks is taken by those with the responsibility to reduce them.

• Offshore workforce engagement will also be a key inspection priority, promoting a strong proactive safety culture supported by all who work in, and have an influence on, the offshore working environment.

Our deliverables When ❖ ❖ Complete an initial targeted programme of inspections, assessing senior

executives and board leadership in major hazard control, as a core element of safety management systems

Q4

❖ ❖ Complete a targeted programme of inspections focused on dutyholders’ involvement of the workforce in relation to the management and control of major accident hazards, particularly where tier 1 contractors supply a large proportion of an offshore installation’s workforce and can significantly influence local safety culture and performance

Q4

Reduce the likelihood of low-frequency, high-impact catastrophic incidents

23

Priority: Deliver robust and consistent regulation of decommissioning and dismantling of oil and gas infrastructure

• Decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure has increased significantly with the volume and rate of work projected to rise rapidly over the next 10 years. New technologies and methods of work under development influence how both onshore and offshore decommissioning and dismantlement work is undertaken and regulated by HSE.

• We will work to ensure a regulatory regime which is responsive to industry developments and to deliver robust regulation which recognises and supports Government policy in the areas of decommissioning and, where applicable, transition into alternate use. Using our knowledge of the offshore decommissioning industry, we will work to ensure industry understands its legal obligations.

Our deliverables When

❖ Provide training in the regulation of onshore decommissioning and dismantlling works across Operational teams.

Q2

❖ A stakeholder engagement plan developed which clarifies the regulation of decommissioning and dismantlement.

Q3

Priority: Raise operators’ focus on cyber security to ensure appropriate protection against major incidents

• The National Cyber Security Centre has indicated threat levels to cyber security within the UK’s major hazard industries are increasing.

• Greater integration of IT and industrial control systems (ICS) requires greater precautions against cyber-attacks on systems delivering major accident controls.

• Our priority is to continue to raise operators’ focus on cyber security to ensure appropriate protection against major accidents. We will do this through targeted inspections and continuing to influence by our engagement through stakeholder fora.

• In addition, on behalf of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy BEIS, we will carry out inspections and investigations under the Network and Information Systems (NIS) regulations.

Reduce the likelihood of low-frequency, high-impact catastrophic incidents

24

Our deliverables When ❖ Complete a programme of cyber security inspections at the sites of operators of

essential services (as deemed under the Network and Information Systems Regulations) using the data and intelligence obtained from the NIS Cyber Assessment Framework (CAF) self-assessment

Q4

❖ Complete a programme of inspections of targeted major hazard sites (Non-NIS) to assess risks from accidental introduction of malware or cyber-attacks on ICSs

Q4

Enable improvement through efficient and effective delivery

25

To maximise our potential to affect positive change we must continue to use our resources efficiently and effectively, whilst investing in capability and supporting infrastructure. In 2019 we undertook a strategic review to determine how we want HSE to develop to face a future world of work while retaining our core regulatory skills and purpose. Our infrastructure It is critical that in 2020/21 we invest in our supporting infrastructure to both improve organisational resilience as well as provide the platform to enable delivery of more regulatory services in an efficient and effective way. Our people Our people are at the heart of what we do and the difference we make. We need to continue to make HSE an excellent place to work – building a more diverse and inclusive workplace, where everyone feels valued, treated with dignity and respect. Our people are at their best when they can be themselves. HSE is fully engaged with the wider Civil Service aim of being a Brilliant Civil Service and the UK’s most inclusive employer. Our finances Since 2010, we have delivered more than £100m of savings to government through a combination of reducing our running costs and generating income through cost-recovery and commercial activity. We will have a continued and rigorous focus on driving efficiency and continuous improvement in the delivery of its functions. As we enter the Spending Review for 2020, it is essential that we secure a sustainable financial footing for HSE. Our priorities for 2020/21 ❖ Invest in our infrastructure focussing on IT to ensure we are fit for the future ❖ Support our people to be the best they can by improving inclusion and wellbeing ❖ Secure a sustainable financial future for HSE by improving performance through data

Enable improvement through efficient and effective delivery

26

Priority: Invest in our infrastructure focussing on IT to ensure we are fit for the future

• Our priority is to invest in our infrastructure to ensure we are fit for the future including: ▪ A redesigned and robust IT network to

deliver services and systems both now and in the future including a move to an offsite datacentre and addressing legacy Science Division systems

▪ a modern web presence ▪ flexible office space which embraces

modern technology ▪ development of an information

governance framework

Our deliverables When

❖ Complete network redesign project supported by external assurance Q3

❖ Deliver data centre migration project from Basingstoke to external hosting

Q4

❖ Redesign and replace outdated IT infrastructure in Buxton Q4

❖ Complete five office moves to HSE office standards ❖ Develop an agreed HSE information governance framework

Q4

Q4

Priority: Support our people to be the best they can by improving inclusion and wellbeing

Health, safety and wellbeing (HSW)

• Led through our people and underpinned by our systems, we will continue to build a healthy and safe working environment.

Our deliverables When ❖ Embed arrangements for how we prevent mental ill health, promote wellbeing and support colleagues where the need arises

Q1

❖ Reduce average working-days lost (AWDL) to 6.0 days per FTE (7 days in 2019/20) Ongoing

Motivated, engaged and resourced workforce

Enable improvement through efficient and effective delivery

27

• Keeping our colleagues informed, listening to their views and involving them in our purpose, priorities and plans is central to our engagement strategy. This year our focus is on three areas: ▪ our work – explaining and helping

colleagues understand our ambitions and how we’ll work together to achieve focusing on our core role and delivering new challenges including BSR and work during the transition period;

▪ our people – showcasing the brilliant work our colleagues do every day to save lives;

▪ our future – helping colleagues understand how we need to work in the future and what this means for them.

Our deliverables When

❖ Programme of leadership events to support leaders to deliver

from Q1

❖ Hold a series of all staff events Q3

❖ Achieve an Engagement Index of 57% (a 6% improvement) as measured through the Civil Service People Survey

❖ Develop an agreed, robust and evidence-based pay business case

❖ Improving recruitment process by reducing time to hire by 11 days to 84 average days

Q3

Q3

Q4 ❖

Diversity and Inclusion Diversity and Inclusion • Having achieved Disability Confident Level 3 in

2019, and with improvements in engagement and attendance, we will continue to make HSE a place where our people can be their best. Continuing to work with trade unions and our diversity networks, we endeavour to make HSE an inclusive and diverse workplace where You Can with HSE.

• Our ambition is to change the profile of the workforce with a higher proportion of BAME staff and more senior leaders with protected characteristics, particularly women as we address our Gender Pay Gap.

Our deliverables When ❖ ❖ Reduce by 23% the percentage of staff who have personally experienced bullying or

harassment at work during the past 12 months as measured by the Civil Service People Survey (to 10%)

Q3

P

Enable improvement through efficient and effective delivery

28

Priority: Secure a sustainable financial future for HSE by improving performance through data

• Spending Review 19 is a one year event. The next Spending Review 20 will take place this financial year.

• We will demonstrate alignment with key government priorities and ensure we deliver the outcome of the SR in the most appropriate way to ensure we continue to play our part in reducing risks and protecting people.

• In line with the recommendations of the Regulatory Futures Review and the independent Tailored Review of HSE, the Cost Recovery Programme aims to ensure that HSE recovers the full cost of its activity from existing regimes and identifies other regulatory activity where cost recovery is appropriate.

• We have undertaken a review which looked at how the scientific evidence base can be sustained in an affordable way over the next ten years and agreed actions to take this forward alongside other priorities. Our aim is to work with government to develop a national capability in one of the key government priority areas.

• We will set up and embed a visual Performance Hub designed to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of all HSE operations. This will support where we focus resources and deliver maximum impact and outcomes.

Our deliverables When

❖ Develop our Spending Review 2020 case

TBC

❖ Consult with industry on cost recovery regimes and put appropriate legislation in place to commence recovery

Q4

❖ Develop a visual Performance Hub initially for Management Board and then for other

governance fora Q1

Financial outlook for 2020/21

29

The Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015 set out the government’s plans to ensure the UK’s long-term economic security. Over the Spending Review 15 period, HSE, like many other public bodies, has received reduced government funding. Our response has been to:

• maintain regulatory activities;

• invest in updating our infrastructure, including information technology;

• reduce reliance on taxpayer funding through commercial growth, increased cost recovery, and

delivering cash-saving efficiencies in estates, procurement and natural turnover.

Spending Review 19 which provides funding for 2020/21 has been agreed as one-year rollover of

funding with inflation. The figures below assume some initial funding for work during the transition

period with the EU and BSR but it is anticipated that further bids for 2020/21 will be made to DEFRA,

DWP and MHCLG.

2019/20 £m

2020/21 £m

Taxpayer funded income to HSE (Grant in Aid)

135.4 141.0

We will be preparing for Spending Review 20 during 2020/21, which will include the required investment in our Buxton Public Sector Research Establishment to support safe and healthy deployment of key enabling technologies Our budget for 2020/21 comprises:

• Planned total expenditure of £237m.

• £96m (41%) recovered through income.

• £140m (59%) funded through grant in aid.

• Costs recovered from regulatory work will increase in line with the recommendations made in

the Regulatory Futures Review

HSE Funding 2020/21 (£237m) HSE Expenditure 2020/21 (£237m)

Income£96M

Taxpayer funded£141M Staff Costs

£149M

Staff relatedcosts £9M

Estates, £32M

IS/IT £12

Technical Support £6M

Depreciation£8M

Other £13MCapital £8M

Monitoring our delivery

30

HSE publishes a range of statistics relating to the health and safety performance of Great Britain. Using a variety of data sources, including surveys and surveillance schemes, we provide statistics on:

• work-related ill health and disease; • workplace injury; • enforcement of health and safety legislation; • working days lost and costs to Britain as a result of health and safety incidents; • working conditions and management of health and safety in the workplace.

The latest 2019 statistics can be found on our website9 and a visual summary is provided below:

Risk and performance management plays a key role in our governance process to support us to meet our objectives, while protecting our assets and reputation. We monitor our performance and delivery through a suite of integrated risk and performance reporting which emphasise the links between our most significant risks and their potential to impact on performance. For 2020/21 we will introduce a visual Performance Hub to drive further improvements in performance and accountability. Within this reporting framework, the Board, Management Board, Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC) and the DWP Partnership Board receive reports which enable them to:

• consider and challenge how the most significant risks are managed across HSE;

9 www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/hssh1718.pdf

Monitoring our delivery

31

• decide on any new control measures;

• consider any emerging risks;

• agree expected risk ratings given the respective direction of travel;

• review the effectiveness of respective control measures and the outcome of assurance reviews – including reference to and consideration of selected key performance indicators.

ARAC’s function also includes monitoring the management of risk and providing assurance to the HSE Board on the effectiveness of our risk management processes and control framework. For 2020/21, ARAC will ensure risks are managed in respect of the establishment of the BSR as well as well ensuring HSE’s core function is maintained. We will continue to monitor our delivery through a suite of performance indicators, supported by a visual Performance Hub. Our key performance indicators and targets for 2020/21 include:

2017/18

2018/19

2019/20 Forecast

2020/21 Target

Milestones in Plan delivered 100% 90% 87% 90%

Secure effective management and control of risk Fatal investigations: Completed within 12 months of HSE assuming primacy

81% 68% 78% 80%

Non-fatal investigations: Completed within 12 months of the incident

90% 90% 89% 90%

Health and safety concerns: Completed within agreed timescales

80% 75% 75% 75%

Enable improvement through efficient and effective delivery Financial: Deliver a balanced budget

Yes Yes Yes Yes

People: Engagement: Engagement Index (as measured through the Civil Service People Survey)

51% 53% 54% 57%

Health and safety of our staff: Average Working Days Lost per member of staff

7.61 6.54 7.00 6.0

Bullying, harassment and discrimination: Percentage of staff who have personally experienced bulling or harassment at work during the past 12 months (as measured by the Civil Service People Survey)

12% 13% 13% 10%

Page 1 of 6

Health and Safety Executive Board HSE/20/12

Meeting Date: 18 March 2020 Meeting type: Open

Type of Paper: For decision FOI Exemptions (if applicable):

TRIM Reference: 2020/71105

Tackling disproportionate health and safety rules (‘blue tape’)

Richard Plant and Jeremy Bevan

FOR DECISION

This paper delivers our Q4 Business Plan commitment to report on continuing work tackling

issues identified in HSE’s ‘blue tape’ evidence report, published in June 2019. We ask the

Board to:

• agree work priorities, noting delivery milestones, resource constraints and alignment

with HSE’s small business and Reforming Regulation Initiative work streams;

• note the activity undertaken since publication to address issues identified.

KEY INFORMATION

1. This work supports HSE’s strategic objective of maintaining an effective framework of risk-based, proportionate regulation. It also supports the Government’s better regulation agenda and work promoting small/medium enterprise (SME) growth, innovation and productivity.

2. The Board is asked to agree the following future priorities (full details at Annex A):

a. Support the re-launch of the Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register (OSHCR) with targeted communications (Q1), and input to procedures for ensuring that the quality of consultancy advice remains effective (Q2);

b. Make recommendations to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) for updating the standard disclosure list for workplace civil injury claims, including a description of what proportionate evidence looks like (Q1);

c. HSE input to international standard ISO 45003 on psychosocial risk management, and a new ISO work stream on performance measurement (Q3).

d. Input to Cabinet Office’s redesign of the framework for public sector procurement (Q1); explore with the procurement profession ways to embed proportionality into the health and safety aspects of procurement process design/delivery (Q2);

e. Through a new business to business burdens round table, develop agreed shared communications approaches and extend the reach of HSE guidance for SMEs (Q2).

3. This work will build on the strong momentum gained since our report was launched in June 2019. Key highlights (details at Annex B) have included:

a. Blue tape messages woven into HSE’s SME-focused communications campaigns;

b. Evaluation of published web guidance for duty holders on navigating blue tape;

c. Establishing the business to business burdens round table, securing its support in principle for coordinated messaging on proportionate compliance;

d. Presentations and engagement on the report’s findings via a series of BEIS-funded regulatory simplification events, industry-led and HSE-convened groups;

e. Shared learning via policy engagement across HSE and Whitehall.

Page 2 of 6

4. Prioritising the activities set out at para 2 requires a certain amount of refocusing of resource. For example, we will not be repeating the nationwide programme of regulatory simplification events (see Annex B, para 2d.i) and will spend less time supporting drafting of a new full implementation guide for ISO 45001 on health and safety management systems, as we exerted significant positive influence on the SME version of this.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS/OPPORTUNITIES

Opportunities

5. We need to mainstream our learning into HSE and government policy thinking, including Building Safety Regulator work and the better regulation agenda, to improve policy design and regulatory interventions. Reform of OSHCR in response to HSE pressure creates an opening for HSE to influence continuing professional development (CPD) for consultants. Work with Science Division, risk policy colleagues and a health and safety professional body offers potential to embed proportionality into a new course for non-health and safety specialists, reinforcing HSE’s emphasis on risk management/control.

Significant risks

6. There is a risk to our regulatory framework if burdens from ‘blue tape’ and government activity (‘red tape’) remain entangled in businesses’ perceptions. The government has just launched the Reforming Regulation Initiative (RRI) and there will be an update to the Board when the team understand the detail of what that entails. An effective HSE response to this will need to integrate our understanding of blue tape burdens.

7. Deprioritising activities as at para 4 may risk perceptions of reduced HSE focus. However, attention to key strategic drivers of business burdens and ineffective risk management (para 2 above) makes best use of our resources for delivering lasting, system-wide reform. To mitigate the risk, we will continue to engage through established SME channels and fora, exploiting additional opportunities for engagement on a more ad hoc basis.

8. Clearer SME-focussed communications are making our messages about compliance simpler and user feedback has been positive. However, with HSE not a primary source of advice for most businesses, failure to address poor quality advice or ineffective risk management driven by blue tape will hinder efforts to influence key system indicators - rates of work-related death, accidents and ill health.

Financial impact/resourcing

9. Work on blue tape is being taken forward as part of a package under the better regulation agenda, with a small team also responsible for HSE’s SME policy engagement, and directly supporting HSE’s response to RRI and its post EU exit work.

IMPACT ON DEVOLVED GOVERNMENTS/REGIONS

10. The report showed that public procurement practice significantly influences SME health and safety burdens. Public procurement is a devolved matter, and we continue to explore with the devolved administrations how they ensure it operates proportionally.

EQUALITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION CONSIDERATIONS

11. A key aspect of our work in challenging disproportionate health and safety rules has been the push to move away from a ‘one size fits all’ approach. This will help ensure health and safety rules better address, understand and meet end user needs.

Page 3 of 6

HANDLING AND COMMUNICATIONS

12. HSE’s Chair has continued to make this agenda a key message in speeches and engagements.

13. We have engaged with Trades Unions in particular in relation to the ISO standard for health and safety management systems (ISO 45001). We anticipate further targeted discussions with them as we work on reform of MoJ’s Standard Disclosure List for (workplace) personal injury claims.

CLEARED BY

Regulation Committee.

Page 4 of 6

Annex A

2020-2021 Key priorities

1. Key players in the system are responding well to HSE’s evidence, engagement and challenge. Our priorities for 2020-2021, determined by the findings of our evidence report, are to maintain momentum in four key areas:

a. The Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register (OSHCR) is finalising a

package of reforms to address our concerns around its visibility to duty holders, its value to members and its quality assurance controls. OSHCR sees HSE’s continued engagement and support as essential to its success as it moves towards a re-launch in early summer 2020.

b. We are currently working with MoJ officials to shape revised recommendations for how duty holders evidence compliance in defence of a civil claim. This emerged from our research as the key underlying driver for disproportionate, ineffective duty holder action, echoing Professor Löfstedt's 2011 Report Reclaiming Health and Safety For All. HSE contributions towards reform seek to:

i. bring the Standard Disclosure List for workplace injuries in the Pre-Action Protocol (Annex C) up to date with current legislation;

ii. highlight the paperwork exemptions that exist in HSWA for businesses employing fewer than 5 people;

iii. insert a steer on how compliance against the Standard Disclosure List can be evidenced proportionately.

c. We continue to represent HSE’s interests in standards fora overseeing the new ISO standard for health and safety management systems, and the various supporting standards and products which the advent of ISO 45001 is generating. In particular, we, together with colleagues from HSE’s Health and Work Unit, are working to ensure that the new draft standard ISO 45003 on managing psychosocial risks gives proportionate, effective guidance, consistent with HSE’s own on this topic.

d. Building on earlier work with the Crown Commercial Service in 2018/19, we are now engaged in its work to reform public procurement guidance in the context of EU exit. As public procurement is a significant driver of disproportionality, this offers potential for system-wide gains. Embedding proportionality also requires engagement with procurement bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply, with whom we may be able to add further value. Additionally, we need to keep under scrutiny how far construction sector procurement, and in particular the new Common Assessment Standard, is delivering on its stated ambition of simplifying the conformity assessment landscape for smaller businesses.

e. Through a new business to business burdens round table, extend reach of HSE guidance for SMEs on taking a proportionate approach via shared communications approaches (Q2), and help ensure business voice are heard in the design of health and safety rules (on-going).

Page 5 of 6

Table 1: Forthcoming key deliverables for blue tape work strands

Topic Description of HSE deliverable Milestone date

OHSCR reform Targeted communications support to relaunch Input to strengthened quality assurance procedures for ensuring consultancy advice is competent and proportionate

Q1 Q2 (subject to OSHCR timescales)

Reforms to MoJ Standard Disclosure List for workplace claims

Submission to Civil Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC) – setting out recommendations for updating reference to HSE legislation, and further direction on proportionality.

Q1 (further milestones subject to CPRC timescale)

Development of materials from ISO and BSI supporting use of ISO 45001 and its products

Overseeing effective HSE input to ISO 45003 (see paragraph 3c above) Provide comments on new ISO work stream on OH&S performance measurement. Track its development and influence, responding as appropriate.

Q3 Q3 (subject to BSI & ISO timescales)

Leading debate in government, with the procurement industry, BSI, UKAS and others so supply chain health and safety requirements become more proportionate.

Input to Crown Commercial Service’s re-design of the framework for public sector procurement Work with procurement profession to explore options for embedding proportionality and competent health and safety input to procurement process design and delivery Common Assessment Standard (CAS): encourage clear communication to industry on how the CAS relates to other schemes, and the principle of mutual recognition under Safety Schemes in Procurement.

Q1 Q2 Ongoing

Through business burdens ‘round table’, extend the reach of HSE guidance for SMEs on taking a proportionate approach (including re-focus on risk management/control of which assessment is part)

Engage additional members – accountancy bodies such as the Association of Certified and Chartered Accountants (ACCA) and the Institute of Chartered Accountants for England and Wales (ICAEW), United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) Agree shared priorities with members Secure communications support for agreed key messages that members can boost via their networks Forge links to cross-Government and other stakeholder SME activity

Q1 Q2 Q2 Q2/3

Page 6 of 6

Annex B Work since publication of the report Understanding the impact of business to business health and safety rules (HSE, 2019)

1. The report highlighted how impacts from non-regulatory rules (‘blue tape’) exert a greater influence than regulation for SMEs. HSE is seen as a ‘distant regulatory body’. Business to business health and safety rules impact more directly what businesses do, and how they do it. They can lead duty holders to take proportionate action to improve health and safety. However, they can also contribute to disproportionate business burdens – and ineffective risk management. Our work has sought to influence those who can drive change.

Communication:

2. HSE is providing clear thought leadership on this agenda. Business bodies and health and safety practitioners are giving their support. Communication and stakeholder engagement highlights delivered include:

a. The blue tape report’s key messages woven through our communications campaign work with an SME focus. Activity across channels included social media, campaign microsite, direct email marketing, e-bulletins and development of a key partnership. We engaged 800+ new SMEs across targeted industries and connected them with our advice/guidance covering a range of topics the report addressed. This activity led to 780+ downloads of the report, with GovDelivery and LinkedIn driving most traffic;

b. Evaluation of new SME-focused web guidance, including on sourcing competent advice, and on the criminal and civil law regimes (over 100,000 hits each). User feedback has been positive, but we now need to cascade further through the health and safety system, and to promote messaging on proportionality in the supply chain (see point c below);

c. A range of business intermediaries including consultants, professional and insurance bodies, the UK Accreditation Service (UKAS), the British Standards Institution (BSI), the international standards organization (ISO), trade bodies including the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), and others have expressed a willingness to consider how we might together cascade co-ordinated messaging on simple, proportionate compliance. This represents a potentially huge reach to businesses HSE struggles to engage directly (see para 1e at Annex A).

d. A wide range of presentations and engagement via: i. A nationwide series of BEIS-funded regulatory simplification events sharing

our findings, advertising new HSE guidance to help navigate ‘blue tape’ and promoting our simple advice on compliance (audience of 250+ businesses and business advisory bodies across 4 events so far);

ii. Industry- and externally-led events, including to Make UK, and an extensive ISOH network (via webinar, with an audience of 450+);

iii. HSE-convened sector groups including the Construction Industry Advisory Network, and Hospitality, Cleaning and Food and Drink Manufacturing fora;

e. Shared learning via policy engagement across HSE and Whitehall, including with the Better Regulation Executive, individual departments and the wider regulatory community. We recently presented to the BEIS-hosted Regulators Forum, where our work drew praise from the Better Regulation Executive. This strand also intersects with delivery of the Government’s manifesto commitments on SME growth through more proportionate regulation, and strongly with Reforming Regulation Initiative work.

Page 1 of 3

Health and Safety Executive Board HSE/20/13

Meeting Date: 18 March 2020 Meeting type: Open

Type of Paper: For discussion and information

FOI Exemptions (if applicable):

None

TRIM Reference: 2020/64289

HSE Science Report 2020

Andrew Curran

HSE’s Director of Research and Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA)

FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION

The Board is asked to comment on the annual report from the Science,

Engineering and Evidence Assurance Committee (SEEAC) and to note the

following documents:

• HSE’s Foresight Report

• HSE’s Annual Science Review 2020

Professor Curran will also provide oral briefing outlining key aspects of the report at

the meeting.

KEY INFORMATION

Background

1. This report meets the Board’s requirement for an annual review of the use, impact and quality of HSE’s science and analysis. Science, evidence and analysis underpin HSE’s risk-based, goal-setting regulatory regime.

Science and evidence investment

2. Our top priorities include work in: forensic analysis for investigations; generation of new knowledge/application of existing knowledge in support of short/medium term policy and operational needs; applied science and analysis that can be applied over the longer term; capability and capacity building; foresight; and science engagement.

3. HSE’s portfolio of strategic scientific work is divided into six ‘science hubs’ and these are set out in our ‘Areas of Research Interest’ document and are areas which we or other organisations could address.

Foresight

4. Foresight intelligence is used to help HSE identify relevant business impacts and sustainable solutions to prepare for future changes in the workplace. Our Foresight Centre has produced a Foresight Report (Annex 1) which focusses on the changing nature of work and potential impacts on health and safety.

Science advisory committees and independent review

5. SEEAC is a sub-committee of the HSE Board giving independent and objective assurance on the quality and relevance of HSE’s science strategy and delivery. An annual review of the committee’s activity can be found at Annex 2.

Page 2 of 3

6. Workplace Health Expert Committee (WHEC) is constituted as a formal scientific advisory committee of HSE1. It gives HSE access to independent expertise on all aspects of workplace health. This year it provided advice on the strength of evidence for the carcinogenicity of different types of welding fume – this supported HSE’s decisions on enforcement expectations for the control of welding fume. Other reports included occupational screening for lung cancer, the permanency of Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome, occupational exposure to bioaerosols and noise in the waste and recycling industry.

7. Research governance is overseen by HSE’s Research Committee and sub-groups (one per hub). Chaired by our CSA they comprise HSE representatives and external experts and confirm the progress of the hubs and alignment with HSE’s strategy and business/sector plans. An ‘All-hub’ event in October successfully brought together all governance groups giving an opportunity for Science Hub leads to provide an update on the range of projects happening and explore challenges.

Science engagement

8. HSE’s Annual Science Review 2020 (Annex 3) celebrates the positive impact of our investment in science and evidence. Case studies illustrate how the work of our scientists, engineers, physicians and analysts in collaboration with external groups, is helping GB work well. The review is used internally and externally at trade shows and across government. It was shared with the Government CSA, Sir Patrick Vallance, during his visit to HSE’s Science and Research Centre in June.

9. HSE has engaged with the Government Office of Science (GO-Science) on a number of issues including the Government Science Capability Review, providing input to the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and serving on a number of scientific advisory groups e.g. Grenfell chemical exposure. All CSAs now have the Government CSA as their Head of Profession, and he contributes to setting their personal objectives in this context.

Capability and capacity

10. To facilitate learning and development opportunities through secondment/staff interchange, HSE is now part of the STEM Futures Partnership, coordinated by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory with partners across government, academia and industry. We are also piloting Professional Registration for some staff through the Science Council and piloting professional membership of The Organisation for Professionals in Regulatory Affairs (TOPRA) for Regulatory Scientists working in Chemicals Regulation Division.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS/OPPORTUNITIES

11. Increasingly, HSE will fund more of its scientific research through shared research programmes with external organisations. We will use the Science Review and Foresight Report to promote our science capability to external stakeholders including potential commercial customers and employees.

IMPACT ON DEVOLVED GOVERNMENTS/REGIONS

12. There are no implications for the devolved administrations.

1 Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees: CoPSC 2011; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advisory-committees-code-of-practice

Page 3 of 3

EQUALITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION CONSIDERATIONS

13. Our science communications aim to highlight equality, diversity and inclusion whenever possible, for example see page 11 of the Science Review.

HANDLING AND COMMUNICATIONS

14. Annexes 1 and 3 will be published on HSE’s web pages and the WHEC reports on the WHEC online community site. A multichannel approach to communications will be taken which will tie-in with activity around corporate strategy updates and health and safety campaigns.

CLEARED BY

15. This paper and all annexes were cleared by the Chief Scientific Adviser, Regulation Committee and reviewed by SEEAC at their meetings during February 2020.

Annex 1: Foresight Report

Annex 2: Science, Engineering and Evidence Assurance Committee (SEEAC) Report

Annex 3: Annual Science Review 2020

1

Annex 1

Annual Report to HSE Board 2019-2020 from the Science, Engineering and Evidence Assurance Committee

The role of HSE’s Science, Engineering and Evidence Assurance Committee (SEEAC) is to give independent and objective assurance to the HSE Board on the relevance and quality of its science and engineering strategy and delivery. “Science” includes technology, engineering, analysis and mathematics, and includes any activities leading to research or evidence outputs as these all underpin HSE’s policy and regulatory role as well as HSE’s commercial projects.

SEEAC seeks to assure the HSE Board on six questions:

• Does HSE carry out science on the priority themes?

• Is the knowledge acquired in the right way?

• Is the knowledge exploited effectively?

• Is the quality of HSE science as good as it should be?

• Does HSE have the right capacity to acquire and disseminate scientific knowledge and to support investigations?

• Is HSE’s horizon scanning effective?

This includes oversight of HSE’s six priority science hubs

• Regulatory frameworks which are fit for the future;

• Taking responsibility for health at work;

• The right evidence strategy for the future;

• The impact of demographic changes on the future workforce;

• The right intervention strategy for the British industrial asset base; and

• Lessons learned from investigations.

Individual SEEAC members also attended individual hub governance groups providing the opportunity for feedback and assurance on prioritisation. They also provide an external, independent steer and a challenge function, helping to shape the work .

The programme of ‘deep dive’ reviews initiated in 2018/19 continued through 2019/20; the approach was based on a framework of probing, thought-provoking questions. Formal feedback was provided as a follow-up and a summary of recommendations submitted to HSE’s Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) for consideration. The outputs from the “deep dives were also presented at HSE Board meetings.

SEEAC has identified that the impact of HSE science and research is a critical element of

governance. This point was addressed at an inaugural ‘All-hub event’ held in October 2019,

which brought together all the hub governance groups (including SEEAC) with the aim of

stimulating debate and opening the portfolios of work to review. Hub leads provided an

update on the range and mix of projects and shared progress. This provided the opportunity

to debate how things could be done differently. The event was well received and highly rated

by the attendees. SEEAC has also suggested that HSE’s Chief Scientific Adviser consider

establishing a body similar to a scientific advisory council; the event fulfilled this role by

providing senior managers and external academic experts with insight into the HSE

regulatory and policy contexts.

SEEAC is keen to understand the part HSE could play in addressing workplace stress

which is recognised as a difficult area to regulate. The Work-Related Stress Policy team

2

provided an overview of the developing programme of research in work-related stress and

mental health as well as an update on the stress case studies. Priority research questions,

rapid evidence assessments as well as internal and external stakeholder engagement were

explored at length.

SEEAC reviewed the Measuring Strategy (within the Right Evidence for the Future hub) and

heard how measurement plans would enable a top-down approach to data needs;

historically HSE had taken a bottom-up approach. This work will be valuable in embedding

evaluation across HSE. It has been well received nationally and internationally and also

offers the possibility of influencing national data sets. Two of the projects presented ‘Risks in

Water Rides’ and ‘Common Oxidisers’, provided examples of urgent tactical work delivered

by multidisciplinary teams with the potential to influence changes in regulation.

An overview of the portfolio of work was presented including the significant task of re-

balancing legacy projects. Four projects were presented which illustrated the contrast of

short-term urgent work, larger longer- term research work and sensitive, contentious

commercial work

• Long latency health risks in foundries;

• Manual handling forces in single person pallet deliveries;

• Dust and bioaerosol exposures at municipal waste handling sites;

• Weight, Vibration and Noise (WVN) risk information ( commercial work for the

railway industry).

SEEAC raised concerns about the pace and dissemination of outputs as well as the means

of gathering evidence about the impact of the outputs.

The CSA updated SEEAC on the efforts to raise the visibility of science across HSE and the

opportunities for professional development. In the wider context of government science, the

CSA advised them of his strengthening relationships across the network of CSAs and with

the UK Research Innovation (UKRI) as a conduit to Research Councils. Similarly, SEEAC

were advised of ongoing efforts to secure research funding for Public Sector Research

Establishments to build/retain national capabilities. Of particular importance was the

Government Science Capability Review, which was published in November 20191

SEEAC commended the scientific evidence supporting HSE regulatory and policy

colleagues and acknowledged that it had witnessed ambitious, innovative work and that the

multidisciplinary approach was unique and successful. The acting SEEAC Chair,

commented that ‘the focus on current issues, balanced with significant effort to mitigate

future risk, gives confidence that this’ One HSE’ approach to science and engineering will

really make a difference’

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-science-capability-review

3

Annex 1

Science, Engineering and Evidence Assurance Committee members

Neil Bourne University of Manchester

Peter Buckle Imperial College

Len Levy Cranfield University

Ken Robertson (acting Chair from October 2019) HSE Board

Lesley Rushton Imperial College

Martyn Thomas (Chair until September 2019) HSE Board

Andrew Curran HSE Chief Scientific Adviser attends to provide information

SEEAC QA FRAMEWORK ( updated June 2017)

Some high-level questions on HSE’s use of Science, Technology, Engineering,

Analysis and Mathematics

1. Does HSE get the STEAM support we need?

Have we identified the HSE staffs who rely on STEAM expertise? How? Do they all get their

STEAM expertise through Science Directorate? If not, how do we assure the quality of the

STEAM that they use? Are they satisfied with the quality and timeliness of the support they

receive? How do we know? Are there any objective indicators that we could use to provide

answers to these questions?

2. Are we acquiring the knowledge the right way?

Do we have appropriate access to existing knowledge? Where original research is required,

how do we decide between doing the work in-house, jointly with someone else, or

extramurally? Do we make the right decisions?

3. Is our scientific expertise exploited effectively?

What is the view of the consumers of STEAM support? What is the view of the producers?

What is the feedback from external users, such as courts, lawyers, trade organisations and

scientific peer groups?

4. Do we have the right capacity to acquire and disseminate knowledge and to support investigations?

How do we plan the size and shape of the STEAM workforce? How do we measure whether

the capacity is adequate or excessive? How do we plan careers, succession and CPD?

5. Is the quality of our work as good as it should be?

How do we assess quality? Are the processes we use effective? What comparisons with

similar teams is undertaken and with what results? What indicators of peer esteem are

appropriate and how are we rated by peers?

6. Is our horizon scanning effective?

4

What are our processes? Do we share results and insights with other horizon scanning groups? What is our track record – have we picked up significant developments early enough?

7. Commercial aspects (inclusion agreed January 2017)

• Was the research externally funded to the appropriate extent?

• Had we created or discovered commercial opportunities during the work and, if so, had they been forwarded to a Business Development manager?

• Have any conflicts between commercial opportunity and HSE regulatory function been identified? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dimensions for Assessment

Significance: the extent to which the work has exerted, or is likely to exert, a significant

influence on a research field or practical applications (e.g. regulations, guidance, expert

evidence).

Connectedness: the extent to which the research effort is both optimised and gains value

through best use of the HSE internal subject expertise and resources

Originality: the extent to which the research introduces a new way of thinking about a

subject or is distinctive or transformative compared with previous research.

Appropriateness: the extent to which it is appropriate that the research is undertaken

wholly/partly under the auspices of the HSE.

Rigour: The extent, to which the purpose of the work is clearly articulated, uses an

appropriate and proportionate methodology for the research topic addressed, and that

provides compelling evidence to show that the purpose has been achieved in a timely

manner.

Each of these might/would then be subject to some form of proportional grading re

excellence or quality that is in keeping with the nature of the challenge being addressed.

Peter Buckle October 2016.

Official Sensitive

Page 1 of 1

Health and Safety Executive Board HSE/20/14

Meeting Date: 18 March 2020 Meeting type: Closed

Type of Paper: For information FOI Exemptions (if applicable):

S22

TRIM Reference: 2020/64234

HSE Research Summaries book

Andrew Curran, Chief Scientific Adviser

FOR INFORMATION

The Board is asked to note production of an HSE ‘Research Summaries’ book and

plans for external publication of this (and future updates).

KEY INFORMATION

Background

1. Science, evidence and analysis underpin HSE’s risk-based, goal-setting regulatory regime and one of our top priorities for science and evidence investment is our work on science engagement and dissemination.

Science engagement

2. As well as publishing our Areas of Research Interest, detailing what we or others would like to do, we publish the results of our work in research reports and highlight some of our completed work as case studies in our annual Science Review.

3. For the first time last year we produced a collection of lay summaries describing the work currently underway in each of the science hubs – ‘HSE Research Summaries’. This resource has been shared internally with all HSE staff and with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, during his visit to HSE’s Science and Research Centre in June 2019. Members of HSE’s research governance groups also received copies at a recent ‘All Science Hub’ event. Initial feedback from this limited external audience has been very positive.

4. We now plan to publish an updated version of this booklet (Annex 1) to increase the visibility of what research we are doing. Future updates may also include a summary of research findings from completed projects, in lay-summary format.

HANDLING AND COMMUNICATIONS

5. We plan to publish the booklet on HSE’s web pages in the new financial year. A multichannel approach to communications will be taken to highlight any current work that ties-in with activity around corporate strategy updates and health and safety campaigns.

CLEARED BY

6. This paper and annex were cleared by the Chief Scientific Adviser.

Annex 1: HSE Research Summaries book

HSE Research Summaries March 2020

2

2

HSE Research Summaries

Contents

1 Introduction 3

2 Regulatory Frameworks which are fit for the future 4

3 The right intervention strategy for the British industrial asset base 11

4 Taking responsibility for health at work 16

5 The impact of demographic change on the health and safety of the future workforce 35

6 The right evidence for the future 37

3

3

HSE Research Summaries

Introduction High-quality science, evidence and analysis underpin HSE’s risk-based, goal-setting regulatory regime and are vital for ensuring effective and proportionate risk management that protects workers and safeguards the public while enabling productivity, innovation and growth. Our Science and Evidence Strategy 2016-20201 is at the heart of HSE’s approach to developing the evidence base in support of our regulatory and policy activities, and the delivery of HSE’s strategy and plans2 for the health and safety system.

The current portfolio of scientific research by HSE is delivered through science hubs; these are:

▪ Regulatory frameworks which are fit for the future ▪ The right intervention strategy for the British industrial asset base ▪ Taking responsibility for health at work ▪ The impact of demographic change on the future workforce

▪ The right evidence for the future

In each science hub, research and other planned work is undertaken to ensure that the appropriate evidence is available to inform and underpin our regulatory and policy activities and that the impact of our science and evidence on the health and safety system is maximised.

These summaries provide information on the research and other planned science projects currently underway in each of the science hubs.

Details of our research publications in scientific journals and conference proceedings, as well as Research Reports published by HSE, can be found at http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/ . This webpage also hosts our Annual Science Reviews which contain case studies describing the benefits of our research.

1 http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/content/science-evidence-strategy-1620.pdf 2 http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/strategiesandplans/index.htm

4

4

HSE Research Summaries

Regulatory frameworks which are

fit for the future

The aim of the programme of work in this science hub is to develop our understanding of the current and future world of work and to ensure that our regulatory framework is fit for purpose.

5

5

HSE Research Summaries

Commissioning Local Exhaust Ventilation systems (LEV) -PH00645

Every year, thousands of people in Great Britain die of lung disease or get asthma because of airborne contaminants they have breathed in at work. Local Exhaust Ventilation (LEV) is an extract ventilation system that takes dusts, mists, gases, vapour or fumes out of the air so that they can’t be breathed in. Many employers install LEV to protect their workers’ health, but it doesn’t always work effectively. It needs to be of the right type, and properly installed, used, and maintained.

Most LEV systems need a thorough examination by a competent person and test (TExT) by a competent person once each year (legally, you are allowed no more than 14 months between tests) to make sure it works well and continues to protect employees. Some LEV systems (such as those controlling more critical or high-hazard processes) need more frequent thorough examination and testing., see HSE guidance HSG258.

The aim of the TExT is to ensure that the LEV system is continuing to perform as intended and therefore LEV commissioning information or results from a previous TExT is necessary to provide a performance benchmark against which the TExT data can be compared.

The current research is exploring the use of initial commissioning information when performing TExT and aims to understand how duty holders use TExT and commissioning data to manage LEV systems

Current practice in the use of biocides in food contact areas - PH00653

Statutory Maximum Residue Levels (MRL) reflect the highest amount of residues expected in food when plant protection products are applied correctly in accordance with authorised conditions of use. It is important to note that MRLs are not safety limits, and are always set below, often far below, levels that would present a risk to consumers.

A biocidal product is one which controls harmful or unwanted organisms through chemical or biological means and there are legitimate uses of biocides in food preparation e.g., for disinfection of food preparation surfaces or equipment, and the water used in food production e.g. glazing frozen foods, washing salad (direct application of biocides to food is not permitted).

These uses may potentially result in residue concentrations in food which exceed the MRL, and failure to use appropriate and effective disinfection can result in food failing to meet acceptable microbiological standards, with a resultant risk of food poisoning. Biocides used in other settings, such as water treatment, food storage, animal husbandry and as preservatives may also result in concentrations exceeding the MRL.

This project aims to provide HSE with more information on the use of biocidal products which may incur residues in food and provide evidence of typical residue levels. This will be undertaken by undertaking a structured, evidence-based literature review which will summarise current evidence on biocide food residue levels, and practices to control these residues, and a better understanding of any associated risks.

6

6

HSE Research Summaries

From machinery controls to collaborative robots and beyond to artificial intelligence – PH00763

UK industry is increasingly using new and emerging technologies and using new ways to better control existing machinery to increase its operational flexibility and decrease running costs. Examples of emerging technologies are collaborative robots (where people work in collaboration with robots), mobile robots (where people and robots can work near each other) and autonomous guided vehicles (which can travel around a factory avoiding dangerous interaction with people and other machinery, without the intervention of people). These technologies bring with them new hazards and opportunities and therefore, require new ways of working and new ways of assessing this risk to ensure that the risks they present to people are as low as is reasonably practicable. The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in machinery control provides for greater flexibility and autonomy of their operation and capability within widely varying circumstances. However, artificial intelligence implies complexity in its implementation and with complexity comes increased difficulties in ensuring the health and safety of people working with, or near, these systems as well as system security and reliability. Machinery control AI includes methods that allow a machine control system to learn from, and adapt to, its surroundings and circumstances using data it collects via sensors, while it works.

The aim of this project is to build up knowledge providing HSE and industry with a one stop pointer to relevant legislation, standards and guidance for machine control systems, so that when using these new systems and methods industry can do so safely and within a recognised legal frame work.

Advanced Imaging Systems - PHF20023

The Advanced Imaging Systems team (AIS) provide HSE colleagues with wide-ranging photographic, video and graphic design support. A proportion of this work includes support to non-project specific reactive, or scientific activities, corporate publications, internal activities (including safety videos for staff/contractors etc) and supporting corporate events (e.g. duty holder awareness events). Work in this area also includes 3D-modelling, aerial imaging (stills and video), and CCTV recovery/analysis in support of HSE’s regulatory work.

Data analysis and spatial analysis – PHF00797

Work in this project ensures essential maintenance, updating and support of HSE’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and data analysis assets (data, software, infrastructure and services) is carried out to provide GIS and data analysis services for HSE. This project also provides analytical support services and ad-hoc GIS operational support as required.

7

7

HSE Research Summaries

Risks associated with voluntary work – a desk-based review – PH00783

Volunteering is an established part of society. There are over 165,000 voluntary organisations within the UK. Volunteers undertake a wide profile of activities and are used to support and deliver a wide range of services across the public and other sectors. These include supporting the delivery of community-based activities, such as emergency services, construction, hospitals, grounds maintenance and social care.

Austerity and the fragmentation of the delivery of services mean that the scale, type and risk profile of the work undertaken by volunteers has increased. Most volunteering is low risk, such as working in charity shops, but increasingly greater risks are being managed. HSE is aware of a number of fatalities and serious injuries to volunteers and instances where the activities of volunteers have put others at risk. Recent incidents include the fatal injury of a volunteer while undertaking preservation work on behalf of the Wiltshire and Berkshire Canal Trust (August 2016), and that of a volunteer assisting with maintenance work at Heckington Windmill (February 2018).

Most accidents to volunteers and the risks posed by volunteers to others fall within the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Where an organisation which engages volunteers is an employer, Section 3 of the Act applies; in other situations Section 4 or Section 8 of the Act may apply. Organisations and individuals may have duties under the Construction Design & Management Regulations 2015, which may apply in relation to construction activities. The activities of volunteers will fall to both the HSE and the Local Authority to regulate.

HSE has recognised the risk to volunteers and produced extensive guidance (HSG192) - Charity and voluntary workers - A guide to health and safety at work (2006) [now withdrawn]. This guidance was produced in conjunction with the Charities Safety Group (CSG), and the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH).

The current web pages and guidance aimed at voluntary organisations are limited in their scope to managing low risk activities. There is no specific guidance in respect of volunteers undertaking medium or higher risk activities.

The organisations engaging volunteers for the delivery of their services and activities have been largely excluded from targeted proactive interventions. The profile of the risks that volunteers now face including emergency response and activities supporting social care, with risk of violence and aggression, mean that there is significant potential for serious and even fatal injuries. Not taking steps to formally recognise and work with stakeholders to ensure that they understand their legal duties could leave HSE open to criticism / reputational risk. In light of the above it is proposed that HSE undertakes a review to research the profile and range of voluntary activity within Great Britain to better understand the risk profile and how to best engage with those organisations engaging volunteers to deliver their activities and services

8

8

HSE Research Summaries

Safe use of Desktop 3D Printers in Workplaces –PH00799

Affordable desktop 3D printers are used in businesses, schools and colleges, and are generally of an unenclosed design which may give rise to injuries or exposure to the emissions. Previous HSE research has shown that some desktop 3D printers emit large numbers of tiny particles and volatile organic chemicals which may be inhaled. It has also been shown most of these emissions can be reduced by placing a capture hood fitted with particle filters over the printer. These findings were included in a good practice guide on safe use of desktop 3D printers in schools published in 2019 by the Consortium of Local Education Authorities for the Provision of Science Equipment (CLEAPSS) an advisory body support on science and technology for local authorities.

This new research will investigate emissions that multiple desktop 3D printers emit into working environments and will include a health survey to determine whether those working with these printers experience symptoms potentially related to these emissions.

The results will provide information to support any further updates of the CLEAPSS good practice guide. The work is part of a larger collaborative research programme with UK centres for advanced manufacturing and materials.

Additive Manufacturing Using Metal Powders – PH00799

Advanced manufacturing (AM) is transforming technology that uses less raw materials and energy, and produces complex components offering improved performance characteristics. AM methods benefit from computer-based design and control for precise removal or deposition of materials and includes methods for printing in layers, depositing powder in a controlled stream, or cutting materials in many different axes based on advanced robotic, imaging and sensor controls.

Many types of AM are close to being used in manufacturing providing an opportunity to inform their safe use in the workplace. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) scientists are collaborating with national technology centres on the safe use of metal powders in AM because of the evidence that employees exposed to these powders in traditional manufacturing (e.g., welding) are at risk of respiratory disease including lung cancer.

This new research will consider the potential for exposure when metal powder is blown in air streams; this method is more likely to result in employee exposure. Work on reviewing the published evidence about risks to health from metal powders used in AM will be completed and published. HSE staff will also contribute to development of a good practice guide on safe use of metal powders in AM being undertaken by the Manufacturing Technology Centre (MTC).

Scaling up to use large volumes of metal powders in AM is likely to result in accumulation of hazardous waste posing a risk to human health and the environment. HSE scientist with other government departments and industry partners will hold an expert workshop to identify how this waste material can be minimised and disposed safely.

These outcomes are consistent with national policies to support safe exploitation of AM methods in manufacturing. The research will be published in scientific journals, trade publications and education news supplements. It will be shared within HSE to support future planning for policy, regulation, and enforcement work.

9

9

HSE Research Summaries

Assessing Hazards and Exposure Risks from Advanced Carbon-Based Materials – PH00799

Carbon-based materials are increasingly used in constructions, electronics, and medical devices. Traditional carbon materials include fibres, but carbon nanotubes and graphene have more exotic properties and many new technologies are being developed exploiting their novel properties. However, concerns have been raised about potential risks to health from inhalation or ingestion of these new materials.

This new research will continue collaboration with the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Centre (AMRC) in Sheffield to assess emissions from machining of carbon fibre composites used in aerospace. The research is developing methods to monitor carbon fibre emissions from common manufacturing tasks (drilling, sanding, polishing) to identify where processes can be improved to minimise employee exposure.

Despite materials such as graphene being recently discovered, their potential economic value has stimulated studies on their potential hazardous properties and on how to monitor and control emissions from these materials. A review of evidence will be undertaken with colleagues at the AMRC and the Graphene Engineering and Innovation Centre (GEIC at Manchester University).

The potential for exposure to graphene and carbon nanotubes will also be examined for common manufacturing tasks using appropriate methods and to determine whether processes can be improved to minimise this risk.

The long-term outcome of the research will be the development of advice to manufacturers on safe practices for working with novel carbon-based materials. This will be developed with the AMRC / GEIC with support from industry experts and HSE; as an outcome this is consistent with national policies to support safe exploitation of advanced materials in manufacturing.

With AMRC/GEIC and other partners, the results will be published in scientific journals, industry trade journals, and via national technology networks to manufacturers of carbon and graphene-based materials. It will be shared within HSE to inform future planning for policy, regulation, and enforcement work.

Using Wireless Sensors for the monitoring of workplace health hazards -PH00747

This project aims to determine if low cost sensors can be deployed and used in the workplace to provide continuous and remote monitoring of occupational hazards and potential health impacts in order to improve understanding of health and safety practices.

Conventionally, the collection of measurements to assess exposures, health impacts and the performance of control systems has been resource intensive, which has limited the volume of data collection. New sensors however have benefited from miniaturisation of electronics and improved data connectivity, this has the potential to revolutionise data collection methods within health and safety thus enabling better decision making by HSE and duty holders.

10

10

HSE Research Summaries

In this project, we will investigate the potential for workplace sensing technologies, data communication and data analysis tools, to enhance and complement standard methodologies and strategies currently used for workplace health and safety monitoring. In phase one work will focus on respirable dust in collaboration with international partners. The workstreams will investigate sensor performance, data connectivity and storage, data analysis, worker acceptability and the potential to improve health and safety performance. Subsequent phases will look at additional health priority risks such as muscular skeletal stressors, mental health issues caused, or aggravated by work as well as reviewing sensors that are used to monitor physiological health markers associated with workplace exposures. If these initial phases are successful, further work will inform on the broader use of sensors in the health and safety regulatory context as well as support appropriate adoption and use of the technology in workplaces.

Understanding the mechanisms of resonant acoustic mixing – PH20077

Resonant Acoustic Mixing (RAM) is a recently developed mixing technique that uses a combination of moderate frequency sound waves and rapid shaking to mix chemical formulations. Due to the fact that RAM mixing provides a combination of mixing mechanisms, the technique is applicable to the mixing of solids, liquids, viscous materials, slurries and pastes, meaning that the same piece of kit can mix a broad range of materials without the need for modification. RAM is also recognised as offering a number of advantages over conventional mixing techniques, including: reduction of mixing time; preparation of more consistent mixtures; and efficiency in power use during the mixing process.

These attractive qualities of RAM mixing have resulted in the explosives manufacturing industry within the UK being keen to adopt RAM mixing for the preparation of energetic mixtures to replace more conventional techniques. However, it has been identified that there are gaps in the safety knowledge of RAM mixing when applied to energetic materials such as: the effect of the additional mixing mechanisms present during RAM mixing on the physical properties of the energetic mixture; the uniformity of any temperature rise observed during mixing. This project aims to determine the extent of relevant safety knowledge within the RAM community by conducting and publishing a literature review. This initial research phase will focus on establishing both the extent of knowledge by those currently using RAM relating to the key safety areas and identify knowledge gaps.

11

11

HSE Research Summaries

The right intervention strategy

for the British industrial asset

base

The research programme in this science hub will ensure that we have the science and evidence needed to underpin our policy in key areas across the UK industrial asset base, in sectors including oil and gas, chemicals, explosives, mining and the bioeconomy.

12

12

HSE Research Summaries

10K wave - Extreme environmental loading - PH00593

Offshore installations must be designed to withstand wave impacts. Sea states vary, so design standards require installations to be able to withstand a worst-case scenario of the greatest wave impact likely to be experienced once in every 10 000 years, ‘10K wave’. Previous standards have required resistance to waves occurring once in 100 or 1000 years. The position is complicated because climate change may be affecting the size and other characteristics of waves in the North Sea. There is no industry consensus on this issue.

A significant number of offshore installations on the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) are considered to be ageing installations, designed to previous standards. As a result, they have not been designed to survive the 10 000-year environmental event. The situation is complicated further by the considerable uncertainty associated with the interpretation of the environmental data and the complexity of evaluating the structural loads. This presents considerable uncertainties on the acceptability of the structural integrity and suitable enforcement action to mitigate the risks to the structural integrity of offshore installations.

The key objectives of the study are to:

• establish a robust approach to the prediction of the structural integrity of fixed offshore

installations subjected to the 10 000-year wave event;

• assess the risk associated with extreme loads acting on fixed offshore installations, for

inclusion in the ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ (ALARP) assessment. ALARP

describes the level to which HSE expect to see the risks controlled.

The work will enable:

• the identification of offshore installations with the highest risk of structural failure from

extreme environmental events;

• demonstration and assurance that the risks to offshore installations from extreme

environmental loading are being controlled and that suitable action is being undertaken

to ensure the safety of the offshore workforce.

HSE will liaise with industry stakeholders including other regulators (principally in Norway and in Denmark) to ensure the development of a unified approach for installations in the North Sea. This will provide HSE with an informed policy position that will lead to improved industry practice and regulation.

Assessment of secondary guarding on mobile elevating work platforms (MEWPs) – PH00458

MEWPS have contributed significantly to reductions in falls from height statistics. However, increases in their use has revealed other issues, most notably the potential for operators to be crushed between the moving machine platform/partial enclosure and fixed obstructions whilst

13

13

HSE Research Summaries

elevated. In response, the industry has produced a range of secondary guarding devices. There is no standard for such devices, however manufacturers have tested devices against their own specifications.

This work includes an independent engineering/ergonomics analysis of the limitations of the currently available products. Current guidance refers to the importance of risk assessment but offers no information on selecting appropriate secondary guarding systems.

The expected benefit of this work is a clear understanding of the benefits and limitations of secondary guarding devices to allow dutyholders to improve assessment of risk and selection of appropriate equipment for specific applications.

HSE’s Construction Division will take the results forward with the Strategic Forum for Construction Plant Safety Group MEWPs subgroup and HSE will work with industry to develop a plan for guidance production, promotion, implementation and evaluation.

Factors affecting severity of vapour cloud explosions - PH03117

During the last ten years, several large vapour cloud explosions (VCEs) have occurred at fuel depots and other sites handling gasoline or liquified petroleum gas around the world.5. These have caused total destruction of plant and buildings over an area extending up to 700m from the actual leak. In some cases, scores of people were killed beyond the site boundary. These VCEs have been more powerful than would have previously been predicted.

The objective of this research is to advance our understanding of the factors that affect the power of these explosions. We are investigating the effects of particles on explosion propagation and the effects of cladding process areas for weather protection on explosion pressures – this is allowing us to understand what the effect of enclosure will be on explosion severity.

Part of the project is investigating how ignition in control cabinets can act as a trigger for severe VCEs as several have started with ignition in an electrical control box. We know that ‘nesting’ of controls within other enclosures leads to the rapid escalation of explosion pressure and may trigger a violent event that can propagate to the whole vapour cloud. This part of the project is collecting data to show how this kind of flame acceleration depends on the design of electrical boxes and their contents. The objective is to provide guidance for industry on minimizing the risk of violent explosions and to support HSE’s enforcement work in this area.

The findings of this research are being openly published allowing a more realistic assessment of risk in a wide range of industries. They are contributing to the fundamental understanding of VCEs and informing the development of HSE policy relating to the assessment of liquified natural gas refuelling sites.

Stress corrosion cracking - PH05833

Stress corrosion cracking (SCC) is a specific crack growth mechanism which has led to numerous failures of metal pipework and structural elements in a wide range of situations ranging from pressure vessels to swimming pool ceilings. A combination of three factors is

14

14

HSE Research Summaries

needed for SCC to occur – a susceptible material, a corrosive environment and a tensile load or stress.

It has been assumed that stainless steels do not suffer from SCC below 60oC, however there have been several major incidents were SCC has caused ceilings to collapse and chemical tanks to fail at room temperature. These faulty assumptions can lead to the choice of the wrong materials being used during the design and building stages of projects, with the potential for major incident when facilities and structures fail well within their expected service life.

This project aims to update a previous review of ambient temperature chloride-induced SCC that is widely used by industry; to develop a test to study the formation of SCC cracks at room temperature; to compare the performance of several stainless steels and to study the effects of heat during welding on the likelihood of SCC cracks forming.

The results of this work will help to further our understanding of when SCC can occur at or around room temperature and help to define the conditions in which it is unsafe to use a range of stainless steels. The research will be published to raise awareness of the issue of ambient temperature SCC and allow industry to improve material selection.

The testing of synthetic fire-resistant fluids to determine the effects of degradation – PH00761

In recent years work carried out underground in the United Kingdom has seen significant change. Deep mining for coal has disappeared but the number of non-coal mines has increased as has tunnelling for transport and other infra-structure purposes. This means the range and nature of machinery now underground is different to before.

Underground plant is now dominated by vehicles equipped with a variety of hydraulically-powered systems running at greatly-increased pressures compared to previous machines. This places more demands on the fluids used to power transmission systems; fluids are generally combustible and have been shown to be the major risk of fire underground in the UK.

Historically the approach to reduce fire risks has been to develop fire-resistant fluids. Machinery developed for above-ground use is not always compatible with these fluids, leading some manufacturers to develop new fluids based on synthetic oils which have the enhanced lubricity required with the current machinery, but their behaviour in fire is not fully understood.

This project will identify machinery now used underground and operating parameters. These will be compared with the test conditions used in the current testing regime (developed and used by HSE and standardised internationally), to decide if the current tests are ‘fit-for-purpose’ to assess the risks of fire as they now exist or require modification to better reflect the current environment. If modifications are required, a search for alternative/new tests will be specified. If appropriate testing can be identified, a range of fluids will be tested, including those previously deemed to have provided acceptable fire resistance and the newly-developed fluids. The results from this testing will be used in a previously-developed risk assessment tool to understand the risks of fire on machines now used underground and to identify the benefit or otherwise in terms of fire risk provided by the new fluids.

15

15

HSE Research Summaries

Taking responsibility for health at

work

The work in this science hub aims to identify and develop the evidence necessary for HSE to implement its Health and Work Programme, and more widely to help people in the health and safety system take greater responsibility for health at work.

16

16

HSE Research Summaries

Professional cleaning and occupational risk(s) for asthma - addressing knowledge gaps - PH00597

There is growing evidence that cleaners and those who undertake cleaning tasks have an increased risk of developing respiratory ill health. A review of published evidence identified consistent reports that certain types of cleaning work are associated with an increased risk of developing asthma and/or experiencing respiratory symptoms consistent with asthma. This was described both in new cases and exacerbation of pre-existing conditions primarily in healthcare workers and domestic cleaners. Similar associations have been shown with respiratory symptoms, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Chemical irritants, e.g. chlorine-based disinfectants, were identified as a frequent cause of respiratory symptoms, and spray application of chemicals was also associated with increased risk for asthma symptoms.

This project focuses on use of disinfectant products in healthcare, use of spray application of chemicals and transfer of safety information down the supply chain. The aims are:

· to raise the profile of respiratory health within the healthcare cleaning and infection prevention disciplines,

· to identify and validate practical control solutions to minimise respiratory exposure to cleaning and disinfection chemicals, to reduce ill health.

This will be undertaken primarily within healthcare, but the findings could be disseminated and implemented across the whole cleaning industry. We are working with people from a range of disciplines in the healthcare cleaning and infection protection disciplines to understand the disinfection tasks undertaken, products used and use of control solutions. We are looking at how health and safety information is transferred down the supply chain to end users. Personal exposure monitoring at hospital sites will help us understand the potential for respiratory exposure to disinfection products and effectiveness of proposed controls. We are working closely with relevant parties to further our knowledge on potential respiratory exposure via spray application of cleaning products. We are currently working with NHS Improvement to support their review of the National Standards of Healthcare Cleanliness.

Exposure control in the fish and shellfish processing industry - PH00455

Fish and edible shellfish are known to contain dietary allergenic proteins; their inclusion in foodstuffs legally requires labelling. The major allergen in shellfish is the muscle protein tropomyosin (TM). The major allergen in fish is the muscle-associated protein parvalbumin (PARV). Both TM and PARV are relatively stable proteins, possibly explaining their significance as dietary allergens even after cooking and ingestion. In published studies, respiratory exposure to shellfish and fish in workers who process it for human consumption has been associated with a range of skin, eye, nasal and respiratory health problems, including occupational asthma (OA). Many of the studies also reported high airborne allergen levels.

17

17

HSE Research Summaries

There has been no recent UK evidence on likely health problems or airborne levels of allergen in UK land-based fish and shellfish processors.

We have collaborated with the University of Manchester to investigate the annual incidence of OA in the UK seafood processing sector over the last 25 years. Analysis of data from The Health and Occupation Reporting network data suggests a 24-fold excess of OA compared with all other industries. Predominantly salmon and prawns were indicated as the seafood species associated with reports of allergic OA.

UK seafood processing has seen substantial changes over the last 25 years. Part of the project has been to understand the structural and demographic changes. We estimate that currently some 20 000 workers may be potentially exposed in the sector. The nature of the relationship between allergen exposure levels and the risk of OA or other allergic health problems is unclear. Controlling exposure to allergen containing aerosols is key.

It has been necessary in the initial stages of the project to confirm and establish measurement methods for shellfish TM and species-specific PARV methods, particularly salmon PARV. Such methods will be used in sampling visits to sites to identify those individual processes and activities that cause significant aerosols of allergen and subsequently identify means of controlling such high exposures to prevent allergic outcomes.

The causes of occupational chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the UK – PRJ283

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of disability and death, thousands of people die each year from work-related lung diseases and in many cases due to exposures that took place many years before. COPD describes several breathing problems where there is damage to the breathing tubes and air sacs within the lung. Breathing in certain dusts, fumes, chemicals or gases in the workplace can cause serious long-term lung damage.

Although the research evidence for the important contribution occupational exposures in general have made to the burden of COPD is well established, the strength of evidence about the role of specific agents is more mixed. There is also a lack of evidence about the contribution of specific occupational exposures in GB.

This project is a nationally representative epidemiological study to determine the key determinants of occupational COPD in GB. The results should provide specific information about exposures or occupation/industry groups to provide a stronger basis for targeting and prioritising intervention activity by HSE.

Assessing practical methods for monitoring exposure to metalworking fluid mist to inform control practice - PH00606

Machining with water mix metal working fluids (MWF) is an established risk for occupational respiratory and skin disease. This project will build on an established partnership with the UK Lubricants Association (UKLA) to develop a shared research project involving other partners. The research will focus on:

18

18

HSE Research Summaries

• Mycobacteria in MWF and allergic lung disease: Mycobacteria are implicated in the development of allergic alveolitis, a lung disease seen in machinists. In collaboration with Manchester Metropolitan University and the Royal Brompton Hospital (London), genome sequencing and DNA based methods will be used to identify Mycobacteria that may be involved in causing lung disease in machinists. The research will consider how to prevent Mycobacteria growing in metal working supply systems.

• Practical monitoring methods for MWF mist: HSE does not currently provide advice to dutyholders on good practice in controlling emissions of MWF mist. Supported by the UKLA Product Stewardship group we have used Direct Reading Aerosol Monitors (DRAMS) to monitor emissions of MWF mist. This research will be presented at a knowledge exchange workshop, bringing together a range of experts to consider the practical uses of DRAMS in machine workshops.

• Monitoring the air quality in machining workshops and what factors contribute to exposure to MWF mists: Knowledge exchange workshops will be held with industry experts to identify improvements that can be made to reduce exposure to MWF mists through better design and operation of control systems.

• Future work: This will involve investigating new analytical methods to quantify MWF mist emissions and in collaboration with manufacturers of cutting machines and mist extraction equipment considering safe by design standards to reduce MWF mist emissions.

Ambient levels of asbestos in current workplaces - PH00663

Asbestos causes around 5000 deaths every year, mostly due to past exposures. However, asbestos is not just a problem of the past. It can be present today in any building built or refurbished before the year 2000 - this includes domestic dwellings as well as workplaces such as factories, offices, schools and hospitals.

Current HSE advice about asbestos in buildings is that it only presents a health risk when disturbed; asbestos that is safely managed and contained does not give rise to exposure. HSE also advises that asbestos should not be removed unnecessarily, as the removal process has the potential to lead to exposure (both to the workers undertaking the removal; and to building occupants) and therefore can be more dangerous than leaving it in place and managing it.

However, there have been challenges to this position from those pressure groups, who argue that all asbestos should be removed from public buildings. There remains a lack of reliable evidence to indicate the ambient levels of asbestos in buildings today; and no data that allows a comparison of ambient levels in buildings constructed post-2000 (where there is no asbestos), buildings constructed pre-2000 with undisturbed asbestos; and buildings constructed pre-2000 in which asbestos removal has been undertaken.

This study will look at the ambient levels of asbestos in buildings for each of these scenarios and will provide HSE with a more robust evidence-base to determine if the current policy remains the most appropriate to prevent asbestos-related ill health for workers and members of the public.

The main aim of this study is to measure ambient levels of asbestos in a range of workplaces (primarily public buildings), to enable comparisons to be made between levels in buildings with

19

19

HSE Research Summaries

no asbestos; those with undisturbed asbestos; and those where asbestos removal has been completed.

Current exposures and work practices in the licensed asbestos removal industry – 2014-15 - PH01918

Asbestos remains the leading cause of occupational cancers in the UK. Asbestos removal workers remain most at risk of exposure and their risk from asbestos-related diseases is directly influenced by the effectiveness of the control measures employed and their Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Removal work also, if not carried out properly, has the potential to lead to spread and affect the health of others. Work with licensable materials gives rise to the greatest risk of exposure and spread due to the potential for a high-level of fibre release. This project will focus on objective assessment and recording of current good and bad work practices in the licensed asbestos removal industry, use and efficacy of Respiratory Protective Equipment (RPE) and assist in establishing current best practice.

Visiting a range of sites where licensed asbestos removal is planned will enable us to observe the whole asbestos removal and assess all associated work practices. Sites will be chosen to give a range of asbestos-containing materials, removal techniques and removal companies. We will measure and assess personal exposure of removal operatives and undertake biological monitoring of those directly involved in removal work to help assess operative exposure. An in-mask sampler will be developed so that efficacy of commonly used RPE can be directly assessed. We will also be monitoring the effectiveness of engineering controls as well as whether contractors are following guidelines in this area. The clearance procedure at the end of each removal job will be assessed and monitoring undertaken to check fibre levels before reoccupation.

The results will provide HSE with an update on current working practices during licensed asbestos removal and allow comparisons with published HSE guidance. The use of novel techniques for assessing RPE effectiveness (in-mask sampling probe and biological monitoring) will allow a more detailed assessment of the effectiveness of control measures. This new information will inform HSE policy and regulators and provide evidence to support existing and proposed changes to guidance in this area.

Change last sentence to: This new information will help either support existing guidance or any changes that may be required.

Further analysis of asbestos lung burdens of young adults in Britain – PH00459

This research project supports an ongoing epidemiological study of the levels of exposure to airborne asbestos fibres in the UK. The analysis uses analytical electron microscopy to identify, size and count asbestos fibres in lung samples collected from young adults for other diagnostic purposes.

This information will help HSE assess whether the controls and legislation for asbestos are effective in reducing exposure and hence the risk of asbestos-related diseases.

20

20

HSE Research Summaries

Gilham, C. et al., Past and current asbestos exposure and future mesothelioma risks in Britain: The Inhaled Particles Study (TIPS) International Journal of Epidemiology, 2018, 1–12, doi: 10.1093/ije/dyx276

Practical work to compare respiratory health risks from stone dust containing RCS when generated from engineered stone - PH00751

Incidences of accelerated silicosis have been reported in ‘younger’ workers processing engineered stone, which contains mineral particles that are bonded together with resin. An HSE literature survey concluded that it could not be determined whether the emissions containing respirable crystalline silica (RCS) from engineered stone were more or less hazardous than from natural stone. This knowledge could provide information on the potential for increased health risks and whether additional controls or protective measures are needed.

Emissions from processing engineered stone may contain silica that is bonded with the resin and when working with dry stone, emissions may be solely in the ultrafine particle size fraction. The ultrafine particle size fraction might also be associated with degradation products from the resin (fume or vapour). Anecdotal evidence suggests that the resin burns when dry polishing. Furthermore, exposure to organic fumes may have an additional effect on worker health. These emission scenarios may have a role in causing lung inflammation which may exacerbate or promote lung damage. In addition, it is not known if the nature of the material could lead to an increase in emission of respirable particles containing RCS compared with natural stone containing a similar proportion of crystalline silica.

The research aims to determine differences in the emission profile of dust and fume, from engineered, sintered and natural stone when dry cutting, grinding and polishing. This will be done by measuring and comparing the emissions from artificial and natural stones with similar concentrations of crystalline silica. The emissions will be characterised under controlled laboratory conditions. Discussions with industry experts will inform the project team on representative tooling, work task parameters and stones for testing.

Longitudinal study of respiratory health in brick, stone, wood and laboratory animal workers – PH00708

Occupational lung disease (OLD) remains an issue for workers in certain industries in GB. Exposures to dusts, fumes and gases in the workplace may place workers at increased risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), silicosis, asthma and other lung diseases. In 2011 The Health Impact Assessment and Surveillance Strategic Research Programme (SRP) was commissioned by HSE to establish an evidence base from workers in multiple sectors (foundry, stone, brick, wood, laboratory animal workers) for diseases of high concern such as COPD, silicosis and occupational asthma. The programme combined field-based longitudinal occupational health and hygiene studies, measurements of health status and health questionnaires, behavioural interventions, mathematical modelling and economic impact assessment.

21

21

HSE Research Summaries

The current project is a continuation of these studies and will deliver the follow-up surveys of the brick, stone and foundry sites, plus analysis and reporting of data from these and the earlier surveys in wood and laboratory animal workers. The research represents one of the largest multi-disciplinary longitudinal health studies of its type and will help our understanding of exposure controls and the associated risks of OLD. It will establish a robust evidence base on GB levels of prevalence of symptoms, lung impairment and ill-health. This will assist in supporting employers and employees in improving health and safety knowledge and reduce costs through earlier identification and treatment of occupational ill-health.

The use of biological monitoring to evaluate sustainability of control improvements in electroplating - PH00610

Electroplating was identified as a priority sector for health-based inspection for HSE in 2015/16 as workers in this industry are potentially exposed to a range of carcinogenic substances, including hexavalent chromium and nickel.

Previous HSE research carried out in this sector (2008 – 2011) directly engaged with 53 electroplating companies. The work used biological monitoring (BM; urine sampling) to assess worker exposures to hexavalent chromium and nickel and, where appropriate, made recommendations to dutyholders on how exposure controls should be improved. The work included follow-up BM at 6 and 12 months after the initial intervention, which demonstrated that the dutyholders with the highest exposures had taken effective steps to reduce these exposures.

This work engages with the same companies to assess whether control improvements have been sustained and allow the effectiveness of the previous intervention to be assessed. The aim of the study is to re-engage with the original cohort of companies to assess whether exposure control improvements resulting from the previous intervention have been sustained over a 5-year period.

Of the 53 original participating companies, 26 have agreed to take part in this study. The study will utilise postal BM and questionnaires to assess exposures. Where appropriate, recommendations will be made to dutyholders on exposure controls.

The results of the study will improve understanding of carcinogen exposures in this industry and of the continuing effectiveness of previous interventions.

Review of exposure control of DEEEs in underground mine workings - PH00702

Diesel Engine Exhaust Emissions (DEEEs) are a complex mixture of particulates, gases and vapours, which occur when diesel-fuelled engines operate. DEEEs are of concern to human health as they are known to cause lung cancer and are associated with other serious health effects. No Workplace Exposure Limit (WEL - legal limits that have been set on the amounts of a particular substance that can be present in workplace air) has been set for DEEEs as a whole

22

22

HSE Research Summaries

as there are insufficient data to establish a clear, reliable threshold for all potential health effects. However, there are WELS for some of the individual substances in DEEEs. The major source of workplace exposure to DEEEs is from emissions from heavy vehicles that use diesel fuel. Emissions are also generated from stationary power sources, which may be used regularly in tunnelling, mining or on construction sites.

There is little information available about DEEEs exposure in UK non-coal mines. The aim of this project was to gather information on current exposures and exposure controls in use.

HSE identified mines to be visited for this project, all of whom volunteered to participate. Occupational hygienists visited the mines to collect intelligence on DEEEs exposure and its control. Substances within DEEEs were measured using samplers worn by miners and in fixed locations and the findings compared to the exposure limits. Controls utilised to reduce exposure to DEEEs were assessed using a questionnaire and the findings compared against HSE guidance.

This work will be used to help make decisions on the current and potential future adequacy of control solutions provided for exposure to DEEEs in mines. Working in collaboration with the mining industry will improve knowledge of the hazards from DEEEs, increase awareness of the proposed new exposure limits and enable the industry to assess how controls may be improved. By presenting the findings to national and regional mine safety meetings the mining companies will be able to identify DEEEs control improvements

Dust and bioaerosol exposure in livestock and vegetable farming - scoping study - PH01719

Exposure to agricultural dusts and bioaerosols, including grain and plant dusts, fungal spores, animal dander, bacteria and endotoxins can potentially cause diseases such as asthma, bronchitis and farmer's lung. This project aims to examine the risk of exposure to dust and bioaerosols in farming.

We have carried out literature searches to identify activities where there is potential for exposure during indoor livestock and vegetable crop farming and where no data was available in the wider scientific community. A series of observational visits to indoor livestock farms were made and the information collected was combined with the literature search data to produce a report for the sector. The information was used to identify where the highest risks lay and to target the exposure assessment phase of this project.

To investigate exposure, we selected cleaning and pressure washing of indoor pig housing units. Several visits have been made to measure exposure during the cleaning process, including moving livestock, mucking out, cleaning with chemicals and pressure washing.

This project is helping HSE to understand where the highest risks of respiratory disease are in livestock and vegetable farming, and the extent of the risk is being evaluated by exposure monitoring and assessment of the controls currently used.

23

23

HSE Research Summaries

Reducing healthcare- and laboratory-associated infections through improved handwashing techniques – PH20032

Handwashing is renowned for its importance in preventing and controlling infectious diseases. Current handwashing techniques can however create a lot of splash around the sink area, which will contain micro-organisms if they are present on the skin of the individual washing their hands. This moist environment can also encourage micro-organisms present in the local environment to grow and multiply where there is enough food source e.g. components of soap and skin. This poses an infection risk to healthcare workers, patients and laboratory personnel through transmission from contaminated surfaces and objects.

We have identified a modified handwashing technique based on an in-house brief ‘look-see’ test using a fluorescent marker. This new method appears to reduce the amount of splash from wet hands and could reduce the numbers of micro-organisms around the sink area and reduce the incidence of healthcare- and laboratory-associated infection.

Occupational infections of laboratory and healthcare workers are of ongoing regulatory concern as our specialist inspectors continue to receive reports of laboratory-acquired infections. Improving handwashing techniques to reduce contamination of the local environment could potentially reduce the incidence of these types of infections to workers.

If substantiated, this modified handwashing method could be implemented around the world in an effort to reduce healthcare- and laboratory-associated infection globally. Improving knowledge on reducing infection transmission is also important for public health both nationally and globally e.g. for UK and international preparedness and emergency response to disease outbreaks such as Ebola.

Development of exposure profile for painters (decorative and industrial) - PH01822

Painters and decorators can be exposed to various solvents and dusts through their work. Exposures occur during surface preparation and painting activities. The exposures have potential to cause harm and the HSE cancer burden study (http://www.hse.gov.uk/cancer/research.htm) found higher than average rates of cancer, though this was related to historic exposures.

Paint formulations have changed so past exposure data do not represent current exposures. HSE hold little current information on exposures while painting or the work tasks. This project was undertaken to investigate exposures to substances hazardous to health and understand exposure patterns.

The research will be performed in two phases, first a telephone survey followed by an exposure measurement survey. The telephone survey will be undertaken to gather information on work tasks and exposure controls and to seek participants for the exposure assessment survey. The exposure survey was informed by the results of the telephone survey to enable selection of target tasks considered to have significant exposure potential and be representative of typical work tasks. As part of the exposure survey, working practices and levels of exposure to

24

24

HSE Research Summaries

substances were assessed. Measurement will include exposure to solvents, inhalable and respirable dusts and metals.

The findings of this project will assist HSE in establishing an understanding of the potential for current working practices to affect exposure to substances hazardous to health. It trials a new method to obtain information on work tasks and to recruit companies for exposure surveys. The findings will help in the future development of targeted exposure control measures, with a view to reducing occupational disease risks.

Electroplating baths - efficacy of exposure controls - PH06105

Surface engineering refers to technologies designed to modify the surface properties of metallic and non-metallic components for decorative and/or functional purposes. The surface engineering sector is the biggest end user industry of supplied carcinogens in GB with an estimated exposed workforce of more than 3000. The sector supports a much wider range of industry and is crucial to the GB economy.

Between 2008-2011, HSE undertook a large occupational hygiene survey in the surface engineering industry. It looked at current exposures and exposure control practice for hexavalent chromium and soluble nickel salts, both established category 1 carcinogens used in electroplating. The work showed that exposure occurs by inhalation, through the skin, by ingestion or any combination of these routes. There are a range of measures that can be used to reduce airborne emissions from electroplating tanks but there is no clear guidance for the industry on the most appropriate and cost-effective techniques. HSE/trade association guidance is available, but it is based on expert opinion without supporting robust scientific evidence.

In this project we will carry out a systematic evaluation of measures used to reduce airborne emissions and dermal exposures from nickel electroplating tanks, as recommended in the 2008-2011 survey report. The findings of this work will provide a robust basis for HSE/trade association guidance aimed at reducing exposures to carcinogens in the surface engineering industry. HSE will also have clear evidence on the effect of different exposure control techniques to inform any future intervention initiatives.

The findings will be disseminated to inform the industry on the efficacy of the different control measures enabling them to make more informed choices on exposure control and improving health risk management.

Silica - collecting exposure and health data - PH00706

Silica (silicon dioxide) is a natural substance found in most rocks, sand and clay and in products such as bricks and concrete. These materials are commonly found in a wide-range of British workplaces, and it has been estimated that around 600 000 British workers have regular contact with silica dust. Breathing in silica dust over many years is known to cause breathing problems, particularly silicosis, but also chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer.

This research will collect information from a wide range of workplaces that have measured levels of silica dust in the air. The research will also collect health information from silica

25

25

HSE Research Summaries

workers who are having regular health checks at work (known as “health surveillance”), and workers who have been diagnosed with silicosis.

The information will give HSE a better understanding of workplace silica dust exposure levels and silica-related illness. The information collected will allow us to help workplaces reduce silica exposures and help to keep workers healthy.

Exoskeleton technologies – PH20028

Exoskeleton devices are designed to provide an external supporting structure to the human musculo-skeletal system.  They can enhance human performance and reduce physical demands on the body.  Because exoskeletons can change the demands on the human musculoskeletal system, exoskeleton technologies are relevant to the risks of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). These disorders are the most commonly reported cause of occupational ill health in GB.

In this project we will carry out a scoping study to develop an up to date picture of research and development being done in exoskeleton technology; gauge the current and planned adoption of exoskeletons across industry sectors; and develop an overview of the evidence available about the potential impact of adopting exoskeletons in the workplace.

Musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) risks associated with specific tasks in the construction industry – a review – PH00780

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) represent 39% of work-related cases of ill health reported each year to the enforcing authorities. Working in construction increases the risk that someone will suffer from work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) such as low back pain and result in time off work. These disorders are often associated with manual handling such as lifting, carrying, pushing or pulling of loads. This project will search for scientific studies and other evidence linking particular construction tasks and trades with increased risk of MSDs. This will allow us to list tasks with high-quality evidence linking them to risk of MSD and enable our inspectors to encourage the construction industry to change the ways these tasks are performed. The evidence provided by the review will be used to support a key work stream in HSE's Health & Work programme to control and reduce exposure to MSDs at work.

Evaluation of timing devices for assessment of hand-arm vibration exposure - PH00701

A variety of devices are currently available, designed to evaluate the exposure time of workers exposed to hand-arm vibration. These devices are designed to be mounted either on the tool or on the operator.

26

26

HSE Research Summaries

The project is investigating the performance of a range of timer types so that suitable, evidence-based advice can be given to duty-holders on the merits, or otherwise of using tool timing devices. The work contributes to HSE’s Health and Work programme in that it will provide duty-holders with better information to enable them to manage employee exposures to hand-arm vibration in the most effective way.

The aim of this project is to acquire enough evidence and knowledge on the applicability of different types of tool timing devices and their relative merits when used as part of a programme of exposure control measures. The project aims to test the timers in combination with a variety of electric, compressed air and internal combustion engine powered tools.

The project is designed to provide HSE with robust information on which to base its advice to duty-holders on the use of tool timers for exposure time measurement and hand-arm vibration risk assessment. The information will be incorporated in to the advice provided by HSE on the vibration exposure monitoring “Frequently Asked Questions” information sheet, which is available via the vibration at work pages of HSE’s website.

Battery-operated tools – hand-arm vibration - PH00539

With the recent improvements in battery power technology, the use of hand tools that are battery-powered is becoming widespread. HSE’s knowledge relating to noise and vibration exposures from power tools is predominantly based on tools powered by traditional methods, such as mains electricity, compressed air or internal combustion engines.

Battery-powered hand tools have become viable options for many applications and many duty-holders are migrating towards the use of these tools. Battery-powered machines are particularly attractive in industries such as grounds maintenance, construction and motor vehicle repair, where the mobility of the tool can simplify the site work. Many manufacturers of power tools are suggesting that the use of battery-powered machines is advantageous for reduction of both noise and vibration exposures. They quote figures that suggest considerable reductions in the emission values for these tools. However, the validity of these claims and the expected health consequences from long-term use of battery-powered machines for the worker are not yet known.

The project is investigating the potential influence on noise and vibration exposures that selection and use of battery-powered tools has when compared with more traditional types of power tool. Taking action to be better informed of the relative merits of this developing technology is clearly important. This will ensure that there isn’t a trend towards higher exposures which may then go unnoticed until the consequences to health become apparent.

The outcomes from the project will be used by HSE specialist inspectors and other sector specialists to further advise duty-holders and other stakeholders on power tool selection. The information will be disseminated widely, including trade associations and power tool manufacturers.

27

27

HSE Research Summaries

Current control practice and exposures to noise and hand-arm vibration in the construction industry - PH00514

The aim of this study is to establish current noise and hand-arm vibration (HAV) exposures in the construction industry and the current control practices in use that are reasonably practicable to appropriately target HSE’s inspection activities and lay out enforcement expectations.

Noise and HAV are significant causes of ill health amongst construction workers. They are over 3 times more likely to suffer noise induced hearing loss and 4.5 times more likely to suffer effects due to HAV than other workers. There is a lack of up-to-date information and practical knowledge of noise and HAV exposures in the construction industry, and which activities are causing the highest risks to workers.

A review of available literature on construction noise and HAV exposures will establish our existing knowledge. We will engage with the construction industry, interviewing providers of tools and plant machinery as well as a construction major contractor. HSE’s Construction Industry Advisory Committee (CONIAC), industry advisors to HSE and HSE Noise and Vibration Specialist Inspectors will also be interviewed.

These interviews will inform a short list of high-risk activities, relating to phases of work, types of construction activities and specialist activities. This will help to identify industry representatives to approach for site visits to gather up-to-date information. We will then visit five to six sites to cover the activities identified in the interviews. The visits will include measurement of noise and HAV exposures and gathering information about current control practices, working conditions and worker attitudes/behaviours affecting exposure.

Information documents for the activities will be produced. These will detail typical current noise and HAV exposures together with reasonably practicable controls that HSE inspectors should expect to see. The documents will be used by HSE inspectors, for both identifying and targeting health related inspection and stating specifically the types of controls that can be expected for noise and HAV within the construction sector.

Static concrete mixer cleaning - establishing a benchmark for control of exposures causing ill health - PH00542

Static concrete mixers must be cleaned after each batch of concrete is made as any remnants start to set after two hours resulting in a cumulative build-up of product. It is the removal of this accumulation by hand, using powered hand tools, which can expose operators to high levels of hand-arm vibration, noise and dust. Long-term exposure to these hazards can result in hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS), noise induced hearing loss and respiratory disease.

This project aims to investigate good control practice in managing health risks within the concrete industry and advise the industry on reasonably practicable controls for noise, hand-arm vibration and dust when cleaning static concrete mixers. To achieve these aims, a better understanding of the effectiveness of existing health risk control methods in cleaning of static mixers is needed.

28

28

HSE Research Summaries

For static concrete mixer cleaning in relation to exposure to noise, hand-arm vibration and dust, this research will review what is known about the process and current practices in the industry. The study will then identify what are reasonably practicable and best practices for the cleaning of static concrete mixers.

JAMACH14 chain saws - noise testing - PH00729

Chain saws are very noisy which can lead to hearing loss in users. The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations, 2008, which implement the requirements of the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC into UK law, require manufacturers to reduce risks due to noise emissions to the lowest level, taking account of technical progress and available means of reducing noise.

Assessing the adequacy of the noise control measures relies on the availability of accurate comparative noise emission information. However, a European project ‘NOMAD’ found that the noise content in 80% of more than 1500 machinery/tool instruction manuals did not meet the legal requirements of the Machinery Directive. The NOMAD project and previous HSE research have shown that the reported noise emission data may not be reliable or representative enough to enable an assessment of the noise reduction measures applied. This non-compliance by manufacturers makes it more difficult for employers to manage the noise risk to their employees.

A European-wide market surveillance exercise ‘JAMACH14 Chain saws’ has been carried out to assess the compliance of chain saws against the requirements of the Machinery Directive. This exercise has included an assessment of the noise content in chain saw instruction manuals.

By taking measurements of the noise exposures of chain saw operators while performing common tasks with a set of saws, this project aims to investigate if the noise emission data in the instructions provided by the manufacturer is a credible indicator of noise hazard during its intended uses; and if the noise test codes for battery, electric and internal-combustion chain saws are reliable in providing noise hazard information.

Innovations in hearing protection encouraging full use and proper fit – PH20042

Noise induced hearing loss (NIHL) accounts for 62% of the top ten health related employer liability claims across all industry. Hearing protection is often considered as the first and only solution where a noise risk exists, but this is not always a simple or reliable solution.

Ineffective hearing conservation programmes are often encountered across all industry sectors. A common issue is that workers fail to fit hearing protection properly. This is often linked to the selection of an inappropriate type of protector and a need or desire to maintain communication with colleagues; for example, lifting earmuffs to discuss work in hand or deliberately fitting protectors poorly to avoid isolation or to improve spatial awareness and communications.

“Non-passive” hearing protection is available, with features such as dynamic attenuation control, integral communications and/or entertainment (ear muffs/ear plugs) and active noise reduction (noise

29

29

HSE Research Summaries

cancelation). Some of these features are claimed to improve communications and reduce the feeling of isolation experienced by employees when wearing hearing protection. The use of suitable non-passive hearing protectors may encourage employees to fit and wear hearing protection correctly. Hearing conservation programmes can only be effective if suitable hearing protection is worn correctly. Ultimately improving the use of hearing protection will reduce the number of workers at risk of developing hearing loss.

This project aims to investigate the performance characteristics of non-passive hearing protection and so understand the benefits or possible drawbacks of using these devices in noisy workplaces.

Stirring animal slurry and release of hydrogen sulphide - PH00479

Cattle slurry is stored on farms and needs to be stirred to allow spreading. Toxic gases, including hydrogen sulphide (H2S) are released during stirring and can cause acute central nervous system toxicity, unconsciousness and death. Toxic gases have contributed to slurry-related deaths, but little is known about gas release and dissipation during slurry stirring. This project aims to improve our knowledge of H2S generation and dissipation, understand farmer’s knowledge and awareness, and to test the reliability of current HSE guidance to reduce the number of slurry-related deaths and accidents in the UK.

We undertook small surveys to investigate levels of knowledge about the release of toxic gases during slurry stirring and awareness and implementation of guidance. Farmers had good understanding of the health effects of slurry gases, but some were complacent about the risks. On-farm, real-time measurements of H2S gas were taken at a variety of positions during stirring of cattle slurry, along with contextual data on the type of slurry store, stirring equipment and ventilation, and an assessment of current controls.

Many factors are likely to influence H2S gas production, emission and dispersion. These include the type of slurry store, the position of the stirring point and natural ventilation and are likely to significantly influence the potential for farmers to be exposed. Many of the factors are variable and unpredictable.

The assessment of risk to workers from gases released during the opening of freight containers at UK - PH00587

Freight containers are opened routinely for inspection on arrival at UK ports by various people including Port Health, Trading Standards and Customs and Excise. There have been incidences of ill health and hospitalisation of workers at ports in the UK during this routine opening. Containers are also opened at distribution centres throughout the UK, following transportation. Incidences of ill health and hospitalisation at these centres occur at similar levels to those at ports. There is a potential health exposure risk for individuals entering freight containers due to the build-up of toxic and flammable gases, or oxygen deficiency. This is due to their contents and the lack of ventilation inside.

30

30

HSE Research Summaries

The aim of this work is: to obtain up to date knowledge on hazardous gas/vapour exposure potential (and controls) for workers when opening freight containers at UK ports and distribution centres.

A literature review to establish the types of cargo and the potential hazards associated with them will be undertaken. We will also undertake fact finding visits to ports to observe practices when containers were opened. The next phase of the work will involve sampling visits at ports and distribution centres. Sampling will be used to determine the levels of hazardous substances in the air when the containers are opened.

Coordinating and advancing human biomonitoring in Europe to provide evidence for chemical policy making - PH00724

Human biomonitoring for Europe (HBM4EU) is a joint project across 26 countries, the European Environment Agency and the European Commission, and is co-funded under Horizon 2020. Running until 2021, HBM4EU will generate knowledge to inform the safe management of chemicals and so protect human health in Europe. HBM4EU will coordinate and advance human biomonitoring in Europe providing better evidence of the actual exposure of citizens to chemicals. In addition, there will be a robust interpretation of human biomonitoring data and the possible impact of chemical exposure on human health, using the most up to date scientific tools. HBM4EU partners will effectively communicate results to policy makers, ensuring their exploitation in the design of new chemicals policies and the evaluation of existing measures. Data used and produced under HBM4EU will be made accessible via IPCHEM – the Information Platform for Chemical Monitoring. IPCHEM is the European Commission’s reference access point for searching, accessing and retrieving chemical occurrence data collected and managed in Europe.

Within the project there is a specific working group looking at occupational exposures. To date we have participated in a field survey for the carcinogen hexavalent chromium that involved eight countries; in the UK we visited companies involved in electroplating and stainless steel welding. The protocol has been published (Santonen et al, 2019) and data analysis is currently underway. HSE led a training workshop for other European research institutes on chromium speciation in exhaled breath condensate; this is a new approach that allows specific determination of hexavalent chromium without the need for an invasive blood sample. HSE has also been involved in two literature reviews (for diisocyanates and for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), both are currently being drafted for peer-review publication. The occupational working group is now finalising plans for the next field studies that will look at diisocyanates (in understudied scenarios such as painting large vehicles, spray insulation and floor screeding) and chemical exposures (e.g. metals, plasticisers, flame retardants) in the processing of e-waste.

Occupational health fitness standards for divers - PH00752

Diving is a high hazard, high risk activity and there are specific regulations on diving at work to control the risks. These are the Diving at Work Regulations 1997.

31

31

HSE Research Summaries

In the UK, there are around 5500 commercial divers carrying out different types of diving work. They include offshore diving in support of oil and gas industries, inland diving in support of civil engineering projects, police investigations, scientific research, media and the instruction of recreational divers. To help ensure commercial divers can meet the physical and psychological demands of diving, they must have an annual medical examination to assess their fitness to dive. The medical is conducted by an HSE-Approved Medical Examiner of Divers (AMED).

Standards for determining the medical and physical fitness of commercial divers are provided in guidance issued to AMEDs by HSE. They reflect the need to protect the health, safety and welfare of divers at work. The standards were developed largely from expert medical and scientific opinion.

This research project is designed to enhance the evidence base which underpins the standards. The research will obtain medical data from commercial divers who have consented to participate in the study, including assessment of lung function, body mass index, waist circumference and physical fitness. Can we put something else here about how this will be used?

Operator exposure during application of pesticides to tunnel grown crops – PH20045

Pesticide application refers to the method by which pesticides are delivered to their targets, typically food crops. Some of the pesticides applied may be hazardous to human health with those operating the application equipment amongst those at greatest risk. There is therefore a need to control the use of pesticides and their formulations.

HSE conducts assessments of operator exposure as part of the process to authorise a pesticide for use. This assessment requires the availability of operator exposure data appropriate for the intended uses of that pesticide. With crops grown in tunnel systems there is no specific exposure data available and data from similar outdoor applications is typically used. The aim of this work is to determine if the current regulatory approach is appropriate or whether applicants need to provide specific data to support such uses.

It is thought that for skin exposure there will be little difference to that associated with unprotected crops. The concern is that inhalation exposure in the enclosed tunnel space may

be above that assumed based on the applied regulatory models. As such it is not clear whether the current approach is providing the required standard of protection.

The work will involve operators applying pesticides to crops in a real application. Using established methodology this will provide exposure data that can be compared to existing data. It can then be demonstrated whether the current regulatory approach is sufficiently protective.

Herbicides applied through weed wipers – PH20046

Pesticide application refers to the delivery of pesticides to their targets, typically arable crops and grassland. Increasingly weed wipers are used, requiring a herbicide wetted wick, e.g. sponge, suspended from a boom to contact taller weeds. Some pesticides applied this may be

32

32

HSE Research Summaries

hazardous to human health with those operating the application equipment amongst those at greatest risk. There is therefore a need to control the use of pesticides and their formulations.

HSE conducts operator exposure assessments as part of the process to authorise a pesticide for use. This assessment requires operator exposure data appropriate for the intended uses of that pesticide. With pesticides applied through weed wipers there is no specific exposure data available and data from similar conventional sprayer applications is typically used. This work is intended to determine if the current regulatory approach is appropriate or whether applicants need to provide specific data to support such uses.

Applicants claim that lower exposures arise from the use of weed wipers than for boom sprayers. This ignores the risk of exposure to the more concentrated product used. With no specific data available to demonstrate what levels of exposure are associated with such current methods of pesticide application it is not clear if the current regulatory approach is providing the required standard of protection.

The work will involve operators applying pesticides in a real application. Using established methodology this will provide exposure data that can be compared to existing data. It can then be demonstrated whether the current regulatory approach is sufficiently protective.

Survey to support evaluation of the Health and Work programme – PRJ1256

HSE's Health & Work programme aims to reduce the numbers of new cases of work-related ill health, focussing on stress; musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs); and occupational lung disease (OLD).

It is important to measure our progress, to allow us to understand what impact we have had and what outcomes have been achieved; to inform our future activities by giving us a better understanding of what works; and in the short-term, to allow us to adjust our approaches, to make sure that our actions are having the greatest impact.

Various high-level data sources can be used to monitor changes in levels of work-related ill health. However, these sources cannot provide the contextual information needed to understand the extent to which any reductions in ill health are directly attributable to HSE interventions – contextual information such as changes in awareness of, and attitudes towards, work-related risks. Changes in attitudes and behaviours are best measured through a bespoke survey of workers and dutyholders in the sectors targeted by HSE’s interventions.

This longitudinal survey explores attitudes and views in a representative sample of workers and dutyholders from a range of businesses in priority sectors. A baseline survey has already been undertaken, to measure to what extent workers and dutyholders are currently aware of the risk factors for stress, MSDs and OLD; what awareness they have of measures to prevent risk; and the extent to which such measures are in place in their workplace.

A follow-up survey will be undertaken after two years, following a programme of HSE interventions. The follow-up will measure changes in attitudes and behaviours, to evaluate the extent to which HSE activities have had an influence.

This work will allow HSE to better understand its impact and if it is having a positive influence on behaviours – which in turn, should lead to reductions in work-related ill health.

33

33

HSE Research Summaries

Updating the HSE evidence base for wood dust exposure risks in the construction industry – PH00798

Inhalation of wood dust can cause respiratory diseases such as asthma and cancer. There are thousands of workers exposed to wood dust in the British construction industry. HSE has recently developed a method to measure airborne wood dust originating from construction sites. This project will use this method to measure wood dust exposures in construction, and enable the quantification of any crystalline dusts present in the dust sample. The opportunity will also be taken to measure respirable crystalline silica exposures collected in parallel samples. This additional data will increase our overall understanding of dust exposure in construction. Occupational hygienists will examine the exposure controls in place at the sites visited and will provide a judgement on their efficacy. Sites will be selected to enable a better understanding of what is possible in terms of exposure control, and provide benchmarking data. In parallel, a human factors investigation will explore influences on current management practices to control dust exposure, and the reasons for potentially safe/unsafe behaviour.

34

34

HSE Research Summaries

The impact of demographic

change on the health and safety

of the future workforce

The aim of the work in this science hub is to provide a body of evidence that supports mitigation, prevention and management of the impact of demographic changes on the health and safety of the future workforce that informs interventions and solutions and positions HSE as the thought leader in this area.

35

35

HSE Research Summaries

The vision for this science hub is to provide a body of evidence that supports mitigation, prevention and management of the impact of demographic changes on the health and safety of the future workforce that informs interventions and solutions and positions HSE as the thought leader in this area.

The aim is to identify emerging hazards and risks arising from demographic changes, and to

consider the interaction between these changes, and changes to the work environment and

work organisation. The longer-term aspirations are to mitigate, prevent and manage the impact

of adverse demographic changes on the health and safety of the workforce and help optimise

efficient and productive future working.

Initial work identified ten areas where gaps in demographics knowledge and evidence exist. A

programme of work in one of these areas – extending working lives – has been developed and

the intention is to commence four projects within this programme. These projects will provide

evidence about the risks, intelligence on how to influence the health and safety system to

manage the risks, and identify good practice in managing the risks.

A topic group will be set up to consider potential risks arising from working in the gig economy.

This will be informed by initial research published as part of the demographics hub in 2019.

In addition to this work, a programme of work on social change and ageing is being developed

in collaboration with Manchester University (as part of the Thomas Ashton Institute). This work

will initially consider five broad topic areas: fatigue, shift patterns, skills, violence, and areas of

health specifically relating to older workers. Initial funding to take this work forwards will be

sought from the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund in 2020.

.

36

36

HSE Research Summaries

The right evidence for the future

The aim of the research in this science hub is to take a long-term view on the development of the evidence base that can support HSE’s long-term strategic approach. It is allowing us to keep abreast of advances in measurement science and technology to improve evidence gathering.

37

37

HSE Research Summaries

SAPHEDRA – best practice in consequence modelling - PH06328

In the European Union, the Seveso Directive is the main legislation dealing with the control of on-shore major accident hazards involving dangerous substances. The Seveso III Directive came into force on 1 June 2015 and requires a detailed risk assessment to be undertaken when the estimation of the consequences of major accidents is required for decision-making.

Predictive models are used in this estimation and therefore they directly influence the decision-making process. For this reason, decision makers need to understand their strengths and weaknesses. Consequence model evaluation can be used to provide assurance of the robustness of predictions and to guide improvements in modelling techniques.

There have been several European initiatives on consequence model evaluation and harmonisation. Adopting a harmonised approach can build on existing experience and update procedures for new and emerging technologies and materials. A need for such an approach was recognised as new scenarios emerge for which existing models have not been evaluated. A project, titled ‘SAPHEDRA’ was initiated with EU funding to provide a means of objectively assessing the performance of models and related simulation tools. The project involves a consortium of seven European partner organisations and consists of regulators, research establishments and academic institutions. The aim was to derive an EU commonly-agreed model evaluation protocol and a series of test cases derived from well-established experiments.

HSE is providing an “in-kind” contribution to the consortium and is benefitting by maintaining links with similar European organisations. We are helping to ensure that the outputs from the project are compatible with our requirements. Part of our contribution has been the publication of HSE Research Report RR1099 “Review of consequence model evaluation protocols for major hazards under the EU SAPHEDRA platform”. Producing this report has been beneficial for the evaluation of our own models and its publication and presentation at conferences has helped to share our expertise.

Validation of International Organization for Standardisation (ISO) Protection Levels - PH00750

Work activities may result in harmful substances contaminating the air and respiratory protective equipment (RPE) is designed to protect the wearer from these hazards. There are new Respiratory Protective Device (RPD) standards being developed under the International Organization for Standardisation (ISO), which are expected to be adopted by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and eventually replace the current suite of standards. The new ISO standards will form the basis of the CE-marking that is a requirement of GB health and safety law on the use of RPE.

When RPE is used, correct selection is critical to the reduction of exposure. As part of the selection process, the expected in-use performance levels, referred to as ‘Assigned Protection Factors’ (APFs) are critical parameters. The new ISO requirements call for new indicators of in-use performance values referred to as 'ISO Protection Levels' (ISO PLs). There is a concern whether these will be sufficiently robust to ensure adequacy of the RPE. If APFs are to be replaced by the ISO PLs then it is essential that these values are robust and validated.

38

38

HSE Research Summaries

Previous validation work conducted by HSE and external stakeholders considered only one type of RPE device and knowledge gaps concerning the applicability of these proposed PLs for other types of RPE remain. This project will involve HSE and external stakeholders testing many common RPE types in accordance with the proposed methods in the draft ISO performance standards. The results will be compared with data relating to the performance of those RPE in the workplace and compared with the new ISO PL classification system for each RPE type against the current APF data.

The aim of this project is to provide a clear understanding of how the new ISO PL classification system will affect HSE policy on RPE selection and use and to put HSE in an informed position to update its current guidance on APFs.

Measuring asbestos in air and lung samples: assessment of an alternative method - PH00671

HSE estimates that there are currently around 12 000 deaths per year in the UK from occupational respiratory disease linked to past occupational exposures. Asbestos is responsible for over 5000 of these deaths. The aim of this project is to assess the capability of a new technique for identifying and counting asbestos fibres from air and lung samples.

Existing methods use electron microscopy and light microscopy to analyse and count asbestos fibres. The new technique is based on the selective attachment of a fluorescent marker to the asbestos fibres, so they can be separated from other non-asbestos fibres when viewed under a fluorescent light. For the technique to be useful it must selectively attach to the six varieties of asbestos fibres (to avoid false negatives) and not attach to the many other types of non-asbestos fibres (false positives).

The research will apply the new method to various types of fibres on test filters, followed by filters prepared from existing air and lung samples that have been previously analysed by analytical electron microscopy. This will allow us to assess whether this new method could be a reliable and useful addition to the current light microscopy counting methods in use. If reliable, the new method would offer significant advantages in increasing the limit of detection for asbestos fibre counting and would decrease the need for costlier analytical electron microscopy. This new technique will help with the monitoring of current asbestos concentrations to workers and other building occupants in buildings containing asbestos materials, which continue to be a source of public concern.

Developing a national exposure intelligence system - PH05708 Check with TTL

The HSE cancer burden study (http://www.hse.gov.uk/cancer/research.htm) estimated that occupational cancer in GB, linked to exposure to hazardous substances, caused approximately 8000 cancer deaths and 1000 new cancers per year. These estimates depend on the quality of data about the number of workers exposed and their exposures. Currently data is from one main source – the CARcinogen EXposure (CAREX) database, which was created in the late 1990s. CAREX has limitations such as being based on non-UK exposure data.

39

39

HSE Research Summaries

This research is developing a GB-specific system using respiratory crystalline silica (RCS) to assess the system. The research aims to develop a method to find available data sources relevant to workplace RCS exposure in GB and identify information gaps; obtain and analyse exposure data; estimate the number of workers exposed and their exposure levels (by industry sector, occupation and business type/size) and estimate trends in exposure.

Estimates of RCS exposures will be used to determine the future disease burden, how exposures alter over time and what effect this has on the disease burden. The results of this research will allow us to assess trends in occupational disease in the UK. This will enable HSE to better prioritise its operational and policy decisions to reduce occupational disease. It will enhance engagement with industry, by identifying disease, and enable control guidance to be produced.

The Health and Occupational Research network (THOR) – PRJ500

THOR is a voluntary surveillance scheme for work-related ill health. Under this network specialist doctors systematically report all new cases that they see in their clinics. These reports are collated and analysed by a multidisciplinary team at the University of Manchester. Two component schemes of THOR are SWORD (based on reports from hospital consultants specialising in respiratory disease) and EPIDERM (based on reports from consultant dermatologists).

HSE's Health & Work programme aims to reduce the numbers of new cases of work-related ill-health, focussing on stress; musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs); and occupational lung disease (OLD). Data provided by THOR allows HSE to report progress against the OLD strand of the strategy. The data provide information on causation, including new and emerging issues; and on incidence and trends. They are used to evaluate intervention strategies within specific sectors, providing sufficient detail and numbers to allow longitudinal assessment of progress against priorities over time. THOR provides information on conditions that are clinically diagnosed and identified as work-related to help inform policy and guidance. The data are also the leading source for HSE’s annual statistics on occupational asthma and skin disease. Without THOR data, HSE could not quantify levels of work-related disease or report on progress in the way that it currently can.

Land use planning advice – onshore major hazards – PH00673

HSE is a statutory consultee for planning applications around major hazard sites, major accident hazard pipelines and licensed explosive sites. For major hazard sites and major accident hazard pipelines, HSE sets a consultation distance within which a planning authority must consult HSE over developments which are likely to lead to an increased population around the major hazard. For licensed explosive sites a safeguarding zone is specified within which a planning authority must consult HSE over any developments.

HSE’s Planning Advice Web App is an online system that allows registrants to obtain HSE’s advice directly on whether planning permission should be granted. For developments around explosives sites, users are directed to contact HSE’s Explosives Inspectorate for advice. Users of the WebApp can find out if a proposed development lies within the consultation distance/safeguarding zone of a major hazard. If it does, they can, for a fee, use the Web App

40

40

HSE Research Summaries

to find out what HSE’s advice would be on the proposal or be directed to Explosives Inspectorate for advice if the proposed development is within a safeguarding zone. Developers can also use HSE’s pre-application consultancy service. This service is for more complex proposed developments and can include providing detailed information about HSE’s methodology, information about the major hazard sites and the risk assessments associated with these sites, re-designing layouts, pipeline re-assessments and other related tasks.

Our land use planning team use a wide range of skills, knowledge and expertise to deliver HSE’s statutory and commercial land use planning advice. The team are the primary point of contact for planning authorities and developers, responding to enquiries and providing a high-quality independent pre-application consultancy service.

Develop and maintain risk assessment models and guidance for land use planning – PH00667

HSE provides public safety advice to planning authorities and developers on the risks from major hazard installations and major accident hazard pipelines. A key part of this advice is a map of the industrial facility and surrounding area overlaid with contours showing HSE’s “consultation distances”, which usually comprise three zones that are graded in terms of risks or hazards. HSE uses this safety information, together with details of the numbers and types of population in the vicinity, to advise on the location of new major hazard installations and developments near existing installations.

The production of HSE’s three-zone maps involves several modelling steps and assumptions. HSE bases its advice on the "residual" risk that unavoidably remains after all reasonably practicable measures have been taken by the operator to comply with all relevant health and safety regulations. HSE then makes predictions of the likelihood and consequences of foreseeable and credible release scenarios from the major hazard site or pipeline.

HSE’s predictions are based on risk assessment methodologies and computer models of the consequences of releases of a wide range of flammable and toxic materials. Over time there is a need to develop, update and replace these methodologies to consider developments in computer modelling approaches, changes to IT capability and new technical knowledge on major hazards. It is also essential to keep up to date with changes in industry, e.g. introduction of new technologies. The aim of this research is to maintain and develop the risk assessment methodologies and models so that the overall approach remains fit-for-purpose and can withstand external challenge, for example during a planning public inquiry.

HardSPEC sensitivity and uncertainty analysis - PH00661 check with TTL

Plant protection products (PPP) are used to control pests, weeds and diseases and any UK regulatory submission for their use on hard surfaces is assessed using an exposure model called ‘HardSPEC’. The model provides estimates of chemical concentrations in surface water sources following application of the PPP and a sequence of rainfall events over a 73-day period for four different use scenarios: urban, major road, railway and domestic (home & garden). The model also provides predictions of the concentration of the PPP in groundwater over a 1500-

41

41

HSE Research Summaries

day period for three aquifer types (chalk, limestone and sandstone). The model can be downloaded from the HSE website.

Although available monitoring data indicate that predictions from HardSPEC are consistent with actual measurements, only limited validation of the model has been undertaken. Through varying the sequence of rainfall events and the task-based parameters in the HardSPEC model, a range of estimates of chemical concentrations can be generated. However, since a rigorous study of the variability in HardSPEC model estimates has not been undertaken, the range of model predictions and the sensitivity of these predictions to credible changes in model parameters are unknown.

In this project an uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of the current HardSPEC model is being undertaken, in conjunction with the original model developers, to identify areas where refinements might give more precise estimations of chemical concentrations. These refinements may result in additional chemicals being authorised for use on roads and railways and will assist HSE in its aim of publishing guidance that is proportionate and meets the needs of users.

Implementation of a Measuring Strategy with the Health and Work Programme - PH00758

The burden of work-related ill health in GB is considerable and costs the national economy billions each year. HSE’s Health and Work (H&W) programme is focused on reducing levels of occupational lung disease, musculoskeletal disorders and work-related stress. The programme is large-scale, multidimensional, cross-cutting, and complex. It designs and carries out a wide range of interventions including inspection, enforcement and other regulatory activities. It is anticipated that long-term, sustained and coordinated actions developed as part of this programme will, over time, improve awareness, behaviours, control of exposures to hazardous substances and, ultimately, prevent work-related ill health.

In this 4-year project, a multidisciplinary team including social researchers, statisticians, data scientists, and occupational health professionals, will work alongside policy makers to implement an HSE Measuring Strategy for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the H&W programme. This Measuring Strategy, together with measurement framework and principles, has been developed, using the H&W programme as a pilot. The measurement framework draws together data systems and analyses, covering Attitudes (A), Behaviours (B), Control of exposures (C), and Disease and work-related ill health reduction (D), based on a simple model to provide evidence required for evaluating the short, medium and long-term impacts of the H&W programme on the GB health and safety system. The Measuring Strategy gives a new focus on measuring behavioural changes and risk reductions and emphasizes the use of longitudinal measurement to assess progress over time.

This project will enable sustained efforts, a coordinated approach and long-term evidence base development for measuring the impact of HSE’s activities on the GB health and safety system. It will help HSE build the right evidence base for monitoring and evaluating a range of national level interventions.

42

42

HSE Research Summaries

Advancing the measurement of exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS) – PH00760

Exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS) is a substantial contributor to the burden of occupational lung disease and exposure occurs in a wide range of sectors and workplaces. There is still a challenge to reliably and accurately measure exposure especially at low levels. There is a need to develop techniques to measure RCS concentrations below the capability of current methods, where there remains a risk to health and to help duty holders control exposure to as low as is reasonably practicable.

This project is focused on the development of more sensitive, reliable, and practical methods to measure these lower levels of RCS. This involves looking at new devices and samplers that collect samples and different analytical methods that will allow the determination of lower levels of RCS in smaller samples. We are also investigating how effective Respiratory Protective Equipment can be in preventing exposure. To be able to do this we are developing techniques able to measure the small quantities of RCS and other hazardous material found behind masks when they are worn in the workplace. To better assess personal exposures novel analytical methods and matrices such as the collection of exhaled breath condensate from workers to look for particles and RCS determinations in lung biopsy samples from a project looking at longer term exposures. This research will also evaluate workplace monitoring instruments which could be made practicable and widely available to those wishing to use them.

Geoanalytic and geographic information systems – PHF00609

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can capture, store, manipulate, analyze, manage, and present spatial or geographic data which can be used for example to pinpoint. Work in this project ensures the ongoing maintenance and updating that is required to provide relevant GIS information. This is particularly important for key tools such as the National Population database (which provides detailed estimates of population density and distribution for a wide range of applications), the ‘Find-It’ tool, land use planning tools and web apps and major accident hazard pipeline risk zone maps. HSE and Local Authority operational risk assessment requires the ongoing maintenance of specialist GIS software including ‘Map Tool’, ‘Extranet Mapper’ and the ‘NPD’ tool. This support is required by HSE’s operational staff and by Local Authority (LA) colleagues for them to discharge their regulatory duties.

Jack Rabbit II Chlorine Experiments: Validation of DRIFT – PH00748

HSE provides local planning authorities with assessments of the risks posed by major hazards sites (such as refineries and large chemical plants), to help the authorities manage population growth around these sites.

The main tool used by HSE to assess hazards posed by releases of toxic or flammable substances is the atmospheric dispersion model “DRIFT”. The model was originally developed by the UK Atomic Energy Authority in the late 1980’s and it has been further developed with

43

43

HSE Research Summaries

support from HSE over the last 30 years. To have confidence in the model predictions, it is essential that it is validated by comparing model predictions to data from experiments that recreate scenarios similar to potential major accidents, to assess the accuracy of the model.

In 2015 and 2016, the US Army conducted a series of chlorine release experiments at the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, known as the Jack Rabbit II trials. These were the largest-scale experiments on chlorine ever conducted. The project sponsors, the US Department for Homeland Security and Defense Threat Reduction Agency, invited HSE to join an international group of dispersion modellers to review the data from the experiments and compare dispersion model predictions. HSE’s participation in this project has provided it with an opportunity to further validate DRIFT against this important new dataset. The results have further improved confidence in the model.

REACT - Refined Exposure Assessment of isoCyanaTes to protect health - PH00767

Isocyanates are widely used chemicals in the manufacture of polyurethane foams, plastics, coatings, varnish, two-pack paints and adhesives and they continue to be a significant cause of occupational asthma. Isocyanate products are evolving, and we know that although these newer products may be marketed as 'safer' (with some also available to consumers), they are still presenting significant isocyanate exposures if not properly controlled.

This project aims to provide HSE with the knowledge on the latest technologies for isocyanates, including potential risk and exposure issues and to provide the practical tools to appropriately assess these exposures. The project has three main aims i) to determine the most practical and sufficient air monitoring method, given recent developments; ii) to evaluate more specific biomarkers to better characterise risk and iii) to undertake site visits to assess exposure to understudied or new isocyanates or tasks involving isocyanates.

To date the project has reviewed relevant air monitoring methods (currently being drafted for peer-review publication) and explored the use of isocyanate-specific lysine metabolites in urine (currently being drafted for peer-review publication). A site visit has been completed that looked at a number of tasks involving isocyanates including the use of hot-melt glues and measurement of a previously unstudied isocyanate.

Our work understanding new products and uses of isocyanates will feed into the occupational lung disease strand of HSE’s Health and Work programme.

Measuring exposure to hazardous metals – PH00766

Many workers are potentially exposed to hazardous chemicals at work, including metals. This project aims to improve our knowledge of, and develop, both analytical and sampling methods for metals exposures in a range of workplaces. The research will focus on optimising methods of measuring exposure to metals where the existing workplace exposure guidance levels are reducing internationally. It will also focus on gathering data on exposure to new (e.g. ultrafine elements of zinc, silver, titanium) and emerging metals and exposures in a range of industries e.g. battery manufacture, electrical and metal recycling and the use of metal powders in advanced materials manufacturing.

44

44

HSE Research Summaries

Biomonitoring (monitoring of biological samples collected from individuals e.g. a urine sample), to detect chemical exposures, has grown significantly in recent years and is commonly used to assess exposures in both occupational and environmental studies. This research addresses a number of areas where currently there are knowledge gaps in terms of understanding the best biological matrix or biomarker to analyse, the types of exposure occurring, or improving the data and knowledge we have by collecting more relevant samples. Specific projects within this research programme include

• Investigating biomarkers for manganese exposures in relevant workers e.g. welders;

• Correlation of airborne/occupational hygiene values with urinary beryllium values;

• Investigating unknown arsenic species in workers’ samples;

• Investigating novel blood collection devices for lead and cadmium analysis;

• Developing new methods for measuring metal exposure in battery manufacture and disposal

• Investigating exhaled breath condensate (breathed out water vapour) for the determination of workplace exposures to hexavalent chromium, a carcinogenic metal.

• Using novel particle sensors and samplers to assess airborne exposures to particles in an urban environment

The research outlined in this proposal will build on successful methods developed in previous HSE projects, develop new methods where needed and use these to collect samples at workplace visits for validation. The findings of this research can be used to provide information on exposure risks and to evaluate the effectiveness of control measures in place to protect workers’ health.

An exploration of methods for recording and utilising intelligence on workplace exposure controls – PH00786

A wide range of ill health conditions can be caused by exposure to hazardous substances in the workplace and one of HSE’s priorities is to raise awareness amongst employers of the harm and preventability of such conditions and help them put in place systems to reduce or remove risks. Currently, HSE lacks quality intelligence on the systems employers have in place for controlling these exposures – although our inspectors record what they find at workplace visits, it is in the form of narrative descriptions and these are difficult to analyse.

This research is developing a new method of recording information about how employers control the exposure of their workers to hazardous substances in the workplace. This recording method collects information in a quantifiable way, providing simple counts to describe the control systems in place. This should result in a better understanding of common control failings, allowing our inspectors to observe problems quickly when they visit workplaces and to intervene more efficiently and effectively. Another key benefit of this research will be that HSE will be able to directly measure the impact of its risk reduction initiatives and learn lessons about what types of intervention are most beneficial in terms of helping employers to manage risk.

45

45

HSE Research Summaries

The application of next generation sequencing (NGS) to support health impact assessment following workplace exposure to microorganisms– PH20113

Despite the widespread reliance on culture-based methods for microbiological investigations, only around 10% of all bacteria can be cultured and identified by traditional methods, e.g. using agar plates. Non-culturable microorganisms, from the remaining 90%, can also contribute to worker ill-health and any inability to characterise these creates bias during assessments of workplace exposure. This can limit the accurate identification of the microorganisms associated with worker ill-health.

The current project aims to improve and augment the existing analysis methods for workplace samples, by developing culture-independent methods based on next generation sequencing (NGS) technology. NGS identifies microorganisms using their unique DNA profile, eliminating the need to culture them. It can still be used to identify traditionally cultured bacteria (colonies) that may be difficult to characterise by other means, so has broad application for microbiological identification. NGS is rapid and largely automated, increasing analysis efficiency and removing the uncertainty associated with identifying bacteria by visual means alone.

The project team plans to develop and validate methods for use with new in-house NGS equipment, allowing a more efficient and thorough investigation of the types of samples from workplaces. These include metal working fluids, air samples, process (grey) water and surface swabs. The developed methods and related competencies will aid microbiological research and investigations in HSE priority areas, such as occupational lung disease in the waste and recycling, manufacturing and agriculture sectors.

HSE statistics, economics and social science

HSE produces annually a suite of high-quality official statistics on workplace injuries and ill-health. HSE statistics are accredited as National Statistics by the Office of Statistics Regulation (OSR), the independent regulator of all UK official statistics. This National Statistics accreditation indicates HSE’s workplace injury and ill-health statistics meet the highest possible standards in relation to trustworthiness, quality and value and are fully compliant with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.

The statistics provide important levers for good management of health and safety at work. Supported by HSE statisticians, these statistics combined with appropriate analytical approaches, enable evidence-based targeting, evaluation, and measurement of HSE regulatory efforts. They also underpin the economic case for health and safety within government and the business community.

HSE’s Economic and Social Analysis Team produce a range of high-quality analytical publications including the Costs to Britain publication on the economic impact of accidents and injuries at work, post implementation reviews, impact assessments and research into attitudes and behaviours of dutyholders. The team is made up of social researchers and economists, using a cross-disciplinary approach to inform policy and regulatory decisions, supporting HSE’s mission to reduce death injuries and illness in work.