The Hazards Forum Newsletter · 7/27/2010 · Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the Hazards Forum Further information regarding the articles in this issue

The

Hazards Forum

Newsletter

Issue No. 68

Autumn 2010

Web version

1

Hazards Forum Newsletter No 68 – Autumn 2010WV

Hazards Forum Newsletter

Issue No. 68 - Autumn 2010

Contents

2 Sir Frederick Warner

3 Avoiding Catastrophes – Are We Competent?

7 From the Secretary …

8 The Undergraduate Health and Safety Risk Teaching Project

10 EFCE/EPSC Process Safety Presentation for Board Members andChief Executives

11 Parliamentary and Scientific Committee

11 HSE eNews – Some Examples

12 Calendar of Events

Edited by James Kearns

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the Hazards Forum

Further information regarding the articles in this issue is available from

Tim Fuller on 020 7665 2230, in the Hazards Forum Secretariat Office

E-mail: [email protected]

Hazards Forum website: www.hazardsforum.org.uk

Hazards Forum Secretary: Brian Neale

September 2010

Sir Frederick Warner

The friends and colleagues of Sir Frederick Edward Warner were enormously saddened tolearn of his recent death, on Saturday 3rd July aged 100.

Sir Frederick, who was always known as “Ned” was a leading authority of internationalrenown on nuclear and chemical safety and was a former chair of the Hazards Forum. Heassembled and led the first international taskforce into the Chernobyl nuclear power plant,following it’s meltdown in 1986.

Born in north London to his father, Frederick, a policeman, and Annie, he was educated atWanstead national school and Bancrofts school. He then studied chemistry at UniversityCollege London, and graduated in the midst of the Great Depression in 1931. Unable to findwork, he returned to university to study for a postgraduate diploma in chemical engineering.

Sir Frederick’s first jobs were for the Stratford-based firm A. Boake, Roberts and Co., wherehe ran chemical manufacturing plants. This work gave him first-hand experience of thedangers of toxic chemicals, which caused some of his staff to exhibit odd behaviour. Duringwar-time, he was asked by the government to build a plant at Drigg, near Sellafield, for themanufacture of nitric acid, which was required to make nitro-glycerine for TNT explosives.His success in building this plant at half the cost of the Imperial Chemical Industries’ designhelped raise the reputation of chemical engineering. He also later worked with the RAFinstalling fog dispersal devices at their stations, for pharmaceutical company APV where hedeveloped improved methods of penicillin production and for oil distillers Carless Capel.

In 1956 he founded the engineering consultation partnership Cremer and Warner with hisfriend Herbert Cremer. The firm helped solve problems with chemical plants, coal and oilgasification, and air and water pollution for various international. Some of the work he wasmost pleased with was the modelling of the flows on the river Thames and its findings ondissolved oxygen levels and sewage station outfalls. The work subsequently led tosuccessful clean up operations which in turn led to the recovery of fish stocks and enabledthe return of migratory salmon and sea-trout, which had been absent since Victorian times.

During this period he also served as an advisor on government and government-appointedbodies, such as the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Advisory Councilon Energy Conservation. He also served as a technical advisor at the Flixborough chemicalworks inquiry and an assessor to the Windscale inquiry. He retired from Cremer and Warnerin 1980. In 1982, Sir Frederick was appointed treasurer of the International Council ofScientific Unions’ Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), andsubsequently chaired three projects which investigated the effects of major nuclear radiationexposures.

Sir Frederick was a founder fellow in 1976 of the Fellowship, now the Royal Academy ofEngineering, and was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in the same year.

He was knighted in 1968, and is survived by his Wife, Barbara, whom he married in 1958,and by his four children, Robert, Elisabeth, Alex and Peter.

Sources include: Guardian.co.uk, Jane Sutton and Adam Duckett, Tuesday 27 July 2010, available athttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/27/sir-frederick-warner-obituary

Telegraph.co.uk, 20 July 2010, available athttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/technology-obituaries/7901346/Professor-Sir-Frederick-Warner.html

3


Avoiding Catastrophes – Are We Competent?

Dr. Willie Boyle and James Kearns

On Wednesday 16th June 2010 theHazards Forum and the Institution ofMechanical Engineers jointly hosted anevening event at the latter’s premises inWestminster, London. The event wassponsored by the Health and SafetyExecutive and supported by the Safetyand Reliability Society.

The event was concerned with theprocedures which businesses undertake toavoid large incidents and how theoccurrence of such events sadlydemonstrates the less than fully effectivenature of such procedures. The event wasalso concerned with issues of competencefrom both the regulator and the duty holderperspective which arise when dealing withsuch accidents. The event began withHazards Forum Chairman Paul Thomas,who welcomed the audience and thankedthe Health and Safety Executive and theSafety and Reliability Society forsponsoring the event, and the Institution ofMechanical Engineers for hosting theevent. Mr Thomas then introduced thechair for the evening, Mr. PatrickMcDonald, Chief Scientific Advisor atthe Health and Safety Executive. Mr.McDonald acknowledged the importanceof the event’s topic and questionedwhether the decision makers responsiblefor preventing large incidents trulyrecognise the magnitude of theconsequences involved with such events.He also noted that the causes of theseaccidents incidents are usually due tohuman factors, such as failures ofleadership and questioned whybusinesses don’t appear to learn fromthese mistakes.

There were three speakers for the event,which were followed by a brief talk byAllan Bain, Development Director of theSafety and Reliability Society, whodiscussed an upcoming event. After thisthere was a discussion period with the

audience and a reception for networkingopportunities. The first presentation wasgiven by Mr. Rob Miles, PrincipalSpecialist Inspector of the Human andOrganisational Factors Offshore SafetyDivision at the Health and SafetyExecutive, whose talk, simply titled“Competence”, detailed the current stateof affairs with regards to safety in UKoffshore operations and described themeasures organisations should take toensure their staff are competent, as wellas giving the regulator’s view on thissubject. This was followed by apresentation from Mr. Stuart Greenfield,of DNV, titled “Risk Competency –improving people barriers”. In thispresentation, Mr. Greenfield discussedhow individuals within an organisation canoperate in hazardous situationscompetently and how organisational andleadership aspects can aid individuals inthis respect. Finally, Mr. Dick Vote, Chairof the Institution of MechanicalEngineer’s (IMechE) Safety andReliability Group discussed the approachsuggested by the IMechE in avoidingengineering catastrophes. This talk, titled“Engineering failures - how do we avoidthem?”, explained the importance ofthinking carefully about individualproblems and presented a model whichdescribed the necessary processes whichshould be undertaken to ensure safety andreliability.

Mr. Rob Miles began his talk byexplaining that the regulation of UKoffshore safety follows a permissioningregime. This means that the duty holder ofan installation must first present a SafetyCase which satisfies the Health and SafetyExecutive’s requirements for safeoperation. The HSE will then allow theduty holder to operate on the conditionthat the installation is operated in thesame manner as described in the SafetyCase. Mr. Miles explained that the concept

4


of “integrity” is very important whenregulating operators. For the HSE,“integrity” is how closely the operatorfollows the requirements laid out in theirSafety Case. Some of these requirementsinclude only employing competent staff,conducting adequate risk assessmentsand maintaining equipment to a safestandard.

However, the inspectors usually find that anumber of requirements are not beingfulfilled. The reasons for this were thatpeople throughout the organisation valuethe importance of safety differently,because of competing risks which affectevery organisation: safety, business andpsychosocial risks.

Mr. Miles made the point that thepercentage of competent staff employed isa “leading indicator”, which means it canbe used to predict accidents. However,when inspectors ask operators for thepercentage of competent staff employed,the operators usually reply that 100% oftheir staff is competent. Mr. Milesmentioned that he is sceptical of thisresponse and would not accept it. He tolda story of one operator who had claimedthat a target of only 65% staff competencehad been set, which the operator wasclose to achieving. The operator hadprovided supporting documentation

detailing how the operating procedureshad been modified to account for andtolerate safely this degree ofincompetence.

The HSE have only recently begun servingProhibition Notices to the duty holders forfailing to provide an adequate number ofcompetent staff. It has also beenacknowledged that shutting a plant downfor having too many incompetent staff canmake it difficult for incompetent staff toreceive further training and experience.The HSE are therefore looking at solutionsthat allow limited operation.

There is a further problem withcompetence, in that it can be difficult toobserve. One issue is whetherincompetence should be looked for duringthe recruitment stage, before the staffmember begins work or while the staffmember is at work. Incompetence canalso be hidden, for example, throughforged certificates or dishonest self-assessments. Mr Miles then finished histalk by asserting that the overallcompetence of an institution can beinferred from how many members of theinstitution are being struck off, and thatdetermining the true value of this figure isan important question for anybodyconsidering the competence issue.

5


Mr. Stuart Greenfield then discussed therole which individuals within anorganisation play in ensuring safeoperation. This topic contrasts with otheroperational elements which must beconsidered in safety analyses: those of theintegrity of the plant and its parts, andthose of the integrity of the processes thatoccur within the plant. Organisationsusually understand how these latter twoelements affect overall safety, butunderstanding how “people integrity”affects safety presents some newproblems.

This focus on “people integrity” poses onefundamental question: are peopleinherently reliable? Mr Greenfieldconsidered that people have two roles inwork: a mechanistic role of fulfillingresponsibilities and a more creative, lesswell defined role, which is the ability toapply experience and adapt to novelsituations. If a person is to work in areliable manner, then it is necessary to be“risk competent” in both these areas.

Mr. Greenfield then presented a diagramexplaining what is meant by “riskcompetence”. The diagram showed thatthere are four stages of risk competence.

Firstly, there is a commitment to normsand rules. This requires the worker toassimilate the desired behaviour.Secondly, the worker must developrelevant knowledge and learn the requiredskills. This comes from application of thedesired behaviour and a learning ofpracticalities that help to identify andcontrol risks.

Next there is risk acceptance. This iswhen the worker accepts the appropriateattitude towards the risks. Finally is riskperception, which is the ability of theworker to be aware of the true nature ofthe risks involved.

An example of the development of riskcompetence is the management system.This is one of many process safetysystems which occur within a plant.

The management system provides aframework for people to operate in, andcreates the proper environment for theorganisation to function in. In terms of therisk competency model, this system allowsthe development of only the first twostages - the commitment to the normsand rules and the development of therelevant knowledge and skills.

These two stages involve only compliancefrom the worker – i.e. the requirement thathe fulfils his responsibilities. To developthe final two stages of the risk competencemodel – risk acceptance and perception –requires something beyond justcompliance. Mr Greenfield explained thatthis comes from leadership within theorganisation.

6


This is because leaders influence thecultural environment. Therefore, if theworkers are to hold the right attitudetowards risk, it is necessary for the leadersto also understand and accept the risks.

Mr. Dick Vote gave the final talk of theevening. This talk presented the IMechEapproach to safety and reliability inengineering. This approach proposes thatfailures occur when there is unwillingnessor an inability to be objective and realisticin assessing the engineeringrequirements.

The IMechEApproach

• EngineeringCatastrophesand how to avoidthem...

• In other words– makingengineeringwork safely

• Do what it issupposed to do, when required, foras longasneeded, at the optimal cost and notcausingany harm or unnecessary environmentalimpact

• Common thread of failuresis the unwillingnessorinability to take an objective and realistic view ofthe mechanism of engineering the requirements

This inability to be objective and realisticcan be caused by the use of assumptionswhich allow easy, quick or convenientsolutions, but which are neverthelessinappropriate to the problem at hand. Itcan also be caused by too rigidly followingprocedures and an overzealousdetermination to complete tasks quickly.

The Gap

• “We haven’t got time for this”

• “We don’t have the data”• “We can sort it out when it is in service”• “ The contractor hasassured us it will be OK”• “Well, your report says that we have got away with it for30 yearsby

the skin of our teeth so we don’t need to spend anything”

Questioning is a catalyst for thinking. AsProfessor McDermid told me, if hecould replace all of the regulations with one word it would be: “THINK”.Thinkingcan often be painful, difficult and not alwaysimmediatelyproductive. It is, of course, much easier and quicker to make convenientassumptions, or slavishly followprocedure or tick boxes.CharlesHaddon Cave “An independent review into thebroader issues surrounding the loss of theRAFNimrod MR2 AircraftXV230 in Afghanistan in 2006“

The IMechE therefore advocate a“thinking” approach. This means that eachproblem is unique and should be treatedon an individual basis. The aim of thethinking approach is to avoid theoversimplifications described above bydeveloping a framework that can beapplied to each individual problem toensure that it is treated in such a way thatallows safe and reliable delivery in a stableand sustainable manner.

Mr. Vote then presented this framework,which is called “the dependability cycle forsafety and reliability”, or more simply “thering of confidence”. The ring of confidenceconsists of eleven sections, each of whichis a stage which engineers shouldconsider in the process of deliveringrequirements.

These eleven sections are: scope,assessment and modelling, soundengineering, tolerability of riskdemonstration, manufacture andcommissioning, operation andmaintenance, organisational interfaces,environmental impact, documentation,through life management and qualityassurance. Mr. Vote explained in detaileach of these stages.

For example, when considering scope, theengineer is confronted with questions suchas “what is the product or service?”, “whatenvironment will it operate in?” and “howwill it be used?” When consideringoperation and maintenance, some of thequestions will be “do the operatingdocuments support the assumptions madein the design?” and “does the maintenanceprogramme keep the product/systemsafe?”

7


Documentation

Operation &Maintenance

Design, BuildManufacture &Commissioning

Tolerability ofRisk

Demonstration

SoundEngineering

Assessment &Modelling

ScopeQuality

Assurance

Through LifeManagement

EnvironmentalImpact

OrganisationalInterfaces

The DependabilityCycle for Safety and

Reliability

Each of these sections raise importantquestions, and consideration of eachstage should ensure dependable delivery.The model is also intended to be viewedas a continuous cycle, so that the usershould always be able to revisit eachstage whenever necessary. Mr. Vote didstress, however, that this was still a workin progress.

Documentation

Operation &Maintenance

Design, BuildManufacture &Commissioning

Tolerability ofRisk

Demonstration

SoundEngineering

Assessment &Modelling

ScopeQuality

Assurance

Through LifeManagement

EnvironmentalImpact

OrganisationalInterfaces

The DependabilityCycle for Safety and

Reliability

Risk Management CycleA continuous process through life approached formally butnever prescriptive.

This process is based on a suite of comprehensivestandards to that point a clear path through appropriateanalysis and assessment to “Dependability”, anoverarching term covering all aspects of confidence inhardware, software and the human/machine interface.

Clear realistic definitions of “success” and “failure” usingevidence gleaned from relevant experience, development,test and manufacture through operations allowing timelymitigation of risk within the contractual cycle.

Risk Management CycleA continuous process through life approached formally butnever prescriptive.

This process is based on a suite of comprehensivestandards to that point a clear path through appropriateanalysis and assessment to “Dependability”, anoverarching term covering all aspects of confidence inhardware, software and the human/machine interface.

Clear realistic definitions of “success” and “failure” usingevidence gleaned from relevant experience, development,test and manufacture through operations allowing timelymitigation of risk within the contractual cycle.

Mr. McDonald then thanked the speakersfor their presentations, and invited Mr.Allan Bain to give a brief talk.

Mr. Bain briefly discussed the role of theSafety and Reliability Society, and thework they are undertaking to integratevarious disparate strands within theengineering industry. This work would be

presented at an event to be held inSeptember. Mr. McDonald then openedthe floor for questions.

The following discussion, whichconsisted mainly of comments from theaudience rather than questions to thespeakers, focussed on issues ofcompetence of senior leadership, or lackthereof, impacting on the performance oflower level workers, for example throughbusiness pressures. It was apparent thatmany individuals were of the opinion thatthis issue did not receive enough attentionin the industrial sector. Other issuesdiscussed were the short-term nature ofthe corporate memory, the issues involvedwith educating new recruits about theissues surrounding risk and what kind ofexpenditure was appropriate to mitigatecatastrophes.

The chairman for the evening thankedthe sponsors for the event, the speakersfor their talks and those who hadcontributed to the discussion. The Chairthen invited all attendees to network andcontinue any discussions over the lightrefreshments which followed.

[Ed. note: More information on theIMechE “Ring of Confidence” can be foundin Newsletter No.67, Summer 2010.]

[Ed. note: Mention was made in thediscussion of a DVD which includespromoting process safety culture and atrusting, open environment. Furtherdetails, including where available, can befound on Page 10 in this Newsletter.]

From the Secretary …

In the calendar towards the back of this Newsletter, more events by member organisations can beseen included. These help to develop this feature and thus as a focus for members to see what isgoing on outside their immediate sphere of attention that might be of interest. Member organisationsare thus encouraged to submit events they feel will be of interest to other members of the HazardsForum community. It is also worth looking at the website Events page which has updated information.

The events are usually conferences or other events such as technical meetings where there may be acharge to attend – or perhaps, free to attend. Where there is a charge, Hazards Forum members areusually given host organisation members rates – but it is always worth checking! Brian Neale

8


The Undergraduate Health and Safety RiskTeaching Project

Professor Richard H. TaylorChairman, Inter-Institutional Group on Health and Safety

Background

This project arose as part of theprogramme of the Inter-institutional Groupon Health and Safety (IIG). The IIG aimsto carry out joint projects and providecollaboration in the area of health, safetyand risk between the major engineeringinstitutions, together with a number ofother bodies including the EngineeringCouncil, the Hazards Forum, the Institutionof Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH)and some more specialist societies with aninterest in the field. The Health and SafetyExecutive (HSE) also attends IIGmeetings.

Several years ago, the IIG was concernedthat there was little teaching material onthe principles relating to health and safetyrisk management available in the highereducation sector in the UK, and that manyyoung engineers leave university with avery limited understanding of the subjectdespite its importance in the context oftheir future work. Consequently, the IIGinitiated a project to explore how this issuecould be addressed.

The intention of the project was todevelop a common framework of materialfor teaching undergraduate engineersabout health and safety risks in aninteresting and engaging way for studentsof all engineering disciplines. Its aim wasto provide stimulating material basedlargely on e-learning techniques and toprovide a common basis and vocabularyfor all undergraduate engineers tounderstand the key concepts and be ableto apply these to manage risks.

It was designed to have a strong emphasison their personal role, aiming to provide

them with a grounding on which they couldbuild a deeper understanding in theirengineering specialism as the need arose.The package, when fully developed, wasdesigned to be modular, so thatuniversities could either teach the materialas a single course or use elements of it asrequired. It was also designed so thatmore specialist material, developed tomeet specific needs, could be ‘hung’ onthe framework provided. It was envisagedthat it would be free to teachingestablishments and would be designed torun on their intranets.

Discussions took place about ways inwhich it could be kept up-to-date and howuniversities would be enabled to sharematerial as it further developed.

The project was carried out in a numberof phases. Initially, the IIG set up anexpert group to suggest learning outcomesand to assess university interest. Therewas a strong positive response fromseveral universities and major companiesthat were approached at this early stage.The Engineering Council stronglywelcomed the development in relation tothe UK Standard for ProfessionalEngineering Competence. It was seen tomeet a specific need recognised by theHSE in their document “The Health andSafety of Great Britain \\ Be part of thesolution”.

Subsequent work was funded by theHSE working closely with the IIG. Thiswas progressed in two further phases.

First, an innovative approach wasdeveloped to provide a platform for thematerial. This was based on the userbecoming part of a virtual team of younggraduate engineers involved in severalprojects covering a variety of engineering

9


disciplines e.g. a construction project;operations at a petrochemical processplant; a ‘cradle to grave’ design project,and follow up to a serious event fromwhich the team would develop anunderstanding of cultural, organisationaland ‘people’ issues. The student user wasto be involved in making decisions as partof this virtual team. This approach gainedstrong support from all interested parties,including a sample of engineeringstudents.

Second, a demonstration CD-ROM wasdeveloped showing examples of e-learningtutorial material and an example videogame approach to spotting andunderstanding hazards on a constructionsite and the use of risk assessment. Italso provided attention-grabbingmessages about the importance of healthand safety in our lives. This not onlyprovided a good quality demonstration and‘proved the concept’, but also allowed anoutline cost estimate to be developed forthe full project.

Proposed Developments

In addition to the universities andengineering institutions involved from theearlier phase, the CD was widelydistributed and several papers andconference presentations were given.Discussions were held with about 30organisations including major industrialcompanies, universities, engineeringbodies (e.g. The Royal Academy ofEngineering), and several charitabletrusts. This resulted in very positivefeedback and ideas on furtherdevelopment and involvement.Suggestions were obtained on thepotential for further funding to build thecomplete package and severalorganisations indicated that they may bewilling to contribute. A number ofuniversities expressed a wish to beinvolved in further developments and touse material as it became available.

During the discussions several issuesemerged which are now leading to afurther assessment of how the projectcan be driven forward. This has been

supported by IOSH with input from theHealth and Safety Laboratory and IIGmembers.

Firstly, the use of high-quality gamingtechniques is very expensive and therehave been concerns expressed that theyneed to be developed to a very highstandard if they are to meet theexpectations of the student user.Therefore, whilst maintaining theinteractive, e-learning approach andoverall objectives, other more cost-effective approaches are being explored.

Secondly, it has been pointed out that theteaching material being developed may beof value to other potential users. Severalcompanies have expressed an interest inits potential for corporate training, andother educational uses have beensuggested such as in schools, furthereducation (e.g. for technician engineers),and other non-engineering undergraduategroups.

There has also been interest in itspotential for use outside the UK. It hasalso been suggested that some elementsof the material could be useful in a widereducational context in helping peopleunderstand the importance of health,safety and related risk issues in their livesand perhaps countering some of thenegative views about the subject whichare currently held by some.

Thus, whilst meeting the prime target ofdeveloping material for undergraduateengineers, in reformulating the material,the opportunity is being taken to explorehow the potential needs of other usersmight be addressed and to develop a'resource' which might have wideapplication.

Thirdly, it has also been pointed out thatthe material might benefit from somesections being designed to be morespecific to particular branches ofengineering. Without losing the overallobjective of providing material which wouldprovide a common grounding and‘vocabulary’ for all engineers, theopportunity is being taken to explorewhether a limited amount of the materialcan be designed to be more specific to

10


particular areas of engineering. Forexample, material illustrating importantissues relating to ‘learning from disasters’or ‘hazards in the workplace’ might bemade more relevant to, for example,chemical or civil engineers. An objectivemight thus be to have alternative, butsimilarly designed material for eachspecialism in these important areas. It issuggested that such material might thenbe seen by the student user as moremeaningful and relevant to their specificengineering discipline. The role of theengineering institutions in identifying, andpossibly in developing, some of thismaterial is to be explored.

The IIG is now considering ways theproject can be given renewed impetus, inthe context of the specific feedback

received, the wider potential applicationand the need to minimise overall projectcosts whilst maintaining quality. It isanticipated that further discussions willsoon be launched with the engineeringinstitutions, potential industry sponsors,universities, and other bodies that maywish to help consider its wider use. TheHSE and HSL continue to recognise thevalue of this project as it wants to see theeducation system embed understanding ofrisk as a life skill so that young peoplejoining the workforce are more risk aware.

For more information please contact theIIG Secretary Graham Barber,[email protected]

EFCE/EPSC Process Safety Presentation forBoard Members and Chief Executives

John AthertonSecretary, Safety & Loss Prevention Subject Group, IChemE

At the European Federation of Chemical Engineering (EFCE) 2007 Loss PreventionConference at Edinburgh, Mike Parker, then CEO of BNFL, made a keynote address inwhich he challenged the profession to make greater efforts to promote process safety atBoard/CEO level. The result is a package developed in conjunction with European ProcessSafety Centre (EPSC), titled “Process Safety Pays” that was launched at the EFCE LossPrevention Conference in Bruges in June 2010.

The package contains a 7 minute DVD that delivers the safety and quality message againstthe background of the private aviation industry. It is supported by a PowerPoint presentationdesigned to be customised by a senior process safety manager or board member whofacilitates the internal conversation. In addition to promoting process safety culture and atrusting, open environment as a core business values, the DVD contains messages from theCEO of Jetline Business Aviation, the Director General of CEFIC European ChemicalIndustry Council, and the Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Morgan Stanley Bank AG.The package also contains a booklet to advise on how to obtain best value from thepresentation materials.

The package, sponsored by Bayer, CEFIC, BG RCI, Dow, BASF, Clariant, Lloyds Register,Novartis and Tuev Sued, is available through the EPSC website:http://www.epsc.org/content.aspx?Group=products&Page=dvd . Full ordering details areincluded on this website. The PowerPoint presentation and advisory booklet can bedownloaded free of charge; a nominal charge of €50.00 plus VAT is made for the DVD tocover reproduction and postage costs.

11


Parliamentary and Scientific Committee

The latest issues of “Science in Parliament”, the journal of the Parliamentary and ScientificCommittee of which the Hazards Forum is a member, has among its contents the followingarticles. Any member who would like any further information on any of the articles belowshould visit the PSC website www.ScienceInParliament.org.uk

SCIENCE, INNOVATION AND THE ECONOMY The Rt Hon David Willetts MPNEW GOVERNMENT, NEW PARLIAMENT,NEW PEOPLE, SAME ISSUES Paul DaviesNEW REPORT REVEALS PUBLIC’SVIEWS ON SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY Matt Goode and Nancy MendozaOBITUARY - LORD FLOWERSECTON MINE – FROM COPPER-BOTTOMEDSHIPS TO A-LEVEL CHEMISTRY Dr Stephen Henley FGS FIMMM CEngCONSUMER ENGAGEMENT WITHEMERGING TECHNOLOGIES Rob ReidWATER & SOLAR POWERED PASSENGER LIFT Matthew Lloyd ArchitectsLEADING LIGHTS ANNOUNCED IN STEMNET AWARDSEATING FOR BETTER HEALTH THE FOREWORD Dr Michael Dixon OBE MB BS LRCP DRCOG

FRCGPVOLCANIC ERUPTIONS, CATASTROPHICEARTHQUAKES & TSUNAMIS – HOW CAN WE REDUCETHE TOLLS ON HUMANITY? Professor RSI Sparks FRS, Dr Rui Pinho and Dr

Tiziana RossettoTHE VALUE OF SCIENCE Sir Martin Taylor FRSHIGH SPEED RAIL David RossA GAP IN THE INNOVATION MARKET Dr David DentWHAT IS SEAMLESS WEATHER FORECASTING?HOW CAN WE FORECAST YEARS AHEAD, ANDMANAGE THE FINANCIAL RISKS PROFITABLY?THE BALANCED ECONOMY - THE NEED FOR STEMCAPABILITIES Professor Geoffrey Le GrysMAKING BRITAIN HEALTHY: UTILISING THE INNOVATIONIN VITRO DIAGNOSTICS CAN PROVIDE TO THE NHS Doris-Ann WilliamsENGINEERING THE FUTURE Andrew Miller MPWHAT PRICE SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY Countess of Mar

HSE eNews – Some Examples

++ Managing for Health and Safety ++Health and safety and successful business or organisation performance are complementary.Good leaders look after their businesses/organisations, and manage skilled workforces whohave confidence in them. As with all parts of your business/organisation practice, to managehealth and safety you need to plan, deliver, check quality and take stock to see what you canimprove.http://www.hse.gov.uk/managing/index.htm

++ Prosecution Resulting from Buncefield Explosion ++Five companies have been ordered to pay a total of £9.5m following the fire and explosion atBuncefield Oil Storage Depot in 2005. The firms were sentenced on Friday 16 July at StAlbans Crown Court following a joint prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)and Environment Agency (EA).http://www.hse.gov.uk/news/buncefield/index.htm

12


Calendar of Events

Please check the Events section of the Hazards Forum website for more information atwww.hazardsforum.org.uk and to see any updates in the calendar. These may include

additional events or perhaps amendments to the Events shown below.Please note that attendance at Hazards Forum events is by invitation.

Date Event Venue Contact/furtherinformation

SEPTEMBER14 IMechE Event, HF Supported:

Engineering Judgement - TheImpact of Ethics

University of Leeds http://events.imeche.org/EventView.aspx?code=W1457

20 - 24 IChemE: Fundamentals ofProcess Safety

London Madeleine [email protected]

20 - 22 IChemE: HAZOP study,leadership and management

Leeds Madeleine [email protected]

21 >> HAZARDS FORUM EVENT:Avoiding catastrophe - drivingfor competence at the top

Institution of Civil Engineers,One Great George Street,Westminster, London, SW1P3AA

Tim [email protected]

23 IMechE Event, HF Supported:Using Human Factors forEngineering Success

Austin Court ConferenceCentre 80 Cambridge StreetBirmingham, B1 2NP

http://events.imeche.org/EventView.aspx?code=S1541

29 – 30 IChemE: Layer of ProtectionAnalysis (LOPA)

Manchester Madeleine [email protected]

OCTOBER6 IET: President’s Address IET, Savoy Place, London http://www.theiet.org/events/

2011/presidents.cfm13 - 14 IMechE event, HF supported:

Nuclear Ventilation seminarHaydock http://events.imeche.org/Eve

ntView.aspx?code=s154714 Safety and Reliability Society

Event: 30 Years of RiskAssessment

Royal Institution of NavalArchitects, Upper BelgraveStreet, London

www.sars.org.uk

18 – 20 IChemE: HAZOP study,leadership and management

Leeds Madeleine [email protected]

27 IMechE Event, HF Supported:What is Reliability?

IMechE, 1 Birdcage Walk,London, SW1H 9JJ

http://events.imeche.org/EventView.aspx?EventID=840

NOVEMBER8 – 12 IChemE Event: Fundamentals

of process safety (nuclear)Hinckley Madeleine at

[email protected] – 19 IChemE: Hazop study for team

leaders and team membersManchester Madeleine at

[email protected] - 19 IET: Railway Law for Engineers IET, Savoy Place, London http://www.theiet.org/events/

2010/railway-law.cfm25 - 26 I of Erg & HF*: Human &

Organisational Factors in theOil, Gas & Chemical Industries

Manchester ConferenceCentre

http://www.ogc2010.org/

26 IMechE event, HF supported:Living with DSEAR

Institute of Mining &Mechanical Engineering,Newcastle

Jacqui [email protected]

30 >> HAZARDS FORUM EVENT:Ageing infrastructure

Institution of Civil Engineers,One Great George Street,Westminster, London, SW1P3AA

Tim [email protected]

JANUARY 201111 IET: Thrills not Spills - Evening

lectureShrewsbury http://www.theiet.org/local/u

k/westmids/salop/events/thrills-not-spills.cfm

* Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors

13


The Hazards Forum’s Mission is to contribute to government, industry, science, universities,NGOs and Individuals to find practical ways of approaching and resolving hazard and riskissues, in the interests of mutual understanding, public confidence and safety.

The forum was established in 1989 by four of the principal engineering institutions because ofconcern about the major disasters which had occurred about that time.

The Hazards Forum holds regular meetings on a wide range of subjects relating to hazardsand safety, produces publications on such topics, and provides opportunities forinterdisciplinary contacts and discussions.

The Hazards ForumOne Great George Street

WestminsterLondon SW1P 3AA

E-mail: [email protected]: 020 7665 2230

Fax: 020 7799 1325

Website: www.hazardsforum.org.uk

Registered charity number 1047047

The Hazards Forum Newsletter · 7/27/2010 · Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the Hazards Forum Further information regarding the articles in this issue

Documents