In Scope:
- Regulatory activity in respect of the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) regulations in the chemicals sector;
- Regulatory activity where COMAH regulation has consequential or ‘knock-on effects’.
Out of scope:
- Compliance and enforcement activities that do not take place as a direct or indirect result of COMAH, or are not in some way affected by COMAH – unless they are examples of good practice that could have wider application to other regulated areas;
- Regulatory activity that is not particular to the chemicals sector, such as employment and company law;
- Sectors other than chemicals manufacturing and storage which are affected by the COMAH regulations.
Regulatory activity:
Regulatory activity in this context includes action taken by national regulators or officers of local authorities, including but not limited to:
- provision of advice on compliance with the law;
- inspections of locations or equipment;
- requirements to make formal applications, or provide information;
- emergency planning;
- requirements to attend courses / obtain particular qualifications;
- enforcement proceedings taken against individuals or organisations in the event of failure to comply with regulations (we cannot consider comments on specific cases unless all proceedings have finished – but we can consider general evidence in relation to enforcement proceedings)
The review will seek to identify examples of effective, tailored and easy to understand guidance and advice for businesses, and good regulatory delivery that is risk-based, focused on achieving compliance and supporting business growth.
1. Provision of advice: Positive: HSE involvement with industry associations for example CIA very helpful, HSE contirbution to conferences and HSE roadshows e.g. COMAH remodelling useful opportunities share COMAH regulatory developments. Local contact with site and specialist inspectors always helpful source of advice. Note: this is dependant on the relationship with site inspector. Negative: Management of change when site inspectors or specialist change leads to loss of continuity , important impact for duty holders of large top tier sites in terms of having to “start again” with all the issues and the imapct on cost. Experience of inconsistent advice when inspectors change. Advice has not always been proportionate or practical to implement. Experince of HSE reluctance to give advice to direct questions, tending to point to guidance that then requires interpretation.
2. Inspections: Positive: Inspection topics known well in advance via intervention plan, scope, agenda and identification of individuals required all well planned in advance. This helps with the efficiency of the inspection and is a critcal element in controlling intervention costs. Use of annual review meetings to look at intervention plan & topics for inspection. Establishing a common understanding and position : the prevention & control of major accidents duty holder position linked to HSE strategic topics with an aim to obtaining practical advice on the topics. Negative: Experience of specialist topics forcing duty holder to focus on one narrow topic, absorbing limited resources and stopping duty holder progressing internal hazard assessments for example. Experience, where there are contentious findings from inspections , then having an opportunity to discuss in a level of detail before the reciept of the fomal inspection report. Experience: long delay in receiving inspection reports. Expeience :Increasing tendency to mix occupational safety and COMAH issues within inspections.
3. Formal applications: Positive: Experience: 5year COMAH report submission process , remodelling framework COMAH report assessment improvements, process appears to be working, benefits both HSE & duty holder. Correspondence responsibilities on both duty holder and HSE for appropriate responses. Negative: Concerns with hazardous substances consent process, experience: guidance not clear enough , not precise leading to interpretation. Concerns that process to make changes to HSC is slow and may restrict duty holder ability to develop business. Concerns with overlapping land use planning requirements and combinbed delays & uncertainty eroding competitative position of UK based chemical industry sites.
4. Emergency Response: Positive: Experience: HSE attending table top exercises and providing helpful feedback on emergency arrangements of duty holders and emergency services. Negative: PIZ calculation based on deemed consents resulting in unrealistic PIZ’s and provision of information to the public. Concerns on commitments coming out of Seveso III revision on informing the public.
5.Attending course & qualifications: Positive: HSE’s process safety leadership agenda, supported by NSAPI verification. Helpful workshops and outcomes for senior leadership teams in duty holders. Consider that it is the responsibilty of an organisation to demonstrate appropriate qualifications. Concern that there is a move to prescription on this topic.
6. Enforcement: Experience: Very slow completion and final conclusion of HSE investigations. very long time taken over the collection of statements. Within the legal context the time taken to resolution of an incident impacts on the chemical industry to share information and learning.