Remove Red Tape

Major hazard industries

These regulations relate to those who work with hazardous materials in large quantities and in dangerous environments such as nuclear facilities.

You can find all 21 regulations that relate to major hazard industries here (opens in new window).

You can find all the regulations that relate to Higher risk workplaces below to the left.

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

• Should we scrap them altogether?
• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
• Should they be left as they are?

50 comments on “Major hazard industries”

1. Diana Shelley on September 21, 2011 at 10:13 am said:

   This legislation is absolutely necessary to protect both public and workers. It should be enforced rigorously, including through prosecution. A voluntary code might well ‘reduce bureaucracy’ (or cut HSE inspectors even more?) but it is laughable to imagine it would do anything but lead to more accidents, including fatal ones.Comment Tags: Retain and enforce

   Reply ↓
2. Lisa Thomson on July 21, 2011 at 1:19 pm said:

   Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations (COMAH)

   The Government should take the opportunity to review the current charging regime within COMAH. As an EU-wide regulation the UK should take best practice from its European members and specifically look to lower absolute costs to industry and to simplify the charging process, as is the approach in other member states, to minimise burden and uncertainty, as well as to reduce internal costs of the regulator.

   In Europe, for example, France has no charges for COMAH, while Belgium and Ireland operate a fixed rate scale based on the different hazards presented by different types of installation.On the basis that the UK Government has decided that high hazard industries should continue to pay for the regulatory regime and that they intend to extend this regime then a fixed cost basis relative to the hazard presented by the site, and relative to its size, would dramatically simplify the process and reduce the unnecessary financial burden to the industry and potentially the regulator.

   In the case of the LPG industry, for example, sites that consist purely of storage of LPG should be deemed a lower risk than filling plants where LPG is transferred from bulk storage into tankers and bottles, and these in turn would be deemed less hazardous than a site where processing of materials takes place. The assumption should be that the site is operated well and correctly, and thus costs should be low. Only if fault were found should costs of intervention be charged – this being in line with Government proposals on extending HSE cost recovery.

   This simple hierarchy and principle will reduce burden upon industry, and reduce the amount of time the HSE spends on cost calculations so increasing resource for frontline work – and a worthy aspiration.Comment Tags: a fixed cost basis, Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations

   Reply ↓
3. Rod Chambers on July 21, 2011 at 10:10 am said:

   There will always be room for improvement but no aspect of the legislation should be weakened. They should not be scrapped, voluntary codes wont work and if the legislation is not going to be strengthened it should be left alone.

   Reply ↓
4. Paul Blacklock on July 20, 2011 at 4:01 pm said:

   Review of health and safety legislation – Health and Safety (Fees) regulations 2008
   COMAH (SEVESO II) Charging Regime : increased costs to business

   Calor Gas is the leading supplier of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the UK. As LPG is a hazardous substance we fully understand and accept the need for HSE inspectors to make periodic visits to our sites in order for the HSE to be completely satisfied that we are fully discharging our duties under, and that our sites fully comply with, the COMAH Regulations. However, our sites are relatively simple storage, filling and distribution facilities. We do not undertake any processing work or carry out any operations involving complex chemical reactions. In addition, there are no significant quantities of other chemicals stored on the sites and the sites’ impact on the environment is minimal

   Following the remodeling of the HSE’s approach to the enforcement of the COMAH Regulations we are seeing increased inspection activity and associated costs at each of our COMAH sites. This charging regime was introduced in UK Health & Safety legislation by the adoption of the Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations. A set of Regulations which are unique to the UK and unlike the COMAH Regulations themselves are not a UK implementation of a European Directive.

   As illustrated below, these costs (which, quite unreasonably in our view, include time spent on preparation for the site visits, research of relevant standards and follow up) have increased significantly.

   Site Inspection man-hours pre- COMAH remodeling (Apr 2009-Apr 2010) Inspection man-hours post COMAH remodeling (Apr 2010-Apr 2011)
   Canvey Island terminal 99.0 201.5
   Stoney Stanton 31.8 111.0
   Coryton 34.0 36.5
   Grangemouth 60.0 126.6
   Neath 14.0 53.4
   Port Clarence 46.7 48.6
   Saxham 18.4 7.0
   Plymouth 11.8 14.5
   Head Office (Lead Unit) 24.6 68.3

   The above sites are our Top Tier COMAH sites together with the costs for the associated Lead Unit meeting held at the Company’s Head Office. Increases in the number of inspection days for our Lower Tier COMAH sites are of a similar magnitude. The actual overall cost of the COMAH charges to Calor currently is over twice that before the introduction of COMAH remodeling.

   We regularly question invoices, but the existing HSE procedure for querying and disputing COMAH cost recovery does not address our concerns which are much more fundamental that the actual amount of any disputed HSE invoice. We have tried to challenge these charges, but the ‘Disputes Panel’ is entirely comprised of senior HSE officials, with the exception of one external industry representative.

   It is important to note that elsewhere in the Europe there is no direct equivalent of the COMAH (UK’s implementation of the SEVESO II Directive) charging system. Some EU countries use a license fee system which is altogether simpler and easier for businesses to budget for than an ever increasing fee system based on an unknown number of site inspections each year. This places UK industry at a competitive disadvantage compared with our European counterparts.

   Moreover, no reasons have been given to us by the HSE for the increased COMAH charges, which can only serve to bring the COMAH charging system into disrepute as a result of concerns that the motive behind the increase in charges is purely to generate revenue. These increased costs ultimately have to be borne by our customers at a time of rising fuel costs and increased fuel poverty.

   Reply ↓
5. Jane Bugler on July 20, 2011 at 1:11 pm said:

   The Health and Safety at Work etc Act (Application outside Great Britain Order) 2009 SI 1750

   The 2001 Application outside Great Britain Order (AOGBO) extends the prescribed provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA) to work activities beyond the UK territorial waters. The AOGBO was extended in 2009 to specifically cover activities involving renewable energy such as wind and wave farms. This brings activities related to the construction and operation of such structures within the scope of the HSWA. With the increasing activity in the renewable energy sector and its spread to consider installations further and further offshore, the International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA) believes that the AOGBO needs to be kept in place to provide an appropriate regulatory framework for health and safety in this emerging industry sector.Comment Tags: IMCA

   Reply ↓
6. Jane Bugler on July 20, 2011 at 1:09 pm said:

   Diving at Work Regulations Regulations 1997 SI No. 2776

   Diving at work covers a wide range of activities from deep offshore diving in support of the oil and gas industry to media diving and recreational diving instruction. In the UK all diving at work activities are regulated through one specific set of goal setting regulations – the Diving at Work Regulations 1997. These regulations are supported by five sector specific Approved Codes of Practice (ACoPs) which give applicable advice on meeting the regulations in the five different sectors. The HSE, together with the industry trade associations representing the 5 different sectors, worked closely together to develop the regulations and the workable sector specific ACoPs which have now served the diving industry well over the past 14 years and have resulted in a safe working environment.

   IMCA, the International Marine Contractors Association represents offshore diving contractors. In our opinion, the regulations and the ACoP for commercial diving projects offshore provide an appropriate regulatory framework in which the industry can work safely.

   We believe that any plans to remove the current regulatory controls would be a backward step and would lead to a reduction in safety performance in the diving industry.Comment Tags: IMCA

   Reply ↓
7. Ruth Levin on July 19, 2011 at 4:00 pm said:

   I am wholly opposed to the idea that we should scrap legislation designed to protect workers and the general public in major hazard industries. This must not be left to voluntary regulation. The general public is not qualified to comment on the regulation of hazardous industries unless they are specially qualified in some way in this area. the workers and public need protecting. Workers need an environment that is as safe as possible to work in.

   Reply ↓
8. Wayne Smith on July 15, 2011 at 2:08 pm said:

   Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations
   Whilst we appreciate that the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations are implementing an EU Directive, we have major concerns that the legislation is inherently unfair. It is bringing more companies into scope for holding small amounts of dangerous for the environment (DFE) raw materials and finished goods. The number coming into scope keeps creeping upwards as more substances get classified DFE. The threshold levels for DFE materials are low and the costs for compliance (for Upper Tier anyway) are extremely high (sometimes running into millions of Euros). The corresponding risks to the environment, from sites in the coatings industry and warehouses, are low.

   The issues are:
   1. Dilution Effect
   There needs to be a recognition of the dilution effect in preparations – the thresholds are the same for substances as for preparations containing these substances (i.e. 100 tonnes zinc phosphate primer paint contains (at, say 10%) only 10 tonnes of the pigment, but will come within scope, whereas you need 100 T of the pure pigment to come into scope. The thresholds should be based on the amount of substance, not amount of preparation. This will get worse with the change in the calculation method for environmental pollutants (from amendment to the Dangerous Preparations Directive – now CLP Regulation) – biocides at very low levels will bring in products such as water-borne paint as Dangerous to the Environment. It is likely that some warehouses will be brought within scope as a result.
   2. Small Package Size
   In the coatings industry, a significant proportion of the stock will be in relatively small containers and the chance of spillage, even in a fire, is virtually non existent. It is hard to envisage a situation where all of the packages split and release their contents to the environment. This is already accepted as a principle in the transport regulations, which have an exemption for small packages, as in the Limited Quantities provisions. This exemption due to lower risk is recognised worldwide. One example is UV-curing printing inks. These are classified as DFE, but are stored on site in 1-5 kg packs. It is hard to see how these highly viscous liquids in small packs could become a major environmental hazard.

   The charging regime under COMAH does seem to be excessive. An inspection for a medium-sized company can run into the tens of thousands of pounds. This seems excessive for the low risk they pose.

   Reply ↓
9. Jonathan Andrew on July 14, 2011 at 2:41 pm said:

   As an employee this legislation doesnt go far enough, i need protecting when iam at work and i want to go home safe and in one piece to my family. The only way we can do this is to enforce this regulation more vigorously as self regulation gives businesses a licence to do what ever they like in the workplace, leaving the employee open to the dangers

   Reply ↓
10. Mark Emmerson on July 13, 2011 at 1:27 pm said:

    No changes required.

    Reply ↓
11. Vince Butler on July 12, 2011 at 8:06 pm said:

    This response involves the inclusion and consultation with employees and contractors working in Major Hazard Industries. In particular the requirement within safety cases to legislate clearly to encourage worker representatives and in particular trade union safety representatives to undertake inspections of the workplace. The addition to existing regulations will add an amendment to instruct the worker/union safety representative to send their written report of findings directly to the HSE inspector responible for the safety case, its review and revisions.
    The UK’s mining industry didn’t have the best safety record, however, evidence suggests if union safety reps didn’t exist with the ability to send reports directly to HMI Mines the record woud have been significantly worse.
    Due to the nature of the risks involved and the devastation caused in this industry when the plant, process and people loose control, the addition will add value, confidence and independence.
    Many of these plants, facilities, sites and processes go millions of work hours without any injury to any persons that often mask underlying plant and process failures and the obvious precursors to a catastrophe. Having worker/union inspections by competent persons and experts within the industry will add a level of safeguard that will help identify unsafe actions and conditions and suggest management action to regain control.

    Reply ↓
12. John Angle on July 12, 2011 at 11:19 am said:

    No changes necessary

    Reply ↓
13. Vince Butler on July 12, 2011 at 6:00 am said:

    Relevant, specific, valuable and proportional (RSVP) must be the test for legislation, standards, advice, enforcement and safe systems of work to ‘get to the party’.
    Undertaking the ‘RSVP’ test will take significantly more time and effort to complete this review exercise properly that this red tape challenge and Lufsteadt can.
    Given the choice and not having a consequence by reducing standards, enforcement and culture will manifest in increased cost, lost business opportunity, poorer health and well being for just about every stakeholder.
    It would appear that the politics of the market place being left to decide what happens is already and done deal, if that isn’t the case then why this pretence in asking?
    A similar PS to an earleir contributor, can the user have a bigger text box please, this is awful.

    Reply ↓
14. Carole Saunders on July 11, 2011 at 10:02 am said:

    No change required.

    Reply ↓
15. Soraya Porter on July 11, 2011 at 8:08 am said:

    These regulationsshould be left as they are largely. The only change I would make is to make companies and directors easier to prosecute in cases of corporate killing

    Reply ↓
    • Ally on October 13, 2011 at 7:54 pm said:

      Everyone’s life is precious-protection by legislation is vital. Why prosecute corporate manslaughter/murder, action and prosecution should be in place way before we reach the stage where someone has to lose their life. This is 2011 for goodness sake, we’re going backwards. They’ll be sending the kids up the chimneys before we know it. Legislation should be tighter, not slackened or done away with. That’s just encouraging complacency and we’ve seen where that leads!
16. Chris Hayward on July 8, 2011 at 1:53 pm said:

    Whilst some of the comments made thus far about thresholds are valid, and frankly the quotient based system used to arrive at thresholds under COMAH is bizarre, many of these regulations are worth keeping. Furthermore, the chemcial sector in particular is one in which those managing the risks, i.e. the duty holders, know far more than the regulators. They certainly know far more than the legislators. Overall, leave well alone.

    Reply ↓
17. Clive de Salis on July 8, 2011 at 8:45 am said:

    The HSE guidance documents are extremely helpful and should be retained. It would be quite possible to have trade associations publish and manage the publications such the HSE participates in their development. The problem with Health & Safety isn’t the HSE at all – It’s insurers demanding more than is necessary to protect their own backsides, the media exaggerating and distorting real safety concerns in the search for blame.

    Reply ↓
18. John Williams on July 7, 2011 at 8:53 am said:

    There appears to be an opportunity to simplify the process of hazardous substances notification & approval as required by the New Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982 and the Planning Hazardous Substances Regulations 1992.
    Both require essentially the same information but with enough differences to make the process time consuming and confusing (and in our experience, confusing even for the HSE).
    Could both regulations be consolidated into one?

    Reply ↓