HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE Senior Management Team A paper by Patrick McDonald

Health and Safety Executive Senior Management Team Paper SMT/10/21
Meeting Date:
3 February 2010
FOI Status:
Open
Type of Paper:
For discussion
Trim Ref:
2010/42381
FoI Exemptions:
None
Keywords:
Science Research Evidence
HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE
Senior Management Team
SCIENCE REPORT 2010
A paper by Patrick McDonald
Advisor(s): Richard Lewis & Julia O’Hara
Cleared by Patrick McDonald on 21 January 2010
Issue
1. The HSE Board has asked for an annual Science Report to examine the use,
efficiency and effectiveness of our investments in science.
Timing
2. SMT members are asked to give comments today. The report is due to go to the
HSE Board for their meeting on 24th February 2010.
Recommendation
3. The Senior Management Team is asked to:
i. Note the Science Report 2010 and
ii. Comment on its contents and identify additional points.
Background
4. The Mainstream Research budget in 2009/10 is ~ £36.3m. In addition, about
1000 staff uses their skills in science, technology, engineering or analysis as a
key input to their work for HSE.1
5. Until 2008/09, the quarterly performance report included assessments of
progress in science and research. This Science Report now addresses these
matters on an annual basis, and is the second of these reports.
6. The Science Report is in the annex. The report includes:
1
There are separate funding arrangements for research for Nuclear Directorate and Chemical
Regulation Directorate (Pesticides Research Programme). These data are not included in the report.
-1–
•
how HSE uses science and research in its work, with examples of recent
applied research projects and investment in HSE’s futures work;
progress towards the next 3 year rolling science plan;
how HSE demonstrates the use and value of its commissioned work; and
an update on science governance.
•
•
•
Argument
7. The Science Plan for 2009/10 was prepared in the autumn of 2008 and was
based on ongoing needs stated in business cases approved by programme
directors, taking account of the as-then emerging HSE Strategy. Funding was
allocated from the mainstream research budget to meet reactive support
requirements in full, before resources were allocated to research projects.
Additional funding was made available in 2009 for research to support new work
such as the emerging energies technology programme. The Science Report
explains arrangements for scientific work and includes examples of research and
futures work.
8. In presenting the 2009 Science Report, the CSA identified a lesson learned in
earlier years when introducing a new HSE Strategy, which delayed the
development of science plans and the completion of new research. While the
Science Plan for 2009/10 anticipated what the HSE Strategy might contain, the
plan for 2010/11 and beyond is being based on the Strategy.
9. The previous science strategy 2005-2008 is outdated, but its executive summary
includes three key themes for HSE’s science that remain relevant. The CSA
recommends that HSE retains these but refrains from developing an extensive
and separate science strategy, and focuses instead on the science plan that is
derived from delivering the HSE Strategy. A revised strategic statement for
science is included in the Science Report (annex 1.7).
10. The report also examines the effectiveness of investment in support and
research including peer reviews of proposals and published outputs. The report
examines how the quality of scientific work is demonstrated. While HSE can
demonstrate the value of small-scale research projects, more work needs to be
done to demonstrate the longer-term usefulness of support and research to
delivering HSE’s objectives.
11. The Science Report summarises how performance is being managed and
demonstrated including corporate risk management, the Chief Scientific
Adviser’s (CSA) first science review of the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL);
further flexibilities in the management of HSL; and workforce planning.
12. SMT’s views are sought:
•
•
on what more can be done to demonstrate the impact and effectiveness of
our investments; and
on any other points they wish to draw to the Board’s attention.
-2–
Consultation
13. Consultation has taken place with science business partners in FOD, HID,
CSAG, and CCID and with HSL.
Action
14. Subject to SMT approval:
i.
The Science Report will be updated for the HSE Board meeting on 24th
February 2010.
-3–
Annex 1.0
Health and Safety Executive
Science Report 2010
1
Introduction
1.1
This report covers HSE’s use of commissioned science during the last year.
It reviews key areas of performance, including progress on activities reported to the
HSE Board in the Science Report 2009. It focuses on work funded by the
Mainstream research programme.
1.2
There are four sections:
• background information about HSE’s scientific requirements;
• overview of the use and value of science commissioned in 2009/2010;
• progress on the new rolling science plan for 2010/2013; and
• update on governance, including new arrangements with the Health and
Safety Laboratory (HSL), the Chief Scientific Adviser’s (CSA) first science
review of HSL, and workforce planning review of commissioning and
management of science projects.
2
Background
2.1
HSE commissions scientific support and applied research to:
• support HSE’s front line operational work, especially forensic work and
technical support for inspections, investigations and enforcement;
• acquire evidence to develop new ideas and knowledge about
occupational safety and health;
• apply new ideas and knowledge to new regulations, policies, guidance,
standards, inspections, enforcement methods and other interventions;
and
• evaluate and disseminate the new knowledge and results of this work.
Support for operational and regulatory work
2.2
HSE’s core scientific requirement is for scientific, technological and
engineering support for its operational and regulatory work. As in previous years,
this requirement accounts for about 2/3 of our expenditure on commissioned
science. It includes support for investigations and major incidents conducted by both
HSE and Local Authorities, and a range of other support projects. All support
requests meet immediate needs and are generally short term.2
2.3
HSL is HSE’s principal provider of forensic scientific support and has
expertise and capacity in a wide range of disciplines. In 2009/2010, HSE
commissioned £5.5m - £6.0m support for investigations and major incidents from
HSL. HSE also commissioned up to ~ £0.5m support from other providers where
HSL has limited or no expertise.
2
Annex 1.1 includes a glossary of definitions of reactive support, planned support and research
-4–
2.4
HSE commissions ~ £18m planned support (mainly from HSL) which covers a
range of activities to deliver HSE requirements, principally running operational and
policy projects and developing HSL’s capability. This is to make knowledge and
information available to HSE to discharge a number of its functions such as
developing early thinking on policy formulation.
Research
2.5
HSE commissioned ~ £12m of applied research in 2009/20103. Approximately
half is commissioned from HSL, with the remainder from other organisations. HSE
does not normally commission pure academic research although there is ‘horizon
scanning’ capability at HSL to identify emerging trends and technologies to inform
HSE’s future priorities and strategy.
2.6
Wherever possible, HSE aims to commission research in partnership with
relevant industries and stakeholders and collaborates with international and EU
programmes.
Futures work
2.7
In 2008 HSE established a Futures Group. It represents specialisms from
across HSE and promotes the contribution that futures work can make to HSE’s
longer term strategy and business objectives. The Group works closely with the
Futures Team at HSL. It reviews and adds value to topics raised by the HSL team,
proposes new topics for consideration and advocates incorporating futures thinking
into business planning. Annex 1.3 provides fuller explanation of the work of the
Group, and provides examples of how topics identified in previous futures exercises
are benefiting HSE’s ongoing business.
3
Overview of science in 2009/10
Mainstream research
3.1
As in 2008/2009, commissioned work is managed in four main science
programmes:
• Justice - covering technical support for HSE’s inspection, investigation and
enforcement work. It provides reactive support for Local Authorities and
includes a small number of projects;
• Conventional Health and Safety – mainly research that supports the
development and delivery of policy initiatives and operational
interventions. It includes a small number of projects identified by Local
Authorities;
• Major Hazards – support for HSE’s work in the major hazards sectors:
offshore and onshore, mines, explosives and biological agents; and
• Corporate – covering projects with a longer term or analytical perspective,
important work not managed in the other programmes and currently
includes resource to develop and maintain capability at HSL.
3
Annex 1.2 includes criteria for commissioning science
-5–
3.2
In addition, HSE contributes to HSL’s Investment Research Programme,
which enables HSL to fund research into ideas of marketable value to external
customers and HSE. HSE’s contribution in 2009/10 was ~ £750k.
3.3
The 2009/2010 Science Plan was put together as in recent years. In summer
2008, the science programmes issued calls for proposals from HSE Directorates and
existing science customers. The Plan took account of the emerging HSE Strategy
and of advice from workshops held in 2008 that involved policy makers, specialists
from HSE and HSL, academia and stakeholders. In early 2009, lists of proposals
that had received Director approval were submitted to the CSA. These formed the
basis for the Science Plan which was incorporated into HSE’s Business Plan for
2009/2010.
3.4
The plan formed the basis for delegating the mainstream science budget to
three Main Budget Holders - the Deputy Chief Executive, Chief Scientific Adviser,
and Director of Policy Group4. As the Justice science programme is unable to
specify most of its requirements in advance, it received an allocation based on
historic trends and needs.
3.5
During 2009 the science programmes have commissioned about 170 new
projects and a similar number of small support projects costing < £30k each.
Nuclear and pesticides research
3.6
There are separate management and funding arrangements for science in the
Nuclear Directorate and the Chemical Regulation Directorate. The Nuclear
Directorate and nuclear licensees work together to manage a programme of support
and research which is funded by licensees. The Chemical Regulation Directorate
manages a pesticides research programme that is funded by DEFRA.
Finance and cost recovery
3.7
In 2009/2010 HSE planned to spend £29.987m with HSL and £6.499m with
other contractors. Work placed with external contractors was later increased in year
by £1.36m to fund additional projects that would support the Board strategy,
including research into emerging energy technologies.
3.8
The chart illustrates the initial and revised allocations of the mainstream
science budget to the four science programmes. The initial allocations were based
on the submissions made to the CSA at the start of the financial year. The revised
allocations represent changes in year – the most marked being associated with the
transfer of funds for Core Activity Programmes and standards work from the Justice
to the Corporate science programme.
4
Now Cross-cutting Interventions Directorate CCID
-6–
HSE commissioned science allocations (April 2009) and forecast (December
2009)
16
14
12
10
Initial allocation
(£m)
8
Revised allocation
(£m)
6
4
2
0
h
al t
He
&
al
te
ce
rds
on
i
st i
t
o ra
za
u
n
p
a
J
r
e
h
v
Co
jor
on
c
a
M
ety
saf
3.9
A number of on-going science projects are jointly funded with industry or have
some collaborative funding. For example, there are 13 out of 34 extramural
commissions in the Major Hazards science programme. The value of these is ~
£5.6m, with HSE’s contribution being £502k, approximately 9% of total sponsor
contribution.
3.10 This year approximately £2.6m of the allocation to Major Hazards science
programme in 2009/10 is cost recoverable. This is in accordance with our policy to
recover costs incurred in the operation of permissioning regimes, either as costs
attributable to an individual company or as ‘common good’ work. This equates to
approximately £1.8m of “common good” activity, together with £700k of COMAH
assessments and £80k of Offshore assessments which are directly recoverable from
an individual site or dutyholder.
Examples of work commissioned in 2009/2010
3.11
Annex 1.4 includes case studies of recent work, including:
• The Dreamscape investigation
• Crowd management for special events
• The Buncefield explosion mechanism
• Reaching Out - sensible risk management in the construction industry
• Risky Business - risk education
• Safety among farmers
• Reducing employee absence through leadership
• Ageing structures
-7–
Local Authorities Science and Technology Initiative (LA S&T Initiative)
3.12 The LA S&T Initiative - which was established to encourage Local Authorities
to use more science in developing their programmes of work - was formally
completed in March 2009, although a few projects that had been delayed were
carried over into 2009/2010. During the lifetime of the Initiative over 50 projects
were funded by HSE, in addition to requests for reactive support. Over four years,
the Initiative had spent most of the original allocation of £5.0m. The CSA decided
that a formal evaluation of the effectiveness of the Initiative was unnecessary since
an alternative arrangement for ongoing scientific support for Local Authorities had
already been agreed. However, some of the projects in the Initiative were
individually evaluated: one of these is included in Annex 1.4 as a case study.
Demonstrating the use and value of science commissioned or completed in
2009/10
3.13 Professor John Beddington, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, has
placed special emphasis on the need to demonstrate value for money, particularly in
the current economic climate and into the next spending round. The Government
Office for Science has recently stipulated that each department ‘should have in place
robust procedures for directing, approving, monitoring and evaluating its research
investment, including establishing quality assurance procedures for evidence’ 5
3.14 Over recent years HSE has made significant efforts to improve the
management and evaluation of its commissioned science. HSE’s strength is in the
quality of the work delivered by its staff and in their skills and expertise. However,
we have yet to develop sound procedures for demonstrating the real contribution
that our science makes to the achievement of key business objectives. There are
good examples throughout HSE, but in common with other government
departments, we strive to demonstrate value in a more consistent manner. More
support is being developed to help science customers assess the impact and
utilisation of science.
3.15
New actions to meet the Go-Science requirements include6:
• The first of the 4-year rolling science review programme at HSL. This first
independent review led by the CSA was completed in October 2009.
Whilst this review of health based disciplines concluded that scientific
quality was good, it did consider that the commissioning of research by
HSE from HSL needed some attention as in some instances it was acting
as a constraint on additional quality outputs from HSL scientists.
• Internal workforce planning review. In October 2009, the CSA initiated a
short workforce planning review of the management and commissioning
of science. This has recently been completed to a draft reporting stage
and we are currently examining its recommendations.
5
Science and Engineering in Government – An overview of the Government’s approach – October
2009.
6
Further information on the CSA’s science review and workforce planning is included at section 5
-8–
•
A strategic framework for prioritising and measuring the impact of
research. This short piece of work has produced a simple prioritisation
matrix and logic model for impact evaluation which we are trialling during
consideration of the 2010-2013 Science Plan.
Existing measures of performance
3.16 There are a number of measures of on-going activities that contribute to the
overall picture of project utilisation and value.
Operational support
3.17 Most operational support, including all reactive work to support investigations
and enforcement activity, is managed by the Justice science programme. Last year,
we reported that an evaluation of all recent reactive support work had concluded that
approximately 90% of the work commissioned from HSL had provided direct support
to regulatory activity. It was agreed by the CSA that in future this work would be
evaluated on a 3-year sample basis, with the next report due in 2011/12.
Core Activity programmes
3.18 In 2008/09, up to £4.6m of the Justice science programme was set aside to
maintain HSL’s skills and competencies in infrequently-required disciplines
considered essential for HSE’s requirements for frontline activities. In last year’s
report we made a commitment to examine these Core Activity Programmes.
3.19 During 2009 these programmes (including analytical sciences, occupational
hygiene, personal protective equipment, and mathematical sciences) were
transferred to the Corporate science programme. The CSA took advice from a
Senior Advisory Group which completed a short review of the rationale and content.
The Group decided that it would be more efficient to separate out the cost of staffing
facilities’ maintenance, quality assurance and proficiency testing. The review
concluded that while existing arrangements should remain for 2010/2011, new
arrangements would be put in place in April 2011 for joint or external funding of
longer term research to maintain and develop staff competence.
Standards work
3.20 HSL represents HSE on a wide variety of national and international standards
committees. Over the past 2 years this activity has been scrutinised to ensure that
all representation by HSL was supported by a policy lead in HSE. This was a
complicated task due to the number of staff changes in HSE over recent years and
the number of standards involved. The total cost of this activity is currently ~
£800k/annum. It is suggested that this could be reduced by £200k if HSL were to
withdraw from some committees and reduce input into others. These proposals are
currently being considered by the CSA.
-9–
Research projects
3.21 Publication in peer reviewed journals is an important indicator of the quality of
scientific work, and recognition of the important position of HSE and HSL in the
science of health and safety at work.
3.22 Annex 1.5 lists publications prepared as part of research projects placed with
HSL. The CSA also funds preparation of peer-reviewed papers based on or
aggregated from other work done for HSE by HSL. Since January 2009 staff at HSL
have had 27 papers published with 20 either submitted or in press. There are also
32 published conference papers, 3 submitted and 2 book chapters.
3.23 Annex 1.6 lists publications prepared by external researchers following
research commissioned by HSE with them. It includes some joint publications.
These are difficult to trace once a contract has been completed, and examples from
the last five years are included for the record. HSE is moving to make publication in
a peer reviewed journal a condition for award of external contracts and will request
that contractors inform HSE of work published after completion of contracts.
Contract management
3.24 In last year’s science report we presented data on project utilisation and
contract management, based on information provided by science customers. We
noted the drawbacks associated with this source of information, in particular that
they give feedback at project level rather than programme level. They don’t
demonstrate the contribution that a range of scientific projects may have made over
the long term to the development and implementation of a policy or operational
intervention.
3.25 Members of the Senior Management Team were also concerned about the
low number of completed evaluations. Last year we noted that of 47 projects of total
value £4.78m completed in 2007-2008, only 26 projects, of total value £2.25m had
been evaluated.
3.26 During the past year we have moved to a new IT system called Upside for
managing research procurement and contracts. As a consequence there has been a
delay in following up evaluation data with science customers. We are currently
following up science customers’ evaluations on some 60 projects completed in 2009.
3.27 This break means that the only information available for this report is from 11
projects completed in the second half of 2008/2009. These have a total value of
£640k. Although it is not appropriate to generalise from such a small sample, it is
interesting to note that fewer science customers consider the scientific quality and
contract management to be good or excellent compared with previous years - ~ 60%
compared with ~ 90% the previous year. Science customers reported cases of
knowledge gaps being filled, knowledge being transferred, and useful input to
guidance and interventions.
- 10 –
Management of projects to time and cost
3.28 Last year management of projects to time and cost was identified as an
indicator of effective project management. This year, with the introduction of Upside,
we have been able to identify variations in contract details. Data on current projects
show that 39% of live contracts have been amended to reflect changes in time, cost
or both. There is no difference in performance between extramural contracts or
those placed with HSL. We have monitored the causes over a number of years and
found that where variations occur these are attributed to contractor problems,
customer delays or unavoidable circumstances (climate, technical problems) in
roughly equal proportions.
4
Progress on the new rolling Science Plan for 2010 – 2013
4.1
The new plan will be structured to follow the themes and goals of the Board
Strategy. The Science Strategy for 2005 – 2008 is now out of date and it is proposed
to include a brief Strategic Statement on Science in the new science plan. (Annex
1.7)
4.2
The plan will provide information about on-going programmes of work,
including HSE’s support and forensic requirements, and an outline of emerging new
areas of work. The move to a rolling plan will help manage continuity of funding and
planning at HSL. It should enable HSE to specify scientific support commitments
year on year and to build a more coherent research strategy over a 3 year time
frame
4.3
In July 2009 the CSA issued a call for proposals to be considered within the
new 3 year rolling plan. A preliminary sift of over 200 proposals has taken place and
a number of proposals in key areas have been identified, subject to further
consultation on scope and methodology as appropriate. These include:
• proposals from the Strategy Action Teams;
• corporate statistics, social research and economic analysis to meet Board
requirements;
• Planned evaluations of key activities;
• Construction – including on-going projects associated with London
Olympics; and
• Long latency diseases. Key projects on COPD and asbestos that were
developed in the last year.
4.4
In total the decisions on approved projects and operational support account
for over half of the science budget for 2010/11.
4.5 It is intended to have firm decisions on the remainder, if possible, by the end of
February 2010. We plan to hold a number of small internal workshops to explore
further some of the proposals in the following categories in greater detail:
• Long latency diseases;
• Health surveillance
• MusculoSkeletal Diseases and stress;
• Nanotechnology; and
- 11 –
•
Effective interventions
4.6 We also plan to set aside part of the budget to enable science customers and
HSL to work together to develop outline ideas into full projects for funding in
subsequent years.
4.7 To ensure that the plan incorporates new emerging ideas in support of the
Board strategy we will issue a further call for proposals in 2010/2011.
5
Managing business risk and other governance issues
Business risk
5.1
HSE’s corporate risk management arrangements identify the risk of
inappropriate or ineffective use of Science to deliver HSE’s business objectives as
leading to:
• lack of identification, provision and use of specialist advice to the front line
to support sound regulatory decisions;
• lack of agreed benchmarks and standards in emerging technologies to
support dutyholders in health and safety management, and HSE in
regulatory decisions;
• lack and use of evidence to support HSE’s policies, strategy, plans and
interventions; and
• lack of forward look to position HSE to regulate new hazards in the longer
term.
5.2
Managing these risks is coordinated by the CSA having systems and has
procedures in place to ensure
• advice is sought and effectively used where appropriate;
• research is targeted correctly in agreeing a Science Plan;
• research is effectively managed and used through new research
procurement and project management systems and procedures; and
• HSE staff can identify and access in-house specialist resource easily
using an updated Science Portal on HSE’s Intranet.
5.3
The CSA is also responsible for developing some of the arrangements and
tools for training and continuous professional development to ensure sound advice is
provided by the specialist inspectors.
5.4
In developing the evidence base for HSE, the CSA is concentrating on
• conducting impact assessments for new policy proposals.
• researching the economic case for Health and Safety investment.
• developing the Harm index to identify magnitude of problem and HSE’s
ability to have an impact.
• using the Priority Assessment Model (PAM) to identify future system
impacts and trends.
• monitoring emerging technology trends included in futures work.
- 12 –
Governance
Further flexibilities at HSL
5.5
During 2009/10, the HSE Board has considered options for developing the
future direction of HSL and making changes in its governance arrangements. This is
to give HSL greater flexibility in how it manages its business, so that it can continue
to provide HSE with the range of depth of scientific and technical support in future
years while generating more income from external customers.
CSA science review of HSL
5.6
The CSA intends to review the whole of HSL’s scientific activities over a fouryear period. The first science review of HSL was conducted in October 2009 by the
CSA with an independent team of Prof Sir Anthony Newman-Traylor (Imperial
College, London), Prof Paul Blanc (University of California – Los Angeles) and Dr
Trevor Ogden (Editor-in-chief – Annals of Occupational Hygiene). The review
covered a number of health-related scientific disciplines7
5.7
The CSA asked the independent reviewers to focus on the following issues:
quality of research and other outputs, quality of staff, national and international
standing, adequacy of facilities and equipment, adequacy of collaborative
engagement, and how research work was commissioned, solicited, planned and
prioritised.
5.8
After working through an extensive information pack before the visit, the
review group made a 2-day visit to HSL Buxton on 7-8 October 2009, and met with
HSL management and staff and toured some of the laboratory facilities.
5.9
It became clear as the review progressed that the commissioning of research
by HSE from HSL was identified by the reviewers as the main issue that affected the
quality of HSL’s outputs and requires attention.
5.10
The reviewers also concluded that:
• excellent work is being delivered for HSE by HSL.
• staff are good, well qualified and using good facilities available in Buxton.
• HSL scientists demonstrated real world and applied work, not blue-sky
work. These are areas HSE are rightly interested in.
• staff are well respected outside HSL and overseas.
• there is good evidence of high profile international work and collaboration
by some individuals and teams.
5.11
An action plan is being developed with HSL.
7
The review covered Centre for Workplace Health; Clinical statistics, clinical modelling &
epidemiology; Biological monitoring; Centre for Interdisciplinary NanoResearch; Immunology &
Toxicology; Microbiology; Fibres
- 13 –
5.12 The 2010 CSA Science review at HSL will cover science and support for fire
and explosions disciplines.
Workforce planning for HSE science programme teams
5.13 A workforce planning review was commissioned by the CSA in October 2009
in response to identified risks to delivery arising from the expected retirement of a
number of staff in the science programmes. There is also a growing awareness of
difficulties faced by Project Officers seeking career moves after being in post for
extended periods. The review has made a number of draft recommendations which
are currently being examined to ensure continuity in the management and
commissioning of science.
5.14 The outcomes of these initiatives in governance show where HSE staff can
improve how they commission and complete projects, especially with HSL. The CSA
is making arrangements to improve the effectiveness and timeliness of HSE
commissioning alongside the changes at HSL.
- 14 –
Annex 1.1
Glossary
Scientific and technical support
Scientific and technical support for operational activities accounts for ~ 2/3 of HSE’s spend
This work generally involves the utilisation of existing information and/or provision of such
information in a usable form. Most support work is characterised as meeting relatively short
term, immediate operational demands. It is categorised as reactive or planned support.
Reactive support
Support is classified as ‘reactive’ if it used to:
• investigate a specific incident, or accident, and any subsequent enforcement activity;
• investigate local issues and matters of evident concern identified at inspections of
particular factories/premises; or
• answer specific questions about HSE’s policies e.g. Parliamentary Questions on sheep
dips, Freedom Of Information requests etc.
Planned support
This includes a range of activities to deliver HSE’s requirements, principally operational and
policy projects and developing capability. Most is supplied by HSL. Planned support
includes:
• Work to assimilate information and knowledge (through research, statistical analysis,
attendance at professional events etc.) and make it available to HSE to develop early
thinking on policy formulation, work planning, focusing customer contacts etc.;
• Technical, social and economic advice for any topic area that falls under HSE’s remit
e.g. during negotiations and delivery of legislation;
• Test method development;
• Representational role at technical meetings;
• Production of draft Approved Codes of Practice, sector guidance, guidance on the
interpretation or application of legislation; and
• Advice to the general public on scientific issues relating to health and safety
Research
HSE commissions little basic research. Our requirement is for applied research, which, in
contrast to support work, is generally original investigation in order to acquire new
knowledge, but directed to a practical aim or objective.
HSE commissions applied research:
• to provide independent advice for regulatory purposes;
• where industries lack the relevant scientific and technological expertise;
• where industries require new ideas to stimulate and encourage improvement; or
• where availability of results could be restricted if research can be conducted by only one
company
- 15 –
Annex 1.2
Criteria for commissioning science.
These are the criteria for using science to deliver HSE’s Strategy.
HSE will:
• Use science to meet its role as a modern regulator to understand the most effective and
efficient ways of securing improved health and safety outcomes.
• Use science with a strong focus on health and human and organisational behaviour,
having regard for equality issues, and ensuring that money and resources are targeted
at the delivery of the strategic priorities.
• Improve the linkages between science, policy and delivery and promote a better
collaboration between scientists, policy makers and deliverers.
• Contribute to the development of Government science policy and apply it to all its work.
• Use its in-house resource, supported by external expertise where appropriate, to deliver
its regulatory functions and contribute to the evidence base for the development of
policy. This will be achieved through:
• Front line work (e.g. incident investigation; inspection; safety case and report
assessment; standards & guidance)
• Cross-cutting activity (e.g. horizon scanning; generic guidance)
• Continue to apply research:
• Where independent advice is required by HSE on the extent and nature of the
hazards and risks involved
• Where there is a need for informed HSE participation in national and international
standards making
• Where information is needed in the light of incident experience or to support specific
enforcement activities or policy initiatives
• Where projects are too risky for firms to go ahead with themselves, though there are
clear health and safety benefits; for example, when timescales are long and/or the
technical risks are high
• When the particular part of industry lacks the relevant scientific and technological
expertise
• When entry costs are high for manufacturers of safety-related equipment and the
industry is small and fragmented
• Where industry is complacent or not innovative and requires the stimulus and
competition of new ideas to encourage improvement
• When the potential beneficiaries are too diffuse for any one company to undertake
the research on its own or the availability of results will be restricted
• Provide support for HSE’s regulatory activities through the commissioning of scientific
support, with HSL as primary supplier to:
• Understand the causes of incidents and ill-health;
• Propose remedial measures;
• Contribute to the evidence base to develop and deliver its priorities and programmes;
• Make the knowledge gained widely available
• Have regard to, and use, relevant science activities in Britain and internationally.
Where appropriate, HSE will seek opportunities to collaborate with others.
• Make publicly available information on our science programmes, subject to overriding considerations for national security and/or HSE’s intellectual property policy
- 16 –
Annex 1.3
The work of the Futures Group
The Futures Group was established in 2008 to give an additional dimension to HSE’s
futures activities, which include horizon scanning and other techniques. These activities are
largely carried out by a dedicated Futures Team at HSL. The Futures Group focuses on the
scientific and technical aspects of the Futures Team’s work.
The role of the Futures Group is to:
• provide a forum for the identification, discussion and making sense of emerging scientific
and technological issues and their potential implications for HSE;
• identify cross discipline issues and make recommendations for further work; and
• act as advocates for the value of futures work in the development and planning of HSE’s
activities.
The Group’s members represent a range of specialisms from across HSE and meets three
to four times a year or through correspondence.
The Group receives presentations from HSL’s Futures Team on aspects of on-going work.
In its first year this has included human performance enhancement, ageing, obesity, novel
energy and the Emerging Energy Technologies programme. This adds value in both
directions. The quality of the final papers, which are usually published on the HSE web site,
is enhanced through the perspectives brought through multi disciplinary discussion. Group
members gain both a deeper and a broader understanding of the issues to take back to their
individual work areas.
Futures exercises have also been used to further enhance this process. At the most recent
meeting, the Group produced a Futures Wheel on Globalisation. A Futures Wheel is a form
of focussed mind map which spins out from the central issue to identify related issues and
sometimes unexpected linkages. This work will be used to strengthen HSE’s published
paper on Globalisation.
New issues for exploration proposed by the Futures Group include:
• Medical imaging and related techniques;
• Globalisation, specifically the 24/7 culture and its impact on workforce health; and
• Genetic and chromosome identification of disease – how will this be used by employers.
The Group’s role as advocate is vital. This has resulted in, for example, closer working
between the Futures Team and HSE’s operational staff to improve the use of operational
intelligence in the Futures work, the setting up of links with the Chemistry Innovation
Knowledge Transfer Network and with DEFRA’s horizon scanning team, and a presentation
to senior DWP colleagues.
All of this makes a positive contribution to HSE’s development as an enabling regulator.
These are examples of how futures work conducted in recent years is now having an impact
on HSE’s work on fuels and synthetic biology,
Fuels.
As part of its futures work, in 2004 the Process Safety Corporate Topic Group (CTG)
identified that the drive towards a carbon free energy economy could lead to people being
exposed to unfamiliar hazards. A major collaborative programme was undertaken to study
the hazards arising from the production and use of hydrogen as a primary fuel for heating,
- 17 –
power generation and motor vehicles. The research was carried out in collaboration with
industry and other European countries.
Another area of interest identified in the futures work was the generation of biofuels from
plant precursors, biodiesel, bioethanol and biomethane. Research was undertaken to
understand the hazards and guidance prepared where necessary. Early identification of
these emerging issues and participation in the programmes of research to understand the
associated hazards has enabled HSE to work with industry in the development of risk
control standards, whilst minimising the economic drag effect late intervention can have.
Synthetic biology.
Prior to the formation of the Futures Group, in 2006 the Futures Team identified the topic of
synthetic biology8 as potentially being of interest to HSE’s Biological Agents Unit. This lead
to the publication, in 2007, of a Short Form Report on synthetic biology on the Horizon
Scanning pages of HSE’s website.
The Royal Society read this report and contacted the Futures Team to provide a response to
their call for evidence on synthetic biology. This was passed on to the Biological Agents
group who drafted a response for the CSA to reply. As a result HSE is now a member of the
Royal Society Synthetic Biology Coordination Group.
This group aims to bring together researchers, policy organisations, funding bodies and
other government departments (including other regulators) in order to exchange information
on national and international developments, identify gaps in current policy and co-ordinate
the responsible and responsive development of synthetic biology. Regulatory involvement
in such groups at an early stage is viewed as extremely important by all participants.
Synthetic biology involves a range of techniques culminating in the insertion of synthetic
heritable material into living cells. This provides the opportunity to engineer microorganisms
in a more systematic and precise manner. Development of this technology has expanded
beyond microbiology into the disciplines of engineering, chemistry and computing. Such
disciplines are not familiar with the microbiological risks that may emerge from this
technology. The Biological Agents Unit (BAU) have bid for funding to carry out research to
scope the potential applications of synthetic biology in Great Britain and its application
beyond traditional biological agents sector to assist HSE to devise a proportionate
regulatory approach to this new and emerging technology and enabling HSE to prioritise
deployment of resources to where they are most needed.
In addition to the potential scoping exercise, BAU are actively involved in a number of
steering groups on synthetic biology outside of HSE, including that of the Royal Society.
8
: The design and manufacture of biologically based parts, devices and systems that do not exist in the natural
world- as well as redesigning existing, natural, biological systems. (Royal Society definition)
- 18 –
Annex 1.4
Examples of work commissioned and completed in 2009.
Case Study 1 – Dreamspace investigation
HSL staff have considerable experience of the investigation of large engineering
components and structures that have failed, cranes and pressure vessels, for example.
However, occasionally HSL scientists are called upon to assess the performance of more
unusual items.
Dreamspace was an inflatable artwork, or “sculpture”, measuring 50m by 50m in area and
5m in height, consisting of 156 individual hollow cells made from thin-walled PVC linked
together. The whole structure was tethered to the ground around some of the outer cells
with a series of ropes and ground anchors. Described by one newspaper as “a cathedral of
PVC”, members of the public were invited to enter the structure to experience the dream-like
conditions created by colour and soothing music. The structure was installed in Riverside
Park, Chester-le-Street, on 26 July 2006 when it lifted off the ground with 30 people inside it,
twisted round and fell back to earth. Two people died and many others were injured.
HSL was called in immediately to survey the site and map the location of the ground
anchors. Subsequently, a bespoke test rig was designed and constructed at HSL to
measure the pull-out forces on the anchors at the scene. A similar, but considerably smaller
structure by the same artist, known as Bluespace was erected at HSL so that the effects of
wind loading on the ropes and anchors could be assessed. In addition, the influence of
thermal effects, which cause increased buoyancy as the internal temperature rises, on the
stress in the tethers were also evaluated. Finally, the ropes were examined in detail to
- 19 –
assess their strength, deterioration and, in some cases, to establish whether they had failed
by overload or had been cut.
The information gathered during this investigation assisted HSE in providing a credible
explanation for the incident. It was concluded that wind loading had not been properly
accounted for in assessing the stability of the structure; there were too few tethers and the
ropes were of insufficient strength. As a result of these findings, HSE successfully
prosecuted the creator of the structure, the installers and the local authority. A 1/70th scale
model of the structure and a computer animation were produced at HSL for use in court and
two members of staff gave evidence.
- 20 –
Case Study 2 - Crowd Management for Special Events
In August 2008, Buckinghamshire New University was commissioned by the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) to undertake a short project to investigate crowd safety at four
outdoor events held on public spaces. The project was sponsored by the Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea through the HSE/Local Authorities partnership.
The project was instigated to support the collection of independently researched information
on street and other ‘special’ events and to supply further evidence to substantiate good
practice and identify areas which may need attention in the development of a safer event
environment.
The project utilised existing guidance in the area of crowd safety management at outdoor
events and through four specific case studies, identified both generic and specific
procedures and protocols relating to the management of crowds at such events.
The focus of the studies was the safety of the crowd and the identification of factors that
enabled this, including the planning that goes into effective crowd management, the
organisational arrangements that need to be in place and the operation of the plans to
ensure that, on the day, the crowd experiences a safe event.
The project studied four distinct well known events that were held on streets and/or other
public open spaces: Flaming ‘Tar Barrels’ at Ottery St Mary, ‘Hogmanay’ in Edinburgh,
‘Cheese Rolling’ at Cooper’s Hill in Gloucestershire and Notting Hill ‘Carnival’ in London.
These four very different events provided a range of variables and give a useful indication of
significant factors in managing crowd safety.
Good practice identified at the four events formed the basis of a generic checklist, which can
be used by all participating agencies to assist in planning and supporting the safe
management of special outdoor events.
A full report is in draft. The full report will be launched at The ‘Events’ Conference in
February 2010.
- 21 –
Case study 3 - The Buncefield Explosion Mechanism
The Buncefield explosion (11 December 2005) resulted in
tremendous damage to the outlying area and huge fires involving
23 large oil fuel tanks. One important aspect of the incident was
the severity of the explosion, which would not have been
anticipated in any major hazard assessment of the oil storage
depot before the incident.
On the recommendation of the Buncefield Major Incident Investigation
Board (MIIB) Advisory Group, a Joint Industry Project (JIP) was
undertaken to provide an understanding of the explosion mechanism
and to define the scope of further work that may be necessary based on the findings.
The Buncefield Explosion Mechanism Project (Phase 1) was jointly funded by the Health
and Safety Executive (HSE), the UK Petroleum Industry Association (UKPIA), the Ministry of
Housing of the Environment and Spatial Planning (The Netherlands), StatoilHydro and the
Energy Institute.
The findings from this project were disseminated for the first time at the Fire and Blast
Information Group (FABIG) Technical Meetings on the 23rd and 24th of June 2009 in
London and Aberdeen, and via a live interactive webcast. These meetings attracted the
largest audience since the creation of FABIG with a record 350 delegates over the two days.
Five speakers from the project Technical Group (Vincent Tam (BP), Jonathan Puttock (Shell
Global Solutions), Mike Johnson (GL Industrial Services), Laurence Cusco (HSL), Ian
Barnes (MoD) and Bassam Burgan (SCI)) gave presentations describing the forensic
evidence, deflagration and detonation hypothesis, alternative mechanisms, assessment of
structural damage and proposals for further work. These presentations were based on the
project report which was recently published by HSE (RR718) and is available for download
from the HSE and FABIG websites.
(http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr718.htm).
Unlike other well known incidents, a vast amount of data in the form of witness statements,
photographs, CCTV and video footage was available from the Buncefield incident, which
enabled a detailed study of the explosion characteristics.
It is estimated that a pancake shaped vapour cloud covering an area of around 120,000m2
with an average height of around 2m formed, and evidence suggest that the ignition source
was in the emergency pump house (see Figure). High levels of overpressure (>200kPa)
were seen in all areas within the cloud irrespective of the nature of the terrain and amount of
congestion; the maximum overpressure was probably much higher.
However, the overpressure diminished rapidly with distance away from the edge of the cloud
and evidence suggests overpressures in the region of 5-10kPa within 150m. Another
distinctive feature was the direction of net impulse (directional damage) which, within the
cloud, acted in the direction opposite to the direction of the explosion propagation, whereas
outside the cloud, acted in the direction of the explosion propagation.
The deflagration and detonation explosion mechanisms were assessed for their consistency
with the observed explosion characteristics. Deflagration was found to be inconsistent with
- 22 –
the near-field significant damage to objects and cars, and with the net impulse as shown by
directional damage to lamp posts, trees and posts within the flammable cloud.
Detailed modelling of the area surrounding the emergency
pump house supports the proposition that the trees and
undergrowth along Three Cherry Trees Lane (see Figure)
caused flame acceleration to a velocity of several hundred
m/s, speed at which a transition to detonation is considered
possible. Detonating vapour clouds are known to generate
high overpressures and modelling confirmed the direction of
the net impulse both within and outside the cloud and the
rapid decline in overpressure with distance from the edge of
the cloud.
However, the magnitude of the loading predicted by the model would have caused greater
damage to the Northgate and Fuji buildings. This discrepancy needs further investigation.
This might be explained if, for example, the detonation was confined to part of the cloud
depth (e.g. if only part of the cloud depth was at a concentration within detonability limits or if
the cloud in some parts was not deep enough to sustain a detonation).
From the work undertaken, the most likely scenario can be summarised as follows:
•
•
•
•
Dense vapour dispersion in very low wind speed conditions leading to a cloud buildup over an area of 120,000m2;
Ignition at the emergency pump house; failure of the pump house structure followed
by a deflagration outside the pump house and flame propagation to the undergrowth
and trees;
Flame acceleration in the undergrowth and trees along Three Cherry Trees Lane up
to flame velocities of several hundred m/s, followed by a transition to detonation near
the junction between Three Cherry Trees Lane and Buncefield Lane;
Detonation of part of the remaining gas cloud.
This phase of the project has also defined experimental and analytical work to be completed
in a second joint industry funded phase of the project. The aim of the proposed work (which
is expected to take 24 months to complete) is to improve the understanding of low wind
speed dispersion and large shallow vapour cloud explosions and the response of various
forms of construction to such explosions.
This phase has also identified areas for fundamental research of a longer term nature
suitable for academic institutions and specialist technical organisations. The latter will be
progressed through the normal funding channels for academic research (e.g. EPSRC,
European Framework, etc.).
The presentations generated a very high interest from the audience, which was particularly
looking for practical advice following the work undertaken. A key point is to keep an open
mind in a risk assessment when identifying potential sources of congestion as it is believed
that the trees and bushes along Three Cherry Trees Lane played a critical role in
accelerating the flame. It was also suggested that the focus should be on preventing losses
of containment.
- 23 –
Case study 4 - Reaching Out
Since 2000 there has been a significant reduction in fatal
accidents and other injuries in the construction industry.
This reduction has been attributed in part to the focus of
the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on influencing
large firms.
To encourage the continuation of this downward trend, the
HSE's Small Sites Project was established to bring about the adoption of sensible risk
management strategies to improve standards of health and safety on Small Sites. There is a
specific focus on those sites with 5 or fewer employees on site.
This research funded by HSE was commissioned to inform the development of a strategy to
reach and influence Small Site operators.
The overarching research objective was to reveal more about how the Small Sites sector of
the industry operates and the intermediaries and the factors which influence those who
control small sites in order to inform a programme of positively influencing behaviour on
Small Sites.
View the full report
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr719.pdf
- 24 –
Case study 5 - A Risky Business
The project defined risk education learning outcomes that
can be integrated into an undergraduate engineering
curriculum and implementing them by merging new teaching
materials (involving real accident case studies) into core
engineering modules. The success of the project has been
evaluated in terms of student's understanding of risk, at
different points during their course, and interactions of the
project team with academic staff.
A student questionnaire of approximately 50 multiple-choice questions to ascertain student's
understanding of risk was developed to support both development of materials and their
evaluation.
The report makes a number of recommendations for future collaboration between HSE and
a range of stakeholders and relates these to HSE's 'Be part of the solution' strategy (2009),
the ongoing sensible risk campaign and the EU campaign (2008-2009) to promote and
demystify the risk assessment process. Issues raised, which other educational institutions
seeking to undertake a similar process should consider, are:
1. Promotion of the risk theme to other members of staff who do not view it as a priority
and gaining their support to allow inclusion of new materials in their modules;
2. Overcoming competing demands for time on the curriculum;
Motivating students to engage with the materials from the perspective of relevance, interest
View the full report [554KB]
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr702.pdf
- 25 –
Case study 6 - Safety among Farmers
Agriculture, of all UK industries, has the highest rate of
fatal accidents. This study funded by the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) has examined farmers' attitudes,
and the underlying influences, to identify how these
might be changed to help improve safety in the industry.
A literature review showed that people's perceptions of risk
are influenced by social, cultural and group processes but no
studies look specifically at perceptions of risk and attitudes to safety among farmers.
The main study examined the influences on farmers' attitudes based on interviews with 35
farmers either at their farm or at livestock markets in the South West and South East of
England. The sample covered farmers on small and large farms.
The study found that overall the farmers had positive attitudes and behaviours with respect
to safety.
However, negative attitudes and behaviours emerged in specific areas such as the use of
guidance and health. Analysis revealed that farmers with negative attitudes to guidance and
health are strongly influenced by other farmers and members of their family respectively.
Farmers with positive attitudes and behaviours in all areas are likely to acknowledge a
strong influence of HSE. Furthermore, many farmers are influenced by HSE in that they
know they need to comply with regulations. This knowledge was gained primarily through
HSE's website and their agriculture Safety Awareness Days (SADs).
The recommendations within the report suggest how HSE can use its website and SADs to
further advantage by targeting particular areas where farmers have negative attitudes and
behaviours. In addition, examples of good practice that emerged from the interviews with the
farmers are provided.
View the full report
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr700.pdf
- 26 –
Case study 7 - Reducing employee absence through leadership
Past research indicates that a supportive leadership style leads to lower levels of
employee absence. However, few studies have looked at other aspects of leadership
that could have positive effects on absence such as transformational leadership,
despite the fact that it has been the most influential theories of leader behaviour in
recent years.
A transformational leader is not only supportive of employees' needs but is also able to set a
personal example, to stimulate, develop and inspire employees. This style of leadership has
consistently been found to relate to a wide range of positive work outcomes including job
satisfaction, commitment and work performance. Only a handful of studies have shown that
transformational leadership has beneficial effects in terms of reducing employee absence,
but these studies present a number of limitations
The studies were predominantly conducted in the private sector, some considered senior
management only and none controlled for the health effects associated with absenteeism
Given these shortcomings, the present study sought to fill this gap in research. By surveying
employees of both managerial and non-managerial grades, it explored to what extent
transformational leadership can affect employee absence in a sample of UK public sector
organisations
Absence from work due to ill-health is currently costing the British economy £17 billion per
year (EEF, 2005). Given that 30 million of working days lost in Great Britain are due to work
related ill-health and 6 million due to workplace injury (HSE, 2007), it is important to shed
light on the processes by which rates of employee absence can be reduced
Absence is a complex phenomenon likely to have multiple causes as determined by
previous research (Johns, 1997, 2001). Work characteristics other than the quality of
leadership were therefore taken into account in this study
The full report is available for free downloading from the HSE web site
The effects of transformational leadership on employees' absenteeism in four UK public
sector organisations
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr648.pdf
- 27 –
Case study 8 - Ageing Structures
With many offshore installations in the UK sector of the North Sea now reaching or
exceeding their original anticipated design life, there is a particular need to evaluate
approaches to structural integrity management by offshore operators to ascertain
their adequacy in managing ageing structures.
In addition to this, a significant proportion of the ageing structures are now operated by duty
holders who are relatively new to the UKCS, and may not be following recognised good
practice for structural integrity management. A pilot study by HSE, undertaken during 19951996 and the results of the KP3 audit programme have highlighted the varying approaches
to structural integrity management by duty holders, in terms of both the methods used and
their effectiveness
The objective of the study presented in this document is to develop a comprehensive
framework for the structural integrity management (SIM) of fixed jacket structures reflecting
the Health and Safety Executive Offshore Division's technical policy. This framework is a
medium for communicating what HSE regards as good industry practice and thereby to
stimulate duty holders' continual performance improvement
Related Resources:
The full report is available for free downloading from the HSE web site
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr684.pdf
- 28 –
Annex 1.5
Peer-Reviewed Papers in Journals, Conference Proceedings and Book
Chapters associated with contracts placed with HSL.
January to November 2009
A) Journal Papers
A.1) Journal Papers Published
1. ASHLEY, K., BRISSON, M. J., HOWE, A. M., BARTLEY, D. L. 2009. Interlaboratory
Evaluation of a Standardized Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry Method
for the Determination of Trace Beryllium in Air Filter Samples. Journal of Occupational
and Environmental Hygiene, 6, 745-750.
2. BARTELS, M., LOIZOU, G., PRICE, P., SPENDIFF, M., ARNOLD, S., COCKER, J., &
BALL, N. Sept 2009. Development of a tiered set of modeling tools for derivation of
biomonitoring guidance values. Toxicology Letters, 189, S154-S154.
3. BELLI, M., BROOKMAN, B., DE LA CALLE, B., JAMES, V., KOCH, M., MAJCEN, N.,
MENDITTO, A., NOBLETT, T., PERISSI, R., VAN PUTTEN, K., ROBOUCH, P.,
SLAPOKAS, T., TAYLOR, P., THOLEN, D., THOMAS, A., TYLEE, B. 2009. Proficiency
testing in analytical chemistry, microbiology and laboratory medicine: working
discussions on current practice and future directions. Accreditation and Quality
Assurance, 14, 507-512.
4. BROUWER, D., VAN DUUREN-STUURMAN, B., BERGES, M., JANKOWSKA, E.,
BARD, D., MARK, D. 2009. From workplace air measurement results toward estimates
of exposure? Development of a strategy to assess exposure to manufactured nanoobjects. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11, 1867-1881.
5. BROWN, T. 2009 Silica exposure, silicosis and lung cancer - complex interactions.
Occupational Medicine 59(1) 89.
6. BUTLER, O. T., COOK, J. M., DAVIDSON, C. M., HARRINGTON, C. F., MILES, D. L.
2009. Atomic spectrometry update. Environmental analysis. Journal of Analytical Atomic
Spectrometry, 24, 131-177.
7. COCKER, J., CAIN, J. R., BALDWIN, P., MCNALLY, K., JONES, K. 2009. A Survey of
Occupational Exposure to 4,4'-methylene-bis (2-chloroaniline) (MbOCA) in the UK.
Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 53, 499-507.
8. D'SOUZA, E., BARRACLOUGH, R., FISHWICK, D., CURRAN, A. 2009. Management of
occupational health risks in small-animal veterinary practices. Occupational MedicineOxford, 59, 316-322.
9. FAN, M. Q., BELL, A. R., BELL, D. R., CLODE, S., FERNANDES, A., FOSTER, P. M.
D., FRY, J. R., JIANG, T., LOIZOU, G., MACNICOLL, A., MILLER, B. G., ROSE, M.,
SHAIKH-OMAR, O., TRAN, L., WHITE, S. 2009. Recombinant expression of aryl
hydrocarbon receptor for quantitative ligand-binding analysis. Analytical Biochemistry,
384, 279-287.
10. GANT, S. 2009 Reliability Issues of LES-Related Approaches in an Industrial Context.
Flow, Turbulence and Combustion. 84(2), 325.
11. HARDING, A. H., DARNTON, A., WEGERDT, J,. MCELVENNY, D. 2009. Mortality
among British asbestos workers undergoing regular medical examinations (1971-2005).
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 66, 487-495.
12. HARRIS-ROBERTS, J., ROBINSON, E., WATERHOUSE, J. C., BILLINGS, C. G.,
PROCTOR, A. R., STOCKS-GREAVES, M., RAHMAN, S., EVANS, G., GARROD, A.,
CURRAN, A. D., FISHWICK, D. 2009. Sensitization to Wheat Flour and Enzymes and
Associated Respiratory Symptoms in British Bakers. American Journal of Industrial
Medicine, 52, 133-140.
13. HEMINGWAY, M., WALSH, P., WILLIAMS, M., HUNNEYBALL, S., JOBLING, S. 2009
- 29 –
An Improved Fire Detector for use in Underground Coalmines. Proc. AUBE’09 14TH
International conference on automatic fire detection, 8-10/9/09, Duisburg, Germany. Vol.
2, p237-244
14. JIANG, T., BELL, D. R., CLODE, S., FAN, M. Q., FERNANDES, A., FOSTER, P. M. D.,
LOIZOU, G., MACNICOLL, A., MILLER, B. G., ROSE, M., TRAN, L., WHITE, S. 2009. A
Truncation in the Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor of the CRL:WI(Han) Rat Does Not Affect
the Developmental Toxicity of TCDD. Toxicological Sciences, 107, 512-521.
15. LOIZOU, G. 2009. The rapid generation of PBPK models: A tool for good modelling
practice. Toxicology Letters, 189(1), S24-S24.
16. LOIZOU, G. et al 2009 Recombinant expression of aryl hydrocarbon receptor for
quantitative ligand-binding analysis. Analytical Biochemistry, 384, 279-287.
17. MILLS, R., DWYER-JOYCE, R. S., LOO-MORREY, M. 2009. The mechanisms of
pedestrian slip on flooring contaminated with solid particles. Tribology International, 42,
403-412.
18. MAKAROV, D., VERBECKE, F., MOLKOV, V., ROE, O., SKOTENNE, M.,
KOTCHOURKO, A., LELYAKIN, A., YANEZ, J., HANSEN, O., MIDDHA, P., LEDIN,
H.S., BARALDI, D., HEITSCH, M., EFIMENKO, A. GAVRIKOV, A., 2009 An intercomparison exercise on CFD model capabilities to predict a hydrogen explosion in a
simulated vehicle refuelling environment, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,
34(6), March 2009, 2800-2814,
19. PALMER, K. T., CULLINAN, P., RICE, S., BROWN, T., COGGON, D. 2009. Mortality
from infectious pneumonia in metal workers: a comparison with deaths from asthma in
occupations exposed to respiratory sensitisers. Thorax, 64, 983-986.
20. RIMMER, D. A., JOHNSON, P. D., KELSEY, A., WARREN, N. D. 2009. Field
experiments to assess approaches for spray drift incident investigation. Pest
Management Science, 65, 665-671.
21. ROWBOTHAM, A. L., GIBSON, R. M. 2009. Advancing the 3Rs: Exposure-driven risk
assessment. Toxicology, 262 (1), 20.
22. SKINNER, R. A., GIBSON, R. M., ROTHWELL, N. J., PINTEAUX, E. & PENNY, J. I.
2009. Transport of interleukin-1 across cerebromicrovascular endothelial cells. British
Journal of Pharmacology, 156, 1115-1123.
23. STACEY, P., KAUFFER, E., MOULUT, J. C., DION, C., BEAUPARLANT, M.,
FERNANDEZ, P., KEY-SCHWARTZ, R., FRIEDE, B., WAKE, D. 2009. An International
Comparison of the Crystallinity of Calibration Materials for the Analysis of Respirable
alpha-Quartz Using X-Ray Diffraction and a Comparison with Results from the Infrared
KBr Disc Method. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 53, 639-649.
24. WARREN, N., MEIJSTER, T., MEEDERIK, D., TIELEMANS, E. 2009 A dynamic
population-based model for the development of work related respiratory health effects
amongst bakery workers. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 66(12):810-7
25. VENETSANOS, A., PAPANIKOLAOU, E., DELICHATSIOS, M.,. GARCIA, J., HANSEN,
O, HEITSCH, M., HUSER, A., JAHN, W., JORDAN, T., LACOME, J., LEDIN, H.S.,
MAKAROV, M., MIDDHA, P., STUDER, E., TCHOUVELEV, A.V., TEODORCZYK, A.,.
VERBECKE, F., VAN DER VOORT, M.M. 2009. An inter-comparison exercise on the
capabilities of CFD models to predict the short and long term distribution and mixing of
hydrogen in a garage. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 34 (14), 5912-5923.
26. XU, B. P., WEN, J. X., DEMBELE, S., TAM, V. H. Y., HAWKSWORTH, S. J. 2009. The
effect of pressure boundary rupture rate on spontaneous ignition of pressurized
hydrogen release. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 22, 279-287.
27. YOUNG, C. 2009 Solar ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer. Occupational Medicine
59(1) 82-88.
A.2) Journal Papers in Press
1. JONES, K., PATEL, K., COCKER, J., BEVAN, R., LEVY, L. Determination of
- 30 –
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ethylenethiourea in urine by liquid chromatography-atmospheric pressure chemical
ionization-mass spectrometry for monitoring background levels in the general population,
Journal of Chromatography B, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 31 October
2009.
MANNO, M., VIAU, C., in collaboration with, COCKER, J., COLOSIO, C., LOWRY, L.,
MUTTI, A., NORDBERG, M., WANG, S., 2009 Biomonitoring for occupational health risk
assessment (BOHRA), Toxicology Letters, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online
13 May 2009.
PENSIS, I., MAREELS, J. DAHMANN, D., MARK, D. 2009 Comparative evaluation of
the dustiness of industrial minerals according to European Standard EN15051, 2006.
Annals of Occupational Hygiene. Advanced access available online 2nd December 2009
ROBERTS, T.A., SHIRVILL, L.S., WATERTON, K., BUCKLAND, I. 2009 Fire resistance
of passive fire protection coatings after long-term weathering, Process Safety and
Environmental Protection, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 25 November
2009.
SAMS, C., PATEL K., JONES, K. 2009 Biological monitoring for exposure to pirimicarb:
method development and a human oral dosing study. Toxicology Letters. Available
online 20th Jan. 2009.
TURNER S, MCNAMEE R, ROBERTS C, BRADSHAW L, CURRAN A, FRANCIS M,
FISHWICK D, AGIUS R. 2009 Agreement in diagnosing occupational asthma by
occupational and respiratory physicians who report to surveillance schemes for work
schemes for work-related ill-health. Occupational Environmental Medicine (Eprint ahead
of print).
A.3) Journal Papers Submitted
1. FROST, G., DARNTON, A., HARDING, A-H. The effect of smoking on the risk of lung
cancer mortality for asbestos workers in Great Britain (1971-2005). Occupational and
Environmental Medicine.
2. HARDING, A-H., DARNTON, A. Asbestosis and mesothelioma among British asbestos
workers (1971-2005). International Journal of Epidemiology.
3. LUNT, J.A., SHEFFIELD, D., CRICK G. Behaviour change and worker engagement in
construction. Journal of Occupational Health & Psychology.
4. LUNT, J.A., SHEFFIELD, D., CRICK G. Implications of organizational characteristics
upon changing behaviour in the construction sector. Work and Stress.
5. MOONIS, M. WILDAY A.J., WARDMAN M.J. Semi-quantitative risk assessment of
commercial scale supply chain of hydrogen fuel and implications for industry. IChemE
Safety & Environmental Protection.
6. OKUNRIBIDO, O., LEWIS, D. 2009 Work-related lower limb musculoskeletal disorders A review of the literature. Contemporary Ergonomics.
7. OKUNRIBIDO, O., WYNN, T., LEWIS, D. 2009 Is Age/Ageing A Risk Factor For WorkRelated Musculoskeletal Disorders? – A Literature Review. Contemporary Ergonomics.
8. PARKER, R. RILEY, D. MARSHALL, H., VITALIS, T. Data capture with a wearable video
camera - a forestry case study. Applied Ergonomics.
9. ROBERTS, T.A., SHIRVILL, L.C., WATERTON, K. BUCKLAND I. Fire resistance of
passive fire protection coatings after long-term weathering. IChemE Process Safety &
Environmental Protection.
10. SAVOLAINEN, K., PYLKKANEN, L., NORPPA, H., FALCK, G., LINDBERG, H., TUOMI,
T., VIPPOLA, M., ALENIUS, H., HAMERI, K., KOIVISTO, J., BROUWER, D., MARK, D.,
BARD, D., BERGES, M., JANKOWSKA, E., POSNIAK, M., FARMER, P., SINGH, R.,
KRONBACH, F., BIHARI, P., KASPER, G., SEIPENBUSCH, M. Nanotechnology,
engineered nanoparticles and occupational safety. Safety Science.
11. STEWART, M., GLEED-OWEN, T, PATEL J. Development of a New Impact Target in
- 31 –
the UK for Package Testing. Packaging, Transport, Storage and Security of Radioactive
Materials.
12. THYER, A.M. KEY, P. Quantifying the risk of fire on a tunnel-boring machine. Fire Safety
Journal.
13. VAN DE VEN P, FRANSMAN, W., SCHINKEL, J.M RUBINGH, C. WARREN, N.,
TIELEMANS, E. Stoffenmanager exposure model: company specific exposure
assessments using a Bayesian methodology. Annals of Occupational Hygiene.
B) Conference Papers
B.1) Conference Papers Published
1. ATKINSON, G., CUSCO, L., PAINTER, D. TAM, V. Interpretation of overpressure
markers and directional indicators in full-scale deflagrations and detonations. IChemE
SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 155 Hazards XXI Manchester, 10-12 November 2009.
2. BETTIS, R., FLETCHER, J. 2009 Comparison of the Subsurface Migration of LPG and
Natural Gas. IChemE SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 155 Hazards XXI Manchester, 10-12
November 2009, 135-147.
3. BURDETT, G, COTTRELL, S. TAYLOR, C. Airborne asbestos concentrations in system
built schools. IPX Proceedings
4. BUTLER, C., LEKKA, C., SUGDEN, C. Development of a process safety climate tool.
IChemE SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 155 Hazards XXI Manchester, 10-12 November
2009, 447-454.
5. HARE, J. JOHNSON, M., FULLAM, B. Learning from process safety incidents. IChemE
SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 155 Hazards XXI Manchester, 10-12 November 2009.
6. HAWKSWORTH, S., PRITCHARD, D., HODGES, J., PARROT, R., WHITE, G.,
MELLOR, T. ICL Plastics investigation, Glasgow, May 2004. IChemE SYMPOSIUM
SERIES NO. 155 Hazards XXI Manchester, 10-12 November 2009, 678-684.
7. HAWKSWORTH, S. et al. On the use of hydrogen in confined spaces: Results from
internal project InsHyde. Third International Conference on Hydrogen Safety, Corsica,
16-18 September 2009.
8. HAWKSWORTH, S. et al Achievements of the EC network of excellence Hysafe.
IChemE SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 155 Hazards XXI Manchester, 10-12 November
2009, 22-31.
9. HEDLEY, D. et al. Integration of experimental facilities: A joint effort for establishing a
common knowledge base experimental work on hydrogen safety. Third International
Conference on Hydrogen Safety, Corsica, 16-18 September 2009.
10. HEDLEY, D. et al. Hytunnel project to investigate the use of hydrogen vehicles in road
tunnels. Third International Conference on Hydrogen Safety, Corsica, 16-18 September
2009.
11. HOLBROW, P. Explosion properties of nanopowders. IChemE SYMPOSIUM SERIES
NO. 155 Hazards XXI Manchester, 10-12 November 2009, 70-78.
12. HOLMES, T., CONNOLLY, S., WILDAY, J., HARE, J., WALSH, P. 2009 Managing Fire
And Explosion Hazards On Offshore Ageing Installations. IChemE SYMPOSIUM
SERIES NO. 155 Hazards XXI Manchester, 10-12 November 2009, 595-602.
13. HOWE, A. 2009 European and International Standards on health and safety in welding.
Inhaled Particles X, (23–25September2008, Manchester) Journal of Physics:
Conference Series 151.
14. KEELEY, D., TURNER, S., HARPER, P. Management of the UK HSE failure rate and
event data. Symposium on the frequency component used in risk assessment of major
industrial accidents, 24th-25th August 2009, Montreal, Canada. A symposium in the 8th
World Congress in Chemical Engineering (WCCE8).
15. PATEL, J. Noise emission data for hand-held concrete breakers. EURONOISE 2009,
- 32 –
Edinburgh Oct 26-29.
16. PINDER, A., FROST, G. The 1991 NIOSH Lifting Equation does not predict low back
pain. Proceedings of the XXIst Annual International Occupational Ergonomics and
Safety Conference, Dallas, Texas, USA, 11-12 June 2009, 229-235.
17. PINDER, A. Issues with the 1991 NIOSH Lifting Equation Composite Lifting Index
Proceedings of the XXIst Annual International Occupational Ergonomics and Safety
Conference, Dallas, Texas, USA, 11-12 June 2009, 236-241.
18. ROYLE, M., WILLOUGHBY, D.B. Consequences of catastrophic releases of ignited and
unignited hydrogen jet releases. Third International Conference on Hydrogen Safety,
Corsica, 16-18 September 2009.
19. ROYLE, M., WILLOUGHBY, D. et al Hydrogen and fuel cell stationary applications: key
findings of modeling and experimental work in the hyper project. Third International
Conference on Hydrogen Safety, Corsica, 16-18 September 2009.
20. SAUNDERS, C.J., POCOCK, D., CARTER, G. Controlling gas shielded arc welding
fume using an on-gun extraction system. Ventilation 2009, Zurich, Switzerland, 18-21
October 2009.
21. SAW, J-L, WILDAY, J., HARTE, H. Learning organisations for major hazards and the
role of the regulator. IChemE SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 155 Hazards XXI Manchester,
10-12 November 2009.
22. SANTON, R. ISO 21789 A new gas turbine safety standard. Proceedings of ASME
Turbo Expo 2009: Power for Land, Sea and Air. GT2009 Orlando, Florida USA, June 812 2009.
23. SANTON, R. Mist fires and explosions - an incident survey. IChemE SYMPOSIUM
SERIES NO. 155 Hazards XXI Manchester, 10-12 November 2009.
24. SANTON, R.C. IVINGS M.J. Area classification of natural gas installations. IChemE
SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 155 Hazards XXI Manchester, 10-12 November 2009.
25. STEWART, M., GLEED-OWEN, T, PATEL J. Development of a New Impact Target in
the UK for Package Testing. 8th international conference on radioactive materials
transport - 2009 'Into the renaissance' 12-14 May 2009.
26. SUGDEN, C., HEALEY, N., RUSHTON, P. Safety performance indicators in the
explosives sector. IChemE SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 155 Hazards XXI Manchester,
10-12 November 2009, 226-233.
27. SUGDEN, C., MARSHALL, M., BINCH, S., BOTTOMLEY, D. 2009. The development of
HSL’s safety climate tool – a revision of health and safety climate survey tool.
Contemporary Ergonomics: Proceedings of the International Conference of Ergonomics,
London, 22-23 April 2009.
28. THYER, A., KAY, J. GANT, S., CONNOLLY, S. Investigations into the flammability of
propane/carbon dioxide by hydrogen/carbon dioxide and hydrogen/nitrogen mixtures.
IChemE SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 155 Hazards XXI Manchester, 10-12 November
2009.
29. VECHOT, L., CUSCO, L., HARE, J., BISHOPP, M. Development and evaluation of
experimental calorimetric systems for the simulation of an external heat input on reactive
chemicals and monomers. IChemE SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 155 Hazards XXI
Manchester, 10-12 November 2009.
30. WALSH, P., FORTH, A.R., CLARK, RDR, DOWKER KP, THORPE, A. 2009. Real-time
measurement of dust in the workplace using video exposure monitoring: farming to
pharmaceuticals. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 151(2009), 012043.
31. WILDAY, J., KUMASAKI, M., SAW, J., SUGDEN, C. Process safety leadership, worker
involvement and learning organisations. IChemE SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 155
Hazards XXI Manchester, 10-12 November 2009.
32. WILLOUGHBY, D. et al Towards minimizing hazards in hydrogen and fuel cell stationary
applications: Key findings of modeling and experimental work in the Hyper Project.
IChemE SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 155 Hazards XXI Manchester, 10-12 November
2009, 399-410.
- 33 –
B.1) Conference Papers Submitted
1. OKUNRIBIDO, O., LEWIS, D. Work-related lower limb musculoskeletal disorders - a
review of the literature. Ergonomics Society Annual Conference 13-15 Apr 2010 Keele
University.
2. OKUNRIBIDO, O., WYNN, T., LEWIS, D. Is age/ageing a risk factor for work-related
musculoskeletal disorders? A literature review. Ergonomics Society Annual Conference
13-15 Apr 2010 Keele University.
3. SAW, J-L, WARDMAN, M., HOLMES, A., RESTON S. Societal risk representation for
risk communication. 13th International Symposium on Loss Prevention, June 2010.
C) Book Chapters Submitted
1. COCKER, J., MASON, H. Biological Monitoring. Book chapter in “Hunter’s Diseases of
Occupation”, update for 10th edition.
2. CROOK, B., GAWN J.M. Bacteria, viruses and other bioaerosols in industrial
workplaces. Book chapter in "Bacteria and other bioaerosols in industrial workplaces".
- 34 –
Annex 1.6
Representative publications associated with extramural research contracts–
2004 - 2009
HSE does not maintain a record of all publications associated with extramural research
contracts. These 33 references were identified by HSE’s Information Management Unit. (in
March 2009) by searching Databases for references to research that acknowledged funding,
co-funding or sponsorship from HSE. It provides an indication of the diversity of subjects
and quality of publications associated with these contracts.
2009
"Total risk of death” - Towards a common and usable basis for consequence assessment.
Rushton-A-G; Carter-D-A. Process Safety and Environmental Protection; Volume: 87; Issue:
B1; Page: 21-25; Jan 2009;
2008
Perceived organizational support for safety and employee safety voice: The mediating role
of coworker support for safety. Tucker-Sean, Chmiel-Nik, Turner-Nick, Hershcovis-MSandy, Stride- Chris-B Industrial Accident and Prevention Association's Conference and
Trade Show, 2006, Toronto, ON, Canada. Earlier versions of this study were presented at
the aforementioned conference, and at the 7th European Academy of Occupational Health
Psychology, Dublin, Ireland. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Oct 2008, vol. 13,
no. 4, p. 319-330,
Virtual reality induced symptoms and effects (VRISE): Comparison of head mounted display
(HMD), desktop and projection display systems. Sharples-Sarah, Cobb-Sue, MoodyAmanda, Wilson-John-R. Displays, (Special Issue: Health and safety aspects of visual
displays), Mar 2008, vol. 29, no. 2, p. 58-69, ISSN: 0141-9382.
2007
Evaluating organizational-level work stress interventions: Beyond traditional methods. CoxTom, Karanika-Maria, Griffiths-Amanda, Houdmont-Jonathan Work & Stress, Oct 2007, vol.
21, no.4, p. 348-362,
Perceived dissimilarity and perspective taking within work teams. Williams-Helen-M, ParkerSharon-K, Turner-Nick-CF Australian Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference,
5th, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. A preliminary version of this article was presented at the
aforementioned conference. Group & Organization Management, Oct 2007, vol. 32, no.5,
p. 569-597,
Comparing and combining the demand-control-support model and the effort reward
imbalance model to predict long-term mental strain. Rydstedt-Leif-W, Devereux-Jason,
Sverke-Magnus European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Sep 2007, vol.
16, no. 3, p. 261-278
Who reaps the benefits, who bears the risks? Comparative optimism, comparative utility,
and regulatory preferences for mobile phone technology. White-Mathew-P, Eiser-J-Richard,
Harris-Peter-R, Pahl-Sabine.Risk Analysis, (Special Issue on Terrorism), Jun 2007, vol. 27,
no. 3, p. 741-753,
Organizational change and its dysfunctional effect on managers in large organizations.
Worrall-Les, Cooper-Cary-L, Mather-Kim. Research companion to the dysfunctional
- 35 –
workplace: Management challenges and symptoms, (New horizons in management), 2007,
p.
402-421, pp. xvi + 478, ISBN: 1-84542-932-X ISBN: 978-1-84542-932-4
Racial discrimination, ethnicity and work stress. Wadsworth-Emma, Dhillon-Kamaldeep,
Shaw-Christine, Bhui-Kamaldeep, Stansfeld-Stephen, Smith-Andrew. Occupational
Medicine, Jan 2007, vol. 57, no. 1, p. 18-24
The effect of psychological stress and relaxation on interoceptive accuracy: Implications for
symptom perception. Fairclough-Stephen-H, Goodwin-Laura. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, Mar 2007, vol. 62, no. 3, p. 289-295,
Developing the Stage of Change Approach for the Reduction of Work-related
Musculoskeletal Disorders. Whysall-Zara-J, Haslam-Cheryl, Haslam-Roger Journal of
Health Psychology, Jan 2007, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 184-197,
Jet fires involving releases of crude oil, gas and water. -G, Lowesmith-B-J, Evans-J-A,
Shirvill-L-C. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, {Process-Saf-Environ-Prot},
May 2007, 2007, vol. 85, no. 3 B, p. 221-229
2006
What causes accidents? Gibb-Alistair, Haslam-Roger, Gyi-Diane, Hide-Sophie, Duff-Roy.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Civil Engineering,{Proc-Inst-Civ-Eng-CivEng}, November 2006, 2006, vol. 159, no. 2 p. 46-50,
Exploring the integration of health and safety with pre-construction planning. Hare-Billy,
Cameron-Iain, Duff-A-Roy. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, {EngConstr- Archit-Manage}, 2006, vol. 13, no.5, p. 438-450,
Combined workplace stressors and their relationship with mood, physiology, and
performance. Wellens-Benjamin-T, Smith-Andrew-P. Work & Stress, Jul-Sep 2006, vol.
20, no. 3, p. 245-258
A stage of change approach to reducing occupational ill health. Whysall-Z, Haslam-C,
Haslam-R. Preventive Medicine: An International Journal Devoted to Practice and Theory,
Nov 2006, vol. 43, no. 5, p. 422-428,
Implementing health and safety interventions in the workplace: An exploratory study.
Whysall-Z, Haslam-C, Haslam-R International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Sep 2006,
vol. 36, no. 9, p. 809-818,
Musculoskeletal ill health amongst cleaners and recommendations for work organisational
change. Woods-V, Buckle-P. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Jan 2006, vol.
36, no. 1, p. 61-72
Gaining confidence in the software development process using expert systems. Brito-Mario,
May-John. 25th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security,
SAFECOMP 2006, Gdansk, Poland, 27 September 2006 - 29 September 2006.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics),{Lect-Notes-Comput-Sci}, 2006, vol.
4166 LNCS, p. 113-126
A simplified method for the estimation of individual risk. Franks-A-P, Maddison-T. Process
Safety and Environmental Protection, {Process-Saf-Environ- Prot}, March 2006, 2006, vol.
84, no. 2 B, p. 101-108
- 36 –
Assessing Longford gas plant 1 staffing arrangements. Conlin-H; O-Meara-J. Process
Safety and Environmental Protection; Volume: 84; Issue: B1; Page: 10-20; Jan 2006;.
Viewrisk: Risk calculation software. Davies-P-A, Carter-D-A, Quinn-D. Hazards XIX
Process Safety and Environmental Protection - What do we know, Where are we going,
Manchester, UK, 28 March 2006 - 30 March 2006, {Inst-Chem-Eng-SympSer},2006,no.151,p.901-909,
Plant specific ignition probability model and correlations for use in onshore and offshore
QRA. Mansfield-David, Aberdeen-David, Connolly-Stephen, Scanlon-Mark Hazards XIX Process Safety and Environmental Protection - What do we know Where are we going,
Manchester, UK, 28 March 2006 - 30 March 2006, Institution of Chemical Engineers
Symposium Series, {Inst-Chem-Eng- Symp-Ser}, 2006, no. 151, p. 762-776,
Principles for learning lessons from incidents - A UK perspective. Keeley-Deborah, GaddSandra, Fullam-Brian Hazards XIX - Process Safety and Environmental Protection - What
do we know Where are we going, Manchester, UK, 28 March 2006 - 30 March2006,
Institution of Chemical Engineers Symposium Series, {Inst-Chem-Eng-Symp-Ser}, 2006,
no. 151, p. 61-72,
Exploring comparative ratings and constituent facets of public trust in risk regulatory bodies
and related stakeholder groups Weyman, AK, Pidgeon, NF,Walls, J,Horlick-Jones,
JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH
2006, Vol 9 605 -622
2005
Designing and evaluating a human factors investigation tool (HFIT) for accident analysis.
Gordon, R.; Flin, R.; Mearns, K. Safety Science [Saf. Sci.], (2005) vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 147171.
Process intensification - Safety pros and cons Etchells, JC, Hazards XVIII Symposium
NOV 23-25, 2004 PROCESS SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (2005) 83
85 – 89
Simulating structural collapse of a PWR containment. Prinja, NK, Shepherd, D, Burley, J
NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN (2005) 235, Pt 17-19 2033 - 2043
2004
Evaluating advisory services: the Sheffield and Newham projects. C. Jackson. Occupational
Health Review, Jul-Aug 2004, no. 110, p. 29-31
Management Standards' and work-related stress in the UK: Practical development.
Cousins-Rosanna, Mackay-Colin-J, Clarke-Simon-D, Kelly-Chris, Kelly-Peter-J, McCaigRon-H. Work & Stress, Apr 2004, vol. 18, no. 2, p.113-136,
Using IEC 61508 to guide the investigation and analysis of incidents involving electrical,
electronic or programmable electronic systems. Johnson-C. Loss Prevention Bulletin; Issue:
175; Page: 16-28; Feb 2004
Effectiveness of area and dedicated water deluge in protecting objects impacted by crude
oil/gas jet fires on offshore installations. Hankinson-G; Lowesmith-B-J. Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries; Volume: 17;Issue: 2; Page: 119-125; Mar 2004;
- 37 –
Annex 1.7
Strategic Statement on Science
HSE is a strongly scientific and evidence based organisation, with about a quarter of
its staff being qualified scientists or engineers. Approximately 15% of HSE’s budget
is devoted to commissioning scientific research and support. Although we use a
wide range of institutions and contractors, our principal supplier is the Health and
Safety Laboratory, which provides HSE with vital technical and research level
experience and problem solving skills.
What do we do?
HSE’s Science:• supports delivery of the HSE Board Strategy (The Health and Safety of Great
Britain: be part of the solution) and associated delivery targets.
• supports front line regulatory functions (e.g. incident investigation)
• looks ahead to identify future challenges
In more detail:A 3 year rolling Science Plan identifies and prioritises science to identify issues,
acquire evidence, develop solutions and evaluate impact to underpin the following
key themes of the Board strategy
• investigation and securing justice
• The need for strong leadership
• Building competence
• Involving the workforce
• Creating healthier, safer workplaces
• Customising support for SMEs
• Avoiding catastrophe
• Taking a wider perspective
Forensic support for incident investigation is essential to enable HSE to carry out its
enforcement activity with a high degree of confidence and success. HSE invests in
the skills of its laboratory staff to document evidence, keep up to date with analytical
and technological innovations, and research and develop new techniques and
models as appropriate.
HSE is alert to the implications for health and safety of new technologies and
changes in the workplace. We seek to advise and inform so that the UK is well
placed to capitalise on innovation without detriment to our mission to prevent death,
injury and ill health to those at work and those affected by work activities.
- 38 –