Trim Ref: 2015/406289
Minutes - Outside Workers Subgroup Meeting
MINUTES
6th October 2015
Date:
Meeting 1
Present:
Clare McNicholas (CMc)
Julia Laverty (JL)
James Taylor (JT)
Sheila Holmes (SH)
Sheila Rees (SR)
Michael Zand (MZ)
Jackie Fairclough (JF)
Dave Arden (DA)
Helen Baker-Latham
Luisa Tolu (LT)
Tim King (TK)
Liz Thomas (LTH)
Roger Collison (RC)
Mark Bradley (MB)
Sharon Ely (SE)
Brian Heaton (BH)
Eric Donnachie (ED)
Rob Corby (RCY)
Sharan Packer (SP)
Robin Wells (RW)
Richard Wilkins (RWK)
Health and Safety Executive (Chair)
HSE
HSE
HSE
HSE
HSE
HSE
HSE
HSE
HSE
Government Legal
ONR
SRP (Babcock)
University of Oxford
PHE
Aberdeen Radiation
Siemens
Magnox Sites
IPEM (NHS)
DSTL
AMEC
Richard Dale – Government Legal, Kobina Lokko – ONR Peter Shaw – PHE, Mike
Gaunt – Rolls Royce, Jim Bishop – Sellafield Sites.
Apologies:
Agenda Item
Issues / Actions
1.Welcome and
CMc highlighted the importance of stakeholder engagement and
explained this group follows on from discussions held at the November
OEWG meeting.
Introductions
2. Impact
Assessment –
working together
to analyse costs
and benefits of
proposed
V0.1
Who
LT, HSE Economist explained that the Impact Assessment (IA) is a
statutory requirement for all government departments as part of the
process for considering a regulatory change. The IA is used for the
public consultation and provides a full cost benefit analysis of the
proposed changes. It is essential we gather quantitive and qualitative
evidence that demonstrates the impact on UK businesses. We do also
gather costs of the impact of the changes on OGDs but these are not
Page 1 of 5
When
Trim Ref: 2015/406289
Agenda Item
changes
Issues / Actions
Who
When
included when we demonstrate the overall costs to UK business.
We should reflect on the impact changes and what is proportionate.
Energies are best directed at significant changes and asking
yourselves, what is additional? What is the benefit of doing this? What
would you do differently? Would you incur additional costs or would
this save time and resources? If a policy change results in additional
action and UK businesses incur additional costs, this will not stop the
change process because as a Member State we are required to
transpose the Directive into UK law. However, we will work with
stakeholders to identify the most practical and proportionate way of
doing so which is least burdensome to on business.
It’s likely HSE will gather evidence of costs and benefits through
group/one to one meetings and this will take time. It will be useful for
members to look at current HSE public consultations to understand the
structure we are required to adhere to
http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/live.htm.
Any suggestions from the group of better ways of working would be
gratefully received.
AP1 - Roger Collinson requested a copy of the IA presentation
3. Annex 1.
Outside Worker
Definitions
JL introduced and outlined the difference in definitions of outside
worker in IRR and BSSD.
Definitions of classified outside worker and non-classified were
discussed leading onto how these definitions affect public dose limit.
HSE suggested the concept of having ‘Classified Outside Workers’
(CLOWs) and ‘Non-Classified Outside Workers (NCLOWs). Some
members felt that there was too much emphasis being placed on the
1mSv for classified and 6mSv for non-classified workers. There was a
suggestion that as non-classified workers have to work to “written
arrangements”, strengthening what is meant by these would help shift
the focus away from 1mSv and on to complying with these
arrangements and good practice – but this could get a bit messy. The
group concluded that there was little benefit of having CLOWs and
NCLOWs throughout the new regulations and would prefer to retain
the ‘Outside Worker’ terminology as it is currently used. This is unless
a specific regulation refers to CLOWs only or NCLOWs only.
SP confirmed that in the healthcare sector there are a few classified
OWs, which will change under BSS:
The group discussed Annex 1A of the paper, which looked at the
difference in the definitions of outside worker between BSSD and
current IRR arrangements.
Under the proposed new definition members enquired if there is going
to be a better definition of ‘carrying out services’? The group also
highlighted that they think there is a difference between the IRR
“carries out services” and the BSSD “performs activities”. HSE will
discuss this further with GLD.
Members felt that if HSE removes the phrase ‘carrying out Services’ it
would be a potential burden for non-nuclear sites. Nuclear sites
already have co-operation between employers. If HSE widen the
definition of carrying out a service to “performs activities” this could be
“gold plating”. Group suggestion changing the phrase to ‘carrying out
work with Ionising Radiation”. Members made the point that workers
V0.1
Page 2 of 5
HSE
Complete
Trim Ref: 2015/406289
Agenda Item
Issues / Actions
Who
may work with radiation but not necessarily be exposed to it.
AP2 HSE to take forward with Government Legal Department(GLD)
the difference between “carries out services” and “performs activities”.
May require some more contact with the group to check
understanding.
This led on to a detailed discussion on the types of workers specified
in BSSD (Cat A, Cat B and 1mSv) in comparison to what IRR currently
has which is classified, non-classified and “other persons”.
It was pointed out that the NHS and Nuclear industry differ in how they
approach classification. It was also thought that given the spread of
workers in the UK and the protection measures in place, if the 1mSv
was applied rigidly then most of the workers in the country would be
non-exposed workers. A change of this proportion to classification and
protection would be difficult to explain to unions.
For outside workers the challenge is still to ensure exposure is kept
low, if they work in multiple sites. IRR Regulation 15 (cooperation)
should cover this but guidance and possible strengthening through
ACOP is key to understanding.
4. Annex 1b.
Employee
ANNEX 1B - Employee
HSE proposes to fulfil the OW provisions of BSSD and ensure OWs
are fully embedded within the regulations, amending relevant
regulations to state “employee and/or outside worker” where it is
necessary to do so.
Members stated that the current arrangements suggest that they
should be treated as employees so there should already be
compliance in this area. HSE needs to be careful not to overcomplicate the issue that OWs should be treated as same as
employees, but possibly an issue of awareness to ensure that all
employers know this is the case.
Group suggested that this could be captured under Regulation 4 and
that clarification is only needed when there is an exception for OWs,
otherwise OWs should be treated as employees.
There was some discussion on the actual numbers of OWs, and how
easy it would be to get these figures. AMEC had these figures to hand,
for the nuclear sector this will be relatively easy to get hold of. The
NHS said that workers such as radiologists/cardiologists who will be
NCLOWs currently, will move to CLOWs under this system.
5. Annex 2. Article HSE went over proposal based on Article 51.1. It was asked if the
employer does individually monitor NCLOWs do all the requirements
51.1
apply? HSE said this had been discussed at the Dosimetry Subgroup,
as a MS the UK were not taking up the optional requirement for
individual monitoring of Cat B/Non-classified workers. So this is at the
discretion of the employer, if they do the monitoring it is presumed an
ADS would keep the record for them anyway. The sharing of these
records is broadly covered under Regulation 15.
V0.1
Page 3 of 5
HSE
When
Trim Ref: 2015/406289
Agenda Item
Issues / Actions
6. Annex 3.
Article
51.2
The first question on this issue was the understanding of “either
directly or through contractual agreements”. It was thought that
Regulation 15 of IRR needs to be revisited to see if this is captured
correctly – if it is in guidance then we may have to move to ACOP or
regulation.
Who
The NHS said that they do have contractual agreements in place
between the trust and/or employer
There was some questioning of what “directly” meant, does it just
mean asking the question of OW – are you employed? Who do you
work for? There may need to be further consideration of agency
workers who may not be aware of their arrangements.
Or “directly” could mean that the undertaking fields out work to others
who are more knowledgeable about how to undertake the work.
7. Annex 4. Article This annex is split by sub-section:
For proposals for Annex 51.3(a & b) HSE had proposed to make
51.3
amendments to Regulation 18 to ensure NCLOWs were covered.
Members felt that the emphasis of this was incorrect, as it needs to be
on the employer of the OW to ensure the classification of the OW was
correct to carry out the work. The employer who is responsible for the
area cannot be assumed to know if the OW has suitable classification,
this could be just for one particular piece of work within this area. It
would be gold-plating to put this in as it is currently suggested.
AP3 – HSE to consider rewording and discuss with GLD
HSE
For proposal A51.3( c) HSE thought that there was a gap with
respect to emergency response plans. Member fed back that the
Regulation 15 covers this broadly, however Regulations 11 and 12 of
the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations definitely
cover the requirement for this.
For proposal A51.3(d) HSE felt that this section was covered by the
local rules in place for supervised areas, but could be strengthened to
ensure Regulation 17 (3) specified OW should be notified of local
rules. There was general agreement that this was covered, however
member pointed out that Regulation 14 (information, instruction and
training) would also apply to the employer of the OW
For proposal A51.3 (e) HSE believes that altering Regulation 8 of
IRR would be sufficient. This did lead on to questions regarding the
ownership of the PPE – the provision of specific PPE to OW may be
an additional cost, do the OWs take that specific PPE with them? Who
would bear the brunt of the cost – or would this be worked out as per
Regulation 15 of IRR?
AP4 – HSE to examine with these questions in mind.
For proposal A51.3 (f, g & h) – no comments
8. Annex 5. Article No comments – provisions are broadly OK. Some of the discussions
cross-over with the Dosimetry subgroup.
51.4
V0.1
Page 4 of 5
HSE
When
Trim Ref: 2015/406289
Agenda Item
Issues / Actions
Who
9. Annex 6. Article Both IRR and BSSD places duties on employees/OWs engaged in
work with Ionising radiation to make their own contributions to the
51.5
protection afforded to them by the radiological monitoring system, to
the responsibilities of the undertaking or employer. Regulation 34(3) is
specific to the misuse of passbooks. HSE believes that this text meets
the requirements of Article 51.5 regarding ‘own contributions’.
Members felt that this was also a cooperation issue and employees
should declare if they are engaged in ionising radiation work when
working for other employers. This would be less burdensome for
employers where the only common factor may be the employee. This
group see the H&S benefits in ensuring that an OW is aware of the
need for them to inform their employer and the undertaking of work
carried out elsewhere which could lead them to be exposed to a higher
dose of radiation than allowed for, or if they have been overexposed.
9. A.O.B. and
Close
Sharing/Circulating meeting papers and minutes.
CMc confirmed that if members are to share OW papers i.e. HSE
proposals/meeting minutes etc, it must be made clear that papers are
in ‘draft’ and preferably watermarked. The only time we will have an
agreed position will be when we go out to consultation.
Action Log
AP
No
Action
Who
1
HSE to send RC a copy of the IA presentation
HSE
2
HSE
3
HSE to take forward with Government Legal
Department(GLD) the difference between “carries out
services” and “performs activities”. May require some more
contact with the group to check understanding.
HSE to consider rewording of Reg 18 and discuss with GLD
4
HSE to examine PPE ownership and costing
HSE
Update
Done
HSE
Revision history:
Version Release
V0.1
V0.2
V0.1
Draft
Draft
Date
7 October 2015
19 November
Author
Typists
Julia Laverty
Page 5 of 5
Description/Summary of
Changes
Initial Draft
Draft to subgroup for
comment
When