DOCSLIB.ORG

Economic Benefits Delivered by the New Dimension Programme FINAL Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Economic Benefits Delivered by the New Dimension Programme FINAL Report Economic benefits delivered by the New Dimension Programme FINAL Report www.communities.gov.uk community, opportunity, prosperity Economic benefits delivered by the New Dimension Programme FINAL Report NERA Economic Consulting Stéphane Gros, Emily Bulman , Helen Webb, Oliver Vanden-Eynde, Michael Spackman October 2009 Department for Communities and Local Government: London Acknowledgments and Disclaimer We would like to acknowledge the valuable help we have received from individuals who have spent time with us discussing the New Dimension Programme. Information furnished by others, upon which all or portions of this report are based, is believed to be reliable but has not been verified. No warranty is given as to the accuracy of such information but we alone are responsible for its interpretation. Public information and industry and statistical data are from sources we deem to be reliable; however, we make no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of such information and have accepted the information without further verification. NERA Economic Consulting 15 Stratford Place, London W1C 1BE, United Kingdom Tel: +44 20 7659 8500 Fax: +44 20 7659 8501 www.nera.com Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Website: www.communities.gov.uk © Crown Copyright, 2009 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU e-mail: [email protected] If you require this publication in an alternative format please email [email protected] Communities and Local Government Publications Tel: 0300 123 1124 Fax: 0300 123 1125 Email: [email protected] Online via the Communities and Local Government website: www.communities.gov.uk October 2009 Product Code: 09RSD06069 ISBN: 978 1 4098 1786 4 Contents | 3 Contents Executive Summary 9 Chapter 1 Introduction 18 1.1 The New Dimension Programme 18 1.2 The study 19 1.3 Structure of this report 19 Chapter 2 New Dimension Capabilities 21 2.1 Urban search and rescue 21 2.2 Water 23 2.3 Mass decontamination 24 2.4 Command and control 26 Chapter 3 FRS efficiency gains (Stage 1) 28 3.1 Qualitative assessment of impacts 28 3.1.1 Urban search and rescue 28 3.1.2 Water 29 3.1.3 Mass decontamination 30 3.1.4 Command and control 31 3.1.5 Qualitative assessment of efficiency savings and cost impacts 32 3.2 Review of available data 34 3.2.1 Overview 34 3.2.2 FRS input and output data 35 3.2.3 Data on incidents 36 3.2.4 Reports of individual incidents 37 3.3 Quantifying efficiencies: Options considered 38 3.3.1 Approach 1 – assess efficiency across FRSs and time 38 3.3.2 Approach 2 – assess efficiency of incidents 39 3.3.3 Approach 3 – assessing incidents within select FRSs 39 3.3.4 Approach 4 – Bottom-up approach 40 3.3.5 Selection of options 41 3.4 Efficiency analysis using fire incident data 42 3.4.1 Introduction 42 3.4.2 Fire incident data 42 3.4.3 “New Dimension Incidents” 42 3.4.4 Performance indicators 43 3.4.5 Definition of the control group 44 3.4.6 Results 45 3.4.7 Conclusions 46 3.5 Quantitative assessment of assets utilisation and efficiency gains 47 3.5.1 Mobilisation of New Dimension equipment 47 3.5.2 Measurement of efficiency gains 55 4 | Economic benefits delivered by the New Dimension Programme Chapter 4 Outcome benefits (Stage 2) 65 4.1 Methodological framework 65 4.1.1 Identification of performance indicators 66 4.1.2 Use of experts opinion to establish the counterfactual 67 4.1.3 Estimation and monetisation of benefits 68 4.1.4 Extrapolation of incident level benefits 70 4.1.5 Presentation of findings 70 4.2 Buncefield oil storage depot disaster 71 4.2.1 Incident overview 71 4.2.2 FRS response 71 4.2.3 Damage estimates 73 4.2.4 Benefits of New Dimension 74 4.3 Summer 2007 flooding incidents 82 4.3.1 Incident overview 82 4.3.2 FRS response 83 4.3.3 Damage estimates 84 4.3.4 Benefits of New Dimension 85 4.4 Smaller incidents 94 4.4.1 Kent white powder incident 94 4.4.2 Kensal Rise tornado 96 4.4.3 Milton Keynes scaffolding collapse 99 4.4.4 Heat wave at Waddington Air Show 102 4.4.5 Westminster building collapse 104 4.4.6 Whitechapel building collapse 106 4.4.7 Sample of other incidents reported in the CLG business benefits and operational incidents forms 108 4.4.8 Outcome benefits: Summary of evidence from smaller incidents 109 Chapter 5 Summary of findings and conclusions 117 5.1 How New Dimension equipment is mobilised 117 5.2 FRS efficiency gains 117 5.2.1 Qualitative assessment of efficiency benefits 117 5.2.2 Top-down assessment of efficiency benefits 118 5.2.3 Bottom-up assessment of efficiency benefits 119 5.3 Outcome benefits 120 5.3.1 The estimation carried out for this study 121 5.3.2 Summary of outcome benefit estimates 122 5.4 Recommendations for future valuation 124 5.4.1 Systematic recording of quantitative information on special services incidents 124 5.4.2 Recoding and restructuring of the New Dimension mobilisation database 127 5.4.3 Systematic recording of quantitative information on the use and impact of New Dimension assets 128 5.4.4 Enhanced departmental guidance on the monetisation of benefits 130 Contents | 5 Appendix A Meetings, interviews and communications 132 A.1 Stage 1 Meetings and interviews 132 A.2 Stage 2 Interviews and communications 133 Appendix B Survey questionnaires used in the assessment of outcome benefits 134 B.1 Buncefield oil storage depot disaster 134 B.2 Summer 2007 flooding incidents in Gloucestershire 138 B.3 Smaller incidents 144 Appendix C Monetisation assumptions 146 C.1 Material damage from fires or floods 146 C.1.1 Loss of agricultural land 147 C.1.2 Business interruptions 147 C.1.3 Inventory losses 149 C.2 Air quality damage 150 C.3 Human costs 151 C.3.1 Casualties 151 C.3.2 Emotional suffering 151 C.4 Value of a school day 152 C.5 Disruption to essential services 152 C.6 Road and railway closure 153 C.7 Values of time for road users 154 C.8 Cost of Ambulance Services 155 C.9 Cost of Police Services 155 Appendix D Performance indicator summary tables 156 Appendix E Summary of selected business benefits and operational incidents forms 161 Appendix F Glossary 167 Appendix G References and Data Sources 168 G.1 Background information on stage 2 ncidents 168 G.1.1 Buncefield oil storage depot disaster 168 G.1.2 Summer 2007 flooding incidents 170 G.1.3 Kent white powder incident 171 G.1.4 Kensal Rise tornado 171 G.1.5 Milton Keynes scaffolding collapse 171 G.1.6 Heat wave at Waddington Air Show 172 G.1.7 Westminster building collapse 172 G.1.8 Whitechapel building collapse 172 G.2 Economic valuation 172 6 | Economic benefits delivered by the New Dimension Programme List of Tables Table 2.1 Deliverables for the Urban Search and Rescue capability (England) 22 Table 2.2 Deliverables for the Water capability (England) 23 Table 2.3 Deliverables for the Mass Decontamination capability (England) 25 Table 3.1 Potential FRS efficiency gains delivered by the NDP: Urban Search and Rescue 33 Table 3.2 Potential FRS efficiency gains delivered by the NDP: Water 34 Table 3.3 Potential FRS efficiency gains delivered by the NDP: Mass Decontamination 34 Table 3.4 Cross-border mobilisations (by FRS) 55 Table 3.5 Categories of mobilisations used for efficiency analysis 57 Table 3.6 Estimated proportions of ND incidents that are additional to those responded to prior to NDP 58 Table 3.7 Estimated ND efficiency gains from small incidents (England) 62 Table 3.8 Estimated ND efficiency gains from small incidents (London) 63 Table 3.9 Estimated ND efficiency gains from small incidents (England, excluding London) 63 Table 3.10 Sensitivity analysis of efficiency gains (England) 64 Table 4.1 Mobilisation of ND assets at Buncefield 72 Table 4.2 Summary of responses to the Buncefield questionnaire 76 Table 4.3 Benefits associated with shorter burn of fire 79 Table 4.4 Economic benefits associated with reduced fuel losses 80 Table 4.5 Environmental benefits associated with reduced fuel losses 81 Table 4.6 Economic benefits associated with reduced spread of fire 81 Table 4.7 Estimated benefits from the use of ND equipment, procedures and training at the Buncefield oil storage depot disaster, summary 82 Table 4.8 Overview of the summer 2007 flooding incidents 83 Table 4.9 Mobilisation of ND assets during the 2007 flooding incidents 84 Table 4.10 Summary of responses to the flooding questionnaire 87 Table 4.11 Benefits associated with the enhanced protection, or faster recovery of significant infrastructure 90 Table 4.12 Benefits associated with the accelerated clearing of flooded properties 92 Table 4.13 Estimated benefits from the use of ND equipment, procedures and training during the summer 2007 flooding in Gloucestershire, summary 93 Table 4.14 Estimation of outcome benefits for smaller incidents 110 Table 4.15 Summary of estimated outcome benefits for smaller incidents 112 Table 4.16 Distribution
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Taking Britain Further Heathrow’S Plan for Connecting the UK to Growth
    VOLUME 1 Taking Britain further Heathrow’s plan for connecting the UK to growth #BritainsHeathrow Disclaimer This document has been prepared by Heathrow Airport Limited solely in response to an invitation from the Airports Commission. It should not be used for any other purpose or in any other context and Heathrow Airport Limited accepts no responsibility for its use in that regard Contents Volume 1 - Technical submission Contents ........................................................................................................................ 3 Foreword ....................................................................................................................... 8 Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 11 Connecting for growth ................................................................................................................... 12 Listening to what our stakeholders say ........................................................................................... 18 Our vision for a world-class hub airport ........................................................................................... 20 Connecting all of the UK ................................................................................................................ 24 Building a sustainable Heathrow ..................................................................................................... 29 The deliverable solution .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • South West Herts Economy Study
    South West Hertfordshire Economic Study A Final Report by Regeneris Consulting and GL Hearn South West Hertfordshire Councils South West Hertfordshire Economic Study February 2016 Regeneris Consulting Ltd www.regeneris.co.uk South West Hertfordshire Economic Study Contents Page Executive Summary i Purpose of the Study and Approach i Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) i Policy Context ii Economic Baseline ii Market Assessment iii Growth Scenarios iv 1. Introduction and Purpose of Study 1 2. Defining the Functional Economic Area 4 Housing Market Area 6 Local Enterprise Partnership Geographies 9 Flow of Goods, Services and Information 13 Service Market for Consumers 16 Cultural and Social Well-Being Catchments 19 Transport Network 21 Future Considerations 22 The FEMA of South West Herts 24 3. Policy Context 27 4. The South West Herts Economy: An Overview 37 Size of the South West Herts Economy 37 Geography of the South-West Hertfordshire Economy 39 Recent Economic Performance 41 Labour Market 44 Broad Sectoral Composition 46 Sector Strengths 49 Structure of Business Base 57 Enterprise 60 5. Commercial Property Market Assessment 63 South West Hertfordshire Economic Study National Economic Conditions 63 Office Market Review 63 Industrial Sector Review 71 Commercial Agents Consultations 76 Summary 78 6. Future Growth Scenarios 80 Higher Growth Scenario 102 Conclusions on Preferred Scenario 108 7. Relationship with London 111 Introduction 111 Migration 112 8. Supply of Employment Land 120 Introduction 120 Site Assessment Methodology 120 Sites in Dacorum 122 Sites in Hertsmere 124 Sites in St Albans 141 Sites in Three Rivers 145 Sites in Watford 151 Conclusion 158 9.
    [Show full text]
  • The Public Health Impact of the Buncefield Oil Depot Fire the Public Health Impact of the Buncefield Oil Depot Fire
    The Public Health Impact of the Buncefield Oil Depot Fire The Public Health Impact of the Buncefield Oil Depot Fire Report prepared by the Chief Executive’s Office, Health Protection Agency in collaboration with the Dacorum and Watford and Three Rivers Primary Care Trusts. Prof. Pat Troop Chief Executive, Health Protection Agency With thanks to The Buncefield Health Surveillance Steering Group and Tina Endericks, Health Protection Agency, for co-ordinating and editing this report. Please direct any queries concerning this report to: [email protected] This report is available at: www.hpa.org.uk www.watford3r-pct.nhs.uk www.dacorum-pct.nhs.uk ISBN: 0 901144 82 7 PAGES_01_TO_15 14/7/06 00:03 Page 1 T HE P UBLIC H EALTH I MPACT OF THE B UNCEFIELD O IL D EPOT F IRE - 2006 Appendix 1 Contents Chief Executive’s Foreword 3 Executive Summary 4 Summary of the Buncefield Oil Depot Fire 6 Assessing the Public Health Impact 8 Key Findings 10 Appendices 1 Environmental Impacts of the 17 Buncefield Oil Depot Explosion 2 Study of Accident and Emergency Attendances 51 in Hemel Hempstead and Watford 3 Buncefield Follow up Population Survey 71 4 Atmospheric Modelling and Monitoring 89 1 PAGES_01_TO_15 14/7/06 00:03 Page 2 T HE P UBLIC H EALTH I MPACT OF THE B UNCEFIELD O IL D EPOT F IRE - 2006 2 PAGES_01_TO_15 14/7/06 00:03 Page 3 T HE P UBLIC H EALTH I MPACT OF THE B UNCEFIELD O IL D EPOT F IRE - 2006 Chief Executive’s Foreword This report is important as it is the first time this type of public health follow-up study has been undertaken and reported following a major environmental incident in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the West Midlands Fire and Civil Defence Authority
    Minutes 27th January, 2006 at 11.00 a.m. at Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service Headquarters Present: Representing Hereford and Worcester Fire Authority Councillors Bean and G Davis; Representing Shropshire and Wrekin Fire Authority Councillors Eade, Hartin and Morgan; Representing Stoke on Trent and Staffordshire Fire Authority Councillors Banks, Bloomer and D Davis; Representing Warwickshire County Council Councillor Haynes; Representing West Midlands Fire and Civil Defence Authority Councillors Eustace, Hinton (Chair) and Hogarth. Advisors: Chief Fire Officer Brown (Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service) Chief Fire Officer Doig (Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service); Chief Fire Officer Hayden (Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service); Chief Fire Officer Sheehan (West Midlands Fire Service). Chief Fire Officer Taylor (Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service). L Bateman (Treasurer); T Maione and S Hammond-Jones (representing the Legal Adviser); N Summers (Clerk); S Worrall (Programme Manager). Observers: Councillor Christina Jebb; Peter Dartford and Alan Rotchell. Visitors: Jean Cole (Regional Business Change Manager, Government Office West Midlands); Andrew Brodie (Fire Control Project Leader, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister); James Kemp (FireControl, Policy Lead Office of the Deputy Prime Minister); Mike Reed (Head of Resilience Policy Division, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister); Alan Streets New Dimension (Programme Manager, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister). Apologies: Councillors Hobbs, Jones and Shilton; Chris Juckes, John Gregory and Catherine Witham 1/06 Chair’s Announcements The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. West Midlands Regional Management Board 27th January, 2006 The Chair on behalf of the Board congratulated Chief Fire Officer Doig on the award of a CBE in the New Year’s Honours List.
    [Show full text]
  • New Dimension— Enhancing the Fire and Rescue Services' Capacity to Respond to Terrorist and Other Large-Scale Incidents
    House of Commons Public Accounts Committee New Dimension— Enhancing the Fire and Rescue Services' capacity to respond to terrorist and other large-scale incidents Tenth Report of Session 2008–09 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 9 February 2009 HC 249 [Incorporating HC 1184–i, Session 2007–08] Published on 12 March 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Public Accounts Committee The Committee of Public Accounts is appointed by the House of Commons to examine “the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the public expenditure, and of such other accounts laid before Parliament as the committee may think fit” (Standing Order No 148). Current membership Mr Edward Leigh MP (Conservative, Gainsborough) (Chairman) Mr Richard Bacon MP (Conservative, South Norfolk) Angela Browning MP (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton) Mr Paul Burstow MP (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam) Mr Douglas Carswell MP (Conservative, Harwich) Rt Hon David Curry MP (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon) Mr Ian Davidson MP (Labour, Glasgow South West) Angela Eagle MP (Labour, Wallasey) Nigel Griffiths MP (Labour, Edinburgh South) Rt Hon Keith Hill MP (Labour, Streatham) Mr Austin Mitchell MP (Labour, Great Grimsby) Dr John Pugh MP (Liberal Democrat, Southport) Geraldine Smith MP (Labour, Morecombe and Lunesdale) Rt Hon Don Touhig MP (Labour, Islwyn) Rt Hon Alan Williams MP (Labour, Swansea West) Phil Wilson MP (Labour, Sedgefield) The following member was also a member of the committee during the parliament. Mr Philip Dunne MP (Conservative, Ludlow) Powers Powers of the Committee of Public Accounts are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 148.
    [Show full text]
  • Buncefield Major Incident Investigation
    BUNCEFIELD MAJOR INCIDENT INVESTIGATION Initial Report to the Health and Safety Commission and the Environment Agency of the investigation into the explosions and fires at the Buncefield oil storage and transfer depot, Hemel Hempstead, on 11 December 2005 Buncefield Major Incident Investigation Board a b BUNCEFIELD MAJOR INCIDENT INVESTIGATION Initial Report to the Health and Safety Commission and the Environment Agency of the investigation into the explosions and fires at the Buncefield oil storage and transfer depot, Hemel Hempstead, on 11 December 2005 Buncefield Major Incident Investigation Board i ii Contents Executive summary iv Introduction 1 Part 1 – Summary of the incident and subsequent Investigation 5 M Overview of Buncefield operations 5 M Timeline of key events 7 M Emergency response to the Buncefield incident 10 M The Investigation 11 Part 2 – Issues of concern arising from the Investigation to date 18 M Design and operation of storage sites 18 M Emergency response to incidents 21 M Advice to planning authorities 23 Annexes 1 Terms of reference and progress 24 2 Members of the independent Board 27 3 Planning history of Buncefield site and neighbouring developments 28 4 UK petroleum refinery, pipeline and storage system 35 5 Incidents that have similarities with the Buncefield incident 37 6 Fire and explosion hazards from petrol 39 7 Product composition at Buncefield 44 8 Regulatory framework for high hazard sites 46 9 Regulation of perfluorooctane sulphonates (PFOS) 49 10 Legal considerations 51 Glossary 54 Further information 58 iii iv Executive summary The terms of reference of the Investigation directed by the Health and Safety Commission into the explosions and fires at the Buncefield oil storage and transfer depot, Hemel Hempstead, on 11 December 2005 require an initial report to be produced for the Health and Safety Commission and the Environment Agency when the main facts of the incident have been established.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendations on the Emergency Preparedness For, Response to and Recovery from Incidents
    Recommendations on the emergency preparedness for, response to and recovery from incidents Buncefield Major Incident Investigation Board a Recommendations on the emergency preparedness for, response to and recovery from incidents Buncefield Major Incident Investigation Board © Crown copyright This publication may be freely reproduced, except for advertising, endorsement or commercial purposes. First published 07/07. Photographs 1-4, 7, 8, 10 and 11 courtesy of Hertfordshire County Council Photograph 5 courtesy of the Fire Service College Photographs 6 and 9 courtesy of the Press Association Photograph 12 by Brian Howard, supplied by Hemel Hempstead Local History ii and Museum Society and the Dacorum Heritage Trust Limited Contents Introduction 1 The Board’s approach Scope of the recommendations Status of the recommendations The recommendations Assessing the potential for a major incident 7 Recommendation 1 Managing a major incident on site 8 Recommendations 2–9 Preparing for and responding to a major incident off site 13 Recommendations 10–26 Recovering from a major incident 27 Recommendations 27–32 Annexes 1: Terms of reference and progress 32 2: Members of the independent board 35 3: Devolved and equivalent administrations 36 4: Other major incidents causing extensive off-site damage 39 5: National Recovery Working Group terms of reference 41 References 45 Glossary 48 Further information 51 iii Figure 1 An overview of the Buncefield site and adjacent business and residential communities before the incident iv Introduction 1 This report sets out recommendations to improve both planning for emergencies and the effectiveness of the response to emergencies at Buncefield-like sites and other high-hazard industrial facilities regulated under the COMAH1 regime.
    [Show full text]
  • Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety: Interim Report
    Building a Safer Future Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety: Interim Report Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by Command of Her Majesty December 2017 Cm 9551 © Crown copyright 2017 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications ISBN 978-1-5286-0128-3 ID CCS1117446840 12/17 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Building a Safer Future – Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety: Interim Report 3 Contents A personal view from Dame Judith Hackitt 5 Summary 9 Chapter 1: Findings and direction of travel 12 Chapter 2: A brief history of the current regulatory system 28 Chapter 3: The current regulatory landscape 40 Chapter 4: Gathering stakeholder evidence 78 Chapter 5: International systems for building regulation and fire safety 92 Appendices 104 Foreword Building a Safer Future – Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety: Interim Report 5 A personal view from Dame Judith Hackitt In the early hours of 14 June 2017, a fire future. I have seen the improvements in safety in spread through Grenfell Tower. Seventy-one the oil and gas industry that followed the Piper people died, many homes were destroyed and Alpha oil production platform disaster in 1988 countless lives have been affected.
    [Show full text]
  • Buncefield Report
    BUNCEFIELD MAJOR INCIDENT INVESTIGATION Initial Report to the Health and Safety Commission and the Environment Agency of the investigation into the explosions and fires at the Buncefield oil storage and transfer depot, Hemel Hempstead, on 11 December 2005 Buncefield Major Incident Investigation Board a b BUNCEFIELD MAJOR INCIDENT INVESTIGATION Initial Report to the Health and Safety Commission and the Environment Agency of the investigation into the explosions and fires at the Buncefield oil storage and transfer depot, Hemel Hempstead, on 11 December 2005 Buncefield Major Incident Investigation Board i ii Contents Executive summary iv Introduction 1 Part 1 – Summary of the incident and subsequent Investigation 5 M Overview of Buncefield operations 5 M Timeline of key events 7 M Emergency response to the Buncefield incident 10 M The Investigation 11 Part 2 – Issues of concern arising from the Investigation to date 18 M Design and operation of storage sites 18 M Emergency response to incidents 21 M Advice to planning authorities 23 Annexes 1 Terms of reference and progress 24 2 Members of the independent Board 27 3 Planning history of Buncefield site and neighbouring developments 28 4 UK petroleum refinery, pipeline and storage system 35 5 Incidents that have similarities with the Buncefield incident 37 6 Fire and explosion hazards from petrol 39 7 Product composition at Buncefield 44 8 Regulatory framework for high hazard sites 46 9 Regulation of perfluorooctane sulphonates (PFOS) 49 10 Legal considerations 51 Glossary 54 Further information 58 iii iv Executive summary The terms of reference of the Investigation directed by the Health and Safety Commission into the explosions and fires at the Buncefield oil storage and transfer depot, Hemel Hempstead, on 11 December 2005 require an initial report to be produced for the Health and Safety Commission and the Environment Agency when the main facts of the incident have been established.
    [Show full text]
  • The Buncefield Investigation Progress Report the Buncefield Investigation
    The Buncefield Investigation Progress report The Buncefield Investigation Contents Foreword 3 Part 1 The Investigation so far 4 1.1 The incident 4 1.2 What is known about the explosions and fire 9 1.3 The continuing Investigation 12 1.4 Review of HSE/EA roles in regulating activities at Buncefield 14 1.5 Major Incident Investigation Board 15 Part 2 Background 16 2.1 Site description 16 2.2 Regulation of high-hazard sites 19 Annexes 1 Background to the COMAH Regulations 21 2 HSE’s current approach to land use planning 22 3 Investigation terms of reference 25 4 Major Incident Investigation organogram 26 5 Further information 27 Glossary 28 Photographs are courtesy of the Chiltern Air Support Unit and Hertfordshire County Council 2 The Buncefield Investigation Foreword At the first meeting of the Major Incident Investigation Board (MIIB) on 24 January I was asked to prepare, for the second (10 February) meeting, a progress report on the Buncefield Major Incident Investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Environment Agency (EA). This was to bring together relevant background material and to cover progress with the investigation and such facts as have been established to this point. The MIIB said that this progress report would not constitute the ‘initial report’ required by Terms of Reference 6, since some of the main facts have yet to be established. This progress report is a stepping stone towards the initial report. The report describes the incident and the nature of the site and surrounding communities and the initial responses by EA and HSE.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Quality in London
    Air quality in London London Air Quality Network Report 13 2005-6 IMAGE: FRANCISBOOTH.COM IMAGE: Main contact London Air Quality Network Environmental Research Group King’s College London 4th Floor Franklin-Wilkins Building 150 Stamford Street London SE1 9NH 020 7848 4019 [email protected] Credits Written by Gary Fuller and Louise Meston Cover image (bottom) by francisbooth.com Designed by the Corporate Design Unit King’s College London [email protected] © King’s College London February 2008 Introduction Contents The measurements detailed in this report result from a 2 team effort, undertaken by staff who are dedicated and Foreword committed to their work. 4 The Environmental Research Group Summary 5 Director of the Environmental Emissions Introduction Research Group Joanne Best Professor Frank Kelly Stephen Hedley* 6 Stephen Inch Air quality measurements Air quality monitoring Jon Alexander Finance Timothy Baker Maria Lavender* 8 Ben Barratt Air quality during 2005 Hima Chouhan Computing Gary Fuller* Robert Hepburn* 6 David Green Sam Hope-Evans The Buncefield oil depot fire Andrew Grieve Olufemi Kilani Paul Johnson Ian Troughton Daniel Marsh 20 Louise Meston Administration Relative results 1996 to 2006 Ellie Norris Adina Beck Karin Nilsdotter Valentina Lotti* 24 Max Priestman Wendy Rowlands Progress towards the attainment Ana Rowan of AQS objectives Anja Tremper Air quality modelling 27 Sean Beevers* References David Dajnak Stephen Hedley 29 Nutthida Kitwiroon Appendix 1: LAQN monitoring sites Hrishi Mittal Cathryn Tonne *Suggested first point of contact 33 Emily Westmoreland within each team. Appendix 2: Network changes during 2005 38 Appendix 3: Detailed results Inside back cover Appendix 4: Air quality strategy objectives www.londonair.org.uk Foreword Professor Frank Kelly, Director of the Environmental Research Group (ERG) elcome to the thirteenth annual report of 2006 and the more recent addition of 3D visualisation the London Air Quality Network (LAQN).
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Thursday Volume 583 3 July 2014 No. 18 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday 3 July 2014 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2014 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 1057 3 JULY 2014 1058 Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con): The House of Commons Secretary of State will be aware that alongside the national lottery, society lotteries contributed £145 million Thursday 3 July 2014 to good causes in 2012-13 and could provide a lot more if the prizes, draw and turnover rules were deregulated. The House met at half-past Nine o’clock His Department has long promised a consultation on this but has yet to publish it. In the light of the recent PRAYERS Centre for Economics and Business Research report on society lotteries, can he tell the House when the consultation might come? [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] Sajid Javid: Changes in lottery and gambling markets have made it clear to us that the consultation on society Oral Answers to Questions lotteries should be more wide ranging than we had previously thought. The Gambling Commission is providing us with further information and advice, and we are CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT planning to conduct the consultation later this year. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): The Arts was asked— Council announced this week that 99 organisations will National Lottery Funding be financed solely by the national lottery and it has to cut support to 58 other arts organisations because of 1.
    [Show full text]