Difference between Regulations, Guidance, and Approved Codes of Practice - Coursework Example

HEALTH AND SAFETY 1. “Absolute” and “Reasonably practicable” In some regulations, the term “absolute” generally means that the regulations should be absolutely have to be fulfilled (Blaus 2005, p.66). In other words, the requirement must be met regardless of cost or any other consideration. The term ‘absolute’ is often used where risk is very likely and the chance of death and severe injury is huge. For instance, if the regulation says that electrical equipment which capacity is less than the required specifications should not be used, then the standard of duty is ‘absolute’. This is because precautions required by this regulation is evidently very simple and perhaps would not cost anything, and the resulting negligence would lead to death or sever injury, the level of duty to prevent this danger is considered ‘absolute’ or must be met at all cost. Alternatively, the term “reasonably practicable” requires someone to assess the magnitude of the risk of certain work activity or environment (Scaddan 2002, p.208). If the measures necessary to avert the risk is large enough and insignificant to the level of risk involved, then the level of duty to prevent the risk is ‘reasonably practicable’ (Stranks 2006, p.18). For instance, if the regulation says the all electrical systems shall be constructed and maintained to prevent danger and all work activities are to be carried out so as not to give rise to danger, the level of duty to follow this regulation is ‘reasonably practicable’. This is because the amount prevention involved is large compared to the possibility of risk. If it can be shown that there is a gross disproportion between these factors like risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice, then the extent of compliance is as reasonably practicable. In other words, if the risks of injury is very small compared to the cost, time, and effort needed to diminish the danger, then no further action is required (Hughes & Ferrett 2008, p.9). 2. In health and safety, explain using examples, the difference between Regulations, Guidance, and Approved Codes of Practice. From the legal point of view according to Woolfson et al. (p.348), an Approved Code of Practice has a less binding legal status that the Regulations, although more so that non-mandatory Guidance. This is because Regulations are law approved by Parliament similar to the regulations under the Health and Safety at Work Act while Guidance has no formal legal standing like the ‘Best Practice Guidance’ being issued by HSC to cover the technical aspects of health and safety regulations (Hughes & Ferrett 2008, p.10). Take for example Regulation 7 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) which states that “During working hours, the temperature in all workplace inside buildings shall be ‘reasonable’”. For ACOP, with no much work involve that require physical effort, this temperature should be at least 16 degrees Celsius. Consequently, employers would not allow their workers to work at temperature below this specified temperature unless they feel ‘reasonable’ to do so. Similarly, consulting the best practice guidance would give them the possible solutions to the maintenance of employee welfare in low temperature environments. Codes of practice like ACOP are not laws nor are they regulations (McCoy 2005, p.51), as they only give advice on how to comply with laws and regulations. They are mere material that describes practical means that does not have special status in law and therefore is not compulsory and everyone is free to take an alternative action. For example, the case of Walker v Wabco Automotive UK Ltd shows that HSE guidance does not have the same status as regulation and not obligatory. In this case, the judge of the Court Appeal held that the lower court ruling was not correct since it cannot place reliance on HSE guidance about power tools leading to injuries. In the courts view, the guidance could not be set against the fact that the employer had 20 years experience of operating without any complaints from employees (Barrett & Howells 2000, p.280). 3. Outline the factors that should be considered in carrying out a risk assessment as required by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Every employer is required to make a “suitable and sufficient” (Hughes & Ferrett 2007, p.365) assessments of risks and factors that must be considered in carrying out a risk assessment include: Risk involved in all areas of operation including fire and precautions Identification of the persons affected Identification of the controls in place Action required to reduce risks Take into account risks to new and expectant mothers and young people. In Regulation 3(1) of the Management Regulations 1999, the employer must consider the health and safety of employees while they work and those people not in his employment that may be affected and harmed by his undertakings (Bateman 2006, p.15). The employer is obliged to systematically examine the workplace activities, environmental factors and working conditions to identify the risks posed not only by working methods, machines, tools and equipment, processes, noise, electricity, ionising radiation, flammable liquids and gases, dust, fumes and vapours, and a seemingly endless list of prescribed hazardous substances but also by factors such temperature, humidity, poor lighting and ventilation, the inadequacy of the means of access to premises, obstructions in corridors and walkways, the condition of floors, floor coverings, and so on. Under the 1999 Regulations, employer cannot realistically expect to comply with their general duties under the Health & Safety at Work unless they realistically carry out a risk assessment and make a genuine effort to eliminate the risks uncovered by the assessment (Chandler & Waud 2003, p.413). 4. The Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974 Section 2 (sub-section 2) says: - without prejudice to generality of an employer’s duty under the preceding sub-section, the matters to which that duty extends include in particular-arrangement for ensuring. So far as is reasonably practicable safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances. Explain the above employers’ duties (give examples). This section clearly emphasises the duty of an employer to ensure the safety of all its employees. For instance, proper and clear instructions must be given by the employer as to what must be done and what is forbidden. Workers who do repetitive jobs regularly take a little care of their own and other’s safety as the uniformity of the tasks which they perform may make them careless (Boella & Pannett 1999, p.348). For this reason, the employer must give clear instructions and training to staff as to safety at work. Greater care should be taken to ensure that employees who speak and understand little of the English language or those with limited intelligence understand and appreciate the rules as to safety at work. Similarly, young and inexperience staff may also require further training for their safety (Boella & Pannett 1999, p.346). One particular example where an employer may have neglected his duties concerning the above the regulation, is when a worker, say a machine fitter who was asked by the company to repair a large conveyor belt suspended on heavy rollers, was suddenly crushed by the arm when a roller slipped. The company would be held liable because the risk was so obvious to them that ought to have carried out a formal risk assessment and used special safety equipments. Similarly, the company would also have absolute liability if it does not provide safe working equipment. For example, when a company messenger who was issued a bike as his delivery vehicle, was thrown over the handle bars and was seriously injured when a brake fitting snapped. The employer must always ensure the safety of its employees and all possible risks eliminated. This may include providing goggles or screen when there is danger to the eyes, making sure that employee is safe and would not be harmed by lifting or moving loads, or making sure proper safety equipment and procedures are being used and followed when handling hazardous chemicals or substances (Evans 2001, p.466). 5. A factory manager intends to introduce a new work process for which a risk assessment is required under regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Outline the factors that should be considered when carrying out the risk assessment. In carrying out a risk assessment, some of the factors that must be considered according the Hughes & Ferrett (2007, p.75) are: Occupational or work-related ill-health or illnesses resulting from workplace activities. Accidents or unplanned events consequential to injury or sickness of people or damage to property, environment, and business opportunity. Near miss or events that nearly caused an accident. Dangerous occurrences or near miss events that caused severe injury or death. Risk Control Measures or required preventive measures that need to be installed. Record of risk assessment findings should be kept particularly those significant hazards and conclusions. Monitoring and review of risk assessment particularly when the workplace condition is changed by some new machinery, processes or hazards. Special cases like young persons, expectant and nursing mothers, workers with a disability, and lone workers since they are more at risk than other groups. Explain the criteria that must be met for the assessment to be deemed ‘suitable and sufficient’. A suitable and sufficient risk assessment is one that identifies the significant risks and disregards those that are irrelevant. Also, a compliant risk assessment is one that recognizes and prioritises control measures that are required by appropriate statutory provisions. More importantly, it should be suitable to the type of work and useful over longer period of time (Hughes & Ferrett 2007, p.68). Identify the various circumstances that may require a review of the risk assessment at a later date. A company existing risk assessment may require a review and revision if the company both or install new equipment or hazardous substances. It would also require a revision if a new legislation is introduced or changes in the workforce such as hiring trainees which could be considered major changes in the structure that would affect existing processes. More importantly, a risk assessment may need a revision when accidents or incident frequently occur in the workplace since this is an indication that the risk assessment is insufficient (Hughes & Ferrett 2007, p.73). 6. Major industrial disaster involving casualties or major financial loss, environmental damage continues to occur worldwide. Professional engineers get involved in investigating the causes and identifying lessons to be learnt. With reference to Piper Alpha Offshore platform fire in 1988, CLEARLY identify and explain the following: i) Management/Indirect causes Indirect causes are unsafe acts or conditions consequential to injury, property damage, or equipment failure, or lost of life (Reese 2003, p.93). In almost all accident, there will be both direct and indirect causes (Banfield & Kay 2008, p.173). For instance, a worker may harm his hand while operating a machine. The direct cause of this injury is the machine and the indirect cause is the negligence of the employer to provide safety or protective measures or training. In 1988 Piper Alpha disaster, the indirect cause was the management’s failure to install sufficient incident prevention measures. According to Regester & Larkin (2008, p.153), the Piper Alpha management disregard the need for a better-quality incident prevention and fire fighting and they seems to have adopted a superficial mind-set in assessing the risk of major hazard. Moreover, they were too confident of the work permit system and did not consider providing adequate training to enhance its effectives. In fact, the investigation reveals that there as inadequate monitoring of the system and poor communication. The survivor admitted that they did not received safety induction course and had not carried out evacuation drills (Narayan 2004, p.132). ii) Engineering/direct causes In contrast to indirect causes, direct causes are those factors immediately responsible for the injury. For instance, the investigation in the Piper Alpha disaster reveals that engineers knew that the fire-water deluge system was in bad condition four years before the disaster but they did bother to prioritise and replace it (Narayan 2004, p.133). The human factor was the direct cause of this serious failure and apparently, the maintenance of the system mainly contributed to the disaster (Holmberg & Folkenson p.310). iii) Operators errors As mentioned earlier, the Piper Alpha is an alarming example of human errors. The chain of operator errors that later came up after the investigation reveals that the lead night-shift operator was not aware that PSV 504 was not in place and thus started pump A. The day-shift operator did not mention very important or critical information to the night-shift operator nor record the fact in the maintenance diary. At the inquiry, the management itself admitted that these operator errors had contributed largely in causing this disaster (Reason & Hobbs 2003, p.89) 7. Outline all the duties placed upon a Designer by the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM) 2007. Designer’s duties under Regulation 13 CMD apply to all projects where there is design (Perry 2002, p.105). Basically, under the CDM regulation, designers have the duty or responsibility to eliminate hazards and reduce risks due to design and provide information about remaining risks (Hughes & Ferrett 2007, p. 153). In other words, CDM Regulations according to Booty (2006, p.77) require designers to: Inform clients of their duties Give due regard to health and safety and avoid foreseeable risk to health and safety of constructors, cleaners on or in the structure, and third parties affected by their work. Produce design risk assessments for their designs Provide adequate information about the health and safety risk of the design to those who need it. Highlight the hazards and risks associated with design and their proposed control measures to minimise the risks. The design risk assessment must be focus on significant risks and comply with the requirements for buildability and future maintenance. Ensure that the information contained in the risk assessment should enable the principal contractor to undertake the works with a full understanding of the residual hazards and risks associated with the design. Cooperate with the Planning Supervisor and any other designer connected with the same project. To fully comply with CDM Regulations, designer should ensure as much as possible that the proposed works are designed to avoid or minimise the risks to health and safety when they are being carried out and maintained. In situations where risk cannot be avoided, adequate information has to be provided. Design in this context is not limited to drawings, but also includes the preparation of specifications (Ridout et al. 1999, p.114). The designer is expected to address these needs to the extent that it is reasonable to expect the designer to have done so at the time the design is prepared, and to the extent that it is reasonably practicable to do so (Holt 2001, p.72). 8. “All designers need to be familiar with CDM Regulations 2007 and the ACoP, or they will not be able to undertake the legally enforceable duties placed upon them by CDM” (CIRIA C662, 2007). CDM 2007 defines the term “designer” with much wider meaning than that in common construction usage. Can Fire Engineers be classed as designers under CDM 2007? Discuss. Under the CDM 2007 Regulations, designers are generally those who are preparing design for construction works. These include drawings, details, and specifications, bill of quantities as well as analysis, calculations, and preparatory work. For this reason, an architect, civil and structural engineers, building surveyors or any person having any part of the design is considered a designer (Hughes & Ferrett p.153). A designer is someone who has an obvious responsibility to design a safe building use and according to Fewings (2008, p.155), this include those the design escape routes which protect people and provide minimum escape times with information, immediate fire fighting and signage which is clear and understood by all. Fire Engineering as a science for fire deals not only with the chemical elements and behaviour of fire but preventing fire from spreading. More importantly, there are also concern with providing people protected channels to escape (Groak 1992, p.97). Fire engineers therefore is also responsible for making a home or building safe and with CDM, acceptability of a design is judge by the level of safety provided by the designer (Fischbeck & Farrow 2001, p.251). Fire Engineers who designs to ensure safety of buildings is a designer at work and therefore must comply with the CDM Regulations. This is because under CDM 2007, designers are generally those individual who have a job or a business in preparing or having responsibility for any part of the design. For this reason, a Fire Engineer, like the drainage engineers who are involved with the design to secure the smooth flow of waste water, is also considered a designer with specific responsibility under the CMD 2007 Regulations. Bibliography Banfield P. & Kay R. 2008. Introduction to Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press, US Barrett B. &, Howells R. 2000. Occupational Health & Safety Law Cases & Materials, Routledge, UK Bateman M. 2006. Tolley's practical risk assessment handbook. Butterworth-Heinemann, UK Blaus J. 2005. Electrical installations: NVQ and technical certificate, Heinemann, UK Boella M. J. & Pannett, A. 1999. Principles of Hospitality Law. Cengage Learning EMEA, UK Booty F. 2006. Facilities management handbook. Butterworth-Heinemann, UK Chandler P. & Waud C. 2003. Waud's employment law: the practical guide for human resource managers, trade union officials, employers, employees and lawyers, Kogan Page Publishers, UK Evans D. 2001. Supervisory management: principles and practice, Cengage Learning EMEA, Singapore Fewings P. 2008. Ethics for the Built Environment. Taylor & Francis, US Fischbeck P. S. & Farrow R. S. 2001. Improving regulation: cases in environment, health, and safety. Resources for the Future, UK Groák S. 1992. The idea of building: thought and action in the design and production of buildings. Taylor & Francis, UK Holmberg K. & Folkeson A. 1991. Operational reliability and systematic maintenances. CRC Press, UK Holt A. S. 2001. Principles of construction safety. Wiley-Blackwell, UK Hughes P. & Ferret, E. 2008. Introduction to Health and Safety in Construction: The Handbook for Construction Professionals and Students on NEBOSH and Other Construction Courses. Elsevier, Slovenia McCoy W. F. 2005. Preventing Legionellosis, IWA Publishing, UK Narayan V. 2004. Effective maintenance management: risk and reliability strategies for optimizing performance, Industrial Press Inc., US Reason J. T. & Hobbs A. 2003. Managing maintenance error: a practical guide, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., UK Reese C. D. 2003. Occupational health and safety management: a practical approach, CRC Press, US Regester M. & Larkin J. 2008. Risk Issues and Crisis Management in Public Relations: A Casebook of Best Practices, Kogan Page Publishers, India Ridout B. et al. 1999, Timber decay in buildings: the conservation approach to treatment. Taylor & Francis, UK Perry P. 2002. CDM questions and answers: a practical approach. Thomas Telford, UK Scaddan B. 2002. Electrical Installation Work. Newnes, UK Stranks J. W. 2006. Health and Safety Pocket Book. Butterworth-Heinemann, UK Woolfson C, Foster J., & Beck M. 1996. Paying for the piper: capital and labour in Britain's offshore oil industry, Routledge, UK Read More