Legal Issues in Health and Safety - Essay Example

Health and Safety (By) Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Course Title Professor City, State Date Introduction When dealing dangerous substances that cause major damage, extreme precaution needs to be taken into account to avoid such accidents from occurring. Consequently, to avoid such hazards from occurring, specific legislations have been put in place with each instance detailing various roles that should be undertaken when dealing with such substances. The control of major accidents and Hazards act (COMAH) was modified in June 2005 which essentially improved on the 1999 COMAH regulations. Also, the control of substances Hazardous to health (COSHH) provides practical guidance on how the law asseses and controls major hazardous substances. The control of major hazards regualations 1999 (COMAH) implement the Seveso II directive except for land planning requrements which are normally implemented by changes and palnning legislations. This essay uses Acme Hydrocarbon Ltd as a case study in a bid to elabaorate the abzove mentioned health and safety standards (Barrett, B. & Howells, B. 2000 3). Statutory Responsibility placed on Acme Hydrocarbons Ltd Response to Claim To clarify the first memo, COSHH covers substances that are generally hazardous to the environment and health. Not only does this cover chemicals but also other substances such as vapour, mist, products containing chemicals, nanotechnology, fumes and asphyxiating gases among other biological agents. In addition, it also covers bacteria that causes legionnaires condition (Barrett, B. & Howells, B. 2000 12. An exception to COSHH is that it does not involve regulations on lead and other radioactive materials; because these elements have their own distinctive regulations. Therefore, according to the case and in relation to COSHH, Statutory Responsibility of Acme Hydrocarbons Ltd include: As per the case, the main responsibility of Acme Hydrocarbons Ltd and Contractor Flow Systems Ltd is to prevent risk exposure of employess (Barrett, B. & Howells, B. 2000 16).This includes creating an ample environment for employees to work, eliminating hazardous substances such as chemicals or substitution of harmful chemicals for safer ones. More so, Acme Hydrocarbons Ltd is tasked with the responsibility to protect staff from exposure to harmful substances and also provide adequate ventilation in working stations. Only on last resort is an employer allowed to use only protective equipment to prevent exposure to certain harmful substances. Secondly, employers have the responsibility to train their employees to perfom their duties accordingly. Therefore, employees have a responsibility within the COSHH laws and they include: Adhering to the regulations on control measures and faclities provided by the empoyer, reporting insufficiencies in the set control measures, wearing protective gear, removing subtances that could cause contamination, maintaining personal hygiene and most importantly complying with the information and instruction provided during training. Also, the company should take necessary measures and best defense meachanisms to ensure that suitable means of protection against the disease. Fred Cross and Mr. Plant have the resposnibilty to report any serious workplace hazards that pose danger to the employees, environment and the general public.In this case for instance, the management was negligent because they did not spot the legionnaires disease that the health inspector discovered. It is imperative that they report any occupational diseases and other dangerous occurrences. Also, the company should adopt requisite maintenance procedures and uphold the set standards (Barrett, B. & Howells, B. 2000 15). Duty to Care - Every year, hundreds or even thousands of workers become ill because of hazardous substances released by chemical companies. Examples include cancer, skin diseases such dermatitis and breathing conditions. In this case, it is evident that the inspection officer suspects the risk of legionnaire’s disease due to the water droplets lacking as a result of the cooling plant. The bacterium Legionella Pneumophilia is the carrierr for Legionanires disease. The HSE officer figured this out and that is the reason why it was necessary for him to send the memo. Most people get infected by whirldpool, dspersed water or moisture passed through a ventialtion systedm in large structudres. This lis exactly what happened in this case. For that reason, the company owes duty of care to the employees, contractors, clients and other staff working in the plant. For this case, establishment of duty of care is not problematic. Often, the challenge will be the hurdle to prove the existence of the disease, why the disease was allowed to spread and what protective mechanisms that should be put in place to prevent future situations like that. In addition to the above mentioned remedies, the company needs to reduce (OSHA), which initially had led to introduction of work-related security procedures and physical condition administration (OSHA). The company may be liable to general damages especially in an instance where the disease had spread to the employees and other stakeholders. Even after exposure for many years, employees can come back and sue against damages due to negligence. Case Law Brooke v South Yorkshire Passenger Transport (2005) Case on Health and Safety at Work Issue The plaintiff (Mr. Brookes) was fit during his whole working life. Between the years 1961 and 1982, he worked for several employers before joining South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Company (1982). He was recruited as a fitter by the company and his work entailed routine use of vibrating tools. In the year 1986, the corporation was taken over by Mainline Group Ltd. Brooke continued with his position until the winter of 1999 where he realized some blanching on the tip of his ring finger. This progressed over the following few months which affected the rest of his fingers. He was eventually diagnosed with VWF (Vibration White finger) also known as the Arm Vibration syndrome (Stranks, J. 2010 10). During the trial, there was no dispute on the nature or extent of the condition. The recorder found that the company had negligently exposed the plaintiff to harmful vibration during his time as an employee. As a result, Mainline Group Ltd appealed this decision. Verdict The judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence to bolster the argument that the defendant should have been duly informed about the British Standards Institution publication draft for development. There was absence of evidence based on the extent of the 1975 publication that contained publishing of trade standards. Lack of sufficient evidence could not infer the court to rule against the defendant. The company argued that there was no guide under the British standards that validated the Human Arm System to Vibration. To elaborate further, the 1975 publication did not propagate a British standard but rather gave provisional advice on contributions to the advancement for knowledge on the issue at hand (Stranks, J. 2010 16). However, the 1987 publication was more significant to the employer because it was published against the background that VWF was a prescribed industrial disease and therefore an organization of its size should have knowledge of it and should have complied with the duty to keep abreast the welfare of its employees. Furthermore, the company should have taken responsibility to investigate the extent in which Booker had been exposed to the disease (Barrett, B. & Howells, B. 2000 6). The argument by the defendant was based on the case Allen British Rail engineering whereby he tried to validate his point by requesting reduction of damages on the basis of lack of knowledge rather than negligence. In disagreement, the plaintiff argued that the charges should not be reduced because the company ought to have known that such negligence would result in damages. The court ruled that there was no evidential basis justifying the reduction of charges. Critical Analysis of Data in Document 3 The main aim of the the biological agents provision is to carry out work that is acceptable under the set COSHH acts and regulations. To protect employees from biological hazard (in this case ledgionella disease), the company needs to introduce more flexible and risk-based control measures. Also, the capacity to reclassify agents should be available to prevent spread of the disease. The HSE requires the company to submitted an assesment report 20 days in advance before commencing any planned work. In this case, it is clear that Mr. Plant and the rest of the management did no adhere to this regulation. The inspector clealry states that there was no documentation specifcying that the proper procedures were followed. According to Regulation 6 on risk assesment, employers are required to carry work that is acceptable under the set regulations. Before commencing any work with the cooling sytem, Mr.Plant and Mr.Cross should have assesed the risk-profile of the plant; most especially the cooling system. Issues that the plant’s management ignored include safety data sheets when making the assesment and also they did not have accurate information about the state of the plant. According to (Barrett, B. & Howells, B. 2000 12), misclassifciation of hazard or negligence of certain harzadous activities such as biological agents, the management should inform the suppliers of the issue. For instance, in this case, thec ompany in charge for maintainance was Flow Systems Ltd. Therefore, they ought to be informed on the condition of the intermediate plant. The act states that in case the supplier; in this case Flow Systems Ltd, ignores the request, then the company has a right to enforce legal action against them. In this instance therefore, the competence of Flow Systems ltd is in question and the law clearly states that the company contracted should be competent (Barrett, B. & Howells, B. 2000 12). Next, the working environment such as the temperature, lighting, ventilation, cleanliness and safe passageways should be counterche.cked so that they can meet the requirements as per section 6 to avoid spread of the legionella bacteria; which is principally the reason for the memo. However, the fault does not only lie with Flow Systems Ltd because the plant has also broken the 1992 regulations because the company lacks the documents to authenticate the system’s efficiency. Employers are required to carry out assesment on how operations aare handled to avoid risk of inhjury to the employees. In regulation 9, water treatment records should be clearly outlined and the periodic recorded assesments should be kept for the reference and inspection purposes. Reply to Inspection Letter To: HSE Director From: Ivor Plant, Site Manager Acme Hydrocarbons Ltd 19th December 2016. Dear Inspector, RE: Response to Your Earlier Memo and Subsequent Action Plan I am writing regarding your earlier memo on my Plant’s condition. Following further investigation of your concerns about Hydrocaarbons Ltd, we analysed the plant’s state and came up with the conclusion that your review was right and therefore, we are going to take immediate action. To begin with, we have already began risk assesment on all the plants. More so, we have taken precautions on control exposure to avoid any hazardous substances. We have already hired health practitioners to evaluate the extent of the Legionanires disease and necessary procedures have been taken to avoid its spread. We will also file a report on all the action precautions thata we have taken and it will be sent to yur office. Pursuing the COHSS 2002 and the 1992 assesment policies, we will cary out appropriate health surveillance and institute a control system as stipulated in the COSHH approved code of practice (ACOP). I am certain that we will follow the set laws and regulations from now onwards and therefore, we plead with you not to take any legal action. We appreciate the heads up regarding the precautionary measures. Sincerely, Ivor Plant References BARRETT, B., & HOWELLS, R. (2000). Occupational health and safety law: text and materials. London, Cavendish. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10272814. STRANKS, J. W. (2010). Health & safety at work: an essential guide for managers. London, Kogan Page. http://www.123library.org/book_details/?id=98932. Read More