Legal Requirements Relating to Health and Risk Assessment - Case Study Example

Name: Tutor: Title: Legal Requirements Relating to Health and Risk Assessment Institution: Date: Legal Requirements Relating to Health and Risk Assessment Introduction Legionella refers to bacterium that is the source of legionnaires’ diagnosis. This disease is brought about specifically by bacterium legionella pneumophilia present in plumbing, water storage tanks and shower heads. Outbursts of legionella pneumonia have been characterized by evaporative condensers and cooling towers (Winn 1996). In other words, the legionella pneumonia mostly settles in flow systems that are used to submit liquid substances such as water. The bacterium flourishes in the mist sprayed from air-conditioning ducts and therefore, can fill a whole building or airplane. Travelers are particularly susceptible in the closed space within a plane. The Legionnaires’ illness can lead to an intensified pneumonia linked with collapse of the respiratory operation (Swanson and Hammer 2000). This shows that this disease can be irresistible and sometimes deadly disease. Legionnaire diseases, which is usually abbreviated as LD was discovered in 1976 after an eruption of pneumonia at an American Legion convention in Philadelphia. Thereafter, the etiologic agent was recognized as a fussy gram-negative bacillus and termed as Legionella pneumophilia. Despite the fact that numerous other species of the genus Legionella were then recognized, L pneumophilia was the most recurrent source of human legionellosis and a comparatively ordinary source of community-acquired and nosocomial pneumonia in grown up individuals. In teens and especially kids, L pneumophilia is also a significant, though comparatively unusual cause of pneumonia (Winn 1996). Note that, legionellosis refers to two different clinical syndromes named Legionnaires illness, which in most cases, shows up as harsh pneumonia accompanied by multi-systematic illness, and Pontiac fever, which is an sharp, febrile, self-partial, viral-like disease. The ultimate aim of this context is to examine how Legionnaires’ disease sticks in storage tanks and flow systems, thus, causing harm to human life. It looks at the risk assessment measures adapted by the flow system lead by the Acme Hydrocarbons and the role they play in minimizing the health risks posed by legionella (Swanson and Hammer 2000). This is handled in form of response to questions, which guide the response system. Case Study Acme Hydrocarbon Ltd is an average-sized department chemical manufacturing organization under ownership of multinational group called Worldwide Chemicals Inc. This organization contains 150 employees working on the company’s location with 40 other contractors employed. Several of the contractors are long-term employees who work on specific operations like security, catering and maintenance (Mackay of Clashfern 2004). The Company employs massive quantities of cooling water for its manufacturing procedure and runs three little cooling towers overhauled by a 10 million litre surface reservoir. The cooling system is controlled and maintained by a professional contractor, Flow Systems Ltd. The Company does not need a license because it operates under the management of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 as amended. The site operates concurrently on a three-shift scheme but closes for holiday every year, during the first two weeks of July (Heuner and Swanson 2008). The manager of the site, Ivor Plant, has presently acquired an official letter from a local HSE inspector because he had had frequent visits to the company in the past week. When the letter was delivered, Mr. Plant was not present, he was on a sick leave on the visitation day (Ridley and Channing 2003). The Chief Engineer, Fred Cross, moved around the inspector to show him the Company and its operations. According to the nature of the concerns displayed by the inspector, Mr. Plant sent a memo to the line manager, Patrick Pending who is the Worldwide Chemicals’ UK Health and Safety Adviser, who had asked to act as a go-between of Mr. Plant and issue suitable advice. Using this information, it is now easy to respond to the questions below. 1. Explain, with reference to relevant case law, the statutory responsibilities placed upon the company (Acme Hydrocarbons Ltd) and the contractor (Flow Systems Ltd) with respect to item 3 of the HSE letter (Document2). According to the HSE letter, numerous statutory liabilities were engrossed, and several were shared. The letter suggested that the firm could have emphasized several responsibilities at an early stage that could help it to undertake the duties placed upon it by the statutory law. This could have happened simply by moving and handing over to another group. Legislation that was essential in this case encompassed the HSW Act (section 2, 3 and 4), COSHH regulations (6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12) and the MHSWR (regulations 5, 10, 11, 12 and 13) (HSE 2004). With each of these legislations, candidates were required to recognize evidently if the liability to obey law with one or both groups was possible. The Health and Safety at Work (HSW) laws emphasize on the need of protecting human life at the workplace. Therefore, section 2 talks about general responsibilities of employers and to their workers, section 3 talks about general responsibilities of the employers and self-employed to individuals who are not their workers (Swanson and Hammer 2000). Section 4 talks about general responsibilities of individuals concerned with premises to others than to their workers. In several cases, it could be discussed that there was a unified responsibility although there were clear instances where the responsibility was exclusively that of one individual like that observed in regulation 12 of MHSWR where Acme as host manager, and the liability to issue essential information to the contractor and their workers. This is also implied in regulation 13 of the MHSWR where the Flow Scheme would be anticipated to issue education for their own workers. During their descriptions, candidates were not punished for muddling up with the numbers of regulations so long as they accurately illustrated the responsibilities engrossed. Nevertheless, they were anticipated to recognize accurately sector numbers of the HSW Act and to be familiar with the distinction between a sector and a regulation (Stranks 2005). It is essential to read the question with care because for example, in this case, the only thing that was required was to issue an explanation of the statutory liabilities with the case law pertinent to these. This means that references to the civil case law was not pertinent and applicable on this question because they could not fit well (Mackay of Clashfern 2004). Most of the civil laws were enacted to deal with crimes involving violations, theft, murders and many others, but not issues to do with health and safety. If the civil laws could cover issues concerning health and safety then the HSW, MHSWR and COSHH regulations could be meaningless (HSE 2004). 2. Analyze the data provided in Document 3 and, with reference to other information provided, draw conclusions regarding the current risk of exposure to legionella bacteria. Analysis of Acme Hydrocarbon Ltd According to the information provided on document 3, it is clear that legionella bacterium that cause legionnaires disease is a deadly bacteria that has a lot of harm to human life (Heuner and Swanson 2008). The capacity of the main reservoir is 10 million litres. The mean circulation principle states that in each day, the reservoir has to circulate 48, 000 litres of water. The reservoir operates in manner that it is fed with water that is 4 to 10 degrees centigrade. After circulation, the reservoir returns the water at 15 to 18 degrees centigrade (Stranks 2005). Note that the water is not just circulated anyhow; there is a recommended procedure and dosage for its treatment that has to be followed to the fullest. The policy states that only 10 parts of water softener have to be placed in each million litres of water every week. The same water has to be treated with 4 parts of biocide per million litres of water each fortnight. After the whole process of treatment and circulation, water samples are taken and sent to the laboratory for taste to ensure that it is safe for human use. Safety means that it is free from legionnaire disease, which is acquired in flow systems and storage tanks (Ridley and Channing 2003). This means that using that water without treating and circulating it in reservoir may cause the disease. The rate of water circulation in the reservoir determined the cooling temperature of the returned water. For example, when the circulation rate of the water was 1680, the cooling water return temperature was 16 degrees centigrade while, when the circulation rate was 1675, the cooling water return temperature was 15 degrees centigrade. Note that the circulation rates differed in all the three months (January to March 2011). The amount of water softener added to the reservoir also varied although in most cases it was 75 parts (Mackay of Clashfern 2004). The amount of Biocide that was added on each circulation of water in the reservoir was mostly 20 and 40 parts depending with the circulation rate. All these were to ensure balance of the quantity of substances added to the reservoir. It is also important to note that the circulation of water in the cooling system was below the quoted average which was 48 000 litres each day. The main cause of this could have been problem of stagnant water bodies, which would raise the risk of legionella (Swanson and Hammer 2000). The final comments issued were mostly ‘okay’ meaning that the required outcome was achieved. Others were satisfactory and few of them indicated damage of the eliminator meaning that the result was not as expected. However, the most significant thing to note is that when water is not circulated and treated through the cooling system, the possibility of being infected with legionnaire disease caused by legionella bacterium becomes very high. Most of these risks could have been brought about by water temperature, the level of stagnation, the presence of algae, fouling or scale, and the amount of aerosol production. According to the data on document 3, all these factors were present meaning that there was a high possibility of contacting the legionella bacteria. Moreover, the document also shows that the activities undertaken by operators could also contribute to exposure to the disease in the sense that, at some cases, they seemed not to understand the concepts involved which is a clear implication that they had not received adequate training concerning the cooling system (Heuner and Swanson 2008). The document also implied that the cooling system was not operating during holidays. In other words, treatment of water never occurred during the holidays especially during the first two weeks of July each year. That clearly shows that there was breaching of the law because according to the law, water treatment should be continuous all times including holidays times. When water is not treated, the surrounding farmland may add on to nutrient overflow motivating growth in the river water source and the tidal flow of the river, which could cause sludge. 3. Do a comparison of what has actually happened, have they maintained it, what they should have done. In order to respond to this question better, it is important to consider the following guideline questions. (1) Water circulation is less than 48,000 litres because it will produce stagnant water.  It is clear that water circulation in the cooling system was below 48, 000 litres, which was the quoted average (Ridley and Channing 2003). This was a good indication of a potential difficulty of stagnant bodies of water. These stagnations would probably raise the threat of legionella in the sense that the circulation process should not have any form of stagnation at all. Stagnant water also leads to growth of other unwanted substances like algae to the water, thus, causing more harm. Therefore, Acme Hydrocarbon Ltd Company need to ensure that there is no breakage anywhere that may lead to stagnation of circulating water thus ensuring that the entire 48000 litres of water undergo circulation. (2) The feed temperature for water in that week and that week is above 21 degrees centigrade so that will produce Legionella.  The required return temperature of the water was expected to be between 15 to 18 degrees centigrade. This means that anything less or more than that could be a clear implication of health risk. This is because such temperatures could lead to production of legionella that could lead to legionnaires’ disease. (3) Water softener and biocide is something that you add to stop or kill things like Algae and keep the water clean. That is important to prevent Legionella to building up in the water. Water softener and biocide are very crucial elements in the water cooling process because they are responsible for killing unwanted substances like bacterium and things like algae thus keeping the water clean (Swanson and Hammer 2000). This is the only thing that the Acme Hydrocarbon Ltd considered and performed well. The amount of water softener and biocide that was put in the reservoir was sufficient and well regulated. Therefore, the Acme Hydrocarbon Ltd must continue considering such small but very critical issues in order to progress and expand their company (Ridley and Channing 2003). (4) They allowed the drift eliminator to be broken and have not fixed it.  Acme Hydrocarbon Ltd never bothered to fixed the broken drift eliminator which means that in some cases, the outcome was not the expected. The expected result was always to acquire clean, purified and cool water for human consumption. Once the drift eliminator breaks, the circulation process fails meaning that the returning temperature gets interefered with and the process causes stagnation of the water thus increasing the risk of exposure to legionella. What Acme Hydrocarbon Ltd could be doing is that it was supposed to be fixing the broken drift eliminator immediately it breaks. Besides, the best solution could have been to replace it with a new one, which could work efficiently. (5) On the overall, it is noticed that all these things have been managed poorly and that is breaching the law. It is true that the Acme Hydrocarbon Ltd was breaching the law in the sense that its operations were not meeting the required standards. First, the cooling system was circulating less than 48, 000 litres of water, which means that stagnation of water, was very high (Heuner and Swanson 2008). This shows that the risk of acquiring Legionella was very high. Moreover, water treatment was not done during the holidays meaning that individuals had to use contaminated water for a whole two weeks exposing themselves to the risks of being infected with legionella. The fact that the company was not meeting requirements and regulations of HSW, COSHH and MHSWR means that indeed it was breaching the law (Stranks 2005). 4. Finally you have to write a letter to health and safety executive explaining what you intend to put the situation right. Therefore, they won’t prosecute you. 5. A Letter to HSE Inspector To: Health and Safety Executive Inspector Re: Strategies to Ensure All Health and Safety Regulations are followed First, I must admit that our organization has not been following all the laws and regulations under HSW in the sense that it has been breaching the law. Acme Hydrocarbon Ltd has failed in many ways beginning with frequent breakages of drift eliminator. The first thing that I am going to ensure is accomplished is to replace the ever breaking drift eliminator (HSE 2004). That will ensure that there is smooth process of water circulation, which will ensure no stagnation of water. The other problem that the company is facing is stagnation of the circulating water that causes alteration of return temperatures and unclean water. Stagnation is the main cause of substances like legionella bacterium and growth of algae and other substances. Therefore, if the stagnation problem is eliminated then it means no health risks would exist. Besides, the company had a problem of circulating water below the quoted average of 48000 litres. This created chances for invading substances to find room and cause harm to human life. We are going to work on it and ensure that water circulation is complete, thus, ensuring that no faults and other complications that might cause health risks to consumers. We also intend to be servicing our machines on a weekly basis to ensure efficiency of operation. Therefore, it is with humility and respect that I ask you to give the Acme Hydrocarbon Ltd company management a period of four months to accomplish all these processes and ensure efficiency of operation. Failure to meet this requirement, there will be no other obligation but to close down the company because we will have failed to meet the requirements and regulations of HSW, COSHH and MHSWR (HSE 2004). Another promise that I give to you is that we will operate 24 hours a day, 360 days a year. This means that the society around us that depends on our reservoir for pure water will never suffer again as it used to happen during the time when we closed for holidays. I am hopeful that you will give us the opportunity to prove that we can make changes and change our community through provision of clean water. Thank you in advance. Yours Faithfully, Ivor Plant. Bibliography Heuner K, and Swanson M., 2008. Legionella: Molecular Microbiology. Caister Academic Press. ISBN [[Special:BookSources/978-1-904455-26-4]|978-1-904455-2 HSE, 2004, Thirty years on and looking forward: The development and future of the health and safety system in Great Britain J Stranks, 2005, Health and Safety Law. 5th edn Prentice Hall 2005, ISBN 0-13-197646-X JR Ridley and J Channing, 2003, Safety at Work. Butterworth-Heinemann ISBN 0750654937 Lord Mackay of Clashfern, 2004, Halsbury's Laws of England . Vol 20, "Health and Safety at Work" Swanson M, Hammer B., 2000, "Legionella pneumophila pathogesesis: a fateful journey from amoebae to macrophages". Annu Rev Microbiol 54: 567–613. Winn, W.C. Jr., 1996. Legionella (In: Baron's Medical Microbiology, Baron, S. et al., eds. (4th ed.). University of Texas Medical Branch. ISBN 0-9631172-1-1. Read More