The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations - Workplace Exposure Limits - Coursework Example

The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (2002) Some of the substances utilized at the workplace may contain mutagenic, terotogenic,carcinogenic substances, irritants, or even corrosive substances which can be lethal when human beings are over exposed to them (Duncan, 2004). Several governments have come to the realization that lack of proper regulation to check on exposure to hazardous substances results in massive costs to the governments in terms of medical treatment costs, loss of workforce numbers due to incapacitation, and payments to the incapacitated. The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulation 2002 (C0SHH) was purposely passed to shield workers against short-term and long-term health risks, and exposure to hazardous substances found at places of work. COSHH recognizes the dangers a worker is exposed to and sets the limits of exposure to potential risk factors (Health and Safety Executive, 2005). This paper analyzes the benefits and limitations of WELs and their use in the general management of workers’ by occupational hygienists. Benefits of WELs Workplace Exposure Limits (WELs) of the air are regulations that are included in the COSHH regulations that set the limits of substances that may be hazardous to the health of workers. The Health and Safety Commission in the United Kingdom has endorsed the WELs with the exposure limits indicated in parts per million (ppm) and milligrams per meter cubed (mg/m3) of air the worker is exposed to (Health and Safety Executive, 2005). The WELs regulations come with many advantages to workers as it gives some sort of protection against exposure to health risk factors at their places of work. It has always been a known fact that prevention is better than cure and hence the WELs acts as a preventive measure against occupational hazards. They are enforced to minimize exposure to substances which could otherwise cause fatalities or ill health (Health and Safety Executive, 2005). The WELs promotes a safe working environment and therefore by extension it also protects co-workers, suppliers, customers, nearby communities and other public members who are affected by the workplace environment. One of the benefits of WELs is that it minimizes accidents and illnesses related to work places (Health and Safety Executive, 2005). As mentioned above, in some industries, employees may inhale substances that when taken in above some limits could prove fatal to the employee’s health. Some industries, especially research institutes, work with biological agents which are made up of living micro-organisms like protozoa, viruses and bacteria, and toxins produced by these living organisms. These agents can cause fatalities even when inhaled in very minute quantities. An example is Type-A botulinal toxin which is fatal to an adult human being at the dose of a millionth of a gram. Some of the symptoms of intoxication may not occur immediately. In fact, sometimes symptoms could delay for weeks. This means that it could be too late to help the exposed victim when the symptoms finally appear. The biological agent could be released in the air accidentally when a container containing it leaks or is accidental opened. The COSHH (2002) has within it regulations means of dealing with accidents of the above mentioned nature (Health and Safety Executive, 2005). Section 10 points out ways of monitoring the workplace environment. Constant monitoring of the workplace environment can be very beneficial to the workers as it is an effective way to notice when the level of agents in the air turn hazardous. Sections 12(1) and 12(2) respectively point out ways of informing and training workers on how to deal with accidents in their workplaces (Health and Safety Executive, 2005). Accidents often happen when least expected and can occur anywhere. Therefore it is beneficial to be in possession of knowledge and training on how to manage accident situations at places of work. Section 13 covers ways of dealing with accidents at places of work. Existence of toxic levels of biological agents in breathing air requires quick reaction if lives and are to be saved. Chemicals may be defined as man made substances capable of causing injury or death to persons exposed to them. There are quite a number of chemical agents that when inhaled could be harmful (RCMP, 1998). Some industries manufacture chemicals that could turn hazardous when inhaled above certain levels. Just like it is with the biological agents, chemical agents may be airborne at workplaces where they are produced and in surrounding areas (RCMP, 1998). Some chemicals when breathed in at toxic levels could cause corrosion of the human respiratory system or could greatly affect the human nervous system. A good example is the factory that produces carbon dioxide for soft drinks preservation. Should the carbon dioxide leak or be accidentally released in the work area, it could cause breathing problems and even suffocation. The WELs therefore has sections that are aimed at preventing such incidences from occurring. Dust can be classified into three major categories namely respirable dust, inhalable dust and total dust according to OSHA (2008). Respirable dust are the very minute particles that when breathed in find their way deep into the lungs through the upper respiratory system as they are beyond the natural clearance mechanism of the human body and are therefore retained in the lungs. Inhalable dust is the dust that enters the body but is contained by the respiratory mechanism of the human body while total dust comprises of all airborne particles not withstanding their size or composition. Dust, although undesirable, is unavoidable in most places of work due to processing operations that take place. Presence of airborne dust affects the human body in many ways (OSHA, 2008). For example, it causes respiratory diseases like asthma, silicosis, black lung and asbestosis. Dust also causes irritation of the ears, throat, skin, nose and eyes, and thereby reduces working efficiency. The WELs has sections that are beneficial in reducing problems caused by dust. It provides the limits of respirable and inhalable dust in the air. Over an eight hour period, the time weighted average of inhalable dust is set at 10mg/m3 while that of respirable is set at four milligrams per meter cubed. The WELs has sections that describe measures to be taken in cases where hazardous elements are to be handled. It stipulates that no work that can cause exposure to co-workers is to be carried out without a proper and thorough assessment done(Health and Safety Executive, 2005). This is meant to make sure that all regulations and requirements are satisfied before any dangerous substance is to be handled as this would be beneficial in safeguarding the health of not only the worker handling the hazardous elements but the co-workers as well (Farmer and Humphrey, 1984). Adhering to the levels prescribed by the WELs goes along way in ensuring that workers’ health is not affected by the air they breathe. If there were no regulations on safe exposure levels, chances of workers contracting avoidable diseases would have been more profound. Huge medical bills and having to hire new workers every now and then in an effort to fill gaps left by sick or incapacitated workers are some of the situations that would commonly exist if there were no regulations to be followed at the workplace to protect the workers’ health. The regulation also requires that workers should be supplied with adequate personal protection gears in situations where proper ventilation and the design of work processes are not enough to ensure personal safety of employees (Health and Safety Executive, 2005). This gives the employee the feeling of safety and importance and hence improves the employee’s attitude towards work. This in turn could result in high efficiency at the workplace. Without the WELs many occupational hygienists would not have knowledge of the accepted composition of breathing air. In case the content of agents in the air exceeds the allowable levels and causes harm to employees, the occupational hygienists would always find themselves or the company facing lawsuits from affected employees (Farmer and Humphrey, 1984). Thanks to the regulations - as long as occupational hygienists make sure that the air is within the stipulated conditions, they will save their employers from the trouble of settling penalties and lawsuits. The WELs do help in reducing insurance costs by a big margin. Without regulations guiding safety, industries would have been experiencing lots or injuries and damage to property. They would therefore have had to invest fortunes in insurance to help deal with the compensation of affected workers and equipment. For example, a factory that allows more dust in its environment than stipulated in the WELs would have to spend a lot of money paying medical insurance due to the high number of its staff falling sick. The dust would also cause a lot of breakdowns in equipments forcing the factory to take insurance to help compensate for the damaged equipment. On the other hand, following the regulations will reduce these chances and therefore saves money. With reduced occupational diseases, the turnout of workers at their respective work places will be at its optimum avoiding situations where work slows down due to lack of enough workers. This will definitely impact the production and performance of the business in a positive way. Cases of having to hire and train new workers to replace the ones who have to leave possibly due to hazards are also reduced. Limitations The safety standards set by the WELs may often require a company to invest in expensive machines that are used to continuously monitor the quality of air and other environmental conditions at the workplace (Stranks, 2006). This could turn out to be very expensive especially if the required equipment is to be imported from overseas. Installation and constant maintenance of these equipments will definitely eat into the companies’ revenue as companies may be required to either sponsor some of its staff to learn how to use and maintain the equipment or outsource for qualified individuals. Companies are also forces to seek services of occupational hygienists which come with a price tag as it will mean paying more people salaries and benefits (Stranks, 2006). The WELs may impact the production negatively as a lot of time is spent before handling some jobs. This is done to ensure that all the regulations and requirements have been adhered to before any work can commence. This amounts to idle time on the part of the workers as they await satisfaction of these regulations. This idle time reduces working time and eventually will impact productivity negatively. There are also quantity limits for substances considered to be toxic at the workplace at any given time. Should a company need a huge amount of these substances for its day-to-day operations, it cannot buy or produce these substances in very large amounts. Purchasing chemicals in smaller amounts implies getting smaller discounts from suppliers (Stranks, 2006). Production in lesser volumes leads to loss of revenue and these impacts negatively on the organization. Conclusion The WELs has both advantages and limitations but the advantages far outweigh and outnumber the limitations. It is important to consider the safety of all those in the workplace as a priority before considering any other factors as the value of human life is incomparable. Following the regulations of the WELs helps to improve operational performance and therefore increases growth of the business. This it does by enforcing rules that will ensure that workers go on with their duties in a safe environment. Adhering to the WELs ensures that workers are comfortable enough to perform at their full potentials. The WELs ensure that safety is put fast before anything else. References Duncan M. (2004) Health and Safety at Work Essentials (3rd ed.),Lawpark Publishing Ltd. Farmer D. and Humphrey J. (1984) Safe to breathe? The legal and practical implications of workplace exposure limits, Kingwood Publishers. Health and Safety Executive (2005) EH40/2005 Workplace exposure limits: Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (2002), HSE books, London. OSHA (2008) Dust and Its Controls, retrieved 2nd December, 2009 from http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/silicacrystalline/dust/chapter_1.html RCMP (1998) Difference between chemical and biological agents, retrieved 2nd December, 2009 from http://www.rcmp-learning.org/docs/ecdd1022.htm Stranks J.W. (2006) Manager’s guide to health and safety at work (8th ed.),Kegan Page Publishers. Read More