The Process of Measuring or Assessing the Risk - Assignment Example

Risk management assignment Name: Course: Lectures name: Table of contents Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………..3 Understanding legionella ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..5 Question 1…………………………………………………………………………………………5 Question 2 ………………………………………………………………………………..……….7 Question3……………………………………………………………………………………… …7 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….13 References……………………………………………………………………………………….14 Introduction Risk management is an integral part of planning for businesses. The goal of risk management is to analyze the events that could have a negative impact on the business then go ahead and eliminate the ri Crouch (2001, p.7) highlights risk as the fundamental element that influences financial behavior. Risk management incorporates the design and operation of a risk management system and the interplay between internal oversight and external regulatory system. Risk management entails identifying different risks and assessing them. A plan is then created to minimize their or even eliminate their impact. Various approaches can be taken to minimize the risk. Some organizational bodies that have come up with project management strategies include the Project Management Institute, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the National Institute of Science and Technology and actuarial societies. Risk has been termed as a complex issue and lack of knowledge base may create a gap between policy expectations and practical guidance for implementation of policies. Life without risk would be sterile. However risk has to be balance against exposing self, others and property to unnecessary harms in the course of business. The right protection and the right to risk have to be carefully considered to avoid dilemmas for practitioners as they attempt to reconcile the two positions (Kemshall and Pritchard, 1997, p. 10). Accidents earthquakes and other natural disasters are some common risks that can occur in any work place. Others range from legal risks like fraud, theft, and sexual harassment lawsuits. Risks can also relate to business malpractices intentional or assumed that may pose health risks to workers leading to possible enforcement of the law on the part of the employer, as we shall see in the case of Acme Hydro-chemicals Ltd and Flows limited among other case studies. Understanding Legionnaire Legionella is a bacterium precisely known as legionella pneumophilia living in stagnant waters such as ponds, wells, cooling waters and hot tubs. According to Gordon (1990 p 363), it is a pathogen of the gram-negative bacterium. This includes species that cause legionellois. It is most common in industrial water cooling systems. The disease being spread by drinking contaminated water skin contact, legionella mist may also find its way into throats and aspirated into the lungs what is known as aerosol. The legionnaire’s disease has flu like symptoms accompanied by gastro-intestinal distress. Legionella and legionella like substance live as facultative intracellular parasites of amoebae. This is in the biofilm that covers the inside of tanks and pipes in water systems (Marre, 2002, p. 411). Research work by Marre (2002, p. 411) further shows that it is possible to prevent 90% of drinking water legionnaires through the use of monochloramine. Several companies in established the European working group for legionella infections to share their experiences with legionella and how to curb its potential risk. Understanding legionella, what conditions it thrives in addition to health risks posed by it will help us to understand the Acme Hydrocarbons case. Other relevant cases like the Regina v. The board of Trustees of the Science Museum will also provide further insight. I. Question 1- statutory responsibilities upon acme Hydrocarbons and Flow Systems The main purpose of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (the HSW Act) is to protect other people other than those working at a particular work place from risks to their health and safety arising out of or in connection with the activities of people at work. Section 3 of the HSW Act places responsibility on employers and the self-employed towards the public other than just their employees. The Acme Hydrocarbons and Flow system as employers in this case study have heavy statutory responsibilities laid upon them by relevant Health regulations acts in the UK. As joined employers, they have breached almost all regulations stipulated herein. The MHSWR regulations act of December 1999 state that health and safety must be managed systematically like any other organizational affairs. Thus stated it suffices that the said employers have breached the regulations as follows: Regulation 5- management system to ensure that precautions are implemented. Both employers have not adhered to this as the employees are exposed to risk of legionnella due to precautions that have not been implemented. Further, in the (HSE 2004), regulation 10 highlights the responsibility of the employer to provide employees with on the risks to their health and safety. Acme seems not have provided the employees with adequate information on how to operate machinery without risk of contracting disease. Regulation 11 specifically pins down Acme that they cannot be absolved from responsibility of exposing workers to risk. This is so because the specific regulation requires employers sharing a work place to co- in the co-ordination of health and safety arrangements. Thus, Acme cannot fully delegate the responsibility of safety to Flows despite having contracted them to maintain the cooling system. Regulation 15 stipulates that both employers have the duty to communicate to all employees at risk with comprehensive information and training about the risks to health safety precautions to take. Similarly, the COSHH regulations also place a heavy responsibility upon both Acme and Flows. For instance, regulation 10 states thus: “The employer shall ensure that the exposure of employees to substances hazardous to health is monitored in accordance to suitable procedure.” Regulation 12 of the same stipulates that every employer who carries out a business that could expose employees to a health risk should furnish them with details about the hazardous health substance. He should further provide them with training that is necessary. In the same thread, Management of Health and safety act outlines that every employer shall make suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of his employees, which they are exposed to while at work. These are risks that arise in connection to the nature of his business to the best of his understanding. (HSE 1996) An examination of the case Regina vs. The board of Trustees of Science Museum helps to understand the real danger Acme poses even to the members of public due to a possible inhaling the contaminated mist air. The board of trustees had failed to discharge duties imposed upon it by HSW act 3(1). The prosecution alleged that, due to the fact that the air conditioning maintenance system at the museum being poor, the members of the public outside the museum were exposed to risk to their health from legionella Pneumophila. According to Barret and Howells (2002, p. 339), it was common that the escape of LP from the cooling tower of the museum could expose members of the public within a cordon of 500 yards to risks to their health and safety. They did not have to prove whether or not the public had actually inhaled the harmful substances but the fact was the risk was quite imminent. The words ‘exposed’ simply made it clear that section 3(1) is actually concerned with persons who have the potential of being affected by the risk. In this case, members of the public within range of the infill building. The court of appeal dismissed their appeal against conviction. An extract on the forum building in Cumbria reads, “In the 2002 Barrow-in-Furness Legionnaires' disease outbreak, 172 people were reported to have caught the disease, of who seven died. This made it the fourth worst outbreak in the world in terms of number of cases and sixth worst in terms of deaths. The source of the bacteria was later found to be steam from a badly maintained air conditioning unit in the council-run arts center Forum 28. At the conclusion of the inquest into the seven deaths, the coroner for Furness and South Cumbria criticized the council for its health and safety failings. In 2006, council employee Gillian Beckingham and employer Barrow Borough Council were cleared of seven charges of manslaughter, but both admitted breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act. Beckingham, the council senior architect ultimately responsible for health and safety at the center, was fined £15,000 and the authority £125,000. The borough council was the first public body in the country to face corporate manslaughter charges.” Thus, we understand exactly what could befall Acme due to negligence in maintaining their system. II. Question 2 Document 3 is an extract from the water plant chemical treatment log. It gives specifications such as the reservoir capacity, the operating parameters and the recommended water treatment dose. Critically looking at the data it can be analyzed that may of the operations are faulty thus pausing a great health risk with legionella. For instance, taking a close look at the circulation of the water cooling system is below average. This poses the risk of stagnant waters, which in turn would lead risk of legionella growing and spreading. This is so because as the topic understanding legion points out, that this bacteria breeds well in stagnant waters. On January 20, 2011, the operator reported that the drift eliminator was damaged. Months down the line, it was still in a state of disrepair. This shows negligence on the responsible party. In addition to that, this would mean that the employees would be exposed to the mist. And in view of the fact that the average circulation was below average thus stagnant water, there would be possible exposure to aerosol. The presence of algae in the reservoir is yet another risk factor. These microorganisms can house various "cyanotoxins" or "cyanobacterial toxins." When cells break, the poisonous substances contaminate the water, and make it harmful for consumption. The fact that the biocide supplies are not in sufficient supply also indicates negligence. This means that the water may be treated for some days, which is yet another health hazard. Operating temperatures were mostly outside the stipulated parameters posing another health hazard since such temperatures are conducive for growth of legionella. The fact that lab samples were not taken consistently means that early detection of any microorganisms could not be traced hence such would thrive full throttle to the detriment of the workers health. Other surrounding health hazards would include the prevailing wind, which would accelerate the windblown mist. The treatment of water was also not carried out during the holiday period. This would provide good breeding ground for the legionella and any other contaminated water microorganisms. Additionally, the low tide of the river could possibly cause sludge to be pulled in giving good bacterial breeding ground. In a nutshell, a lot of maintenance negligence and lack of proper training for the workers to say the least is exhibited in this case. This will put Acme at a very great risk of prosecution and possible conviction just as in the case of the Museum Board of Trustees. III. Question 3- the HSE reply letter As set out in the question, this letter is meant to put forth a defense to the HSE officer putting across strong points as to why further enforcement against Acme should not be taken. To Eva Sharpe (Mrs.), Health and Safety Inspector, Health and Safety Department. Dear Madam, Re: Action plan following Plant Inspection- 28th May 2007 We wish to refer to the above-mentioned issue. Following your inspection to our plant on the said date, you mentioned some of the health and safety measures that our plant had not measured up to accordingly. We are glad to inform you that we have since sat in several consultative meetings with my managers and have come up with action plans geared toward the improvement and subsequent compliance to the Health and Safety Act. The following do suffice: 1. That the pump and drift eliminator are in bad state of repair 2. That the documentation of the plant cooling operations have not been properly done 3. That the biocide treatment is not as required regularly. 4. That the staff needs to be furnished with more information on risk exposure and training on operations. We acknowledge that the above matters have come to the notice of the relevant personnel are to be resolved forthwith. This is in line to your letter requesting us to comply before the next visit on the 30th of June. Below is an outlined course of action in reference to the above. That: 1. in future more detailed risk assessment will be taken 2. there will be introduction of automatic dosing, periodic chlorination and running of standby coolers to avoid contamination 3. all machinery will be put to good repair and employees trained accordingly 4. treatment will be done even during the holidays 5. The purchasing department will be more up to date with orders to avoid shortfall of necessary water treatment chemicals. 6. There will be adequate information to employees on risk assessment. 7. More attention to detail will be paid when it comes to record keeping. Once again, we do state our utmost commitment to resolve the matters in the urgency that they require and that the subsequent visit will elicit excellent comments from your office. Kindly do give us the chance without enforcing the laws unless they are not satisfactorily complied with by us. We anticipate a positive response from your end. Yours faithfully, Risk assessment Manager, Acme Hydrocarbons Ltd. Conclusion In conclusion, we could say that the objectives of studying risk management set out at the onset of this paper have been achieved. We now have a greater understanding of the process of measuring or assessing the risk and the developing concrete and realistic strategies to manage the risk. The success of this essential management practice depends much on the nature of business and the type of risk involved. We have learnt the balancing act between risk taking and profit making. We have looked into the Health and Safety Acts and had an in depth understanding of them and where they are enforceable according to the law. Relevant Case studies like that of Acme and the Museum Board Trustees have shown how employers can find themselves on the wrong side of the law due to negligence. It is still hoped that Acme and Flows Ltd will convince the Health and Safety Executive against prosecution in their letter. However looking at the fate of the board of trustees at the museum it leaves them with little chance especially if they do not comply with the requirements. Thus, it suffices that Risk management and by extension risk assessment is quite integral in the day-to-day business management activities and should not be down played at all. This is because consequences of such negligence would cost the firm quite tidily in terms of finances and even the general Public Relation of the organization in general. Risk Management is an eye opener and has in great depth helped entrepreneurs to cast their foresight wider for the future success of the business. References Barret, Brenda, Howells, Richard. (2002). Occupational Health and Safety law cases And materials. Cavendish Publishers: Cavendish. Chapman, Glen. (2007). The priority Matrix. Retrieved 1st March, 2012 from http://wideformatonline.com/index.php/workshops/business-management/other/44-other/615-the-priority-matrix . Chatfield, Carl and Johnson, Timothy. (2007). A short course in project management. Microsoft office Project. Retrieved 1st March, 2012 from http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/project-help/a-short-course-in-project-management-HA010235482.aspx Geary, Ramla, (2005). Improving Performance. Josey-Bass inc. publishers Forbes Magazine. (2010). Project Management. Retrieved 1st March, 2012 from http://www.forbescustom.com/abudhabi/index.html Hamilton, Albert. (2004). Handbook of Project Management Procedures. Harbour, Jerry. (2009). Performance Management. Second ed. CRC printing press HSE. (1996). Control of substances hazardous to health. A brief Guide to Employers. HSE Books 1996. UK. Available on Ireland, Lewis R. (2006). Project Management. McGraw-Hill Professional Kenzer Harold (2004). Advanced project Management. John Wiley and sons Inc. Lock, Dennis. (2007). Project management (9th Ed.) Gower Publishing, Ltd. Nielsen, David. (2010). How to Write the Project Statement of Work (SOW). Norman, Eric et.al. (2008). Work Breakdown Structures: The Foundation for Project Management Excellence. John Wiley and sons Inc. Riordan, Jeb. (2001). Project Management Methodology. Retrieved 1st March, 2012 From http://www.projectmagazine.com Smith, Michael. (2005). Roles and responsibilities charting. Project Management Forum Read More