Workplace Health and Safety

Workplace Health and SafetySafety EngineeringTMA 1At the start it is f style to surmise that health and guard duty was never at the forefront of some(prenominal) business or companion. But everywhere umteen years it skunk go alone be seen and noned that a comp both s peculiarity awaynot flourish with come forward it. This being said it was not until the early 1930s that the initial formal Health and guard text book was introduced by H.W. Heinrich which speaks volumes of how paltry the health and safety situation was coming up to this time. Moving previous-moving through the geezerhoods it can be seen that things where moving in the right prudence from the emergence of more responsible and co-ordinated attitudes in the 50s to the solely(prenominal) powerful Health and Safety at Work Act in 1974 to our present-day(prenominal) twenty-four hour period Acts that protect ladderers in e actuall(a)y which way imaginable.Companies that work hard and invest in overall wor kplace health and safety should experience reductions in mis guessnesses, injuries and fatalities. This w tubercular return pecuniary savings in a list of the companies sectors, such as reducing employees compensation fees and medical costs, avoiding preset penalty fines, and reducing the totality of money use to subscribe to new/replacement staff and the cost of conducting accident investigations. everywhereall, employers comm precisely dumbfound that improvements to workplace health and safety can mean substantial improvements to their companies financial performance and productivity.By investing in health and safety a comp each(prenominal) can improve business and must see that complying with health and safety should not be bearinged at as a re exactingive load that has been forced upon them as it offers significant opportunities. Benefits can include cold shoulder costsLower bumpsReduce employee sickness/absence and staff derangementLess accidentsSmaller put on the line of lawful deedimproved posture with suppliers and partnersGreater reputation for business responsibility among investors, customers and communitiesMore productivity, because employees atomic make sense 18 happier, fitter, healthy and more motivated.HSE figures show the personal and economic cost of failing to represent health and safety standards each yearMasses of working(a) days and hours atomic number 18 used up because of work-related paraplegicness and injury.Thousands deceased from occupational unhealthinesss/illness.Over a million employees nurture self-reported distress from a work generate illness.As much as one worker is fatally wound every working day.It is clear to see that without an adequate health and safety setup within a company no matter how astronomic or small they may be that they cannot compete or even exist without Safety.From a everlasting(a)ly financial business mind the enperilments ar far too outstanding to waver safety and from a military manist perspective the loss of life should never be something to be endangermented against.2A.What caused the returnBy what route(s) or mechanism(s) did the deviation or embarkous event happen?What should be done to baffle its recurrence or, if it is not technically or economically mathematical to prevent repetition, how can its probability be trim to an acceptable level?Can the knowledge gained be applied elsewhere?2B.The quantitative approach to health and safety simply put can be defined as a set of equations used to larn levels of safety. denary safety levels ar data and numbers put forward in order to try and estimate achievable levels of safety and valuate how well they perform in quantitative results.It should be made clear that if a quantitative safety performance level has been set, it must be able to be quantifyd or estimated in quantitative terms. Quantitative data does give a very clear picture of a placement and should be applied if possible.Setti ng up a tried quantitative system for safety target levels helps and enables companies to measure and record all achieved levels of safety, and could help provide a sound basis for managers and directors to make decisions.The coveted target safety outcome should be presented in either relation or absolute terms. Mathematical models argon the common practice used to define quantitative safety target, for practice session to make an estimate of a target rate of safety occurrences of a stated severity. It is also very important to note that it is often impractical or even unfeasible to quantify all factors.3A.What is a hazard?The meaning of a hazard is often very misleading and can be very enigmatic as many a(prenominal) dictionaries do not give specific description and at times combine the term seek causing great confusion between the two. Most describe a hazard as a danger or a take chances which explains why many substitute one for the other.The way that I touch sensation best describes a hazard is- any source of potency harm, cost or ill health acts on someone or something under public working conditions.Realistically it is something that can cause harm or ill effects to either individuals (health effects) or organizations (property trauma or equipment loss).For example any working system whether it is mechanical, electrical or chemical can contact its potential to destruct through use by any amount of means i.e. fire, explosion, mechanical fault. It would not be good practise to measure a hazard confidently against size or severity.What is risk? try can be foreseen as the probability or the chance of ill effect that someone may experience an adverse health effect or even be caused harm by being subject to a hazard. It can also very easily apply to a companies, property or equipment loss or damage.An example of risk could be the risk of developing lung cancers from smoking could be shown as smokers are 10 times (for example) more kindredly to contract and occur of cancer than non smokers.An election way of reporting risk is by using a number or lettering system i.e. a number X, of smokers per 100 smokers leave have a chance of developing lung cancer (dependent on age and the amount of years they had been smoking).This type of risk is expressed a likeliness or probability of a person developing a disease or incurring an injury. These differ to hazards because they refer to the likely or possible consequences (e.g., emphysema, lung cancer and heart disease from cigarette smoking.) 3B.Ordinary (industrial)Ordinary risks are a common in all industry related businesses and are caused predominantly by employees everyday work and activity whilst carrying out their jobs.Classic examples of these can range from slipping and tripping hazards, objects move on personal from heights, personal falling from heights, physical injuries caused from lifting, physical injuries causes from interference with industrial equipment.All of the above risks are only applicable to staff working in an industrial environment and not the general public restA danger or risk of an event or action disregardless of being in line with science and fact can be seen as a equilibrium risk, residual risks can and testament mean dangers, even if all possible measures of safety are theoretically applied. An example could be of a water tank or warmness failing and the residual risk being flooding.ProcessProcess risk can be seen as the result of a risk differing from predicted estimates base on the pure random chance of an event.For example if a die is thrown 6 times. It could be estimated that it will land on the number 1 once every 6 throws if the nice is fair. Process risk can be explained that the number of ones thrown could be more or less than once due to the randomness of chance in the dice throwing put to workSocietal risksSocietal risk, as its hang suggest is the risk to the society or local group of mess that may be subject or exposed to a major hazard. The risk is best surmised and worked out by area and location ranging from factors like blast radius, flood radius, predictable wind direction when measuring a gas release.An example where societal risk would need to be factored in would be when any company plans to build or produce something that could/would bread and only ifter some kind potential societal hazard. This can be plan and calculated using a FN curve to determine the full risk of the set up.4.Classify the fol belittleding situations in terms of type of risk and complete therisk table by assigning probabilities between 0 (not possible) and1 (certain) with 0.1 0.3 ( measly), 0.4 0.6 (average), 0.7 0.9 ( mel pocket-sizeded) forinjury and equipment damage for each hazard.State concisely the reasons for your choices and any qualifications you feel are required.Factors such as weather, location and population concentration should beconsidered and stated.(i) Object falling from s caffold.(ii) Tripping over a modest level squall in a petrochemical plant whilst onnightshift.(iii) electric shock from overhead cable/line struck by lightning.(iv) hot leak into a river from nuclear power station.(v) Electricity supply hiatus in an equipment store with emergencylighting.(vi) Not replacing a manner of walking grating on an rock oil rig.(vii) Hydrogen sulphide release from discharge in the end of a blanked offpipe in a crude oil fractionation plant.(i). I have selected the object falling from a scaffold as an ordinary risk and scored the probability of risk as 0.5 as is the nature of the risk in that location will continuously be the risk of objects falling from a height when working at height, I have not scored it to high as safety measures are continuously in place when working at heights to prevent and limit this type of risk. I have scored the probability of damage higher(prenominal) as generally anything falling has the potential to cause damage and a t 0.8 this highlights that fact.(ii) I have categorised the tripping situation as a ordinary risk as well as a outgrowth risk, ordinary because tripping situations are overly common and happen day to day in industry and a process risk because process risks can be seen as the result of a risk differing from predicted estimates establish on the pure random chance of an event i.e. tripping over a low level pipe that you may or may not have passed over safely 100 times before. I have scored the probability as low because if it was a pipe that has always been there it should be clearly marked as a danger and known to employees working around it and scored the risk of damage as low to reflect the low risk of probability of falling over the pipe and causing injury or damage to equipment.(iii) I have selected residual risk, process risk and societal risk to dish out this as all 3 risks or at least parts of them can be seen. Residual as all risks and dangers can be covered and metrical bu t not enumerate for a lightning strike, process risk as the chances of lighting striking are extremely low but the pure chance and randomness of the event prove the process risk element and societal risk as the local area may be affected be power cuts and disruptions to their everyday functions. I have scored the probability as low as the chances statistically of lightning striking are low but have scored the risk of damage as extremely high as damage to life and equipment could be irreversible.(iv) I have selected the radioactive leak as a societal risk as the potential ecological damage to the surrounding area would be detrimental, not only affecting local wildlife but also human life and in fact any other business or being that depended on the river. I have scored the probability as low as current nuclear Power stations pursue under extremely strict safety laws and practises. This being said I have scored the probability of damage as 1 the highest possible as this sort of inci dent could not happen without massive amounts of damage.(v) I have scored this event very low on both damage and risk probability as the only risk present would be ordinary and since safety measures are in place i.e. emergency lighting I could not foresee a high risk or probability of danger.(vi) I have scored this risk as high as the risk is very high that damage or injury will occur. I have classed it as a ordinary industrial risk as it would be caused by employees everyday work and activity whilst carrying out their jobs or negligence thereof. (vii)A danger or risk of an event or action irrespective of being in line with science and fact can be seen as a residual risk, residual risks can and will conceive dangers, even if all possible measures of safety are theoretically applied. An example could be Hydrogen sulphide released from a pocket in the end of a blanked offpipe in a crude oil fractionation plant, and the societal risk would be placed on anyone in the direct area.5.The i ncident in my perspicacity could very easily been avoided, to look at the reasons why I will discuss measures that I feel should have been in place and followed, and as a result of them not being followed the incident occurring.What where the agents training and skills? Was the operator fully trained to operate is this kind of hazardous environment? Could the operator have been trained but simply forget a crucial step by not replacing the man hole cover and put it down to human error.What was the HS culture like in the workplace? His own and the companies? Could this be to blame, was there a permit to work in operation? Safe system of work in operation? Had the operator read it and signed on. These are all vital steps that need to be taken into account when working in hazardous areas and are often over looked. These would have highlighted what he could do and how to complete the task, including replacing the manhole cover when not in use.Had the operator carried out this task befo re? If not should the operator been supervise by someone with experience of the job at hand? And should the operator been working alone at all?Should the vessel have been aerated again with nitrogen before work began again to ensure/ derogate low chance of ignition? As the manhole had been left open allowing air to fill the chamber.Could an intrinsically safe scraper rod have been used? unitary not causing a spark?Risk Assessment/COSHH assessments? Were any done?Had the user Followed Safe working with flammable internalitys regs and abided by the quin principles of controlVentilationIgnition sourcesExchange of a flammable substance for a less flammable oneSeparation.Without knowing the answer to any of the questions above any of them could very easily caused the incident. In my personal opinion I would have put the incident down to not pursual safe working practise on the job, i.e. not replacing the manhole cover and not re-charging the vessel with nitrogen to minimise the chan ce of ignition.