Acme Hydrocarbons Ltd and Legionella Bacteria - Case Study Example

Case Study Acme Hydrocarbons Ltd Contents 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Relevant laws 4 2.1 Health and safety work act 1974 4 2.2 Management of health and safety at work regulations 1999 5 2.3 Control of Substances Hazardous to Health regulations 2002 7 3. 0 Data analysis 8 4.0 Letter to HSE 11 References 12 Accepta Water Treatment 2012, L8 - Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) & Guidance "Legionnaires' disease: The control of legionella bacteria in water systems" 12 HSE 2004, Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, General enforcement guidance and advice OC 273/20 (Version 2). Pp. 1-32. 13 HSE 2011. About Legionnaires' disease. Viewed on 7 March 2012 from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/legionnaires/whatis.htm 13 HSE 2012, SC38 – Legionella. Viewed on 7 March 2012 from: http://www.stfc.ac.uk/SHE/Codes/STFC/SC38_Legionella/20977.aspx 13 1.0 Introduction Legionella bacteria are very common and are naturally found in water resources in the environment which include reservoirs, rivers, and lakes. In this condition, the bacteria are found in low numbers. The bacteria can survive under varying environmental conditions where they survive in water temperatures ranging from 6°C to 60°C. Their growth is usually promoted by water temperatures which range from 20°C to 45°C. Below the temperatures of 20°C, the organisms do not multiply and also, they do not survive at temperatures above 60°. They may remain in dormant state in cool water and then multiply when the temperature in the water reaches a level which is sustainable. The Legionella bacteria need a source of nutrients to aid in multiplication. Some of these sources include the organisms that are commonly encountered in the water system for example, algae, amoebae and others. Presence of sludge, sediments, scale and various minerals which might be present in the water system, in addition to bio-films, play a very important role for these harbouring of these bacteria through provision of conditions that seem favourable for the growth of legionella. A bio-film which is a layer of thin micro-organism has a high probability of forming slime on surfaces that are in contact with water. The scale, sludge and such bio-films offer protection to legionella bacteria from biocide concentrations and temperatures that are supposed to inhibit or kill these organisms if they were freely suspended in water. As these bacteria are very common in environmental sources, they may gradually colonise the manufactures systems of water and invade the cold and hot water systems, cooling tower systems and other plant that uses or stores water. The legionella cause legionaires’ disease which is form of pneumonia that is potentially fatal and can affect anybody (Code of Practice and guidance, 2000). Legionaires’ disease outbreaks follow a chain of events that is predictable. In order to reduce creation of conditions of increasing risks of legionella bacteria exposure, it is essential to control these risks through introduction of measures that do not allow the organism from proliferating in the systems of water, and in most reasonable practical way, reduce exposure to aerosol and water droplets (HSE, 2011). 2.0 Relevant laws In the case study, sections 2, 3 & 4 of HASW act, regulations 5, 10, 11, 12 & 13 of the MHSWR, and regulation 6, 7, 8, 9 & 12 of COSHH regulation has been breached. 2.1 Health and safety work act 1974 According to the health and safety work act 1974 (HASW), section 2 clauses 1, 2 and 3 explains the employers’ duties to their employees. The employer ensures safety, health and welfare of the employees during work which include maintenance and provision of safe plant and systems of work, safe working environment, and safe access to the work place and provide instruction, information, supervision and training. From the case, Acme Ltd has the overall management of the entire operations within the firm while Flow Systems has the responsibilities of controlling the operations in the cooling system which is under the entire Acme. This shows that the two parties has shared duties of providing and maintaining safe plant, systems, working environment and providing supervision, training, information and instructions to the employees in order to ensure that the safety, health and welfare of employees is maintained (HSE 1974). Section 3 of the HASW Act also indicates that the employer have the duty to ensure that the activities within the firm do not endanger anybody’s life. They should also provide information to the public on any potential hazard. Given that Acme and Flow System are all employers, they have shared responsibilities of ensuring the operations within this firm are not endangering anyone and they should also inform the public of any potential hazards. This means that through supervision, both parties could have identified potential hazard caused by inefficiency in the operations of the cooling system. Hence Acme as the supervisor of entire operations within the firm cannot transfer responsibilities to Flow Systems only. Section 4 of HASW also gives the employer the responsibilities of ensuring the ones controlling the premises do not endanger their colleagues. Flow System has 40 employees working under it while these are part of the 150 employees working under the entire Acme. This means that both parties had the responsibilities of making sure that activities of the employees operating under the cooling systems do not endanger other workers within the company. Finally, sections 2, 3 and 4 of the HASW Act shows that Ace and Flow Systems have the responsibilities of ensuring that the operations within the company do not affect the safety and health of workers and ensuring that they inform the public about any potential hazard identified in the course of the company’s operations (HSE 2000). 2.2 Management of health and safety at work regulations 1999 Under the management of health and safety at work regulations (MHSWR) 1999, regulations 5, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are relevant to this case. Regulation 5 of the MHSWR, the employers have the responsibilities of making arrangement planning, controlling, organising, monitoring and reviewing of preventive and protective measures. This includes adopting ways of minimising risks, involvement of employees undertaking risk assessment and making decisions on preventive measure, understanding and discharging H & S responsibilities and making sure there is provision of appropriate supervision, and making constant development of techniques, approaches and policies through routine inspection and investigation. From the case processes of planning, organising, planning, controlling, organising, monitoring and reviewing of preventive and protective measures are interrelated and cannot be done by separate parties. Hence, Acme as the supervisor of entire company and Flow Systems as supervisor of the operations of cooling system within the company have to coordinate for effective risk assessment process. Regulation 10 of the planning, controlling, organising, monitoring and reviewing of preventive and protective measures MHSWR requires the employers to inform the employees about the risks identified after risk assessment, risks that have been notified by others measure for protection and prevention and emergency procedures for the measure. Since the risks involved in the entire company are present in the entire company, identification of these risks involves all the employees. This means calls for coordination of all the employers for effective identification. Thus, under this regulation, Acme and Flow System have shared responsibilities for ensuring compliance with this regulation (HSE 2000). Regulation 11 & 12 of MHSWR which involves co-operation and coordination requires that, in case two or more employers sharing the workplace, each of them shall cooperate with the other in matters of health and safety, take steps that are reasonable in order to coordinate each employer’s respective measures, informing the other about the risks of others activities to his employees and informing others of your risks and measures taken to control. Also, in regulation 12, the employer should issue instructions on health and safety to other employer’s employees such as those working under contractors. This means that Acme has a responsibility to inform Flow System and its employees about the risks and measures. From the case these regulations shows that both parties are required to coordinate and cooperate in order to share information on identification and control measures for the risks since they share the workplace. This means that, Acme supervisor is not in a condition to delegate any responsibilities to the Flow Systems. Regulation 13 which involves capabilities and training gives the employers responsibility of taking account of the capability of the employees such as experience, knowledge and capability when he entrusts tasks to them in regard to health and safety. Employees are should be trained on recruitment and after exposure to increased or new risks due to change of responsibility, transfer, new work system and new technology. Training should also be repeated as necessary. From the case, since different operations involve specific employees within the entire company, Flow System require to train its employees to gain knowledge and experience in cooling operations (PSS 2008). 2.3 Control of Substances Hazardous to Health regulations 2002 Under COSHH, regulations 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 are relevant to the case. Regulation 6 involves risk assessment to the health where the risk is created by the work involving substances that are hazardous to health. It requires that the employers must make assessments that are suitable and sufficient of the risks to the health of the employees as a result of hazardous substances. It recognizes that prevention of hazardous substances exposure to the health should be the first consideration to the employer. In case of consideration on substitution, an essential factor that needs to be put across is considering the proposed harmful properties of the replacement. From the case, hazardous substances can be present in every process throughout the entire company. This means that both parties requires the knowledge of the health risks associated with these hazards thus sharing responsibilities on risk assessment. Regulation 7 involves prevention and control where the employers should give prevention the first consideration. This is meant to prevent any potential serious effect on health. In this way, the employers should consider every possible way of reducing exposure. The employers should inspect the processes in order to identify and bring attention to the employees about the risk. From the case, any risk requires inspection in order to identify. Identification of the risk within the company and looking for the ways of prevention and control requires involvement of both parties (HSE 2004). A regulation 8 & 9 of COSHH requires that employers must ensure that control measures are properly used and are commissioned properly and maintained effectively. Regulation 9 states that there must be examination of LEV system at least once in 14 months with more regular frequency testing. The records of any test must be kept for at least five years. From the case, different control measures may be applied in the entire company which means that both parties need to corporate in order to come up with effective measures. Regulation 12 requires that employers provide the workers with sufficient and suitable information, training and instruction which should also include the COSHH’s main findings of its assessment. The provision of sufficient and suitable information, training and instruction involve the entire company’s activities, thus it requires both parties’ shared responsibilities (HSE 2000). 3. 0 Data analysis According to the data from the cooling system, the maximum return temperatures are required to be18°C. The operating temperatures went outside these parameters to more than 20°C. As legionella bacteria survive between the temperature of 6-60°C, their growth is mostly favoured by temperatures between 20-45°C. This shows that the organisms remain dormant under cool temperature and begin to multiply as the water temperatures rise above 20°C favouring their growth. Thus, the recorded temperatures above 20°C are the possible risks for the growth of legionella. From the data, the average circulation rate is supposed to be 48,000 litres per day. The maximum rate that was ever recorded is 40, 320 litres per day. This shows that the rate of circulation was far below the average rate. It means that there is a probability that low circulation led to stagnant water bodies which increases the risk of legionella bacteria. Algae act as a source of nutrient for the legionella to multiply. The results also show presence of green algae on the surface of the reservoir. Presence of algae creates a harbouring condition for growth of legionella bacteria. This condition which is known as fouling is also attributed by tripping of the pump. This fouling condition increases the risk of legionella bacteria (Accepta Water Treatment 2012). Biocide concentrations are used for killing or inhibiting the legionella bacteria where it is more effective when they are suspended in the water freely. A thin layer of micro-organisms known as bio-film may form a slime in the water surface contact. This bio-film acts as a protection to legionella from biocide concentrations and temperatures that would lead to their death if the bacteria were suspended in water freely. The results show a low concentration of biocide and a complete lack of it after it was ordered. Hence, lack of biocide and its low concentrations and formation of a bio-film become favourable conditions for the growth of legionella bacteria thus, increasing the risk of their occurrence. Drift eliminator or reducer contains a complex baffles systems which usually remove droplets of water from the cooling air in the tower that passes through the eliminator. Form the results, drift eliminator was damaged and there were no any efforts of repairing it. This contributed to exposure to droplets of water and aerosol which increases the risks of legionella bacteria. The results also show that there was no frequency in collection of the laboratory samples. This means that, it was so difficult to identify any problem arising at an early stage. This implies that, any risk of presence of legionella bacteria could not be identified until it is too late. The risks that are associated to legionella bacteria depend on degree of stagnation, water temperature, aerosol production, and presence of fouling, algae or scale. From the cooling towers data, there is evidence of all these factors implying a great risk of exposure to legionella bacteria (SHE 2012). From the information provided in the three documents there is a possibility of other factors that could lead to more increase of legionella bacteria. These factors include the operators’ actions which may show that they don’t have a clear understanding of the issues which could be attributed to lack of adequate training. Their decision to leave one cooling tower dormant for sometime is an indication that they do not have an idea of risks associated with legionella as a result of stagnant water. Also, the closing of the company for two weeks’ annual holiday shows lack of information on risks of legionella bacteria as there is no treatment of water during this holiday. This leads to stagnation whish is one of the factors of risks of legionella. In addition, the neighbouring farmland may also nutrient run-of thus supporting growth and also, the river tidal flow may pull sludge at low tide. Growth and formation of sludge are factors associated to the risks of legionella. Mist from the prevailing wind that affect the nearby office workers and a failed drift eliminator increases the mist thus increasing the operatives’ exposure at sampling point. Combination of all these factors shows a significant risk of the legionella bacteria exposure. This shows that there have been poor management in the cooling operations thus, because there are no any specific legislations on Legionella management, there is breach of law under the duties which are defined under sections 2, 3 & 4 of HASW Act 1974, regulations 2, 3, 4 & 6 of MHSWR 1999, and regulations 6, 7, 8, 9 & 12 of COSHH. 4.0 Letter to HSE HSE Inspector In respect to your inspection visit to our company on 28th May 2011, I hereby write to inform you of our committment to rectifications in the intermediates plant of our company. According to your guided advice on review of the functioning of the intermediates plant, the management of Acme and Flow Ststems specialised contractor for operation and maintenace of cooling system have conducted a thorough assessment on the plant. We have come into total agreement with your inspection report as we have confirmed that our risk assessment on intermediates plant was not sufficient which may lead to exposure of biological agents specifically legionella bacteria. Through consultation from health and safety advisor, we have identified vaious problems in data collection and recording especially circulation rate, return temprature, develoment of algae on the reservoir, inconsisitent laboratory tests, stand by cooling tower and insufficient supply of biocide. We have come into same conclusions as yours that our plant is at increased risks of legionella bacteria. We have recognised that this was caused by a breach of laws under our duties as employers which are defined by sections 2, 3 & 4 of HASW Act 1974, regulations 2, 3, 4 & 6 of MHSWR 1999, and regulations 6, 7, 8, 9 & 12 of COSHH. I acknowledge you that after identification of these problems, we have accepted and we are committed to improve. In order to address these issues, we have developed an action plan to carryout risk assessments that are more detailed and the control measure to implement these assessments. The practical measures to be enacted include introducing an automatic dosing, periodic stand-by cooling tower running and chlorination, and offering refresher training for operators. There will also be immediate drift eliminator repairing. Long term measures include an improved system of monitoring and record keeping, reviewing the system design for dead legs elimination and reviewing of policy for purchasing to eliminate problems in acquiring dosing chemicals. The cooling tower risk system will include a regular program for cooling tower maintenance and inspection, a program for regular disinfection and cleaning of cooling system, a program to make sure that biocide is used for dosing the cooling tower to prevent growth of legionella, and a programme for monitoring the effectiveness of biocide dosing. In addition, it will be important to keep of records of everything done to ensure that duty holder is doing what is required for safe operation of cooling tower. We look forward to your advice as we work together to improve our plant operations. References Accepta Water Treatment 2012, L8 - Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) & Guidance "Legionnaires' disease: The control of legionella bacteria in water systems" HSE 1974, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The Stationery Office. HSE 2000 Management of health and safety at work. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Approved Code of Practice and guidance L21 (Second edition) HSE 2000, Legionnaires’ disease. The control of legionella bacteria in water systems. Approved Code of Practice and guidance L8 (Third edition). HSE 2000. COSHH: A brief guide to the Regulations: What you need to know about the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH). HSE Books, Sudbury, Suffolk. Pp 1-15 HSE 2004, Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, General enforcement guidance and advice OC 273/20 (Version 2). Pp. 1-32. HSE 2011. About Legionnaires' disease. Viewed on 7 March 2012 from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/legionnaires/whatis.htm HSE 2012, SC38 – Legionella. Viewed on 7 March 2012 from: http://www.stfc.ac.uk/SHE/Codes/STFC/SC38_Legionella/20977.aspx Project safety services (PSS) 2008. Legislation Summary Sheet: Management of H&S at Work Regulations 1999. Pp. 1-5. Read More