Answer

This management report identifies the hazards and provides a critical evaluation of the risks that are apparent in a high risk manufacturing company. It is informed by a case study in which a repair shop mechanic by the name Alan Jones was hit by a falling gearbox from a forklift truck when Mr L.T. (driver) pressed on the brakes to avoid crushing Alan. In addition, the truck hit some immediate shelves leading to spillage of the content in three bottles of sodium hydroxide. The scope of this report includes identification of the causes of the accident, prevention of further injury, and meeting of regulatory requirements. Other important aspects covered in this report include compliance with regulations, reducing potential for claims and liaising with insurers, safe construction and demolition of the warehouse, and legal implications, the action plan.

Identification of the Immediate and Underlying/Root Causes of the Incident

            The immediate causes of the accident were several. The first cause is Alan’s negligence to enter prohibited areas without any authorisation to do so. There was a sign in the Ready-to-Use that warned unauthorised persons from entering the long-term store. Regardless, Allan ignored this. The second immediate cause is that Allan was wearing ear defenders at the time of the incident making him vulnerable for the accident. The third immediate cause is that the forklift truck’s flashing warning lights were loosely connected and may have been dysfunctional at the time. The warning lights could have alerted Alan to keep way and stay at a safe distance despite having been wearing ear muffs. The fourth immediate cause is that the truck driver must have been driving at a relatively higher speed than recommended within the warehouse as explained the order of the occurrences. At a lower speed the gearbox could have less likely to fly-off when emergency brakes were applied. The last but not the least immediate cause of the accident is that Allan should have just walked into store-man’s office; rather than shouting for him at a distance and in ear muffs.

            The underlying/root causes of the incident are as follows. The key root cause is lack of effective communication in the organisation. There was communication breakdown between the supervisor of the Repair Department and Allan who was also working in the repair shop. Proper coordinated information should have seen Allan visiting the Ready-to-Use store when the gearbox had been already delivered by the forklift driver.

Prevention of Further Injury to Employees

            The following strategies may help prevent further injury to employees. The first strategy is to educate all staff about workplace safety issues. Secondly, all employees should be aware about movement restrictions; in other words, they should not enter prohibited areas without authorisation. The other strategy is to replace old shelve with strong certified shelving units. In addition, there need to be written schedules for processes and activities that need to be approved by the Group Safety Adviser before such processed or actions are undertaken. For example, the Group Safety Adviser should be notified in advance about planned shifting or transportation of hazardous chemicals. In turn, the Group Safety Adviser should inform departmental supervisors and individual employees about activities or actions that may result into hazardous outcomes. The Group Safety Adviser will also develop and introduce safety checklists in every department to be filled on a daily basis. Besides, all supervisors will be required to report any safety issues and accidents to the within 6 hours of occurrence for immediate action to be taken. Departmental and unit supervisors should also be encouraged to identify and report potential risks before accidents occur. Lastly, but not the least, the forklift driver need to be informed about the new changes in policy that will require him to drive at a speed of 4m/s. He should not exceed that speed.

Meeting Regulatory and Notification/Reporting Requirements

RIDDOR, COMAH, and CDM

            The accident occurred in the light maintenance and chemical storage depots. The incident should be reported accordingly. Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) puts duties on employers, people in control of premises, and the self-employed to report certain occupational diseases, serious workplace accidents, and specified dangerous occurrences (Health and Safety Executive 2013). In this case, the High Risk Manufacturing Company, the Group Safety Adviser, and/or the Repair Department supervisor should report the incidence. In accordance with RIDDOR specified injuries to workers and dangerous occurrences should be reported (Health and Safety Executive 2013). In that case, Allan’s injury and spillage of sodium peroxide should also be reported as a dangerous occurrence.

            Similarly, the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) requires the company in question to ensure that necessary measures are taken to prevent major incidences involving dangerous substances. In addition, consequences to the environment and people when accident occurs should be minimised. The company manufactures, stores, and transports dangerous chemicals such ammonium nitrate, oxidising agents, sodium chlorate, and acids; hence is subject to COMAH. The incident should be reported to COMAH (Health and Safety Executive 2019_a). The Construction, Design and Management (CDM) regulations 2015 requires the company to report on the number of workers and their qualifications to be determined on whether the company have been having right people for the right jobs (Health and Safety Executive 2015).

Compliance with Health and Safety at Work Regulations

            Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is the primary legislation in that makes occupational safety and health as mandatory requirement in Great Britain. The Act allowed for creation of enforcing authorities such as the Health and Safety Executive and other local authorities. The planned demolition of walls of the long term store and its expansion thereafter (refer to Appendix 1) should be reported to CDM for approval. The safety and health should be improved, but not hindered, in planned changes. The internal contractor to be appointed should have qualified designers in accordance with CDM regulations 2015. Selection of construction materials should be free of cancer causing agents such as asbestos as prohibited by CDM regulations 2015 (Health and Safety Executive 2015).

            Since the company plans to double production and storage of hazardous chemicals, it should notify COMAH first on the following details. Essential information on the address and the name of the company, position and name of the person in charge of the establishment (Group Safety Adviser), and sufficient details to identify the dangerous substances as well as categories of the dangerous substances. A description of the proposed activity (as shown in appendix 1) of the expansion and details of the immediate environment liable to aggravate the consequences or to cause a major accident should also be presented to COMAH (Health and Safety Executive 2019_a).

Reducing Potential for Compensation Claims and Liaising with Insurers

            The organisation need to first handle the case at hand to the potential for compensation claims. Allan’s medical needs and care expenses should be catered for by the company to reduce the chance of making a decision to sue the company later on. Apart from caring for Allan, the company should put in place simple internal procedures that will make different departments to be accountable for employee’s compensation expenses. The approach will help reduce the severity and frequency of injuries; thus, creating a win-win situation for the company and the employees. It will lead to reduction of workers’ compensation premiums as well as reduced claims (Buckley and Associates 2019).

            In addition, the Group Safety Adviser and departmental supervisors should maintain frequent direct communication with employees. All employees are potential individuals for compensation benefits. However, direct communication helps employees realise safety goals; thus, low risk of injuries. In addition, the end result of reducing injuries can be achieved by listening to employees on how jobs can be performed more safely (Buckley and Associates 2019).

Safe Construction and Demolition Policy for the Work Proposed

            Demolition of the two walls as shown in appendix 1 should be done in a safe way. Demolition planning should be informed by potential risk of breakage/spillage of hazardous chemical agents stored on shelves. In that case use of demolition explosives is out of question in this case. The Health and Safety Executive (2019_b) affirms that all demolitions, structural alterations, and dismantling must be carefully planned and executed in a manner that prevents danger/ hazard by practitioners with relevant skills, experience and knowledge. Demolition will hence be carried out through the use of an excavator; however, hazardous agents should be cleared out of the long term store before demolition ensues. Other hazardous materials such as crystalline silica, asbestos, flammable liquids, acids, potentially explosive materials, and unidentified drums/containers must be cleared off from the demotion site before demolition ensues (Health and Safety Executive 2019_b). The Group Safety Advisor should identify and appoint competent person who will supervise the demolition work as required by the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (Safety Matters 2019).

Advice on the Legal Implications of Hazardous Agent Volume Increases

Increased volume of production and storage of hazardous agents should comply with government regulations as contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. The lesson from an explosion in Humberside in 1974 at Flixborough chemical works calls for caution. The planned expansion should not result in production and storage of hazardous agents such as ammonium nitrate beyond the safe limits (Gov.UK 2019). Demolition and construction plan, as shown in appendix 1, should be presented to COMAH competent authority for evaluation and approval (Health and Safety Executive 2019_a).  The Group Safety Adviser should seek guidance and technical advice from COMAH on the risks presented by planned expansion on the immediate environment, humans, and the ecosystem at large (Gov.UK 2019; Health and Safety Executive 2019). COMAH will provide advice on licensed explosive sites, licensed ports, and licensed deports (Health and Safety Executive 2019_a). In addition, the Group Safety Advisor should consult with the relevant authorities on whether the existing chemicals are stored in accordance with compatibility criteria. Separation, isolation, and segregation guidelines should be followed depending on the total quantities stored, severity of hazard, and size of the storage facilities (Loughborough University 2017). 

Action Plan

dow

Conclusion

            The accident cannot be said to have been caused or blamed to a specific entity/person. Neither the company, forklift driver, nor Allan can be blamed as the primary cause of the incident. Therefore, Allan does not have sufficient legal grounds and argument to sue the company for the injury. However, the company has a moral obligation to cater for costs of hospitalisation and other associated healthcare services. The incident needs to be reported to RIDDOR and a competent COMAH competent authority. In addition, a competent COMAH authority need to be informed about planned demolition and expansion of the long term store to allow for increased production and storage of hazardous substances.