When we review the management of Carter’s Cleaning Company, it becomes evident that the business may face several challenges, ranging from hazardous chemicals and risks of explosions due to a lack of training, increased dissatisfaction among Carter Cleaning Company employees, management and communication issues, involving Machineries being motorized by high pressure steam, chemical vapors formed during the process and utilization of caustic chemicals for the purpose of cleaning etc.
Carter’s Cleaning Company makes use of highly motorized pressure steams thus resulting in Risks of boil over if high steam is injected.
The boiling chemical solvent may perhaps explode.
Chemically precarious waste is frequently being produced.
Reluctance of identifying workforce to wear safety goggles.
Hydro fluoric acid to eliminate rust stains are hazardous.
Safety goggles are uncomfortable as they may become dirty easily and diminish visibility.
The Employees: Hazardous chemicals produced by high pressure machines may affect the health and safety of the employees with the increased risks of explosions.
The Government Agencies: As they are Responsible for the public and regulation of industries, the government agencies will be concerned with establishing rules and regulations for the safety and well-being of the society, by placing strict management on such hazardous firms.
Waste management firms: Concerned with the appropriate disposal of such hazardous waste.
Laundry Owners: Concerned with the safety of employees, by establishing specific safety rules in the firm.
OPTIONS TO RESOLVE PROBLEMS:
Carry out risk assessments of any laborundertakings including those processes involving the precarious substances.
Pros:It is a prerequisite of the risk assessment that the danger from hazardous chemicals is either abolished or reduced to a minimum. (Fire and Explosion, 2002)This has reflective consequences for both the procedure industry and examiners involved in emerging new procedures. (Fire and Explosion, 2002)Hazardous chemicals or procedures will be substituted by a reduced amount of hazardous alternatives. (Edwards v The National Coal Board, 1949).Process intensification has the prospective to be a substantial influence in the employment of intrinsic safety. (Edwards v The National Coal Board, 1949).The number of development procedures will be lessened, leading to less transfer processes.(Management of Health and Safety at Work,1999)Many happenings are associated with procedure transients such as start-up and shutdown. These are lessened during unceasing and intensified procedures.(Management of Health and Safety at Work,1999)For chemical reactions, the heat progression will be much less adjustable than in batch reactions, and will be easier to regulate.(Management of Health and Safety at Work,1999).
Cons: In the determination towards newer procedures, companies should be vigilant to guarantee that new and different hazards are not generated.(Management of Health and Safety at Work,1999)The procedures may be more multifaceted or call for more composite controller systems and security may suffer.(Management of Health and Safety at Work,1999)Even though security can benefit from procedure intensification, it is improbable to be the main driver in most circumstances. Acceptance will be grounded upon additional influences such as abridged capital costs and better produces.(Management of Health and Safety at Work,1999). Conflict can rise between PI and certain intrinsic security practices. (Management of Health and Safety at Work, 1999). The procedures may be more composite or call for a more complex regulator scheme. (Management of Health and Safety at Work, 1999)It is only once this has been completed that firms can move on to additional “add on” safety procedures to either evade or regulate these hazards. (Fire and Explosion, 2002)
Run the essential measures to eradicate or diminish the risks of the hazardous chemicals;
Pros: To increase responsiveness, together with any safety concerns, the HSE and the Department of Trade and Industry and a number of firms may inaugurate precise rules and procedures to evade such hazardous complications.(Fire and Explosion, 2002)
Cons: The organizations have to meet every six months and permit the members of the HSE to talk over the latest progresses, their remunerations and possible problematic areas. (Fire and Explosion, 2002)
3. Make available equipment and techniques to deal with tragedies. (Edwards v The National Coal Board, 1949)
Pros: It may be easier to project a less significant vessel to encompass the extreme pressure of any dependable explosion, so that additional protecting devices such as alternative relief systems are not compulsory.(The Dangerous Substances and Explosives Atmospheres Regulations,2002)One approach that the equipment of such hazardous substances, and the significances of a procedure failure, may be considerably reduced.(The Dangerous Substances and Explosives Atmospheres Regulations,2002)
Cons: Some machinery necessitates high-energy contributions, for example, from microwaves, high voltages or electro-attractive radiation, or requires to be worked at higher temperatures and weights. In spite of the fact that aptitude connected with the treatment of high-vitality sources is available in a few firms, the new innovation might likewise carry less conventional gatherings into connection with this risk. (The Dangerous Substances and Explosives Atmospheres Regulations, 2002). In a few cases, process equipment may be more unpredictable with a higher potential for gear disappointment or administrator blunder. (The Dangerous Substances and Explosives Atmospheres Regulations, 2002)Although the prompt equipment can be low, the throughput may be high. It is essential to think about how possible it is of "off spec" inventory being exchanged and collecting quickly downstream. Also, where it is necessary, suitable investigation and control measures will be needed. (The Dangerous Substances and Explosives Atmospheres Regulations, 2002)
1. Edwards v The National Coal Board (1949), 1 All ER 743.
2. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (1999), SI 1999/3242, HMSO 1999,ISBN 0 11 085625 2.
3. Management of Health and Safety at Work(1999), Management of Health and Safety at WorkRegulations (1999) Approved Code of Practice L21 (second edition), HSE Books 2000,ISBN 0 7176 2488 9.
4. The Dangerous Substances and Explosives Atmospheres Regulations (2002), SI 2002 No. 2776, ISBN 0 11 042957-5.
5. Fire and Explosion (2002) — How Safe is Your Workplace? A short guide to the DangerousSubstances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002, HSE leaflet INDG370 12/02.