Risk Assessment Law and Regulations, Case Study Example

Law related to risk is important for businesses. Without compliance, companies can face prosecution, fines, and loss of reputation. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration defines legal requirements for using personal protective equipment at the workplace. The main purpose of the regulation is to protect employees and ensure that safety at the workplace is maintained. The below review will examine the different aspects of requirements and the application of the law.

Requirements

The employer, according to the regulation 1910.132(d)(1) needs to assess workplace environments and the hazards present during normal operation. Further, it is the employer’s responsibility to not only address hazards but risks as well. While risk assessment is necessary, companies also need to prioritize their risk management procedure and classify different hazards based on severity and likelihood of occurrence.

The law also states that – according to 1910.132(d)(2)  – it is the employer’s responsibility to verify that adequate hazard assessment was carried out in the workplace, and the assessments need to be documented, dated, and – based on needs – updated on a regular basis.

Once the company has identified potential hazards, it is their responsibility again to provide risk related training for employees, document the training, develop a risk assessment and risk management policy, safety guidelines, and evaluations. Finally, the management of the company has to ensure that suitable personal protective equipment is used and it is checked for defects on a regular basis.

Eye and face protection. The law states that employers need to consider those workers who already have

prescription lenses when selecting protective eye wear, and it is compulsory to provide eye protection for workers who are exposed to dirt, chemicals, and fumes.

Head protection. Helmets are recommended for preventing injuries caused by falling objects, bumping, or accidental head contact.

Foot and leg protection. It is advised that these are provided for employees when there is a risk that objects would roll onto employees’ feet, in hot or wet environments, and when there is an electrical hazard.

Hand and arm protection. According to the regulation, hazards that can be handled by protective gloves include chemicals handling, grip protection for avoiding slips, or handling hot or cold materials.

Body Protection. Workers who are exposed to extreme temperatures or are at risk of splashes need to wear protective equipment. Further, some protective clothing materials can prevent injuries by sharp objects, and they are needed when handling hazardous chemicals.

Hearing Protection. Employers are required to assess noise levels and record the measurements in dB in the hazard assessment document. Excessive noise can be related to operating machinery, or other sources, but it is the employee’s responsibility to ensure that one individual worker is exposed to excessive noise levels for the shortest period of time possible continuously.

Application

Protective equipment regulations are mostly relevant to the construction and manufacturing industries. Working at heights, the risk of falling objects, and exposure to chemicals usually occurs in industrial environments. However, little is said about protective equipment that should be used by workers who are in offices, or are in the agriculture. This is because personal injury protection is less relevant to these occupations. Still, some health and safety regulations exist that protect the health of office or call center workers. As an example: making sure that computer screens and lights are regularly checked and do not cause damage to the sight of the workers is important. Ensuring that office workers get a break from the computer, and call center workers are not required to use headphones for longer than necessary is just as important as protecting physical workers.

Strengths and Weaknesses of he Regulations

One of the strengths of the regulation is that it clearly states the legal requirements that the employer needs to comply with. It highlights the importance of training employees, testing equipment, making it compulsory to wear the protective equipment. The OSHA manual (2003) has a section for each type of protection, listing the potential solutions for each hazard. It also provides guidelines for maintenance, sizing, and resistance of each materials. However, it is possible that companies complete the administrative work and create an internal policy for managing risks at the workplace, but they have a problem with implementation. From the text of the regulation, it is hard to determine where the responsibility of the employer ends, and where the personal liability of the employee starts. The question is: what happens if the company completes the risk assessment, provides employees with training, the equipment, and makes it compulsory to wear PPE, but the worker forgets about the requirements? Is there a compulsory supervision that relates to companies, and do managers need to appoint safety officers to check protective equipment? Are there any recommended methods and policies that can protect the company’s interest and make enforcement within the organization simpler and more effective?

The OSHA guidance states that extensive help is available for managers free of charge. It seems like completing the required steps to comply with industry and legal requirements needs expert input. The company will either need to employ a work safety officer full time, or a person needs to be appointed who completes the risk assessment and liaises with OSHA. While the documentation provided for companies includes a “Safety and Health Management Guidelines” section, which refers to some voluntary regulations that companies can implement into their internal policies, it seems that complying with the regulations requires an extensive knowledge of the processes carried out by workers, and the related regulations.

Suggested Improvements

Future versions of the policy should highlight employees’ responsibilities upon signing the work contract. The law should tell employees exactly how they should protect their reputation and operations by ensuring that workers comply with internal safety regulations and external policies. As Farooqui et al. (2009) confirm: “Research shows that the major causes of construction accidents are related to human behavior, difficult work site conditions, inadequate use of protective equipment, and poor safety management”. While highlighting the responsibilities of employers is an important aspect of implementation, little is said about delegation of responsibilities. Simply stating that the “employer” is responsible for worker safety is not an adequate way of addressing the issue.

It is recommended that the legislation crated by OSHA defines the following:

• how often does the company need to complete hazard assessments?
• recommendations or requirements for equipment checks
• the need for on-site spot checks for employees
• the criteria for the need of updating internal safety procedures, i.e. – different projects or work environments
• clarifying the training requirements regarding the correct use of PPE
• responsibility delegation (worker, safety manager, etc).

Conclusion

According to the study completed by Farooqui et al. (2009, p. 7), 58 percent of workers who did not wear protective equipment at work sites, despite regulations did so because “it is flat out uncomfortable or does not fit right”. Many people also complained from excessive heat or reduced productivity. This indicates that the greatest task of employers is not to assess hazards and create policies, but to convince construction workers about the benefits and the necessity or PPE. While making sure that workers comply with the regulation, there is one gap in the regulation that is related to employers. Enforcement of the law is not covered by the regulation, hence, based on the findings of the research completed by Farooqui et al. (2009), 18 percent of those not wearing PPE said that it was not enforced by the employer, and 24 percent claimed that it was not available in the right quantity or size. This implies that a company can be fully compliant, have a policy to handle hazards and risks of personal injuries, but they are not legally required to enforce the policies. The above areas need to be addressed by the future versions of the 1910 Occupational Safety and Health Standards.

It is also recommended that OSHA creates an open discourse with construction industry safety experts, as well as company representatives in order to improve and clarify the text and the regulations. Addressing personal and collective responsibility is important to ensure that creating a policy and signing risk assessment forms does not count as “being compliant”: caring for the well-being of the workers, putting spot checks and enforcement tools in place in order to protect the interest of all stakeholders is.

References

Farooqui, R., Ahmed, S., Azhar, S. (2009) Addressing the Issue of Compliance with Personal Protective Equipment on Construction Worksites: A Workers’ Perspective. Retrieved from http://ascpro0.ascweb.org/archives/cd/2009/paper/CPRT176002009.pdf

Occupational Safety and Health Standards. (1970) Personal Protective Equipment. 1910.132 Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=9777&p_table=STANDARDS

OSHA Guidelines. (2003) Personal Protective Equipment. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3151.pdf