FV2102 Assignment Brief

Assignment Details
Consider the situation described below together with Figure 1 and Documents 1, 2 & 3 and
answer three questions that follow. Any reasonable assumptions that are consistent with
the situation described may be made in answering the questions. Any such assumptions
must be clearly stated.
Case Study
Acme Hydrocarbons Ltd is a medium sized specialty chemical manufacturer owned by a
large multinational group, Worldwide Chemicals Incorporated. Of the 150 personnel
working on the companys site 40 are employed by contractors. The contractors are mostly
long-term and cover specific functions such as catering, security and maintenance. The
site uses large quantities of cooling water for its manufacturing process and operates three
small cooling towers serviced by 10 million litres surface water reservoir. One of the
cooling towers is little used but is available on standby. The cooling system is operated
and maintained by a specialist contractor, Flow Systems Ltd. The site does not require a
license under the Control of Major Hazards Regulations 1999 as amended operates
continuously, on a three shift system but closes for an annual holiday during the first two
weeks of July each year. A plan of the site is shown in Figure 1.
The Site Manager, Ivor Plant has recently received a formal letter from a local HSE
Inspector following a routine visit to the site. Mr Plant was absent on sick leave on the day
of the visit and the Inspector was shown around the site by the Chief Engineer, Fred
Cross. Due to the nature of the Inspectors concerns, Mr Plant sent a memo (Document 1)
to your line manager, Patrick Smith (Worldwide Chemicals UK Health Advisor) who has
asked you to liaise with Mr Plant and offer appropriate advice. Attached to the memo is a
copy of the letter from the HSE Inspector (Document 2)
Questions
1) Explain with reference to relevant case law the statutory responsibility placed on
Acme Hydrocarbons Ltd and the Contractor Flow Systems Ltd with respect to Item
1 of the HSE Letter (Document 2)
2) Critically analyse the data provided in Document 3 and with reference to other
information provided and researched, draw conclusions to the current risk of
exposure to legonnela bacteria.
3) Draft a reply to the HSE Inspectors letter (including an outline plan of actions the
company intends to take) that is likely to convince the Inspector that no further
enforcement is necessary.

Memo
To
P Pending Health & safety Advisor
From: I Plant
3rd June 2011

Document 1

Pat, further to my telephone call, please find attached a copy of the letter recieved
yesterday from the local HSE office. I have spoken to Fred Cross and the concerns of the
Inspector relate mainly to Item 1 of the letter and we need your expert advice. Quite
frankly we are a bit of a loss on this one. I thought COSHH was about chemicals and I am
uncertain what relevance this has to legionnaires disease. Also we do not have copies of
HSE publications on legionnairres disease and I know little about their content or whether
they are particularly relevant in this case. As you know the operation and maintenance of
the cooling system was contracted out to Flow Systems Ltd in December last year under
the terms and conditions which clearly state that this function is ring fenced thereby
removing us from responsibility. At least that was my understanding.
I am obviously worried about the threat of enforcement action and would appreciate it if
you could attach some priority to this. You suggested to me that a member of your staff
might be keen to look nto this further and would draft a rsponse which I could send to the
HSE Inspector. I look forward to meeting them next week.
Document 2
Dear Mr Plant
Re Inspections of Premises Acme Hydrocarbons Ltd
I refer to my inspection carried out on the 28th May 2011. I would like to bring the following
matter to your attention.
1) The cooling system for your intermediates plant in my opinion, has not recieved a
suitable and sufficient risk assessment under Regulation 6 of the Control of
Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH Regulations 2002) with respect to
exposure to biological agents. Principally legionella bacteria. Records also indicate
that no notifaction has been made to the local authority in accordance with the
provisions of the Notification of Cooling Towers and Evaporative Condensers
Regulations 1992. I draw your attention in particular to the varies publications
available to you through the HSEA which I believe would be helpful to you. These
are particularly relevant to the discrepancies found in your water treatment records
observed during the visit, which belive constitute a breach of Regulation 9 of
COSHH 2002
I trust that you will arrange for the matters to be resolved as a matter of urgency and that
you will inform me by the 30th June 2011 of the actions you have taken or propose to take.
Consideration of further enforcement action will be subject to the suitability of such actions.

Document 3
Extract From Water Plant Chemical Treatment Log
Specifications
Reservoir capacity
10 million litres
AV. Circulation rate
48,000 litres per day
Operating parameters
Feed water 4 to 10 degrees centigrade
Return water 15 to 18 degrees centigrade
Recommended water treatment dose
Water softener 10 parts per million each week
Biocide 4 parts per million each fortnight
Water samples taken and sent to lab monthly
Date
Circulation Cooling Water Water softener
Biocide Comments
Operator
Rate
Return Temp
Added
Added
(liters)
16/1/11
1680
16
75
20
Satisfactory
SC
13/1/11
1680
15
75
20
Ok
SC
20/1/11
1685
16
75
20
Drift eliminator
SC
damaged
27/1/11
1675
15
75
20
Ok lab sample
SC
taken
3/2/11
1680
16
75
20
Cleaned filters
SC
10/2/11
1660
15
75
20
Ok
SC
24/2/11
1645
16
150
40
Ok Lab sample
SC
taken
3/3/11
1640
17
75
40
Ok
SC
17/3/11
1625
18
150
40
Drift eliminator
SC
not fixed
7/4/11
1585
19
150
40
Ok
SC
21/4/11
1560
21
150
40
Ok
SC
5/5/11
1525
20
150
Order bio
SC
12/5/11
Bio not arrived
19/5/11
1510
21
150
Green algae on
SC
reservoir
26/5/11
1490
22
150
40
Pump tripping
SC

Remember:

You must answer the question set

You must keep to the word limit of 1,500 words
You must demonstrate that you have met the learning outcomes
As you construct and present your work, consider the assessment criteria

Referencing
All academic writing must be referenced. If you use other peoples ideas without
referencing them you are plagiarising their work.

Either:
Use the Harvard system of referencing within your text. This will take the form: surname,
year of publication, page number, and is enclosed within brackets, for example (Bradley
1998, 277). At the end of your work you should provide an alphabetical list of all the works
you cite.
4

Plagiarism
The use of work produced for another purpose by you, working alone or with others, must
be acknowledged.
Copying from the works of another person (including Internet sources) constitutes
plagiarism, which is an offence within the Universitys regulations. Brief quotations from the
published or unpublished works of another person, suitably attributed, are acceptable. You
must always use your own words except when using properly referenced quotations.
You are advised when taking notes from books or other sources to make notes in your
own words, in a selective and critical way.
Assessment Criteria
For more information please see the marking guide at Appendix 1
Appendix 1

Marks for the report will be allocated in the following manner:

Knowledge understanding and application of health and safety

20%

legislation
Appropriate and correct use of case law

12%

Analysis of data and appreciation of the meaning and solution

40%

Written Communication skills demonstrated in the response to the

20%

HSE

Presentation

8%

Academic Level 5
Classification

Grade

Outstanding

75
100%

Student
Relevance

Knowledge

Analysis

Argument &
Structure

25%
Directly relevant
to case. Able to
address the
implications,
assumptions
and nuances of
the case.

20%
Makes effective
use of a
comprehensive
range of theory
and practice
knowledge.

10%
Adequate
analysis of the
material
resulting in clear
and logical
conclusions.

Adequate
analytical
treatment, with
occasional
descriptive or
narrative
passages which
lack clear
analytical
purpose.

Relevance to
practice is
thoroughly and
explicitly
addressed.

Good

6474%

Directly relevant
to case.
Is able to
demonstrate
effective practice
relevance.

Is able to
manipulate and
transfer some
material to
demonstrate a
grasp of some of
the themes,
questions and
issues in both
theory and
practice.
Makes good use
of ample
knowledge of a
fair range of
relevant
theoretical and
practice related
material.
Evidence of an
appreciation of
its significance is
apparent.

Above
Average

5763%

Generally
addresses the
case, sometimes
addresses
irrelevant issues.
Relevance to
practice
effectively
addressed, may
be implicit in
places.

Average

5056%

Generally
addresses the
case, sometimes
addresses
irrelevant issues.
Demonstrates
the ability to
consider issues
effectively,
although does
not always do
so.
Relevance to
practice is
addressed, but
may be implicit
in places.

Ample
knowledge of a
fair range of
relevant
theoretical and
practice related
material.
Intermittent
evidence of an
appreciation of
its significance.

Adequate
knowledge of a
limited range of
relevant
theoretical and
practice related
material with
intermittent
evidence of an
appreciation of
its significance.

Originality

Presentation

20%
Coherent and
logically
structured,
making use of
an appropriate
mode of
argument and/or
theoretical
model.

10%
Contains some
distinctive or
independent
thinking.
Beginning to
formulate an
independent
position.

15%
Well written with
standard
spelling and
syntax.

Generally
coherent and
logically
constructed.

Sound work that

expresses a
personal
position, often in
broad terms.

Competently
written with only
minor lapses
from standard
syntax and
spelling.

Uses an
appropriate
mode of
argument or
theoretical
model.

Conclusions are
clear.
Intermittent
evidence of
sound analytical
ability.
Some
description and
narrative but still
able to draw
clear and logical
conclusions in
the main.

Some evidence
of analytical
ability.
Intermittent
passages of
descriptive or
narrative
material, which
lacks clear
analytical
purpose.
Conclusions are
not always clear
and logical.

Adequate
attempt to
construct a
coherent
argument, but
may suffer loss
of focus and
consistency.
Issues at stake
may lack clarity.

Reasonable to
attempt to
construct an
argument is
evident.
Occasionally
lacks clarity and
coherence.

Some attempt to
challenge
standard views
and engage with
alternative
views.

Generally sound
work that
expresses a
personal
position, often in
broad terms and
tends towards
uncritical
conformity to
one or more
standard views
of the topic.

Largely
derivative.
Attempts to
present a
personal view,
but only in broad
terms.
Is largely
uncritical and
conforms to one
or more
standard views.

Style is lucid
utilising an
appropriate and
error free format
and
bibliographical
apparatus.

Style is readable
with acceptable
and generally
error-free format
and
bibliographical
apparatus.
Generally
competent
writing.
Intermittent
lapses from
standard
spelling and
syntax.
Presentation is
generally
acceptable as is
the format and
bibliographical
status.
Generally
competent
writing although
intermittent
lapses from
standard syntax
and spelling and
pose occasional
obstacles for the
reader.
Format and
bibliography is
generally error
free and
acceptable.

Below
Average

4149%

Some degree of
irrelevance to
the case.

Basic
understanding of
a limited range
of relevant
theoretical and
practice related
material.

Largely
descriptive or
narrative in style
with limited
evidence of
analytical
capability.

Some attempt to
construct an
argument is
evident but it
lacks in
sufficient clarity
and coherence.

Almost wholly
derivative.

Relevance to
practice tends
towards
superficiality and
largely implicit.

Little
appreciation of
its significance

Conclusions are
not always clear
or logical

Issues at stake
are only vaguely
stated.

Wholly uncritical
and conforming
to one or more
standard views.

Some significant
degree of
irrelevance to
the case is
common.

A limited
understanding of
a narrow range
of relevant
theoretical and
practice related
material.

Heavy
dependence on
description
and/or narrative.

A basic
argument is
evident but
tends to be
supported by
assertion and
lacks proper
development.

Almost wholly
derivative.

Little
appreciation of
its significance
to practice.

Analysis is
superficial and
sparse.

Superficial
consideration of
the issues.

Bare Pass

40%

Only the most

obvious issues
are addressed at
a superficial
level and in
unchallenging
terms.
Relevance to
practice is
superficially
addressed and
rarely made
explicit.

Fail

0-39%

Relevance to the
case is
intermittent or
missing.
The topic is
reduced to its
vaguest and
least challenging
terms.

No personal
view is
adequately
formulated

Clearly lacks
awareness of
the significance
of knowledge.

Lack of basic
knowledge in
either or both
theory and
practice
necessary for an
understanding of
the topic.

Paraphrase is
common.

Clear and logical

conclusions are
sparse

Inadequate
and/or often
inaccurate
description and
paraphrase.
Evidence of
analysis is
lacking.

Relevance to
practice is barely
considered or
not at all.

The writers
contribution
rarely goes
beyond
simplifying
paraphrase.

Coherence and
clarity are
evident only
intermittently.

No evidence of
personal
thought.

Little evidence of
coherent
argument.

No evidence of
personal
thought.

There is a lack
of development
and the work
may be
repetitive and/or
thin.

Cursory
paraphrase or
quotation of
others.

Style of
presentation,
syntax, spelling
and format all
pose obstacles
for the reader.
Nevertheless,
meaning is clear
and
bibliographical
apparatus
acceptable.

Style of
presentation
makes reading
difficult.
Deficiencies in
spelling, syntax
of format impact
significantly
upon clarity.
Bibliographical
apparatus is
acceptable.

Poorly written
with numerous
deficiencies in
syntax, spelling,
expression and
presentation.
The writer may
achieve clarity (if
at all) only by
using simplistic
or repetitious
style.
Bibliographical
apparatus is
unacceptable.