Search This Blog

Tuesday, March 3, 2020

Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (U.K.)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
Long titleAn Act to make further provision for securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work, for protecting others against risks to health or safety in connection with the activities of persons at work, for controlling the keeping and use and preventing the unlawful acquisition, possession and use of dangerous substances, and for controlling certain emissions into the atmosphere; to make further provision with respect to the employment medical advisory service; to amend the law relating to building regulations, and the Building (Scotland) Act 1959; and for connected purposes.
Citation1974 c 37
Introduced bySecretary of State for Employment Michael Foot 22 March 1974
Territorial extentEngland and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, offshore
Dates
Royal assent31 July 1974
Commencementfrom 1 October 1974
Repealed
Other legislation
Amended by
Repealed by
Relates toEnvironmental Protection Act 1990
Railways Act 2005
Status: Current legislation
Text of statute as originally enacted
Text of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.

The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (c 37) (abbreviated to "HSWA 1974", "HASWA" or "HASAWA") is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that as of 2011 defines the fundamental structure and authority for the encouragement, regulation and enforcement of workplace health, safety and welfare within the United Kingdom

The Act defines general duties on employers, employees, contractors, suppliers of goods and substances for use at work, persons in control of work premises, and those who manage and maintain them, and persons in general. The Act enables a broad regime of regulation by government ministers through Statutory Instrument which has, in the years since 1974, generated an extensive system of specific provisions for various industries, disciplines and risks. It established a system of public supervision through the creation of the Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety Executive, since merged, and bestows extensive enforcement powers, ultimately backed by criminal sanctions extending to unlimited fines and imprisonment for up to two years. Further, the Act provides a critical interface with the law of the European Union on workplace health and safety.

Background

Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity Barbara Castle introduced an Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill in 1970 but the debate around the Bill soon generated a belief that it did not address fundamental issues of workplace safety. In the same year, the Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed into United States federal law. As a result, a committee of inquiry chaired by Lord Robens was established towards the end of Harold Wilson's first government. When the Conservative Party came to power following the 1970 United Kingdom general election, they gave Castle's Bill no parliamentary time, preferring to wait for the Robens Report which was published in 1972. Conservative Secretary of State for Employment William Whitelaw introduced a new Bill on 28 January 1974 but Labour were returned to power in the February 1974 United Kingdom general election and the Bill again lost. The new Labour administration finally secured the passage of a Bill that year.

Structure of the Act

The Act lays down general principles for the management of health and safety at work, enabling the creation of specific requirements through regulations enacted as Statutory Instruments or through a code of practice. For example, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH), the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) at Work Regulations 1992 and the Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 are all Statutory Instruments that lay down detailed requirements. It was also the intention of the Act to rationalise the existing complex and confused system of legislation (section 1(2)). 

Since the accession of the UK to the European Union (EU) in 1972, much health and safety regulation has needed to comply with the law of the European Union and Statutory Instruments under the Act have been enacted in order to implement EU directives. In particular, the Act is the principal means of complying with Directive 89/391/EEC on health and safety at work. Further important changes to section 6, duties in respect of articles and substances used at work, were made by the Consumer Protection Act 1987 in order to implement the Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC.

Objectives

Section 1 sets out the objectives of the Act as:
  • Securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work;
  • Protecting persons, other than persons at work, against risks to health or safety arising out of or in connection with the activities of persons at work;
  • Controlling the keeping and use of explosive or highly flammable or otherwise dangerous substances, and generally preventing the unlawful acquisition, possession and use of such substances.
As originally enacted, there was a fourth objective:
  • Controlling the emission into the atmosphere of noxious or offensive substances;
but this provision was repealed when control of emissions was brought under a uniform scheme of legislation by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In general, the other provisions about emissions in the original Act have subsequently been repealed.

General duties

Duties of employers

Section 2 states that "It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his/her employees" (emphasis added), and in particular that such a duty extends to:
  • Provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health;
  • Arrangements for ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances;
  • Provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees;
  • So far as is reasonably practicable as regards any place of work under the employer's control, the maintenance of it in a condition that is safe and without risks to health and the provision and maintenance of means of access to and egress from it that are safe and without such risks;
  • Provision and maintenance of a working environment for his employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health, and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work.
Section 3 states the duty of all employers and self-employed persons to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable the safety of persons other than employees, for example, contractors, visitors, the general public and clients. 

Employers must also prepare and keep under review a safety policy and to bring it to the attention of his employees (s.2(2)). Trade unions may appoint safety representatives and demand safety committees. The representatives have a right to be consulted on safety issues (ss.2(4), (6) and (7)). Since 1996 employers have had a duty to consult all employees on safety matters. No employer may charge an employee for provision of health and safety arrangements (s.9). 

The Act does not apply to domestic servants (s.51).

Duties of persons having control of premises

Section 4 defines a duty of occupiers of premises, for example commercial landlords, managers of serviced office accommodation, and also maintenance contractors, towards people who use those premises for work. Those premises, and the means of entry and exit, must be, as far as reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health.

Duties towards articles used at work

An "article for use at work" is any (s.53(1)):
  • Plant designed for use or operation, whether exclusively or not, by persons at work, and
  • Article designed for use as a component in any such plant.
Section 6(1) defines the duty of any person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any article for use at work to:
  • Ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the article is so designed and constructed that it will be safe and without risks to health at all times when it is being set, used, cleaned or maintained by a person at work;
  • Perform such testing and examination as may be necessary to ensure safety;
  • Take such steps as are necessary to secure that persons supplied with the article are provided with adequate information about the use for which the article is designed, or has been tested, and about any conditions necessary to ensure that it will be safe and without risks to health at all times, including when it is being dismantled or disposed of; and
  • Take such steps as are necessary to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons are provided with all such revisions of information as are necessary by reason of its becoming known that anything gives rise to a serious risk to health or safety.
A person may rely on testing done by others so long as it is reasonable for him to do so (s.6(6)). A person may rely on a written undertaking by another person to ensure the safety of an item (s.6(8)) Designers and manufacturers must carry out research to identify and eliminate risks, as far as reasonably practicable (s.6(2)). Erectors and installers have responsibilities to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that an article is so erected and installed that it will be safe and without risks to health at all times when it is being set, used, cleaned or maintained by a person at work (s.6(3)).

Section 6 was extended by the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to cover fairground equipment and its use by persons at work and enjoyment by members of the public.

Duties towards substances used at work

Section 6(4) defines the duty of any person who manufactures, imports or supplies any substance for use at work to:
  • Ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the substance will be safe and without risks to health at all times when it is being used, handled, processed, stored or transported by a person at work or in work premises;
  • Perform such testing and examination as may be necessary to ensure safety;
  • Take such steps as are necessary to secure that persons supplied with the substance are provided with adequate information about any risks to health or safety to which the inherent properties of the substance may give rise, about the results of any relevant tests which have been carried out on or in connection with the substance, and about any conditions necessary to ensure that the substance will be safe and without risks to health and when the substance is disposed of; and
  • Take such steps as are necessary to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons are provided with all such revisions of information as are necessary by reason of its becoming known that anything gives rise to a serious risk to health or safety.
Similar to the regulations concerning articles used at work, a person may also rely on testing or written undertaking by another person to ensure the safety of substances used at work. The duty to identify and eliminate risks of substances rests with manufacturers.

Exceptions for supply of articles and substances

The duties only extend to persons in business or acting by way of trade, even though not for profit, and only to matters within their control (s.6(7)). Persons who import into the UK are not relieved of liability for activities such as design and manufacture that took place outside the UK and over which they had control. Finance companies who supply articles or substances by way of hire purchase or credit agreement have no duties under section 6 (s.6(9)).

Duties of employees

Under section 7 all employees have a duty while at work to:
  • Take reasonable care for the health and safety of him/herself and of other persons who may be affected by his/her acts or omissions at work; and
  • Co-operate with employers or other persons so far as is necessary to enable them to perform their duties or requirements under the Act.

Duties of persons in general

Section 8 requires that "no person shall intentionally or recklessly interfere with or misuse anything provided in the interests of health, safety or welfare in pursuance of any of the relevant statutory provisions."

Reasonably practicable

What is reasonably practicable is a question of fact. The Court of Appeal held in 1949 that
in every case, it is the risk that has to be weighed against the measures necessary to eliminate the risk. The greater the risk, no doubt, the less will be the weight to be given to the factor of cost.
— Lord Justice Tucker
and:
Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than 'physically possible' and seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other, and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them – the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the defendants discharge the onus on them.
— Lord Justice Asquith
Where a criminal prosecution arises from a breach of duty and the accused's defence is that it would not have been practicable or reasonably practicable to act otherwise, the burden of proof falls on the defendant (s.40). The prosecution have the burden of showing beyond reasonable doubt that certain acts were done or omitted to provide a prima facie case against the accused. Only if the prosecution succeed in this does the defendant have the burden of proving that the alternative was not practicable or reasonable practicable, but only on the balance of probabilities. The Court of Appeal held in 2002 that this requirement was compliant with article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as to presumption of innocence. The Court of Appeal noted that the "reverse burden" applied to purely regulatory breaches, rather than genuine criminal offences potentially punishable by imprisonment. However, the Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008 extended the sentences available for these offences to include imprisonment for two years. Before it was passed, the Department for Work and Pensions expressed the opinion that this is still compliant with the ECHR as it "strikes a fair balance between the fundamental right of the individual and the general interests of the community".

In 2005, the European Commission challenged the defence as noncompliant with Directive 89/391/EEC, which states that (Art.5(1) and (4)):
"The employer shall have a duty to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to the work." but that "This Directive shall not restrict the option of Member States to provide for the exclusion or the limitation of employers' responsibility where occurrences are due to unusual and unforeseeable circumstances, beyond the employers' control, or to exceptional events, the consequences of which could not have been avoided despite the exercise of all due care."
The Commission argued that the "reasonably practicable" defence was much broader than allowed under the directive but in 2007 the European Court of Justice found for the UK that the defence was in fact compliant.

Development risks defence

Section 6(10) was added by the Consumer Protection Act 1987 disapplies duties as to articles and substances used at work where a risk "is shown to be one the occurrence of which could not reasonably be foreseen". This is known as the development risks defence.

Health and Safety Executive

Health and Safety Executive logo.jpg

Section 10 created two bodies corporate, the Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety Executive, who performed their respective functions on behalf of the Crown (section 10 and Schedule 2). The bodies had wide powers to further their objectives by all means other than borrowing money (ss.11(6), 13). On 1 April 2008, the two bodies merged, the aggregate taking the name Health and Safety Executive.

Health and Safety Commission

Before its merger with the HSE, the Commission consisted of a chairman and between six and nine other people, appointed by the appropriate Secretary of State, after consultation (section 10(2)-(4)). The Commission's duties were to (section 11(2)):
  • assist and encourage persons concerned with matters relevant to the operation of the objectives of the Act;
  • make arrangements for and encourage research and publication, training and information in connection with its work;
  • make arrangements for securing that government departments, employers, employees, their respective representative organisations, and other persons are provided with an information and advisory service and are kept informed of, and adequately advised on, such matters;
  • propose regulations.
The Commission further had to keep the Secretary of State informed of its plans and ensure alignment with the policies of the Secretary of State, giving effect to any directions given to it (section 11(3)). The Secretary of State could give directions to the Commission (section 12). On 1 April 2006, the Commission ceased to have responsibility for railway safety. The Commission could delegate any of its functions to, or otherwise direct, the Executive (section 11(4)) and could direct the Executive to hold a public inquiry or other investigation into any accident (section 14). However, as of 1 April 2008, all its powers and responsibilities were transferred to the Executive.

Health and Safety Executive

The Executive consists of a chairman and between 7 and 11 other people, all appointed by the Secretary of State, as of 2008, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Schedule 2). Before the 2008 merger, the Executive had to carry out all functions delegated to it, or otherwise directed by, the Commission and provide the Secretary of State with information and expert advice (section 11(5)). The Executive is responsible for enforcement of the Act and regulations made under it though the Secretary of State may transfer some of the duties to local government (section 18).

Health and safety regulations

The Secretary of State has broad powers to make health and safety regulations (section 15). Breach of regulations can lead to criminal prosecution under section 33. Further, the Health and Safety Executive can issue codes of practice (section 16). Though breach of a code of practice is not in itself a criminal offence it may be evidential towards a criminal breach under the Act (section 17)

Enforcement

Because individual litigation is unlikely, given that employees may find the regulations complex, the Health and Safety Executive enforces the Act. However, the HSE may also delegate its functions to local government under section 18, which allows for a more decentralised and targeted approach to regulation. Any enforcing authority may appoint inspectors with a written document stating their powers. This is as evidence of their authority (section 19). Enforcing authorities may indemnify the inspector against any civil litigation if he has acted in the honest belief that he was within his powers (section 26). Local government bodies who may be enforcing authorities are:
Local government bodies can be enforcing authorities in respect of several workplaces and activities including offices, shops, retail and wholesale distribution, hotel and catering establishments, petrol filling stations, residential care homes and the leisure industry. As of 2008, 410 such bodies have responsibility in 1.1 million workplaces. From 1 April 2006 the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) became the enforcing authority for the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and laws made under it, for all health and safety matters relating to the operation of a railway (or tramway).

Inspectors

Under section, inspectors have the following powers:
  • enter any premises which he has reason to believe it is necessary for him to enter so enforce the Act, at any reasonable time, or in a dangerous situation;
  • take with him a constable if he has reasonable cause to fear any serious obstruction in the execution of his duty;
  • take with him:
    • any other person duly authorised by the enforcing authority; and
    • any equipment or materials required for any purpose for which the power of entry is being exercised;
  • make such examination and investigation as may in any circumstances be necessary for the purpose of enforcing the Act;
  • direct that the premises, or any part of them, or anything therein, shall be left undisturbed, whether generally or in particular respects, for so long as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of any examination or investigation;
  • take such measurements and photographs and make such recordings as he considers necessary for the purpose of examination or investigation;
  • take samples of any articles or substances found, and of the atmosphere in or in the vicinity of the premises;
  • cause an article or substance which appears to be a danger to health or safety, to be dismantled or subjected to any process or test, but not so as to damage or destroy it unless this is in the circumstances necessary to enforce the Act;
  • take possession of such an article and detain it for so long as is necessary in order to:
    • examine it and do to it anything which he has power to do;
    • ensure that it is not tampered with before his examination of it is completed;
    • Ensure that it is available for use as evidence in any prosecution or any proceedings relating to a notice under sections 21 or 22;
  • require any person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be able to give any information relevant to any examination or investigation to answer (in the absence of persons other than a person nominated by him to be present and any persons whom the inspector may allow to be present) such questions as the inspector thinks fit to ask and to sign a declaration of the truth of his answers;
  • require the production of, inspect, and take copies of or of any entry in:
    • any books or documents which by virtue of any of the relevant statutory provisions are required to be kept; and
    • any other books or documents which it is necessary for him to see for the purposes of any examination or investigation;
  • require any person to afford him such facilities and assistance with respect to any matters or things within that person's control or in relation to which that person has responsibilities as are necessary to enable the inspector to exercise any of the powers conferred on him;
  • any other power which is necessary to enforce the Act.
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 added the power for a customs officer to seize imported goods for up to 48 hours (section 25A). In observance of the principle of a right to silence, answers given to questions that the inspector required a person to answer cannot be used as evidence against him, nor his spouse or civil partner (section 20(7)), neither can the inspector require production of a document protected by legal professional privilege (section 20(8)).

Improvement notices

If an inspector is of the opinion that a person (section 21) is currently contravening the Act; or has contravened the Act in the past in circumstances that make it likely that the contravention will continue or be repeated he may serve him with an improvement notice:
  • stating that he believes that the Act is being contravened or will be in the future;
  • specifying the relevant provisions of the Act, giving particulars of the reasons why he is of that opinion; and
  • requiring the person to remedy the contravention within a period, ending not earlier than the period within which an appeal can be brought under section 24, as of 2008, 21 days.
Appeal against a notice is within 21 days to an employment tribunal who may appoint one or more assessors to sit with them (s.24).

Prohibition notices

If an inspector is of the opinion that activities are being carried on, or are likely to be carried on, involving the risk of serious personal injury, he may serve him with a prohibition notice (section 22):
  • stating that the inspector is of that opinion;
  • specifying the matters which in his opinion give, or will give rise, to that risk;
  • where in his opinion any of those matters involves, or will involve a contravention of the Act:
    • stating that he is of that opinion;
    • specifying the relevant statutory provisions; and
    • giving particulars of the reasons why he is of that opinion; and
  • directing that the activities shall not be carried on unless the deficiencies have been remedied.
The notice may start immediately or at the end of a specified period (section 22(4). Appeal against a notice is within 21 days to an employment tribunal who may appoint one or more assessors to sit with them (section 24).

Prosecution

Section 33(1) creates 15 criminal offences including breach of a duty under the Act or a regulation, contravention of a notice, or obstructing an inspector. In England and Wales prosecution under the Act could originally only be brought by an inspector or with the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions but the Environment Agency was also authorised on 1 April 1996 (section 38). All offences under the Act are either summary offences or offences triable either way so inspectors start prosecutions by laying an information before the Magistrates' Court. Inspectors can themselves be authorised to exercise rights of audience before the Magistrates even though not legally qualified (section 39). 

If a person, by some act or omission, causes another person to commit the actus reus of an offence under the Act then they too are guilty of an offence, even if the other person was not prosecuted or could not be prosecuted because they were the Crown (section 36). Where an offence is committed by a body corporate with the consent or connivance, or by the neglect, of a director, manager, secretary or a member acting in a managerial capacity, that individual too is guilty of an offence (section 37).

Where a person is convicted under the Act, the court can order that he remedy the state of affairs or can order forfeiture of an item in question (section 42).

Civil liability

There is no civil liability for breach of statutory duty in respect of sections 2 to 8 but there is liability for breach of health and safety regulations unless the regulations themselves provide otherwise (section 47). However, a breach not actionable in itself may be evidential towards a claim for common law negligence. In particular, a criminal conviction may be given in evidence.

Liability of the Crown

The Crown is bound by health and safety regulations and by the Act itself save for (section 48):
  • Notices (sections 21-25); and
  • Criminal offences (sections 33-42);
— though an employee of the Crown can be criminally liable (s.48(2)). The Act was extended to the police on 1 July 1998 by the Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997 (section 51A). The Secretary of State may, "to the extent that it appears to him requisite or expedient to do so in the interests of the safety of the State or the safe custody of persons lawfully detained" exempt the Crown by Order in Council (section 48(4)). In 1987, the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 was repealed to allow military personnel to sue the Ministry of Defence and bring the Armed Services into line with the Act.

Other provisions

Sections 55 to 60 provide for the continued existence of the Employment Medical Advisory Service in England and Wales. Section 68 is a Henry VIII clause enabling the Secretary of State to amend certain provisions of the Act by Statutory Instrument rather than Act of Parliament.

Sections 61 to 76 originally enabled the HSE to create and amend building regulations and gave them other powers over buildings control and approval. These sections were repealed by the Building Act 1984 which replaced them by a general scheme of building regulations.

Territorial extent

The Act originally applied in England and Wales, Scotland (in part) and Northern Ireland (in part) (section 84). Its provisions were re-enacted for Northern Ireland in 1978 with enforcement made the responsibility of the Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland. The Agency's name was changed to the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland in 1998.

Section 84(3) allowed the Secretary of State to extend, by Order in Council, the provisions outside England, Wales and Scotland. In 1995, the provisions were extended to offshore installations, wells and pipelines in UK territorial waters, mines extending into territorial waters and certain other engineering activities in territorial waters. Activities on a ship under the direction of its master are excluded.

Performance of the act

Reviewing performance of the act in 2008 Lord Grocott observed:
Between 1974 and 2007, the number of fatal injuries to employees fell by 73 per cent; the number of reported non-fatal injuries fell by 70 per cent. Between 1974 and 2007, the rate of injuries per 100,000 employees fell by a huge 76 per cent, and Britain had the lowest rate of fatal injuries in the European Union in 2003, which is the most recent year for which figures are available. The EU average was 2.5 fatalities per 100,000 workers; the figure in the UK was 1.1.

Occupational Safety and Health Act (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Occupational Safety and Health Act
Great Seal of the United States
Other short titles
  • OSH Act
Long titleAn Act to assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women; by authorizing enforcement of the standards developed under the Act; by assisting and encouraging the States in their efforts to assure safe and healthful working conditions; by providing for research, information, education, and training in the field of occupational safety and health; and for other purposes.
NicknamesOccupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
Enacted bythe 91st United States Congress
EffectiveApril 28, 1971
Citations
Public law91-596
Statutes at Large84 Stat. 1590
Codification
Titles amended29 U.S.C.: Labor
U.S.C. sections created29 U.S.C. ch. 15 § 651 et seq.
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the Senate as S. 2193
  • Passed the Senate on November 17, 1970 (83-3)
  • Reported by the joint conference committee on December 17, 1970; agreed to by the House on December 17, 1970 (310-58) and by the on  
  • Signed into law by President Richard M. Nixon on December 29, 1970
Major amendments
Safety Appliance Act

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is a US labor law governing the federal law of occupational health and safety in the private sector and federal government in the United States. It was enacted by Congress in 1970 and was signed by President Richard Nixon on December 29, 1970. Its main goal is to ensure that employers provide employees with an environment free from recognized hazards, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions. The Act created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
The Act can be found in the United States Code at title 29, chapter 15.

History of federal workplace safety legislation

Efforts by the federal government to ensure workplace health and safety were minimal until the passage of OSHA. The American system of mass production encouraged the use of machinery, while the statutory regime did nothing to protect workplace safety. For most employers, it was cheaper to replace a dead or injured worker than it was to introduce safety measures. Tort law provided little recourse for relief for the survivors of dead workers or for injured employees. After the Civil War, some improvements were made through the establishment of state railroad and factory commissions, the adoption of new technology (such as the railway air brake), and more widespread availability of life insurance. But the overall impact of these improvements was minimal.

The first federal safety legislation was enacted in the Progressive period. In 1893, Congress passed the Safety Appliance Act, the first federal statute to require safety equipment in the workplace (the law applied only to railroad equipment, however). In 1910, in response to a series of highly publicized and deadly mine explosions and collapses, Congress established the United States Bureau of Mines to conduct research into mine safety (although the Bureau had no authority to regulate mine safety). Backed by trade unions, many states also enacted workers' compensation laws which discouraged employers from permitting unsafe workplaces. These laws, as well as the growing power of labor unions and public anger toward poor workplace safety, led to significant reductions in worker accidents for a time.

Industrial production increased significantly in the United States during World War II, and industrial accidents soared. Winning the war took precedence over safety, and most labor unions were more concerned with maintaining wages in the face of severe inflation than with workplace health and safety.[7] After the war ended, however, workplace accident rates remained high and began to rise. In the two years preceding OSHA's enactment, 14,000 workers died each year from workplace hazards, and another 2 million were disabled or harmed. Additionally, the "chemical revolution" introduced a vast array of new chemical compounds to the manufacturing environment. The health effects of these chemicals were poorly understood, and workers received few protections against prolonged or high levels of exposure. While a few states, such as California and New York, had enacted workplace safety as well as workplace health legislation, most states had not changed their workplace protection laws since the turn of the century.

Passage

In the mid-1960s, growing awareness of the environmental impact of many chemicals had led to a politically powerful environmental movement. Some labor leaders seized on the public's growing unease over chemicals in the environment, arguing that the effect of these compounds on worker health was even worse than the low-level exposure plants and animals received in the wild. On January 23, 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson submitted a comprehensive occupational health and safety bill to Congress. Led by the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, the legislation was widely opposed by business. Many labor leaders, including the leadership of the AFL-CIO, supported the legislation, including testifying in support at congressional hearings. The legislation died in committee.

On April 14, 1969, President Richard Nixon introduced two bills into Congress which would have also protected worker health and safety. The Nixon legislation was much less prescriptive than the Johnson bill, and workplace health and safety regulation would be advisory rather than mandatory. However, Representative James G. O'Hara and Senator Harrison A. Williams introduced a much stricter bill similar to the Johnson legislation of the year before.

Companion legislation introduced in the House also imposed an all-purpose "general duty" clause on the enforcing agency as well. With the stricter approach of the Democratic bill apparently favored by a majority of both chambers, and unions now strongly supporting a bill, Republicans introduced a new, competing bill. The compromise bill established the independent research and standard-setting board favored by Nixon, while creating a new enforcement agency. The compromise bill also gave the Department of Labor the power to litigate on the enforcement agency's behalf (as in the Democratic bill). In November 1970, both chambers acted: The House passed the Republican compromise bill, while the Senate passed the stricter Democratic bill (which now included the general duty clause).

A conference committee considered the final bill in early December 1970. Union leaders pressured members of the conference committee to place the standard-setting function in the Department of Labor rather than an independent board. In return, unions agreed to let an independent review commission have veto power over enforcement actions. Unions also agreed to removal of a provision in the legislation which would have let the Secretary of Labor shut down plants or stop manufacturing procedures which put workers in "imminent danger" of harm. In exchange for a Republican proposal to establish an independent occupational health and safety research agency, Democrats won inclusion of the "general duty" clause and the right for union representatives to accompany a federal inspector during inspections. The conference committee bill passed both chambers on December 17, 1970, and President Nixon signed the bill on December 29, 1970. According to the New York Times, labor and environment activist Tony Mazzocchi was a "principal force behind the legislation".

The Act went into effect on April 28, 1971 (now celebrated as Workers' Memorial Day by American labor unions).

Description

In passing the Act, Congress declared its intent "to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources."

The Act created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), an agency of the Department of Labor. OSHA was given the authority both to set and enforce workplace health and safety standards. The Act also created the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission to review enforcement priorities, actions and cases.

The Act also established the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), an independent research institute in the then Department of Health, Education & Welfare now under-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Act defines an employer to be any "person engaged in a business affecting commerce who has employees, but does not include the United States or any state or political subdivision of a State." The Act applies to employers as diverse as manufacturers, construction companies, law firms, hospitals, charities, labor unions and private schools.

Churches and other religious organizations are covered if they employ workers for secular purposes. The Act excludes the self-employed, family farms, workplaces covered by other federal laws (such as mining, nuclear weapons manufacture, railroads and airlines) and state and local governments (unless state law permits otherwise). The Act covers federal agencies and the United States Postal Service.

Section 5 of the Act contains the "general duty clause." The "general duty clause" requires employers to 1) Maintain conditions or adopt practices reasonably necessary and appropriate to protect workers on the job; 2) Be familiar with and comply with standards applicable to their establishments; and 3) Ensure that employees have and use personal protective equipment when required for safety and health.[20] OSHA has established regulations for when it may act under the "general duty clause." The four criteria are 1) There must be a hazard; 2) The hazard must be a recognized hazard (e.g., the employer knew or should have known about the hazard, the hazard is obvious, or the hazard is a recognized one within the industry); 3) The hazard could cause or is likely to cause serious harm or death; and 4) The hazard must be correctable (OSHA recognizes not all hazards are correctable).

Although theoretically a powerful tool against workplace hazards, it is difficult to meet all four criteria. Therefore, OSHA has engaged in extensive regulatory rule-making to meet its obligations under the law.

Due to the difficulty of the rule-making process (which is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act), OSHA has focused on basic mechanical and chemical hazards rather than procedures. Major areas which its standards currently cover are: Toxic substances, harmful physical agents, electrical hazards, fall hazards, hazards associated with trenches and digging, hazardous waste, infectious disease, fire and explosion dangers, dangerous atmospheres, machine hazards, and confined spaces.

Section 8 of the Act covers reporting requirements. All employers must report to OSHA within eight hours if an employee dies from a work-related incident, or three or more employees are hospitalized as a result of a work-related incident. Additionally, all fatal on-the-job heart attacks must also be reported. Section 8 permits OSHA inspectors to enter, inspect and investigate, during regular working hours, any workplace covered by the Act. Employers must also communicate with employees about hazards in the workplace. By regulation, OSHA requires that employers keep a record of every non-consumer chemical product used in the workplace. Detailed technical bulletins called material safety data sheets (MSDSs) must be posted and available for employees to read and use to avoid chemical hazards. OSHA also requires employers to report on every injury or job-related illness requiring medical treatment (other than first aid) on OSHA Form 300, "Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses" (known as an "OSHA Log" or "Form 300"). An annual summary is also required and must be posted for three months, and records must be kept for at least five years.

Section 11(c) of the Act prohibits any employer from discharging, retaliating or discriminating against any employee because the worker has exercised rights under the Act. These rights include complaining to OSHA and seeking an OSHA inspection, participating in an OSHA inspection, and participating or testifying in any proceeding related to an OSHA inspection.

Section 18 of the Act permits and encourages states to adopt their own occupational safety and health plans, so long as the state standards and enforcement "are or will be at least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment" as the federal OSH Act. States that have such plans are known as "OSHA States." As of 2007, 22 states and territories operated complete plans and four others had plans that covered only the public sector.

Monday, March 2, 2020

Environmental epidemiology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Air pollution is an example of an exposure that has been linked with negative health outcomes.
 
Environmental epidemiology is a branch of epidemiology concerned with determining how environmental exposures impact human health. This field seeks to understand how various external risk factors may predispose to or protect against disease, illness, injury, developmental abnormalities, or death. These factors may be naturally occurring or may be introduced into environments where people live, work, and play.

Scope

The World Health Organization European Centre for Environment and Health (WHO-ECEH) claims that 1.4 million deaths per year in Europe alone are due to avoidable environmental exposures. Environmental exposures can be broadly categorized into those that are proximate (e.g., directly leading to a health condition), including chemicals, physical agents, and microbiological pathogens, and those that are distal (e.g., indirectly leading to a health condition), such as socioeconomic conditions, climate change, and other broad-scale environmental changes. Proximate exposures occur through air, food, water, and skin contact. Distal exposures cause adverse health conditions directly by altering proximate exposures, and indirectly through changes in ecosystems and other support systems for human health.

Environmental epidemiology research can inform government policy change, risk management activities, and development of environmental standards. Vulnerability is the summation of all risk and protective factors that ultimately determine whether an individual or subpopulation experiences adverse health outcomes when an exposure to an environmental agent occurs. Sensitivity is an individual’s or subpopulation’s increased responsiveness, primarily for biological reasons, to that exposure. Biological sensitivity may be related to developmental stage, pre-existing medical conditions, acquired factors, and genetic factors. Socioeconomic factors also play a critical role in altering vulnerability and sensitivity to environmentally mediated factors by increasing the likelihood of exposure to harmful agents, interacting with biological factors that mediate risk, and/or leading to differences in the ability to prepare for or cope with exposures or early phases of illness. Populations living in certain regions may be at increased risk due to location and the environmental characteristics of a region.

History

Acknowledgement that the environment impacts human health can be found as far back as 460 B.C. in Hippocrates' essay On Airs, Waters, and Places. In it, he urges physicians to contemplate how factors such as drinking water can impact the health of their patients. Another famous example of environment-health interaction is the lead poisoning experienced by the ancient Romans, who used lead in their water pipes and kitchen pottery. Vitruvius, a roman architect, wrote to discourage the use of lead pipes, citing health concerns:
"Water conducted through earthen pipes is more wholesome than that through lead; indeed that conveyed in lead must be injurious, because from it white lead is obtained, and this is said to be injurious to the human system. Hence, if what is generated from it is pernicious, there can be no doubt that itself cannot be a wholesome body. This may be verified by observing the workers in lead, who are of a pallid colour; for in casting lead, the fumes from it fixing on the different members, and daily burning them, destroy the vigour of the blood; water should therefore on no account be conducted in leaden pipes if we are desirous that it should be wholesome. That the flavour of that conveyed in earthen pipes is better, is shewn at our daily meals, for all those whose tables are furnished with silver vessels, nevertheless use those made of earth, from the purity of the flavour being preserved in them"
John Snow's map of the London cholera outbreak. Cases of cholera are designated by black rectangles, and water pumps are also marked.
 
Generally considered to be the father of epidemiology, John Snow conducted perhaps the first environmental epidemiology study in 1854. He showed that London residents who drank sewage-contaminated water were more likely to develop cholera than those who drank clean water.

U.S. government regulation

Throughout the 20th century, the United States Government passed legislation and regulations to address environmental health concerns. A partial list is below.

Table of Selected U.S. Laws Relating to Environmental Health
Law Year Brief Description
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 1938 Created the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 1947 Pesticide users and manufacturers must register with the EPA; pesticides must not cause unreasonable harm
Federal Water Pollution Control Act 1948 1977 Also known as the Clean Water Act, set water quality standards
Clean Air Act 1955, 1977
Created National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for environmental and public health protection
Solid Waste Disposal Act 1965 Specified standards for municipal and industrial waste disposal
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1970 Created worker protections standards and established the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
Toxic Substances Control Act 1976 Allowed the EPA to regulate chemicals, including the ability to ban substances that are shown to harm humans
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 1980 1986 Also known as Superfund, it taxes chemical and petroleum industries to fund clean-up of hazardous waste sites
Indoor Radon Abatement Act 1988 Funded radon clean-up and research programs
Food Quality Protection Act 1996 Amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to include a requirement that pesticides have reasonable certainty that they do not cause human harm

Precautionary principle

The precautionary principle is a concept in the environmental sciences that if an activity is suspected to cause harm, we should not wait until sufficient evidence of that harm is collected to take action. It has its roots in German environmental policy, and was adopted in 1990 by the participants of the North-Sea Conferences in The Hague by declaration. In 2000, the European Union began to formally adopt the precautionary principle into its laws as a Communication from the European Commission. The United States has resisted adoption of this principle, citing concerns that unfounded science could lead to obligations for expensive control measures, especially as related to greenhouse gas emissions.

Investigations

Observational studies

Environmental epidemiology studies are most frequently observational in nature, meaning researchers look at people's exposures to environmental factors without intervening and then observe the patterns that emerge. This is due to the fact that it is often unethical or unfeasible to conduct an experimental study of environmental factors in humans. For example, a researcher cannot ask some of their study subjects to smoke cigarettes to see if they have poorer health outcomes than subjects who are asked not to smoke. The study types most often employed in environmental epidemiology are:

Estimating risk

Epidemiologic studies that assess how an environmental exposure and a health outcome may be connected use a variety of biostatistical approaches to attempt to quantify the relationship. Risk assessment tries to answer questions such as "How does an individual's risk for disease A change when they are exposed to substance B?," and "How many excess cases of disease A can we prevent if exposure to substance B is lowered by X amount?"

Some statistics and approaches used to estimate risk are:

Bradford Hill criteria

To differentiate between correlation and causation, epidemiologists often apply a set of criteria to determine the likelihood that an observed relationship between an environmental exposure and health consequence is truly causal. In 1965, Austin Bradford Hill devised a set of postulates to help him determine if there was sufficient evidence to conclude that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.

  1. Strength of association
  2. Consistency of evidence
  3. Specificity
  4. Temporality
  5. Biological gradient
  6. Plausibility
  7. Coherence
  8. Experiment
  9. Analogy
These criteria are generally considered to be a guide to scientists, and it is not necessary that all of the criteria be met for a consensus to be reached.

Operator (computer programming)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_(computer_programmin...