Examples to show why current legislation and regulations need to be followed:
Legislation and regulations are necessary in the scientific environment as it ensures workers and employees are safe and any they know how to properly ensure that whatever work they’re doing is also safe for them and the people around them. Examples of when legislation and regulations aren’t followed: 1. An international chemical firm has been fined over £100,000 when workers were put at risk 3 times at a factory in Cheshire. These incidents occurred many months after each other at the Winnington Lane site, all the incidents were found to be causes of unfollowed legislation and regulation when the site was investigated. a. The first incident was in a Tata Chemicals Europe Ltd plant in Northwich where an employee suffered burns to his right foot which required 18 months of treatment. The first incident occurred when the worker was trying to reach a pump to restart it and his foot went through a missing grating which caused his foot to be exposed to toxic liquids which were at roughly 95oC. b. The next incident occurred 6 months later when high levels of CO2 was released into the plant because employees hadn’t been given sufficient training which led to the leak which put them at risk. c. The final incident on 21st November was when an employee fell through part of a gantry which chemicals had corroded, he escaped with minor injuries. When an inspector went to the factory, she found that the company had not reported another part of the walkway collapsing 2 days before the incident. (HSE, 2013)
The company admitted to two breaches of Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. The company was fined £100,750 for the breaches and £71,082 for prosecution costs.

“Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Gill Chambers said:
"A company the size of Tata Chemicals should never have allowed these incidents to occur, and the lives of its workers were put at risk as a result.
"The general conditions we found at the plant were extremely poor. Some of the gantries were in desperate need of repair after becoming badly corroded and the practical training for staff was also inadequate, meaning they did not take appropriate measures in emergency situations.
"The chemical industry has the potential to be extremely dangerous so it’s vital that firms like Tata Chemicals make health and safety their top priority. Unfortunately, the company fell way below acceptable standards on multiple occasions."”
The Regulations that have been broken are as follows: 1. Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: "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 employees." 2. Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: "It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety." 3. Regulation 3(1) of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 states: "Where there is a dangerous occurrence, the responsible person shall forthwith notify the relevant enforcing authority thereof by the quickest practicable means."

2. Two pharmaceutical firms have been fined for breaching multiple safety and environmental regulations which ended up causing health problems for workers as well as environmental issues. These firms were given two warnings from HSE in which they did not comply. d. The first incident was in November 2011 where highly toxic methyl iodide was released into the atmosphere which can affect the central nervous system. This was due to poor regulation within the firm that does not specify when a ‘safety critical valve’ should be open. The next incident was in February of 1012 when an agency worker was exposed to said methyl iodide due to not having the respiratory equipment to deal with it. This meant he was hospitalised with iodide poisoning and leaves lasting effects such as depression, headaches and speech problems. The next was in June and July of 2012 when a worker was exposed to 3 times to the toxic substance due to insufficient training. This led to him having a full body rash with blisters on his wrists and ankles. e. The second incident on 26th July 2012, a worker almost died from a pulmonary embolism due to exposure to the substance. This was again due to poorly fitted respiratory equipment which has left them with permanent damage to speech, memory and mobility. Finally in November of 2012 three workers were exposed to Dichloromethane when a vessel was overfilled and overflowed into the ventilation system and because there was no alarm or device to warn that the vessel is overfilling and without respiratory apparatus they were fully exposed. They all were admitted to hospital. Archimica Ltd was fined £80,000 and Euticals Ltd was fined £20,000 for health and safety breaches and an extra £20,000 in environmental charges. (HSE, 2013)

HSE inspector Mark Burton said “The multiple failings arising from this prosecution are extremely serious and could have had even more devastating consequences.”
“Two of those exposed to methyl iodide have been left with permanent, life-changing after effects. The lack of competent management, control and understanding of the site’s major hazard and chemical processes could have led to these being fatal investigations, as could the incident to the workers who were exposed to methylene chloride.
“Euticals Limited and Archimica Chemicals Ltd were fully aware of the standards required to protect workers and ensure that equipment, systems and processes were fit for purpose, yet there is clear evidence of systematic health and safety failings over a prolonged period despite continue advice and support from the regulator to gain compliance.
“Health and safety should not be neglected, overlooked or compromised, especially in a high risk environment where there are hazardous and dangerous substances.”
The Legislation broken included: 1. ‘Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: “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 employees.” Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: “It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.” 2. Section 31(1)(g) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: ‘It is an offence for a person to contravene any requirement or prohibition imposed by an improvement notice or a prohibition notice (including any such notice as modified on appeal). 3. A company in Essex has been fined after four chemical storage tanks have spilled 150 tonnes of hazardous materials. The firm was prosecuted after it was found that the tanks weren’t correctly managed and maintained. Industrial Chemicals Limited, of Titan Works, Hogg Lane, Grays was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay £14,231 after pleading guilty.

3. In April of 2013, a chemical firm in Wirral has been fined £120,000 after an employee has been seriously injured with severe burns when he was engulfed by huge fireball. The employee was a 45 year old from Kirkby who has been kept in an induced coma for several weeks due to the incident. The company had been manufacturing a chemical called trimethylindium which is used to produce LED’s and the waste when this chemical is purified is explosive when left exposed to air or water. It was found that the waste had been left on a bench exposed to the air so when the employee involved in the incident started their shift in the waste deactivation area, the bottle exploded sending shards of glass in all directions. A colleague reported seeing him running around in a ball of flames. The company involved was SAFC Hitech Ltd whom pleaded guilty to breaching the dangerous substances and explosive atmospheres regulations 2002 as well as the health and safety at work act 1974. The reason this incident occurred was due the company not abiding by regulation to fill out risk assessments involved with the disposal of this highly explosive substance. Also there were failings in terms of supervision and monitoring in the disposal area which meant there was no-one to make sure that the environment was safe to work in. (HSE, 2013)
“Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Semra Zack-Williams said:
"One of SAFC’s employees has suffered burns that will affect him for the rest of his life, and has so far been unable to return to work due to the extent of his injuries.
"The procedure the company had for dealing with waste produced from the TMI purification process was inadequate, and staff were not sufficiently supervised or monitored.
"The chemical they were handling was spontaneously combustible on contact with water or air, but SAFC did not have a suitable risk assessment in place that complied with the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations for managing the extreme risks.
"The chemical industry has the potential to be extremely dangerous, which is why it’s vital the highest standards of health and safety are followed. SAFC fell well below those standards in this case".”
The health and safety regulations breached were: 1. “Regulation 5(1) of the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 states: “"Where a dangerous substance is or is liable to be present at the workplace, the employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to his employees which arise from that substance". 2. Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: "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 employees”

Important Health and Safety regulation: 1. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulation (1999) which requires employers to carry out risk assessments and to make arrangements and take suitable precautions and employ competent people as well as the use of appropriate information and training. 2. Workplace Regulations (1992) which cover basic health and safety issues such as ventilation, heating, lighting etc. 3. Health and Safety Regulation (1992) which are prerequisites in order to work with visual display units. 4. PPE at work Regulations (1992) which require employers to provide employees with suitable protective equipment for the job they’re doing. 5. Provision and use of work equipment regulation (1998) which is to ensure that provided equipment is safe to use by employees. 6. Manual Handling Operations Regulations (1992) which is to cover the movement of objects via hand or bodily force. 7. Health and safety (first aid) Regulation (1981) which are to cover specified requirements for first aid. 8. Health and Safety Information for Employees Regulation (1989) which is so employers are required to use perhaps a poster to tell employees specifics that they need to know about health and safety. 9. Employers’ liability Act (1969) which is that employers need to have insurance to cover the chances of accidents and ill health etc. 10. Reporting of injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (1995) which is to require employers to declare any injuries or illnesses that employees may have received. 11. Noise at work Regulation (1989) which is for employers to protect employees from any possible damage to hearing. 12. Electricity at Work Regulations (1989) which requires people who are in charge of electrical systems to ensure they are used correctly as well as correctly maintained. 13. COSHH regulations (2002) which is to require employers to measure risks of the usage of substances and take necessary precautions. 14. Chemicals Regulations (2002) which is for suppliers to correctly label and package dangerous chemicals 15. Construction regulation (1994) which is to ensure safe system of work on construction sites 16. Gas safety regulations (1994) which is to ensure safe installation and usage of gasses on the premises 17. Control of major accidents and hazards regulations (1999): require the people who transport chemicals to only transport specific amounts. 18. Dangerous substances and explosive atomospheres regulations (2002): require a separate risk assessment when working when involving dangerous substances.

How UKAS, ISO standards and compliance regulations contribute to good lab practice:
Firstly, UKAS stands for United Kingdom Accreditation Service and ISO stands for International Organization for Standardization. Compliance regulations include the MHRA and the EMEA which are the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the European Medicines Agency.
MHRA are responsible for ensuring medicines and general medical equipment is safe for use. This is important as without it there could be malfunctioning medical equipment which in turn could lead to many more deaths when the equipment needs to be readily usable and if for example, someone needs a defibrillator to be resuscitated and the machine isn’t working correctly, it could either not work or injure a person using it and lead in someone’s death and an injury.
EMEA is the equivalent of the MHRA for European medicinal products.
UKAS is the organisation that is the only organisation recognised by the British government which assesses the organisation and competence of other organisations via inspection, testing and calibration services etc. This is important as without it organisations can get away with selling inadequate products to consumers. UKAS makes sure that goods are of sound quality so that suppliers, purchasers and consumers all have peace of mind knowing that products are what they are supposed to be. In terms of scientific workplaces, this could affect the selling of glassware and if it wasn’t checked upon by UKAS it could lead to labs receiving inadequate glassware that could break and cause injuries and hazards.
Bibliography
HSE. (2013, April 10th). International chemical firm prosecuted over multiple incidents. Retrieved January 23rd, 2015, from Health and Safety Executive: http://press.hse.gov.uk/2013/rnn-nw-tata-northwich/
HSE. (2013, December 13th). Pharmaceuticals firms fined for chemical incidents at Welsh plant. Retrieved November 28th, 2014, from HSE: Health and Safety Executive: http://press.hse.gov.uk/2013/pharmaceuticals-firms-fined-for-chemical-incidents-at-welsh-plant/
HSE. (2013, April 29th). Wirral chemical firm fined £120,000 after fireball engulfs employee. Retrieved January 23rd, 2015, from Health and Safety Executive: http://press.hse.gov.uk/2013/rnn-nw-safc-hitech-ltd/