Immediately following the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Boardâs (CSB) published investigation report of the chemical spill into the Charleston, West Virginia, public water supply, you have been contracted as a safety engineer consultant to evaluate the investigation report from a system safety engineering perspective. As a macro-level evaluation of the past event, you have been asked to help the CSB understand what hazards may have been prevented if the bulk chemical tank owners had utilized a safety management system (SMS) with system safety engineering inherent in the SMS design. You will present a complete case study of just the six numbered statements within the âTechnical Analysisâ section on page 28 of the report.
Access the CSB website and download the Chemical Spill Contaminates Public Water Supply in Charleston, West Virginia final report using the instructions from the unit lesson in the study guide, or click here.
Sample Solution
pupils but, which has the impact of putting students sharing safeguarded traits at a specific disadvantage, and one cannot rationalise the practice as being âproportionate ways of validating a lawful objectiveâ. Further, the EA (2010) speaks about the discrimination by perception and discrimination by association and also introduces a new phenomenon âdiscrimination emanating from a disabilityâ which restores disability associated discrimination under the earlier Disability Discrimination Act, 1955. How EA 2010 Differs from Earlier Acts The EA (2010) now declares it is illegal to discriminate against an individual with a disability for a reason that is associated to their disability. The EA also makes it illegal to have regulations, practices, policies and rules that are applicable to each and every one, but which specifically disadvantage people with disabilities. All schools in U.K are required to make suitable fine-tuning to permit students with disabilities to take part in the educational activities fully in their schools. The EA now places three important duties on schools in U.K., which are as follows: Less Favourable Treatment Students with disabilities should be treated at par with non-disabled children Reasonable Adjustments Supporting the EA, Hills (2013 :2 p13) stipulates that âChildren with disabilities are authorised to have adequate adjustments made in respect to admission facilities or in receiving the education and associated services, to stop them from being placed at a considerable difficulty, unless the re>
pupils but, which has the impact of putting students sharing safeguarded traits at a specific disadvantage, and one cannot rationalise the practice as being âproportionate ways of validating a lawful objectiveâ. Further, the EA (2010) speaks about the discrimination by perception and discrimination by association and also introduces a new phenomenon âdiscrimination emanating from a disabilityâ which restores disability associated discrimination under the earlier Disability Discrimination Act, 1955. How EA 2010 Differs from Earlier Acts The EA (2010) now declares it is illegal to discriminate against an individual with a disability for a reason that is associated to their disability. The EA also makes it illegal to have regulations, practices, policies and rules that are applicable to each and every one, but which specifically disadvantage people with disabilities. All schools in U.K are required to make suitable fine-tuning to permit students with disabilities to take part in the educational activities fully in their schools. The EA now places three important duties on schools in U.K., which are as follows: Less Favourable Treatment Students with disabilities should be treated at par with non-disabled children Reasonable Adjustments Supporting the EA, Hills (2013 :2 p13) stipulates that âChildren with disabilities are authorised to have adequate adjustments made in respect to admission facilities or in receiving the education and associated services, to stop them from being placed at a considerable difficulty, unless the re>
