Safety, ethics on the Horizon

Any chemical engineer can attest to the fact that safety is an ongoing pursuit in our profession, where we occasionally find our teams taking two steps forward and then one step back. Foreseeing and avoiding every type of equipment malfunction is practically impossible, and even the most diligent, conscientious and experienced professionals are bound to make mistakes. However, when the insightful warnings of engineers or operators are ignored — particularly by their superiors — labels like malfunction and mistake sound more like negligence and misconduct. Sadly, such unethical head turning continues to be found at the root of many industrial safety incidents, casting a shadow on the remarkable safety progress that we’ve made over the past several decades.

In that vein, disasters in one industry often serve as lessons or wakeup calls for another. Such is the case in what we know so far about events surrounding the Deepwater Horizon, the mobile offshore-drilling unit owned by Transocean (Houston; http://www.deepwater.com) and leased by BP (London; http://www.bp.com), which exploded on April 20th, killing eleven men and spewing staggering volumes of petroleum and natural gas into the Gulf of Mexico. While the official cause of the notorious disaster will be investigated for months to come, allegations of head turning give reason for pause today.

Early interviews and testimonies with the Deepwater Horizon crew allege that safety concerns were ignored by management on more than one occasion leading up to the explosion. The most basic explanation for the inaction is that the team was under pressure to speed up its production schedule, a condition that is likewise common in the chemical process industries (CPI). In fact, here is where we find the paradox: When setpoints are being changed and equipment is being pushed to its limits, process upsets and malfunctions are at their greatest probability; yet so are the chances that an individual will dismiss a warning that should have been investigated. In other words, ethics are more likely to be compromised when safety is also at its most vulnerable point.

That reality is disconcerting enough by itself, but it becomes downright alarming in the context of what has taken place at many CPI companies over the past year. In order to either minimize financial losses or maintain profitability amidst the 2008–2009 recession, most CPI companies reduced staff. Many of those reductions targeted the most experienced engineers and operators, who were already dwindling in supply vis-à-vis retirement. So what we have now is a group of industries on a capacity upswing, being maintained and operated by overstretched — and in many cases under-experienced — people. We do not have to guess what the worst-case effects of this situation might be.

The best case scenario would be that this precarious state of affairs would put the CPI on a heightened state of alert. In that atmosphere, inexperienced engineers and operators would be quick to speak up when they observe something unsettling or find themselves beyond their skill level. In turn, managers would reward those who speak out and be quick to provide guidance where needed. Most importantly, raised safety concerns would not fall flat on a single ear.

Now more than ever, we must all be diligent to voice the risks we observe and take seriously those that are brought before us. Because, if engineers and operators can’t speak up for safety and be heard, the consequences will be deafening.

Rebekkah Marshall

We address these complex issues in our Engineering Ethics Webinar, which will be broadcast live on June 10th at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time and offered on demand later on (https://www.chemengonline.com/webcasts).