No accidents implies everything safe or something is wrong?

No accidents – Whether everything is in control or something is not identified?


It is reported that the BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig explosion (11 deaths, 115 survivors) caused by escape of gas and oil from the well dug was preceded by seven years of work without any injury. The drilling was done and the well is to be closed. Another rig will takeover for production from the well. While BP managers assembled to congratulate the team for working without any injury, the pressurized gas gushed from the 5 km deep well and exploded.

The incident is not without early warning signs. The rubber gasket (seal to close the drill pipe tightly and shut the well) of the blowout preventer (BOP) located near the seabed, for the well got ruptured in an incident and rubber pieces were found in the mud used for holding the gas and oil within the well. A crewman accidentally forced the drill pipe by 15 ft through the BOP. But, engineers failed to analyse the cause for the presence of these rubber pieces. This shows that every major accident is preceded by a number of near misses and minor accidents. We should be able to identify, report and analyze all near misses and minor incidents however negligible they are. It appears there is pressure on the crew to complete the drilling work fast as they are already behind the schedule. This might have caused the crew to do away with the repair of critical safety systems too.

Further, the backup control system called ‘pod’ for BOP lost some of its functions. This reminds us of Murphy’s law.

The emergency drill carried out every Sunday to escape after head count was not followed after the accident. People started leaving in the available lifeboats without looking for others on the rig. This shows that whatever drills we do will go haywire and those in possession of escape vehicles will disappear instead of carrying the persons for which vehicles are intended.

It appears that safety is ignored because of the short term profits seen by the management compared to possible losses that may accrue to the organization when run without safety systems in place. The management that is responsible for allowing safety violations may not be there as they may take bonuses and leave. Once a system is violated and is in place for sometime, this wrong practice itself becomes an established system and will be considered normal. This has happened in Bhopal accident. All safety systems for MIC tanks were removed to save running costs. As there were no incidents, the management thought that they have done a wonderful job and reduced operating costs. May be, they are under pressure to show profits so that investors will be happy. Accidents do take place because public memory is short. They may be losers only for a short term and reaping increased valuation of their shares. Those affected because of the accident are limited in number and their voice is lost in the herd (of investors).

Normally when people are happy having achieved certain safety record, it will be followed with a major accident. There is no accident because we are lucky till the accident occurs. We are overconfident of our performance. We ignore the warning signals saying that everything is under control. We venture out to do something adventurous. Those who protest about violations are treated as ‘nuts’ and ‘pessimistic’. They may questioned about their integrity, commitment and chided for accepting bonuses or rise in salaries when systems are wrong as pointed out by the same persons. These persons will be blamed in all respected for pointing the violations forcing them to leave or they will be fired.

When accident occurs, people will conveniently forget everything though cautioned by few and term it as ‘one of those rare accidents which no one expected’.

Safety mantra - If you can't do it safely, don't do it

I liked an article that was published in British Safety Council magazine (http://www.britsafe.org/). In it the Chief Executive of First Group Plc states their approach to accident prevention as below:

If you can'g do it safely, don't do it.

To improve the safety record, their new approach is "First to Zero" to eliminate all unsafe conditions. The target is not at accident numbers but to focus on persons representing these safety numbers. They do not want anyone to get injured and thus aim for eliminating all unsafe conditions. Really, we have to salute the managers and staff for aiming to such a high standards and working towards it.

Safety training - for what?

Many times it is said that to avoid accidents, create awareness, training should be imparted to workers, supervisors and managers. Even employees also will ask for training programmes, seminars, etc. But, what is the actual interest from people. In many training programmes and seminars, we find participants enquiring about refreshments, lunch, bag, pen, etc for the programme rather than the technical programme. Once I heard that a programme will be termed successful, if three conditions are satisfied. They are,
1. Kit
2. Transport
3. Food

The next condition is some sight seeing tour. Even, in seminars we see participants constantly moving in and out with actual serious discussions limited to very few persons. In training programmes conducted within the plant premises also, participants get phone calls to attend some work at shopfloor. Why people will be nominated, if they can't spare the person for the programme. Only for records?

For some, nomination to training programme is like a holiday with pay. They will come at the beginning of the programme and then disappear to do their personal works in the town or see friends.

A training programme will be effective only when participants are subjected to some form of test at the end of the programme and are penalized, if they do not secure atleast minimum marks. Participants should be asked to discuss on a given topic and should be evaluated for their active participation and contribution. If they are involved in any accident or incident after the programme, then he should be asked what is wrong with him or the training he received earlier. May be such evaluation will help the organization to make the training programmes effective and worthy.

Stress on Safety Professionals?

Many safety professionals face the problem of getting attention from their colleagues and management. People are not receptive to suggestions. Suggestions are treated as fancy ideas which are not workable. Or, not economically feasible. Safety professionals are blamed that they do not have project experience. As soon as a safety officer visits a workspot, people think that he has come to stop a work. Complain that they are tensed by seeing him, or make sarcastic comments, or disappear from the place to avoid him, etc. In meetings also instead of listening to safety man, they keep talking with others and when safety presentation is over, all feel relieved that a ritual is completed and is recorded. To show that they are committed to safety, people pay lip service by saying 'safety first, production next'.

Leaving apart production people, what about the stress in safety man. He finds many hazards, unsafe acts, wrong practices, etc. When he tells plant people, he will get no response or he will be entertained with arguments. Being a safety professional and is responsible, he can't keep quiet. He has to engage plant people in convincing them about elimination of hazards identified. Over a period of time, continuation of such practices by plant people can stress safety person and he may become cynic. It can also affect his health and family life as he carries work place thoughts and tensions to home. Everything at home also appears in disarray and he will enter into discussions first, arguments later and finally he may end up a big loser.

Experts say that safety professionals should not get disheartened for poor response from production people, but I don't think this is possible for ever for any person. Even those preaching professionals would have lost temper at various occasions.

Sometime back when I attended a 3-day training programme, one faculty arranged a discussion (actually a drama / skit) among the partcipants dividing them into production and safety groups. I happened to be in production group and few production people happened to be in safety group. During the skit, When I questioned the group playing as safety department, as they used to question me in my plant visits, they were searching for words as were taken aback by my ferociousness as a production man. I think they understood during the skit what I want to convey to them that they actually make such mindless arguments on the shopfloor with the safety man.
I also enjoyed the skit in repeating the questions whatever they said earlier to me. What I want to convey is that by stepping into others shoes, we can understand the problem and intentions. We can ask production man what he will do if he is in safety department and sees such unsafe condtions. Then, he too may think some alternative. This may ease the stress on both production and safety persons. However, this is possible if there are people who are technically sound and are patient to listen. We can't talk to bullying personalities and is futile in conversing with them. Only written communication with copies to their superiors will have some impact in removing hazards at work place.

Static charge ?

Yesterday, I was using washing machine. It is a semi automatic type, i.e it contains two separate drums one for washing and another for spinning (drying). After washing, when I started taking out the clothes, I felt slight pain at the edges of my hand fingers. Earlier also I experienced the same, but I assumed it as pain from nails. I think this tingling pain is because of static charge generated during rotation of the washing drum. This charge may be dissipated if I do not touch the machine for few minutes after stopping it.


LINK

Mechanical barrier for avoiding dust explosions

Please read information on mechanical barrier to avoid dust explosions.

EPA To Seek Employee Participation In Chemical Safety Inspections

As per Environment Protection Agency of USA guidelines, employees and their representatives can participate in chemical safety inspections of the plants to have greater transparency. Read the news item in the link below.

EPA To Seek Employee Participation In Chemical Safety Inspections

LINK

Management of Change (MOC) ?

When plants run for sometime, engineers will find that something is not working as required or they may feel that something else can give better results or some problems will necessiate to modify flowsheet, etc. When shopfloor engineers and supervisors go for implementation of the proposed change, they think that they are doing the right thing to improve. However, the possibility of unexpected events because of the change are normally not studied or anticipated.
Further they think that involving safety department is a waste of time or their work will be delayed because of possible discussions. Therefore they carryout changes without following the established safety procedures. Sometimes, there works give the desired results and therefore makes them to think that they are in right direction ALWAYS. This will set in wrong notions, disregard for safety procedures and will set a bad example for the others to follow the same methods.
Ultimately, a day will come when something goes wrong and blame game starts. Safety department says they are not aware of the change and plant executives say that safety department is not doing its job of surveillance and monitoring. If people do unsafe jobs and then wait for others to point out, then nobody can help. Safety departments are for providing advise and also monitor to caution the mangements. However, if people do works by hiding the information, they are doing so at their own peril.
So, change management should first be applied to persons' attitudes and understanding of safety procedures and then established MOC in the system will be followed by these people with complete understanding and regard for system.

Sparks fall on solvents causing burns to two persons

A newspaper report stated that in a pharma company, sparks fell from a capacitor when two electricians were on the job. The sparks fell on the nearby solvents and chemicals, leading to fire and burn injuries on face and arms of the two electricians.
Safety norms say that ignition sources should not be present atleast 15 m around the flammable storages. Though this is applicable for hot works, the same logic can be extended for storage of flammables also. It is likely that sparks can fly along the wind and can cause fire. The solvent storage area also should be provided with dyke so that leakage / spillage will not spread and are contained.
If it is not possible to remove the flammables away from ignition sources, atleast they should be covered with asbestos cloth or similar fire resistant cover; sand and other suitable fire extiniguishers should be provided near these flammable storages; fire department of the plant should be informed about the srorage and maintenance jobs proposed to be takenup; carryout hazard analysis; communicate the workers about hazards and safety measures to be taken; etc

An animated video describing the hazards during hot works in flammable areas is available at US Chemical Safety Board website (http://www.csb.gov/) and the video link is given here.

Whether safety procedures cause stress at workplace

Sometimes I hear shopfloor people grumbling at safety supervisors that by seeing them, B.P. increases in shopfloor workers. Others say that they are afraid that safety manager will come to them to enquire on some issue. Shopfloor supervisors advise safety persons not to approach their workers directly to avoid undue stress. All such talk or apprehensions appear to be unwarranted unless people do not follow safety procedures or the safety man talks in a dominating manner.
Some safety professionals too think that they get truth, if they pose like a  tough guy. But, with my own experience, I can say that this is not true. Whatever the shopfloor person is willing to tell will escape from the scene next time as soon as he sees the tough talking safety guy. The smooth talking safety supervisors also should be careful that they are not taken for granted. They have to develop friendly networks in all departments so that before entering the shopfloor to enquire about unsafe conditions or investigate accidents / incidents, full information is obtained through these friendly networks.
When someone gives information on phone, safety person should not insist to know the name of the person so that he will feel secured and will have peace of mind. If he is willing, then safety person can declare his sources and also recommend for some appreciation and reward.
Stress will be felt by safety guys also when all shopfloor people surround him questioning his failure to identify and communicate hazards. This, I think should be handled by being visible in the shopfloor through frequent inspections,giving pep talks as often as it warrants and making the people to know about their responsibilities under law. Then, safety department persons will be viewed as their friends and get their help to solve safety issues at the shopfloor.
Workers will be stressed for other reasons also as it was mentioned in a news paper article today that spouse causes more stress than the boss. Again, males cause more stress to their spouse than the female. Other reasons for stress can be ill health, unfulfilled ambitions,  family issues, etc