Case Study # 2:

Consider again the plant described in Case Study # 1. The head engineer at the plant wants to ensure that the plant provides a safe and healthy environment. So, she decides to ask an engineering health and safety consulting company to do a health and safety audit of the plant.

The report provided by the consulting company lists the following safety problems:

(a) An expert on fires and explosions notes that the extensive use of natural

gas in the plant could lead to an explosion in the plant in some circumstances. The force of such an explosion could lead to severe injuries or deaths of workers and, possibly, cause the building to be damaged or to collapse. The potential for an explosion could develop if a sufficient natural gas leak occurs or the plant ventilation system fails to perform properly or certain controls or sensors fail. But, the expert further notes, there is insufficient information available on the concentration of natural gas in the plant air, as only one natural gas sensor is in place at the plant, but it is not located in the main area where an accumulation of natural gas is likely to occur. Thus, the potential for an explosion could exist, yet not be detected or acted upon. In addition, the expert is concerned because the natural gas sensor is connected neither to an automated shut-off system for the natural gas supply nor to an alarm, thus increasing the likelihood of an incident and its potential severity.

(b) Although maintenance is supposed to be done quarterly on the natural gas lines and equipment, no evidence is found that maintenance has ever been performed since they were first installed four years ago. Such maintenance typically involves checking for and fixing gas leaks. Also, no training has been provided to workers on either understanding the potential for explosion, or the steps to take to avoid an explosion. In fact, most workers did not even realize the potential for an explosion existed. Furthermore, no written procedures relating explosions exist within the plant.

(c) The plant contains toxic materials that can harm people and animals. The way this material is stored in the plant, it could, in the event of a plant explosion, be released and impact an area within one kilometer of the plant. Such an incident could lead to illnesses or deaths among members of the public and could harm animals in the environment.

The Questions:

1. What are the unsafe conditions and acts in the plant?

2. What are some steps can be taken to rectify the noted safety concerns?

3. From point (c) in the consulting company report, it is clear that the problem affects not just worker safety, but also the safety of the public and the environment. Should the difference in who or what is affected cause head engineer to modify her actions in addressing the problem? If so, how?

4. Can the head engineer choose to ignore or not act fully upon the safety concerns raised by the consulting company? If yes, in what instances and under what conditions?

5. If the head engineer at the plant decides that measures must be taken to protect health and safety, but the plant manager refuses to approve the measures, what are the obligations of the head engineer?

6. Do any of the problems cited demonstrate that it is best to address health and safety comprehensively in the early stages of an engineering activity, preferably within the design process and not as an afterthought? For instance, can you indicate some measures that will likely be more expensive to implement to fix the problem compared to the cost that would have been incurred during the design process to resolve the problem