In the workplace, wrong is wrong and needs to be made right as soon as possible (“When a Colleague Cuts a Corner,” TPO, November 2015).
Policies, rules and regulations are there for a reason. I frequently encounter a situation where sampling techniques start differing because someone decides to make a change on their own. It may be modifying the sample location. It may be shortening the prescribed flushing interval or volume. It may mean using any old sample bottle. Either way, results become inconsistent from the actual process conditions or from sample to sample.
Many of these types of issues do not even involve personal safety, public welfare or even permit compliance if the samples are strictly for process control. It could involve less than optimal efficiency, which translates to cost. A bad sample or reading could result in additional cost if it is a factor in the design of facility upgrades or improvements. I have witnessed this one and struggled with operation of a facility that was overbuilt due to one bad number.
Issues involving regulatory compliance are covered by our training and eventual certification as operators. Nowhere in the training I have received has it been conveyed that regulatory requirements are open to modification as someone sees fit. The idea that the rules can be circumvented late on a Friday before a planned vacation is not mentioned in the plant permit. If we want to be considered professionals, we must act professionally.
Safety is everyone’s responsibility. Violations, whether major or minor, need to be rectified. If the violator is a subordinate or peer, I think a direct conversation about the issue is warranted. If the violator is higher ranking, then reporting to a higher authority, even if anonymously, should be the course of action.
I have been in this industry for over 30 years, the vast majority in a supervisory capacity. I have been around many mishaps during that time. From inadvertent hypodermic needle sticks, to hands caught between belts and pulleys when equipment starts automatically, to fatalities (note the plurality of that last one).
All of these instances have in common a protection program in place that was not followed. I carry the burden of questioning my own actions in the cases where I was in responsible charge. What could I have done differently to convey the importance of the appropriate safety procedures? How could I have better described the imminent danger? I cannot imagine the guilt of having a serious accident happen that involved my inaction.
I spend a significant amount of training time on chlorine safety. My experience has been that chlorine incidents generally involve either an employee who is inexperienced, or a very seasoned veteran. Inexperience, while not a justification, is at least, understandable. Experienced veterans though, are subject to complacency, cutting a corner. Guess what you have now when a seasoned veteran is charged with training a new employee. What you do not have is assurance that everything the newbie needs to know is properly conveyed.
Vick Pedregon, Plant Superintendent
Fred Hervey Water Reclamation Plant
El Paso, Texas
