Loading ...
A Moral about the Rightful Role of Safety Rules
It felt like just another normal day in Sharon Springs, Kansas, when the Union Pacific crew boarded a loaded coal train for the long trek to Salina.
But just a few miles into the trip a wheel bearing became overheated and melted, letting a metal support drop down and grind on the rail, creating white hot molten metal droppings spewing down to the rail.
Fortunately, the crew was very alert and noticed the smoke. They applied the brakes and brought the train to an immediate halt.
Unfortunately, the train stopped on a wooden bridge with creosote ties and trusses—hardly an ideal spot to park a train with an overheating wheel spewing molten metal. The crew explained the situation to the higher-ups and asked for permission to move the train off the bridge.
Permission denied. The crew was reminded that “the Rules” prohibit moving a train when a part is defective!
So the train remained parked on the wooden bridge.
You can see what happened next.
Conclusion
We all understand the importance of obeying safety rules. But let’s never forget that the safety rule is only a means to an end. There are occasions when rules have to be broken to serve the overriding interest of safety.
Email This Post
Print This Post
Top
Story Comments (6)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This statement is on the first page of our safety manual:
"Nothing in this written program or the other components of the EMS safety planning efforts is intended to prohibit the application of good sense. If a situation, condition or activity seems unsafe then act as if it is. Seek guidance from supervision or Corporate Safety where a question regarding proper response arises."
Perfect example of how Laws or regulations can hinder safety, had they moved the train, they probably would have been fired. It reminds me of a case that was discussed during one a seminar. 2 employees responded to an emergency to shut down a valve to prevent an explosion. They were not wearing fall protection and were terminated because of a "Cardinal" rule. We wonder why employees have a difficult time buying in to safety programs. Just like the project site where no gas is present, but all employees have to wear FR becasue it is company policy. It is 110 degrees outside and 100% humidity. On the project the client had 2 people who had to be treaded for heat stroke witehin 2 weeks. I think we as safety professionals need to think ahead and use more "what ifs", and document the "what ifs". I also believe in the use of JSSP or site specific plans. The issue we sometimes face is that too often policy is not thought out but is a 'knee jerk' reaction. Everyone wants to be covered legally, and your policies are really only as good as your lawyer in a lawsuit. We still have to be smart about protecting our people, profits, product, and public in all situations.
I think bent would be a better phrase than broken. There are times when a task needs to be performed and a safe way found to perform it, so one should never say never.
Safety Practitioners are well aware that "Safety is common sense". In the first place, if only the crew just moved the train a few meters more before calling HQ, all that happened afterward could have been prevented.If the people at HQ had common sense and foresight once informed of the situation...they would have immediately approved the movement of the train a few meters forward. But again, was the relay of accurate information about the actual situation done promptly by the crew?
Hank - Excellent paragraph in your Safety Policy regarding 'good sense'. I cannot recall seeing such a statement in other safety policies.
A moral based on an untrue story, unfortunately.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/trainfire.asp
The original 2002 article about the incident:
http://www.arizonarails.com/bad_day.html