Taking responsibility for public safety: How engineers seek to minimise disaster incubation in design of hazardous facilities

Inquiries into the causes of man-made disasters have shown repeatedly that ongoing safety of workers and the public depends on decisions made, often many years earlier, during the design stage of infrastructure or facility development. The potential for disaster represented by incompatibilities that remain undiscovered between design choices and future operating requirements is a classic example of what Turner calls 'disaster incubation' - where beliefs about control of hazards are at odds with actual events. This research investigates the motivations and attitudes of people working in a design office environment who determine the form of hazardous facilities such as oil refineries, petrochemical plants and pipelines. It explores particularly the issue of responsibility for public safety. This long-term goal faces serious competition for attention from short-term project priorities of integrity, cost and schedule. Linking requirements for public safety to facility integrity (as is often done in a project environment) is shown to have substantial limitations as a strategy for ensuring the best long term outcomes. As a counter to this, some senior discipline engineers were found to emphasise the real-world potential consequences of their work through use of stories and saw communication of professional values to younger staff as a key aspect of their work. The paper also touches on the perceived role of engineering standards and shows that safety design is seen to go beyond simply compliance. There has been little social science research in this important area. The paper concludes with areas in which further work would be valuable. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.