A Review of Good Intentions

Each of the items covered as Good Intentions showed a flaw in judgment. None of the problems were unique, and no decision was so urgent that the change needed to be 

Sanders, R. E. Don t Become Another Victim of Vacuum, Chemical Engineering Progress, New York, Sept. 1993 pp. 54-57. 

Sanders, R. E. Human Factors Case Histories of Improperly Managed Changes in Chemical Plants, Process Safety Progress, New York, Fall 1996, pp. 150—53. 

Sanders, R. E., D. L. Haines, J. H. Wood, Stop Tank Abuse, Plant Operations Progress, New York, Jan 1990 pp. 61-65. 

Each of the items covered as Good Intentions showed a flaw in judgment. None of the principleN were unique and no decision was so urgent that the change needed to be accomplished immediately. All technical plant employees could easily understand the problems after they occurred and most of the technical employees could have spt)tted the weaknesses prior to the incident, if they had been afforded the opportunity for a well-disciplined review (see Chapter 10). Happily there were no significant injuries reported in these accidents, which caused more than 1 million of losses. However, wo don t know about the ducks. And yet, some accidents resulting from similar moditications have caused injuries and even deaths. 

Sanders, R. E. Plant Modifications Troubles and Treatment, Chemical Ent ineering Progrew. New York, Feb. 1983 pp. 73-77. 

Dowell, A. M., Ill and D. C. Hendershot, No Good Deed Goes Unpunished Case Studies of Incidents and Potential Incidents Caused by Protective Systems, Process Safet Progress. Full 1997. pp. 132-139. 

---