|
Here is an example of a multiple “did not.” Although the first states explicitly that the study’s evaluation was limited and why, the second is a vague, passive-voice
statement that lacks any assignment of accountability that might provide insights into what happened.
“In a 1993 incident, the polymer catch tank was overfilled when the extruder malfunctioned. Polymer was carried into the vent line and solidified, and the line had to be
cut. Nevertheless, the 1999 HAZOP still failed to identify the means by which an excess level could occur in the vessel.”
The authors inserted the literary surrogate “failed to” in place of “did not,” a common misdirection that, in addition, interjects the opinion of the report’s author(s) that a
perpetrator strayed from the expected standard(s) of conduct. (“Nevertheless” is a clue that a value judgment is about to follow.)
“Overfilling contributed to the March 13, 2001, incident because it was partly responsible for plugging the vent and relief piping – which confined the mass of plastic to
the polymer catch tank. If the HAZOP studies had identified credible scenarios involving vessel overfilling and overpressurization due to extruder malfunctions, [then] additional safeguards could have been recommended to reduce the probability or severity of the hazards. If overfilling had been effectively controlled, [then] the sequence of events that led to the March 13 incident would have been less likely – even without knowledge of the decomposition hazard.”
|
