Engineering students hear about risk

Dawn Wiseman

As low as reasonably possible, or ALARP: This is the term that British engineers coined to describe how much risk the public should be exposed to in their use of engineered works.

Explained by Jean-Paul Lacoursière, an associate professor at the Université de Sherbrooke and risk management consultant, ALARP is a “moving target” and the professional engineer’s ability to address it improves over time with increased knowledge and developments in technology.

Lacoursière was a member of the panel of professional engineers who addressed about 200 members of the Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science at the fourth edition of Engineering: A profession, a passion! on Oct. 31 in H-110.

Held in partnership with the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec (OIQ), the event focuses on professional issues in engineering. This year’s theme was risk management.

As Dean Nabil Esmail underlined in his welcome, the gathering has become “one of the bright spots of engineering education in Quebec” because it provides undergraduate students with a view to their chosen profession that goes well beyond the lab and classroom. He said the evening’s theme was particularly relevant because every engineer carries the public trust, and must therefore manage the risk to which they are exposed.

Lacoursière was joined by Laurier Nichols, manager of the energy efficiency group at Dessau-Soprin and chair of the OIQ’s professional inspection committee, and Yves Dubeau, director of emergency measures and civil security at Gaz Métropolitain and board member of the Conseil pour la réduction des risques industriels majeurs (CRAIM).

With the presentation of case studies like the recent collapse of the du Souvenir overpass in Laval, panelists underlined the responsibility of professional engineers to the public’s wellbeing. But as OIQ president Zaki Ghavitian pointed out in his opening, that responsibility extends even further.

Quoting section 2.01 of the Code of Ethics of Engineers, he reminded participants that “in all aspects of his work, the engineer must respect his obligations towards man and take into account the consequences of the performance of his work on the environment and on the life, health and property of every person.” The Code is the foundation of the fundamental values of the profession: competence, responsibility, ethical conduct and social commitment.

Following that lead, panelists acknowledged that public perception and professional understanding of acceptable risk are not necessarily the same: but that an engineer’s job is to properly inform the public.

“Acceptability of risk is a complex issue,” Dubeau said. “It should be defined by society. Our role is to present the risks and benefits of any project in a conversation with all the stakeholders.”