PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT IN INDIA

LG Polymer plant, Visakhapatnam Incident is not a single incident in India. We are facing such incidents very often. After churning of all such “after Bhopal” incidents, few questions arises in mind like :  

1.     Are we really able to Prevent Another disaster in India like Bhopal?

2.     Are after Bhopal Law capable enough to prevent such incidents?

3.     Are Law enforcers capable of ensuring Compliance?

4.     Are Occupiers aware about their Duties and Responsibilities (Sec-7A and Sec 41A to 41H of Factories act and Rule 4, 10 & 13 of MSIHC Rules 1989)

5.     Are Occupiers witnessing their duties by heart?

6.     Are such incidents investigated thoroughly and Report in circulated to the industries for learning purpose?

7.     Are ensured that Competent Persons are appointed in Process Operation

8.     Are ensured that Compulsory Information are disclosed to the concerned persons (Sec 41B of Factories Act and Rule 15 of MSIHC Rules)

9.     Is it ensured that Emergency Response Plan is adequate?

10. Are ensured that employees are well aware about simple Do and Do not while they are at work?

If Yes, What are the reason of such Incidents?????

If not, Why? and who is responsible????

Our Legal framework for Disaster Management System is Excellent. It covers all areas and all aspects. Authorities are also ensuring the implementations of the Plan. As per our plans, we are also fully prepared for mitigating any emergency in the Country.

Even after such preparedness and enforcements of actions, we are failed to manage (Prevent and Protect) many process disasters. Why?????

If we consider it only for Process Industries, some of the Practical Scenario of Legal Compliance in India are :

1.     Majority of the Companies want to Satisfy only to the Licensing Authorities (Why????? ---- .. ---- Matter is of Discussion)

2.     Occupiers are Not aware about economic benefits of PSM (Why not aware, who will make them aware? - Point of Discussion)

3.     Incompetent HSE professionals appointed for compliance

4.     Experts are Costly (Mostly business Oriented)

5.     Dependency on mediator (Consultants – Advocacy) and their monopoly

6.     Compliance on Paper to justify Authorities rather than implementation

7.     Lack of Monitoring of the system adequacy by Govt. Agencies/ Enforcing Authorities

8.     Lack of Specialized skill on Process Safety for the law enforcers

9.     Third Party Audit by External Agencies other than Govt. Authority

10. Not sharing Incidents Root Cause to the Companies – as case study for awareness even after portal is available - Chemical Accident Information and Reporting System (CAIRS), under MoEF

11. Not involvement of Govt. Authorities in Onsite ERP preparation and during Checking of its adequacy (Mock Drill)

12. Formal Offsite Disaster Mock-drill. Not mandate to attend all concerned Industries under Local Crisis Group & DDMA

Following are some legal obligations for Process Industries made after Bhopal Disaster :

1.     Appointment of Strong technical Team to Assess Process industries for Process Safety arrangement and its adequacy. (In Bhopal, Chilling System & Scrubber was not in operation. It was assumed that Gauges are indicating wrong reading etc.)

After Bhopal LAW : There is a provision of Periodical examination of the system by Competent Person certified/accredited by PESO/CCE/DISH etc. but if we talk about actual practices, few of them are dedicated to checks whether the system is practically adequate or not. Occupier never ask whether the system is being checked for its adequacy or only certificates are being issued with extended dates for next examination. Authorities also trust on Report.

For Compliance of Section 41-B & 41-C of Factories Act, the occupiers of industrial activities or isolated storage shall arrange to carry out safety audit by a competent person to be accredited by an Accreditation Board to be constituted by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India in this behalf.

IS 14489 is used as readymade checklist to Audit the Industrial Activities. There are some other elements related to Process Management which are out of IS 14489. Compliance of the Auditors Recommendations is Sent to the Authorities but no one visit the plant to see whether compliance is there at shop-floor or it is only on Paper.

2.     Compulsory disclosure of information to the Public in vicinity of Company is Specific Responsibility of Occupier under Section – 41-B & 41-C of Factory Act. This must contain the detail of the Emergency may be arising due to Companies operation including Do and Do not during Emergency. In Practical, even a single Industry, not giving any such information to the public in vicinity. Legal Authorities ask a copy of the same and enforce to make it available to workman only. Who will ensure – whether public which may be affected is informed about emergency communication including Do & Do not????? Rule 15 of MSIHC Rule also Demand the Same Obligation: Information to be given to the person to be affected by a Major Accident.

3.     Direct dealing with Occupiers by law enforcers:

Occupiers/Owners/Factory Managers of the maximum Companies having Hazardous Process are not aware about obligation applicable to their Company under Applicable Laws. This resulted in – hiring a Consultant – as an Expert. Consultants – Comply law on paper and help in grant of License. As for as implementation of law at ground is Concern, it is untouched. No doubt, expert consultants are also available but they are either very costly or they are limited up to Submission of Assessment Report. Then, Compliance ………………………………..?????

4.     System to share even a minor incidents investigation for learning lesson:

Except some major cases, Incidents investigation Report are not made available to the industries. As we know, Case study is more effective to understand gap in our process rather than its Audit. Govt. should make a enforced strong system to share Process incidents, even if minor, with Root cause. We always talks about Near-miss Reporting, here Incidents are not reported.

5.     System to ensure readiness for chemical disasters Management On-site emergency Management falls under the responsibilities of Occupier. Authorities ask only to submit a Copy of Emergency Response Plan. How Authorities ensures that all potential risks are covered in the plan?, Authorities Ask to submit Mock drill report once in six month but how they ensure that Mock-drill are conducted on Every Emergency Scenarios and Report is Authentic?

In MAH Industries, Authorities must involve in Preparing Onsite ERP and its Mock-drill. They must ensure that Onsite arrangements including awareness is strong and company is capable of handling emergency.

Off-Site emergency Management falls under the responsibilities of Govt. Authorities. Companies are liable only to provide information to the Authorities for Offsite Response Plan. No doubt, Offsite Emergency Response Plan Contains Complete information about Major Accident Hazard including Facilities available in those Companies for mitigation of Emergencies. But copy of OFF SITE ERP is not made available to the Companies. Every Company is not get involved in Offsite Drill. Report of the drill is also not made available to the Companies, While such communication can make our Emergency Management system more strong.

6.     Under Section 40-B of Factories Act, it is compulsory to appoint safety officer. Criteria for Nos of Safety officers to be appointed is also laid-down in law but how Got. Authorities ensure that Safety Officers appointed are Competent and skilled enough to meet Process Safety needs of the organization. There should be some control on it by Govt. Authorities so that it can be ensured that there would not be any incidents in the company if Section 40-B is complied.

In India, we do not have any action-based Approach for PSM like 14 elements of PSM enforced by US, Department of Labour, CFR 1910-119. Consolidated short enforcing guide in checklist form can be introduced by Govt. which can be easily understood by Occupiers and other person engaged in Compliance.

Our Law are very lengthy and of repetitive nature hence majority of the person do not take interest in its reading. Legal language is also quite different and citations are very lengthy

CURRENT PMS TREND IN INDIA – OPERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

1.     Except major Petrochemicals, Oil and Chemical Industries, 14 elements of PSM, as enforced by US, Department of Labour, CFR 1910-119 dated 18th June 1998, not fully observed by Indian Industries.

2.     Though, Chemical plants generally know how to complete a process hazard analysis (PHA), Mechanical Integrity, management of change (MOC), Managing Hot work & incident investigation, etc. They also know that the Failures can result in an incidents, which may lead to injuries, Fatalities, financial losses and public disgrace. They have to inculcate such a work culture to know What is inadequate in their work practices and what to do to make it adequate.

FOLLOWING ARE THE ACTUAL TREND OF PSM IN INDIA:

1.     Leadership of Safety integrated Process Operation is quite poor

2.     Poor credibility of the Chemical Industry with the Public

3.     Very limited risk based proactive approach to process safety

4.     Industries/Employees do not want to share incidents

5.     Technical competency for safe operation of a process is quite poor

6.     Skill development Plans for Safe Operation of the Process is also poor

7.     Industrialists are reactive rather than proactive

LEADERSHIP, COMMITMENT & CULTURE

1.     Fashioning policies and hanging posters is not enough. Rising a healthy safety culture requires leadership of top management to victor safety as a key organizational value.It is true : When management leads in safety, the organization will follow.

2.     Management must involve in workplace safety.

3.     They must address to the workers and

4.     They must take accountability for creating a safe work environment

5.     Emphasis should be given on Near miss Reporting, Investigation and actions to mitigate root cause

6.     Participation and involvement of all cadre of employees in Risk Assessment, Incident Investigating, Safety Suggestion, Safety Contests etc.

MAJOR AREA TO BE CONSIDERED AS CHALLENGES BY INDUSTRIALISTS AND SAFETY PROFESSIONAL HANDLING PSM

1.     Reducing Risk applying hierarchy of control starting from Safe design of plant, Process and equipment

2.     Always Preferring Safer technology

3.     Analysing, Monitoring and Maintaining effectiveness of the Safeguards

4.     Considering Process Hazard Analysis and HAZOP Study as a tool for Process

5.     Strong maintenance of Equipment and Safety Systems to ensure its reliability

6.     Strong and Effective Emergency Response Plan

7.     Adequate Education, Training and Awareness including display of Placard, Cautionary notices etc.

8.     No cost cutting in Contractor’s Safety and Management of Change.

These are my own opinion and not a finding of fault in system. I think, HSEF professional have to come forward as volunteer, take confidence in compliance authorities and work dedicatedly to serve the humanity.  

Limitations & Problem Faced

?     After Bhopal MIC disaster, the Factories Act has been amended in 1987 and Chapter IV-A introduced. This chapter deals with HAZARDOUS PROCESSES. There are total Seven Section viz. visions sec 41A, 41B, 41C, 41D, 41E, 41G & 41H covering all hazardous process industries.

?     Under Sec 41B(4) it is Duty of Occupier of the facility operating Hazardous Process to Prepare On-site Emergency which shall be approved by Chief inspector of Factories and make known to the employees and to the public in the vicinity of the factory along with safety measures required to be taken in the event of any major accident.

Under Sec 41B(4) of FA and R-13 of MSIHCR

1.     Involvement of Authorities in its Preparation

2.     approved by Chief inspector of Factories,

3.     make known to the employees

4.     Make known to the public in the vicinity of the factory

5.     Make known safety measures required to be taken in the event of any major accident.

Problems & Limitations :

Authorities ask only to submit a Copy of Emergency Response Plan. How Authorities ensures that all potential risks are covered in the plan?, Authorities Ask to submit Mock drill report once in six month but how they ensure that Mock-drill are conducted on Every Emergency Scenarios and Report is Authentic? May be the shortage of executing officers under Authorities.

Off-site Emergency

It is related to the Major Accident.

Rule 2(f) of CA(EPPR) Rule 1996 and Rule 2(J) of MSIHC Rule 1989 :

"major chemical accident" means, - an occurrence including any particular major emission, fire or explosion involving one or more hazardous chemicals and resulting from uncontrolled developments in the course of industrial activity or transportation or due to natural events leading to serious effects both immediate or delayed, inside or outside the installation likely to cause substantial loss of life and property including adverse effects on the environment;

Rule-14 of MSIHC Rule 1989

(1)  It shall be the duty of the concerned authority as identified in Column 2 of Schedule 5 to prepare and keep up-to-date an adequate off-site emergency plan containing particulars specified in Schedule 12 and detailing how emergencies relating to a possible major accident on that site will be dealt with and in preparing that plan the concerned authority shall consult the occupier, and such other persons as it may deem necessary.

(2)  For the purpose of enabling the concerned authority to prepare the emergency plan, the occupier shall provide the concerned authority with such information relating to the industrial activity under his control as the concerned authority may require, including the nature, extent and likely effects off-site of possible major accidents

Limitations & Problem Faced

No doubt, Offsite Emergency Response Plan Contains Complete information about Major Accident Hazard including Facilities available in those Companies for mitigation of Emergencies. Some limitations and Problems are :

1.     There are so many Industries Handling Hazardous Chemical in any District but only One Offsite Drill on any one Scenario is Conducted by the Authorities every year. How it is ensure that the Action & Resources for Handling Emergencies within District or Within Industrial Pocket is adequate.

2.     Drill is Conducted only during Day time not during any odd hours as night

3.     In case, any two or more emergencies are there in any Area, then what?????

4.     Copy of OFF SITE ERP is not made available to the Companies.

5.     Every Company is not get involved in Offsite Drill.

6.     Report of the drill is also not made available to the Companies, While such communication can make our Emergency Management system more strong.

What we learned from Bhopal?

If there was a Strong, Efficient, Effective, Capable and Readily available Onsite and Offsite Emergency Response plan and requirement like Section 41-B(4) of FA & Rule 13 & 14 of MSIHC Rule was fulfilled we could have save the lives of innocent People of Bhopal

This was the Reason for the Amendments in Safety Law after Bhopal. Law are being continually improved.

But – Execution of the compliance of obligations by the Authorities need to be improved in terms of proactive rather than reactive.

What to do?

?     Bothe Industrialist and Authorities have to take Concrete proactive and Preventive action for Accident Prevention in Process Industries.

?     Both Industrialist and Authorities have to Ensure that Onsite & Offsite Emergency Response Plan is Appropriate, Adequate and Readily Available to use

?     HSE Professional/Safety officers to take full Responsibilities to Ensure that there is no gap in Paper and Ground. They have to inform to both Occupier and Concerned Authorities about gaps, if any, and the Action to bridge it.