Bhopal accident gas leak - still persons suffer

http://thewire.in/2015/12/08/proof-that-bhopal-gas-is-now-claiming-its-third-generation-of-victims-16934/

28 years after Bhopal accident - lessons not learnt by others

It is 28 years now after the occurrence of Bhopal accident on 2/3 Dec 1984. As is widely reported, it happened because of,

1. engaging no so well versed technicians at the time of the incident
2. no proper training to employees, local government agencies including health department, nearby residents
3. storage of excessive quantities of MIC
4. non-availability / switching off of safety systems, like, refrigeration to maintain at 2 deg C temperature, maintenance taken up for scrubber and flare systems
5. starting of cleaning of lines also during the non-availability of emergency systems
6. any safety permit was taken for cleaning of lines (is not known)

Murphy's law was proved in this accident. None of us learnt the lessons from this accident. Though, there was initial euphoria, it did not last long. Though the scale of the accidents is not like Bhopal accident, we read / learnt about occurrence of so many accidents.

We continue to engage cheap labour, without providing them any training. Most of the labour are daily workers. A person coming today may not be coming tomorrow or next week. The safety systems provided are not tested, or, they are only show pieces for regulatory agencies. The large number of accidents that appear in media is a proof of this as in many of the organizations in which accidents occur engage short term workers. The reasons for many of these accidents are also simple and are avoidable. It is not that some complex and unknown thing happened leading to such accidents.

We also continue to discharge effluents / offgases / solid wastes into environment. Large quantities of dangerous materials are transported through public domain, probably, without the knowledge of local government agencies. All these can affect the health of the people if not immediately, but over a long period of time.

The most common finding of CSB during their investigations is lack of training. Training and retraining programmes should be established and examinations should be conducted for the employees to put them in to service. It is not sufficient to cut the incentive which is paid for acquiring and renewing operators' licence after passing out the examinations. Such failed employees should not be engaged for plant operations till they pass out. And while evaluating the performance, it should be ensured that they answer all questions and not that because they answered 50% or so, they can be passed. Because, any mistake can lead to accidents greatly affecting the people and environment.

Plants should have policy of not operating the plant in case of failure of any of the safety systems. And ensure monitoring of the plant even when it is under shutdown.

Plants should realise that safety department alone can't guaranty safety as they are not operating the plant and they do not have the knowledge as good as actual plant operators. Further, how many organisations give serious thought to the advice of safety department. Many times, they are projected as hindrance for production and any production loss is attributed to as obstacles from safety department.

Government and regulators should make start a website with different categories and or key words for publishing all accidents, investigation reports from both the concerned company as well as regulators/government agencies. Governments should encourage all companies to upload about accidents and incidents in government website as per the category and should assure that those who reveal accidents immediately after occurrence in the website and also upload investigation reports say within 3-6 months will not be prosecuted for criminal proceedings. But penalties and compensation as applicable have to be borne by the company.
We can't expect organisations to run for charity, but they should ensure safety of their employees, public and environment and in this process they should not bypass safety procedures. 

Off-Site Emergency Response Plans: A Preparedness Tool - Fire Engineering

The Bhopal accident in 1984 led to promulgation of an Act in 1986 to identify hazardous substances, notify the inventories and prepare for emergencies by planning, notification and reporting. It is stated that for chlorine, if the quantity is above 100 pounds, one has to comply with this Act and there are about 350 chemicals in the list.
Off-Site Emergency Response Plans: A Preparedness Tool - Fire Engineering

LINK

Fatality at a Zirconium-Titanium Facility

It is reported that two persons died in a facility that handles zirconium-Titanium. Read the information from the link here. The incident occurred during packing of titanium powder into bricks. Federal Investigators Seek Cause Of Fatal Hancock Co. Blast - News Story - WTOV Steubenville. CSB in a statement stated that it is deploying 4-member investigating team. Internet search shows some accidents/injuries during the handling of pyrophoric materials, in which some useful information can be found in these links. LINK1, LINK2. 

1. Zirconium, titanium, thorium and other metal fires have great potential to cause injuries and fatalities as the thermal radiation can initiate fires in the surrounding areas. They can easily ignite and explode when subjected to friction/impact. It is well known that explosions be devastating in confined spaces. 
2. In combination with insufficient water, the metal fires can grow bigger due to release of hydrogen and can also cause sputtering leading to flying of burning splinters all around (some times to a few hundred meters distance - source: internet search) and cause secondary fires.
3. The zirconium fires are intense and bright and can cause retinal damage when viewed with naked eye. The fire once initiated can reach great heights in no time depending upon the quantity of material involved and size, when turnings are involved. It is reported extensively in literature and NFPA that metal powder/dust can cause dust explosion and friction is sufficient to initiate this.
4. TEC powder in portable extinguishers is effective only for small fires and big fires can be extinguished only by application of large quantities of water from all directions by experienced fire fighters. Further, continuous watch for at least a day is required after extinguishing as it is likely that the material under the heap can keep burning for a long time.
5. As per the safety advice mentioned in MSDS/NFPA, and as it is with any chemical, lesser the inventory, the more safer it is. We can't sit assuming that everything is safe when we are only storing and not handling / processing, which proved very costly during the famous Bhopal accident.
6. Pyrophoric materials need very little energy to catch fire / explode and it is stated that the static charge accumulated on a person is sufficient to initiate fire of this dust/powder. For a safe work place, it is recommended to use antistatic apparel, provide earthing to discharge static charge on the equipment/containers, flameproof/explosion proof electrical fittings, maintain at least 60% humidity, etc in the work area.
7. The powder generated should be incinerated every shift / day (depending upon the quantity) under controlled conditions so that the material can be rendered safe and can be disposed off as landfill.

Bhopal Accident - One more year passed!

Another year passed to count on Bhopal accident. After the Bhopal accident, we can recount the accidents at HPCL, Vizag and IOCL, Jaipur where human lives are lost in double digit. We do not know, how many are going to happen at any time. We may think that we are doing pretty well on safety matters, but it is the luck and time factor rather than our safety alertness that accidents of great magnitude did not happen.

All of us know what to do to avert an accident, but complacency and wrong priorities make us to delay immediate actions for improving safety at workplace.

In the West, well established industrial organizations saw occurrence of accidents, though there safety record is at its best till the occurrence of the accident.

Though, incentives do not lead to permanent safety solutions, still we can offer significant incentives to employees who point out hazards and those responsible for allowing those hazards should be punished parallelly.

Too much freedom and associated inaction should not be tolerated in any hazard installation and wrong doers should be handled severely.

About Bhopal accident

There was an article on Bhopal accident comparing it with that of BP oil spill. The article can be read at this LINK. The author noted about the poor response of our industry leaders to the injustice met by the victims in comparison with the active involvement of industries at USA against BP. There are many persons in responsible positions in various companies who can come under the Sec 300 of IPC and may not be knowing that they are committing such blunders.
It is essential that top management of all industries should be informed about their responsibilities under various statutes when permissions / licences are issued by concerned government authorities. e-mail is the best service available which can be utilized by regulatory agencies to send e-mails from time to time to these leaders of the organizations.
What I feel is that most of the management representatives do not know about minimum safety procedures to be ensured in their organizations under various statutes and punishment / penalties for violators. Once this is known, definitely violations will come down as nobody likes to trouble himself of attending criminal proceedings against him.

Accident liability of independent directors

An article published in Deccan Chronicle today (24.06.2010 Thursday) states that CII asked government to insert a clause in the Companies Bill 2009 to exclude independent directors from any criminal liability for offences commited by the company, saying that they are not involved in day-to-day running.

Though they are not in operation, but any influence of these independent directors in the decision making process of business towards profits, cost cutting measures, etc will have a direct bearing on the safety measures followed by plant operators and thus they are involved indirectly in day-to-day running of the plant. Therefore, it is not correct to exclude them from liability. If they are like ordinary public shareholders and not consulted or involved in any decision making process (in finance, technical,...), then they can be excluded.

All those who are involved in decision making of financial aspects should be made liable for accidents. The deactivation of safety systems at Bhopal was done to cut business losses with the assumption that a plant not in operation does not require maintenance of safety systems. The decision was made because of lack of technical knowledge on what can go wrong.

Any financial decision on plant operations should be supported by a report from operations in-charge (who should be a technical man) that was discussed by all directors and approved.

A tale of compensation payments by two companies - Union Carbide & BP

Bhopal accident that caused more than 15000 deaths and injuries to thousands of persons lead to payment of US$ 470 million (1997 ?) whereas oil spillage by BP in USA (2010) is leading to demands by President and his team to BP to keep aside of US$ 20 billion for cleanup, compensation, etc over a period of time. Had a Bhopal accident occurred in USA, it would have lead to its closure and go bankrupt. Such compensation awards show why companies earn huge profits at the cost of human beings in developing / underdeveloped countries. Many companies cry foul that countries like India cause lot of environment damage but nobody cares about ethics followed by the companies of advanced countries. It appears rules are different for different countries with least regard to deaths by organizations of advanced countries in other countries.

Who is responsible for safety?

After the last week verdict on Bhopal tragedy for fixing the responsibility, so many people in responsible positions commented about the verdict. The Factories Act 1948 amended after this 1984 accident fixes the responsibility for ensuring safety at the work place on the occupier as well as the manager. It also says (Sec 101) that if the occupier is able to prove that he has given full responsiblity and resources to others down below and that the accident occurred because of deeds of his subordinates without his knowledge, then the said person can be held responsible.

Someone commented that a car owner can't be held responsible, if his driver makes an accident. It is forgotten that the driver was put into job by the owner of the car and nobody else (unless car was stolen and is not reported in the police station).

If managements employ less qualified or unsuitable persons for the job, then there is every possibility that accidents / incidents can take place. In risk assessment, human error is also a factor. In fact, experts say that systems should be designed and put in place such that even a fool can not meddle and lead to accidents.

In the case of Bhopal accident, it is mentioned that the some of the workers, superviors and managers were brought from Battery Division and do not have proper training / exposure to run the plant. Even the audit report of Union Carbide warned about imminent dangers, a few years before the accident. Few accidents occurred earlier also support that a major accident will not occur all of a sudden, but will be preceded by few near misses and minor accidents.

As the plant was not in operation for few months before the accident, poorly trained managers and supervisors decided to switch off the refrigeration system thinking that when plant is not running, nothing will happen (because of lack of knowledge on hazards). Persons were not informed about the hazards, neither they had interest to learn on their own, about what can happen in their day-to-day activities. All of us will be careful to caution our children about their safety when they go to school or college. But we do not follow the same at our work place.

Apart from deactivating refrigeration system, the srubbing unit and flare tower were not kept in working condition. To prove Murphy law, every safety system went wrong simulataneously (neither functional nor available at the time of accident). The water sprinkler, a last resort, had limitations of spraying water upto a height of only 15 m where as the gas eascaped from the flare tower at a height more than this.

There are provisions and punishments for causing deaths due to negligence, callous attitude and accused should be awarded compunded punishments. If the wrong doers are not punished severely, this will send a wrong message to all greedy corporates that nothing will happen to them and they can find some scapegoats at lower levels for the minor punishments.  In the famous novel God Father by Mario Puzo, it is mentioned that underworld people keep some persons with opposing gangs as a surity for the persons from these gangs attending meetings so that they can participate the meetings and leave the place safely. Scapegoats will be found like in the underworld system.

The entire property of the owners of the factory causing such large scale deaths should be confiscated and it is better for governments to work toward making international laws to confiscate properties of the owners in other countries also.






LINK