An article in Yahoo - Forbes on assessment of continuing our present job

In an article that I saw in Yahoo, six points are listed as checkpoints to see whether our present job is suitable or not to continue.

Some of the points are like, no more impact, people are not liking the ideas, don't like going to the work, etc which are mostly faced by safety professionals. Unless safety culture is introduced from day one of the factory started, people don't like to follow safety principles, as they feel that they are imposed. With people around not liking/listening means no impact in safety culture in the factory inspite of best efforts by the safety professional making him feel irrelevant, no job satisfaction, and don't feel like going.

But, this will be the situation generally everywhere as there will be hard nuts everywhere and if one keeps changing the job, finally the person will be branded as rolling stone and will not be considered for jobs at all. Possibly, one should do more research on the company he intends to join before and try to settle.

Explosion in detonator factory during disposing of rejected detonators from explosives

In an explosion in one of the largest explosives exporting factory, during separation of rejected detonators from explosives by cutting wires, a mechanical cutter fell down on the explosives below causing the blast leading loss of two lives and injuring 13 others with some of them receiving severe burns.

One of the injured suffered hearing loss during the incident.

The site was visited by State Home Minister, Police and other officials.

Police registered case under various sections of IPC (Indian Penal Code) for negligent act and others leading to personal harm and initiated the probe.

As per reports, the persons doing the job were retired employees as contract workers having experience.

There were also reports of demanding for shifting of the factory from residential premises.

There were some fatal incidents earlier also in the last 10-15 years.

To avoid such incidents, possibility of  automation of removal of rejected detonators needs to be explored.

As the cutter fell down below on explosives during the job, and it is likely that such slippages can happen, suitable path for shifting of material below as soon detonator is separated from the explosive material for every explosive or collecting the explosive material under water or any other medium has to be seen.

Governments have to ensure that industrial areas are well separated from residential areas. There should a sort of no habitat zone between industries and residential areas. It is natural that wherever development is there, the surroundings will see growth of residential areas with a view to gain from real estate price increase. 

Definitely, large industrial complexes would have been set up far away from residential areas at that time. Earlier remote places would have become part of the present cities due to growth. Shifting of industries also will be costly and who will foot this cost. 

Hence, a policy as suggested above is required with marked zones and no-man zones.

Plant shutdown after reaching the target

I am surprised to read a old news item (see the link below) on the above title. The title of the news item is about an accident causing burn injuries to seven persons. In the last para of the news article, it is stated that the unit was shutdown after the target was reached.
Normally, operations will be continued as any excess production too will add to balance sheet. If it is to meet CFO (consent for operation) / factory licence conditions or any other reason is not known.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Chennai/7-injured-in-naphtha-leak-at-Manali-ammonia-plant/articleshow/33631036.cms

Location of industrial plants - safe distances

Two days ago, there was a fire and explosion incident at about 2100 hrs in a chemical factory that makes some product and supplies to well known pharmaceutical companies. As per the news item, two reactors out of fifteen exploded and the blast could be heard even 5-6 km away (my colleague who stays at this distance heard the sound, another one said he felt like someone above his apartment dragged cots). Two persons were injured and the fire was brought under control by state fire department in about 6 hours. The factory also housed about 50 gas cylinders and the adjacent factory has about 50 reactors. If the fire / blast fragments entered this adjacent factory, the consequence would have been severe, as reported. The plant though located in industrial area, is surrounded by residential buildings.

There were questions immediately about the wisdom of granting licence for setting up of factories in residential areas. Similar questions were raised even after the Bhopal incident in 1984.

This and such similar incidents always bring out few questions, like, which is first ?
The factory was set up first or residential buildings came up first?
In philosophy, a similar question is, seed first or (biological) plant first? OR egg first or chick first?

It is difficult to answer the philosophical questions as above. However, not so difficult for our question of factory or residential buildings, which is first? Even in the case of Union Carbide factory at Bhopal, as per the information available in various books, web sites, factory came up first. Shanties, hutments came up adjacent to the factory fence later. These habitats were not removed when they came up. The reason as mentioned in a famous book is that the management was also happy as cheap labour is available nearby. Apart from these, it is quite natural for development to take place near industrial set ups and this will lead to better realization of land and other properties.

In the case of accident mentioned at the beginning also, as is seen, the factory was set up in an industrial area about 7 years ago. However, by that time already the entire area is surrounded with thousands of residential buildings. Apart from this factory, there were other factories that were set up much before. I do not know whether at those times, the residential buildings existed or not. However, I am sure from hearsay that 35-40 years ago, this area was totally isolated from the city and is like a jungle and persons were afraid to reach other factories in the area after the sun set. Few less courageous persons used stay in side those factories in the night after their second shift (ends around 2200-2300 hrs) and go home only in the morning.

Now, these areas are so developed that it is difficult to get land and the price is as good as in the heart of the city, though these are located at about 10-15 km away from the railway station.

Then, the questions about why permission was granted look silly though the question about how safe is a safe distance for a factory remains. For this, the Environment Protection Act 1986 and the rules made under it will help. One has to prepare safety report and has to revise it atleast once in three years or if any additional information is available, it has to be revised even earlier also. Once, the distance of impact is known from toxic releases / fire / explosion, then a safe zone has to be maintained considering the future expansion of the factory as well as population growth in the area. However, preparation of safety reports are mandatory only when the chemical inventory / handled exceeds a threshold quantity. I feel, these limitations should be removed and should be made compulsory for chemicals of any quantity. If a factory is proposed to be set up, then impact distances and safe distances have to be determined and maintained for the chemicals, whatever be the quantity to be handled. Due consideration should be given to the domino effect that is effect of incidents in the proposed factory on the factories that are already in existence and if an incident occurs in the neighbouring factory due to the incident in the proposed factory, then what is the impact.

I also blame the greediness of people in the neighbourhood of the industrial areas. It is not correct to say that they do not know about factories. People spend so much time about genuiness of a property before purchase but care little about other factors. People buy vacant lands when they sense that some development activity is going to occur in the area, the activity can be any thing - setting up of factory / colleges / highway / railway station / etc. Then definitely, the greed is to also to be blamed when persons in residential areas are affected due to industrial activity in the neighbourhood, though the main blame goes to the factory management. When factories have to be set up, land should be enough for plant building area and this should be surrounded by forest cover upto the safe distance. The fence of the factory should be at the safe distance outer boundary. No expansion of factory should take place unless these two aspects are covered. If any violation occurs, the concerned persons should be tried by special courts, whether such expansion caused injury or not or plant operations are carried out without valid permissions.

When the profits are more compared to penalties, then people always prefer penalty. Here, I mean penalty in terms of money. If the penalty includes imprisonment or seizing of the total property of owners and their spouses (apart from the factory), then persons will not dare to do such acts.

Similarly, somebody puts up residential buildings within the impact distance, they should be demolished and persons responsible for granting permission should be taken to task.

Now, what to do with establishments already came up and later residential buildings came up.

Talk to concerned establishments for shifting to safe area in a reasonable time or if it is not feasible, then remove encroachments / take possession of residential and other buildings up to the safe distance as is done for expansion of roads / railway tracks. OR live with it and repeat the blame game as and when accidents occur.