This year, it appears summer started in January itself. As the weeks progress, already less crowds are seen on the roads in the afternoon.
Wild vegetation on the roadside, around industrial plants, chemical storages, along the railway tracks, etc is a cause of concern as it becomes dry. In the beginning of this month, there was a news item that a rail compartment parked in a scrap yard caught fire and was totally burnt. The fire was attributed to the waste material stored around the area.
The source of fire can be anything, starting from cigarette butt. Even oil soaked cotton rags, when left as such, or wet grass under sun can be subjected to bacterial action and this results in slow heating of the matter and gradually with increase in day time temperature, it can catch fire.
Few (9-10) years back, there were a series of reports about fires in ammunition depots during summer. The reason attributed at that time was that many of the material are covered under tarpaulin cloth and the heat trapped inside caused increase in temperature and finally lead to fire.
Legislations also say to keep all plant / storage surroundings to be free from combustibles so that even if fire starts, it will not affect plant / storage areas. It is better, if atleast 6 m around these areas is maintained free of wild vegetation, trees, etc by paving the areas so that recurring work of grass cutting, etc can be avoided and no one needs to be reminded for these jobs.
Similarly, if HT wires are going above, the area below should be free from wild vegetation, as any spark can start fire below and this happened at many places. It is a common sight to see growth of creepers around HT towers. These also can catch fire during summer as they become dry.
Public also behave irresponsibly by dumping all the waste around the HT towers, transformers, street light poles. Even if municipal waste bins are available, people throw the matter near the bin, instead of dumping into the bin.
Thought there is talk of 'Behaviour Based Safety Processes (BBSP)', I am unable to think of what we can do to educate the persons, as everybody says that they know the hazard, when we explain them, but keep repeating it. We can compare this attitude with wearing of helmet. The reaction of the persons is, 'Yes, we know that we can break our head without helmet, but, oh, that nasty thing, it irritates'.
What type of movement is required to drive the persons to follow safe practices, without loosing our patience. If anybody sees this article, may kindly suggest.
Mar 7, 2009
Feb 14, 2009
Risk = Probability (???) x SEVERITY
Yesterday I read a news item that a US satellite Iridium-33 in use collided with a Russian satellite Cosmos 2251 that is no longer in use on Tuesday (10.02.2009) at 0455 GMT at 790 km height above Siberia. It seems that this type of accident happened for the first time. There are more than 17000 man-made objects at present in the space. I went through internet and found that the probability of such collision is once in tens of years and the debris now generated can reduce this probability to once in a year or so as there are some more satellites in the same altitude and the total debris may hinder space craft movement in the future.
Now, the question is not about space but on the events on the earth.
In any factory, accidents keep occurring. When somebody (normally safety officer / advisor) points out about unsafe acts / unsafe conditions in the shop floor / factory premises and asks for correction, the usual reaction is, a staring look and then the reply comes, "oh, we have been doing this for the last few years / we are doing like this from the beginning / who is expert -you are me - you safety people does not know any thing other than talking / I can't do - you come and do / so on...
How true are the words of the famous safety professional Trevor Kletz -
Corporates do not have memory.
We have done this way 100 times is not acceptable unless an accident on 101st time is acceptable.
We never imagined that satellite collision is possible. But, it happened. Where the chances are remote, still it happened and where the chances are high in our activities in the shop floor, we do not want to correct our selves.
If we see the accident history in any factory, after the accident, the usual sheepish answer from the injured or his colleagues or manager is that it happened for the first time, the person is experience, skilled, safety conscious, near retirement, he doesn't want to take official leave and will take personal leave for the period away from duty due to accident, so on.
In spite of all the above qualities, still accidents occurred, then imagine what can happen to others. It is the attitude that requires correction rather than any thing else.
When somebody narrates their own experience, people listen attentively, appreciate him that he came clean and after coming out from the room the listeners do the same old things. This is why accidents keep occurring again and again, if not to the same person / or same shop floor, they will be occurring somewhere else to some body else.
We love short cuts and feel that we are above all others, accident does not occur when we are working.
One of my colleague, who retired 4 years ago, used to tell in all his training classes, that we should leave the organization with same organs as we had when we joined.
Yes, it is true that no body wants to lose their organs and suffer. But, momentary decision without thought for consequences will lead to accidents.
Rarely, does the type of accident will be new in any factory that is few years old. May be after the accident, corrective actions are taken. But after few years, the corrected systems will be replaced because people forget the reasons for safe guards in place and meddle with the systems. They want to prove to their bosses that they are inventors and soon after their will be accidents and shop floor persons will be suffered. But, the so called inventor would have got his promotion or pay rise and even would have left the organization.
So, every body should work seriously on the hazards at the shop floor, let the probability is however less. Nobody says there is no (zero) probability of occuring for an accident. In fact the word probability it self gives meaning of some uncertainty. Hence, if the severity / consequence from even from remote probable event is not acceptable, without looking for chance of occurrence, we should eliminate all those hazards and make our work place safer.
Risk assessment and actions should concentrate more on consequence rather than on probability and make life safer for persons.
Now, the question is not about space but on the events on the earth.
In any factory, accidents keep occurring. When somebody (normally safety officer / advisor) points out about unsafe acts / unsafe conditions in the shop floor / factory premises and asks for correction, the usual reaction is, a staring look and then the reply comes, "oh, we have been doing this for the last few years / we are doing like this from the beginning / who is expert -you are me - you safety people does not know any thing other than talking / I can't do - you come and do / so on...
How true are the words of the famous safety professional Trevor Kletz -
Corporates do not have memory.
We have done this way 100 times is not acceptable unless an accident on 101st time is acceptable.
We never imagined that satellite collision is possible. But, it happened. Where the chances are remote, still it happened and where the chances are high in our activities in the shop floor, we do not want to correct our selves.
If we see the accident history in any factory, after the accident, the usual sheepish answer from the injured or his colleagues or manager is that it happened for the first time, the person is experience, skilled, safety conscious, near retirement, he doesn't want to take official leave and will take personal leave for the period away from duty due to accident, so on.
In spite of all the above qualities, still accidents occurred, then imagine what can happen to others. It is the attitude that requires correction rather than any thing else.
When somebody narrates their own experience, people listen attentively, appreciate him that he came clean and after coming out from the room the listeners do the same old things. This is why accidents keep occurring again and again, if not to the same person / or same shop floor, they will be occurring somewhere else to some body else.
We love short cuts and feel that we are above all others, accident does not occur when we are working.
One of my colleague, who retired 4 years ago, used to tell in all his training classes, that we should leave the organization with same organs as we had when we joined.
Yes, it is true that no body wants to lose their organs and suffer. But, momentary decision without thought for consequences will lead to accidents.
Rarely, does the type of accident will be new in any factory that is few years old. May be after the accident, corrective actions are taken. But after few years, the corrected systems will be replaced because people forget the reasons for safe guards in place and meddle with the systems. They want to prove to their bosses that they are inventors and soon after their will be accidents and shop floor persons will be suffered. But, the so called inventor would have got his promotion or pay rise and even would have left the organization.
So, every body should work seriously on the hazards at the shop floor, let the probability is however less. Nobody says there is no (zero) probability of occuring for an accident. In fact the word probability it self gives meaning of some uncertainty. Hence, if the severity / consequence from even from remote probable event is not acceptable, without looking for chance of occurrence, we should eliminate all those hazards and make our work place safer.
Risk assessment and actions should concentrate more on consequence rather than on probability and make life safer for persons.
Feb 12, 2009
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.
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.
Jan 19, 2009
Why Gas cylinders should be kept in sun shade?
I read in Rules for gas cylinders that gas cylinders should be kept under sun shade, should not be exposed to direct sun light, the storage area should have good ventilation, etc. Though the reasons are known, i.e to avoid over pressurization due to the exposure to sun, I saw practically how over pressurization takes place in the cylinder when exposed to sun light directly.
Recently, I was on a visit to one of our sites under construction. After my visit to the construction site, at about 1230 hrs in the noon, I was going back to the office where I normally sit. I don't have permanent table and chair as I visit the site occasionally and there are permanent safety officers already appointed at site. On the way, I saw some argon cylinders stored on the road side under direct sun light, without valve caps. I enquired with the contractor nearby about the cylinders and I was told that they are empty and are to be sent to the supplier. On close observation, I found that the valve discharge nozzle is having some water (there was rain on previous night) and small bubbles were being formed continuously.
From this I understood that though the cylinder is empty, it is not 100% empty and some leftover gas in the cylinder is getting expanded due to rise in ambient temperature. As the valve is not totally closed, the expanded gas is leaking out as bubbles through the water in the discharge nozzle.
This clearly demonstrates that though we assume empty cylinders are safe, they are not actually 100% empty and if the gas is toxic, then the little amount of gas leaking out due to sunlight exposure can harm the persons nearby. If the cylinders are full then they are hazardous and can endanger the persons around.
Similarly, being found on the roadside, any damage to the valve (breakage) can rocket the cylinder like missile and can hurt persons / damage equipment or property nearby or can have a domino effect. For this reason, the rules are specific that the unused cylinder valves should be protected with valve caps so that valves can't be exposed directly.
People talk about safety culture so much, but these small issues like valve caps, cylinder storage under sunshade, chaining the cylinders to prevent their fall, etc are not given due attention. Lip service alone will not improve safety culture. May be, talking about safety will bring admiration from listeners and even some appreciation by way of reward, but this will not help in improving the safety at ground level and all this admiration / appreciation / rewards will be washed off by any single accident and the same persons will admonish the in-charges of the area for not visualizing the hazards and not taking corrective measures for the safety of the people.
Recently, I was on a visit to one of our sites under construction. After my visit to the construction site, at about 1230 hrs in the noon, I was going back to the office where I normally sit. I don't have permanent table and chair as I visit the site occasionally and there are permanent safety officers already appointed at site. On the way, I saw some argon cylinders stored on the road side under direct sun light, without valve caps. I enquired with the contractor nearby about the cylinders and I was told that they are empty and are to be sent to the supplier. On close observation, I found that the valve discharge nozzle is having some water (there was rain on previous night) and small bubbles were being formed continuously.
From this I understood that though the cylinder is empty, it is not 100% empty and some leftover gas in the cylinder is getting expanded due to rise in ambient temperature. As the valve is not totally closed, the expanded gas is leaking out as bubbles through the water in the discharge nozzle.
This clearly demonstrates that though we assume empty cylinders are safe, they are not actually 100% empty and if the gas is toxic, then the little amount of gas leaking out due to sunlight exposure can harm the persons nearby. If the cylinders are full then they are hazardous and can endanger the persons around.
Similarly, being found on the roadside, any damage to the valve (breakage) can rocket the cylinder like missile and can hurt persons / damage equipment or property nearby or can have a domino effect. For this reason, the rules are specific that the unused cylinder valves should be protected with valve caps so that valves can't be exposed directly.
People talk about safety culture so much, but these small issues like valve caps, cylinder storage under sunshade, chaining the cylinders to prevent their fall, etc are not given due attention. Lip service alone will not improve safety culture. May be, talking about safety will bring admiration from listeners and even some appreciation by way of reward, but this will not help in improving the safety at ground level and all this admiration / appreciation / rewards will be washed off by any single accident and the same persons will admonish the in-charges of the area for not visualizing the hazards and not taking corrective measures for the safety of the people.
Jan 17, 2009
Gas cylinder Explosion
Yesterday (16.01.2009 Friday), I read a news items in a local news paper with the title, which is the title of this post. It states that four persons were seriously injured due to burns in this accident. It is reported in the news paper that when gas cylinder in use has become empty, the house owner (a gold smith, may be with both shop and house together) informed and got refil cylinder from the LPG supplier at about 1430 hours. When the family members of the house opened the gas (stove knob ? / cylinder cap ? / regulator knob ?), the gas leaked. Seeing this, the workers in the shop put the cylinder in a water tub. Still the leaked gas (obvious, as LPG does not dissolve in water) spread around and caught fire (there can always be an ignition source for a combustible material). The fire caused burn injuries to four persons who were working in the shop. After extinguishing the fire, the other workers admitted the injured in a private hospital and informed the police. The police went to the spot and shifted the injured to a government hospital for further treatment of the persons whose condition is serious.
The above news items and similar such news items earlier always raised so many questions in me. A few of them are,
Whether the cylinder exploded (as per the title of the news item)
However, as per the news item mentioned below the title, it is understood that the cylinder did not explode but it is the leaked gas that exploded.
- Similarly, sometimes reports appear as gas stove explosion. This also gives impression that the stove (burners) exploded. But mostly it is the leaked gas explosion.
The reaction of the persons for arresting the leak is another question in my mind.
We can't blame the persons who have put the cylinder in a water tub in this case because of their knowledge / awareness. However, it is better if the gas cylinder suppliers put stickers on the cylinder containing information like, what to do in case of gas leak / leak and fire; whom to contact; the emergency contact numbers, what checks are to be done by the receiver i) when the cylinder is received (this is normally done by the supplier / delivery boy in some occasions) and also ii) during regular use; the cylinder test date and due date for next testing by the company; instructions for the user to inform with contact numbers if receives a cylinder after expiry date / damaged condition of the cylinder,etc. Normally, this type of information is provided on the industrial gas cylinders and similar information with more details should be made available to the domestic users.
Eariler a few years ago, when I was in my office, I received a call that outside our organization a lorry (truck) with gas cylinders was stopped because of gas leak. My self with a colleague visited the spot and found that all gas cylinders were unloaded onto the road side and also observed some white powder on a few cylinders. On enquiry with the driver of the lorry, we found that as a precautionary measure, he used the portable fire extinguisher in the lorry. This also shows the poor knowledge of the drivers of hazardous chemicals. Though he will get licence for hazardous chemical transportation and will be renewed every year, the employers should ensure that all their staff get required training and retrained again and again. Without training, they should not be engaged in transportation at all. Sometimes, the material brought by the driver will be different from what is mentioned on HAZCHEM information on the containers. The trained driver will ensure that correct HAZCHEM stickers are displayed on the container and this will help the others on the road also, if the driver is not in a position to take proper measures. In the drivers cabin also, the tools and personal protective equipment list and location should be displayed prominently for the same reason.
Normally, the procedure in case of gas leak is take the lorry to a less inhabitated / less crowded place atleast and cordon the area by atleast 300 m around, simulatneously inform the police and their employer and wait for instructions. In case of gas leak of a domestic cylinder in a house, inform the supplier, take the cylinder outside in to a open area (not through lift), remove ignition sources in the nearby area to the extent possible and wait for the supplier to do the needful. In the news item reported above, it appears the cylinder was put in the water tub inside the house and may the confinement of the house lead to accumulation of gas and it is not able to disperse. The ignition source is obvious as it happened in the house that belongs to a goldsmith with shop in it. Goldsmith will have fire kiln or of such arranagement for making the ornaments. Moreover, the refill was delivered at about 1430 hours and the cylinder was handled soon for replacement as per the news item. This shows that it happened during the working hours of the gold smith shop.
Had the cylinder was put in a water tub or covered with wet blanket / cloth outside, the leaked gas could have dispersed easily and cylinder will have cooling to prevent overpressurization in case of fire nearby.
The incident of gas leak happened in my house also once a few months ago. When I replaced the empty cylinder with a full cylinder and opened the regulator knob, I found gas leaking from the cylinder nozzle. I removed the knob and placed cylinder cap and it arrested the gas leak. I opened all windows ( I stay in an apartment) informed the supplier immediately about the leak. I could not get connection to the supplier as the phone line was busy (obvious as he will be getting calls for refill bookings). My wife went to the supplier's office located at about 3 - 4 km from my house. It took about 15 - 20 minutes to reach the office as the traffic was more on the roads and by the time we tried by phone and then informed personally, more than 45 minutes time elapsed. Then, the person came about 2 hours later, checked the cylinder nozzle and replaced the rubber gasket in it.
It may be routine call for the gas suppliers but the users will be under tremendous tension. In my case gas leaked only when connected and regulator knob is opened. If it is leaking even when the cylinder cap is not removed then imagine the plight of the people. Similarly if the leak occurs on a weekend or non-working hours of the gas supplier, then getting help is also very difficult.
Though emergency numbers are listed in the telephone directory, in emergency people will be panicky and may not remember what to do. Also, the the numbers in the directory may be old. Further, telephone directories are not published by all telephone companies. If the users are having only mobile phones, then they don't have any directory. Fortunately, now phone number 108 is available to contact in case help required when there is an emergency (fire/police/ambulance). But, how many people know this information is questionable. Only learned people with an eye on what is happening in their surroundings will know. Otherwise, there are many people who don't read news papers or look around billboards / stickers pasted at important places.
If this information and other important details as mentioned in the beginning of this article are displayed on the cylinder itself, it will be help for all the users. The information should be available in English, Hindi and the local language. Pasting of the sticker by the gas cylinder delivery agency should be made mandatory. If the agency is made responsible, then the sticker with instructions in local language along with English and Hindi can be ensured. The sticker may cost 2-3 rupees. But, this will definitely help the users. If stickers are not used and only pamphlets are distributed, users may lose them and utility can'g be guaranteed.
I will put some more information on this subject in my future posts.
Jan 11, 2009
Experience in Safety implementation
There is a saying that "Experience makes a man wise". Yes, this is true, but not in all respects. Sometimes, it is good if we do not get experience, for example, tasting a food item that is made by a first timer, or, learning 2-wheeler driving where there is every possibility of fall of person.
I like to taste a mango once again rather than getting injured first time or next time also.
The greatest safety professional, Mr. Kletz said in one of his books on industrial safety that, it is better to learn from others mistakes rather than experiencing all those by ourselves. By this, we can ensure a safe work for ourselves and our colleagues and public.
Information on accidents is available in various books, news papers, journals, websites. We should be interested in searching and getting all those information and then applying the lessons learnt to our work place.
Still, it is surprising to see that we do not learn from the accidents, leave those at other places, even from our own work place accidents, we refuse to learn. We are so lethargic and self centered that we do not want even to inform the people in our work place about accidents that are likely to occur. Every thing we leave it the wisdom of the shopfloor workers or Know Your Self way.
However, when an injury occurs, it is likely that the injured apart from pain has also be ready to receive admonishing from superiors by way of a memo / advise letter / explanation seeking letter for the injury. What the works manager or his supervisor does during regular plant visits is known only to the GOD, I suppose.
It is to be noted by all that apart from penalties (financial as well as sitting in a jail) listed in the Factories Act, there are provision listed even in the Constitution where by way of negligence, when failure to take protective measures is established, concerned in-charges are likely to be punished under constitution also.
Hence, one should not be relaxed that their work place does not come under Factories Act. Constitution contains all to see that persons are protected.
Sometimes, when safety supervisor / officer gives advise on safe acts / practices or stops an activity that is carried out in an unsafe manner, then the production in-charge asks the safety person to do the work or he will try to shift the safety person to that production activity or sees that he is removed. Of course, removal is not possible in a government organization, but it is always possible to shift safety person to production line as a punishment or teach a lesson for advising on safety.
The production fails to see why a safety person advises so. It is production in-charge who has to face questions, in case of an accident and he may have to be prepared even for a possible arrest by police. Instead of seeing or visualizing the situation, production in-charge questions safety department like, are you not belonging to the organization, don't you want a good name for the General Manger, etc.
Chief Executive / General Manger who is designated as Occupier should be careful against people like the above who want to get production somehow and want to claim for the production but not about the injuries. Such people should be thrown out of the organization or they should be sent to training programmes compulsorily on the statutory requirements with stress on penalties so that they MAY be able to see the implications. Even then if they do not learnt, better they are removed from the job itself so that workers will be protected and organization's name is not spoiled.
Mr Om P Kharbanda in one of his writings mentioned that SAFETY IS NOT ONLY FREE, BUT IT ALSO PAYS. Like quality brings down the cost of production, similarly safety also is cost reducing proposition. However, safety brings more tangible benefits when it is thought and implemented during the design stage itself. If it is implemented later as an ADD ON feature, then people may resist to follow unless until they see the reason clearly.
Though people say penalties do not have much effect in safety, I feel strongly that safety department should be given the authority to impose cash penalties where safety advisor can caution once and if the problem persists, then he can take evidence by photograph or other means and also impose penalty straight away. The penalty amount should be deducted from the concerned production department / agency Head of the Account to Safety Department which can be used as fund for safety promotion. Again, the facility in-charge should seek explanation from the concerned production department where penalty is recovered for the safety lapse.
When managers are questioned on penalties and is shown as a negative aspect, then only production mangers will realize the importance of safety.
Stopping the work by safety person will not have impact, because once the safety person leaves the shopfloor after advise / instruction, the work will be resumed in the same manner. This is true in most of the cases.
Sometimes, when shopfloor persons are questioned about unsafe practices, like doing maintenance on a running machine, or not wearing PPE, etc, they start complaining about the knowledge of the safety person or quality of PPE or need for getting an item of a particular brand, etc without justification so that safety person can be undermined and will be made to leave the place. It should be known that PPE of good quality meeting standards only will be recommended by safety person but not of brands. If there are more suppliers meeting the required standards, then supplier of the item meeting standards at lowest cost only will be recommended for purchase.
Sometimes, when workmen face problem with overtime, they they call safety persons on the pretext of unsafe conditions in the shopfloor. Once the manager agrees for giving overtime, then workmen forget about safety aspects and everybody disappears. At the end, you may see shopfloor in-charge and safety person arguing on the unsafe conditions, that may not be existing at all which were complained by workmen.
Workmen also should realize that if they do not follow safety, they can be punished under various provisions.
Finally, safety implementation requires commitment by shopfloor people and the production department. If they follow advise by Safety Department, then they can get benefited more. Else, it is they who have suffer the pain, not the safety persons.
I like to taste a mango once again rather than getting injured first time or next time also.
The greatest safety professional, Mr. Kletz said in one of his books on industrial safety that, it is better to learn from others mistakes rather than experiencing all those by ourselves. By this, we can ensure a safe work for ourselves and our colleagues and public.
Information on accidents is available in various books, news papers, journals, websites. We should be interested in searching and getting all those information and then applying the lessons learnt to our work place.
Still, it is surprising to see that we do not learn from the accidents, leave those at other places, even from our own work place accidents, we refuse to learn. We are so lethargic and self centered that we do not want even to inform the people in our work place about accidents that are likely to occur. Every thing we leave it the wisdom of the shopfloor workers or Know Your Self way.
However, when an injury occurs, it is likely that the injured apart from pain has also be ready to receive admonishing from superiors by way of a memo / advise letter / explanation seeking letter for the injury. What the works manager or his supervisor does during regular plant visits is known only to the GOD, I suppose.
It is to be noted by all that apart from penalties (financial as well as sitting in a jail) listed in the Factories Act, there are provision listed even in the Constitution where by way of negligence, when failure to take protective measures is established, concerned in-charges are likely to be punished under constitution also.
Hence, one should not be relaxed that their work place does not come under Factories Act. Constitution contains all to see that persons are protected.
Sometimes, when safety supervisor / officer gives advise on safe acts / practices or stops an activity that is carried out in an unsafe manner, then the production in-charge asks the safety person to do the work or he will try to shift the safety person to that production activity or sees that he is removed. Of course, removal is not possible in a government organization, but it is always possible to shift safety person to production line as a punishment or teach a lesson for advising on safety.
The production fails to see why a safety person advises so. It is production in-charge who has to face questions, in case of an accident and he may have to be prepared even for a possible arrest by police. Instead of seeing or visualizing the situation, production in-charge questions safety department like, are you not belonging to the organization, don't you want a good name for the General Manger, etc.
Chief Executive / General Manger who is designated as Occupier should be careful against people like the above who want to get production somehow and want to claim for the production but not about the injuries. Such people should be thrown out of the organization or they should be sent to training programmes compulsorily on the statutory requirements with stress on penalties so that they MAY be able to see the implications. Even then if they do not learnt, better they are removed from the job itself so that workers will be protected and organization's name is not spoiled.
Mr Om P Kharbanda in one of his writings mentioned that SAFETY IS NOT ONLY FREE, BUT IT ALSO PAYS. Like quality brings down the cost of production, similarly safety also is cost reducing proposition. However, safety brings more tangible benefits when it is thought and implemented during the design stage itself. If it is implemented later as an ADD ON feature, then people may resist to follow unless until they see the reason clearly.
Though people say penalties do not have much effect in safety, I feel strongly that safety department should be given the authority to impose cash penalties where safety advisor can caution once and if the problem persists, then he can take evidence by photograph or other means and also impose penalty straight away. The penalty amount should be deducted from the concerned production department / agency Head of the Account to Safety Department which can be used as fund for safety promotion. Again, the facility in-charge should seek explanation from the concerned production department where penalty is recovered for the safety lapse.
When managers are questioned on penalties and is shown as a negative aspect, then only production mangers will realize the importance of safety.
Stopping the work by safety person will not have impact, because once the safety person leaves the shopfloor after advise / instruction, the work will be resumed in the same manner. This is true in most of the cases.
Sometimes, when shopfloor persons are questioned about unsafe practices, like doing maintenance on a running machine, or not wearing PPE, etc, they start complaining about the knowledge of the safety person or quality of PPE or need for getting an item of a particular brand, etc without justification so that safety person can be undermined and will be made to leave the place. It should be known that PPE of good quality meeting standards only will be recommended by safety person but not of brands. If there are more suppliers meeting the required standards, then supplier of the item meeting standards at lowest cost only will be recommended for purchase.
Sometimes, when workmen face problem with overtime, they they call safety persons on the pretext of unsafe conditions in the shopfloor. Once the manager agrees for giving overtime, then workmen forget about safety aspects and everybody disappears. At the end, you may see shopfloor in-charge and safety person arguing on the unsafe conditions, that may not be existing at all which were complained by workmen.
Workmen also should realize that if they do not follow safety, they can be punished under various provisions.
Finally, safety implementation requires commitment by shopfloor people and the production department. If they follow advise by Safety Department, then they can get benefited more. Else, it is they who have suffer the pain, not the safety persons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Featured Post
Reduced my weight from 96 to 76 kg and tummy from 38-40 to 34-35 inches in about 9 months
I am working in the safety department of a government organization. As a part of the job, I used to go around and interact with person...
