Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
16-12-2019
1
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 1
Ravi Kant SomaniExecutive Vice President, Group Head (OHS)
8826301444
Proactive Approach for
Preventing Disastrous Situations
Chemical & Industrial Disaster Management
(CIDM) Conference 2019Chintan Bhawan, Gangtok (Sikkim)
04-06 Dec 2019
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 2
INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION (ILO) FACTS
1. Millions of workers loose their lives due to accidents
2. 250 million accidents every year
3. 20 million accident per month
4. 685,000 accidents every day
5. 475 accidents every minute
6. 8 accidents every second
7. One fatality every 15 seconds
Fatality rate in advanced industrialized economies is almost half that of
Central and Eastern Europe, China and India
Providing safe and healthy workplace is the common goal of all countries.
16-12-2019
2
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 3
Contribution by Govt of India, Sikkim, Ministries, NDMA, FICCI
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 4
BHOPAL DISASTER
16-12-2019
3
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 5
Bhopal Gas Tragedy (India) : 02-03 Dec 1984
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 6
Introduction
• 02-03 Dec 1984 – 30-40 T MIC (poisonous gas)
released,
• 3787 Officially declared deaths.
• Unconfirmed figure – 8000 to 10000
• Nearly 25,000 deaths over the next few decades
(1994)
• >558,000 Injuries
• >3900 Injuries – Permanent Disabled
• MIC Concentration at 25 PPM – May cause death
in minutes (It raised much higher concentration
after leakage)
• Half of the Madhya Pradesh population suffered
with eye irritation, coughing, dizziness,
breathlessness, skin irritation, sudden blindness.
16-12-2019
4
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 7
Area Affected & Human Cost
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 8
Responsible Factors
1. Storing MIC in large tank and filling more than capacity
2. Flare tower and vend gas scrubbers were out of order
since five months of the incident
3. Refrigeration system was kept off for saving money. MIC
was stored at 20 degree rather 4-5 degree (as specified
in manual)
4. Only one manual back up compared to 4-stage back up
in Union Carbide plant in USA.
5. Lack of skilled manpower
6. Gas leaked from the 30 M high chimney. This height
was not enough to dilute the effect of gas
7. Plant was located in the vicinity of populated area
8. Emergency alarm didn’t work or not raised by company
managers
9. Public was not aware of the effect of hazardous
chemicals manufactures, stores and action to be taken
in case of emergency situations
16-12-2019
5
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 9
CHERNOBYL DISASTER
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 10
Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster (Ukrain) : 26 Jul 1986 (Early Morning)
• Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant
• 190 T radioactive material released in
the atmosphere
• > 350, 000 people were evacuated but
5.5 Million remained
• Expected nearly 200,000 cases of cancer
(Several Deaths)
• Actual No. of deaths – Not Available
• Lands still not fit for habitats
• May take decades to be fit
16-12-2019
6
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 11
Introduction
• 26 April 1986, one of four nuclear reactors
at nuclear power station exploded.
• Moscow was slow to admit what had
happened, even after increased radiation
was detected in other countries.
• The lack of information led to exaggerated
claims of the number killed by the blast in
the immediate area.
• Contamination is still a problem.
• Disputes continue about how many will
eventually die as a result of the world's
worst nuclear accident.
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 12
Routes of Radiation Entry to Human Body
16-12-2019
7
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 13
Radiation Doses (Across Europe – 03 May 1986)
Radiation Doses Cesium Deposition
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 14
Path of Radioactive Plume in Changing Wind Directions
1. 26 April 1986
2. 27 April 1986
3. 27 April 1986
4. 29 April 1986
5. 02 May 1986
6. 04 May 1986
100 Times more Radioactivity
than the Atom Bombs
dropped at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki
16-12-2019
8
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 15
Long Term Effects
1. International spread of radioactivity – detected all over except Peninsula
2. Radioactive cloud floated over Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova. Also
Macedonia, Croatia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland,
Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Hungary, The Czech Republic, Slovenia,
Poland, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Ireland, France and United Kingdom.
3. Rivers, lakes, reservoirs and ground water got contaminated
4. Some animals in the worst hit areas also died or stopped reproducing
5. >784 thousand hectare agricultural land was removed from service
6. >694 thousand hectare land stopped producing timber / RESTRICTIONS
7. Thyroid Cancer, Cardiovascular diseases, Leukemia, Cataracts
8. Pine forest in 10 Km around the Reactor turned Ginger Brown and died.
RED FOREST
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 16
Responsible Factors
1. Workers’ lack of knowledge of Reactor physics &
engineering as well as lack of experience & training:
� Delay
� Night shift was not prepared to carry out the
testing
� The operators were unaware of the Xenon
poisoning
2. Insufficient communication between safety officers
and operators with regard to experiment
3. All safety systems were disabled
4. Poor quality of craftsmanship (Typical Soviet):
� Rushed design
� A lot of corners were cut to meet the deadline
� Bonus for meeting the deadlines
16-12-2019
9
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 17
Lessons Learnt
1. Knowledge, Experience & Skills are must
2. Strict compliance with basic & technical safety principles
3. Continuous safety analysis of operations
4. Timely update of SOPs to eliminate the known deviations
5. Always take human errors in to account while designing a plant or writing SOP
6. Shortcomings, Errors, Hurry, Too much pressure for meeting the timelines pays
huge amount of resources and financial loss
7. The cost of ensuring safety is significantly lower than that of dealing with the
disasters. Hundreds of billion of dollars worth of direct or indirect damages
have bee reported in both the disasters discussed.
An Ounce of Prevention !! OR
The Tones of Losses Later????
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 18
STEEL PLANTS
16-12-2019
10
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 19
STEEL PLANTS – PROMINENT HAZARDS
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 20
STEEL PLANTS – PROMINENT HAZARDS
16-12-2019
11
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 21
STEEL PLANTS – PROMINENT HAZARDS
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 22
WORLD STEEL ASSOCIATION (WSA) – SAFETY PRINCIPLES
1. Management is responsible and
accountable for safety and health
performance
2. Employee engagement and training is
essential
3. Working safely is a condition of
employment
4. Excellence in safety and health
supports excellent business results
5. Safety and health must be integrated
into all business management
processes
16-12-2019
12
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 23
PLAN, DO, CHECK , ACT CYCLE
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 24
What is Safety Audit?
PROCESS OF:
• Verifying the existence and implementation of elements of
Occupational Safety and Health Systems
• Verifying the systems' ability to achieve defined Safety Objectives
IS 14489
16-12-2019
13
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 25
Why Safety Audit?
1. To meet the required local, state and federal health &
safety requirements.
2. To verify the requirements against certain standards
3. To verify the compliance to hazards recognition &
control programs
4. To verify the compliance to company specific
Occupational Safety & Health systems or procedures
5. To identify the gaps in maintaining safe
workplace
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 26
Types & Standards of Safety Audit
16-12-2019
14
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 27
ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE (SAFETY)
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 28
ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE (BUISENESS)
16-12-2019
15
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 29
SEVEN GOLDEN RULES – MISSING IN GENERAL
Seven Golden Rules for implementing “Vision Zero
Disaster Situations” in an industry:
1. Take Leadership – Demonstrate Commitment
2. Identify Hazards – Control Risks
3. Define Targets – Develop Programs
4. Ensure a Safe and Healthy System – be well
organized
5. Ensure Safety and Health in Machines,
Equipment and Workplaces
6. Improve Qualifications — Develop Competence
7. Invest in People — Motivate by Participation
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 30
Safety Challenge ??
CoLLABoRATION
CooRDINATION
CooPERATION
16-12-2019
16
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 31
Safety Index – The Catalyst
What is Safety Index?
• % Rating
• Denotes the Safety Performance
• Higher the Safety Index, Better the
Safety Performance
• Evaluation – Every Month
• For all departments of a particular
Unit
• Safety Competition
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 32
Pillars of Safety Index
Reactive
Parameters
Proactive
Parameters
Max Score
-100
Max Score
+220
50%
Wtg.
Each
16-12-2019
17
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 33
Reactive Parameters
S. No. Reactive Parameter Evaluation Guidance Max Score
1 Fatal Case 100% for any fatal case -40
2 Lost Time Case 25% for each LTC -30
3 Fire (PI)100% for any fire incident with
production interruption -10
4Dangerous
Occurrence (PI)
100% for any dangerous occurrence
with production interruption-10
5Property Damage
(>10 L Rs100% for any property damage case -10
TOTAL MAX (-VE) SCORE -100
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 34
Pro-active Parameters
S. No. Proactive Parameter Evaluation GuidanceMax
Wtg.
1 Apex Safety Committee
Participation% Rating in Audit 10
2 Departmental Safety
Committee% Rating in Audit 10
3 Potential Incident
Observations
No of PIO X100 / Total Manpower
(Employees)20
4 Near Miss Reporting No of Near-miss reported X
100/Total Manpower (Employees)10
5 Work Permit System % Rating in Audit 20
6 Use & upkeep of
emergency equipments% Rating in Audit 10
16-12-2019
18
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 35
Proactive Parameters (Contd..)
S. No. Proactive Parameter Evaluation Guidance Max Wtg.
7 Legal Compliance (Cranes, &
Pressure Vessels)% Rating in Audit 20
8 SOP/SMP Compliance % Rating in Audit 20
9 By-passing & Non-functioning of
Safety Devices/ Equipments% Rating in Audit 10
10 3-Member Need-based Audit % Rating in Audit 10
11 Safety Log Book by Senior Leaders % Rating in Audit 20
12 Accident Reporting & Investigation % Rating in Audit 20
13 Departmental Safety Training % Rating in Audit 20
TOTAL MAX (+VE) SCORE +200
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 36
Rating Flag
100 EXCELLENT
>90 <100 VERY GOOD
>70 <90 GOOD
>50 <70 AVERAGE
0-50 POOR
16-12-2019
19
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 37
Effect of Reactive Parameters
Fatality Lost Time Case Fire (PI)
Out of the
Competition for
Whole Year
Out of the
Competition for
A Quarter
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 38
Score - Reactive Parameters
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
92.5
52.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16
Reactive Safety Index Score
PLANTS
16-12-2019
20
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 39
Overall Safety Index
83.18 81.81 81.17 80.76 80.3 79.94 79.5 78.51 77.9975.61 74.73 74.71 74.3
67.1463.95
57.99
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16
Safety Index Score-Overall
PLANTS
66.3663.61 62.35 61.53 60.61 59.89 59 57.02 55.98 55.97
51.23 49.45 49.41 48.59
35.41 34.28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P16 P10 P11 P12 P13 P15 P14
Proactive Safety Index Score
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 40
Score – Proactive Parameters
PLANTS
16-12-2019
21
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 41
Proactive – By-passing or Non-working of Safety Devices
PLANTS
80 8076.67 76.67
73.3370
66.6763.33
6056.67
53.3350
40 40
33.3330
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
P1 P6 P11 P7 P4 P2 P3 P13 P5 P8 P16 P14 P10 P15 P12 P9
By Passing & Non Functioning of Safety Devices/Equipments
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 42
Proactive – Departmental Safety Training
PLANTS
83.33 83.3380
76.67
66.67 66.6763.33 63.33
6056.67
50 50 50
43.33
33.33
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
P2 P5 P1 P3 P9 P7 P11 P10 P6 P4 P16 P8 P14 P12 P13 P15
Departmental Safety Training
16-12-2019
22
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 43
Proactive – Work Permit System
PLANTS
82.5 82.5 82.2277.78
73.33 72.5 72 7267.5 66 66 65.71
62
54.2951.11 50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
P2 P10 P12 P4 P9 P5 P7 P6 P8 P3 P1 P13 P11 P16 P15 P14
Work Permit System
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 44
Hot Spots – P1
68.87
49.45
100
62
76.6773.33
65.71
76.67
0
66 63.33
71.66
100
75
0 00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
HOT SPOT – P1
16-12-2019
23
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 45
Hot Spot – P2
61.4655.97
52.5 54.2950
80
68
53.33
62.86 64
50
60
100 100
28.95
00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
HOT SPOT – P2
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 46
Hot Spot – P3
70.24
59
100
72 73.33 72.73
64
76.67
62.86
73.3366.67 69.23
100 100 100
6.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
HOT SPOT – P3
16-12-2019
24
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 47
Linkage with Production Incentive – A Master Stroke (PiSi)
To Get 15% of Pi
Achieve Min. 90% of Si
PI SI
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 48
Achievements (Department 1)
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Aug'18 Sept'18 Oct'18 Nov'18 Dec'18 Jan'19 Feb'19 Mar'19 Apr'19 May'19
Reactive Proactive Overall
16-12-2019
25
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 49
Achievements (Department 2)
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Aug'18 Sept'18 Oct'18 Nov'18 Dec'18 Jan'19 Feb'19 Mar'19 Apr'19 May'19
Reactive Proactive Overall
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 50
Achievements (Sample Organization)
0.55
0.3
0.25
0.150.11
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Accident Frequency Rate
0.428
0.169
0.0820.046
0.028
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Total Disabling Injury Index
16-12-2019
26
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 51
Achievements (Group)
2406
1668
943
510
292 268 236
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Total Accidents
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 52
Indirect Achievements – Responsible for Direct Achievements
• Visible felt leadership for health & safety of
workers
• Respectful relationship between line managers
and shop floor workers
• Acceptability to safety inputs by line managers
and sincere efforts for compliance
• Contractors involvement in reporting
deviations/incidents
• Emphasis by Senior Leadership on safety
issues in day to day interactions with their
teams
• Significant improvement in compliance status
• A positive sense of demanding safe working
conditions by shop floor workers including
contractors
16-12-2019
27
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 53
Who is Responsible for Safety?
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 54
Is Safety First A Must?
16-12-2019
28
Ravi - 02 Dec 19 V0 55
Thanks! Stay Safe!!
