AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The matter has been taken up suo motu in light of captioned media report with regard to the fire incident dated 10.09.2022 in M/s Anupam Rasayan India Limited, District Surat, Gujarat. Advance notice dated 12.09.2022 was issued by the office to the PP, State PCB, CPCB, Director, Industrial Safety and Health Government of Gujarat, Collector and District Magistrate, Surat, Gujarat. Response has been filed by the PP and the GPCB.
We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
Stand of the GPCB is that the unit is manufacturing Bulk drugs, bulk drugs intermediates and specialty chemicals Acetaldehyde, Advance specialty/Pharma compounds and R & D Centre along with Pilot Plant. It has CTE valid upto 15.01.2023, amended CTE valid upto 29.06.2023, EC dated 07.08.2017, amended on 02.02.2018 and further EC granted by SEIAA, Gujarat on 23.08.2019. CCA is valid upto 30.06.2024. The incident took place on 10.09.2022 at 22:00 Hrs. The Board officials inspected the unit on 11.09.2022 at 9:15 Hrs. Production process for manufacturing of 2,4-Diflouro nitro benzene and distillation of solvent Sulfolane was going on at the time of incident within production plant Section-I. Blast/Fire incident occurred in receiver of distillation vessel. Four persons lost their lives and 20 were injured. The State PCB issued closure order under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and levied compensation of Rs. 1 crores with further direction that directions of Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health (DISH) may be complied with. Compensation amount has been deposited.
The stand of the PP is that it has requisite consents and has complied with environmental norms. It has undertaken safety audit from the third party. The cause of incident was increase in temperature during distillation process. Hot material in the receiver led to fire which spread in the whole of plant -1 leading to explosion. The PP has taken all possible precaution for safety of the employees and the unit. The DISH looked into the matter and sought response vide letter dated 11.09.2022 to which the PP gave explanation dated 19.09.2022. PP filed safety audit report, the HAZOP study report and the PLI policy. PP will ensure that no such incident happens in future.
We have heard learned counsel for the GPCB and the PP.
The question for consideration is whether there is a lapse on the part of the PP in compliance of environmental safety norms which resulted in the incident in question and whether the statutory authorities have taken necessary precaution and measures to prevent such incident. In the light of determination of the said issue, further question is about the directions which are called for.
On due consideration, we find that though the issue is governed by ‘Absolute Liability’ principle in terms of (1987) 1 SCC 395, MC Mehta Vs. UOI, the PP has violated safety norms. The authorities have also failed in their duty to oversee. Thus, remedial action is required for the violations and also for ensuring compliance in future.
We find it difficult to accept the claim of the PP that it has taken all safety measures and the fire incident is for unknown reasons. It is true that the PP has filed an Audit Safety Report and GPCB as well as other regulators have failed to point out the violations. However, violations are patent. Due to application of ‘precautionary principle’, burden is on PP to show that its activities are benign and it has taken all possible measures to avoid the incident. We find that steps have not been taken to avoid clearly foreseeable damage. There is also violation of EC condition requiring development of 33% area as green belt. Environmental Safety measures required are laid down statutorily under the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 under the EP Act. The Rules require preparation of onsite and offsite plans and holding of mock drills. Compliance thereof is not established as it is not known when last mock drill was held though audit report of 2020 says that mock drills are regularly held.
Vide order dated 29.08.2022, the Tribunal dealt with identical issue of blast in a chemical factory in District Bharuch, Gujarat on 12.04.2022. The Tribunal constituted a five Member Joint Committee of CPCB, State PCB, District Magistrate, Bharuch, Director, Industrial Safety Gujarat and State Disaster Management Authority to ascertain the cause of death and to make recommendations to prevent such incidents. The Committee gave its report dated 22.07.2022. Reasons identified for the incident inter alia were - not following SOP on the subject, not having trained Plant Operators, not installing CCTV cameras to ascertain activities before and after the incident. Such measures are not shown to have been taken in the present case also. The Committee made following recommendations:-
“8.0 Recommendations for avoiding such incident in future
It is very clear that organic solvents either standalone or mixed are flammable. Flash point is further get reduced in closed container. Thus, any organic spent solvent recovery plant should have following measures.
(i) Any organic solvent/ spent solvent handled should have proper MSDS mentioning flash point, name of incompatibility chemicals, etc. and the same should be known to the plant workers.
(ii) Regular training to the worker about process details, process and safety (personnel and plant) is required. Training should include handling emergencies like leakage, abnormal temperature, pressure readings, increased emissions, pump failures, failure of air pollution control devices, shock loads or any other accidents likely to occur due to any activity within the premises.
(iii) Emergency preparedness should be reviewed by plant management on routine basis. Mock drills must be conducted atleast in every six month and on induction of any new operator in the plant. For this, a mock drill calendar should be prepared. Mock drill should always be done under supervision of an expert person. Input on Observer on mock drill should be incorporated in emergency plan.
(iv) All the pressure containing equipment should have pressure release provision.
(v) Every solvent recovery plant should have Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) systems.
(vi) Seals, glands and gaskets shall be regularly inspected, without dismantling. Leak detectors should be provided for all piping, valves, seals, flanges, and other pertinent equipment.
(vii) After each batch of distillation, the entire system should be thoroughly cleaned and inspected before start of new batch. SOP in this regard to be prepared and implemented.
(viii) Flow meters, sensors, measuring devices have to be regularly calibrated and all process parameter monitor should have alert/ siren system.
(ix) All pipework containing hazardous chemicals shall be identified by colour coding or labelling (as per standards notified by Bureau of Indian Standards) and shall be protected to prevent corrosion / damage. The practice to identify the parts of the system that contain gas or liquid and the direction of flow should be followed.
(x) The distillation units shall install double valve system for taking samples during the process to minimize air ingress and provide interlocking arrangement for critical process parameter to shut down the process and/ or inject coolant in place of heat on reactor jackets.
(xi) Flame arrestors, water curtains and adequate fire safety arrangements (fire hydrant, foam system, etc.) shall be installed. Spark / flame proof electrical fittings shall be installed.
(xii) In no case any unit should be allowed to store petroleum class A or class B or Class C in open to sky area.
(xiii) Suitable gas and VOC sensors alongwith alarm system should be installed in the unit at appropriate locations.
(xiv) A system should be established having brief of operation done in a shift, no. of batches charged, product manufactured and problems encountered or suspected.
(xv) After every training, training effectiveness should be evaluated for Operational Negligence, Operator fault, Lack of standard operating procedure for transfer of material from one reactor to another and on cleaning of reactors, lack of awareness of personnel on SOP’s, non-compliance of SOP’s by employees, Noncompliance of safety practices by employees, etc. For this purpose, training calendar and training feedback record should be maintained. Sensitization of workers for SOP adoption should be carried out and day-to-day practices regularly checked and record should be maintained.
(xvi) The Regulatory Authorities shall take immediate action against erring industries as per prevailing Rules based on periodic inspections. In addition the Regulatory Authorities shall sensitize the industries about safety norms, industrial best practices, industry specific emission & effluent standards etc.
(xvii) Plant should be thoroughly inspected by the plant management regularly for short bolting, flange tightening, less number of nuts and bolts than required or designed, firefighting and plant personnel should be cross-checked for chemical stock, understanding of compatibility matrix of chemicals/ spent solvents, etc.
(xviii) The manpower of the DISH in the industrial area must be commensurate with the numbers of units in the area with proper training to improve the efficiency of DISH.
(xix) Annual safety audit from third party should be made mandatory for every plant and fie adequacy certificate should be made mandatory before operation of distillation plant.
(xx) Distillation plants should have safe assembly points with signage, signage for safety evacuation and double staircase (opposite to each other) for exiting from process area in case of emergency.”
In the present case also the above measures are not shown to have been adopted. Recommendations of the Committee can be taken to be prudent measures expected to be followed by any PP in running its activities, viz the Bulk Drug/ pharma manufacturers, based on the ‘precautionary principle’ or principle of foreseeability. The Tribunal accordingly directed adoption of recommended safeguards to prevent such occurrences in future by all such establishments. The State PCB while giving its report in the present case has failed to indicate compliance of the recommended measures by the PP in the present case. GPCB has levied interim compensation of Rs. 1 crore without listing the violations.
Accordingly, we direct the PP to adopt necessary safety measures in light of above to prevent such incidents in future which may be overseen by the State PCB. The State PCB may also duly determine the final compensation in the light of violations mentioned above. It may finalize the matter within two months, following due process of law.
The application is disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the State PCB by e-mail for compliance.