vizag gas leak

Vizag Gas Leak: Andhra Pradesh Govt Informs NHRC Ex Gratia Paid to Families of Victims

The government has informed the NHRC that an ex gratia of Rs 1 crore each has been paid to the families of the 12 people who died in the styrene gas leak tragedy.

New Delhi: The Andhra Pradesh government has informed the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that an ex gratia of Rs 1 crore each has been paid to the families of the 12 people who died in the styrene gas leak tragedy in Visakhapatnam last May, officials said on Friday.

The NHRC had taken suo motu cognisance of media reports about the death of several persons and over 5,000 others falling sick due to leakage of styrene gas in the district on May 7, 2020, they said.

“The NHRC has accepted the action taken by the concerned authorities and the ex gratia of Rs 1 crore each paid to the families of the 12 people who died in the tragic incident,” the rights panel said in a statement.

Also read: Vizag Gas Leak: LG Polymers CEO and 11 Others Arrested

“The government of Andhra Pradesh has informed the Commission that 485 people were paid Rs 1 lakh each, who were hospitalised for two-three days. It has also informed that criminal proceedings were initiated against the 12 accused,” the statement said.

The leakage of the gas had reportedly affected people within a radius of about 3 km. Many people were reported to be lying on roads while some had complained of difficulty in breathing and rashes on their bodies, it added.

More Than 500 Students, Researchers Ask Environment Ministry To Revoke EIA 2020 Draft

‘We urge the MoEF&CC to withdraw the draft notification and instead strengthen the existing EIA notification with a new proposal.’

Smoke billows from a fire at Baghjan oilfield a week after the blowout, in Tinsukia district, June 9, 2020. Photo: PTI.

Over 500 academics, scientists and researchers from various educational institutes have penned an open letter to the Union environment ministry enumerating their concerns with the draft Environmental Impact Assessment notification 2020, which has drawn ire from multiple quarters for its scheme to ease business by diluting regulations that protect the environment and safeguard the rights of people affected by prospective projects.

The letter was initiated by PhD students from different institutes. The signatories themselves belong to more than 130 institutions and universities, including the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru; some of the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research; some IITs; the National Centre for Biological Sciences; and the Wildlife Institute of India. The letter criticises the draft notification and calls for better and more inclusive environmental decision-making.

The Wire is publishing their statement in full, followed by the list of signatories.

An open letter to the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change

September 2, 2020

We, a group of academics, scientists and researchers engaged in various capacities, express our deep concern regarding India’s sustainable future in the light of the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2020 (hereafter ‘Draft Notification’), recently proposed by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Government of India.

As citizens of this country, many of us have sent our feedback and comments on the document by the specified deadline, 11th August, 2020. However, limited circulation and publicity of the Draft Notification compounded by a lack of its availability in most Indian languages hindered true and inclusive public participation. Moreover, many traditional communities of rural India, often most affected by unappraised developmental projects, also lack the technology and access to take part in such an exercise. Considering that the Central Government is currently restrained by Karnataka High Court from publishing the final draft till 7th September, 2020, we find this time opportune to present our chief concerns on the Draft Notification with this press release to further a wider public debate on the subject.

Overall, we have come to the conclusion that the Draft Notification, in its current form, is likely to seriously threaten our country’s ecological and environmental security. The Draft Notification neither adheres to the fundamental objectives of its parent legislation, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, nor does it align with our country’s commitments under various international agreements and conventions.

The existing EIA 2006 Notification itself has been deemed insufficient in meeting its stated aims. The undermining of environmental safeguards by non-compliant and unmonitored industries and practices has often led to environmental disasters including overwhelming loss of biodiversity, human lives and livelihood, as happened recently with the Vizag gas leak and the Baghjan oil-well blowouts. Rather than strengthening the EIA process, the Draft Notification tends to promote industrialisation at the cost of the environment. Some of our major concerns are that this Draft Notification:

1. Legitimises ex post facto environmental clearances and encourages industries with no prior clearance to commence operations and eventually get regularised by paying a penalty amount (Clause 22) even after causing an irreversible damage to the environment, which is contrary to the precautionary approach of EIA regulations.

2. Mandates the baseline data collection period to prepare an EIA report for all projects as only one season (except for river valley projects), wherein additional data from the monsoon season is required only if prescribed by the Appraisal Committee (Clause 13(2)) – this is severely inadequate for evaluating the seasonal impact of the project on ecology and the environment.

3. Includes solar thermal power plants, extraction of ordinary earth for linear projects, and maintenance dredging in the list of projects that do not require prior environmental clearances (Clause 26). Without proper understanding of the possible impacts of these projects, when carried out on large scales, such exemptions may negatively affect existing terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, hamper wildlife movement and fragment habitats.

4. Reclassifies many potentially ecosystem-damaging and even some highly polluting red category industries as ‘B2’ category (p. 37-45, Schedule), thereby exempting them from scoping (Clause 12(1)) and public consultations (Clause 14(2)) and allowing approval based on Environmental Management Plan Report instead of EIA Report (Clause 13(11)).

5. Exempts ‘A’ and ‘B1’ category projects, including many projects listed in red category (such as thermal power plants (p. 37-45, Schedule)) from having to conduct public hearings for modernisation and expansions below 50% (Clause 14(2)) and reduces the minimum notice period for furnishing a public response from an already insufficient 30 days to 20 days (Appendix-I(3)), both of which severely compromise public consultation processes.

6. Allows only project proponents and government authorities to officially report cognisance of violations (Clause 22(1)) and non-compliance of conditions (Clause 23(1)), curbing the rights of any other concerned or affected person.

7. Dilutes post-clearance monitoring by reducing the mandatory compliance report submission by project proponents from half-yearly to yearly (Clause 20(4)).

With the rise in pollution-related health impacts already causing high mortality in India, the importance of having stronger regulations and overseeing polluting industries cannot be overstated.

A report by the Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India, published in June 2020, pointed out that rapid changes in India’s climate will worsen the challenges facing us by affecting the country’s biodiversity, food, water, and energy security as well as public health. Since 2016, India has slipped 27 places from its global Environment Performance Index (EPI) rank in 2020, and is now ranked 168 out of 180 countries. Our country’s declining environmental performance mandates immediate pro-environmental and ecologically sound developmental measures, which are not addressed by this Draft Notification.

We, therefore, urge the MoEF&CC to withdraw the Draft Notification and, instead, strengthen the existing EIA Notification with a new proposal, following wider and more inclusive public consultation, preferably after the ongoing pandemic subsides. Such a revised proposal must also incorporate views and suggestions from domain experts and scientists from various concerned fields, with the objective of promoting an eco-sensitive and responsible model of economic growth.

Signatories: (The signatories express their personal views in this statement, and the views do not represent the stance of any institute they may be affiliated with.)

Vizag Gas Leak: LG Polymers CEO and 11 Others Arrested

Additionally, the Pollution Control Board suspended three of its officials for “gross negligence.”

Amaravati: On Tuesday night, police arrested the CEO of LG Polymers, its two directors, and nine other company officials for their involvement in the May 7 styrene vapour leak incident at Visakhapatnam, where 12 people were killed and 585 fell sick.

Additionally, the Pollution Control Board suspended three of its officials for “gross negligence.”

Visakhapatnam Commissioner of Police R.K. Meena told PTI that LG Polymers Managing Director and CEO Sunkey Jeong, Technical Director D.S. Kim and Operations Additional Director P. Purnachandra Mohan Rao were arrested, along with nine other staffers of the firm.

“Investigation disclosed that the incident at M6 styrene storage tank took place due to the negligence of these persons, who also have knowledge that their acts were likely to cause death,” the Commissioner of Police said.

He added that the case was still under investigation since reports from various departments are yet to be obtained and witnesses examined.

The Gopalapatnam police under Visakhapatnam Police Commissionerate registered a case on May 7 against LG Polymers at R R Venkatapuram, under various IPC Sections, including 278 [making atmosphere noxious to health].

Exactly two months later the alleged culprits were arrested.

On May 7, 12 people died and 585 fell sick due to the styrene vapour leak at R R Venkatapuram and surrounding villages near Visakhapatnam.

The High Powered Committee (HPC), appointed by the state government to probe the vapour leak, submitted its report to Chief Minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy on Monday. The Committee highlighted multiple inadequacies on the part of LG and the negligence of the management over safety protocols. The report mentioned a total breakdown of the emergency response procedures in the plant that resulted in the grave tragedy.

Additionally, it pointed out that the incompetent oversight by different government departments, primarily the Directorate of Factories, contributed to the tragedy.

Based on the HPC report, the Pollution Control Board suspended its Environmental Engineers P Prasada Rao [regional office] and R Lakshmi Narayana [zonal office] for their gross negligence in allowing the operation and expansion of LG Polymers without environmental clearance.

The Director of Factories suspended the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories K B S Prasad for failing to enforce the Factories Act and other rules in LG Polymers.

Post Lockdown, Effective Safety Inspections of Industrial Workplaces Are the Need of the Hour

While the NDMA has issued new guidelines for restarting manufacturing operations, there is an urgent need to revisit and revamp the system of labour inspection that is currently in place and to ensure that effective safety inspection of workplaces is regularly conducted.

Less than a couple of months after the May 7 gas leak from the plant of LG Polymers, another gas leak occurred at a chemical factory in Visakhapatnam on June 29, resulting in the death of two workers and the hospitalisation of 4 workers.

Two days later, on July 1, 2020, a boiler blast took place at the thermal power plant of Neyveli Lignite Corporation causing the death of six workers and severe injuries to 17 workers. It was the second such incident in the plant in the space of two months. On July 5, 2020, a fire broke out at a candle factory in Ghaziabad district resulting in the deaths of at least eight workers.

These accidents are among the series of industrial accidents that have taken place in the country after factories were permitted to resume operations after the relaxation of lockdown measures after the first phase of the nation-wide lockdown imposed on 24 March 2020. Some of the accidents took place when factories re-started their operations. The accident at LG Polymers, Visakhapatnam involving the leakage of styrene monomer that resulted in the death of 12 persons and affected the health of about 3,000 people from five nearby villages and settlements too occurred when the plant re-started operations on May 7, 2020.

Also read: Vizag: Lack of Safety Protocol, Emergency Response Led to LG Polymer Gas Leak

The spate of industrial accidents in the country over the last couple of months underscore the need for the effective enforcement of laws relating to occupational safety and health. The Factories Act, 1948 is the main occupational safety and health related law in the country.

It is applicable to more than 3,50,000 registered factories including over 6000 units carrying out hazardous processes. About 2,000 such units are categorised as major hazard installations as they handle hazardous chemicals in large quantities.

Inspectors are appointed by state governments for enforcing the requirements of the statute. The responsibility for the prevention of accident hazards lies with the occupier or the employer for the most part. At the same time, Inspectors appointed under the Act play a crucial role in ensuring safety and preventing accidents. Inspectors can check the efficacy of the safety measures taken by the employer in the course of operations as well as the control measures to be taken in the event of an accident during their inspection visits.

A factory that caught fire in Gujarat’s Dahej. Photo: Twitter/@ANI

Prior to the commencement of operations and also whenever there is a change in the quantity of hazardous chemicals involved in the manufacturing process, an occupier of a factory needs to submit a site notification report.

The Inspector needs to check the prevalence of the causes for major accidents identified in the site notification report and the adequacy of the measures taken to prevent major accidents. The Inspector can issue directions for improvement of the preventive measures if necessary. Occupiers of major hazard installations are required to submit periodic safety reports containing information relating to hazard assessment and mitigation measures. The Inspector needs to examine the adequacy of the prevention, control and mitigation measures as enumerated in the safety report while visiting the site.

Also read: What Leaked from the Vizag Plant?

There have been instances where proper hazard assessment is not done before re-starting operations after a shut down. As a result, potential hazards remain unidentified leading to accidents.

A safety audit of factories engaged in hazardous processes needs to be carried out by an independent expert at least once in a year.

The purpose of a safety audit is to bring to the notice of the top management the weaknesses in the system of managing safety so as to take appropriate corrective action. The safety audit report is a very important document to ascertain the shortcomings in the management of hazards and risks. It should contain observations, findings and recommendations regarding the safety management system in respect of the industrial activity undertaken.

The Inspector needs to examine whether the occupier has implemented the recommendations contained in the audit report in the true spirit of compliance with the statutory requirements. A complete safety audit of the entire factory also needs to be carried out before a factory is re-started.

This has been specified in the guidelines issued by the National Disaster Management Authority for the re-starting of chemical industries pursuant to the LG Polymers accident on May 7, 2020. It would be prudent on the part of the Inspectors to conduct surprise inspection of major hazard installations and other factories carrying on hazardous manufacturing processes to check the ground conditions in order to prevent major accidents.

A worker wearing a protective face mask cleans a machine inside an undergarment factory in Kolkata, April 20, 2020. Photo: Reuters/Rupak De Chowdhuri

A safety audit by independent experts cannot and must not be a substitute for statutory inspection.

Occupiers of major accident hazards installations are also required to prepare on-site emergency plans. An emergency mock drill should be carried out every six months and a report about this needs to be submitted to the authority.

The Inspector needs to examine the efficacy of the on-site emergency plan based on the report of the mock drill and check whether the occupier has updated the on-site emergency plan accordingly.

In any emergency, communication with the people inside as well as outside is very crucial for taking control and mitigation measures. In the case of LG Polymers, the public siren could not be activated at the time when an emergency situation occurred during the night hours. This weakness could have been noticed had a proper mock-drill been conducted and had the concerned Inspector thoroughly examined the mock drill report.

The Joint Monitoring Committee that looked into the LG Polymers accident pointed out lapses in accountability on the part of authorities clearly mentioning that periodic inspection is the primary responsibility of the Factories, Industry and Boilers Department.

Clearly, there is a need for regular and through inspection by Inspectors of factories engaged in hazardous manufacturing processes to ensure the safety of the persons employed there as well as the general public. Even in the case of factories engaged in non-hazardous manufacturing processes, there is a need for regular and through inspection in order to ensure that the machinery, devices, boilers and pressure vessels used there are in a safe condition and that necessary fire safety measures are in place.

The Indian Boilers Act, 1923 is another important safety related legislation. It regulates the safety of boilers used in industries. It makes the registration of boilers used in power plants and industrial applications mandatory. It also requires boilers to be certified for use for a specified period by the Certifying Authority after following a due procedure of inspection.

A boiler is required to be inspected by the Certifying Authority prior to renewal of its certificate and also prior to its use after an accident. Boilers in industries and power plants should be operated only under the supervision of a certified Boiler Attendant.

Boiler explosion at an NLC India thermal power plant in Neyveli. Photo: Twitter Video Screen grab

Boilers operate at very high pressure and a blast or explosion can have devastating effect on human lives as well as property. Therefore, inspection of boilers on a regular basis is very critical for ensuring safety.

With a view to permit the ease of doing business, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade has permitted self-certification and third party inspection of boilers for their certification for further use. Such measures that whittle down the system of regular inspection are fraught with risks.

The government of India has ratified the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No.81) of the International Labour Organization
that mandates a sound system of labour inspection for all industrial workplaces.

Also read: Labour Law Reform: Was a Sledgehammer Needed When Employment Itself Is Uncertain?

However, on the ground that a reform of the system of inspection is necessary to ensure a hassle-free industrial environment and end “inspector raj” by reducing unnecessary interference by inspecting staff, over the last five years, the Central government has encouraged state governments to adopt a new system of inspection at the state-level based on the risk profile of industries.

It requires physical inspection in the case of high risk industries. Self-certification is permitted for low risk industries and third party certification in the case of medium risk industries. The allocation of inspectors to factories is based on a randomised web-based system of selection.

Complaint-driven inspection is one of the features of the new system but even that requires the approval of higher authorities. The new system thus minimizes inspection. The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations of the ILO has pointed out that any measure taken to limit the number of inspections is incompatible with the main objective of labour inspection which is the protection of workers.

It has emphasised that workplaces liable to labour inspection should be inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions.

Apart from measures to limit inspection, amendments made by some state governments to the Factories Act increasing the threshold numbers for the application of the Act in turn restricting the coverage of the Act also pose a threat to workplace safety.

Likewise, measures taken to exempt non-hazardous category factories and micro, small and medium industries from inspection under the Factories Act endanger the safety of the workers employed there. The right to health of workers that implies safe working conditions has been held to be encompassed in the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

Measures to do away with or limit inspection under the Factories Act and Boilers Act infringe on the fundamental right of the workers to good health.

In the light of the frequency of industrial accidents in recent times, there is an urgent need to revisit and revamp the system of labour inspection that is currently in place and to ensure that effective safety inspection of workplaces is regularly conducted. In addition, it is necessary to strengthen the system of inspection in terms of human resources and professional competence.

There is also an urgent need to bring all workplaces under the coverage of laws relating to occupational safety and health. Such measures are imperative to ensure the safety of workers as well as the general public.

Vinod Sant is a former Director General of the National Safety Council, India. Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan is an advocate specialising in labour law, practicing in the Madras high court.

Vizag: Lack of Safety Protocol, Emergency Response Led to LG Polymer Gas Leak

The High Power Committee observed that the alarm system at the plant was not used despite there being a total of 36 activation points.

Amaravati: Poor safety protocols and total breakdown of the emergency response procedures were the root causes of the styrene vapour leak in LG Polymers unit at Visakhapatnam on May 7, in which 12 persons were killed and 585 others fell sick, the High Power Committee (HPC) constituted by the Andhra Pradesh government said on Monday.

Citing multiple inadequacies on the part of LG, the HPC faulted the “slackness of management” for poor safety protocol, poor safety awareness and inadequate risk assessment response that aggravated the situation.

The HPC, headed by Environment and Forests special chief secretary Neerabh Kumar Prasad, submitted a 4,000-page report to chief minister Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy on Monday.

Also read: Vizag Gas Leak: LG Polymers Operated Without Appropriate Environment Clearance

The special chief secretary explained the salient points of the report at a press conference on July 6.

“The accident occurred due to uncontrolled release of styrene vapour from the M6 tank at the LG plant, which qualifies as a major accident under the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989. Poor design of the tank, inadequate refrigeration and faulty cooling system, absence of circulation and mixing system, poor process safety management system and total breakdown of the emergency response procedures were the root causes of the accident,” the HPC pointed out in its report.

The HPC noted that the LG staff lacked sufficient knowledge about the chemical properties of styrene, especially during storage conditions and that the authorities did not follow the safety protocol during the lockdown period.

Also read: What Leaked From the Vizag Plant?

The HPC also observed that the factory has “absolutely no stocks of inhibitors and negligible stocks of terminators”, which could have been used to minimise the impact of the accident, if not neutralise it.

“The temperature in the tank rose substantially. It was a tank with small vents. The rise in temperature caused the styrene liquid to eventually vaporize and increase the pressure,” it noted.

The committee also observed that the alarm system (at the plant) was not used despite there being a total of 36 activation points, including one at the factory gate.

Using the alarm could have alerted the people in the vicinity (from the impending danger), it added.

Also read: Vizag Gas Leak: Why the NGT Should Have Applied Absolute, Not Strict, Liability

Director of Indian Institute of Petroleum (Dehradun) Anjan Ray, director-general of Directorate General Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes R.K. Elangovan, regional director of Central Pollution Control Board (Pune) Bharat Kumar Sharma, Andhra Pradesh special chief secretary (Industries) Karikal Valaven, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board member-secretary Vivek Yadav and others were part of the HPC.

A release from the Chief Minister’s Office later said the chief minister said the HPC report would serve as a guide to avert such mishaps in the future.

“If necessary, we will make necessary amendments to the existing laws. Also, based on the HPC recommendations, industries should be classified into green and white and relocated far away from residential colonies so that people do not suffer,” the chief minister said.

He asked the departments concerned to chalk out a foolproof action plan and protocols in this regard.

Vizag Gas Leak: LG Polymers India has Absolute Liability, Says NGT

It also directed the state chief secretary to take appropriate action against the people responsible for the failure of law in permitting the company to operate without statutory clearances.

New Delhi: The South Korean company LG Polymers India has absolute liability for the loss of life and public health in the gas leak incident at its plant in Visakhapatnam, the NGT said on June 3, while directing that the interim penalty of Rs 50 crore would be spent on compensation to the victims and the restoration of the environment.

The National Green Tribunal directed that a restoration plan be prepared by a committee comprising two representatives each of the Environment Ministry and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and three representatives of Andhra Pradesh government.

The NGT also junked the company’s plea seeking review of its May 8 order slapping on it the Rs 50 crore interim penalty saying that it is justified in taking suo motu cognisance of the matter.

A bench headed by NGT Chairperson Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel said that final calculation of compensation may be assessed by a committee comprising representatives of Ministry of Environment Ministry, CPCB and National Environmental Engineering Research Institute.

“The committee will be at liberty to associate/co-opt any other expert institution or individual. The Secretary, MoEF may ensure the constitution of such committee within two weeks… The Committee may give its report within two months thereafter,” the bench, also comprising of Justice Sheo Kumar Singh, said.

It also directed the Andhra Pradesh chief secretary to identify and take appropriate action against the people responsible for the failure of law in permitting the company to operate without statutory clearances within two months and give a report.

Also read: Vizag Gas Leak: Why the NGT Should Have Applied Absolute, Not Strict, Liability

“In view of the stand of the state pollution control board and the company that it will not recommence its operation without requisite statutory clearances, we direct that if any such statutory clearances are granted and the Company proposes to recommence, this aspect must be brought to the notice of this tribunal so that compliance of law is ensured,” the bench said in its June 1 order uploaded today.

The NGT asked MoEF to constitute an expert committee to suggest ways and means to revamp monitoring mechanism to check and prevent violation of environmental norms and preventing any such recurrence in future in any of the establishments dealing with hazardous chemicals.

“A special drive may be initiated in this regard. An action taken report may be furnished within three months. This order will not prejudice any criminal or other statutory proceedings in accordance with the law,” the bench said.

The NGT said that the safety of citizens and environment is of prime concern and any economic or industrial activity, however necessary, has to be consistent with the safety of human beings and the environment.

“The damage to human life, human health and environment has to be restored by applying the ‘Sustainable Development’ principle, of which ‘Precautionary’ and ‘Polluter Pays’ principles are part,” the bench said.

The NGT on May 8 sought response from the Centre and others saying ‘there appears to be a failure to comply with the said Rules and other statutory provisions’.

It had set up a five-member Committee to probe gas leak incident in the chemical factory, in which at least 11 people were killed and 1,000 exposed.

Also read: Vizag Gas Leak: LG Polymers Operated Without Appropriate Environment Clearance

The matter was taken up suo-motu (on its own) by NGT on the basis of media reports to the effect that leakage of hazardous gas, Styrene, took place on May 7 from a chemical factory owned by the South Korean company LG Polymers India Pvt Ltd, R.R. Venkatpuram village, Pendurthy Mandal, Vishakhapatnam resulting in the death of 11 people.

A major early morning chemical leak from a polymer plant near Visakhapatnam impacted villages in a five-km radius, leaving many people dead and scores of citizens suffering from breathlessness and other problems, as the AP government ordered a probe into the issue.

The leak was noticed by company staff who were reportedly inspecting machines to restart the factory and raised an alarm.

Hours after the styrene gas leak from the multinational L G Polymers Plant at R R Venkatapuram village near here, scores of people could be seen lying unconscious on sidewalks, near ditches and on the road, raising fears of a major industrial disaster.

Targeted for My Humanitarian Concerns, Says Woman Booked by Andhra Police for Gas Leak Post

The 60-year-old woman was questioned by the state CID over a Facebook post and charged with serious crimes, including promoting enmity and obscenity. If convicted, she could face a prison term of three years.

New Delhi: The woman booked for a social media post questioning the lack of transparency in the government’s response to the gas leak which killed 12 people in Visakhapatnam earlier this month says that she is being targeted for raising basic humanitarian concerns.

In a move that is being seen as a blatant attack by the Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy government on the right to free speech, the Andhra Pradesh police registered a case against the 60-year-old resident of Guntur on May 19, calling her Facebook post ‘objectionable’.

The post raises some ‘doubts’ about the government’s response to the leak of styrene gas from the LG Polymers plant near Vizag on May 7.

The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) questioned Ranganayaki on May 21 and issued a statement saying “misleading social posts against the state government cannot be justified as an expression of personal opinion”. The police also claimed that “her intention was not to ensure justice to the gas tragedy victims, but to create disaffection towards the elected government”.

The case against her has been registered under IPC sections 505 (2) (making statements that create or promote enmity), 153 (A) (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language), 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) and 120-B r/w 34 (criminal conspiracy) and also under Section 67 of IT Act which deals with obscenity.

Former central information commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu has criticised the police for invoking these sections while registering the case. “A factory is allowed to work without any permission that resulted in serious environment crime, which is being charged for homicide. At the same time, the Guntur CID thinks that Ranganayaki’s comment will cause an offence,” he said.

Since the case against her was filed, Ranganayaki has varyingly been described as a ‘social media activist’, ‘member of the [opposition] Telugu Desam Party IT cell’ and ‘TDP activist’. Speaking to The Wire, Ranganayaki rejected all these labels, saying she is a business owner who does not describe herself as an activist. Though she supported the previous TDP government, she is not affiliated to it, she said.

“A narrative is being created to project me as a TDP member. I raised these questions solely on humanitarian grounds. My intention was not to shift the blame for the gas leak to the government, but to only seek more transparency,” she said. Ranganayaki said that it is a citizen’s duty to demand accountability from the government, and she would have raised the same questions irrespective of which party was at the helm.

The government has been evasive about questions raised by the media, she said, prompting people who wanted answers to draft 20 points and share it on social media, Ranganayaki said. Raghu Nadh Malladi, who had originally compiled the questions, has also been called in for questioning, she said.

“There is no clarity on how serious the gas leak was or if it can have a long-lasting effect on the health of those who inhaled it. A few days ago, it emerged that a person who had inhaled the gas has now died, possibly making her the 13th victim of the tragedy,” she told The Wire. Her Facebook post was meant to ensure that all the victims – the close to 20,000 people who may have inhaled the gas – know the nature of the gas leak, Ranganayaki said.

Rights groups criticise police

The Human Rights Forum (HRF) has issued a statement condemning her arrest. “Filing of the case amounts to a brazen attack on free speech. HRF demands that the State government immediately withdraw the case registered against Ranganayaki. The filing of this case betrays utter intolerance by those in power. It undermines and scuttles Constitutionally guaranteed rights to know, debate, differ, critique and dissent. These are quintessential rights necessary for the sustenance of a healthy and democratic society,” the NGO said.

It said that the questions raised by Ranganayaki in her Facebook post “are extremely pertinent”. “It is an admitted fact that the AP Pollution Control Board (APPCB) had granted Consent to Operate (CTO) to LG Polymers even though the plant did not obtain the mandatory Environmental Clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEF&CC). Running a plant without Environmental Clearance is an act of gross criminal negligence and the management is culpable for the human loss, injury and trauma,” the statement says.

Other rights groups have also said that while the government has promised to compensate the deceased families and the survivors, the criminal liability of the company, its management and personnel has not been raised.

During its term, many actions of the Jagan government have come under the scanner. It has been accused of ‘political vendetta‘ and suppression of media freedom.

Vizag Gas Leak: Why the NGT Should Have Applied Absolute, Not Strict, Liability

The application of a strict liability principle for damage is a problem because there is ample room for exceptions.

On May 7, styrene gas leaked from a chemical plant owned by the South Korean company LG Polymers India Pvt. Ltd in Gopalapatnam, Vizag. The leaked gas killed 11 people and sickened over a 1,000, and also affected many flora and fauna in the area. Once the incident was widely reported in the media, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) took suo motu cognisance of the matter: it formed a committee under a retired judge of the Andhra Pradesh high court to inspect the site and determine the cause of the incident, the damage caused to life, environment and health, and steps to compensate victims.

The NGT also asked LG Polymers to deposit Rs 50 crore with the collector. The tribunal determined the amount after factoring in the company’s financial worth and the extent of damage.

Several reports have compared this incident with the Bhopal gas leak of 1984 but the incidents differ in their intensity and, unlike Union Carbide Corporation, LG Polymers did not know in advance that toxic gas could leak. However, the nature of the substance and the companies’ activities are similar, and this suggests that the principle of absolute liability could be applied in the current case as well.

National Green Tribunal. photo: PTI

Strict liability and absolute liability

In its order, the NGT directed the application of a strict liability principle for damage to the people and environment. This is a problem.

The principle of strict liability states that a person who brings on to her land anything likely to cause harm is liable to pay compensation when the thing escapes and causes harm. However, she is liable only when there is non-natural use of land; the principle also restricts liability when the escape is due to an act of strangers, of god, due to the person injured, when it happens with the consent of the person injured or with statutory authority.

Also Read: Vizag Gas Leak: LG Polymers Operated Without Appropriate Environment Clearance

The principle of absolute liability is rooted in a 1987 case in the Supreme Court, M.C. Mehta v. Union Of India & Ors. It relates to the escape of oleum gas from a unit of the Shriram Foods and Fertilisers Industries, Delhi, belonging to Delhi Cloth Mill Ltd. The leak killed an advocate practicing in the Tees Hazari Court and several people were also injured. Justice P.N. Bhagwati, while delivering the Supreme Court’s judgement, noted that the rule of strict liability couldn’t apply because the principle was created before advancements in technology and the economy.

So the court evolved the principle of absolute liability, which implies that whenever an enterprise is engaged in any dangerous or hazardous activity that threatens the people working in the enterprise and those living nearby, it owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community that no harm will be caused. If harm is indeed caused, the enterprise will have to compensate for damages, and can’t use exceptions provided in the case of strict liability. The enterprise can’t claim that the harm has not been caused due to negligence (absence of due care) or that it had taken all reasonable precautions.

The apex court affirmed this principle in Charan Lal Sahu v Union of India (1990), in which the constitutionality of the Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, had been challenged.

Now, the tribunal and courts all over India have applied this principle in environmental matters in which human lives have been lost and the environment has been harmed.

Now, styrene gas is a ‘hazardous chemical’ under Rule 2(e) plus Entry 583 of Schedule I of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules 1989. The rules also require on-site and off-site emergency plans to control damage.

But in spite of these facts – that styrene gas is hazardous, that it has caused loss of human lives and damaged the environment, and that it could cause potential long-term health effects – the tribunal has chosen to invoke the principle of strict liability when it should have invoked the principle of absolute liability.

Various exceptions

The application of strict liability requires the cause of the leak to be known because there is ample room for exceptions. For example, in the present case, there are various theories about the leak’s cause, including mishandling of valve controls, a chemical reaction as a result of operators being unable to transport the gas due to the lockdown, auto-polymerisation and vaporisation due to stagnation, and changes in temperature inside the tank.

On the other hand, the application of the principle of absolute liability does not require the cause of incident or the ‘consent’ of the facility’s operators to be known to make any enterprise liable. The liability is triggered by the mere escape of hazardous substances, irrespective of the cause.

The present circumstances demand absolute liability because employees who were reportedly preparing to reopen the working area will be compensated for their loss. It is the company’s duty to ensure its employees have a safe working environment, especially when the company deals with a hazardous substance. Strict liability loosens this agreement – more so since the lockdown has entered its 51st day and labourers and workers across India find themselves in direr straits.

An important lesson India learnt from the Bhopal tragedy was that multinational corporations (MNCs) must be held liable. In 1984 and shortly after, it was very difficult to fix liability on officials of the Union Carbide Corporation even though there was clear evidence of neglect on their part, allowing the deadly gas to escape. And even when it was fixed, it became very difficult to have them extradited to India to be tried before Indian courts.

Locals stage a protest against LG Polymers chemical gas leaked from the plant, RR Venkatapuram village, Visakhapatnam, May 09, 2020. Photo: PTI Photo

But not just foreign governments were to blame: the Government of India and the Madhya Pradesh government also played important parts. As Upendra Baxi, emeritus professor of law at the University of Warwick and the University of Delhi, wrote in 2016, parent companies that hold the larger volume of shares in their subsidiaries still manage to escape liability for violating human rights because these MNCs “are above any obligations to people and environs they hurt and harm; operate in a ‘morals-free zone’; they remain beyond the sanctions and cultures of guilt and shame and continue to live in a world of ‘corporate Neanderthalism'”.

Also Read: Why a Plastic Plant Was Deemed ‘Essential’ During Lockdown, and Other Questions on Vizag Gas Leak

In the Vizag leak incident, the Indian company LG Polymers India Pvt. Ltd. is owned by the South Korean battery maker LG Chem. The Government of India should undertake every effort to prosecute the people responsible for the tragedy. Generally, in such cases, the people from the Indian company will be tried but due to technicalities in the law, the parent company will be absolved from any liability.

Then again, the Government of India has consistently been relaxing restrictions to promote industrial activity at the cost of environmental and ecosystem damage, and more recently did away with labour laws originally designed to protect the rights of workers. So it seems unlikely that it will go hammer and tongs after the parent company – and all the more important that the NGT should have invoked the principle of absolute liability.

Amit Kumar is a research scholar at the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, IIT Kharagpur. He previously taught human rights law at Patna University.

Crushing Labour Laws Amidst Successive Industrial Accidents Is Serious Insult to Injury

State governments have undertaken a slew of labour law reforms that could lead to higher exposure to occupational health and safety risks and no appropriate protection for workers.

Industrial accidents are far too common in India.

Two disastrous incidences of gas leakage at Visakhapatnam’s LG Polymers plant and a boiler blast at NCL India Limited’s thermal power station in Tamil Nadu evoked memories of several unfortunate industrial accidents that have taken hundreds of workers lives.

In last year, few reported industrial incidents such an explosion in a chemical factory in Maharashtra, a massive fire at the ONGC plant at Bombay High, a blast in NTPC’s Rae Bareli plant and Bawana industrial area in Delhi, attest to the fact that India’s industrial preventive measures and the safety inspection systems are inadequate and ineffective in ensuring the workers’ safety.

Even if it is just the industrial accidental tragedy with the significant toll that makes the headlines, its actual impact for making comprehensive occupational health and safety legislation seems to be a far-off prospect. In the time of a health crisis, the government adopted stringent measures not only to restrict the movement of people but also enforced a total shutdown of industrial factories – except those units producing essential commodities – and other working establishments to ensure physical distancing.

With this policy, India may be able to contain the virus; however, it could be a staggering task for the state to avert potential industrial accidents due to 42 days of a complete shutdown of factories and their operations that use synthetic inflammable substances and hazardous chemicals. For ensuring smooth production, the manufacturing units need to undertake routine maintenance tasks and those must be inspected by the Directorate General Factory Advice Service periodically.

However, owing to the higher overhead repairing costs, it is observed that Indian employers pay more attention to corrective maintenance (i.e. replacement of machinery when the complete breakdown occurs) relative to preventive maintenance where scheduled maintenance of machines and equipment is undertaken at regular intervals to avoid breakdowns.

Also read: Longer Working Hours, Employee Productivity and the COVID-19 Economic Slump

So in order to minimise the recurring costs, employers are engaging in risky behaviour by allowing workers to work in hazardous conditions. Therefore, on one hand, employers are reluctant to incur preventive maintenance costs to avoid additional overhead. On the other, the Indian labour administration is under tremendous pressure from the government’s pro-employer policies that are offering leeway to employers from regulatory controls.

In this case, neither the employers nor employees would be better off, as it will promote unhealthy competition among Indian firms and would eventually thrust out around 19.5 million of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises from the product market.

Labyrinth of India’s labour legislations

The principle legislation of the Factories Act of 1948 ( the Act) governs the working conditions and safety measures for registered factory workers. Despite its vast volume, the existing legislation is applicable only to factories that employ ten or more workers; it covers only a small proportion of workers.

According to the Sixth Economic Census, 97.39 million (45%) work in establishments without any hired worker; whereas, 118 million (55%) of workers works in establishments with at least one hired worker. Broadly, the former category falls under the Shops and Establishment Act and later with the Factories Act.

Across the employment threshold sizes, 172 millions of workers (79.85%) works in the establishments that have less than nine workers and 20.1 million are employed in establishments which have more than 10 and less than 49 workers. Only 17.60 million (8%) work in establishments with more than 100 workers.

A migrant worker rides a cart with his family on a highway as they return to their villages, during a 21-day nationwide lockdown to limit the spreading of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in Ghaziabad, on the outskirts of New Delhi, March 27, 2020. Photo: Reuters/Adnan Abidi/Files

As per the annual report of Directorate General Factory Advice Service, there are 31,602 factory units are registered under the hazardous industry category employing 1.97 million workers in 2013, which increased to 32,956 units employing 2.32 million in 2014 u/s 2(CB) of Factories Act, 1948. Due to its constricting legislative approach, 169.3 millions of workers who legally may not be working in the scheduled hazardous industries but are engaged in the hazardous process are absolutely excluded from the purview of occupational safety and health laws due to the employee threshold criteria of the Act.

Also read: Adityanath Govt in UP to Suspend Key Labour Laws, Workers’ Rights for Three Years

Industrial accidents and prevalence of fatality risk

The prevalence of industrial accidental deaths is notably high in the manufacturing industries. It will have a multiplier effect in exacerbating the risk when it is accompanied by the prolonged dysfunctional manufacturing processes and inadequate staff during the lockdown period.

Data from the Ministry of Labour and Employment also reveals that 3,562 workers lost their lives and around 51,124 were injured in factory accidents between 2014-16. These figures may have increased; however, the official statistics are yet to be updated for the last two years. According to the official figures of labour bureau the fatal accidental incidental rate per 1,000 workers was 0.53% (fatal) in 2013 which increased to 0.63% in 2014 for the factories registered under the Factories Act of 1948.

Similarly, the frequency rate for fatal accidents per lakh worker was 0.30% (in 2013) that increased to 0.43% point in 2014. Despite the increasing manufacturing and mining activities, regulatory authorities ensuring occupational safety have been limited to 1,400 safety officers, 1,154 factory inspectors, and 27 medical inspectors for the central sphere across all states. Therefore, the health hazard and fatality risk of working in Indian factories have increased tremendously and it could likely to continue unless a routine inspection and mandatory safety clearance are enforced effectively.

Turing a blind eyes

An uncertainly of livelihood, wage loss and layoffs would likely to linger much longer and will be persisted in the post-lockdown period. In these difficult times, many state governments have undertaken a slew of labour law reforms that potentially lead to higher exposure to occupational health and safety risks, no appropriate protection, and an increased likelihood that they will suffer from illness, accident or death.

For instance, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh have amended the Factories Act that allows firms to extend a factory worker’s daily shift to 12 hours per day, from the existing eight hours per day to revive the economy. Excessive working hours have negative effects on workers’ health which leads to poor immunity and exposes them to a higher risk of industrial accidents.

Also read: Labour Law Reform: Was a Sledgehammer Needed When Employment Itself Is Uncertain?

Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh took a frog’s leap to exempts all from labour legislation for the next three years as a measure to revive the economy. This reform may further give reason to employers to circumvent essential labour laws but will cause them severe productivity losses. In a bid to accelerate the economic recovery, the state is externalising the cost of reform onto workers by waning out its own enforcement mechanism.

India’s efforts in encouraging occupational and industrial safety remain frail. The proposed Code in the de jure spirit obliges employers to provide for a risk-free workplace and instruct employees on safety protocol. It further assumes that all employers will self-enforce these Codes without any deterrence from enforcement authorities.

Existing evidence shows that if we allow self-enforcement of labour laws though nudging the behaviour of employers, then employers would likely engage in an opportunistic rent-seeking behaviour to maximize their own self-interests of profit. Hence, the behavioural altruism on the part of employers offers less credence in safeguarding the rights of workers.

Second, the labour inspectorate is entrusted with the power to inquire into accidents and conduct inspections and to frame penalties – both civil and criminal – on employers in case of non-adherence. However, in the proposed Code, the statutory powers of labour administration have been curtailed severely. It will be considered as inspector-cum-facilitators who initiate the legal proceedings but will not able to frame criminal penalties on employers.

Instead of protecting the workers, it is now redefined to protect the interest of employers. The code also restricts the appeal of a person aggrieved due to industrial accidents or industries or any employment-related causes thereof is to file a writ petition before the relevant high court. This may lead to the denial of access to justice to challenge issues before a lower court. As a result, there will be longer pendency of labour disputes and delayed justice to the aggrieved workers.

India’s jump from 130th (2016) to 63rd (2019) rank in the Ease of Doing Business (EDB) is boasted across all industries. Every year, whenever India tops the higher rank on EDB, our global ranking point estimate slips towards the bottom quartile in all global parameters such as hunger, peace, slavery, worst formed labour and workers’ rights indexes on the lowest scale.

To soothe the Centre, all states government are now engaged in a race to bottom to reform existing labour market institutions to encourage ease of doing business and to promote flexibility. Hence, the two unfortunate disastrous incidents that recently took place have propelled us to reimagine the future of Indian workers and industrial relation systems in the neoliberal order and the pandemic.

Rahul Suresh Sapkal is an assistant professor at the Centre for Labour Studies, School of Management and Labour Studies at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.

Vizag Gas Leak: LG Polymers Operated Without Appropriate Environment Clearance

The National Green Tribunal has directed LG Polymers India to deposit an initial amount of Rs 50 crore for the damage caused.

Mumbai: Sometime before dawn on May 7, a toxic gas – thought to be styrene – leaked from the storage unit of a plastics-manufacturing plant in Visakhapatnam, quickly rendering people around the plant unconscious, and eventually killed 11 people and injured a few thousand. Now, it seems that for a substantial period between 1997 and 2019, the unit, operated by LG Polymers India, did not have the requisite essential environmental clearance to do so.

According to Indian Express, which has accessed documents submitted to the Andhra Pradesh Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA; ‘s’ for state), the company admitted that as of May 10, 2019, the unit did not have a “valid environmental clearance substantiating the produced quantity, issued by the competent authority for continuing operations”.

In its report, Indian Express found out that the company had said before the SEIAA that it had expanded production at the plant “beyond the limit of environmental clearance or changed the product mix without obtaining prior environmental clearance as mandated under the EIA notification, 2006”.

LG Polymers had purchased the plant from McDowell & Company in 1997. To expand their operations, the company had applied for an environmental clearance for the plant from the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board in May 2019. According to the application, the company wanted to up its production capacity of polystyrene from 415 to 655 tonnes per day. The unit also reprocessed primary plastics into engineering plastics.

This plan of expansion was classified as a ‘Category A’ project, for which a “prior environment clearance” from the Union environment ministry was required. However, in May 2019, the company still went ahead to file for clearance with the Andhra Pradesh SEIAA; the latter transferred the proposal to the Centre, according to Indian Express. In that application, the company had undertaken that it would not “repeat any such violation in future”.

A possible reason for the May 7 leak accident is that the plant may not have stored styrene gas at the right temperature, causing pressure to build up within the chamber, followed by a valve failure and then leak. The plant had been shut for over a month because of the national lockdown.

Even as the investigation in underway, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) reportedly took suo motu cognisance of the gas leak incident and on May 8 directed LG Polymers India to deposit an initial amount of Rs 50 crore for the damage caused. (Read NGT’s full order here.)

NGT chairperson Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel also issued a notice to the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, the Central Pollution Control Board and the environment ministry, seeking their response on the incident by May 18.

The tribunal also constituted a six-member committee headed by Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy, a former judge of the Andhra Pradesh high court, tasked to find the exact sequence of events leading up to the leak, including the cause of failure; persons and authorities responsible; extent of damage to life, public health, and environment; steps taken to compensate victims and restitute damaged property; etc.