Understanding Industrial Accidents: Risks and Responsibilities

Boiler explosions are typically the result of cumulative engineering failures rather than sudden, unpredictable events. The underlying causes often develop gradually over time due to poor maintenance, operational negligence, or design limitations. Key technical factors include:

• Overpressure: Excessive pressure buildup due to malfunctioning safety valves
• Scaling: Deposition of minerals on boiler walls reducing heat transfer efficiency
• Water level mismanagement: Low water levels can lead to overheating and structural failure
• Revival stress: Thermal stress during restart after shutdown

These factors rarely act in isolation. Instead, they interact over time, weakening the system until a triggering event—such as a restart or load fluctuation—causes catastrophic failure. For instance, the Sakti boiler explosion and similar incidents like Neyveli (2020) demonstrate how restart conditions can destabilise already compromised systems.

Thus, the notion of ‘accidental’ explosions is misleading. Most incidents are predictable outcomes of ignored warning signs and inadequate monitoring. This highlights the importance of continuous inspection and real-time instrumentation rather than periodic certification. Understanding these engineering realities is essential for designing effective safety and regulatory frameworks.

Industrial accidents persist in India largely due to structural weaknesses in regulatory frameworks and enforcement mechanisms. While laws and inspection systems exist, they often fail to address the dynamic and continuous nature of industrial risks.

Key systemic issues include:

• Periodic certification: Boiler inspections are valid for up to a year, despite daily variations in operating conditions
• Focus on compliance over safety: Emphasis on documentation and fabrication standards rather than real-time monitoring
• Self-certification and reduced inspections: Policies promoting ease of doing business have limited surprise government checks
• Incentive distortions: Firms are penalised for downtime rather than unsafe operations, discouraging preventive shutdowns

For example, incidents like the Visakhapatnam gas leak (2020) and Neyveli explosion (2020) revealed lapses in safety systems during restart phases, which were not adequately regulated. Similarly, the Sakti explosion occurred under unstable operating conditions that were not subject to heightened scrutiny.

Therefore, the issue is not the absence of regulation but its design and implementation. A shift is needed from static, compliance-based frameworks to dynamic, risk-based oversight that prioritises continuous safety assurance. Without addressing these structural gaps, accidents will continue to be treated as isolated events rather than systemic failures.

Operational phases such as plant restarts and under-capacity functioning are inherently unstable and significantly increase the risk of industrial accidents. During these periods, systems are subjected to fluctuating thermal and pressure conditions, which can expose underlying weaknesses in equipment and processes.

Key risk factors during such phases include:

• Thermal imbalances: Rapid heating or cooling can induce stress in boiler materials
• Pressure fluctuations: Inconsistent load conditions can destabilise pressure control systems
• Inactive safety systems: Equipment may not be fully calibrated after shutdowns
• Human error: Restart procedures often involve complex manual interventions

For instance, the Visakhapatnam gas leak occurred after a post-lockdown restart, while the Neyveli explosion was triggered during a restart process. Similarly, the Sakti plant was operating below full capacity, a condition that can lead to inefficient and unpredictable system behaviour.

These examples highlight the need for enhanced regulatory oversight during transitional phases. Currently, inspection regimes do not differentiate between stable and unstable operating conditions. Introducing phase-specific safety protocols and real-time monitoring can significantly reduce risks. Thus, understanding operational dynamics is crucial for preventing industrial disasters.

‘Ease of doing business’ reforms in India have had a mixed impact on industrial safety, often prioritising efficiency over accountability. While these reforms aim to reduce bureaucratic hurdles and promote investment, they have inadvertently weakened safety oversight mechanisms in some sectors.

Positive aspects include:

• Reduced compliance burden for industries
• Faster approvals and operational flexibility
• Encouragement of private sector participation

However, these benefits come with significant trade-offs.

Key concerns include:

• Self-certification: Firms are allowed to assess their own compliance, leading to potential conflicts of interest
• Reduced inspections: Replacement of surprise checks with scheduled audits reduces deterrence
• Neglect of real-time safety: Focus remains on documentation rather than actual operational safety

For example, the Sakti boiler explosion and similar incidents reveal how inadequate oversight during critical phases can lead to catastrophic outcomes. The emphasis on minimising downtime also discourages preventive maintenance.

Thus, while ease of doing business is important for economic growth, it must be balanced with robust safety mechanisms. A hybrid approach combining regulatory flexibility with strict, technology-driven monitoring and accountability is essential to ensure sustainable industrial development.

Labour-related vulnerabilities play a critical role in exacerbating industrial accidents in India, particularly due to the increasing reliance on contract and migrant workers. These workers often operate in high-risk environments without adequate training, information, or legal protection.

Key contributing factors include:

• Contractualisation of labour: Workers are hired through subcontractors, diluting accountability
• Lack of awareness: Many workers are unaware of the chemicals or processes they handle
• Language barriers: Safety manuals and signage are often not available in workers’ native languages
• Weak legal liability: The OSHW Code 2020 does not clearly fix criminal liability on principal employers

Investigations in industrial belts like Pune and incidents in Sangareddy have shown that workers often lack basic knowledge of workplace hazards. This significantly increases the likelihood of human error and reduces the effectiveness of safety protocols.

These issues reflect deeper structural problems in India’s labour governance. Without addressing worker vulnerability and ensuring clear accountability, safety measures will remain ineffective. Strengthening labour rights, improving training, and enforcing stricter liability norms are essential steps toward reducing industrial accidents.

The Sakti boiler explosion serves as a critical case study highlighting systemic deficiencies in India’s industrial safety framework. The incident, which resulted in significant loss of life, was not an isolated failure but a manifestation of broader structural issues.

Key observations from the case include:

• Unstable operating conditions: The plant was recently commissioned and operating below full capacity
• Inadequate oversight: No additional scrutiny during high-risk operational phases
• Regulatory gaps: Annual certification failed to capture real-time risks
• Labour vulnerabilities: Workers were exposed to unsafe conditions without adequate safeguards

The incident also mirrors patterns seen in earlier disasters like Neyveli and Visakhapatnam, indicating recurring systemic failures rather than isolated lapses.

From a policy perspective, the case underscores the limitations of current regulatory approaches, which focus on compliance rather than continuous risk assessment. The introduction of Boiler Accident Inquiry Rules (2025) is a step forward, but their effectiveness will depend on addressing these underlying gaps.

Thus, the Sakti explosion illustrates the need for a paradigm shift toward proactive, technology-driven, and worker-centric safety frameworks to prevent future tragedies.

Improving industrial safety in India requires a comprehensive reform strategy that addresses regulatory, technological, and labour-related dimensions. Recent accidents highlight the need for systemic changes rather than piecemeal interventions.

Key reform measures include:

• Real-time monitoring: Use of IoT-based sensors for continuous tracking of pressure, temperature, and other parameters
• Dynamic inspection regimes: Increased scrutiny during high-risk phases such as restarts
• Strengthened accountability: Clear legal liability for principal employers under labour laws
• Worker empowerment: Training programmes and multilingual safety communication

For example, countries with advanced industrial systems use predictive maintenance technologies to identify risks before they escalate. India can adopt similar approaches to move from reactive to preventive safety management.

Additionally, aligning incentives is crucial. Policies should reward preventive maintenance and penalise unsafe operations rather than downtime. Integrating safety into corporate governance and ESG frameworks can also drive compliance.

Ultimately, a holistic approach combining technology, regulation, and human factors is essential to ensure sustainable industrial growth while safeguarding worker lives.