Experiences off the Netherlands with the the implementation of the Seveso Council-2
Directive : Learning lessons for Slovakia
Theo de GelderDutch Ministry of Environment
Safety Management System (Theo)
2
Dutch experiences with the
implementation of the accident act
2003: a national evaluation four years after the implementation of the act Common need to improve the compliance of the
accident act Safety performances can only be achieved by
cooperation between authorities and cat. A & B operators
Safety Management System (Theo)
3
Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act
Responsives:
95 operators category A & B 47 municipalities 7 provinces 28 labour inspectors 37 regional fire departments 9 environmental agencies 11 others
Safety Management System (Theo)
4
Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act
Identified elements 1. Knowledge, information, tools, documentation 2 One counter desk thought (focal point) 3. Capacity / workload 4. Publicity 5. Time 6. Safety management system 7. Safety report 8. Inspections 9. Common conclusions 10. Recommendations for Slovakia
Safety Management System (Theo)
5
Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act
1. knowledge, information, tools, documentation:
Lack of know-how mostly at the enterprises, municipalities and fire departments
Labour inspectors are more skilled No applicable instrument to determine domino-effects Authorities not always able to answer questions how
to do by enterprises. Report of information requirements, assistances,
national helpdesk and other guidelines much used
Safety Management System (Theo)
6
Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act
2. One counter desk thought (focal point):
Start: great intention for cooperation Not always feasible Sometimes contrariety and conflicts in assessments Problem: planning coordination Different cultures/point of views between ministries National versus regional differences
Safety Management System (Theo)
7
Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act
3. Capacity / workload:
90% enterprises supported by consultants Extra capacity needed for governmental offices and
enterprises Extra costs for 1/3 of all cat. A and B operators
5000-65000 euro’s 45%
100000-250.000 euro’s 40%
500.000-1.000.000 euro’s 15%
Safety Management System (Theo)
8
Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act
4. Publicity:
Active information supply to the public Recommendable: two versions of the safety report
beceause of confidential information Doubts about the use and effectiveness of information
supply to the public “Sensitive” information for terrorism ?
Safety Management System (Theo)
9
Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act
5. Time:
Complaints: all governmental work / actions takes too much time
Enterprises: we comply the legal time schedules
Safety Management System (Theo)
10
Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act
6. Safety management system:
The interest of the introduction of a SMS is agreed Contribution to a greater awareness of risks Complaints enterprises: parts of a safety report does
not connect to existing management of quality systems
Safety Management System (Theo)
11
Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act
7. Safety report:
The assessment by the authorities is too much theoretical in stead of practicable
Parts seems to be very useful Drawing up a safety report according to Seveso takes
more effort than the former internal and external safety reports
Too much details (avoid to create a paper tiger) Agreement about enforcing but no exaggeration ! ! Labour demands more than the Report Information
Requirements (own documentation) Interregional differences The term acceptable risk mentioned in the dutch act is
difficult to judge
Safety Management System (Theo)
12
Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act
8. Inspections:
Very first inspections coordinated and cooperated Coordination and rejection are declining now Assessments by authorities are mostly fair and
reasonable The final notification to the management takes too
long Inspection frequency was too high. Nowadays
realistic
Safety Management System (Theo)
13
Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act
9 Main conclusions
Improvement of awareness of risks, scenario’s, means to be taken, sms, observable reduction of risks
Improvement on emergency planning, plans, disaster and fire fighting, learning effect with cooperation was disappointing
Lack of capacity (time and know how) Lack of rejection for regulation, developing criteria
standards and policy Lack of willingness and responsibility to achieve a solid
cooperation and safety performance Lack of guidelines, assistances, standards, instruments The implementation needs time and money Focal point and coordinating body did not work proper but
is necessary !!
Safety Management System (Theo)
14
Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act
RECOMMENDATIONS
Agreement about goal safety performance Achievement by common approach and cooperation
between operators and authorities Unification of common work-processes to improve
cooperation Development of standard specifications SR, SMS, skills etc Focal point / national helpdesk / centre of expertise Development of common training programmes Foundation of an “’Industrial University” (exchange
platform) Industry should make use of the line of business they
belong
Safety Management System (Theo)
15
Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act
RECOMMENDATIONS
Organise regional work conferences for all parties (operators and authorities)
Coordinating body is responsible for the assessment report
Avoid peak loading and inefficiencies by double work Parties involved: do give feed back on policymakers
in order to adjust the accident act and legislation and to develop or improve tools
As EU-member make use of the IMPEL-network !
Thank you good luck !
Top Related