102 Gerbec Kontic

Implementation of the Seveso II Directive in Slovenia: survey of implementation and opinions of operators regarding its safety benefits: 

Implementation of the Seveso II Directive in Slovenia: survey of implementation and opinions of operators regarding its safety benefits M. Gerbec, B. Kontić Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia (marko.gerbec@ijs.si)

Scope: 

Scope Background Questionnaire & Results Comments from the authorities (pending) Wider industrial safety perspective Conclusions

Background: 

Background Seveso II Directive (96/82/EC) has been transposed into national legislation by two Decrees Decree on prevenion of major acidents (2002); General provisions within the Environmental Protection Act (2001) Decree on emergency planning (2002); General provisions within the Protection Against Natural and Other Disasters Act (1996) Two ministries involved (Environment & Defence) Updates of Decrees in 2005 and 2006 (involve 2003/105/EC)

Today legal status: 

Today legal status On reduction of risks: Decree on the prevention of major accidents and mitigation of their consequences (Uredba o preprečevanju večjih nesreč in zmanjševanju njihovih posledic), OG.RS No. 88/2005 Competence: Ministry of the environment and spatial planning (CA) On emergency planning: Decree on the contents and drawing up of protection and rescue plans (Uredba o izdelavi načrtov zaščite in reševanja), OG.RS No. 3/02, 17/02, 17/06. Competence: Ministry of defence, Administration of the RS for Civil Protection and Disaster Relief

Number of Seveso establishments in Slovenia: 

Number of Seveso establishments in Slovenia 24 upper tier 39 lower tier Total: 63 Source: CA (30.9.2005) (http://www.sigov.si/mop/podrocja/uradzaokolje_sektorokolje/nevarnosti_velikihnesrec/seznam_virov_tveganja.pdf)

Questionnaire survey: 

Questionnaire survey Goals: status of the implementation of Seveso II Directive opinions of operators regarding its benefit to safety Survey performed: April 2006 # of establishments involved: 63 (upper + lower tier) all together 49 operators Response: 63%

Organization of the survey: 

Organization of the survey Estabishments’ responsible persons first identified and then contacted via phone - announcement of survey Qustionnaire sent to responsible persons via e-mail as Excel file Responses received by e-mail (filled questionnaires) – timeframe of three weeks Analysis done in May-June 2006

Organization of the questionnaire: 

Organization of the questionnaire Altogether 37 questions Five main topics: General info on compliance Approaches used to reach compliance Relationship with ISO/OHSAS standards Opinion on association between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety Comments and suggestions

Response: 

Response 49 responsible persons contacted (asked to fill-in questionnaires) 31 positive responses Difference (18): Unreachable (no answers to phone calls & e-mail messages): 2 no more Seveso II establishments: 3 operator’s policy not to provide data: 1 no response: 12

RESULTS: 

RESULTS General info on compliance: Notifications to CA 100% Upper tier 18 (58.1%), Lower: 13 (41.9%) Most operators (28) responsible for one establishment One responsible for 6 establishments One responsible for 4 establishments etc... See details in the Appendix

RESULTS: 

RESULTS Strong opinion on cooperation, less paperwork and apply CA's monitoring of safety goals! Approaches used to reach compliance Safety Report SMS, MAPP Emergency Planning Relationship with ISO/OHSAS standards # of certifications Integration among QA/QC, and management standards Opinion on association between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety Contribution of SR, MAPP, SMS, and ERP to actual safety level Need for SR, SMS, and ERP Comments and suggestions 84% are willing to participate again in questionnaire update! See details in the Appendix 87% of SR submitted (38% within legal deadline) 19% yet accepted by CA 80-87% with SMS& MAPP 97% with ERP 81% sent to local community 29% yet approved 61% send info for LUP 87% with ISO 9001 71% with ISO 14001 26% with OHSAS 18001 71% related SMS with standards 80-90% positive 80-85% positive, 65% complains on paperwork

Role and competences of CA: 

Role and competences of CA Conformity and compliance to standards & regulation No clear mechanisms and procedures in both Decrees how to reach compliance Open issues evaluation of the level of safety? link to licensing (EIA) for both new and existing establishments land use planning: form of risk assessment results, cross-discipline collaboration, uncertainties in RA at strategic planning level

Wider industrial safety perspective: 

Wider industrial safety perspective

Major and occupational accidents in Slovenia: 

Major and occupational accidents in Slovenia Known (past) accidents and near misses: KIK Group d.d. (gunpowder/explosives factory): 1852 - 2002: 72 accidents, 35 casualties, 39 wounded Nafta Lendava, Color-Medvode, Helios Domžale (synthetic resins): several cases of batch reactor physical explosions with one casualty and other damage Acroni, 2001 (steel works): CO poisoning: 3 casualties as an occupational accident various near misses involving LOX, LPG Teol, Ljubljana, 2005: minor NOx release, no consequences, covered by media Fenolit d.d., Borovnica, 21.8.2006 phenol release: 1 casualty, 1 injured (maintenance workers)

Statistics and comparisons: 

Statistics and comparisons Work related accidents and fatalities in Slovenia by year Note: FAR – Fatal Accident Rate per 100,000 employees per year Source: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (http://www.stat.si/eng/index.asp )

Breakdown by activity: 

Breakdown by activity (exactly: 2.61) Conclusion: Forestry and construction workers among the most hazardous professions (similar as in other countries)

Breakdown by activity (Manufacturing): 

Breakdown by activity (Manufacturing) Note: Code: DG - Manufacturing of chemicals, prod.&man-made fibres - with no casualties at all in time period considered

Comparison with other countries: 

Comparison with other countries (whole national economy considered) Sources: Chemical Process Safety, 3rd Ed., R.E. Sanders (ed.), Elsevier, 2005 Markowski A.S., J. Loss Prev., 18 (2005). http://stats.bls.gov/fls/home.htm

Conclusions: 

Conclusions Operators (industry) and CA still struggle with the situation of “standing on different banks of the river” Safety culture should be built in cooperation between public, industry and CA; authorities should check conformity with safety goals “command and control” approach in safety arena is definitely obsolete Uncertainty in RA deserve more attention RA should be viewed in the context of “fit for purpose” by both industry and CA

Appendix – detailed questionnaire answers: 

Appendix – detailed questionnaire answers

a. General info on compliance: 

a. General info on compliance Q1: Have you submitted a notification on your establishment to CA? Answers: YES: 31 (100%), NO: 0 Q2: How many establishments does your company manage?

a. General info on compliance: 

a. General info on compliance Q3: How is your establishment classified – upper/lower tier? Upper tier: 18 (58.1%) Lower tier: 13 (41.9%)

a. General info on compliance: 

a. General info on compliance Q4/5: Have you prepared and submitted Safety Report or Environmental Risk Reduction Policy (whichever is applicable)? Status: april 2006 10.6.2004 YES: 27 (87.1%) 12 (38.7%) NO: 3 (9.7%) 18 (58.1%) no answer: 1 (3.2%) 1 (3.2%) (now) (legal deadline)

a. General info on compliance: 

a. General info on compliance Q6: Has a Safety Report or Environmental Risk Reduction Policy (whichever is applicable) been accepted by the CA yet? YES: 6 (19.4%) NO: 24 (77.4%) no answer: 1 (3.2%)

a. General info on compliance: 

a. General info on compliance Q7: Does your company have approved MAPP? YES: 27 (87.1%) NO: 2 (6.5%) no answer: 2 (6.5%) Q8: Have your have approved and implemented SMS? YES: 25 (80.6%) NO: 5 (16.1%) no answer: 1 (3.2%)

a. General info on compliance: 

a. General info on compliance Q9: Have you prepared emergency plan at establishment/company level? YES: 30 (96.8%) NO: 1 (3.2%) no answer: 0 (0%) Q10: Have you submitted data on risks (pertaining from SR) to local authorities for land use planning purposes? YES: 19 (61.3%) NO: 9 (29.0%) no answer: 3 (9.7%)

a. General info on compliance: 

a. General info on compliance Q11: Have you submitted the emergency plan for approval to the local community? YES: 25 (80.6%) NO: 4 (12.9%) no answer: 2 (6.5%) Q12: Was the emergency plan already accepted by a local community? YES: 9 (29%) NO: 19 (61.3%) no answer: 3 (9.7%)

a. General info on compliance: 

a. General info on compliance Q13: Have you prepared an Information on safety measures (to the public)? YES: 14 (45.2%) NO: 14 (45.2%) no answer: 3 (9.7%) Q14: Was the Information already supplied to persons liable to be affected by major accident? YES: 10 (32.2%) NO: 18 (58.1%) no answer: 3 (9.7%)

a. General info on compliance: 

a. General info on compliance Q15: Have you received at least one visit from inspectorate for environmental protection in the scope of Seveso II yet? YES: 23 (74.2%) NO: 7 (22.6%) no answer: 1 (3.2%) Q16: Have you received at least one visit from inspectorate for civil protection and disaster relief in the scope of Seveso II yet? YES: 27 (87.1%) NO: 4 (12.9%) no answer: 0 (0%)

b. Approaches used to reach compliance: 

b. Approaches used to reach compliance Q17: How was Safety report or Env. Risk Reduction Policy prepared? not yet prepared: 2 (6.5%) fully done by consultant: 1 (3.2%) together with a consultant: 17 (54.8%) fully done "in house" 11 (35.5%) no answer: 0 (0%)

b. Approaches used to reach compliance: 

b. Approaches used to reach compliance Q18: Safety Management System (SMS) was defined, approved and documented? not yet prepared: 2 (6.5%) fully done by consultant: 1 (3.2%) together with a consultant: 13 (41.9%) fully done "in house": 14 (45.2%) no answer: 1 (3.2%)

b. Approaches used to reach compliance: 

b. Approaches used to reach compliance Q19: How many full time employees at company level are working on safety, occupational safety and emergency preparedness? Info gathered: Question was ambigous. Only Safety engineers targeted. Lesson: industry considers safety in a wider sense, including personnel for security, firemen, safety personnel, etc.!

b. Approaches used to reach compliance: 

b. Approaches used to reach compliance Q20: How many employees at company level are working at safety, occupational safety and emergency preparedness as their basic task? Info gathered: comparably less people devoted to safety (see Q19)

b. Approaches used to reach compliance: 

b. Approaches used to reach compliance Q21: How many employees does a company have? Info gathered: No direct relation with quantities of dangerous substances A number of upper tier establishments with only 35 – 100 employees

c. Relationship with ISO/OHSAS: 

c. Relationship with ISO/OHSAS Q22/26: Is company certified according to any ISO/OHSAS standard?

c. Relationship with ISO/OHSAS: 

c. Relationship with ISO/OHSAS Q27: How did you integrate the Safety Management System (SMS) within exisiting systems and standards for management? SMS not yet implemented: 1 (3.2%) SMS and standards not related: 6 (19.4%) SMS related to standards: 10 (32.3%) SMS fully within standards: 12 (38.7%) no answer: 2 (6.5%)

d. Opinion on asociation between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety: 

d. Opinion on asociation between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety Q28: How did introduction of SMS influence actual level of safety at your establishment? no impact, only overburden: 3 (9.7%) no impact: 2 (6.5%) minor positive impact: 16 (51.6%) certainly a positive impact: 9 (29.0%) no answer: 1 (3.2%)

d. Opinion on asociation between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety: 

d. Opinion on asociation between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety Q29: How did preparation of a Safety Report or ERRP influence actual level of safety at your establishment? no impact, only overburden: 1 (3.2%) no impact: 2 (6.5%) minor positive impact: 19 (61.3%) certainly a positive impact: 8 (25.8%) no answer: 1 (3.2%)

d. Opinion on asociation between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety: 

d. Opinion on asociation between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety Q30: How did preparation of Safety Report or ERRP influence safety measures, procedures, or devices at your establishment? no improvements done: 2 (6.5%) no improvements were necessary: 1 (3.2%) yes, minor improvements done: 19 (61.3%) yes, we are certainly safer: 7 (22.6%) no answer: 2 (6.5%)

d. Opinion on asociation between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety: 

d. Opinion on asociation between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety Q31: Did preparation of Emergency Plan impact in any way actual level of safety at your establishment? no impact, only overburden: 0 (0%) no impact: 2 (6.5%) minor positive impact: 18 (58.1%) certainly a positive impact: 10 (32.3%) no answer: 1 (3.2%)

d. Opinion on asociation between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety: 

d. Opinion on asociation between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety Q32: Are the legislation and documents considered needed? no, completely unecessary: 1 (3.2%) I have no opinion: 1 (3.2%) yes, needed to minor extent: 9 (29%) yes, certainly needed: 20 (64.5%) no answer: 0 (0%)

d. Opinion on asociation between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety: 

d. Opinion on asociation between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety Q33: Are the obligations and documents considered only a "paperwork"? completely unnecessary: 3 (9.7%) I have no opinion: 1 (3.2%) needed, however duplications: 20 (64.5%) needed, no matter of paperwork: 6 (19.4%) no answer: 1 (3.2%)

d. Opinion on asociation between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety: 

d. Opinion on asociation between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety Q34: Legal framework should establish a required level of safety. As safety culture can not be a subject of prescription, what kind of cooperation among the public, indstry and CA do you expect/suggest in the context of developing safety legislation?

d. Opinion on asociation between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety: 

d. Opinion on asociation between legal requirements and level/measurement of safety Q35: How do you evaluate existing safety regulation and support that competent authorities provide for its implementation?

e. Comments and suggestions: 

e. Comments and suggestions Q36: Please suggest detailed improvements related to previous question (Q35) – if applicable? interpretation: Regulation is inconsistent, unclear and should be improved especially regarding measurements and indicators of safety CA and inspectors should get familiar with the installation they evaluate and control (e.g. site visits compulsory in the framework of reviewing Safety Report) Uncertainties in RA should be a question of open discussion between an operator and CA Competence of CA in the field of RA should be improved (methods, tools, uncertainty evaluation, decisions) ... additionally from direct communication: Consultants should act as moderators between operators and CA CA should promote support of consultants Operators and CA should work together on risk research policy

Is the questionnaire of this kind relevant and useful?: 

Is the questionnaire of this kind relevant and useful? Q37: Are you willing to participate in a similar survey after a certain period of time (a year, two, or more)? YES: 26 (83.9%) NO: 2 (6.5%) no answer: 3 (9.7%)