m. gerbec , b. kontić jožef stefan institute, ljubljana, slovenia ( marko.gerbec@ijs.si )

1

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)

2

Scope

• Background

• Questionnaire & Results

• Comments from the authorities (pending)

• Wider industrial safety perspective

• Conclusions

3

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)

4

Today legal statusOn 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. 88/2005Competence: 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

5

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)

6

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%

7

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

8

Organization of the questionnaire

• Altogether 37 questions• Five main topics:

a.General info on complianceb.Approaches used to reach compliancec.Relationship with ISO/OHSAS standardsd.Opinion on association between legal

requirements and level/measurement of safety

e.Comments and suggestions

9

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

10

RESULTS

a. 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

11

control questions applied

RESULTS

Strong opinion on cooperation, less paperwork and apply CA's monitoring of safety goals!

b. Approaches used to reach compliance• Safety Report• SMS, MAPP• Emergency Planning

c. Relationship with ISO/OHSAS standards• # of certifications• Integration among QA/QC, and management standards

d. 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 e. 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 ERP81% sent to local community29% yet approved61% send info for LUP

87% with ISO 900171% with ISO 1400126% with OHSAS 18001

71% related SMS with standards

80-90% positive

80-85% positive, 65% complains on paperwork

12

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

13

Wider industrial safety perspective

14

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)

15

Statistics and comparisons

Statistical data 2004 2003 2002 2001 2004 2003 2002 2001

Number of accidents at work 27138 26736 25792 25176 475 489 450 398Number of fatalities 21 40 32 34 0 0 0 0FAR (per 105 employees) 3 5 4 4 - - - -Number of major accidents - - - - - - - -* - Code: DG - Manufacturing of chemicals, prod.&man-made fibres

Whole Slovenian economy Process and chemical industry*

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 )

16

Breakdown by activityPersons injured at work and fatal work-related injuries by activity and sex, 2004

total menper 1000 employed

menwomen

per 1000employed

womennumber

per 100,000 persons in paid

employmentTOTAL 27138 19554 44 7584 21.2 21 3

A Agriculture, hunting and forestry 679 543 40.5 136 18.9 2 10B Fishing 16 12 59.1 4 97.6 - -C Mining and quarrying 316 292 78 24 55.7 - -D Manufacturing 10557 8115 55.3 2442 27.3 6 3E Electricity, gas and water supply 500 441 47.2 59 25.8 1 9F Construction 3233 3134 55 99 17.7 6 10G Wholesale, retail; certain repair 2631 1653 31.1 978 17.8 1 1H Hotels and restaurants 835 381 33.4 454 26.4 - -I Transport, storage and communication 1740 1533 39.4 207 18.4 1 2J Financial intermediation 296 129 18.2 167 12 - -K Real estate,renting& business activities 1313 873 24.1 440 15.8 1 2L Public administ.& defence; comp.soc.sec. 1839 1346 50.6 493 19.6 1 2M Education 1009 232 16.8 777 17 - -N Health and social work 1472 407 41.6 1065 27 2 4O Other social and personal services 539 347 25 192 12.2 - -P Private households with employees 1 - - 1 - - -Not classified

Number of work-related injuries Casualties

(exactly: 2.61)

Conclusion: Forestry and construction workers among the most hazardous professions (similar as in other countries)

17

Breakdown by activity (Manufacturing)

Persons injured at work and fatal work-related injuries by activity and sex, 2004

(breakdown by activity cathegory)number

per 100,000 persons in paid

employmentD Manufacturing 6 3

DB Mfr. of textiles and textile products 1 4DJ Mfr. of basic metals & fabricated products 1 2

DK Mfr. of machinery and equipment nec. 2 8DL Mfr. of electrical and optical equipment 1 3

DN Manufacturing nec. 1 6

Casualties

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

18

Comparison with other countries

Country, yearFAR (per 105

employees)Slovenia, 2001 - 2004 3 - 5Poland, 2002 3.8UK, Switzerland 1Spain, Italy 8-9USA, 1995 (2004) 4.9 (4.1)

(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

19

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

20

Appendix – detailed questionnaire answers

21

a. General info on compliance

1

26

1 1 10

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Number of establishments managed by the company

Nu

mb

er

of

an

sw

ers

(mistake)

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?

22

a. General info on compliance

Q3: How is your establishment classified – upper/lower tier?– Upper tier: 18 (58.1%)– Lower tier: 13 (41.9%)

23

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)

24

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%)

25

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%)

26

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%)

27

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%)

28

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%)

29

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%)

30

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%)

31

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%)

32

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.!

Number of employees

Number of answers

0 4

1 9

2 3

3 3

4 2

5 1

6 2

Average: 5.3

Max.: 52

33

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)

Number of employees

Number of answers

0 4

1 11

2 6

3 3

4 1

5 0

6 1

Average: 3.0

Max.: 18

34

b. Approaches used to reach compliance

Q21: How many employees does a company have?

Establishment type Min. Max. Avg.

upper tier 33 2695 445

lower tier 124 2315 698

Info gathered:

•No direct relation with quantities of dangerous substances

•A number of upper tier establishments with only 35 – 100 employees

35

c. Relationship with ISO/OHSAS

Q22/26: Is company certified according to any ISO/OHSAS standard?

Standard Yes (#) Yes (%)

ISO 9001 27 87.1

ISO 14001 22 71.0

OHSAS 18001 8 25.8

EMAS 0 0

Other (specify) ISO 17025 (2x),

TS 16949 (1x)

36

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%)

37

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%)

38

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%)

39

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%)

40

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%)

41

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%)

42

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%)

43

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?

Competent institutions prepare regulations, industry implements, administrative bodies perform control

1 3.2%

Industry and institution prepare regulations, administrative bodies perform control

1 3.2%

Industry and institutions prepare regulations and guidelines (part of safety culture), administrative bodies perform control

8 25.8%

Safety culture level is result of common effort by industry and competent institutions, monitoring applies to safety goals

19 61.3

no answer 2 6.5%

44

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?

I have no opinion on that 5 16.1%

Legislation and support are complete, understandable, and sufficient

3 9.7%

Legislation is complete, understandable and sufficient, support is insufficient

8 25.8%

Legislation is incomplete, support is sufficient 8 25.8%

Legislation and support are insufficient and inconsistent 6 19.4%

no answer 1 3.2%

45

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

46

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%)