Seveso Inspections in Belgium the Belgian Inspection System
Seveso Inspections in Belgium the Belgian Inspection System according to art. 18 of the Seveso II Directive Erik Van Gils Chemical Risks Inspection Division
Contents • Lessons learnt from Seveso I Inspection System • Seveso II Inspection System: – transposition of art. 18 Inspection requirements – inspections in practice – co-operation of Inspection Authorities
Seveso I Inspection System • 1985: implementation of Seveso I Directive • Labour Safety Inspection of Federal Labour Ministry was charged with: – evaluation of Safety Reports – implementation of Inspection System • organizational difficulties: – Seveso inspections were carried out by the local inspectorates – number of Seveso I establishments to be controlled by each inspectorate: very diverse
Seveso I Establishments
Seveso I Inspection System • difficulties: – most of the inspectorates were not able to build sufficient know how and experience – other inspectorates: insufficient manpower to cover all the inspections – national working group • 1993: creation of new inspection division within Labour Inspection (Chemical Risks Inspection Division) to: – carry out all safety inspections in Seveso companies – assure that inspections were carried out on an equal base
Seveso I Inspection System • difficulties related to the inspection procedures: – inspection visits were concentrating on the verification of: • compliance with specific statutory safety requirements • the existence of technical safety measures – potential major accident hazards very often are hidden within: • the chemistry of hazardous substances & processes • a complicated process environment – it has been recognised that: • most of the industrial accidents are caused by management related factors • the safe functioning of a plant largely depends on the way safety is managed by the company
Seveso I Inspection System • conclusion: – inspections at that time: • may be able to identify some non-conformities • are not suitable to check the real capacity of Seveso companies to control major hazards – 1994: development of new inspection system, including new inspection procedures aiming to verify systematically: • all the mechanisms being employed to identify & control risks • the way these control mechanisms are managed by the company
New (Seveso II) Inspection System • 1996: – introduction of new Inspection System – brought in line with Seveso II requirements • 1980 – 1990: – Belgium has been transformed into a Federal State – several areas of competence were transfered to the Regions: • Labour Safety and Civil Protection: federal level • Environmental Protection -> Regions – new Competent Authorities of the Regions: to be involved in the Seveso II Inspection System • 1999: – Cooperation Agreement between all the Competent Authorities • 2000: creation of Inspection Teams including inspectors from Regional and Federal Inspection Authorities
Inspection Requirements • art. 18: “Such inspections. . . shall be sufficient for a planned and systematic examination of the systems being employed at the establishment, whether of a technical, organizational or managerial nature, so as to ensure in particular: – that the operator can demonstrate that he has taken appropriate measures. . to prevent major accidents, – that the operator can demonstrate that he has provided appropriate means for limiting the consequences. . , – that the data and information contained in the safety report. . . adequately reflects the conditions in the establisment, – that information has been supplied to the public. . . ? ”
Inspection Requirements • these requirements imply that the inspections have to: – include planned and systematic examinations: • well prepared • scope to be identified • methodical • not superficial – focus on the systems within the establishment • not only on the technical systems • also on the organizational and managerial systems – be able to come to the right conclusions: • has the operator been able to demonstrate. . ? • information contained in SR & notification is correct? è development of specific inspection procedures & tools
Specific Inspection Procedures inspection of SMS: – aims to examine, systematically, the effectiveness of the organizational and managerial systems (SMS) being employed to control all safety related activities – based on checklist: the Metatechnical Evaluation System (M. E. S. ) • first version (1997) – 213 closed questions, easy for the companies, difficult for inspectors • second version (2002) – based on lessons learnt from the application of the first version • third version (expected end 2007)
Specific Inspection Procedures inspection of the technical safety systems of installations or activities on which codes of good practices, safety standards, lessons learnt from accidents, . . . are available: – several checklists developed based on this information – each checklist covers a specific activity: • storage & handling of chlorine, ammonia, flammable liquids, LPG, ethylene oxide, hydrogen fluoride, . . . • warehouse storage of hazardous materials – aims to examine, systematically, whether the preventive and mitigating measures being used to control major hazards actually meet standard & recommanded safety practices
Specific Inspection Procedures inspection of the technical safety systems of other process installations: – based on the examination of the Risk Analysis Process carried out by the operator to verify whether: • potential major hazards have been identified analysed • appropriate safety measures have been identified and implemented – verification of compliance with guidance documents: • “Process Safety Study” - a practical guideline for analysing and managing chemical process risks (Labour Ministry – 2001) • International Standard IEC 61511 on Functional Safety – safety instrumented systems for the process industry sector (2003) – for upper tier establishments: -> specific questionnaire based on information in Safety Report to support inspection
Specific Inspection Procedures verification of the effective implementation of safety measures: – starts from a specific hazard being present – examination of Risk Analysis related to this hazard to verify whether: • the hazard been analysed properly • appropriate safety measures have been identified – selection at random of one of the safety measures – verification in detail of the design, the engineering, the maintenance and test programmes – = another way to verify the effectiveness of a SMS
Specific Inspection Procedures • other inspection procedures: – inspection of the control of specific risks – initial inspections to: • explore the hazardous installations involved • inform the operator • establish an inspection programme – follow up of previous inspections
Specific Inspection Procedures inspection of SMS inspection of the technical safety systems based on specific checklists inspection of the technical safety systems based on the Risk Analysis Process inspection of the effective implementation of safety measures inspection of the control of specific risks initial inspections follow up inspections è to be included in inspection programme
Inspection Programme • art. 18 -2. : “The system of inspection. . . shall comply with the following conditions: (a) there shall be a programme of inspections for all establishments. . ” è for each Seveso establishment an inspection programme is prepared, including the inspections to be carried out, based on: – – the type of activities involved the available information in the SR or notification experiences from previous inspections. . .
Inspection Programme • e. g. : for establishment X: Description: - initial inspection - checklist chlorine - first Audit SMS (MES) - examination of Risk Analysis Process - checklist warehouse storage • Planning: 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 other inspections: – environmental inspections (compliance with environmental legislation) – labour safety inspections (compliance with labour safety legislation) – accident investigations
Inspection Frequency • art. 18 -2. : “The system of inspection. . . shall comply with the following conditions: (a). . . Unless the competent authority has established a programme of inspections based upon a systematic appraisal of major-accident hazards. . . , the programme shall entail at least one on-site inspection made by the competent authority every twelve months of each establishment covered by Article 9; ” • until 1999: inspections at least once a year • from 2000: minimum inspection frequency based on a systematic evaluation of the potential hazards by means of a Hazard Ranking Technique
Hazard Ranking Technique • several techniques available: Dow Fire & Explosion Index, Mond Index, . . . • Rapid Ranking Technique: – easy to use & powerful tool to evaluate chemical hazards systematically – developed by TNO – based on the Dow Index – published by the ILO: “Major Hazard Control – A practical manual”
Rapid Ranking Technique Fire & Explosion Index (F) = MF x (1 + GPHtot) x (1 + SPHtot) Toxicity Index (T) = TF x (1 + GPHtot + SPHtot) • MF = Material Factor, related to the energy release potential of the hazardous substance(s) • TF = Toxicity Factor, related to the toxicity release potential of the hazardous substance(s) • GPHtot = General Process Hazards (chemical reactions, handling, . . . ) • SPHtot = Specific Process Hazards (temperature, pressure, . . . )
Rapid Ranking Technique • categorization of establishments based on hazard potential: Fire & Explosion Index (F) Toxicity Index (T) F < 65 T<6 65 ≤ F < 95 6 ≤ T < 10 F ≥ 95 T ≥ 10 Hazard Category Low hazard category Medium hazard category High hazard category
Minimum Inspection Frequency Hazard Category Only including simple processes Other establishments Low hazard category once every 3 years Medium hazard category once every 3 years once every 2 years High hazard category once every 2 years once every year simple processes = storage related activities and no chemical reaction systems involved
Planning of inspections
Other Inspection Requirements • art. 18 -2. : “The system of inspection. . . shall comply with the following conditions: (b) following each inspection, a report shall be prepared by the competent authority; (c) where necessary, every inspection. . . shall be followed up with the management of the establishment, within a reasable period following the inspection. ” è carrying out and reporting of inspections
Inspections in practice • most of the inspections are announced to the company a few weeks in advance, to assure: – the presence of the managers to be involved in the inspection – no time is wasted in finding the right procedures or the right persons to answer the questions • the checklists and guidance documents being used for the inspections: – are available to the companies, so the operators: • are well informed about the inspection criteria • are able to prepare the inspection visits – are downloadable from: http: //www. meta. fgov. be new website addresses end 2006: http: //www. employment. belgium. be http: //www. emploi. belgique. be http: //www. werk. belgie. be
Inspections in practice • the managers involved are interviewed: – they have to answer to the questions of the inspectors – they have to provide the necessary evidence based on written procedures, reports, . . . • in addition to the interviews: the answers given by management and the actual implementation of procedures and safety systems are verified in the field, based on: – – records of inspections records on training programmes interrogation of the workers. . .
Inspections in practice • after the inspection: inspection findings are discussed with management • non conformities identified during the inspection have to be explained by management – when management is able to demonstrate to the inspectors that the prevention systems being used are at least equivalent: no corrective action required – otherwise: corrective actions required: • if management is willing to carry out corrective actions within a reasonable period of time: action programme can be developed by operator • if management is not willing to carry out corrective actions: official warning will be sent to the operator
Reporting of inspections • after inspection: inspection report is drawn up by the inspectors, including: – the scope of the inspection – the inspection findings – the corrective actions to be carried out • a copy of the inspection report is sent to the operator, in order to confirm the action programme to be carried out • follow up: by inspectors • if action programme is not being carried out: – official warning is sent to the operator – legal action – if necessary: prohibition of use
Inspection Authorities • Several Inspection Authorities involved, including: – the Environmental Inspection Authorities of the: • Flemish Region (Milieu Inspectie-Aminal) • Walloon Region (Police de l’Environnement) • Brussels-Capital Region (BIM/IBGE) – the Federal Ministry (Federal Public Service) of Economic Affairs (for certain establishments including underground storage of gases, pipeline related facilities & explosives): • local inspectorates • Department of Explosives – the Labour Safety Inspection Authority of the Federal Ministry (Federal Public Service) of Employment & Labour: • Chemical Risks Inspection Division
Inspection Teams • The Inspection Authorities have to operate according to the arrangements included in a Cooperation Agreement adopted by all the Competent Authorities • According to these arrangements: an INSPECTION TEAM is to be created in each Region: – not aiming to merge the Inspection Authorities – each Inspection Authority keeps its indepence – but as far as the inspections refered to in art. 18 of the Seveso II Directive are concerned: • the Inspection Authorities may not operate on their own • they have to work together, as ONE TEAM
Inspection Teams • include inspectors of the different Inspection Authorities: – to be officially appointed by the Ministers involved – in total: 38 inspectors have been appointed: • 25 (almost) full-time engaged in Seveso II related matters • others (much) less involved • co-ordination: – to be assured by the Chemical Risks Inspection Division of the Federal Labour Ministry – in order to assure that all art 18 inspections will be carried out in a coherent way
Inspection Teams • co-operation & co-ordination in practice: – meetings: • 1 annual meeting of all inspectors • meetings of leading managers of Inspection Authorities • many bilateral meetings – for each Seveso Establishment: 1 inspector of the CRID is assigned to: • co-ordinate all the art. 18 inspections in that particular establishment • assure that an adequate inspection programme is drawn up, updated and implemented in practice – in general: each inspection is to be carried out by 2 inspectors
Co-operation of Inspection Authorities • on national level: – is not easy and time consuming, but very important – may decrease efficiency, but will increase effectiveness • on European level: – to improve national inspection systems by sharing knowledge, experiences & practices: • MJV programme • TWG 2 Inspections
- Slides: 35