Panel 4: Helsinki Chemicals Forum 2016 -Plant Safety and relationship with

communities-

Christian Schaible EEB, Helsinki Chemicals Forum 2016

Philosophy of Seveso III (unchanged)

“Safe”Management

“Best practice” / technology to prevent accidents

Demonstrate safety (Safety Report) + “Continuously improve” to achieve high level of protection set in Major Accident Prevention Policy (MAPP)

EmergencyPlanning

Land-UsePlanning

Info

rmat

ion

to th

e Pu

blic

I N S P E C T I O N S

Accident Reporting and Lessons Learnt

Problems community relationship (selective membership feedback)

Who was here first and needs to make efforts? Expropriation / prevention at source or industry relocationillustration 1: PPRT ESSO

Hydrocarbons Storage

(Toulouse/FR)

Problems community relationship (selective membership feedback)

Land use conflicts (operators/other industry)illustration 2: Merck v. Gardening Site(Darmstadt/DE)

Who pays and for what?illustration: French tripartite cost split system

Available tools EU plant safety and concerted decision-makingPositive Negative /clarification

needs“adequate” Safety Management System (SMS) to be put in place

What is adequate?

“Safety culture “is part of SMS, training and involvement of workers mandatory

Visibility on implementation / investment / follow up by management unclear

Available tools EU plant safety and concerted decision-makingPositive Negative /clarification

needsall “necessary” measures have to be taken to prevent accidents

What is necessary? Can more be done?

Operator’s overall aims, principles of action, the role and responsibility of management, and commitment towards “continuously improving the control of major –accident hazards and ensuring a high level of protection”

What does this mean concretely? What are the timescales of aims and action and who is involved in the decision-making?

Available tools EU plant safety and concerted decision-makingPositive Negative /clarification

needsEmergency plans to be elaborated with clearer objectives / internal emergency plans in consultation with workers and subcontracted personnel + tested/reviewed regularly

External emergency plans not elaborated in consultation with impacted community / NGO concerned, just “for opinion”

Available tools EU plant safety and concerted decision-makingPositive Negative /clarification

needs“Maintain appropriate” safety distances for vulnerable areas. Take additional technical measures “so as not to increase the risks to human health and the environment”

No harmonised approach on minimum safety distances. Liability is shifted to permitting authorities (land use planners).What about taking additional measures to prevent and reducing the risks?

Available institutional structures for concerted decision-making

Facility level illustration 1: French system of local commissions Commission de Suivi de Sites (CSS)

State levelillustration 2: German Commission for Plant Safety Kommission für Anlagensicherheit (KAS)

Common interest: substitution of dangerous substances at source

Best Available Techniques- Chemical BREFs- Storage BREF (STS) - …http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference

Occupational health legislation / workers protection

NGO recommendations

Major Accidents Prevention Policy (MAPP) / Safety Management System (SMS)

Prevention of risks at source and sustainable production: Synergies with BAT performance concept (link to LCA

environmental impact of the activity) Substitution of hazardous chemicals as risk

prevention/reduction strategy

Other tools (in light of economic pressures): Cost recovery: “Seveso fund” (e.g. dangerous substance tax

to promote implementation and innovation) Strict and extended liability regime

Thank you for your attention !

European Environmental BureauBureau Européen de l’Environnement

Boulevard de WaterlooB- 1000 BrusselsBelgium

Tel: + 32 2 289 10 90Fax: + 32 2 289 10 99

E-mail: christian.schaible@eeb.org Site Web: www.eeb.org

An international non-profit associationAssociation Internationale sans but lucratif