hcf 2016: christian schaible
Post on 16-Jan-2017
153 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
top related