1. Experiences off the Netherlands with the the implementation of the Seveso Council-2 Directive : Learning lessons for Slovakia Theo de Gelder Dutch Ministry of Environment

2. Safety Management System (Theo) 2 Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act  2003: a national evaluation  four years after the implementation of the act  Common need to improve the compliance of the accident act  Safety performances can only be achieved by cooperation between authorities and cat. A & B operators

3. Safety Management System (Theo) 3 Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act  Responsives:  95 operators category A & B  47 municipalities  7 provinces  28 labour inspectors  37 regional fire departments  9 environmental agencies  11 others

4. Safety Management System (Theo) 4 Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act  Identified elements  1. Knowledge, information, tools, documentation  2 One counter desk thought (focal point)  3. Capacity / workload  4. Publicity  5. Time  6. Safety management system  7. Safety report  8. Inspections  9. Common conclusions  10. Recommendations for Slovakia

5. Safety Management System (Theo) 5 Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act  1. knowledge, information, tools, documentation:  Lack of know-how mostly at the enterprises, municipalities and fire departments  Labour inspectors are more skilled  No applicable instrument to determine domino-effects  Authorities not always able to answer questions how to do by enterprises.  Report of information requirements, assistances, national helpdesk and other guidelines much used

6. Safety Management System (Theo) 6 Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act  2. One counter desk thought (focal point):  Start: great intention for cooperation  Not always feasible  Sometimes contrariety and conflicts in assessments  Problem: planning coordination  Different cultures/point of views between ministries  National versus regional differences

7. Safety Management System (Theo) 7 Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act  3. Capacity / workload:  90% enterprises supported by consultants  Extra capacity needed for governmental offices and enterprises  Extra costs for 1/3 of all cat. A and B operators 5000-65000 euro’s 45% 100000-250.000 euro’s 40% 500.000-1.000.000 euro’s 15%

8. Safety Management System (Theo) 8 Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act  4. Publicity:  Active information supply to the public  Recommendable: two versions of the safety report beceause of confidential information  Doubts about the use and effectiveness of information supply to the public  “Sensitive” information for terrorism ?

9. Safety Management System (Theo) 9 Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act  5. Time:  Complaints: all governmental work / actions takes too much time  Enterprises: we comply the legal time schedules

10. Safety Management System (Theo) 10 Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act  6. Safety management system:  The interest of the introduction of a SMS is agreed  Contribution to a greater awareness of risks  Complaints enterprises: parts of a safety report does not connect to existing management of quality systems

11. Safety Management System (Theo) 11 Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act  7. Safety report:  The assessment by the authorities is too much theoretical in stead of practicable  Parts seems to be very useful  Drawing up a safety report according to Seveso takes more effort than the former internal and external safety reports  Too much details (avoid to create a paper tiger)  Agreement about enforcing but no exaggeration ! !  Labour demands more than the Report Information Requirements (own documentation)  Interregional differences  The term acceptable risk mentioned in the dutch act is difficult to judge

12. Safety Management System (Theo) 12 Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act  8. Inspections:  Very first inspections coordinated and cooperated  Coordination and rejection are declining now  Assessments by authorities are mostly fair and reasonable  The final notification to the management takes too long  Inspection frequency was too high. Nowadays realistic

13. Safety Management System (Theo) 13 Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act  9 Main conclusions  Improvement of awareness of risks, scenario’s, means to be taken, sms, observable reduction of risks  Improvement on emergency planning, plans, disaster and fire fighting, learning effect with cooperation was disappointing  Lack of capacity (time and know how)  Lack of rejection for regulation, developing criteria standards and policy  Lack of willingness and responsibility to achieve a solid cooperation and safety performance  Lack of guidelines, assistances, standards, instruments  The implementation needs time and money  Focal point and coordinating body did not work proper but is necessary !!

14. Safety Management System (Theo) 14 Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act  RECOMMENDATIONS  Agreement about goal safety performance  Achievement by common approach and cooperation between operators and authorities  Unification of common work-processes to improve cooperation  Development of standard specifications SR, SMS, skills etc  Focal point / national helpdesk / centre of expertise  Development of common training programmes  Foundation of an “’Industrial University” (exchange platform)  Industry should make use of the line of business they belong

15. Safety Management System (Theo) 15 Dutch experiences with the implementation of the accident act  RECOMMENDATIONS  Organise regional work conferences for all parties (operators and authorities)  Coordinating body is responsible for the assessment report  Avoid peak loading and inefficiencies by double work  Parties involved: do give feed back on policymakers in order to adjust the accident act and legislation and to develop or improve tools  As EU-member make use of the IMPEL-network ! Thank you good luck !