1. Inspection of Explosive Sites Group 4
Break-out session 3
Inspection of Explosive Sites
Group 4

2. Questions for discussion
B3-1
INSPECTIONS
Main Question: How do you carry out inspections?
How do you plan your inspections; choice of sites, frequency, topics and focus?
Do you use the Seveso report as the basis of your inspections?
How do you identify and inspect lower tier sites?
What topics have you chosen for your inspections?
How do you inspect lower tier sites and do you have the power to enter an unregulated site?
How do you inspect ancillary sites and activities such as test ranges and disposal facilities?
B3-2
FINDINGS
Main Question: What are the main findings from your inspections?
Are there significant differences between explosives and pyrotechnics/fireworks sites; culture, SMS, adherence to regulations?
What are the main causes for concern arising from your inspections; culture, SMS and technical?
Have you prosecuted and shut down operations and why?
Has Seveso 3 made a difference to the operations on the sites?
B3-3
RECOMMENDED GOOD PRACTICE
Provide a list of bullet points which offer advice and good practice it other inspectors for inclusion in the final MJV report.
How you inspect
What you look for
What you have found
What actions you have taken and what do you suggest
You may prepare this as you answer the previous two questions

3. B 3-1 Inspections Main Question: How do you carry out inspections?
All countries do annual planning
Some use Sevesoreports as a basis for inspections, others not
Topics are chosen based on the countries priority systems, sms imprtant
Most countries have a popwer to enter an unregulated sites, but not many unregulated sites (we think)
Some UT sites have test ranges and disposal facilities, some are military , others are outside Seveso
How plan?
Germany:
Database is fed by inspectors, plan inspections in november
Questionloists sent to company beforehand, they must send in answers f\before inspection
The inspector evaluates the answers – follows up things they dont like in inspections
Follow up afterwards with new lists the companies has to work with and answer. Within set deadlines.
Main topic always SMS, technical process safety, some topics chosen every year.
Extraordinary inspections in case of incidents: Otherwise not coming unnanounced.
Italy:
Frequencies not always followed, prioritation criteria
Multitask teams from 3 authorities
CA makes inspection plans
3 – 5 days inspections + report must be completed within 3 months
Plan is made based on list of criteria, based on the combination of critical points the prioritation is done
Have a checklist to follow – from SMS and down into details.
Training, control and procedures, maintenance, emergency most important points
Croatia:
Yearly plan, coordinated and thematic inspections. Inspections are coordinated.
Inspectors must do 15 inspections per year. According to
Slovenia:
Yearly plan of inspection, only 3 explosives sites, frequencies as SIII, different topics every year, every 3. year a more in depth sms- inspection. 1 day inspections, 1 inspector pr inspection.
Estonia:
2 authorities cooperate, have made a treat prognisis to set frequencies, cooperate on planning of inspections, they do unannounced inspections for pyro before christmas. Topics are: sms –based.
Norway:
Planned together 5 authorities every year in November, DSB coordinating authority – divide , questionlist common, SMS must always be basis for inspections (systematic approach), annual mandatory themes decided by coordinating committee, joint question list with 13 themes, always mandatory to follow up of last Seveso inspection report (also when other authorities did the Seveso-inspection),
Sweden:
Regional inspections, common checklist for all the country, Seveso frequences, coordinated by MSB,
Seveso report as basis for inspections?
Germany sometimes
Italy one of main elements
Croatia: Yes
Slovenia: Yes in combination with permits
Estonia: sometimes
Norway: always in combination with permits
Power to enter unregulated sites? (most countries do not think they have, because they need permission to buy)
Germany: have the right, but will not do
Italy Yes under TULPS
Slovenia: Yes
Estonia: Yes
Norway: Yes, according to law on flammables and explosives
Test ranges and disposal sites?
Sweden, and Norway - some upper tier sites do this
Croatia: they have sites like this, but not under Seveso
Italy: no such sites

4. B3-2 Findings Main Question: What are the main findings from your inspections?
Weaknesses sms
Too much stored (pyrotechnics)
Explosives storage better organized
Italy : reference to her presentation
Norway have a report from 2015….
How plan?
Germany:
Database is fed by inspectors, plan inspections in november
Questionloists sent to company beforehand, they must send in answers f\before inspection
The inspector evaluates the answers – follows up things they dont like in inspections
Follow up afterwards with new lists the companies has to work with and answer. Within set deadlines.
Main topic always SMS, technical process safety, some topics chosen every year.
Extraordinary inspections in case of incidents: Otherwise not coming unnanounced.
Italy:
Frequencies not always followed, prioritation criteria
Multitask teams from 3 authorities
CA makes inspection plans
3 – 5 days inspections + report must be completed within 3 months
Plan is made based on list of criteria, based on the combination of critical points the prioritation is done
Have a checklist to follow – from SMS and down into details.
Training, control and procedures, maintenance, emergency most important points
Croatia:
Yearly plan, coordinated and thematic inspections. Inspections are coordinated.
Inspectors must do 15 inspections per year. According to
Slovenia:
Yearly plan of inspection, only 3 explosives sites, frequencies as SIII, different topics every year, every 3. year a more in depth sms- inspection. 1 day inspections, 1 inspector pr inspection.
Estonia:
2 authorities cooperate, have made a treat prognisis to set frequencies, cooperate on planning of inspections, they do unannounced inspections for pyro before christmas. Topics are: sms –based.
Norway:
Planned together 5 authorities every year in November – divide , checklist common
Sweden:
Regional inspections, common checklist for all the country, Seveso frequences, coordinated by MSB,
Seveso report as basis for inspections?
Germany sometimes
Italy one of main elements
Croatia: Yes
Slovenia: Yes in combination with permits
Estonia: sometimes
Norway: always in combination with permits
Power to enter unregulated sites? (most countries do not think they have, because they need permission to buy)
Germany: have the right, but will not do
Italy Yes under TULPS
Slovenia: Yes
Estonia: Yes
Norway: Yes, according to law on flammables and explosives
Test ranges and disposal sites?
Sweden and Norway - some upper tier sites do this
Croatia: they have sites like this, but not under Seveso
Sweden: Yes

5. B1-3 Recommended Good Practice Inspections Provide a list of bullet points which offer advice and good practice it other inspectors for inclusion in the final MJV report.
Inspect pyrotechnics sites more often than others
Focus on SMS in inspections, CEOs are important to have on board
Follow up your inspections, without pressure from authorities the companies might not follow up
Look for repeated non-conformities from earlier inspections in the same company, this can be an indicator of good/bad quality of the safety management systems.
Recommended good practice:
Italy:
Improvements followed up in the next inspections
Typical findings: in her presentation.
Have you found something unusal? Precense of incompatible materials in same building.
Pyrotechnics needs more frequent inspections
Germany:
They look for differences in technical documentation, what is documented by the facility, checking of internal inspections, no legal actions, quite satisfied with their E + P facilities, more challenges with transport.
Interesting findings? No
Croatia:
Coordinated inspections with other bodies.
Mostly look in the safety report and withing their authorities field of work, check up follow up from inspections, will always come back and check improvememnts, can give fines or close if not followed up. Have not closed any sites yet, try to settle with the operator,
Slovenia:
Inspections – one under ground site UT, two bodies inspect people work in the facility. biggest problem is the smaller Pyrotechnics companies, who might not need a licence.
Typical findings?
Estonia:
Look mat sms, technical surveillance,
Typical findings: not good enough sms,
Actions taken? Do not know
Sweden:
No actions taken as far as she knows
Typical findings? Pyro: too much stored, Explosives companies better,