SEVESO II in Finland
-	the basic situation in companies and future challenges in safety management

TUKES – Safety Technology Authority in Finland
Chief Engineer Kirsi Levä
P.O.Box 123 FIN-00181 Helsinki
Tel. +358 9 616 7412, e-mail: kirsi.leva@tukes.fi
http://www.tukes.fi

Summary

The aim of this study is to find out what kind of impact the SEVESO II Directive has had in Finland, and what kind of effect it has had on companies’ general safety level, procedures, awareness of risks, attitudes towards safety and accidents as well as near-misses. Data has been collected both from target companies and from authorities as their opinions may differ in this respect. The study began in 1999 and will be completed by the end of 2001.

First and foremost, both the companies and the authorities think that the new focus of the Directive on safety management issues is having a positive effect on companies’ general safety level. On the other hand, the results of the first inspections show that systematic safety management is still in its infancy. Companies need to improve their analysis of processes and activities to prevent nonconformities and to ensure high production safety in the long run. Ensuring high production quality and safety-correcting actions is not enough, however. The authorities’ inspections have been viewed positively and future challenges companies mentioned placing more emphasis on the personnel’s qualifications and abilities in hazardous situations, information about handling hazardous chemicals, and the control of changes. To sum up, law reforms are regarded positively and pose a definite challenge for the further improvement of safety procedures. 

Background

Finland implemented the SEVESO II Directive on 1 February 1999. The enforcement created new responsibilities for operators as well as authorities. Further to the changes, the Safety Technology Authority (TUKES), Finland, started systematic SEVESO II inspections in 1999, the Safety Report establishments (upper tier establishments) undergoing inspections once a year by law. 

This article presents the target companies’ basic situation and future challenges compared to the essential safety demands in SEVESO II. This data was collected by telephone surveys and by the authorities, and comprises interviews, systematic assessments and the analysis of inspection reports. The data collection was carried out between 1999-2001.

Objectives
The aims of the study were to ascertain:

1.	The situation of target companies compared to the demands of the legislation concerning the handling and storing of hazardous chemicals.

2.	The effects of the Directive’s safety management system on a company’s general safety level, procedures, awareness of risks, attitudes towards safety and accidents as well as near-misses during the above-mentioned time phase.

3.	The target companies’ awareness of new legislation and its demands.

We decided to examine the Safety Report establishments only, because they are thought to have the highest major accident risk level. At the outset of the study in 1999, we assumed that there are approximately 100 SR-companies in Finland but now, after the first inspections, that figure is closer to 80. Most of the companies belong to the chemical industry (53%) and the second biggest group is the pulp and paper industry (14%). We also discovered that hazardous chemicals are handled and stored by different organisations of varying sizes. There are also organisations, such as chemical storage areas, which employ fewer than 10 people.

Methods

The methods employed were telephone interviews and data, which was collected as a part of the authorities’ inspection. The telephone interviews primarily measure the attitudes and beliefs of the companies’ representatives, i.e. production managers, safety managers and supervisors, totalling 150 people in all. On the other hand, we also thought that it was essential to collect data more independently of the companies’ point of view. This data collection was carried out as a part of the inspection processes.

The first telephone interview was carried out in 1999 and the follow-up interviews in 2000 and 2001. We focused on the companies’ awareness of changes. We also studied their general opinions of changes in legislation and the way this awareness has been enhanced. The data was collected from production managers, safety managers and supervisors, 150 people in all. The survey was done in close cooperation with Dagmar Oy.

The data collection as a part of the inspections was mainly based on the safety management assessment criteria developed at TUKES. This data collection was supported by the inspection instructions and the analysis of the inspection reports. The systematic assessment criteria were based on the essential safety demands of SEVESO II, widely held good safety practices and on the awareness of potential safety risks. The criteria themselves were divided into six categories:

1.	Documentation of the major accident prevention policy and the safety management system.
2.	Organisation and responsibilities, especially the role of top management and the safety of  subcontractors.
3.	A systematic risk assessment.
4.	Documentation of  maintenance plans and their implementation.
5.	Emergency preparedness and practical training sessions for emergency situations.
6.	The safety of the work environment – general housekeeping and the conditions of process equipment.

The observations were divided into three categories: 1) complies with the norm, 2) minor nonconformities and 3) major nonconformities. This data was collected in 1999 and the follow-up assessments will take place in 2001.

Results

The two first years of the SEVESO II Directive in Finland from the companies’ point of view

In 2001, practically all the companies knew about the changes in the legislation and they had also studied those changes. Seminars and TUKES’s experts were seen as the most effective information channels. Mention should also be made of the rapidly growing importance of the authorities’ Internet websites. (Figs. 1. & 2.).

Figure 1. Awareness of the demands 	        	         Figure 2. Websites – importance grows rapidly

Potential major hazards identified by companies were fires (33%), emissions and leaks (31%), and chemical explosions (19%),  as well as other chemical-related accidents (19%). The main means to control these hazards were emergency preparedness plans (72%), training in the event of an emergency situation (50%), documented procedures and written instructions (48%), the training of personnel (43%) and technical safety systems (17%). 

The target companies’ attitude towards the new demands of the Directive is positive, although 30% of  them pointed out that the changes have no real impact on the safety of the plant. At the outset, the establishment of a safety management system improves top managers’ commitment and participation in safety issues. Subsequently, personnel become more aware of chemical hazards and risks related to their work and, finally, more attention is paid to the safe handling of hazardous chemicals. Companies also seemed to have a clearer understanding of the effects – the number of answers in the “I don’t have a clear understanding” category was only 4% (in 2000: 28% and in 1999: 43%).  (Figure 3.).

Figure 3.	The first effects of the SEVESO II directive 

Most of the companies have a certified ISO-9000 quality management system (in 2001: 86%, in 2000: 75% and in 1999: 73%)  and the percentage of certified ISO-14001 environmental management systems is growing rapidly (in 2001: 57%, in 2000: 43 % and in 1999: 33 %). The general tendency in the development of the management systems is towards one integrated system  (in 2001: 33%, in 2000: 22% and in 1999: 11%). 91% of the target companies mentioned that they have already established a major accident prevention policy and a safety management system and 49% of them have integrated the system as part of the voluntary management system.

The first results of  the SEVESO II  inspections in Finland from the authorities’ point of view

The authorities’ opinions are based on the first experiences of the SEVESO II inspections in Finland in 1999. According to the data collected as a part of the inspections, the companies we studied have improved their quality and some environmental issues in a systematic manner, but only a few of them have established systematic procedures to control chemical safety risks. These results show that at the beginning of 1999, only 25% of the target companies had established safety objectives and defined a major accident prevention policy and safety management system procedures. The changes also highlight top management’s commitment and involvement in safety issues. It was discovered that the role of top management was defined in less than 40% of the companies surveyed, and that safety issues are regularly at the top of the management’s agenda in about 45%.

More and more often, the on-site staff come from several organisations. The structures of organisations are undergoing major changes, activities are shared and services are bought from different providers. The responsibility for the safety of the external personnel should be highlighted. Companies should improve their procedures to strengthen subcontractors’ safety. Only 40% of them have acceptable procedures as a whole.

A good safety management system is based on systematic risk assessment. On the other hand, there are unidentified risks involved in activities, and identification methods are lacking. In this group less than 50% have applied one or more of these systematic methods, and about 35% of the companies have acceptable methods of risk assessment in their normal production. Proper maintenance prevents technical faults and production problems. About 60% of the companies had documented maintenance plans and 45% had enough evidence of having carried them out. On the other hand, lack of maintenance was often found to be one of the factors which resulted in a major accident.  To sum up, shortcomings in work environment safety were registered in 40% of the companies.

The follow-up assessments are on-going as a part of the inspections in 2001 and these results will be available at the end of this year.

Conclusion

According to the telephone surveys, the focus on safety management issues is viewed as having a positive effect on companies’ general safety level. The authorities’ inspections are regarded positively, and future challenges which were mentioned include an emphasis on the personnel’s qualifications and abilities in hazardous situations, information about handling hazardous chemicals and the control of changes. 

In conclusion, the shortcomings may indicate a lack of safety management systems. Ensuring high production quality and safety-correcting actions is not enough. Companies should also analyse the lack of processes and activities to prevent nonconformities and to ensure high production safety in the long run. Law reforms pose a challenge. It is important to implement them in the right way so that they work as planned — to prevent major accidents caused by hazardous chemicals. The results of the first inspections show that a lot of work still needs to be done.