This chapter covers the fundamental roles played by public authorities in the prevention of chemical accidents. In this chapter, the term “public authorities” includes the wide range of government bodies at the local, regional and national levels that are responsible for environmental protection, public health, occupational health and safety, civil defence, emergency response and other aspects of chemical accident prevention, preparedness and response. These bodies fulfil the roles of policy and legislative development, government regulatory implementation as well as inspection and enforcement roles.
OECD Guiding Principles for Chemical Accident Prevention, Preparedness and Response - Third Edition
Series on Chemical Accidents
3. Prevention of chemical accidents: Principles to public authorities
Abstract
The text of this chapter does not specify which type of government body should be responsible for various activities since different countries allocate responsibilities in different ways in light of local laws and culture. Co‑ordination among these respective authorities is essential for effective chemical accident prevention, preparedness and response.
The involvement of public authorities in prevention does not diminish the fact that the primary responsibility for the safety of hazardous installations rests with industry management.
This chapter covers the development of a safety strategy, a control framework and inspection and enforcement activities (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1. Principles for public authorities
Safety strategy
Public authorities should establish a long-term strategy for reducing the risks of chemical accidents and for limiting the adverse consequences of accidents that do occur. This strategy should:
Include clear and appropriate objectives.
Be part of a good governance strategy reflected in the structure and responsibilities that are assigned to public authorities.1
Demonstrate an understanding of the risks related to geographic, economic and industrial development.
Highlight the need for co‑ordination and co‑operation within, amongst and across public authorities, with industry and other stakeholders, as well as across the national authorities of all countries concerned, and among authorities at the national, regional and local levels.
Establish the roles, responsibilities and expectations of all the stakeholders.
Refer and take account of relevant international strategies such as the UN Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction2 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals,3 and international instruments such as the relevant OECD legal instruments related to chemical accidents, World Health Organization (WHO) International Health Regulations and UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents.
The objectives and requirements established by public authorities should be applied fairly and uniformly to ensure that enterprises of all sizes and types, whether national or foreign, are obliged to meet the same overall safety objectives.
Decisions and actions taken in other fields of public policy can have an effect on accident risk. Public authorities should take this into account and be aware of the impact of their decisions. For example, decisions related to land-use planning, natural hazard control, emergency planning, emergency response or pollution control can affect the possibility of accidents or can aggravate the effects of accidents.
Public authorities within a country and across countries (involving international organisations as appropriate) should exchange information, consult and assist each other, to reduce the risk of chemical accidents and improve their capacities for prevention of, preparedness for and response to accidents.
Control framework
Recognise the elements of a clear and coherent control framework
Public authorities should develop a clear, and coherent control framework covering all aspects of the prevention of accidents and limiting their consequences. The control framework should:
Consist of binding requirements (set out in, for example, laws and regulations).
Include provisions for conducting inspections or audits to verify the safety of hazardous installations during all phases of their life cycle.
Include provisions for the enforcement of requirements. Enforcement mechanisms should include suitable sanctions, with penalties applicable in the event of non-compliance.
Allow flexibility in the methods used to meet the requirements. Public authorities should consider tiering requirements in proportion to the level of risk.
Include standards, codes and guidance (such as codes of practice and quality assurance guides). These should be designed to enable each interested party to determine whether the safety objectives are being met.
Give particular attention to ensuring that all enterprises undertake appropriate assessments of the range of possible accidents (including low-probability, high-consequence accidents) and appropriate emergency planning.
Include mechanisms for collecting, managing and analysing information to better understand chemical accident risk.
In establishing the control framework, public authorities should consult with relevant stakeholders, for example:
Other public authorities including, as appropriate, representatives from communities or public authorities of other countries of concern.
Industry (management and other employees), professional and industry/trade associations, trade unions.
Independent experts, interest groups.
The public: special efforts should be made to provide the public with appropriate opportunities for input into decision making by public authorities.
Public authorities should consider which installations, or modifications to installations, are so potentially hazardous that the installations should not be allowed to operate without the prior and continuing approval of an identified public authority. In these cases, a form of licensing control could be utilised, which would require management to submit full details of all relevant aspects of the installation’s projected activities to the authority in advance of siting and start-up, and periodically thereafter. There should be an opportunity for public input into these licensing decisions.
Develop guidance to support enterprises in meeting regulatory requirements and achieving a higher level of safety
Public authorities should provide clear, easy-to-understand guidance on how regulatory objectives and requirements can be met by enterprises.
The requirements and guidelines established by public authorities should stimulate innovation and promote the use of improved safety technology and safety practices.
The requirements should be considered the minimum; industry should be encouraged to achieve a higher level of safety than would be achieved by adherence to established standards and guidance alone.
Public authorities should encourage industry to take measures to improve safety, for example by utilising the principles of inherently safer technology.
Public authorities should promote assistance activities (by authorities, industry or others) to improve safety programmes in enterprises. These activities should be conducted in a way that will not influence the impartial judgement of public authorities in their primary role of establishing and enforcing safety objectives and requirements. Assistance activities by public authorities should be undertaken separately from enforcement programmes.
Periodically review regulations and guidance
Regulations and guidance should be reviewed periodically to ensure that they are consistent with the objectives of minimising risk, do not hinder improvements in design and take into account changes in technology and experience gained.
Requirements and guidance should, where necessary, be amended in a timely manner to take into account technical progress, additional knowledge and international developments.
Amendments to the control framework that require changes in technology or management practice should allow industry reasonable time for implementation and compliance.
Establish a system for the identification and reporting of information on hazardous installations
Public authorities should establish criteria for identifying hazardous installations that can cause accidents. These criteria may be based on, for example, the specific substances and/or categories of substances present in the installation and their process conditions, and their potential to cause serious harm to health, the environment or property.4
Public authorities should establish an inventory of hazardous installations that fulfil the above criteria together with their geographic location. This will help to understand the risks posed individually and collectively and in relation to their surrounding environment, and their sensitivity to external risk factors such as natural hazards.
Public authorities should establish a system for obtaining and evaluating information concerning certain specified categories of hazardous installations, based on the established criteria.
Public authorities should focus on those reporting requirements that are most valuable for identifying risks and the means for dealing with them, or which are necessary for government functions (Box 3.1).
Box 3.1. Preparation of industry safety reports
Under such a system, management of the relevant installations can be required to submit a report describing the significant hazards at the installations and demonstrating that appropriate steps are being taken to prevent accidents and limit the consequences should an accident occur.
Public authorities may establish different reporting requirements for different categories of installations, becoming more comprehensive for those installations regarded as presenting the greatest potential risk.
The level of detail of such reports should be commensurate with the extent of hazard at the installation.
The reports may consider harmonised formats and use agreed definitions.
Public authorities should review the reports they receive by, for example, examining their completeness, assessing the risk control measures with regard to being effective and appropriate and, as appropriate, carrying out onsite inspections to verify information in the report.
For more information, see section on developing safety reports in chapter 2.
Establish accident reporting and dissemination of lessons learnt
Public authorities may establish a requirement that the management of hazardous installations reports certain incidents (accidents, significant releases or process safety concerns that could have resulted in an incident).
Relevant information in these reports, in particular lessons learnt, should be made widely available, in accordance with applicable regulations, to help prevent similar incidents at other hazardous installations
Public authorities may also establish a system for maintaining accident statistics, carrying out analyses of collected information, and for disseminating relevant information derived from the analyses.
Ensure a sufficient number of qualified and trained staff
Public authorities should have sufficient numbers of qualified and trained staff available to carry out their roles and responsibilities in the prevention of accidents and should ensure that staff are adequately educated and trained.
If the expertise necessary for public authorities to carry out their role and responsibilities is not available on staff, arrangements should be made for that expertise to be provided as needed, by external consultants for example.
Promote inter-agency co-ordination
Public authorities should promote inter-agency co-ordination to help ensure the most effective prevention, preparedness and response, and efficient use of resources.
Chemical accident prevention, preparedness and response are, by nature, an inter-disciplinary activity involving authorities in different sectors and at different levels with relevant mandates such as environmental protection, public health, civil protection, emergency response, occupational safety and industrial development. Examples of such authorities include national, regional and local regulatory authorities, government inspectors, civil protection agencies, public health authorities and health providers, city, county and provincial agencies responsible for public health and safety, response personnel, and elected officials at all levels.
Where more than one competent public authority exists, a co-ordinating mechanism should be established in order to minimise overlapping activities and conflicts in the implementation of requirements from various public authorities.
Public authorities should endeavour to harmonise regulations among the various national and local authorities to the extent possible and eliminate duplicated requirements. Public authorities should co‑ordinate among themselves to ensure that regulations, guidance and technical information provided to enterprises are complementary, not duplicated or contradictory.
Inspection and enforcement
This section provides more details on one particular aspect and a key element of the control framework: the inspection and enforcement programme. Inspections are a critical element in ensuring the overall safety of hazardous installations. It shows whether relevant regulations, standards and practices are being met, whether safety management systems are in place and function appropriately (with respect to technical, organisational and human factor issues) and whether safety documentation is valid. Another important benefit of inspections is that they provide a basis for public confidence in the safety of hazardous installations.
Recognise the elements of an inspection and enforcement programme
Public authorities should establish appropriate inspection and enforcement programmes for monitoring the safety of hazardous installations in all phases of their life cycle. This includes planning, siting, design, construction, operation (including maintenance) and decommissioning/closure/demolition.
To be effective, inspection programmes should have common elements:
Clearly defined goals and an identified scope.
A plan of action with timeframes (including for example reviews of appropriate documentation and interviews with key personnel).
Appropriate expert(s) who are trained and qualified for the specific tasks and goals.
A plan to recognise and document deficiencies and proper practices.
A formal report of findings.
A management review to clearly define responsibilities for follow-up actions.
A means for ensuring that follow-up actions are carried out.
For monitoring to be effective and credible, the authorities responsible for inspections and related monitoring activities should be publicly accountable.
Public authorities responsible for inspections and related monitoring activities should publicise the objectives, policies and procedures they follow in monitoring activities.
In addition, public authorities may make the outcomes of their monitoring activities publicly available/available on demand.
Public authorities (and industry) should make a concerted effort to make relevant information available to the public. This should be in a form that can be readily understood and provide an opportunity for dialogue amongst stakeholders (industry, public authorities and the public).
Public authorities should have the authority needed to fulfil their responsibilities, including the authority to enter installations, obtain information and enforce requirements as appropriate.
Define the goal and scope of an inspection
The goal and scope of an inspection should be defined in advance. The inspection should be focused and strategic:
An inspection may not be able to examine all safety-related aspects of a hazardous installation in detail. It should choose technical, organisational and management system aspects relevant to the focus of the inspection. The focus of an inspection can be based on a particular installation or process, a particular part of a safety management system or a particular theme related to equipment or practices.
In some cases, inspections will include reviews that are more detailed. This may occur as part of an overall inspection plan (e.g. where authorities establish specific priority areas from a strategy plan) or in response to poor performance at an installation or other identified concerns (e.g. where the inspection reveals potential problems or where there are issues based on the authorities’ review of the safety report).
Establish programmes for inspections on an annual (or multi-year) basis
Public authorities should establish programmes for inspections on an annual (or multi-year) basis, setting goals and priorities and setting out timetables.
In setting goals and priorities, authorities should take into account past performance of hazardous installations with respect to safety, as well as the nature and extent of hazards involved in the installations.
Normally, inspection programmes would include provision for scheduled inspections, as well as unscheduled “spot checks”, as appropriate. Unscheduled inspection may be triggered by accidents, complaints or information from other sources.
An important benefit of setting out inspection plans well in advance is that it provides the opportunity for authorities to train and equip their inspectors to carry out the inspections effectively.
Develop a consistent, standardised approach for follow-up of inspections
Public authorities should develop a consistent, standardised approach for follow-up of inspections and ensure that follow-up actions are dealt with within an acceptable timeframe.
All inspections should include documentation of the results, including recommendations for follow‑up action and any enforcement action needed.
The follow-up actions should be designed to ensure that identified shortcomings are addressed in an acceptable timeframe and that there is verification of actions taken.
There are a number of different tools available to public authorities for follow-up action, depending on the severity of the concerns including, for example: notifications of changes to be made; identification of agreed actions and timetables; citations and fines; and, in the most severe cases, the shutdown of facilities.
Performance indicators should be used as a way to determine whether actions being taken are actually leading to reduced risk. Such indicators could also help focus inspection programmes on areas of the highest priority.
Ensure the appropriate role, expertise of inspection personnel and availability of resources
Inspections should be carried out by an inspector or inspectors supported by experts, as needed.
Third parties (independent of government and the enterprise) can be delegated to undertake technical or systems inspections on behalf of public authorities. Efforts should be made to ensure the quality of such third parties (for example, through certification or accreditation schemes).
Even when third parties are involved, public authorities retain their legal responsibilities for the inspections; they cannot delegate their responsibilities to third-party inspectors.
Where third parties are involved, care should be taken to avoid the potential for conflicts, in particular where such third parties engage in both consulting and inspection services.
Sufficient resources and trained personnel to carry out their inspection function should be provided to public authorities. Inspectors working for public authorities should receive the training and have the necessary expertise to determine, for example, whether the approaches taken in a hazardous installation will achieve legal requirements and should adhere to applicable industry good practices and standards.
Share information relating to inspection within a country and internationally
Public authorities should share information and experience, within countries and internationally, concerning methods and tools related to inspections, and also share the outcome of specific inspections. Efforts should be made to promote such activities on an ongoing basis and develop mechanisms that could be used to facilitate information sharing.
Regional and national networks of inspectors should be established and exchanges with neighbouring countries and international networks of inspectors should be encouraged. These exchanges are an opportunity for improving the performance of inspections and can have outputs that feed back into the inspection programme.
Co‑operation and exchange allow development of synergies and common strategies across industry sectors and geographic areas.
Co‑operate and co‑ordinate with relevant public authorities and with industry
Public authorities involved with chemical accident prevention, preparedness and response (e.g. those responsible for health, safety, environment and civil protection, at the national, regional and local levels) should co-operate and co-ordinate in the area of inspections. Such co-operation should address the various phases of the inspection process, as appropriate. Co-operation provides a number of related benefits, including an opportunity to:
Learn from each other and share resources, expertise and tools.
Minimise the likelihood of different authorities giving conflicting advice or reaching conflicting conclusions; facilitate improvements of regulations/standards.
Aid in conflict resolution (e.g. between safety and environment).
Improve understanding and trust between authorities.
Benefit industry through more targeted inspections, avoidance of duplication and consistency.
A co-ordinated inspection does not imply that the inspection is fully integrated. Rather, the objective should be to avoid duplication of effort and share the burden of the aspects of the inspections where there is a shared interest.
As part of the steps necessary for effective co-ordination, public authorities should establish:
Procedures for joint inspections, as appropriate.
A clear division of tasks, with identification of roles and responsibilities for various aspects of the inspections.
Mutual understanding among the authorities of all relevant aspects of the authorities’ culture, including their legal instruments, policies and procedures.
Co-ordinated training activities.
Clear lines of communication.
An identified mechanism for dealing with conflicts.
Inspectors (public authorities) and the regulated industry should co-operate in the conduct of inspections. Such co-operation can take different forms, including improved co-ordination of activities and communication about areas of mutual interest and openness in discussing the results of audits and time schedules. Co-operation generally leads to a number of improvements including, for example:
An increase in the efficiency of inspections, thereby allowing public authorities, industry and others to make the best use of limited resources (including workforce).
A basis for the authorities to decrease the frequency or change the nature of inspections based on information provided to authorities.
Improving the ability of the parties to learn from each other, with the result that they are better able to carry out their roles and responsibilities (e.g. the audit process can be improved based on the advice of the inspecting authority).
In undertaking to co‑ordinate with industry, public authorities should ensure that this collaboration does not influence their ability to enforce the laws, nor should they be seen as having diminished their independence through such collaboration.
In order for collaboration to be successful, the management of hazardous installations should be competent and willing to address safety issues in a serious way.
Notes
← 1. You can refer, for example, to the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance (http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/49990817.pdf).
← 2. Currently the 2015‑30 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (https://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/sendai-framework).
← 3. Currently the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda (THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development (un.org)).
← 4. See, for example, the relevant annexes of the Seveso III Directive and of the UNECE Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Risk Management Program and the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management.