Updates and News on MAHB-Supported Activities 7 November 2018

Outline of the presentation Review of MAHB Work Strategic Vision and Work Programme Highlighted topics Inspections and land-use planning MINERVA portal development (replaces MAHB website) Lessons learned and eMARS Environmental impacts in eMARS – Study results

Strategic Vision for MAHB Remain a center of reference for Seveso technical information for DG-ENV, Member States, and the public Focus resources on creating excellence in a limited number of areas Risk management - Exchange of good practice and lessons learned Risk assessment – Retrospective (accident analysis) and Prospective (risk analysis) Risk governance – Bilateral/regional support to build strategy & capacity Maintain a dynamic and forward-looking programme By allocating resources to explore emerging issues and trends By strengthening feedback mechanisms and our network presence

MAHB Thematic Areas Accident Analysis and Lessons Learned Risk Assessment Training and Best Practice Exchange Promoting quality of reporting and compliance with Seveso Directive Strengthening of database analytical functions Research and dissemination of lessons learned from accidents Development and Testing of Risk Assessment Tools and Methodologies Support to Seveso Land-Use and Emergency Planning Development of Tools for Analysis, Mapping, Data Collection and Exchange Development of implementation guidance Support to Seveso Inspections Training on industrial risk assessment/ management Making information collected/produced useful/accessible

Inspections and Land-Use Planning Updates

Inspections – Technical Working Group Updates Outcomes of 2013 TWG 2 Meeting (Helsinki, June 2013) Common Inspection Criteria Initiative (CIC) First issue on Safety Instrumented Functions finalized Available at 3 new issues started – Maintenance, Audits and , Hazard Identification Break-out sessions on implementation questions for Article 20 of Seveso III – draft published in CIRCA

Inspections – TWG 2 - Mutual Joint Visit Programme Recent and upcoming MJV Workshops September 2013-Sweden -Learning Lessons from Accidents September 2014 – MJV hosted by MAHB - SMS Practices in Multinational companies Need countries to volunteer to host MJVs for 2015 – 2020!!! MJV Expert Reports Published 2013 - MJV Norway (2009) on industrial parks & domino effects Early 2014 - MJV Germany (2010) on safety management systems 2014 – MJV Ireland on Emergency Planning and Response 2014 – MJV Sweden on Lessons Learned from Accidents

Land-Use Planning Scenarios Handbook Revised Contents Introduction –Use of the Scenarios Handbook Risk Assessment Methodologies for Land-Use Planning Selection of accident scenarios for most relevant substances and types of installations Identification of typical causes or initiating events For a limited number of configurations calculate distances Illustration: Examples of application of scenario trees in two case-studies References Glossary

Next steps – Land Use Planning Scenario Handbook Recommendations from June 2013 meeting: Set up the remaining scenario trees by October 2013 – Sent to MS for review by 1 November 2013 (pumps/compressor and carrier for flammable liquids plus examples) Case Study description to be modified by MAHB according to the change of scenario trees for LPG and Chlorine (pumps/compressor) MS review scenario trees, safety barriers and causes by November 2013 MS review and run the Case Study and send results to MAHB by end of March 2014.

MINERVA Portal

Development of MINERVA – new MAHB web portal Following on the imposition of new IT security policy in 2012 New infrastructure underpinning the MAHB website, the Seveso inspections website, eMARS and eSPIRS and all future applications Parts already established and supporting eSPIRS development Knowledge management centre with versatile functionality for searching, notification (e.g., RSS feeds), and interactivity First release planned by June 2014

eMARS and Lessons Learned

eMARS - eMARS implementation strategy Objective: To ensure a high quality lessons learned database: Stimulate high quality in reporting (input) Follow the reporting process from start to finish Review and give feedback on each incoming report Make it easier and easier to report (e.g., translation service, better input tool) Review and improve where possible the quality of past reports Motivate reporting by enabling versatile and useful output Offer well-designed applications for searching, downloading and analyzing data Generate and disseminate our own good quality analyses Use every opportunity to demonstrate what makes an accident report useful

Quality processing of reports from start to finish Tracking accidents through the European Media Monitoring (EMM) service -follow-up with MS/OECD on potential Seveso accidents When a report is submitted (or after translation) quality check and interaction to complete missing or unclear information MS re-checks the accident after translation and quality change Regular monitoring of progress towards final online status In 2014, we will also be working with MS to clean-up missing or incorrect entries in past reports (2000 – 2005, first step)

Continuing to work on improving speed of confirmed reports online but ongoing challenges: -Resources -Translation (EC) -Legal process (MS)

Future eMARS improvements underway (input) Re-programming to meet new server needs -mid-June 2014 EMARS has the highest security programming possible now. Re-programming required to adapt to new servers (who are the only ones with JRC security certificates) Improve accident administration functionality (MS/MAHB) Cosmetic changes to the form Add Seveso III, facilitate administration, clarify and clean-up New emphasis on telling the story Make free text prominent in both input form and output view Provide advice in tool tips on accident details of interest Multiple choice options still available but less prominent

Recent and future eMARS products/services (output) Lessons learned bulletins Accidents involving contractors (Dec 2012) Accidents involving environmental consequences (June 2013) Corrosion-related accidents in refineries (Dec. 2012) Major studies – completed or planned Corrosion-related accidents in EU and OECD refineries (in publication) Toxic substances involved in eMARS accident releases (2014?)* Lessons learned from emergency response (planned to start 2015)* Creating accident exchange networks with other countries via international partners – e.g., OECD, UNECE, and UNEP Providing training when possible Ad hoc support to public, Commission services AIDA accident analysis tool (in development) *if MAHB resources allow

The dashboard showing statistics on some common eMARS query in real time

Dashboard

Step 1 - go to webpage click https://emars.jrc.ec.europa.eu

Environmental Impacts in eMARS

Question on Environmental Criteria for Reporting from 2012 Question from France about how countries interpret the Annex VI Criteria 3 MAHB reviewed all accidents where either: Criteria 3 was checked, where environmental consequences were indicated, or the word “environment” appeared

Annex VI, Criteria 3 Immediate damage to the environment — permanent or long-term damage to terrestrial habitats: — 0,5 ha or more of a habitat of environmental or conservation importance protected by legislation, — 10 or more hectares of more widespread habitat, including agricultural land, — significant or long-term damage to freshwater and marine habitats (*) — 10 km or more of river or canal, — 1 ha or more of a lake or pond, — 2 ha or more of delta, — 2 ha or more of a coastline or open sea, — significant damage to an aquifer or underground water (**) — 1 ha or more.

Findings 84 accidents identified Criteria interpretation 56 had indicated the accident consequences fulfilled Criteria 3, of which 7 did not indicate any environmental consequences 75 indicated that environmental consequences had occurred 2 mentioned environmental consequences only in the text Criteria interpretation The criteria uses linear and spatial area as the measure Countries only sometimes (~50%) have precise linear or spatial information When they don’t have this information, they make an expert judgement Countries often have other criteria not captured by eMARS form Fish kills (tonnes of fish) Elevated contamination levels Groundwater/drinking water contamination Soil contamination

eMARS form and environmental consequences Categories are types of landscapes; environmental impacts not well captured Water bodies Developed areas Open land Beach/ Shore

Should the Environmental Consequence section be reviewed? Does not refer to environmental mediums but conservation areas Air pollution Water pollution Soil contamination But 4 different kinds of shore/beach terrain! Does not have categories to capture other than spatial impacts Fishkills Drinking water/ground water contamination Clean-up costs, etc. The “other” field is the second most used category No report uses the “quantity” field (what to put??)

For consideration eMARS is being reprogrammed (backend) in 2014 As noted, this gives opportunity to improve the form MAHB will solicit ideas for revising the Consequences section to the eMARS FPEG Open to reviewing other difficult sections, if necessary New emphasis on free text, low profile for multiple choice fields, may already have needed impact in many areas As with eSPIRS, there will be an opportunity for MS to test eMARS changes and input before finalization

Thank you for your kind attention! 11/7/2018