Science

Contempt safety rules widespread

In her survey, two thirds of the chemical companies handling dangerous substances are negligent of safety regulations or unwilling to comply, finds Dr. Marieke Kluin.

Kluin herself was not overly surprised by this outcome of her survey. “From studies in the US and Denmark we know the outcome there is comparable”, she says over telephone. Her real interest is how the processes of law enforcement have an influence on regulatory compliance and how compliance of chemical companies with safety regulations may be improved.

Kluin studied criminology at the Erasmus University before joining the TU’s section of safety and security science at the faculty Technology, Policy and Management. During her PhD research she joined safety inspectors on 19 different inspections of 15 companies in the Rotterdam Rijnmond region between November 2009 and December 2012.

In the same period two major events occurred within the chemical industry in the region: Chemie-Pack at Moerdijk burned down (5 January 2011) and storage company Odfjell was closed after public outrage and under pressure of inspection agencies following the revelation of hundreds of previously unreported incidents at the plant. Both cases stress the need for better compliance with safety regulations.

As do the figures: for the fifteen corporations under study the inspectors had registered 2215 violations in the period from 1999 to 2011. Most of them were environmental violations (1916) and 299 were related to occupational health and risk.

Kluin makes four categories for her infamous fifteen: social responsible (4), unfortunate (1), careless (6) and malicious (4). Careless corporations can be seen as ignorant or irresponsible while the malicious corporations can be viewed as purposive and calculating.

In the Netherlands the inspections are a joint effort of three agencies: Environmental Authority (Bevoegd Gezag Wabo), Occupational Safety and Health Agency (inspectie SZW) and Safety Region (Veilgheidsregio). Combined inspections may seem heavy-handed, but Kluin says it works well in practice since the inspectors often split up and work in parallel – each on their own field of expertise.

Now that the follow-up has been centralised – companies used to receive enforcement activitiesfrom three separate inspection agencies – the inspections seem well organised. It’s companies’ lack of response that accounts for the lack of progress.

Kluin expects that new European regulations called Seveso III may improve companies’ compliance by introducing more openness. Seveso III requires the results of inspections to be published on an open-access website. The Dutch initiative www.risicokaart.nl, an inventory of risks as a geographical information system, may be considered as a step in that direction.

Such a databases exposes industrial activities to media, citizens and environmental groups. Public awareness may put extra pressure on the industry to clean up their act than formal inspections do, says Kluin.

After all, tank storage company Odfjell only decided to invest 250 million euros in modernisation and safety measures after extensive media coverage of safety and environmental incidents. Currently however, most incidents remain unnoticed by media. A database built-up over time may increase public awareness.

Marieke Kluin, Optic compliance – enforcement and compliance in the Dutch chemical industry, PhD thesis supervisors Prof. Ben Ale (TPM) and Prof. W. Huisman (), 11 November 2014

Editor Redactie

Do you have a question or comment about this article?

delta@tudelft.nl

Comments are closed.