Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
  • Save
Natech risk reduction: Status in OECD Member Countries
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Natech risk reduction: Status in OECD Member Countries

  • 1,213 views
Published

Natech risk reduction: Status in OECD Member Countries

Natech risk reduction: Status in OECD Member Countries

Published in Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,213
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • NOTES 1. PLACE, DATE AND EVENT NAME 1.1. Access the slide-set place, date and event name text box beneath the JRC logo from the Slide Master. 1.2. Do not change the size nor the position of that text box. 1.3. Replace the mock-up texts for the place (“Place”), the date (“dd Month YYYY”) and the event name (“Event Name”) with your own texts. 1.4. Set it in MetaPlus Book Roman, if you own the typeface. Otherwise, keep the original typeface – Arial. 1.5. Keep the original flush-left justification. 1.6. Keep the original font colour (white). 1.7. Keep the original font body size (7 pt) and the text on one single line. 2. SLIDE NUMBER 2.1. The slide number on the banner’s lower right-hand side is automatically generated. 3. SLIDES 3.1. Duplicate the first slide as needed. 3.2. Do not change the size nor the position of the slide’s text box. 3.3. Try not to place more text on each slide than will fit in the given text box. 3.4. Replace the mock-up heading text (“Joint Research Centre (JRC)”) with your own text heading. 3.5. Set it in Eurostile Bold Extended Two or in Helvetica Rounded Bold Condensed, if you own one of these typefaces. Otherwise, keep the original typeface – Arial. 3.6. Keep the original flush-left justification. 3.7. Keep the original font colour (100c 80m 0y 0k). 3.8. Keep the original font body size (28 pt) and the heading on one single line whenever possible. Reduce the font body size if needed. 3.9. Replace the mock-up text (“The European Commission’s Research-Based Policy Support Organisation)”) with your own text. 3.10. Set it in MetaPlus Book Roman, if you own the typeface. Otherwise, keep the original typeface – Arial. 3.11. Keep the original flush-left justification. 3.12. Keep the original font colour (100c 80m 0y 0k). Use black if you need a second colour. 3.13. Keep the original font body size (22 pt) or reduce it if unavoidable. 3.14. Replace the EU-27 map mock-up illustration with your own illustration(s). 3.13. Try to keep your illustration(s) right- and top- or bottom-aligned with the main text box whenever possible.
  • Natural-disaster management rules and codes: In only 19% of the countries nat.-dis. management rules restrict hazardous-substances handling in natural-hazard prone areas. The effectiveness of regulations (chemical-accident prevention and natural-disaster management) in preventing Natechs was indicated as neutral to slightly positive. The main reason for this appeared to be the absence of Natech accidents, which is, however, not a valid indicator for the effectiveness of regulations. In addition, in only 19% of the countries natural-disaster management restricts the handling of hazardous substances in hazard-prone areas. Development of strategy for addressing Natechs in over 50% of responding countries: Indicates that there is a lack of information and a need to fill existing gaps.
  • Natural-disaster management rules and codes: In only 19% of the countries nat.-dis. management rules restrict hazardous-substances handling in natural-hazard prone areas. The effectiveness of regulations (chemical-accident prevention and natural-disaster management) in preventing Natechs was indicated as neutral to slightly positive. The main reason for this appeared to be the absence of Natech accidents, which is, however, not a valid indicator for the effectiveness of regulations. In addition, in only 19% of the countries natural-disaster management restricts the handling of hazardous substances in hazard-prone areas. Development of strategy for addressing Natechs in over 50% of responding countries: Indicates that there is a lack of information and a need to fill existing gaps.
  • Awareness of Natechs exists but definitions as to what constitutes a Natech accident vary.
  • This section in the questionnaire tried to identify the main reasons that limit a country or organization from including Natech risk reduction strategies in their planning. The strongest need for the respondents was the development of guidance on Natech risk assessment for industry and for communities. When the respondents say “Improving regulations” they mean addressing gaps in the regulations themselves, but also enforce the regulations and monitor their implementation. Some respondents highlighted that there should be “increased compliance in industry” which I guess would also depend on the lawmaker to make sure that this happens. I haven’t added this here but: The respondents indicate that there is no overlap of responsibilities between the various organizations dealing with chemical-accident prevention and natural-disaster management that could affect Natech risk reduction. Co-operation seems to be mostly well established, although some indicate that co-ordination could be improved.
  • Other things that should be done is (this is not an outcome of the questionnaire but we think it is important): The setting up of a dedicated Natech database to collect data on the causes and dynamics of Natech accidents. In fact, this is what we are already doing at the JRC. Lessons learned should be formulated and disseminated widely (one respondent said that knowledge transfer between countries would be useful). These lessons should address failure modes and hazmat release paths as a function of natural hazard severity, identify risk-reduction measures and best practices. Develop indicators for measuring the effectiveness and adequacy of Natech risk-reduction measures.
  • We hope that the findings of our survey could help focus research efforts and foster multi-lateral collaboration.

Transcript

  • 1. Natech risk reduction: Status in OECD Member Countries E. Krausmann 1 , R. Fendler 2 , D. Baranzini 1 1 European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, Via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy 2 Federal Environment Agency, Wörlitzer Platz 1, 06844 Dessau, Germany
  • 2. OECD WGCA Project: Control of The Impact of Natural Hazards on Chemical Installations (2008 - 2012) Steering Group Members: Czech Republic, France, Germany, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, EC JRC, UNEP Interim Report 2009 - Findings of the first year of the project
  • 3.
    • Effects of Climate Change 
    • Mapping of Natural Hazards and Land-Use-Planning 
    • Natechs and Emergency Planning 
    • International Emergency Assistance 
    • Consideration of Natural Hazards in Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment, Design and Construction, Safety Reporting and Inspections
    • Communication of Natural Hazards and Natech Risks
    •  Subjects adressed in the first Interim Report to the 19 th WGCA
    Identified relevant subjects
  • 4.
    • Further development of the Interim Report (2010 – 2011)
    • Co-operation with IPCC and UNFCCC
    • Development of OECD-Guidance on relevant subjects
    • Preparation and holding of an OECD Natech Workshop (2012?)
    Next Steps of the OECD Natech Project
  • 5. JRC questionnaire survey
    • SURVEY OBJECTIVES:
    • Assess the effectiveness of the current legislative framework for Natech risk reduction in OECD Member Countries
    • Assess Natech awareness and knowledge
    • Identify Natech case histories and lessons learned
    • Identify existing Natech risk management practices
    • Identify needs and/or limitations in implementing Natech risk reduction strategies
    •  Better designed and targeted Natech risk reduction strategies
  • 6. Definition Earthquake, Turkey, 1999 For the purposes of the survey, a “Natech” accident is defined as a chemical accident caused by a natural hazard or a natural disaster. Chemical accidents include accidental oil and chemical spills , gas releases , and fires or explosions involving hazardous substances from fixed establishments (e.g. petrochemical, pharmaceutical, pesticide, storage depot), and oil and gas pipelines . Hurricane, USA, 2005 Earthquake, Turkey, 1999 Floods, Czech Republic, 2002 Earthquake, China, 2008
  • 7. Sample description
    • 17 participating countries
    • Australia, Austria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxemburg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America
  • 8. Main findings
    • Regulations for the prevention and mitigation of Natechs I
    • Natural hazards are addressed in existing regulations for chemical-accident prevention in 76% of the responding countries  In 24% natural hazards are not addressed despite a possibly high susceptibility to Natech accidents.
    • Natech risk is hardly addressed in natural-disaster management rules, codes or guidelines.
    • The effectiveness of current regulations in preventing Natechs is unclear. The occurrence of Natechs in some countries indicates that there may be gaps that need to be addressed.
    • There is a perceived need among the respondents for improving current regulations to enable effective Natech risk reduction.
  • 9. Main findings
    • Regulations for the prevention and mitigation of Natechs II
    • In over 70% of the countries technical codes, standards or guidelines for the design, construction and operation of buildings and other structures in industry that consider natural hazards exist. However:
      •  Only certain natural hazards are considered, and
      •  Technical codes are designed to protect buildings from natural hazards but may not give appropriate consideration to installations housing hazardous substances.
    • Only 12% of the respondents have developed guidelines specific for Natech risk reduction (for selected natural hazards).
  • 10. Main findings
    • Natech case histories
    • Natech accidents have occurred in 35% of the responding countries in the period 1990-2009 (87 Natechs reported in the survey).
    • The most frequent natural events triggering Natechs were: lightning, low temperatures, and floods (based on 58 Natechs).
    • The main final scenarios reported were liquid spills and air releases , followed by fires and explosions.
    • Some of the reported Natech accidents have resulted in fatalities and injuries .
    • Most of the reported natural events that have triggered a Natech were considered in the country’s laws, codes and standards for chemical-accident prevention.
  • 11. Main findings
    • Natech awareness and risk reduction
    • Awareness of Natech risk exists, but only limited knowledge on the dynamics of Natech accidents.
    • The main potential Natech triggers in the countries are believed to be floods, storms, heavy rain, storm surge and earthquakes . But the main natural events having caused Natechs in these countries were floods, lightning and low T .
    • In 40% of the responding countries Natech risk does not appear to be adequately taken into account in industrial risk assessment with the resulting low levels of preparedness.
    • There is a lack of specific Natech risk maps in OECD countries.
    • Natech risk-reduction measures seem to exist in the majority of countries (76%). They are, however, often generic (e.g. Seveso II).
    • It is difficult to identify best practices specific for Natech risk reduction.
  • 12. Main findings
    • Identifying needs and limitations
    • The respondents agree that there are several gaps in Natech risk reduction . These gaps have to be addressed to guarantee effective Natech risk management.
    • There is a need for training of chemical-accident prevention and natural-disaster management officials in Natech risk reduction.
    • There is a need for guidance on Natech risk assessment for industry and at the local level .
    • A lack of adequate resources and budget constraints were indicated as the main factors that limit Natech risk reduction.
  • 13. Recommendations I
    • + Improvement of awareness raising and risk communication at all levels of government and in industry;
    • + Development of methods and tools for Natech risk assessment;
    • + Identification of best practices for Natech risk reduction and sharing of existing practices with other countries;
    • + Preparation of dedicated Natech emergency management plans with consider the possible loss of utilities;
    • + Preparation of guidelines for risk assessment in industry and specific technical codes that address Natech risk;
    • + Implementation and enforcement of specific regulations for Natech reduction;
    • + Development of Natech risk maps for effective land-use planning and emergency management;
    • + Development of guidance on Natech risk assessment at the community level;
    The following areas for future work have been identified (in arbitrary order):
  • 14. Recommendations II
    • + Land-use planning that explicitly addresses Natech risk;
    • + Research into the impact of climate change on future Natech risk;
    • + Training of competent authorities on Natech risk reduction.
    The following areas for future work have been identified (in arbitrary order): cont’d
  • 15. Conclusions
    • Natural events have been recognised as a relevant source of risk to a chemical facility with the potential to trigger a major accident.
    • A framework for Natech risk reduction exists but a strategic Natech risk-reduction initiative is lacking.
    • A number of shortcomings and gaps need to be addressed to achieve effective Natech risk reduction.
    • Some of the recommendations for future work may be addressed within the Natech project Steering Group of the OECD WGCA.
    • It is proposed that the OECD Guiding Principles on chemical accident prevention, preparedness and response be adapted to more explicitly consider Natech risk.
  • 16.
    • THANK YOU
    • FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
    Contact: [email_address] http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ http://ipsc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
  • 17. Effects of climate change
    • CC will influence the frequency and/or intensity of some natural hazards  to be taken into consideration
    • IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) gives some information on extreme events and sea level rise, but  real CO 2 Emissions 2005/2006 higher than its worst-case scenario  melting of the Greenland Ice-Shield will be relevant before 2100  more actual and regional information required
    • IPCC Report „Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation“ (to be published in 2011)  Consideration of CC in:
      • the analysis of risks due to natural hazards for regions, sites and installations
      • design and lay-out citeria, construction, rules, standards
  • 18. Natural-hazard mapping and land-use planning
    • Different kinds of NHs = different approaches for NH-maps + different authorities in charge
    • National and regional maps available but not for all NHs:
      •  Further development of NH-maps is required to fit with the information requirements for Natech management
      •  (Legislation and guidance on) LUP should consider
        • + risks by NHs
        • + risks by hazardous installations, and
        • + the combination of both (Natechs)
      •  OECD should develop guidance on these subjects
  • 19. Natechs and emergency planning
    • Natechs have to be considered in on-site and off-site EPs
    • Natechs pose specific challenges to emergency planning
    •  NH can cause multiple and simultaneous failures
    •  off-site responders may not be available (busy mitigating off-site problems)
    •  NH may hamper response e.g. damage to infrastructure
    • Natech scenarios in on- and off-site plans required
    • Improvement of NH-forecasting systems is essential
    • Required activities:
    •  Development of guidance for consideration of NH and Natechs in on- & off-site emergency plans
    •  Identification of best practice in NH-forecasting and warning systems
  • 20. International emergency assistance
    • Natechs can be a consequence of a NH causing humanitarian and environmental emergencies that require international response
    • Pool of experts, sources of funding, mobilization proceedures required:
      •  assistance & support by private sector (chemical industry)?
      •  clarification of the consideration of NHs in the application of the polluter-pays principle (OECD recommendation C(98)88)