Stoop John A
Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Kindunos Safety Consultancy Ltd., PO Box 5015, GA 2600, The Netherlands.
J Hazard Mater. 2004 Jul 26;111(1-3):39-44. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.02.006.
Historically, safety has been subjected to a fragmented approach. In the past, every department has had its own responsibility towards safety, focusing either on working conditions, internal safety, external safety, rescue and emergency, public order or security. They each issued policy documents, which in their time were leading statements for elaboration and regulation. They also addressed safety issues with tools of various nature, often specifically developed within their domain. Due to a series of major accidents and disasters, the focus of attention is shifting from complying with quantitative risk standards towards intervention in primary operational processes, coping with systemic deficiencies and a more integrated assessment of safety in its societal context. In The Netherlands recognition of the importance of independent investigations has led to an expansion of this philosophy from the transport sector to other sectors. The philosophy now covers transport, industry, defense, natural disaster, environment and health and other major occurrences such as explosions, fires, and collapse of buildings or structures. In 2003 a multi-sector covering law will establish an independent safety board in The Netherlands. At a European level, mandatory investigation agencies are recognized as indispensable safety instruments for aviation, railways and the maritime sector, for which EU Directives are in place or being progressed [Transport accident and incident investigation in the European Union, European Transport Safety Council, ISBN 90-76024-10-3, Brussel, 2001]. Due to a series of major events, attention has been drawn to the consequences of disasters, highlighting the involvement of rescue and emergency services. They also have become subjected to investigative efforts, which in return, puts demands on investigation methodology. This paper comments on an evolutionary development in safety thinking and of safety boards, highlighting some consequences for strategic perspectives in a further development of independent accident investigation.
从历史上看,安全问题一直采用分散的处理方式。过去,每个部门都对安全负有各自的责任,重点要么放在工作条件、内部安全、外部安全、救援与应急、公共秩序,要么放在安保方面。它们各自发布政策文件,在当时这些文件都是用于详细阐述和规范的主要声明。它们还用各种性质的工具来处理安全问题,这些工具往往是在其领域内专门开发的。由于一系列重大事故和灾难,关注焦点正从遵守定量风险标准转向对主要运营流程进行干预、应对系统性缺陷以及在社会背景下对安全进行更综合的评估。在荷兰,对独立调查重要性的认识已促使这一理念从运输部门扩展到其他部门。现在这一理念涵盖运输、工业、国防、自然灾害、环境与健康以及其他重大事件,如爆炸、火灾和建筑物或结构的倒塌。2003年,一部涵盖多个部门的法律将在荷兰设立一个独立的安全委员会。在欧洲层面,强制性调查机构被视为航空、铁路和海事部门不可或缺的安全工具,针对这些部门已有或正在制定欧盟指令[《欧盟的运输事故与事件调查》,欧洲运输安全委员会,ISBN 90 - 76024 - 10 - 3,布鲁塞尔,2001年]。由于一系列重大事件,人们的注意力已转向灾难的后果,突出了救援和应急服务的参与。它们也受到了调查,反过来这对调查方法提出了要求。本文评论了安全思维和安全委员会的演变发展,强调了在独立事故调查的进一步发展中对战略视角的一些影响。