Prevention of major accident in the crisis management system

Cizojazyčný název

Prevence závažných havárií v systému krizového řízení

Datum vydání

3. 8. 2026

Číslo vydání

JOSRA 1-2/2026

Recenzovaný článek

Ano

Autoři

Afiliace

(1) Univerzita Tomáše Bati ve Zlíně, Ústav ochrany obyvatelstva, Fakulta logistiky a krizového řízení; pekaj@utb.cz, ranocha@utb.cz

Abstrakt 1

Prevence závažných havárií představuje klíčový pilíř ochrany obyvatelstva i kritické infrastruktury a zároveň tvoří nedílnou součást efektivního fungování systému krizového řízení. Moderní průmyslové provozy dnes čelí novým, rychle se vyvíjejícím

Abstrakt 2

rizikům, mezi něž patří digitalizace, automatizace, kybernetická bezpečnost či projevy změny klimatu. Současně se zvyšuje tlak na transparentnost a aktivní komunikaci s veřejností.

Abstrakt 3

Tento příspěvek analyzuje propojení prevence závažných havárií podle zákona č. 224/2015 Sb., o prevenci závažných havárií způsobených nebezpečnými chemickými látkami nebo chemickými směsmi (zákon o prevenci závažných havárií) s krizovým řízením vymezeným

Abstrakt 4

zákonem č. 240/2000 Sb., o krizovém řízení a ukazuje, jak se oba systémy vzájemně doplňují. Zvláštní pozornost je věnována synergickému zapojení všech účastníků procesu –

Abstrakt 5

provozovatelů, složek integrovaného záchranného systému, krajské samosprávy, obcí i veřejnosti – s cílem posílit připravenost území a zvýšit jeho celkovou odolnost.

Abstract 1

The prevention of major accidents is a fundamental component of protecting both the population and critical infrastructure, while also playing a vital role in the effective operation of crisis management systems. Today’s industrial environments are confro

Abstract 2

rapidly evolving risks, including digitalization, automation, cybersecurity threats, and the effects of climate change. At the same time, there is growing demand for greater transparency and proactive engagement with the public.

Abstract 3

This paper examines the interconnection between the prevention of major accidents under Act No. 224/2015 Coll. on Prevention of Major Accidents Caused by Hazardous Chemical Substances or Chemical Mixtures (“Act on Major Accident Prevention”), and crisis

Abstract 4

management as defined by Act No. 240/2000 Coll. on Crisis Management and demonstrates how the two systems complement each other. Special attention is given to the coordinated engagement of all participants in the process, i.e.

Abstract 5

operators, emergency services within the integrated rescue system, regional governments, municipalities, and the public, with the aim of improving territorial preparedness and enhancing overall resilience.

Keywords

prevention of major accidents, crisis management; crisis management authorities; external emergency plan; territorial preparedness; unified environmental statement; synergy

Klíčová slova

prevence závažných havárií, krizové řízení; orgány krizového řízení vnější havarijní plán, připravenost území, jednotné environmentální stanovisko, synergie

Pořadí autora

havarijní plánování=stitek

Ano

krizové řízení=stitek

Ano

prevence závažných havárií=stitek

Ano

Přijat k publikování / Received for publication 5. 5. 2025

Introduction

Major accidents involving technological facilities, warehouses, and sites where hazardous chemical substances and mixtures are present can have catastrophic impacts on human health, the environment, property, and the economic stability of a region. The Czech legal framework, based on Act No. 224/2015 Coll. on Major Accident Prevention, is derived from the European Seveso III Directive. In the areas of crisis management and planning, it is complemented by legislation and subordinate regulations that govern how the state and public administration respond to emergencies and crisis situations.

Local and regional governments in the Czech Republic are central to the crisis management system. They have a dual role: on the one hand, they act as executive bodies of state administration at regional and local levels, and on the other hand, they represent the interests of the population and local communities. This “dual mandate” makes them key actors in ensuring the safety and resilience of the territory.

Crisis management at the regional level and in municipalities with extended powers forms a key component of the state security system. Regional governments are responsible not only for planning and coordinating activities during emergencies and crisis situations, but also for protecting the population, the environment, and property in the context of modern society.

The complexity of modern risks—from natural disasters to technological and societal threats—makes crisis management a multidisciplinary field. A region or municipality is therefore not only an administrative unit, but also a territory where the impacts of highly diverse threats converge.

1. Basic Legislative Framework for Addressing Crisis Situations and Emergencies

The management of crisis situations and emergencies is one of the most essential functions of modern public administration. A self-governing region occupies a unique position within this system. It acts simultaneously as an entity responsible for its own self-government, a partner of the state in the exercise of delegated powers, and a coordination hub between the state, municipalities, emergency services within the integrated rescue system, business entities, and the population. In order to fulfil this multifaceted role, the region relies on a robust legislative framework, the key pillars of which are Acts No. 240/2000 Coll., No. 239/2000 Coll., and No. 241/2000 Coll.

From the perspective of regions and municipalities, the Act on Crisis Management provides the fundamental legal basis for establishing security councils and crisis teams, with their responsibilities further detailed in subsequent provisions of the Act. The regional governor approves the Regional Crisis Plan, which defines individual procedures and measures for managing crisis situations, including specific standard activities. This plan is not merely an administrative document; it is a dynamic instrument that links analytical risk assessments with the actual capacities of the region and its partners in the event of a threat.

The Act also provides a legal basis for measures that may interfere with individual rights, ranging from the imposition of work duties to the requisition of material resources, where such steps are necessary to address crisis situations. These provisions underscore that crisis management is an area in which technical safety considerations, administrative procedures, and constitutional rights intersect.

While the Act on Crisis Management establishes the overarching framework, the Act on Integrated Rescue System defines the practical, operational level of emergency response by setting out the structure of the integrated rescue system (IRS). It defines the IRS as a coordinated system in which its units cooperate in preparing for emergencies and in carrying out rescue and response operations.

Within the IRS, the region is prominently represented by the Regional Fire Rescue Service, which is responsible for operational management of interventions, coordination of the system’s units, and the operation of the unified emergency call numbers (112, 150). For regional government, it is essential that the Act explicitly assigns regional authorities’ responsibility for coordinating civil protection tasks, including warning, evacuation, sheltering, emergency survival measures, and the provision of information to the public.

These responsibilities represent a natural interface between regional government and the population, illustrating that a region is not only an administrative unit, but above all a guarantor of safety and stability in the living environment. The Act defines an emergency, inter alia, as the harmful effects of forces and phenomena that threaten life, health, property, or the environment and require intervention by IRS units.

Every crisis involves not only security and governance dimensions, but also the provision of forces and resources needed to address the event, i.e., an economic dimension. For this reason, the system is supplemented by the Act on Economic Measures for Crisis Situations. This Act governs the preparation and implementation of economic measures during states of danger, emergency, threat to the state, or wartime.

This legal framework enables regions and municipalities to ensure that, even in times of crisis, essential supplies of goods, energy, and services remain operational, as their continuity is crucial for managing large-scale emergencies and crisis situations. Economic stability is therefore not merely a complementary aspect of crisis management, but an integral part of it.

Local and regional government must address not only technical risks, but also the legal, economic, social, and environmental dimensions of emerging situations. The legislative framework for crisis management forms a coherent and systematically structured basis that enables local authorities to fulfil their role as guarantors of regional safety. Acts No. 240/2000 Coll., No. 239/2000 Coll., and No. 241/2000 Coll. define the competencies, instruments, processes, and responsibilities that make it possible to prepare territories for emergencies and crisis situations, manage post-crisis recovery, and subsequently restore the normal functioning of society.

2. Current Legal Framework for the Prevention of Major Accidents

The system for the prevention of major accidents in the Czech Republic has undergone significant development in recent years, particularly in connection with the implementation of the Seveso III Directive and the adoption of Act No. 224/2015 Coll. A completely new element that significantly reshapes the procedural level of permitting environmental projects is the Unified Environmental Opinion (UEO), introduced by Act No. 148/2023 Coll. By introducing the UEO, a wide range of environmental administrative procedures has been consolidated into a single binding statement, which has also become a mandatory supporting document also for certain projects falling under the Act on Major Accidents Prevention.

Act No. 224/2015 Coll. is the primary legal instrument regulating the system for the prevention of major accidents. Its objective is to reduce the likelihood of such accidents, mitigate their impacts on human and animal health, the environment, and property. It establishes the obligations of operators of facilities, as well as the competences and powers of public administration authorities.

The Act applies to facilities in which hazardous chemical substances are present in quantities specified in Annex 1 to the Act. It also defines the scope of exemptions and establishes obligations the obligations related to the preparation of a safety management system (Group A), safety report (Group B), emergency planning (internal and external emergency plans), the physical protection plan for the facility, and continuous risk assessment.

The Czech Republic has fully implemented Seveso III through Act No. 224/2015 Coll. and related implementing regulations. Equally important is the obligation of EU Member States to regularly report on implementation status and accidents via the eSPIRS/eMARS database.

The Act explicitly states that it applies to facilities where hazardous substances are present; however, the scope of operators’ obligations varies according to the quantities involved. Where these quantities do not reach the thresholds for classification, the facility is regarded as unclassified. Even in such cases, the operator must comply with certain basic requirements and provide evidence that the facility does not fall within Group A or Group B.

One of the key obligations of an operator of an unclassified facility is the preparation of a non-inclusion protocol. This protocol includes an inventory of hazardous substances, their quantities and classification, as well as calculations of relative quantities based on the formula set out in Annex 1 to the Act. It serves to demonstrate that the relevant threshold quantities have not been exceeded. The protocol must be submitted to the regional authority within one month of the moment when the quantity of a substance at the facility exceeds 2% of the threshold specified in Annex 1.

This requirement is also of fundamental importance for public administration, as it enables continuous monitoring of facilities whose operation may change, expand, or approach the thresholds for classification in the future.

Act No. 224/2015 Coll. requires operators of facilities handling hazardous chemical substances to identify all relevant sources of risk, including natural hazards, and to carry out risk analysis and assessment that also considers externalities. It further requires them to demonstrate that adequate measures are in place to reduce the likelihood of accidents and to mitigate their consequences. NaTech (Natural Hazards Triggering Technological Accidents) constitute a specific and increasingly important risk category, in which natural phenomena trigger technological accidents.

Typical examples include damage to chemical storage tanks due to flooding, blackouts caused by hurricanes that lead to safety system failures, or extreme heat affecting the stability of chemical processes.

The assessment of risks from natural phenomena, such as floods, windstorms, extreme temperatures, earthquakes, ice formation, droughts, or landslides, must therefore form an integral part of the safety documentation prepared by operators.

The emphasis on NaTech risks is further reinforced by methodological guidance from the Ministry of the Environment, which requires operators to draw on experience from past accidents and incidents within the EU, recorded inter alia in the eMARS database, including events caused by natural hazards.

The emphasis on the identification and assessment of NaTech risks in the Czech Republic is further elaborated in a dedicated Methodological Instruction of the Ministry of the Environment for the determination of NaTech risks. This document establishes procedures for the assessment of the impacts of natural phenomena on technological operations and their potential contribution to the occurrence of major accidents. The guideline promotes a uniform approach among operators in the assessment of risks associated with floods, extreme temperatures, strong winds, icing, or landslides.

A separate area is represented by the use of knowledge derived from past major accidents. This issue is addressed by the Methodological Instruction of the Ministry of the Environment on Lessons Learned from Previous Accidents, which establishes a framework for the systematic integration of experience from past events into the process of major accident prevention. One of the key sources of information is the European database eMARS (Major Accident Reporting System), which contains data on major accidents and their causes within the Member States of the European Union. The analysis of these events enables the identification of recurring causes of accidents, the evaluation of the effectiveness of preventive measures, and the incorporation of acquired knowledge into safety documentation and the risk management process. The eMARS database also includes accidents triggered by natural phenomena and therefore represents a valuable source of information for the assessment of NaTech risks.

The importance of NaTech risk assessment is also demonstrated by experience from major industrial accidents worldwide. A frequently cited example is the accident at the Cosmo Oil petrochemical complex in the Japanese city of Ichihara in 2011, where an earthquake and the subsequent tsunami caused damage to technological facilities and led to a large-scale fire. The event confirmed that natural phenomena can significantly disrupt the functioning of safety systems and trigger cascading technological accidents. The knowledge gained subsequently led to adjustments in approaches to NaTech risk assessment in a number of countries and became one of the driving forces behind their systematic integration into risk analysis processes within the framework of European legislation.

The public living or operating within an emergency planning zone must be regularly informed about the risks and measures associated with a potential major accident. The information includes, in particular, the nature of possible hazards: types of accidents and their potential consequences, including domino effects; preventive safety measures implemented at the facility; recommended behaviour in the event of an accident, such as sheltering, evacuation, recognition of warning signals, and communication procedures; and essential contact and emergency information, including emergency hotlines and relevant public authorities.

The purpose of informing the public is to increase awareness of risks, ensure that residents are familiar with appropriate actions in emergency situations, and strengthen the overall safety and preparedness of the territory.

3. Synergy of Outputs from Major Accident Prevention in Crisis Management

Major accident prevention and crisis management are two legally and practically interconnected systems aimed at protecting life, health, property, and the environment. Although they are separate fields with specific processes, their functional integration is essential for effectively managing emergencies and crisis situations. The Act on Major Accident Prevention requires operators to identify risks, assess them, and submit safety documentation, while crisis management uses these outputs to prepare for crisis situations and ensure the operational readiness of the integrated rescue system. The mutual synergy of these two systems is particularly reflected in planning, preparedness, coordination, and response to incidents involving the release of hazardous chemical substances.

Safety documentation serves as a crucial information base for regional government and integrated rescue system units when developing external emergency plans, drafting crisis preparedness plans, and carrying out strategic risk assessments of the territory of interest.

Safety documentation includes a detailed identification of risk sources, analysis of the probability and consequences of accidents, and modelling of emergency scenarios, including domino effects, as well as a description of operational, technological, and safety measures. This information is mandatorily submitted to regional authorities and serves as a direct basis for defining the emergency planning zone. In this way, crisis management authorities obtain a precisely geographically delineated territory where the effects of an accident can be expected. This information is essential for planning public warning systems, making evacuation decisions, deploying forces and resources, and coordinating with municipalities and IRS units.

The operator’s documentation is also a primary source of technical data for the development of external emergency plans. It contributes to the management of integrated rescue system interventions, the establishment of tactical procedures, the definition of operational zones, and the allocation of responsibilities among individual entities. In practice, it serves as a crucial link between process safety within the facility and the protection of the population outside it.

When preparing public information, the regional authority uses data from the safety documentation concerning the nature of risks, preventive measures, recommended public behaviour in the event of an accident, and the allocation of the operator’s forces and resources for emergency response. For crisis management authorities, this process contributes to improved population preparedness, higher effectiveness of evacuation and sheltering measures, reduced response times, and ultimately also strengthens public trust in the adopted measures.

The practical interconnection between the system of major accident prevention and crisis management can be demonstrated through the process of preparing external emergency plans. Data contained in operators’ safety reports are used by regional authorities and the Fire Rescue Service of the regions in the designation of emergency planning zones, the planning of protective measures for the population, and the preparation of tactical procedures for Integrated Rescue System units. In practice, this constitutes a direct transfer of the results of risk analysis and assessment from the operator level to the system of population protection and territorial crisis preparedness.

A specific example is the territory of the Zlín Region, where 12 operators classified in Group B under the Act on Major Accident Prevention are located. Outputs from their safety documentation, in particular accident scenarios and modelled impact ranges of hazardous chemical substances and mixtures, constitute key inputs for the preparation of external emergency plans. These data are used in planning warning and information systems for the population, evacuation measures, the deployment of IRS forces and resources, as well as in the preparation of measures for the protection of the environment and property. This example confirms that safety documentation is not only a tool for risk management at the operator level, but also represents an important source of information for public authorities responsible for ensuring the safety and resilience of the territory.

In the context of decision support during emergency response and the coordination of IRS units, outputs from safety documentation provide, among other things, detailed information on initial hazards (e.g. toxic substances, pressurized equipment, flammable mixtures), site layouts, evacuation routes, shut-off points, access routes, the location of hazardous substances, technical safety measures, and available on-site resources (such as water supplies, hydrants, and emergency equipment). These inputs enable faster orientation on site, enhance the safety of responding units, and support effective decision-making in dynamically evolving situations (e.g. toxic clouds or pressure waves).

Information from safety documentation is incorporated into building permit procedures (e.g. for new developments within emergency planning zones), where it influences the siting of residential areas, schools, hospitals, and transport infrastructure, and helps define safety buffer zones and land-use restrictions. More recently, these data have also become part of the Unified Environmental Opinion, which integrates environmental requirements into permitting processes. For regional authorities, this enables more effective regulation of high-risk facilities, the assessment of cumulative, synergistic, and domino effects, and ultimately the prevention of increased risks to the population.

Conclusion

The system for major accident prevention in the Czech Republic is structured to connect operators’ internal safety processes with the public-law framework of crisis management. The synergy between these two systems represents a key pillar of the state’s safety policy. Outputs from safety documentation constitute the core information base for both emergency planning and crisis management at the regional level. They enable the preparation of precise and effective external emergency plans, support decision-making by integrated rescue system units, and provide a foundation for communication with the public. The two systems function as interlinked components: major accident prevention supplies data and expertise, while crisis management ensures their practical implementation. Their combined effect creates a coherent, effective, and modern system for protecting both the population and the environment.

Bibliography

Vzorová citace

PEKAJ, Robert & Lívia RANOCHA. Prevention of major accident in the crisis management system. Časopis výzkumu a aplikací v profesionální bezpečnosti [online]. 2026, roč. 19, č. 1-2. Dostupný z: https://www.josra.cz/vydani?categoryId=32451&id=1230981&action=itemDetail&oid=10520461&nid=21089. ISSN 1803-3687. 

havarijní plánování=stitek

krizové řízení=stitek