Major accident prevention · Mining waste management facilities · Directive 2006/21/EC
Major accident prevention on your Category A facilities, measured level by level and translated into a costed action plan.
10 themes, a 5-level scale. And the action that moves each level to the next.
The framework’s 10 themes, already written from L1 to L5. One company, one business unit, or 300 at once.
Major accident prevention · Mining waste management facilities · Directive 2006/21/EC
10 themes, 5-level scale.
Nordhavn Industries
53 / 100
They measure their maturity with Datamensio
An example
This could be your situation.
Take one company as an example: three sites, three spreadsheets, no shared answer.
Nobody can consolidate.
Nordhavn Industries, 2,400 people in Hamburg, Lyon and Porto. A client asks where the group stands. Each site answers in its own spreadsheet, with its own scales.
Three weeks, a single base.
One Directive 2006/21/EC of 15 March 2006, Articles 6 and 11, and Category A under Annex III assessment launched across all three sites at once, from the managers’ interview notes. The framework was already written, its 10 themes and levels L1 to L5 too.
Two costs avoided before being committed.
A score of 53 out of 100, with the gap concentrated on three themes. The AI companion spotted that two actions duplicated those of another audit. The committee report took one sentence to request.
What it saved them
- 3sites measured on the same base, instead of three questionnaires to reconcile
- 2duplicate actions caught before the spend
- 1committee report, with no manual rework
These figures are an example. They could be yours.
The standard imposes processes. Datamensio says where you stand.
01
The framework is already written
Themes, questions and levels L1 to L5, all written. You do not start from an empty spreadsheet.
02
The score lands the same day
Online, by self-assessment link or in interview. Theme by theme, comparable over time.
03
The gap becomes a costed plan
Every step up carries its action. The AI prioritises on expected effect, not on the order of the standard.
04
Progress can be demonstrated
Campaign after campaign, against your target and against your own past. That is what your board asks for.
The maturity scale
One level, the next, and the action that links the two.
It is this mechanism, one level, the level above, and the action linking the two, that turns a finding into a trajectory.
Is the internal emergency plan tested and updated based on lessons learned from exercises?
- N1
No internal emergency plan specific to the waste management facility. General site instructions serve as the arrangement.
- N2
A plan exists and covers major accident scenarios, but it has not been tested and contact details and roles are not all up to date.
- N3
The plan is kept up to date and an exercise is carried out at a defined frequency. Gaps identified are recorded.
- N4
Exercises involve emergency services and the competent authority. Each lesson learned generates an assigned action, with a date and an owner, tracked to closure.
- N5
Scenarios are reviewed after any change to the structures or any precursor incident, including those occurring at another group site, and plan revisions are documented.
Action to move from L2 to L3
Schedule an exercise on the dam integrity loss scenario before the end of the next half year, first update the call-out list and the role matrix, and put the review of the internal emergency plan on the agenda of the site’s annual safety review.
« With Datamensio, we meet our objectives far more efficiently. The ERDF inspection services and our supervising ministry particularly appreciated an approach that gives them reliable data. »
Director, CCI 94CCI Île-de-France
« We believe this is the most suitable solution to scale our transformation project and measure impact according to our needs. »
Maja SucekChief Operating Officer, Interreg Danube
Rarely on its own
Frameworks combine. Put several together to cover your business, or have the AI write yours.
Take your first measurement
What this framework covers
Directive 2006/21/EC governs the management of waste from extractive industries. Article 6 specifically addresses major accident prevention: for any facility classified as Category A under the Annex III criteria, the operator must establish a major accident prevention policy, put in place a safety management system to implement it, appoint a safety officer, prepare an internal emergency plan and supply the competent authority with the information needed for the external emergency plan. Article 11 adds requirements for the construction, management and monitoring of the facility, in particular dams and tailings ponds.
In practice these requirements are hard to manage because they sit at the crossroads of three disciplines: mining operations, geotechnics and industrial safety. Is the Category A classification based on a documented assessment of failure or integrity loss risk, or a position inherited from the original permit file? Has the internal emergency plan been tested with emergency services, and when? Does the safety officer hold real authority over operating decisions, or only a title on an organisation chart?
One confusion comes up repeatedly: Directive 2006/21/EC and the Seveso III directive do not overlap. Extractive waste management facilities fall outside the scope of Seveso III, but Article 6 of the mining waste directive mirrors its logic, prevention policy, safety management system, emergency plan, public information. Operators who also run dangerous substance storage sites fall under both texts, on distinct perimeters. Clarifying this boundary is often the first gain from the assessment.
A compliance audit ends with a binary finding: the requirement is met or it is not. The maturity assessment answers a different question. Where does each practice sit on a scale, from a document that exists but is not applied through to arrangements revised on the basis of exercise feedback, and what precise action moves it up to the next level. That is what allows a multi-year transformation programme to be built rather than a list of gaps.
The framework is ready to use in Datamensio and adapts to your context. The AI adjusts the themes, questions and levels to the nature of your facilities, retention dams, waste rock dumps or tailings ponds, or builds a variant from your own documents, internal emergency plan, geotechnical studies and operating procedures.
Reference standard: Directive 2006/21/EC of 15 March 2006, Articles 6 and 11, and Category A under Annex III
The themes assessed
Classification and characterisation of the facility
Application of Annex III criteria, failure risk assessment, waste characterisation, justification and updating of the Category A classification.
Major accident prevention policy
Existence of a formal document, management commitment, prevention objectives, scope covered, alignment with the site’s environmental policy.
Safety management system
Organisation and roles, appointment of the safety officer, identification and assessment of major accident hazards, operational control, management of change.
Structure design and integrity
Geotechnical studies, dam and pond sizing, water and flood management, independent design review, records for existing structures.
Monitoring and instrumentation
Structure instrumentation, piezometry, periodic inspections, alert and trigger thresholds, traceability of readings, competence of those interpreting them.
Internal emergency plan
Scenarios covered, crisis organisation, alert and evacuation means, alignment with the external emergency plan, frequency and lessons from exercises.
Information and consultation
Information of the public concerned without prior request, transmission of information to the competent authority, staff consultation, communication with local residents.
Competence and training
Qualification of personnel working on the structures, training on major accident scenarios, subcontracting and induction of external contractors.
Lessons learned and incidents
Notification of events to the authority, root cause analysis, precursor incidents and weak signals, follow-up of corrective actions to closure.
Closure and post-closure
Closure plan, long-term stability, post-closure monitoring, financial guarantees, transfer of liability and conditions for release.
A short version of the framework is available for the online self-assessment.
Frequently asked questions
Does this assessment amount to a certificate of compliance with Directive 2006/21/EC?
No. The directive is implemented through the permits issued and monitored by the competent authority of each member state. Datamensio measures the maturity of your practices and prepares you for those inspections by documenting gaps. It issues no certification.
How does this differ from a regulatory compliance audit?
An audit checks whether the required elements are present and ends with a gap or a compliance finding. The assessment places each practice on a five-level scale and indicates the action that moves it up. The two complement each other: the assessment prepares the audit and feeds the transformation programme.
Does the framework only apply to Category A facilities?
The Article 6 obligations on major accident prevention apply to Category A. The assessment remains useful on other facilities too, particularly on structure monitoring, water management and lessons learned, and it helps check that the classification held is still justified.
How does this framework differ from Seveso III?
Extractive waste management facilities fall outside the scope of Directive 2012/18/EU, but Article 6 of Directive 2006/21/EC mirrors the same logic of a prevention policy, a safety management system and an emergency plan. An operator covered by both texts can cross-reference the two assessments in a single roadmap, without duplicating actions.
How long does the assessment take?
The short version takes around thirty minutes for a site safety manager to complete. The full version involves operations, geotechnics and environment teams, and generally runs one to two weeks, most of the time being spent gathering evidence from the teams.
Can the framework be adapted to our facilities?
Yes. Themes, questions and level wording can all be adjusted, and the AI can build a variant by structure type, retention dam, waste rock dump or tailings pond, drawing on your own documents. You retain full control of the framework.
Can several sites be compared with each other?
Yes. Assessments run on the same framework can be compared across business units and over time. The AI groups recurring gaps into a consolidated roadmap, allowing issues that reflect a common practice, rather than a single site, to be handled at group level.
Where is the data hosted?
In France, with OVH, with backup at Scaleway. No transfer outside the European Union. The AI models used can be selected, including from European providers.