Any industry is focusing on creating an environment that is as safe as possible for everyone that is involved. This is no different for the construction industry. However, the construction industry is placed second in the ranking of most dangerous industries. The Dutch Safety Board, being an independent administrative body, has recommended to integrate a third party into the contractual general terms and conditions such as the UAC for integrated contracts. The objective of this research is to examine whether there is any potential to integrate a third party into the UAC-IC 2005 contract. This potential is being examined using a comparison between the UAC-IC 2005 and FIDIC Yellow Book 1999, a contract in which a third party is already present. In this comparison, the main focus points are the "vital tasks & responsibilities" that are necessary in order to safeguard safety on site, safety of the surrounding area & structural safety.

This thesis has found that the three types of safety can be improved if the vital tasks & responsibilities are properly performed. These tasks & responsibilities mainly relate to the management of project specific and safety related risks, and to the safety approach that is a result of this risk management system. From a theoretical point of view, the UAC-IC 2005 and the Dutch Building Decree are able to facilitate these vital tasks & responsibilities. The ON is responsible for most of the vital tasks & responsibilities, and the OG has the possibility to use an external control mechanism to verify this. The practical situation is however different. It is not uncommon that other aspects like time, or money can get more important for the contracting party than proper risk management processes and the corresponding safety approach. Work is not executed as intended, but rather as work-as-actually-done. The OG’s incentives in the UAC-IC can be insufficient for him to effectively perform this external control mechanism. This leads to a possible situation in which no internal nor external control mechanism is present, which is to the detriment of safety. The Engineer, being the party that is responsible for an external independent control mechanism in the Yellow Book’s quality assurance system, does have more incentives to actually make him perform this external independent control mechanism effectively. This incentive has its origin in the uncapped liability which the Engineer can be held liable for. If the Dutch version of the role of the Engineer would be integrated into the UAC-IC, he would be able to improve the three types of safety when he takes over the responsibility for the external control mechanism from the OG under the assumption that this external control mechanism will be performed more effectively. This assumption is valid if the Dutch Engineer would have a comparable liability as in the White Book. Since TNR 2011 would most likely be used in the Dutch construction industry, the liability in TNR 2011 must be increased for Dutch Engineers in order to be comparable to FIDIC’s White Book.

The geographical features in the Southern part of Limburg forces precipitation from upstream located areas to flow through a bottleneck, which is exactly located at the city centre of Valkenburg. This makes increasing the safety level more complicated than in other areas. The safety level of Valkenburg has a lower standard in comparison to the rest of the country, namely 1 in 25 years. The combination of those two characteristics is not desirable. Official documents
state that this lower standard is based on detailed (societal) Cost-Benefit Analyses. In reality however, the safety standard is based on simple back of the envelope calculations. The Limburg Waterboard has indeed developed a Cost-Benefit tool which they could use to find out whether the implementation of safety measures are cost effective, however they have not been able to
implement it until now. Additional safety measures to increase the safety level are assumed too costly based on the same brief calculations. It is doubtful whether individual risk laws are met, since the Limburg Waterboard assumes no casualties in the Geul area. The 2021 flood however showed that this might be false for future floods which get more severe over time due to climate change.

The citizens and entrepreneurs in Valkenburg were not completely aware of the risks they were exposed to and their sense of safety related to flooding decreased after the flood. Most of the people questioned in a survey demanded a higher safety level than the current standard. They would even be open for an increase in tax to realise this improvement. Raising the quay walls would be a cost-effective solution according to some of the citizens. However, the entrepreneurs who rely on tourist based income, do not prefer this option due to loss in aesthetic value.

Hydraulic, structural, and non-technical solutions which are investigated in this report, have the aim to increase the safety level or make the safety level more acceptable for citizens. The hydraulic, and structural solutions focus on four main aspects. The first aspect is related to the redesign of bridges in the city centre. This is mainly done by applying a flat bridges design, which is further elaborated with a case study for the collapsed Emmalaan bridge, and a liftable bridge design. The second aspect is related to closing the gaps in the quay walls, and increasing the height of the quay walls. The third aspect is related to the implementation of water tunnel concepts with six different design concepts. The fourth aspect is related to implementing parts of Meerssen’s 4-step approach. The first three aspects of the hydraulic and structural solutions are focused on increasing the discharge capacity of the Geul, while the latter aspect focuses on retaining, delaying, and storing the precipitation. Non- technical solution are also proposed
that focus on making people more aware of the risk they are exposed to. This could eventually lead to more acceptance and thus more pleased citizens.

The first order estimations for investment costs and safety level for the hydraulic, and structural solutions are graphically displayed in order to provide an overview of possible interventions to the municipality of Valkenburg and the Limburg waterboard. Although preliminary, and based on limited available data, these results should encourage both stakeholders, and other relevant parties, to reconsider safety standards and search for measures that could increase the safety level of Valkenburg when desired.