Seveso II EC Report on Application of Directive 2006_2008_en

8/13/2019 Seveso II EC Report on Application of Directive 2006_2008_en

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/seveso-ii-ec-report-on-application-of-directive-20062008en 1/13

EN



EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 9.8.2010

C(2010) 5422 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

Report on the Application in the Member States of Directive 96/82/EC on the control of

major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances for the period 2006-2008

(Text with EEA relevance)



REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

Report on the Application in the Member States of Directive 96/82/EC on the control of

major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances for the period 2006-2008

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. INTRODUCTION

Council Directive 96/82/EC 1 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous

substances , the so-called Seveso II Directive, aims at the prevention of major-accident

hazards involving dangerous substances and at the limitation of the consequences of such

accidents for man and the environment. The Seveso II Directive applies to some thousands of

industrial establishments where dangerous substances are present. This report is a summary of the 27 Member States' reports on the application of the Directive

for the period 2006-2008. In accordance with Article 19.4 of the Directive, Member States

shall provide the Commission with a three-yearly implementation re port in accordance with

the procedure laid down in the Reporting Standardization Directive 2. In line with previous

practice these reports are limited to information relating to upper-tier establishments covered

by Articles 6 and 9.

This report summarises in chapter 2 the information provided by the Member States on the basis of a questionnaire3, supplemented by some accident figures. Conclusions and the way

forward follow in chapter 3. The full contributions of the 27 Member States and from

Norway, as well as the questionnaire, the previous reports for the periods 2000-20024 and

2003-20055, and additional information can be found on the Seveso website 6 of DG

Environment. Readers interested in further details are referred to the national reports.

2. SUMMARY OF MEMBER STATES CONTRIBUTIONS

All 27 Member States and Norway submitted their triennial reports to the European

Commission. Two-thirds met the deadline of 1 October 2009 for providing the information.

The majority of the statistical data used in this summary refers to the year 2008 as this is the



The intention of this summary is to assess the level of implementation and to identify any

shortcomings. The Commission expects that where low figures are reported this will

encourage the Member States concerned to improve implementation.

2.1. Number of upper tier establishments

In December 2008, 4528 upper tier establishments were reported, an increase over the

previous three years of 14% (up from 3949). If Romania and Bulgaria are not included the

increase for EU-25 is 10 %.

Figure 1: Upper tier establishments per Member State: 2005 and 2008

Nr of upper tier establishments

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Nr

2005 137 79 20 976 14 100 245 593 23 462 13 29 21 5 47 6 188 79 149 57 26 39 84 172 385

2008 174 52 112 44 1077 21 83 295 553 33 518 11 30 17 8 63 6 221 79 161 62 113 24 40 127 195 409

BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK

The increasing number of sites probably reflects the completion of moves towards

implementation of the Directive and its 2003 Amendment extending the scope, inter alia, in

relation to explosives, fertilisers and substances dangerous for the environment triggered by

the major accidents in Enschede, Toulouse and Baia Mare.

2.2. Operators

The main requirements the Seveso II Directive imposed on the operators of upper tier

establishments are those relating to Safety Reports, Safety Management Systems, and Internal

E Pl Th k i di h i hi i l i i



Safety Reports submitted in 2005 and 2008 (%)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

%

2005 99.3 96.2100.90.1100. 98.092.298.3100. 99.6100.100.61.9 100.100.83.389.4 88.698.794.7 96.2100.100.74.4 92.7

2008 94.3100.98.2100.98.1100. 100.98.3100.97.0 100.100.100.70.6 87.5100.83.399.5 91.197.595.297.3100.97.5100.99.0 95.1


2.3. Competent Authorities

The Directive imposes several obligations on Competent Authorities, of which the most

important are to examine the Safety Report and to communicate their conclusions to the

operator, to draw up External Emergency Plans, to ensure that the public liable to be affected

is informed on safety measures, to carry out inspections, to identify groups of establishmentswith possible "domino effects, and to take into account land-use planning implications of

major-accident hazards. Member States have provided a lot of specific information in their

national replies. However, within the limits of this reporting exercise, it is difficult to evaluate

in a statistically meaningful way the application of all such requirements. Therefore the

summary focuses only on some key aspects like External Emergency Planning, Information to

the Public and Inspections.

2.3.1. Elaboration of External Emergency Plans

Authorities designated for that purposes draw up External Emergency Plans for the measures

to be taken outside the establishment. These plans are important in containing and controlling

incidents so as to minimize the effects and to limit damage to man, the environment and

property



Development Number of Sites - Number of Plans

3677

1129

3969

2829

4528

4136

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Upper Tier Establishments External Emergency Plans

2002

2005

2008

Figure 4: Percentage (%) of External Emergency Plans for 2002, 2005, 2008

External Emergency Plans (%)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

%

2002 56.9 14.9 73.9 20.9 84.6 8.3 14.8 62.9 0.0 54.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0100.0 0.0 5.1 21.7 24.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 45.1

2005 56.9 73.4100.0 62.1 100.0100.074.3 67.5 87.0 68.4 0.0 75.9100.0 0.0 89.4 16.7 98.4 57.0 92.2 57.0 73.1 100.096.4 55.2 95.8

BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU M T NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK



according to the responses made, around 40 % of the existing external emergency plans were

tested.

Figure 5: Percentage (%)7 of Tested External Emergency Plans 2005 and 2008

Tested External Emergency Plans 2005 - 2008 (%)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

%

2005 0.0 5.2 55.0 5 1.8 0.0 0.0 56.0 2 8.7 55.0 2 1.5 0.0 100. 100. 0.0 100. 0.0 0.0 95.6 46.6 1 9.0 0.0 64.1 0.0 37.9 6 2.7

2008 115 77 25 50 77 24 112 43 66 56 0 103 306 0 100 33 0 85 109 35 82 100 154 74 27 65


2.3.3. Information to the public

Information on safety measures and on the requisite behaviour in the event of an accident has

to be supplied regularly, without their having to request it, to persons liable to be affected by a

major accident. The Directive leaves it open who is responsible for this. The maximum period

between the repetition of this information to the public is five years (two years longer than the

reporting period). Therefore the questionnaire asked for how many establishments

information had been made available during the period 2004-2008. Not all Member State

replies refer to this period.

Overall, the public was informed during the three/five-year period for around 80 % of the

establishments. This is an increase in comparison with the last period (72 %) and the period

preceding that (64 %). However it should be noted that the information is fragmentary with no

clear overall picture as regards whether, how and how effectively information was supplied.



Information to the Public (%)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

%

2003-2005 100. 65.075.0 57.8 0.0 49.012.798.356.5 100. 0.0 86.2 100. 0.0 97.9 0.0 100. 79.781.9 7.0 0.0 89.7 67.972.7 61.6

2006-2008 100 90 81 25 89 90 0 45 100 61 100 0 100 88 0 100 0 86 100 100 100 100 91 59 85

BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL A T PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK

2.3.4. Inspections

All Seveso sites have to be inspected or be subject to control measures appropriate to the type

of establishment concerned. Unless there is programme of inspections based upon a

systematic appraisal of major accident hazards of the particular establishment concerned, each

establishment shall be subject to at least one on-site inspection every 12 months.

The Member States' replies show that in 2008 66 % of the establishments were inspected.

This figure is practically unchanged in comparison with 2005: 69% or 2002: 66%.

The figures provided do not allow clear conclusions to be drawn as the frequency of

inspections is linked to the programme of inspections. This aspect may warrant furtherexamination in due course, particularly in those cases where the reported figures are low.

Figure: 7: Percentage (%) of Inspected Establishments in 2005 and 2008



Inspected Establishments in %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nr

2005 82 98 85 52 100 27 56 95 100 33 100 66 100 60 100 0 100 86 100 30 92 95 100 44 93

2008 8 2 63 100 8 4 58 1 00 35 49 98 100 3 0 100 97 88 88 1 00 100 8 1 39 100 1 6 100 100 6 8 54 38 74

BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL A T PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK

2.4. Major accidents

The number of major accidents is a key indicator to measure the performance of the Directive

and its aim to prevent accidents.

The following numbers of accidents were reported to eMARS, the Major Accident Reporting

System8 under Article 15 (1) and Annex VI of the Directive, including accidents in bothupper- and lower-tier Seveso establishments. Per year, around 20 to 35 major accidents occur

in the EU.

Due to delays in accident reporting mainly caused by the time taken to complete legal

proceedings, the figures for the last few years may still rise.

However considering the increase in the number of establishments, relatively fewer major

accidents happened per establishment. The frequency of accidents, which had for many years

been higher than 3 per 1000 establishments per year, seems to be falling to under 3 on average

for the latest reporting period and will hopefully approach 2 in the near future. This tendency

suggests that the Directive is meeting its objectives.

Figure: 8: Major Accidents in the last three Reporting Periods

http://mahbsrv.jrc.it/Activities-WhatIsMars.html






Major Accidents EU

8682

79

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008

3. CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD

The above analysis confirms that the Directive is working well and that implementation bythe Member States has substantially improved. The number of Seveso establishments

increased in this reporting period by 10 % to 4528 sites whilst the number of major accidents

decreased. However there are deficiencies in some areas in some Member States. Remedial

action should be taken where appropriate further to improve implementation.

Industry operators would appear to comply to a large extent with the requirements of the

Directive as demonstrated by the figures about the quantity of safety reports and internal

emergency plans this.

Concerning the obligation of authorities to draw up external Emergency Plans, a steep rise can

be noted in the last few years. By the end of 2008, the level of available external plans had

reached over 90%, a level that should have subsequently increased further following the

infringement procedures launched against most Member States in 2007/2008 This clearly



for example, rising from around 40 to 60 %, indicates positive progress, but does not enable

any conclusions to be drawn about the quality of the plans, the tests or the response

arrangements.

The overall performance on information supplied to public has increased but is still not

optimal. Moreover the bare figures show a wide variation between Member States, and

information is lacking about the ways how information is supplied and measured. The results

raise doubts whether information on safety measures and the requisite behaviour in the event

of an accident has in fact reached all the people liable to be affected. This topic, and the

possible need to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the existing provisions, will be

addressed in the current review of the Directive (see below).

As regards inspections, it is interesting to note that the overall percentage of inspected

establishments is practically unchanged over the last three reporting periods. The figures

reveal nothing about the quality and effectiveness of inspections. Furthermore it is unclear

whether or not any improvements are necessary or would be feasible. The Commission notes

that a relatively high number of establishments remain uninspected in a given year. It assumes

that this may be due to inspection frequency being followed in line with the flexibility

provided by the Directive relating to programmes of inspections. However, some

improvements to ensure better inspections and more coordination, also at EU level, may be

warranted.

Finally, the Commission notes that the quality and volume of the data submitted to the

Commission has not changed much in recent reporting periods and that this exercise produces

only limited meaningful results. Therefore the Commission intends to address the reporting

system itself in the review, with a view to ensuring more coherent and effective arrangementsfor all information obligations under the Directive, without imposing unnecessary additional

burdens on operators and authorities.

Way forward

The Commission will take the findings of this report into account in the review of the

Directive, which is expected to lead to a legal proposal for a revised or new Directive later

this year. The review will address the overall effectiveness of the Directive and examine possible improvements taking into account the conclusions of this report.

This summary is the penultimate report under the existing Directive. The questionnaire for

next reporting period 2009-2011 has already been agreed 9. Member States are invited to

report about the application in the current period by 30 September 2012. Future reporting



EN 11 EN

Annex 1Provisions >

Member Statev

UpperTier

establ.2008

UpperTier

establ.2005

UpperTier

establ.2002

SafetyReport 08

not yetsubmitted

InternalEmergency

Plans 08

not yetdrawn up

ExternalEmergency

Plans 08

not yetdrawn up

ExternalEmergency

Plans 05

not yetdrawn up

EEPstested

06+07+08

EEPstested

03+04+05

Info tothe

public06+07+08

Info tothe

public03+04+05

Inspectedin 2008

Inspectedin 2005

Belgium 174 137 137 10 0 87 59 99 0 174 137 143 112

Bulgaria 52 0 0 0 0 40 47 33

Czech Republic 112 79 74 2 2 6 21 22 3 91 51 112 77

Denmark 44 20 23 0 0 0 0 22 11 11 15 37 17

Germany 1077 976 815 21 20 68 370 703 314 955 564 624 505

Estonia 21 14 13 0 0 0 0 5 0 19 21 14

Greece 83 100 108 0 0 10 0 0 0 49 29 27

Spain 295 245 216 5 6 85 63 236 102 133 31 146 138

France 553 593 626 0 6 0 191 229 114 573 583 543 565

Ireland 33 23 20 1 0 1 3 21 11 20 13 33 23

Italy 518 462 474 0 0 9 146 286 68 518 462 156 153

Cyprus 11 13 14 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 11 13

Latvia 30 29 19 0 0 0 7 31 22 30 25 29 19

Lithuania 17 21 14 5 0 0 0 52 44 15 30 15 21

Luxembourg 8 5 2 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 7 3

Hungary 63 47 46 0 0 0 5 63 85 70 46 63 47

Malta 6 6 9 1 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 6 0

Netherlands 221 188 176 1 0 0 3 0 188 179 188

Austria 79 79 60 7 8 10 34 57 43 68 63 31 68

Poland 161 149 146 4 3 10 9 134 54 162 122 161 149

Portugal 62 57 44 3 2 39 36 8 4 4 10 17

Romania 113 3 3 7 0 86 113 113

Slovenia 24 26 26 0 0 0 7 24 0 24 0 24 24

Slovakia 40 39 38 1 1 2 0 57 25 40 35 27 37

Finland 127 84 80 0 0 25 3 75 0 115 57 68 92

Sweden 195 172 133 2 9 12 77 50 36 115 125 75 75

UK 409 385 364 20 20 20 42 251 215 349 237 303 357

Σ EU-27 4528 3949 3677 87 81 392 1099 2553 1151 3642 2837 2999 2741



EN 12 EN

Documents

Seveso II EC Report on Application of Directive 2006_2008_en