EN

EN

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)

EN

EN

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 report 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 questionnaire 3 , 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 2000-2002 4 and 2003-2005 5 , 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 most recent information and because Romania and Bulgaria acceded to the EU in 2007. Annex 1 contains an excerpt of provided figures.

2 3

4 5 6

Directive 96/82/EC, OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p.13; amended by Directive 2003/105/EC, OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p.97 Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991, OJ L377, 31.12.1991, p. 48 Document C(2005)3103 final, Commission Decision of 13/10/2005 not to be published in the Official Journal of the European Union Document C(2004)3335 Document C/2007/3842, Dossier PE/2007/1729, 14.08.2007 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/seveso/implementation.htm

EN

EN

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

Nr of upper tier establishments

1000 800 600 400 200 0

BE

BG

CZ 79

DK 20

DE 976

EE 14

EL

ES

FR

IE 23 33

IT 462 518

CY 13 11

LV 29 30

LT 21 17

LU 5 8

HU 47 63

MT 6 6

NL 188 221

AT 79 79

PL 149 161

PT 57 62

RO

SI 26

SK 39 40

FI 84

SE

UK

2005 137 2008 174 52

100 245 593 83 295 553

172 385

112

44 1077 21

113

24

127 195 409

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 Emergency Plans. The key indicator chosen in this summary to assess implementation in industry is the submission of Safety Reports. The Member States' replies indicate that by 2008 98% of the operators had submitted a Safety Report to the Competent Authorities. This represents a further increase in comparison with 2005: 94% and 2002: 93 %. The figures for internal emergency plans are very similar. Figure 2: Percentage (%) of Safety Reports submitted in 2008

EN

EN

Safety Reports submitted in 2005 and 2008 (%)

%

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0
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 96.2100.100.74.4 92.7

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

2008 94.3100. 98.2100.98.1100. 100.98.3100.97.0 100.100.100.70.6 87.5100.83.399.5 91.197.595.297.3 100.97.5100.99.0 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 establishments with 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. The percentage of establishments covered by such plans, which had been unacceptably low in the last two reporting periods (68.1 % in 2005, 34.4 % in 2002; EU-25), has improved significantly. At the end of 2008, the average level had reached 91.3%. The strong increase in the last three reporting periods is shown in Figure 3: Figure 3: Number of Establishments and External Emergency Plans 2002, 2005, 2008

EN

EN

Development Number of Sites - Number of Plans

5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Upper Tier Establishments External Emergency Plans 1129 3677 3969 4528 4136

2829

2002 2005 2008

Figure 4: Percentage (%) of External Emergency Plans for 2002, 2005, 2008
% 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0
B E B G CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR 2002 56.9 2005 56.9 IE IT CY LV LT LU HU M T NL A T P L P T RO 5.1 21 .7 24.7 2.3 SI SK FI SE UK 1 4.9 73.9 20.9 84.6 8.3 1 4.8 62.9 0.0 54.2 0.0 0.0 1 00.0 1 00.01 00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 45.1 73.1 1 00.0 96.4 55.2 95.8

External Emergency Plans (% )

73.4 1 00.0 62.1 1 00.01 00.0 74.3 67.5 87.0 68.4 0.0 75.9 1 00.0 0.0 89.4 1 6.7 98.4 57.0 92.2 57.0

00 93.6 1 00 93.1 1 00 88 71 .2 1 00 97 98.3 1 00 1 00 1 00 85.7 1 00 1 00 1 00 87 92.5 37.1 93.8 1 00 94.9 80.3 93.8 95 2008 49.7 1

2.3.2.

Testing and Review of External Emergency Plans

Emergency plans have to be reviewed and tested at intervals of no longer than three years. In the period 2006-2008, Member States reported 2553 tests. Although no exact statistical evaluation is possible because some plans may have been tested more than once and other plans not at all in this period, it can be estimated that external plans were tested for more than 60 % of the establishments. This is significantly more than for the period 2003-2005 when,

EN

EN

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 (%)

% 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

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

2005 0.0 2008 115 77

5.2 55.0 51.8 0.0 0.0 56.0 28.7 55.0 21.5 0.0 100. 100. 0.0 100. 0.0 0.0 95.6 46.6 19.0 25 50 77 24 112 43 66 56 0 103 306 0 100 33 0 85 109 35

0.0 64.1 0.0 37.9 62.7 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. Figure 6: Percentage (%) of establishments for which info is given to the public

Figures > 100% for 2008: number of tests over the period higher than number of plans

EN

EN

%
100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

Information to the Public (%)

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

2003-2005 100.

65.0 75.0 57.8 0.0 49.0 12.7 98.3 56.5 100. 0.0 86.2 100. 0.0 97.9 0.0 100. 79.7 81.9 7.0 0 45 100 61 100 0 100 88 0 100 0 86 100

0.0 89.7 67.9 72.7 61.6 100 100 100 91 59 85

2006-2008 100 90 81 25 89 90

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 further examination in due course, particularly in those cases where the reported figures are low. Figure: 7: Percentage (%) of Inspected Establishments in 2005 and 2008

EN

EN

Nr 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Inspected Establishments in %

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 92 95 100 44 93

2005 82

98 85 52 100 27 56 95 100 33 100 66 100 60 100 0 100 86 100 30

2008 82 63 100 84 58 100 35 49 98 100 30 100 97 88 88 100 100 81 39 100 16 100 100 68 54 38 74

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 System 8 under Article 15 (1) and Annex VI of the Directive, including accidents in both upper- 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://emars.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

EN

EN

Major Accidents EU
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 86 82 79

3.

CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD

The above analysis confirms that the Directive is working well and that implementation by the 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 demonstrates that improved enforcement of such requirements is useful and helps to improve safety. This example also shows the usefulness of this reporting exercise, which provides for possible shortcomings in application to be identified as well as progress made in remedying these. So far as other obligations of authorities are concerned, this reporting exercise has its limitations. Comparison with previous reporting periods indicate a positive trend in overall performance, but it is difficult to draw clear conclusions on the basis of figures that refer to different or unknown frequencies or reference periods, or where the relevant provisions in the directive give a wider time-frame for the various actions, such as for "tests" of emergency plans, information to the public, or for inspections. The increase in tested emergency plans,

EN

EN

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 arrangements for 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 beyond that period is likely to be subject to the next Directive. Finally, the Commission will monitor progress on implementation closely, and take action as appropriate. In particular, the Commission will continue to support and assist Member States in their implementation activities, and encourage them further to improve their level of performance where necessary.

Document C(2008)5088 final, 19.09.2008, in 22 languages

EN

10

EN

Annex 1 Provisions > Member State v

Upper Tier establ. 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 4528

Upper Tier establ. 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 3949

Upper Tier establ. 2002 137 74 23 815 13 108 216 626 20 474 14 19 14 2 46 9 176 60 146 44 26 38 80 133 364 3677

Safety Report 08 not yet submitted 10 0 2 0 21 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 1 7 4 3 3 0 1 0 2 20 87

Internal Emergency Plans 08 not yet drawn up 0 0 2 0 20 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 3 2 3 0 1 0 9 20 81

External Emergency Plans 08 not yet drawn up 87 0 6 0 68 0 10 85 0 1 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 10 39 7 0 2 25 12 20 392

External Emergency Plans 05 not yet drawn up 59 0 21 0 370 0 0 63 191 3 146 13 7 0 5 5 5 3 34 9 36 0 7 0 3 77 42 1099

EEPs tested 06+07+08 99 40 22 22 703 5 236 229 21 286 0 31 52 0 63 2 57 134 8 86 24 57 75 50 251 2553

EEPs tested 03+04+05 0 3 11 314 0 0 102 114 11 68 0 22 44 0 85 0 0 43 54 4 0 25 0 36 215 1151

Info to the public 06+07+08 174 47 91 11 955 19 0 133 573 20 518 0 30 15 0 70 0 68 162 113 24 40 115 115 349 3642

Info to the public 03+04+05 137 51 15 564 49 31 583 13 462 0 25 30 0 46 0 188 63 122 4 0 35 57 125 237 2837

Inspected in 2008

Inspected in 2005

Belgium Bulgaria Czech Republic Denmark Germany Estonia Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Cyprus Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Hungary Malta Netherlands Austria Poland Portugal Romania Slovenia Slovakia Finland Sweden UK EU-27

143 33 112 37 624 21 29 146 543 33 156 11 29 15 7 63 6 179 31 161 10 113 24 27 68 75 303 2999

112 77 17 505 14 27 138 565 23 153 13 19 21 3 47 0 188 68 149 17 24 37 92 75 357 2741

EN

11

EN

EN

12

EN