No C 101/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 4. 86 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 82/501/EEC on the 
major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities (l) 
(86/C 101/05) 
Procedure 
On 13 November 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, in 
accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Social Questions, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on 
the matter, adopted its opinion on 13 February 1986 in the light on the report by Mr Brassier. 
At its 234th Plenary Session (meeting of 26 February 1986) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following opinion by 80 votes to 12 with 14 abstentions: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The purpose of the Commission proposal, which 
has been presented in accordance with the provisions of 
Article 19 of the Directive of 24 June 1982 (2), is to amend 
Annexes I, II and III of this same Directive. 
The Commission proposes a limited revision which will not 
substantially alter the scope and contents of the provisions 
adopted in 1982. 
1.2. The Commission's basic aim is to refine the 
definition of certain substances, categories of substances 
and the quantitative limits relating thereto. The Commis­
sion also seeks to tighten up the provisions on certain 
industrial activities which involve particularly dangerous 
substances. It is planned to carry out a more fundamental 
revision at a later date when experience in implementing 
the Directive is greater and more significant. Five years 
after the notification of the Directive (Article 18) a report 
will have to be drawn up by the Commission on the 
Directive's application. Whether or not the more funda­
mental revision takes place will depend on the conclusions 
of this report. 
1.3. Subject to the following comments, the Committee 
approves the Commission's proposal and reaffirms the 
importance it attaches to the adoption and effective 
implementation of measures designed to (a) prevent major 
accidents caused by certain industrial activities, and (b) 
limit their consequences for workers, the general public and 
the environment. In this connection the Committee would 
recall the comments made in the Committee's opinion of 26 
March 1980 (3)on the proposal for a Council Directive on 
the major accident hazards of certain industrial activities, 
and would emphasize that the catastrophes of recent years 
confirm, if confirmation were necessary, the need for 
effective regulations in this field. Such regulations would be 
constantly and rapidly adapted to any new hazards, on the 
basis of precise scientific criteria. The Committee would 
add that, in accordance with the definition given in Article 
1 (2) (c) of the original Directive, major accidents include 
not only catastrophe-type accidents but also any major 
occurrence 'leading to a serious danger to the individual, 
immediate or delayed'. 
(!) OJ No C 305, 25. 11. 1986, p. 9. 
(2) OJ No L 230, 5. 8. 1982, p. 1. 
(3) OJ No C 182, 21.7.1980. 1.4. The reasons which have led the Commission to 
amend Annexes I, II and III are essentially the same as those 
advanced on several occasions by the Committee when 
calling for improvements in the protection of workers, the 
general public and the environment against accident 
hazards. Such concern has found expression in particular in 
two Committee opinions, one on the proposal for a Council 
resolution on a second programme of action of the 
European Communities on safety and health at work (4), 
the other on the proposal for a Council Directive 
concerning the assessment of the environmental effects of 
certain public and private projects (5). 
1.5.1. Despite the occasional minor differences of 
opinion about specific points in the proposal (recorded in 
the report), the Committee considers that the proposal is a 
satisfactory compromise between the need to effectively 
limit hazards in the light of current scientific knowledge 
and practical experience, and the need to take account of 
the constraints and economic realities actually faced by the 
firms and competent authorities concerned. Looking at the 
criteria used by the Commission in its choice of substances 
and quantities, one can see that efforts have been made to 
satisfy this dual requirement. The Committee nevertheless 
calls upon the Commission to continue its efforts to acquire 
a better knowledge of different industrial processes so that 
it can introduce criteria which are as objective and scientific 
as possible, thereby making it possible to bring the Annexes 
into line with scientific and industrial developments. 
1.5.2. Whilst noting the Commission representatives' 
explanations according to which the proposed amend­
ments are based on (a) an objective, scientific examination 
of the situation, and (b) an awareness of economic realities, 
the Committee regrets that the Commission's working 
method has been such that neither the Economic and Social 
Committee nor the Advisory Committee on Safety, 
Hygiene and Health Protection at Work has been 
adequately informed about the Commission's reasons for, 
and criteria used in, seeking to amend certain threshold 
values laid down in Annexes II and III of the Directive. 
(4) OJ No C 176, 4. 7. 1983, p. 16. 
(5) OJ No C 185, 27. 7. 1981, p. 8. 
28. 4. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 101/11 
The Committee would also like to see the competent 
authorities and firms concerned make joint efforts to 
supply the public with more information about the risks 
involved with certain types of products. 
1.6.1. The Committee notes the comments regarding the 
performance of the 1982 Directive and forcefully recom­
mends that particular attention be paid to ensuring that the 
provisions are effectively and fully implemented in all the 
Member States within the deadlines set. This means, in 
particular, compliance with Article 9 (4) which fixes 8 July 
1989 as the deadline for implementation of Article 5 (J) 
1.6.2. The Committee considers in this respect that 
objective, complete information needs to be provided as 
soon as possible on: 
— the national legislation adopted by individual Member 
States in order to comply with the Directive, 
— the manner in which national legislation has been 
implemented in the Member States and the deadlines 
which have been set, 
— the monitoring methods and penalties provided for by 
the Member States. 
The Committee considers that such information is essential 
to avoid all divergent interpretations which might result in 
damaging distortions of competition. 
1.7. The major-accident hazards involved in the 
transport of dangerous substances do not fall within the 
Directive. However, the Committee would emphasize the 
need for effective Community legislation in this area. (2) 
1.8.1. Finally, the Committee would stress that the 
adoption of Community and national measures on the 
major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities must 
not lead to an 'export' of risks to countries where safety 
rules might be less rigorous. To allow such a situation to 
develop would be immoral and particularly unacceptable 
not only from a strictly human point of view but also 
socially and economically. 
1.8.2. The Committee considers here that the Member 
States and the Community should contemplate joint action 
(J) These provisions stipulate: 'Moreover, Member States shall 
ensure that the manufacturer shall, at the latest on 8 July 1989, 
supplement the declaration provided for in paragraph 3, 
second subparagraph, with the data and information specified 
in Article 5. Manufacturers shall normally be obliged to 
forward such supplementary declaration to the competent 
authority. However, Member States may waive the obligation 
on manufacturers to submit the supplementary declaration; in 
that event such declaration shall be submitted to the competent 
authority at the explicit request of the latter'. (OJ No L 230, 
5.8. 1982. p. 5). 
(2) See the opinion of the ESC on the proposal for a Council 
Directive amending Directive 84/631/EEC on the supervision 
and control within the European Community of the trans­
frontier shipment of hazardous waste (CES 1085/85). under the umbrella of international organizations such as 
the UN to prevent any 'export' of the risks of the kind 
covered by the Directive on major accident hazards, and to 
guarantee the transfer of technology under safe conditions. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Recitals 
Third recital 
The Committee notes that the Commission's aim is not to 
extend the scope of Article 5 to all industrial activities but 
only to those activities entailing risks of major accidents. 
This is a pre-condition for the Directive's credibility. 
Last Recital 
The Committee considers that the Advisory Committee on 
Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work has not in 
this case been consulted under satisfactory circumstances 
and hopes that in future cooperation between this Advisory 
Committee and the Commission will be more effective. 
2.2. Amendments to Annex I (Industrial installations 
within the meaning of Article 1) 
The Committee shares the Commission's desire to clarify 
the wording and approves the proposed amendments. 
These do not very greatly affect the scope of the Directive as 
laid down in Article 1 (2) (a), the aim of which is basically to 
guarantee uniform interpretation in all Member States. The 
Committee nevertheless calls on the Commission to iron 
out any remaining inaccuracies and divergencies between 
the different language versions so as to avoid any 
distortions in the application of the Directive and its 
Annexes in the various Member States. 
It is therefore agreed: 
1. That the list is not exhaustive and may be extended; 
2. That the new text refers, more generally, to industrial 
installations for production, processing or treatment. 
2.3. Amendments to Annex II (isolated storage) 
The Committee approves the proposed changes to this 
Annex, particularly: 
— the lowering of the quantitative threshold for chlorine 
(from 200 to 50 tonnes) in so far as the application of 
Article 5 of the Directive is concerned, 
— the distinction between ammonium nitrate (the new 
quantitative thresholds are lowered) and ammonium 
nitrate fertilizers (the quantitative thresholds are the 
same as those originally set for ammonium nitrate in the 
1982 Directive). 
NoC 101/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 4. 86 
present no risks of major accidents. To this extent, the new 
provisions are less stringent than the Directive's current 
rules. 
2.4.2. The Committee also considers that the appear­
ance of nickel and cobalt in the list set out in Annex III is 
justified, notably on account of the definition of a 'major 
accident' given in Article 1 (2) (c) of the 1982 Directive 
which talks of a 'serious danger to man, immediate, or 
delayed'. These two substances, i.e. nickel and cobalt, may 
in fact be carcinogenic in certain forms. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
APPENDIX 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Rejected amendments 
The following amendments tabled in accordance with the Rule of Procedure were rejected by the Committee in 
the course of the discussions: 
Paragraph 2.3. 
Amend the text as follows: (amended text in italic) 
'2.3. Amendments to Annex II (isolated storage) 
The Section approves certain of the proposed changes to this Annex, but finds it impossible to approve other 
changes in view of the absence on any relevant objective scientific, technical and economic criteria (see sections 
1.5.1. and 1.5.2. of the Draft Opinion) submitted by the Commission. Particularly: 
— the lowering of the quantitative threshold for chlorine (from 200 to 50 tonnes) and the choice of the 
threshold for sulphur trioxide (50 tonnes) in so far as the application of Article 5 is concerned; 
— the Section approves the distinction between ammonium nitrate (— ) and ammonium nitrate fertilizers (—). 
Reasons 
During the Study Group meetings, the Commission did not provide any objective scientific, technical or 
economic evidence for the proposed reductions in thresholds, or for the choices of other thresholds. Yet the 
Group agreed that such evidence was necessary to enable logical conclusions to be reached. 
The impression given to the Study Group was that many of the proposed changes were arbitrary, some perhaps 
based on popular perception rather than objective criteria, some on false premises (e.g. based on the German 
Storfallverordnung's different criteria), some perhaps on major accidents elsewhere in the world under 
conditions different from those in the Community. The one major accident within the Community which was 
discussed (Naples) concerned flammable and not toxic substances whose lowered thresholds are questioned. 2.4. Amendments to Annex III (list of substances 
covered by Article 5 of the Directive — Notification 
procedure) 
2.4.1. The Committee approves the proposed changes 
to this Annex. 
The Committee notes that in setting minimum quantities 
for cobalt chlorides, nickel chlorides and nickel sulphates, 
the Commission has been guided by the wish to exclude 
from the Directive small installations which obviously 
Done at Brussels, 26 February 1986. 
28. 4. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities NoC 101/13 
The lower thresholds for application of Article 5 of the Directive, which are proposed without changes to the 
thresholds for application of Articles 3 and 4, will simply mean that the formality of notification has to be done 
for many more installations (with the corresponding increase in paperwork for the manufacturers and 
authorities) without improving safety (which is safeguarded by the installations in any case falling under the 
Directive's Articles 3 and 4). 
Result of the vote 
For: 25. Against: 77. Abstentions: 12. 
Paragraph 2.4. 
Amend the text as follows: (amended text in italic) 
'2.4. Amendments to Annex III (list of substances covered by Article 5 of the Directive — notification 
procedure). 
2.4.1. As for Annex 11, the Section approves certain of the proposed changes to this Annex, but cannot 
approve other proposed changes in the absence of supporting evidence. 
The Section approves the identification of specific forms of cobalt and nickel instead of the use of generic 
groups, and notes that in setting minimum quantities for cobalt chlorides, nickel chlorides and nickel sulphates, 
the Commission has been guided by the wish to exclude from the Directive installations which obviously 
present no risks of major accidents. Consequently, the new provisions are less stringent than the Directive's 
current rules. 
2.4.2. The Section also notes that the Commission justifies the appearance in Annex III of those forms of 
cobalt and nickel whose toxicity is low notably on account of the definition of a 'major accident' given in Article 
l(2)(c) of the 1982 Directive which talks of a 'serious danger to man, immediate or delayed'; indeed, on account 
of nickel and cobalt in certain forms being able to have carcinogenic properties. 
The Section notes, however, that scientific evidence is far from agreed that these forms of cobalt and nickel are, 
indeed, carcinogenic, and that in any case carcinogenicity is not included among the criteria (in Annex IV of the 
Directive) which qualify substances for inclusion within the scope of the Directive. 
2.4.3. Referring to the remarks concerning the Section's inability to approve changes to thresholds in the 
absence of supporting envidence, this applies in particular to: 
The lowering of thresholds of phosgene, chlorine, methyl isocyanate and sulphur dioxide; and to the choice of 
threshold for sulphur trioxide. For example, the toxicity of sulphur trioxide is not significantly higher than that 
of sulphur dioxide and the vapour pressure considerably less so that the risk associated with sulphur trioxide is 
correspondingly lower; yet the proposed thresholds of sulphur trioxide ans sulphur dioxide are 25 and 500 tons 
respectively.' 
Reasons 
See above. 
Result of the vote 
For: 21. Against: 71. Abstentions: 8.