WRITTEN QUESTION E-3910/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (11 December 1997)

Subject: Seveso directive

For requirements relating to the protection of the environment and the safety of establishments the directives

- of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC) ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )),

- of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (96/61/EC) ((OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26. )) and

- of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (96/82/EC) ((OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13. ))

are of fundamental importance. The last two of these directives must be implemented by the Member States by 1999 at the latest. During the discussions this has prompted a number of views giving rise to the following questions to the Commission have been put forward.

Directive 85/337/EEC requires the assessment of the impact of certain projects on the environment as part of an authorization procedure. Directive 96/61/EC requires that no new installation be operated without a permit and that existing installations similarly satisfy the requirements of Article 3. Articles 6 and 3 require that, before a permit is issued, evidence be produced to show that the necessary measures have been taken to prevent accidents and limit their consequences.

Are these provisions to be so implemented that during the authorization procedures for installations governed by all three directives reference is made to those parts of a safety report drawn up pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 96/82/EC which relate to such installations pursuant to Annex II to the directive, or may the Member States specify that the authorization procedures pursuant to Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC are to be completed on the basis of other documents relating to the said requirements?

Are the directives to be so implemented by the Member States that the examination of the safety reports in accordance with Articles 9(4) and 10 of Directive 96/82/EC takes place independently of the authorization procedures required by the first two directives referred to above, or does Article 7 of Directive 96/61/EC mean that Directive 96/82/EC is to be so implemented that this examination forms part of the integrated approach to issuing permits?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3909/97 and E-3910/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 February 1998)

The three Council Directives mentioned concerning the assessment of the impact on the environment, the prevention and integral reduction of pollution (PIRP) and the hazards linked with major incidents involving dangerous substances were not devised by the Commission in accordance with a uniform 'principle' in having been devised and planned as a homogeneous whole.

However, the Commission ensured that, when drawing up Community environment law, the various standards included did not contain any mutually conflicting provisions. Definitions such as those of the concept of 'installation', for example, are in each case modulated in the light of the aims of the instrument under consideration, and their scope is not therefore necessarily identical.

The distribution of powers between the Community Member States gives the latter a certain latitude in transposing Community law. That room for manoeuvre enables account to be taken of, in particular, the differing legal and administrative structures in each country. This means that the Member States may decide separately to transpose the legal instruments concerned. It would thus in principle be permissible at national level for different documents (such as safety reports) and separate checks to be required before various authorisations are issued.

The rationality of that method is obviously another problem. The use of the same documents for the purpose of impact studies, the integral operating permits provided for by the PIRP Directive and the authorisations under the Seveso II Directive (Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances) enable the procedure to be simplified considerably and may also enable the cost to be lowered for not only the applicant but also for the administrations concerned. It would thus be conceivable and desirable for common approval to be granted to the installations covered by the three Directives. The PIRP Directive has, moreover, provided the practical impetus needed for the integral study of the environmental impact to be extended via an overall approach by the authorisation procedure.

In March 1997 the Commission held a symposium during which the common points in the above-mentioned legal instruments were examined in more detail and the scope for harmonised implementation within the authorisation procedure was explored. It will continue to encourage the Member States to pursue a consistent method and to take steps to help them. The network for implementing Community environmental law (IMPEL) also included this set of problems in its action programme for 1998.