WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3911/97 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Seveso directive
Date: 1997-12-11
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: accident prevention, dangerous substance, environmental impact, health control, industrial hazard, pollution control measures, prevention of pollution, public health, safety standard, technical standard













EUR-Lex - 91997E3911 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3911

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3911/97 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Seveso directive  


Official Journal C 187 , 16/06/1998 P. 0083 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3911/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (11 December 1997)Subject: Seveso directiveFor 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 96/61/EC requires the installations it governs to be so operated that all appropriate preventive measures are taken against pollution, in particular through application of the best available technology, and that the necessary measures are taken to prevent accidents and limit their consequences (Article 3(a) and (e)).Are Directives 96/61/EC and 96/82/EC to be so implemented by the Member States that installations governed by both directives must incorporate the best available technology in order, inter alia, to prevent accidents and limit their consequences and that this must be demonstrated by operators in the safety report required by Article 9 of Directive 96/82/EC?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (26 January 1998)The Seveso II Directive (Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances) makes no explicit mention of 'best available technology'. However, Article 5 of the Directive requires operators to take all measures necessary to prevent major accidents and to limit their consequences for man and the environment.Meanwhile, the definition of 'best available techniques' in Article 2(11) of the IPPC Directive refers to 'the most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation which indicate the practical suitability of particular techniques for providing in principle the basis for emission limit values designed to prevent and, where that is not practicable, generally to reduce emissions and the impact on the environment as a whole'. The definition does not exclude emissions and impact on the environment resulting from a major accident.Annex IV, point 11 to the IPPC Directive also specifies that considerations to be taken into account generally or in specific cases when determining best available techniques, bearing in mind the likely costs and benefits of a measure and the principles of precaution and prevention, include the need to prevent accidents and to minimise the consequences for the environment.Thus for installations which are covered both by the IPPC Directive and by the Seveso II Directive, 'best available techniques' too must be taken into account in preventing accidents and limiting their impact.