Report on the application in the Member States of Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on the major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities for the period 1997-1999
Date: 2002-01-31
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EC Directive, EU Member State, application of EU law, dangerous substance, occupational accident, report, secondary sector

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/1

I

(Information)

COUNCIL

Report on the application in the Member States of Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on the
major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities for the period 1997-1999

(2002/C 28/01)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. THE SEVESO DIRECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1.

General overview of the main obligations laid down in the Seveso Directive

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.

Amendments to the Seveso Directive

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.1.

Council Directive 87/216/EEC of 19 March 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.2.

Council Directive 88/610/EEC of 24 November 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.3.

Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.

The new Seveso II Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. TRANSPOSITION OF THE SEVESO DIRECTIVE AND ITS AMENDMENTS IN THE MEMBER STATES . . . . .

3.1.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.2.

Situation with regard to complaints and infringements of the Seveso II Directive
(status September 2001)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. APPLICATION IN PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1.

The questionnaires

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1.1.

The questionnaires for the reporting period 1997-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1.2. Answers to the questionnaires for the reporting period 1997-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.

Situation in the Member States

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.1.

Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.2. Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.3. Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.4. Greece

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.5.

Spain

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.6.

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.7.

Ireland

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

C 28/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

4.2.8.

Italy

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.9.

Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.10. Netherlands

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.11. Austria

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.12. Portugal

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.13. Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.14. Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.15. United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.16. Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. COMMITTEE OF COMPETENT AUTHORITIES (CCA)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. OTHER COMMISSION ACTIVITIES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.1.

6.2.

Major-Accident Hazards Bureau (MAHB)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Accidents reported to the MARS Database

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.2.1.

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.2.2.

Changes due to Seveso II

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.2.3.

System and Information Structure

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.2.4.

Characteristics of Accidents

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.2.5.

Trends in accidents and their characteristics

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.2.6.

Extension of MARS beyond the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.3.

Seveso Plant Information Retrieval System (SPIRS)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.3.1.

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.3.2.

Features of the System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.3.3. Adoption of SPIRS by the Competent Authorities

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.3.4.

Current Status of Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.4.

6.5.

Community Documentation Centre on Industrial Risk (CDCIR)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technical Working Groups; seminars and workshops; studies

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.5.1.

Technical Working Groups

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.5.2.

Seminars and workshops

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.5.3.

Studies

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7.1.

7.2.

Weakness of the current reporting system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Main outcomes

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7.2.1.

Inspection system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7.2.2.

Information to the public

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7.2.3.

Safety reports

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

14

15

16

17

19

20

23

24

25

26

26

26

27

27

27

27

28

30

30

31

31

31

31

32

32

32

32

33

33

34

34

34

35

35

36

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/3

1.

INTRODUCTION

Council Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on
certain industrial
the major-accident hazards of
activities (1)
Seveso
known
Directive) aims at the prevention of major accidents
involving dangerous substances and the limitation of
their consequences for man and environment.

(commonly

the

as

It requires industrial operators, Member States and the
Commission to take a number of measures.

the

and

shall

Article 18 of the Directive provided that the Member
States
exchange
Commission
information on the experience acquired with regard
to the prevention of Major Accidents and the
limitation of
five years after
notification of the Directive, the Commission must
forward to the Council and the European Parliament a
report on its application, to be drawn up on the basis
of this exchange of information.

their consequences;

On 18 May 1988, the Commission presented a first
report (2) on the application in the Member States of
the Seveso Directive.

Council Directive 91/692/EEC (3) has since replaced
has
Article 18 of Directive 82/501/EEC and
introduced a new requirement
the
that obliges
starting
Commission to prepare triannual
with the period 1994-1996.

reports,

According to Directive 91/692/EEC, this report shall
be drawn up on the basis of a questionnaire or
outline
the
Commission shall publish a Community report on the
implementation of the Directive within nine months
of receiving the reports from the Member States.

the Commission

drafted

and

by

describes the amendments to the Directive.
It also
contains information on the new Seveso II Directive
that has replaced the original Seveso Directive as from
3 February 1999 (Chapter 2).

The next part of the report covers the transposition of
the Seveso Directive and its amendments into national
laws, regulations and administrative provisions in the
Member States (Chapter 3).

Chapter 4 starts with the questionnaires that have
been used in the reporting period 1997-1999 and
then goes on to the specific situations in the Member
States.

5)

(Chapter

Further chapters cover the work of the Committee of
Competent Authorities
other
Commission activities during the reporting period
1997-1999, such as data collection on accidents and
dissemination of information, performed by the Major
Accident Hazards Bureau (MAHB), as well as activities
such
conferences
(Chapter 6).

as workshops,

seminars

and

and

The report
attempt
Member States has been carried out (Chapter 7).

finishes with a summary in which an
to compare the situation in the different

some

cases, Member

States provided

In
also
information related to a period beyond 1999. When
information related to a period beyond 1999 has
this has been clearly indicated and,
been used,
therefore,
to a limited extent, will
comment on circumstances related to a period after
1999.

the Report,

2.

THE SEVESO DIRECTIVE

On 12 October 1999, the Commission publishes the
report (4) for the period 1994-1996. This document
is the report for the period 1997-1999.

2.1.

General overview of the main obligations laid
down in the Seveso Directive

Directive 82/501/EEC has been repealed effect as
from 3 February 1999 and replaced by Directive
96/82/EC. According to Article 19(4) of the latter, the
reporting is unchanged. The report covers the Seveso
I Directive, and, when available, information on the
implementation of the Seveso II Directive has also
been added. The reporting is made according to the
amended pro forma (see 4.1.1).

This report starts with a general overview of the main
obligations of the Seveso Directive and then briefly

(1) OJ L 230, 5.8.1982, p. 1.
(2) COM (88) 261 final.
(3) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 48.
(4) OJ C 291, 1.10.1991.

The Seveso Directive applies to existing industrial
activities, i.e. those established before 8 January 1984
and to new industrial activities, i.e. those brought into
use after 8 January 1984.

It lays down two types of obligations:

(cid:151) General obligations of the type set out in Articles
3 and 4,
and
measures to prevent major accidents in industrial
installations of the kind covered by Annexes I and
IV or Annex II (first column);

safety measures

concerning

(cid:151) Specific obligations

installations
covered by Annexes I and III or Annex II (second
column).

in respect of

C 28/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

The specific obligations include the following three
points in particular:

Other amendments concerned the inclusion of liquid
oxygen and sulphur trioxide, and a better definition of
certain substances or groups of substances.

(cid:151) Notification (cid:151) via the safety report and the
on-site emergency plan (cid:151) by the manufacturer to
the Competent Authorities of
items of
information listed in Article 5, paragraph 1 of the
Directive,
substances,
information
information on the installation and information
relating to possible major-accident situations;

the

i.e.

on

(cid:151) Drawing up by the responsible Authorities of
emergency plans for action outside establishments
(Article 7(1)), referred to in Section 2 below as
external emergency plans;

(cid:151) Communication, to persons liable to be affected
information on safety
to do in the event of an

by a major accident, of
measures and what
accident (Article 8(1)).

Seveso Directive

The
the
Competent Authorities must organise inspections or
other measures of control proper to the type of
activity concerned (Article 7(2)).

provides

also

that

In the event of a major accident, the operator must
immediately
inform the Competent Authorities
thereof and provide them with information about it.
The Authorities
inform the
Commission and send a report on the accident. This
obligation is set out in Articles 10 and 11 of the
Directive.

turn must

in their

2.2.

Amendments to the Seveso Directive

2.2.1.

Council Directive 87/216/EEC of 19 March 1987 (1)

This first revision of the Seveso Directive limited itself
and
to correcting
the
threshold levels
different
Directive.
thus
interpretations of
ensuring
effective
implementation by the Member States.

some
entries
II and III of
avoiding
the Directive,
and

and clarifying
in Annexes
I,
at
aimed
the scope of

a more

coherent

It was

The lowering of threshold quantities in Annexes II
and III was deemed necessary in order to reinforce the
the Directive concerning industrial
provisions of
dangerous
particularly
activities which
substances
or
such
methylisocyanate.

involve
as

phosgene

chlorine,

(1) OJ L 85, 28.3.1987, p. 36.

2.2.2.

Council Directive 88/610/EEC of 24 November 1988 (2)

Following the warehouse fire at the premises of the
Sandoz Company
Switzerland on 1
in Basle,
to the
November 1986,
Seveso Directive aimed at the inclusion of the isolated
storage of dangerous substances.

the second amendment

This amendment also brought a new list of dangerous
substances (new Annex II) and entered a new category
of substances (oxidizing substances (cid:151) amendment of
Annex IV, amongst others).

the

Furthermore,
information to be
communicated to the public in the case of an accident
were listed in a new Annex VII to the Directive (3).

items of

2.2.3.

Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 (4)

on

horizontal

framework Directive

the
This
standardisation and the rationalisation of reports on
the implementation of certain Directives in relation to
the environment replaced Article 18 of the Seveso
that
Directive and introduced a new requirement
obliges the Commission to prepare triannual reports,
starting with the period 1994-1996.

2.3.

The new Seveso II Directive

On 9 December 1996 Directive 96/82/EC on the
control of major-accident hazards (5) (the (cid:145)Seveso II(cid:146)
Directive) was adopted by the Council. Following its
publication in the Official
the European
Communities the Directive entered into force on 3
February 1997.

Journal of

Member States had up to two years to bring into
force the national laws, regulations and administrative
provisions to comply with the Directive (transposition
the
period). From 3 February 1999 at
obligations of the Directive have become mandatory
for industry as well as the public authorities of the
Member States responsible for the implementation
and enforcement of the Directive.

the latest

(2) OJ L 336, 7.12.1988, p. 14.
(3) Further elaborated,

following a resolution from the Council of
Ministers (16 October 1989, published in OJ C 273, 26.10.1989,
in: B. De Marchi & S. Funtowicz: General Guidelines for
p. 1),
Content of Information to the Public (Directive 82/501/EEC (cid:151)
Annex VII) EUR 15946 EN (1994), published also in French EUR
15946 FR, German EUR 15946 DE and Spanish EUR 15946 ES.

(4) OJ L 337, 31.12.1991, p. 48.
(5) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13.

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/5

The Seveso II Directive has replaced the original
Seveso Directive. This revision of the original Seveso
Directive was presented not
in the form of an
amendment but as a completely new Directive,
demonstrating that
important changes have been
made and new concepts have been introduced. These
include a revision and extension of the scope, the
introduction of new requirements relating to safety
and
management
planning
reinforcement of
land-use planning
the
and a
to be carried out by
provisions on inspections
Member States.

emergency

systems,

3.

TRANSPOSITION OF THE SEVESO DIRECTIVE AND
ITS AMENDMENTS IN THE MEMBER STATES

3.1.

Introduction

The Commission has
two tasks with regard to
controlling the implementation of Community law in
the Member States:

(cid:151) controlling the correct and complete transposition
laws,

of Community Directives
regulations and administrative provisions, and

into national

(cid:151) controlling the application in practice of

the
and administrative

national
provisions in the Member States.

regulations

laws,

for

Under Article 226 of the Treaty the Commission may
bring proceedings
failure to comply against
Member States which do not meet their obligations.
This procedure starts with a letter of formal notice,
followed by a reasoned opinion, and then by bringing
the matter before the Court of Justice.

3.2.

Situation with
and
infringements of the Seveso II Directive (status
September 2001)

complaints

regard

to

The deadline for the transposition was 3 February
1999. The Commission
several
infringement procedures against Member States for
their failure to transpose the Major Accident Hazards
Directive (Seveso II) on time.

start

had

to

Some Member States have been referred to the
European Court of Justice by the Commission since
they have still not fully transposed the Directive or
have in any case not communicated the necessary
legislative
Commission
measures
(non-communication).

the

to

In September 2001 Court
concerning Austria, Belgium, Germany,
incomplete communication of transposing measures.

judgements are awaited
Ireland for

Moreover, the Commission has also decided in July
justice for
2001 to refer France to the Court of
incomplete communication.

4.

APPLICATION IN PRACTICE

4.1.

The questionnaires

4.1.1.

The questionnaires for the reporting period 1997-1999

The procedure laid down in the Council Directive
91/692/EEC to establish and formally adopt
a
questionnaire has never been concluded. Although the
Seveso II Directive entered into mandatory application
on 3 February 1999 i.e. during the reporting period
(cid:151) it had been decided, in order to ensure consistent
reporting, to use the amended pro forma for the whole
of the reporting period. This pro forma was set up as a
form for informal collation of information from the
Member States each year.

States undertook to provide

The Member
the
Commission with information on the basis of this
amended pro forma for the years 1997-1999. The
questionnaire used can be found in Annex I.

4.1.2. Answers to the questionnaires for

the reporting period

1997-1999

The answers of the Member States are summarised
and presented in three tables, one table for each year.
They can be found in Annexes.

Note: Empty fields mean that there are no answers
given or that
the answers proposed do not
respond to the question appropriately. In those
cases further explanations and comments will
be given in the particular chapter of
the
Member State.

4.2.

Situation in the Member States

section and the next

are based on the
This
information contained in the questionnaires, and
cover the reporting period 1997-1999.

The information for each Member State is set out
under the following headings:

(cid:151) General remarks (if necessary)

(cid:151) Main national laws

(cid:151) Authorities

(cid:151) Competent Authorities

C 28/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

(cid:151) Implementing Authorities (where indicated)

Competent Authorities

(cid:151) Sites covered by Article 5 (of

the Directive

82/501/EEC)

(cid:151) Activities on sites

(cid:151) Safety reports

(cid:151) Internal emergency plans

(cid:151) Formal action/legal requirements

(cid:151) External emergency plan

(cid:151) Inspections

(cid:151) Information to the public

(cid:151) Notification of accidents

(cid:151) Observations.

4.2.1.

Belgium

Main national laws

F e d e r a l l e v e l

Chapter VI Particular measures in reports of certain
the General
industrial
Regulation on the Protection on Work (RGPT) by the
Royal Decree of 1st February 1985.

activities (1)

inserted

in

F e d e r a l l e v e l

Federal Ministry of Employment and Labour (cid:151)
Administration of Labour Safety (cid:151) Chemical Risks
Directorate

Federal Ministry of the Interior ﬂ Directorate General
of the Civil Protection

Federal Ministry
Administration of quality and safety

Economic

of

Affairs (cid:151)

R e g i o n a l l e v e l

of

Ministry
Community (cid:151)
Administration for Environment, Nature, Land and
Waste Management (AMINAL)

Flemish

the

Ministry of
the Walloon Region (cid:151) Directorate
General for Natural Resources and the Environment
(DGRNE)

Brussels Institute for the environment management
(IBGE).

Sites covered by Article 5 (82/501/EEC)

In Belgium 85 sites were covered by Article 5 at the
end of 1996, 89 at the end of 1997 and 1998 and
84 at the end of 1999.

Law of 21st
hazards of certain industrial activities (2).

January 1987 on the major-accident

Activities on sites

R e g i o n a l l e v e l

The Directive is integrated into the various licensing
systems for classified establishments:

(cid:151) Decree of 28th June 1985 for

the Flemish

Region (3).

(cid:151) Decree of 11th September 1985 for the Walloon

Region (4).

(cid:151) Ordinance of 30th July 1992 for the Brussels

Region (5).

(1) Moniteur Belge, 26th March 1985.
(2) Moniteur Belge, 10th March 1987.
(3) Moniteur Belge, 17th September 1985.
(4) Moniteur Belge, 24th January 1986.
(5) Moniteur Belge, 29th August 1992.

In 1996, 266 activities were indicated as being
pursued in Seveso sites, this number rose to 293 in
1998 and came down to 289 in 1999.

In fact these figures refer to (cid:145)installations(cid:146), and since
sometimes more than one installation is involved in a
single activity,
the number of
activities is actually about 20 % smaller.

is thought

that

it

Most of the installations are concentrated in a few
very large chemical companies and in the petroleum
refineries in Antwerp. The number of installations in
these large sites is changing continuously.

Over the period 1994-1999, the total number of sites
remained stable, while
the number of activities
increased, thus resulting in an increase of the number
of activities per site as shown by the following figure:

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/7

Figure 1

Number of activities per site in Belgium

3,5

3

2,5

2

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999

Safety reports

All safety reports contained internal emergency plans
or have contributed towards a site internal emergency
plan. The percentage of safety reports examined by
safety authorities and judged as sufficient for adequate
administrative follow-up was 92 % in 1996, 91 % in
1997, 90 % in 1998 and 100 % in 1999.

2,00

1,00

0,00

requirements

like in many Member States,

is particularly interesting to see that, over the
It
reporting period,
the
percentage of sites that have had formal requests or
period
increased
legal
the
1994-1996
then. A possible
explanation may be an increased care in the check of
the safety reports and consequently an increase in the
quality of
leading to a
decrease in the number of formal requests and legal
requirements to the Seveso sites.

the safety reports,

decreased

over

thus

and

Figure 2

Accepted safety reports and sites with formal requirements

(cid:151) in Belgium, a Safety Report can be related to a
the Safety

In most cases,

site or an activity.
Reports are related to the activities.

Figure 3

Received safety reports per sites and per activities

3a/2b: Number of safety
reports received per sites

3a/2a: Number of safety
reports received per
activities

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999

External emergency plan

The percentage of sites with external emergency plans
rose from 69 % in 1997 to 86 % in 1999.

Inspections

During the reporting period, every year, all sites have
been subject to inspection.

Information to the public

The number of sites that have issued information to
the public increased over the period 1994-1999 like
in most Member States, and reached 86 % of the sites,
the highest value in the European Union.

In Belgium, the information to the public has to be
issued, not by the operators, but by the Civil
Protection of the Ministry of Home Affairs.

100 %

75 %

50 %

25 %

0 %

Percentage of examined
and accepted safety
reports

Percentage of sites with
formal requirements

Figure 4

Percentage of sites that issued information to the public

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999

The number of expected safety reports in Belgium
increased over the period 1994-1999 in a similar
this being
proportion to the number of activities,
highlighted by the red diagram (right one) showing a
constant ratio between number of safety reports and
activities. Nevertheless, the ratio between the number
of safety reports received and the number of sites
increased over the period 1994-1999. This can be
explained by the conjunction of two factors:

(cid:151) stability of

the number of sites and increased

number of activities

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0%

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999

4.2.2. Denmark

Main national laws

Order No 520 of the Ministry of the Environment of
5 July 1990 on the assessment of safety in relation to
hazardous activities

C 28/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

Order No 867 of
the Ministry of Labour of 13
October 1994 on the Performance of Work, amended
by Order No 1017, dated December 7th 1997.

Danish Preparedness Act No 1054 of 23 December
1992.

Law No 567 of 1 September 1986 on the
Administration of Justice.

Competent Authorities

Ministry of Environment, Environmental Protection
Agency

Ministry of Labour, Working Environment Service

Ministry of Justice

16 sites have had formal requirements or legal action
resulting from
taken by Competent Authorities
examination of
in respect of
safety report
obligations under Article 7(1) ﬂ last indent.

the

(cid:145)formal

requirements(cid:146)

In Denmark
been
interpreted to include request for further information
in addition to the safety reports received, or letters
ordering the company to take additional measures to
prevent major accidents.

has

Legal actions in the sense of taking a company to
court,
to enforce the legislation transposing the
Directive, have not been taken in Denmark.

Figure 5

Ministry of
Agency

the Interior, Emergency Management

Received safety reports per sites and per activities

Implementing Authorities

Environmental Protection Agency

The County Councils

Municipal
Rescue
Management Agency

Preparedness,

Emergency

2,00

1,00

0,00

Working Environment Service

The Police

Sites covered by Article 5 (82/501/EEC)

3a/1a: Number of safety
reports received per sites

3a/2a: Number of safety
reports received per
activities

1994 

1995 

1996 

1999

The number of safety reports received per sites and
per activities increased over the period 1994-1999,
while the number of sites that have had legal or
formal requirements remains very high (around 86 %)
over the period 1994-1999.

All sites have an internal emergency plan.

The number of sites covered by Article 5 in Denmark
decreased from 24 at the end of 1994 to 21, at the
end of 1996 and reached 18 at the end of 1999.

External emergency plans

Activities on sites

There are 18 external emergency plans in existence,
so all sites have an external emergency plan.

On these 18 sites there were at the end of 1999, 24
activities in operation.

Inspections

Safety reports

The Danish Competent Authorities received a total
number of 44 safety reports; no further more are
reports
expected.
internal
safety
contain
emergency plans. All
safety reports have been
examined by the Competent Authority and judged as
sufficient.

19

The number given is the total numbers of all safety
reports received from the sites actually covered by the
Directive till now,
including updated versions. This
explains the large number of safety reports.

In Denmark, during the reporting period, all sites
have been subject
to inspections as referred to in
Article 7(2).

Information to the public

Information to the public as required by Article 8 was
issued for 11 sites. In Denmark information to the
public, as required in accordance with Annex B of
Directive 88/610/EEC,
is issued by the Police based
on information provided by the company.

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/9

Notification of accidents

Competent Authorities

One accident was
period.

reported during the reported

Observations

the Seveso Directive has
The implementation of
improved again significantly during the reporting
in particular as regards the preparation of
period,
safety
the
the manufacturers
reports
collaboration between the competent authorities at
the central as well as the local level in fulfilling the
obligations of the Directive.

and

by

The number of sites covered by the Directive has
decreased during the period mainly due to reduced
storage capacity for liquid ammonia and LPG.

4.2.3.

Germany

General remarks

The German implementation of the Seveso Directive,
the (cid:145)St(cid:246)rfall-Verordnung 1991(cid:146) does not refer to sites,
but to installations. Therefore, all the answers given to
the 1997-1999 questionnaires refer to (cid:145)installations(cid:146).
Installations covered by the (cid:145)St(cid:246)rfall-Verordnung(cid:146) need
a permit before they may be constructed and/or
operated. Within this permitting procedure the safety
reports are examined and, where appropriate, formal
taken by the
requirements or
competent authorities. The safety reports are also a
very important instrument for further inspection and
for
these
the consideration of major changes of
installations.

action are

legal

Data concerning internal and external emergency
plans have not been collected separately so far;
therefore answers to these questions cannot be given.
However, all
installations coming under Article 5
require an internal emergency plan, which is prepared
in consultation with the competent authority. All data
given below refer to 1999.

Main national laws

Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz (cid:151) BImSchG (Federal
Immission Control Act)

F e d e r a l A u t h o r i t i e s

the
Federal Ministry
Protection and Nuclear Safety

for

Environment, Nature

Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs

Federal Ministry of Interior

L (cid:228) n d e r A u t h o r i t i e s

Various ministries and local authorities

Sites/Activities covered by Article 5 (82/501/EEC)

In Germany there were 1955 installations covered by
Article 5 in 1997, 1 893 in 1998 and 1 903 in 1999.
There are no data available for the number of sites, as
has been explained above. The percentage of (cid:145)new(cid:146)
installations was around 14 % each year.

Figure 6

Total number of sites/installations

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999

After an important decrease between 1994 and 1995,
the number of
remains around 1 900 in
Germany over the reporting period 1997-1999.

sites

Safety reports

1 874 safety reports have already been submitted in
1999 to the competent authorities and 1 849 have
been examined. In 1997, 1 754 safety reports out of
a total of 1 955 have been examined. In 1998, 1 869
out of a total of 1 893 have been examined. There are
no further safety reports expected so far.

There are no data available for internal emergency
plans, since such data have not yet been collected
separately, as explained above. In 1997 this number
was 1 955 and in 1998 it was 1 893.

2 500
2 000
1 500
1 000
500
0

St(cid:246)rfall-Verordnung (Hazardous Incident Ordinance)

External emergency plan

1., 2., 3. St(cid:246)rfall-Verwaltungsvorschrift (First, Second,
Third General Administrative
Provision on the
Hazardous Incident Ordinance)

There are no data available for external emergency
plans, since such data have not been collected so far,
as explained above.

C 28/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

Inspections

Competent Authorities

satisfactory. The number of

1 849 safety reports were examined and considered to
inspections
be
in
is not at present
accordance with Article 7(2),
available (question 6 b). There are no separate data
available concerning formal
legal
action taken by the competent authorities resulting
from examination of the safety reports in respect of
obligations under Article 7(1), (question 5). There are
also no data available concerning the examination of
safety
experts
reports
(question 7 a).

requirements or

independent

external

by

Information to the public

Information to the public has been given in 1 610
cases in 1997, in 1 559 cases in 1998 and in 1 562
cases in 1999. In the framework of the transposition
the Seveso I Directive, a guidance
of Article 8 of
document and a study of
the federal office for
environment on the efficiency of the information to
the public were published. The operator shall inform
the general public, but such information shall be
submitted for
competent
authorities.

approval

to the

local

Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Public
Works (focal point for Greece)

Fire Corps Headquarters, Directorate of Fire Safety

Ministry of Industry

Ministry of Health

Ministry of Labour

I m p l e m e n t i n g A u t h o r i t i e s

Ministry of the Interior

Ministry of Agriculture

Ministry of Transportation and Communications

Ministry of the Merchant Marine

Local Authorities (Prefectures)

Sites covered by Article 5 (82/501/EEC)

Notification of accidents

There are 56 sites being covered by Article 5, four of
them being newly built.

30 major accidents which occurred in the reporting
period were notified to the MARS database.

Activities on sites

Observations

In the period under review, there were no essential
changes with regard to the Major Accident Control
Policy of Germany. The competent Authority are now
preparing the changeover to the Seveso II Directive.

4.2.4.

Greece

Main national laws

Framework Law 1650/1986 for the Environment

Law 1568/1985 on Health and Safety

Common Ministerial Decision No 18187/272 of 24
February 1988 (transposition of Directive 82/501/EEC
plus its first amendment into Greek legislation)

100 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0 %

On these sites, there are 56 activities run, four of
them new.

Safety reports

56 safety reports have already been submitted; no
more are expected. 49 safety reports include internal
emergency plans and 45 safety reports have been
considered as sufficient by the Competent Authorities.
The percentage of safety reports that
included an
internal emergency plan was around 92 %.

Figure 7

Safety reports examined and accepted

1994 

1995 

1996 

1999

Common Ministerial Decision No 77119/4607 of 19
July 1993 (transposition of the second amendment to
Directive 82/501/EEC plus some modifications)

The percentage of safety reports examined by the
Competent Authorities and judged as sufficient
for
adequate administrative follow-up increased over the
period 1994-1999 in order to reach 80 % in 1999.

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/11

sites

The percentage of
that have had formal
requirements or legal actions taken by competent
authorities resulting from examination of the safety
report was around 89 % for the reporting period.

4.2.5.

Spain

Main national laws

N a t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n

External emergency plan

external

Two sites have
emergency plans. The
Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Public
Works in cooperation with the Prefectures of
the
most industrialised areas (Attika, Thessaloniki, Piraeus)
and external experts, has completed the generic
emergency plans for the case of an industrial accident
in these areas, and intends to draw up the offsite
emergency plans, of
installation
the Council Directive
covered by Article 5 of
82/501/EEC. The
the offsite
emergency plans to be drawn up in these three areas
is expected to be 30.

total number of

each industrial

Real Decreto No 1254/1999, of 21 July 1999.

L e g i s l a t i o n o f
C o m m u n i t i e s

t h e d i f f e r e n t A u t o n o m o u s

In Spain there are 19 competent authorities in the
autonomous communities, having statutory powers in
the geographical area concerned. This means that they
must enact
the
national
legislation; each community has enacted its
own decree, nominating the competent department
responsible
the
Directive stipulates.

the various obligations

specific regulations

to implement

that

for

100 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0 %

Inspections

45 sites (80 %) of
inspection during the reporting period.

the sites have been subject

to

Figure 8

Sites subject to inspection

83 %

80 %

Competent authorities

N a t i o n a l c o m p e t e n t a u t h o r i t y

Direcci(cid:243)n General de Protecci(cid:243)n Civil (cid:151) Ministerio de
Interior (Directorate-General of Civil Protection (cid:151)
in co-ordination with the
the Interior)
Minister of
National Department of
Industry, Environment and
Labour, and with the national Civil Protection services
of each province.

A u t o n o m o u s c o m m u n i t i e s

In general it is the Department in charge of the tasks
of Civil Protection in each Community which
co-ordinates the implementation of the Directive in its
area, with other Regional Departments
such as
Industry, Environment, Labour etc.

2 %

1994 

2 %

1995 

1996 

1999

L o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s

The percentage of sites that have been subject
inspection has not changed significantly since 1996.

to

Information to the public

The different municipalities
to
develop their external emergency plans following the
guidelines given by their autonomous community.

concerned have

Sites covered by Article 5 (82/501/EEC)

At the end of 1999, 152 industrial sites in Spain were
covered by Article 5, five of these were newly built.

Only one site has issued information to the public.

Activities on sites

General remark

Even if the percentage of safety reports examined by
the Competent Authorities and judged as sufficient
increased, a significant number of points of concern
remain in the field of the information to the public,
and of external emergency planning. As explained
before, these points shall be solved in the next future.

On these sites, there are 164 activities being run, five
of them new.

Safety reports

The competent authorities have already received 160
safety reports, with another five expected. All received
safety reports contain internal emergency plans. The
number of safety reports is higher than the number of

C 28/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

industrial sites covered, because some of the industrial
sites which are covered only by Article 3 and 4 have
presented safety reports voluntarily to the competent
authority,
included in off-site
to be
in order
emergency planning.

This information is spread through public campaigns
(brochures, interviews, presentations and so on).

Notification of accidents

Figure 9

Safety reports examined and accepted

Four major accidents have been notified to the
place
MAHB,
top-tier
took
establishments and the others
two in lower-tier
establishments.

accidents

two

in

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %

% of examined and accep-
ted safety reports

% of sites with formal
requirements

4.2.6.

France

Main national laws

1994 

1995 

1996 

1999

The percentage of examined and accepted safety
reports didn’t follow the same evolution than in most
Member States as this percentage decreased over the
reporting period 1997-1999. The percentage of sites
with formal requirements remains stable over the two
reporting periods.

Formal action/legal requirements

sites

that have had formal
The percentage of
requirements or
legal action taken by competent
authorities resulting from examination of the safety
report was around 36 % for the reporting period.

External emergency plan

Law of 19 July 1976 on classified installations for the
protection of the environment

Law of 22 July 1987 on the prevention of major risks

Competent authorities

The Ministry for the Environment is in charge of the
legislation on classified installations.

The Ministry of the Interior is in charge of the general
organisation of emergency services and preparedness
for emergency situations.

the department

issues licences. The
The Prefect of
inspectors of classified installations
in the DRIRE
assist the Prefect at the technical level. The Prefect of
the department prepares the external emergency plan.

There are 108 external emergency plans for these
sites,
sites with external
emergency plans is around 71 %.

so the percentage of

Sites covered by Article 5 (82/501/EEC)

Inspections

In 1996, 392 sites were covered by Article 5 of the
Seveso Directive. By the end of 1998, 371 sites were
covered by Article 5.

During the three years period, 80 sites were the
object to inspections referred to in Article 7(2), e.g.,
in average around 18 % per year.

Activities on sites

Information to the public

The percentage of sites having issued information to
the public during the three years period was around
26 %. The Spanish Royal Decrees which transposes
the Directive 82/501/EEC and amendments, foresees
that
regional
authorities
communities with the collaboration of the operators
of the affected sites should give the information to the
public(cid:146).

(cid:145)competent

the

in

698 activities were carried out
in 1996 and 740
activities were carried out on the sites listed under
question 1 a.

Safety reports

850 safety reports have been submitted to the
competent authorities, no more are expected. All
safety
the
been
inspectorate. Around 52 % of
the safety reports
contain an internal emergency plan.

examined

reports

have

by

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/13

Figure 10

Information to the public

Safety reports received per sites and per activities

Information to the public according to Article 8 of
the Seveso Directive has been given in 280 cases.

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %

Number of safety reports
received per sites

Number of safety reports
received by activities

Figure 12

Percentage of sites that issue information to the public

1994 

1995 

1996 

1999

The number of safety reports received increased in
34 % over the period 1994-1999, while the number
of sites decreased slightly, thus leading to increase the
number of safety reports received per sites. As the
number of activities increased also over the period
1994-1999,
safety reports
ratio number of
received by activities increased slightly.

the

80 %

75 %

70 %

65 %

60 %

55 %

1994 

1995 

1996 

1999

The percentage of sites that issued information to the
public increased over
for
reaching the value 75 % in 1999.

the period 1997-1999,

External emergency plan

Observations

280 sites had an external emergency plan by the end
of 1998.

Figure 11

Sites with external emergency plans

63 000 establishments are covered by the law of 19
to authorisation. The
July 1976 and are subject
authorisation request must include,
in particular, an
impact assessment and a risk assessment. These
studies are crucial in implementing the prevention of
major accidents in terms of risk reduction at source,
emergency planning, control of urbanisation, and
information of the public.

4.2.7.

Ireland

Main national laws

European Communities (Major Accident Hazards of
Certain Industrial Activities) Regulations, 1986 (1)

European Communities (Major Accident Hazards of
Certain
(Amendment)
Industrial
Regulations, 1989 (2)

Activities)

European Communities (Major Accident Hazards of
Certain
(Amendment)
Industrial
Regulations, 1992 (3)

Activities)

Authorities

Central Competent Authority:

(cid:151) National Authority for Occupational Safety and

Health.

(1) S.I. No 292-1986.
(2) S.I. No 34-1989.
(3) S.I. No 21-1992.

1994 

1995 

1996 

1999

The percentage of sites with external emergency plans
increased and reached 75 % by the end of 1999.

Inspections

are no readily

There
either on
inspections as referred to in Article 7(2) or on legal
action being taken by competent authorities.

available data

For all establishments covered by the Law of 16 July
1976
to
authorisation), on average 20 000 inspections are
made per year.

establishments

(63 000

subject

C 28/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

Local Competent Authorities:

(cid:151) Garda S(cid:237)ochÆna (Police),

(cid:151) Local Authorities,

(cid:151) Regional Health Boards.

Sites covered by Article 5 (82/501/EEC)

In Ireland, 20 sites were covered by Article 5 of the
Directive at the end of 1996, 19 by the end of 1997
and 16 by the end of 1999. The closure of
two
companies accounted for the loss of two sites.

Activities on sites

site

establishment

Ireland applies the Seveso Directive in terms of the
than individual
whole
industrial activities, so that individual activity data is
not available. However, with one exception there is
only one activity per site so the numbers for activities
are the above figures plus one.

rather

Safety reports

In 1997, 18 safety reports had been received out of a
total of 19 expected. In 1998, 17 safety reports had
been received out of a total of 18 expected and in
1999 16 had been received out of a total of 16
internal
expected. All
emergency plans and have been judged as sufficient
for administrative follow-up.

include

reports

safety

Figure 13

Sites with formal requirements and accepted safety reports

88 %

89 %

89 %

100 %

33 %

22 %

15 %

1994 

1995 

1996 

1999

0 %

Percentage of sites with for-
mal requirements

Percentage of examined and
accepted safety reports

While the percentage of sites with formal or legal
requirements decreased over the period 1994-1999,
the percentage of examined and accepted safety
reports
in
already
comparison with European Union average in 1994)
increased and reached 100 % in 1999.

(that was

relatively

high

The examination of the Safety Reports has not lead to
formal requirements or legal action in the period
under consideration.

External emergency plan

In 1997 and 1998, 13 sites had an associated external
emergency plan. In 1999 12 sites had an associated
external emergency plan, e.g. 75 % of the sites.
In
respect of external emergency plans three sites were
considered not to present an offsite risk to the public.

Inspections

In 1997 and 1998, 16 sites were the object
to
inspections referred to in Article 7, e.g. around 85 %
of
to
inspection, i.e. 75 % of the sites.

In 1999, 12 sites were subject

the sites.

Information to the public

In the period under consideration, three sites have not
issued the required information to the public. So the
percentage of sites having issued information to the
public is around 80 %. The criteria for determining
that a site had issued information to the public was
by visits by inspectors to a number of people in the
vicinity of the site to establish if they had received
information.

Notification of accidents

No major accidents occurred within the reporting
period.

4.2.8.

Italy

Main national laws

Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica del 17 maggio
1998, n. 175 attuativo della direttiva CEE n. 82/501,
incidenti rilevanti connessi con
relativi ai rischi di
determinate attivitÆ industriali.

Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri del
31 marzo 1989 sull’applicazione dell’articolo 12 del
DPR 175/88

Decreto del Ministero dell’Ambiente del 20 maggio
1991; modificazioni
al DPR
ed
17/05/1988 n. 175, in recipimento della direttiva CEE
n. 86/610 che modifica la direttiva CEE n. 82/501
relativa ai rischi di
incidenti rilevanti connessi con
determinate attivitÆ industriali.

integrazioni

Decreti Legge not converted into laws: D.L. 10
gennaio 1994 n. 13, 10 marzo 1994 n. 278, 8 luglio
1994 n. 437, 7 settembre 1994, n. 529, 7 novembre
1994, n. 618, 7 gennaio 1995 n. 2, 9 marzo 1995 n.
65, 10 maggio 1995 n. 160, 7 luglio 1995 n. 271, 7

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/15

settembre 1995 n. 371, 8 novembre 1996 n. 5, 8
marzo 1996 n. 111, 3 maggio 1996 n. 245, 8 luglio
1996 n. 351, 6 settembre 1996 n. 461

emergency plans are provisional, as 192 plans are still
under study.

Competent authorities

Inspections

Servizio

dell’Ambiente,

Ministero
Inquinamento
Atmosferico, Acustico e delle Industrie a rischio. The
Ministry of Environment is the central authority for
linked to the Seveso I
the control of activities
Directive.

Ministero dell’Industria, Direzione Generale Fonti de
Energia.

In 1994, 40 sites were subject
to inspection as
referred to in Article 7(2). This number rose to 179
inspections in 1996.
In 1999, 65 inspections have
been carried out. No safety reports have been
examined by external independent experts. Data is not
available on the number of safety reports that have
been examined by competent authorities and judged
as sufficient for adequate administrative follow-up to
fulfil the obligations referred to in Article 7.

Ministero
Protezione Civile e dei Servizi Antincendio.

dell’Interno, Direzione Generale

della

Information to the public

Sites covered by Article 5 (82/501/EEC)

In 1999, the Italian Authorities reported 313 sites
covered by Article 5. This data seems inconsistent
with the 430 sites identified in 1996. This is due to a
change in the way to compute the number of sites.

sites have issued information to the public
information, publication in local

All
(campaign of
newspaper, public assemblies, public meeting).

4.2.9.

Luxembourg

Main national laws

Figure 14

Number of sites

418

430

430

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

Law of 17 June 1994 on Health and safety at work (1)

Law of 17 June 1994 on Health and care services at
work (2)

313

Law of 8 June 1994 on Health and safety at work in
the public sector (3)

1994 

1995 

1996 

1999

Law of 9 May 1990 concerning dangerous, unhealthy
or noxious establishments (4).

Activities on sites

No data have been provided.

Safety reports

The Competent Authorities have received 301 safety
reports and 12 safety reports are missing. 64 % of the
safety reports have been examined.

Formal action/legal requirements

12 sites have had formal requirements for lack of
notification. Many safety reports are
still under
instruction.

External emergency plan

272 external emergency plans out of a total of 313
sites have been drawn up, but many external

Grand-Ducal regulation of 18 May 1990 listing and
or
classifying
noxious
unhealthy
establishments (5)
Grand-Ducal
by
Regulation of 9 November 1993 (6).

dangerous,

modified

Grand-Ducal Regulation of 10 April 1987 on the
industrial
major
activities (7) modified by Grand-Ducal Regulation of
19 July 1991 (8)

accident

hazards

certain

of

Law of 27 February 1986 on emergency medical aid.

(1) MØmorial A 55, 1 July 1994, p. 1060.
(2) MØmorial A 55, 1 July 1994, p. 1054.
(3) MØmorial A 55, 1 July 1994, p. 1050.
(4) MØmorial A 55, 23 May 1990, p. 310.
(5) Memorial A 55, 23 May 1990, p. 316.
(6) MØmorial A 91, 1 December 1993, p. 1652.
(7) MØmorial A 23, 10 April 1987, p. 305.
(8) MØmorial A 49, 2 August 1991, p. 999.

C 28/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

Law of 18 November 1976 on the organisation of
disaster relief (1) modified by the Law of 11 January
1990 (2).

Law of 4 April 1974 on the organisation of
the
Labour and Mines Inspectorate (3) modified by the
Law of 9 May 1990 (see above) and the Law of 17
June 1994 (see above).

Competent authorities

chaired

Committee,

the Ministry of

a
Interministerial
representative of
and
Employment and made up of representatives of the
Department of the Environment, the Department of
Health, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Labour
and Mines Inspectorate and experts.

by
Labour

Ministry of Labour and Employment.

Sites covered by Article 5 (82/501/EEC)

In Luxembourg there is a total of four sites.

Activities on sites

On each site there is a single activity.

Safety reports

Two safety reports have been received by the
Competent Authorities.

External emergency plan

Two sites have an external emergency plan.

Inspections

Two sites have been subject to inspection referred to
in Article 7(2).

Information to the public

No sites have issued information to the public.

4.2.10. Netherlands

Main national laws

Environmental Management Act (4)

(1) MØmorial A 69, 24 November 1976, p. 1125.
(2) MØmorial A 4, 27 January 1990, p. 26.
(3) MØmorial A 27, 18 April 1974, p. 486.
(4) Stb. 1994/80.

Decree on Establishments and Licenses (5)

Major Accident Hazards Decree (6)

Working Conditions Act (7)

Decree on Working Conditions (Chapter 2, section
2) (8)

Disasters and Major Accidents Acts (9)

Decree on Information on Disasters and Major
Accidents (10)

Act on the Public Nature of Government (11)

Competent authorities

Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment

Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the
Environment

Ministry of the Interior

Implementing authorities

County Aldermen (Provinces)

Courts of Mayor and Aldermen (Municipalities)

Labour Inspectorate

Mayors

Executive Committees of the Regional Fire Service

Sites covered by Article 5 (82/501/EEC)

In 1994, there were 115 sites covered by Article 5,
91 of which are obliged to make occupational safety
reports. Three of the sites were newly built, and 46
newly covered by entry into force of Directive
88/610/EEC. The number of sites grew to 124 in
1996 and to 129 in 1999. Five new locations were
reported since the last reporting period.

(5) Stb. 1993/50.
(6) Stb. 1992/291.
(7) Stb. 1980/664.
(8) Stb. 1997/60.
(9) Stb. 1985/88.
(10) Stb. 1994/463.
(11) Stb. 1991/703, most recent revision by Act of 1993, December

16, Stb. 1993/650.

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/17

Activities on sites

Information to the public

On these sites, there were 611 activities run in 1999,
15 of them new.

Figure 15

In 80 cases, the public was informed about the risks
the permitting
In seven cases
at
the
location.
on the
based
issued notices
have
authorities
information in the safety report.

Number of activities per site

Notification of accidents

8

6

4

1994 

1995 

1996 

1998 

1999

The number of activities per site decreased over the
two reporting periods, and in particular over the
period 1995-1996. The ratio activities divided by sites
remain however the highest in the European Union.

Safety reports

129 safety reports have been received by competent
authorities and another five have been received in
draft. 124 safety reports include internal emergency
plans. 109 safety reports were inspected.

Figure 16

Accepted safety reports and sites with formal requirements

100 %

75 %

50 %

25 %

0 %

99 %

96 %

87 %

89 %

84 %

10 %

11 %

8 %

6 %

1994 

1995 

1996 

1998 

1999

percentage of examined
and accepted safety reports

percentage  of sites with
formal requirements

The percentage of examined and accepted safety
reports decreased over the two reporting periods, as
well
sites with formal
as
requirements.

the percentage

of

External emergency plan

103 sites have an external emergency plan.

During the reporting period three accidents were
notified to the MARS database.

Observations

The implementation of
the Seveso II directive has
been used as an opportunity to deal with major
hazards in a more integrated way. As such the main
regulation BRZO 1999, is an integrated decree based
on four acts and signed by three ministers. The three
inspectorates
involved work closely together with
respect to the assessment of the safety reports and site
inspections. They are expected to give their combined
verdict about the acceptability of the risks as shown
in the report. This verdict is public.

to

the
staff,

inspectorates

To facilitate a smooth implementation, the following
inspectorates were
actions were undertaken:
for
guidance
a
hire more
allowed
the
inspectorates was written which
describes
integrated
received
the
approach,
training, intensive discussions with industry, workers
and inspectorates resulted in a consensus document:
(cid:145)Report on information requirements major accidents
decree 1999(cid:146) which is used as an interpretation of the
regulation. The biggest challenge will be to deal with
the large number of safety reports that are expected
to be
Finally
Ministries are working on a Decree which will deal
with major hazards in transport establishments in a
Seveso II way.

admitted before

February 2001.

4.2.11. Austria

General remarks

Austria entered into the European Union in 1995. It
had already implemented relevant parts of the Seveso
I Directive by a (cid:145)Major Accident ordinance(cid:146) in 1991,
this being an addendum to the Trade and Industrial
Code which is the main law for the permit system of
industrial installations. In contrast to other countries

C 28/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

the term (cid:145)site(cid:146) (or (cid:145)establishment(cid:146) as now defined in
in Austrian
the Seveso II Directive) did exist
legislation whereas the terms (cid:145)installation(cid:146) or (cid:145)activity(cid:146)
were not used uniformly by various authorities and
the Seveso II
were not
framework
transposition (see below). The
remained as it was for the previous reporting period.

legally defined before

legal

Main national laws

concerning major

Ordinance
28
November 1991 (1), based upon the Trade and
Industrial Code (2).

accidents

of

concerning

Ordinance
information on industrial
accidents of 25 May 1994 (3), based on the Law
concerning information on the environment (4).

Competent authorities

Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs

Federal Ministry of Environmental Affairs

Sites/Activities covered by Article 5 (82/501/EEC)

The total number of sites covered by Article 5 in
Austria was 140 by the end of 1996 and came down
to 133 in 1999 due to capacity reductions in several
sites.

Safety reports

the

safety

about

operators

knowledge

As mentioned in the last reporting period, due to lack
the
by
of
reports
Seveso I many
requirements of
submitted to the authorities were not sufficient and
had to be sent back (106 in 1995/1996). Since the
quality of the safety reports improved, the number of
safety reports submitted to the authorities increased
significantly. Another reason for this increase is the
fact that an updating of the safety reports is required,
especially in case of major changes of the installation.

insufficient measures.

is

important

It
to note that 231 reports were
expected, because many companies set up a safety
report per installation or activity. All safety reports
shall contain internal emergency plans.

Figure 17

Examined and accepted safety reports

50 %

64 %

4 %

1995 

1996 

1999

External emergency plan

By the end of 1999, 23 external emergency plans
were reported to be at hand. This decrease, compared
with the figures of the period before, was caused by
the Seveso II transposition announced to be pending
for nearly two years and the competencies for the
drafting of
emergency plans were not
clarified.

external

Inspections

73 inspections as referred to in Article 7(2) have been
reported in 1995. Some of
those inspections are
repeated yearly, most of them refer to the current
national obligation to inspect in a three-year interval.
In 1996 altogether 78 sites had been inspected. 61
inspections are reported to have been carried out
between 1996 and 1999. Some of them are repeated
to the current
yearly, mostly the intervals
national obligation to inspect
in a three year ﬂ
interval. Altogether 50 sites were inspected in 1999.

refer

By the end of 1999, 219 safety reports (of 231
expected overall) have been submitted with a total of
141 judged sufficient. 37 safety reports of 24 sites
were sent back for further information or because of

Information to the public

(1) BGBl. No 593/1991.
(2) BGBl. No 50/1974 in the version of supplementary law BGBl.

No 399/1988.

(3) BGBl. No 391/1994.
(4) BGBl. No 495/1993.

Article 8 has been implemented in Austria by
separate
(cid:145)Major Accident
is
Information Ordinance(cid:146). For 69 sites, information to
the public was reported to exist.

legislation,

the

it

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/19

Figure 18

Sites that issued information to the public

Figure 19

Number of sites

21 %

32 %

52 %

1995 

1996 

1999

50
40
30
20
10
0

The percentage of sites that issued information to the
public increased over the two reporting periods and
we expect this percentage to increase again in the
frame of the Seveso II Directive.

Notification of accidents

It has to be mentioned that the Austrian contact point
for reporting was only installed in 1997. Since its
installation, three major accidents were reported to
the Commission.

Observations

The Austrian federal system still make it difficult to
collect data efficiently on a yearly basis. The whole
reporting system is
relatively new and will be
improved by establishing single contact points in the
provinces.

The origin of the Seveso legislation in Austria dates
back well before accession to the European Union,
spread amongst various
and the responsibility is
authorities. The implementation of
the Seveso II
Directive is seen as a chance to make the legislative
framework more coherent.

4.2.12. Portugal

Main national laws

Decree-Law No 204/93 of 3 June 1993 (DiÆrio da
Repœblica No. 129 I-A). This law implements the
Seveso Directive in its amended version (Directives
87/216/EEC and 88/610/EEC).

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999

The decrease in the number of sites covered by
Article 5 was foreseen in the previous report, due to
substitution of substances in process industries such
as glass and pulp and paper, and LPG being replaced
by natural gas, as well as by the reduction of
inventories in some cases.

Activities on sites

In Portugal, the Seveso I directive is applied to the
whole area of an establishment and not to activities
considered individually. The operator of the site needs
to submit only one safety report per site, independent
of the number of activities run on it. Therefore, there
are no figures available for the activities.

Safety reports

36 safety reports have already been submitted. All
safety reports include an internal emergency plan. In
97, 35 safety reports were examined by the ATRIG
(National Competent Authority) leading in 26 cases to
formal requirements or legal action by the competent
authorities. In 98, 33 safety reports were examined by
the ATRIG (National Competent Authority) leading in
18 cases to formal requirements or legal action by the
competent authorities. In 99, 34 safety reports were
examined
the ATRIG (National Competent
Authority) leading in 18 cases to formal requirements
or legal action by the competent authorities. There
were three new safety reports in 1999, but two of
them were of existing establishments, newly covered.

by

Competent authority

Figure 20

Technical Authority for Major
Industrial Hazards
(ATRIG). This is an interministerial body chaired by
the Director General for the Environment from the
Portuguese Ministry for the Environment, and based
at the Directorate-General for the Environment.

Sites covered by Article 5 (82/501/EEC)

In Portugal, 36 sites were covered by Article 5, three
of them being newly built, by the end of 1999. From
the 36 sites covered by Article 5, only one was new.

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %

Percentage of sites with formal requirements

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999

C 28/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

External emergency plan

Notification of accidents

At the end of 1999, 18 external emergency plans
were available.

Figure 21

Percentage of sites with external emergency plans

Three major accidents occurred during the reporting
period and the corresponding information has been
included in the MARS Data Base.

60 %

50 %

40 %

30 %

20 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %

60 %

50 %

40 %

30 %

20 %

10 %

0 %

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999

Inspections

Figure 22

Inspected sites

62 %

62 %

67 %

57 %

45 %

47 %

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999

The percentage of sites subject to inspection decreased
over this reporting period and this is a matter of
concern. As the Seveso II requirements related to
inspection are straightforward,
improvement in this
area is expected.

Information to the public

18 sites have issued information to the public, so the
situation has slightly improved since the last reporting
period but the information to the public is a point
that needs to be improved in the frame of the Seveso
II Directive.

Figure 23

Sites that issued info to the public

43 %

43 %

43 %

51 %

55 %

50 %

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999

4.2.13. Finland

General remarks

handling,

chemicals

concerning

Finland has been a Member State in the European
Union since the 1st of January 1995. It implemented
the Seveso Directive into Finnish legislation before
the EEA agreement. The
membership as part of
implementation was carried out by amending the
legislation
the
legislation concerning fire and rescue services and the
legislation concerning occupational safety The central
compliance with the
the
authority
regulations concerning prevention of major accident
hazards has been the Safety Technology Authority of
Finland (TUKES). Regulations concerning emergency
preparedness and response have been enforced by the
local
fire and rescue services. Occupational safety
authorities (labour inspectors) have been supervising
the compliance of regulations concerning the safety of
employees.

supervising

for

typical

detailed

scenarios

and worst

establishment

contained more

the major accident hazard sites were
Operators of
required to apply a licence from TUKES at
the
planning stage. The application covered major part of
the information mentioned in paragraphs a and b of
Article 5(1) of the Directive. In addition to that, the
technical
application
the
descriptions of
and a hazard
the planned activity. Assessment
assessment of
case
included
accidents. Concerning an establishment
that qualify
in Article 5(1) an
the threshold quantities meant
operator was obliged to supplement
the licence
application by compiling a systematic safety report
that handled in detail the possible hazard sources and
the consequences of accidents inside and outside the
site. Additionally, the safety report had to describe
how the prevention of accidents and mitigation of
their
in the
establishment. Furthermore an operator had to notify
the amendments in installations to TUKES. TUKES,
accompanied by the local authorities, carried out a
commissioning inspection of a new or amended
establishment before it was allowed to start to run.

consequences were

taken care of

When the provisions concerning the safety report
came into force, the existing installations were obliged
to compile a separate safety report by the 1st of
September 1995. The
then
inspected and their conclusions assessed by TUKES as
a separate procedure.

safety reports were

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/21

it

An operator of a major accident hazard site was
obliged to compile an internal emergency plan and
deliver
external
and information needed for
emergency plan to local fire and rescue authorities,
who were responsible for compiling the external
plans. As provided in the Directive the operator had
to issue information to the public also according to
the Finnish regulations. These obligations were in
force since the 1st of September 1995.

T h e S e v e s o I I D i r e c t i v e

by

Finnish

amending

legislation

Major part of The Seveso II Directive was transposed
into
certain
regulations concerning the safety of chemicals and
issuing the Decree on the Industrial Handling and
Storage
articles
concerning land use planning and external emergency
plans were transposed as part of other
relevant
legislation. Also the occupational safety regulations
were amended.

of Dangerous Chemicals.

The

chemicals.

The main

The Decree on the Industrial Handling and Storage of
Dangerous Chemicals and the amendments of other
chemical regulations connected to it came into force
in the 1st of February 1999. The main responsibility
for the legislation in concern lies on the Ministry of
Trade and Industry. In Finland the legislation covers
even small scale industrial handling and storage of
dangerous
responsibility
to
concerning the practical enforcement belongs
TUKES with the exception where small scale handling
and storage are supervised by the local authorities.
The practical enforcement of
the new legislation
started right after when it came into force. During the
period when the Directive and the Finnish legislation
were prepared, TUKES disseminated information
about the new obligations to the industry and the
authorities concerned in guidelines and publications
as well as on its web site. TUKES’ personnel gave also
numerous amounts of lectures about the subject in
various training courses and seminars.

to

prior

inspection

commissioning

As regards the establishments covered by the Seveso
they are (cid:151) according to renewed
II Directive,
regulations (cid:151) required to apply for a license prior to
commencement of construction. TUKES undertakes
the
the
is
commencement of operation. An establishment
similarly required to apply for a license and be
inspected before start-up in a case of an extensive
modification and expansion. Whenever
there are
minor, nevertheless significant, changes at a plant, an
operator has to send TUKES a notification. When the
license application is being handled, TUKES asks the
opinions of
the local rescue authorities as well as
regional occupational safety and regional environment
authorities. For the public is also reserved right to
express their opinions concerning the application.

All the existing Seveso sites had already been granted
a license and inspected during earlier legislation and
TUKES was pretty well familiar with their activities.

In Finland Seveso sites are inspected periodically
according to a programme compiled by TUKES. The
upper tier establishments are to be inspected annually
and the lower tier establishments every third year.
The above-mentioned authorities are reserved right to
comment the programme and they normally attend
the inspections. During 1999 the establishments were
identified
programme was
executed first time.

inspection

and

the

setting

document

The lower tier establishments are obliged to draw up
a
accident
out
prevention policy. They also have to appoint a person
who shall be responsible for seeing that their policy is
followed and maintained. The existing establishments
had to fulfil this obligation until 1 July 2000.

their major

Both the lower tier and the upper tier establishments
have to employ a person (or several persons in a case
of big establishment) who knows the legislation and
regulations
(an appointed
supervisor). Before appointment, a supervisor has to
pass an examination arranged by TUKES.

concerning

chemicals

The Ministry of the Environment is responsible for
the legislation on land use planning (in force 1
January 2000) and respectively the Ministry of the
Interior
(in force 15
emergency planning
September 1999) and the Ministry of Social Affairs
and Health for the legislation on safety of employees
(in force 23 September 1999).

for

The upper tier establishments are obliged to produce
things, a
a safety report covering, among other
description of their safety management system. A new
establishment has to send a safety report in adequate
time prior
start of operations. Existing
establishments have the deadlines of 1 February 2001
and 1 February 2002 ﬂ depending on their situation

to the

C 28/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

in respect of earlier legislation (cid:151) to send their reports
to TUKES. When assessing the reports TUKES asks
the opinions of the other authorities concerned, too.
The safety report and the relevant list of dangerous
chemicals have to be available for public examination
preferably at the plant.

The upper tier establishments have to inform the local
residents and communities about any possible major
Existing
accident, which might
establishments have to deliver a safety circular after
having produced a safety report.

them.

affect

Both the lower tier and upper tier establishments have
to draw an internal emergency plan and send it to
TUKES for review. For existing establishments apply
same deadlines as the safety reports.

In Finland the local chief fire officer is responsible for
drawing up an external emergency plan that is based
on the information received from the establishment’s
safety report and TUKES’ comments on it.

case where

an accident occurs

In the
an
establishment, an operator is obliged by law to inform
TUKES at
the first opportunity. When necessary
TUKES investigates the accident and takes appropriate
actions based on it.

at

Main national laws

Decree on the industrial handling and storage of
dangerous chemicals (682/90, amendment 703/92)

Decree on liquefied petroleum gas (711/93)

100

80

60

40

20

0

Decree on natural gas (1058/93)

Decree on explosives (473/93)

Decision of the Ministry of the Interior on emergency
preparedness for chemical accidents (7/94)

Council of State Decision on prevention of major
accident hazards caused by chemicals (1705/91)

The first decree is based on the Chemicals Act
(744/89)
and the Act on Explosive Substances
(263/53). Decrees 2-4 are based on the Act on
Explosive Substances alone. The Decision of
the
Ministry of the Interior is issued based on the Act on
Fire and Rescue Services (559/75). The Council of
State Decision has the Act on Occupational Safety
(299/58) as its base.

Competent authorities

The Safety Technology Authority of Finland (TUKES)
is responsible for enforcing the decrees 1-5. TUKES is
working under the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

As regards the land use planning (6), it is enforced by
the local planning authorities in cooperation with the
Regional Environment Centres. The Ministry of the
Environment supervises these authorities. TUKES is
the competent authority that is consulted in the case
of a Seveso site.

is
The Decision of the Ministry of the Interior (7)
enforced by the local fire and rescue authorities under
the guidance of the Ministry.

The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health with its
regional
the
is
supervision of the Government Decision (8).

organisation

responsible

for

Sites covered by Article 5 (82/501/EEC)

At the end of the year 1998 the number of sites
covered by Article 5 was 76.

Figure 24

Number of sites

57

69

76

76

80

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999

The data provided for 1999 and 1998 are not fully
comparable due to the entry into force of the Seveso
II provisions in Finland in 1999. Nevertheless,
the
figure show an important increase of the number of
Seveso sites, mainly between 1995 and 1997.

Activities on sites

Due to the legislation in Finland and different possible
interpretation of the definition of (cid:145)activity(cid:146), an exact
number can not be given.

Safety reports

T h e S e v e s o I D i r e c t i v e

By the end of 1998 the Safety Technology Authority
I
received

from Seveso

reports

safety

76

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/23

establishments. Additional 22 safety reports were
received from other installations based on Finnish
national legislation.

During 1999 in Finland occurred two major accidents
fulfilling the criteria in the Seveso II Directive.

Safety

Technology

The
requested
supplementary information from 30 sites and set
formal requirement for improvements to one site as a
result of examination of the safety reports.

Authority

4.2.14. Sweden

General remarks

The Safety Technology Authority judged 76 safety
reports sufficient as regards the meeting of obligations
referred to in Article 7 of Seveso I. The number of
safety reports that include internal emergency plans
has not been provided by the Finish Authorities.

T h e S e v e s o I I D i r e c t i v e

the year 1999 total number of
By the end of
establishments which have submitted safety reports,
as required under Article 9 of the Seveso II Directive
was two. By the end of the year 1999 total number
of establishments who had submitted an internal
emergency plan as required under Article 11 of the
Seveso II Directive was one. The plan in question had
been examined by TUKES and judged to be sufficient.

External emergency plans

to the

information from the

According
local
authorities 36 sites had an external emergency plan.
However, this low number probably reflects failures
in reporting rather
than in the preparation of
emergency plans.

Inspections

S e v e s o I D i r e c t i v e

All Seveso I sites had been inspected in connection
with the license procedure when establishing a new
installation or modifying an existing establishment.

S e v e s o I I D i r e c t i v e

All the upper tier establishments (80) were inspected
for the first time in accordance with the procedure
In
laid down in the Article 18 of
addition to that TUKES carried out an inspection at
67 lower tier establishments.

the Directive.

Information to the public

No information available.

Notification of accidents

for

responsible

supervision

There are a number of regulations implementing the
level
Directive. Authorities at the local and regional
are
these
the
regulations. The Authorities have not found it obvious
how to judge whether the Directive covers a site or
not. These problems will be solved once the Directive
96/82/EC will be transposed into national regulation.
A reporting system at national
is now in the
project phase and this will increase the quality of the
reporting figures.

level

of

For the reporting period 1997-1999,
Authorities have not provided updated data.

the Swedish

Main national laws and Competent Authorities

Arbetarskyddsstyrelsens kung(cid:246)relse med f(cid:246)reskrifter
om storskalig kemikaliehantering, AFS 1989:6 (1)
the National Board of Occupational
(Regulation of
Safety and Health on use of chemicals in large scale)
in force from 1 January 1991.

Competent Authority: Arbetarskyddsstyrelsen (National
Board of Occupational Safety and Health).

vid

Kung(cid:246)relse med f(cid:246)reskrifter om skydd av den yttre
industriell
storolyckor
milj(cid:246)n
MS:71 (2)
kemikaliehantering,
SNFS
(Regulation of the Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency on protection of the environment in the case
of major accidents in industrial use of chemicals) in
force from 25 May 1994.

vid
1994:1,

Competent Authority: Statens Naturv(cid:229)rdsverk (Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency).

Lagen om brandfarliga och explosiva varor, SFS
1988:868 (3)
and Explosive
(Act on Flammable
products)
and
in
F(cid:246)rordningen om brandfarliga och explosiva varor,
SFS 1988:1145 (4)
(Ordinance on Flammable and
Explosive products) in force from 1 July 1989.

from 1

1989

force

July

In Finland there had happened two major accidents
fulfilling the criteria in the Seveso I Directive (one in
1996 and the other in 1998).

(1) ISBN 91-7930-094-4, ISSN 0348-2138.
(2) ISSN 0374-5301.
(3) ISSN 0346-5845.
(4) ISSN 0346-5845.

C 28/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

Competent
Spr(cid:228)ng(cid:228)mnesinspektionen
(National Inspectorate of Explosives and Flammables).

Authority:

SFS

SFS

in force

1986:1102 (1)

(Rescue
R(cid:228)ddningstj(cid:228)nstlagen,
from 1 January 1987,
Services Act)
1986:1107 (2)
R(cid:228)ddningstj(cid:228)nstf(cid:246)rordningen,
(Rescue Services Ordinance) in force from 1 January
f(cid:246)reskrifter om
1987 and Statens R(cid:228)ddningsverks
informationsskyldighet
med
kemikaliehantering, SRVFS 1994:1 (3)
(Regulation of
the Swedish Rescue Services Agency on information
obligations in connection with use of chemicals)
in
force from 1 June 1994.

samband

i

Competent Authority: Statens R(cid:228)ddningsverk (Swedish
Rescue Services Agency).

The Swedish Authorities have provided no updated
data for the reporting period 1997-1999.

4.2.15. United Kingdom

Main National Laws

The European Communities Act 1972: This extends
the powers of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
to enforce requirements for environmental protection
for the purpose of the CIMAH Regulations.

Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974: This is the
main law relating to health and safety risks arising
from work activities and it gives powers to HSE
inspectors
take
photographs, take statements, serve improvement and
prohibition notices
and
makes it a criminal offence for employers to breach
the Act or any regulations made under it.

and bring prosecutions)

examine documents,

(to inspect,

Industrial Major Accident Hazards
The Control of
Regulations
statutory
This
(CIMAH):
instrument (S.I.) No 1984/1902 and is the main law
implementing the Council Directive 82/501/EEC.

1984

is

CIMAH has been amended three times through the
following:

(cid:151) The Control of Industrial Major Accident, Hazards
(Amendment) Regulations 1988: (No 1988/1462):
the
This implemented the first amendment of
Council Directive 82/501/EEC.

(1) ISSN 0346-5845.
(2) ISSN 0346-5845.
(3) ISSN 0283-6165.

(cid:151) The Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards
(Amendment) Regulations 1990: (No 1990/2325):
This implemented the second amendment of the
Council Directive 82/501/EEC.

(cid:151) The Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards
(Amendment) Regulations 1994: (No 1994/118):
This
removed the exclusion in the principal
regulations for sites operated by a waste disposal
authority.

Competent Authorities

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) enforce the
regulations at all top tier sites and all lower tier sites
that are industrial activities. Local authorities enforce
at a small number of lower tier sites in the retail,
wholesale and commercial sector.

Northern Ireland has its own regulations but these are
identical to the British CIMAH regulations.

Sites covered by Article 5 (82/501/EEC)

The number of
sites covered by Article 5 had
increased over the last reporting period from 303 in
the year 1994 to 308 in the year 1996; it increased
again over the present reporting period and 320 top
tier CIMAH sites were recorded by the mid 1999.

Activities on sites

No data related to activities have been provided.

Safety reports

508 safety reports have been submitted to competent
authorities; the number of expected safety reports has
not been provided.

Figure 25

Number of sites with formal requirements

12 %

10 %

8 %

6 %

4 %

2 %

0 %

11 %

4 %

3 %

1 %

1994 

1995 

1996 

1999

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/25

The number of sites that have had formal requests or
legal action taken by the Competent Authorities
resulting from examination of
in
respect of obligations under Article 7(1) increased in a
significant way over
reporting period
the
(1997-1999).

the safety report

last

The number of
including internal
safety reports
emergency plans had increased from 300 to 488
during the last reporting period. For 1999, 293 sites
had an emergency plans.

35 reports have been subject to improvement notices.

Figure 26

Sites with internal and external emergency plans

100 %

93 % 99 %

93 %

99 %

92 %

88 %

62 %

58 %

Percentage of safety
reports with internal
emergency plans

Percentage of sites with
external emergency plans

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %

1994 

1995 

1996 

1999

The figure shows that the percentage of safety reports
with internal emergency plans tended to decrease over
the last reporting period, while the percentage of sites
with external emergency plans remained stable.

External emergency plan

Observations

has

been

facilitate

and this will

Seveso Directive

the new COMAH Regulations

The
successfully
implemented in the United Kingdom. Both companies
and local authorities are now familiar with the
the
CIMAH Regulations
to
introduction of
implement Seveso II. There are now better
links
between HSE and local authorities and authorities
have learnt from our experience of CIMAH in the
assessment of
set of
assessment criteria for the new COMAH safety reports
has been derived from the experience of assessing
CIMAH reports.

reports. A robust

safety

4.2.16. Norway

Authorities

The regulations are administered on the central level
by four different public authorities:

(cid:151) Directorate for Fire and Explosion Prevention,

(cid:151) Directorate for Labour Inspection,

(cid:151) Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, and

(cid:151) Industrial Safety and Security Organisation.

A coordinating forum headed by the Directorate for
Fire and Explosion Prevention has been established.

Sites covered by Article 5 (82/501/EEC)

In Norway, 25 sites were covered by Article 5, two of
them being newly built.

283 sites have an external emergency plan.

Activities on sites

Inspections

In Norway, there are no distinctions between sites and
activities.

No information has been provided.

Safety reports

Information to the public

255 sites have issued information to the public as
required by Article 8.

Notification of accidents

During the reporting period 13 accidents occurred, all
of which were reported to the MARS database.

25 safety reports have already been submitted. All
safety reports include an internal emergency plan and
have been examined and judged as sufficient by the
National Competent Authorities.

Formal action/legal requirements

Most of the sites have had questions and follow-up
requirements from the Competent Authorities during
the examination of the safety reports. No items are
now outstanding.

C 28/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

External emergency plan

are

plans

emergency

all
There
external
municipalities where hazardous
are
located. So, 25 external emergency plans have been
drawn up. Such plans are the responsibility of the
local authorities within each police district and are
prepared under the leadership of the chief of police.

in
installations

Inspections

All sites (25) have been subject to inspections during
the reporting period.

Information to the public

All sites (25) have issued information to the public
during the reporting period.

5.

COMMITTEE OF COMPETENT AUTHORITIES (CCA)

A coherent implementation and consistent application
of the provisions of the Seveso Directive throughout
the Community necessitates a close cooperation of
the Competent Authorities of all Member States and
the European Commission.

The Directive obliges the Member States and the
the
Commission
to
the
experience acquired and the
Directive.

on
functioning of

information

exchange

The forum for such an administrative cooperation is
the so-called Committee of Competent Authorities
(CCA) which consists of
the
Member States and the Commission services. The
CCA is chaired by a representative of the Commission
and meets once in every Council presidency, i.e. every
the CCA is based upon
six months. The work of
consensus.

representatives of

From 1995 on meetings were organised in the
Member State that held the Council Presidency.
During the reporting period 1997-1999, six meeting
have been held. (1/1997 (cid:151) The Hague, Netherlands;
2/1997 (cid:151) Mondorf-Les-Bains, Luxembourg; 1/1998
(cid:151) Steyning, United Kingdom; 2/1998 (cid:151) Graz,
Austria; 1/1999 (cid:151) Munich, Germany; 2/1999 (cid:151)
Turku, Finland).

These meetings were held over two days: the first day
was the (cid:145)meeting proper’ and the second day was
assigned to the host Member State to demonstrate
how it implements the Seveso Directive. This format
has proved very successful for reasons including the
following:

(cid:151) It submits the Member State concerned to a (cid:145)peer
review’ of its system which is extremely beneficial
in
the
legislation.

implementation

ensuring

good

of

(cid:151) It allows Member States to learn from each other,
and this is known to be particularly helpful to
those Member States with less well-developed
approaches.

With the entry into force of the Seveso II Directive, it
has been decided to reinforce the system and to add a
one-day seminar prior to the meeting in order to treat
more deeply a theme linked to Seveso. For the first
Seveso II meeting, discussions with experts from the
insurance industry were carried out in Munich, and
the first one-day seminar on (cid:145)Software Tools Relevant
to the Implementation of the Seveso II Directive(cid:146) was
organised in Turku.

all

issues

concerning

to its practical application.

The CCA discusses
the
implementation of
the Seveso Directive and gives
In this
guidance as
context, the seminars and the discussions are a good
platform to discuss possible problem arising from the
understanding or practical
application from the
Directive.

When fulfilling the tasks
the
Comitology provisions of the Directive (Articles 15
and 16), the CCA acts as a Regulatory Committee
(type IIIa).

referred to under

6.

OTHER COMMISSION ACTIVITIES

6.1.

Major-Accident Hazards Bureau (MAHB)

1996

support

in Directorate-General

The Major Accident Hazards Bureau (MAHB) was
officially established by the European Commission in
February
JOINT
RESEARCH CENTRE with a remit to offer scientific
and technical
the
Commission
Directorate-General
ENVIRONMENT) in the successful implementation of
European Union policy on the control of major
industrial hazards and the prevention and mitigation
of major accidents, in particular in connection with
the Seveso Directives (1)
(see: http://mahbsrv.jrc.it/).
This includes the following tasks:

services of

(principally

to other

managing the Major Accident Reporting System
(MARS) (see chapter 6.2), including

(1) N. Mitchison, C. Kirchsteiger, The (cid:145)Seveso II(cid:146) Directive and the
Major Accident Hazards Bureau, Environmental Law Newsletter, No
1, Environmental Law Network International, Freiburg, 1998, p.
28-31.

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/27

(cid:151) verification and input of information,

(cid:151) extracting information and lessons learnt from the

accidents and incidents reported,

(cid:151) disseminating information to National Authorities,

industry and other interested parties.

(cid:151) classify

the

accidents

various
parameters, in particular the substances involved,
consequences, and causative factors,

according

to

(cid:151) extract (cid:145)lessons learned(cid:146) to prevent the recurrence
their

to mitigate

accidents

and

of
similar
consequences (1).

Managing the Community Documentation Centre on
Industrial Risk (CDCIR) (see chapter 6.4), including:

6.2.2.

Changes due to Seveso II

(cid:151) acquisition of

relevant public-domain material,

both published and unpublished;

(cid:151) preparation of an occasional Bulletin with details

and summaries of material acquired;

(cid:151) making

non-copyright material

available

to

authorities and other parties

preparing reports on the implementation of
Directive;

the

The Seveso II Directive 96/82/EC which has replaced
the original Seveso Directive
implied significant
MARS-related changes, in particular concerning

(cid:151) criteria for the notification of an accident to the

Commission,

(cid:151) confidentiality of information submitted,

(cid:151) information system and exchanges.

and

technical

providing
for
Technical Working Groups studying various aspects
of the control of major accident hazards (see chapter
6.5).

scientific

support

of

tasks

information
specific
undertaking
and
dissemination,
including organising seminars
workshops with the Competent Authorities
(with
industrial participation where appropriate) on relevant
topics in the areas of industrial risk, risk management,
major hazard regulation and licensing, and emergency
response to industrial accidents (see chapter 6.5).

6.2.

Accidents reported to the MARS Database

of

the

the

lowering

threshold

Although originally the number of events reported
was not very large, there was always a high level of
detail, which is sufficient
to establish the detailed
causes of an accident, both the immediate and the
underlying ones. As a result of the new Seveso II
for
Directive,
notification has led to an increased number of events
being reported. Also since 1996 the MARS database
has been developed for a more open approach to the
supply of information to the public, both from the
Member States and from the Commission, without
violating the confidentiality aspects of the reporting
system. The new system still uses the best practice of
the old but has advanced beyond a normal reporting
system, to more of an information exchange between
the competent authorities and the Commission.

6.2.1.

Background

6.2.3.

System and Information Structure

Since the implementation of the Seveso Directive, the
Competent Authorities of all Member States are
required to notify to the Commission all major
industrial accidents involving dangerous substances.
For this purpose, the Commission set up in 1984 an
industrial accident notification scheme,
the Major
Accident Reporting System (MARS), operated and
the
maintained
European
of
Commission’s Directorate-General
Joint Research
Centre (DG JRC) in Ispra, Italy. The accidents reported
are collected in a register and information system
((cid:145)MARS database(cid:146)), and analysed in order to:

the MAHB

by

The structure of the MARS database is composed of
two reporting forms:

(cid:151) the (cid:145)short report(cid:146) which is intended for use for

immediate notification of an accident, and

(1) C. Kirchsteiger (ed.): Lessons Learnt from Accidents, Proceedings of
European Union Seminar, Linz, Austria, 16-17 October, 1997,
EUR 17733 EN (1998).

C 28/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

(cid:151) the (cid:145)full

the evolution of

report(cid:146) which is prepared when the
accident has been fully investigated, and the
the accident, and the
causes,
consequences are fully understood.
In certain
cases further information comes to light (cid:151) for
example in the course of judicial proceedings (cid:151)
and there
report(cid:146)
the
information to be further modified.

is provision for

(cid:145)full

The short reports, containing no identifying details,
are available on the Internet (http://mahbsrv.jrc.it), in
the form of a database search, or can be requested
directly from MAHB.

Today, MARS exists as a distributed information
network, consisting of 15 local databases on a
MS-Windows platform in each Member State of the
European Union, and a centralised analysis system at
the MAHB that allows complex text retrieval and
pattern analysis. Currently the number of records in
the database stands in excess of 450, and is constantly
being updated (see Figure A).

Figure A

Trend in occurrence of accidents reported to MARS

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
10/80 

03/84 

08/87 

01/91 

06/94 

11/97 

4/01

Date of Accident

The number of events reported is (cid:151) fortunately (cid:151)
not very large, but what makes MARS unusual among
accident databases is the high level of detail, which is
sufficient
to establish the detailed causes of an
accident, both the immediate and the underlying ones.

for

basis

in the

providing
for

industry to prevent

form of open publications

Various analyses on the contents of MARS have been
practical
performed,
a
recommendations
future
accidents. MARS data analysis results are distributed
(with
either
identifying details
summary
removed), as
evaluations of accidents notified for the CCA or as
reports on specific data evaluations
(e.g. by the
Community Documentation Centre on Industrial
to perform specific
Risk). Various
analyses of non-confidential MARS data were received
by MAHB in this reporting period from industry,
regulatory authorities or research institutions.

such requests

regular

6.2.4.

Characteristics of Accidents

The severity of all major accidents reported is shown
in Figure B (the method to derive these relative
severity values is described in (1)):

(1) C. Kirchsteiger, Absolute and Relative Ranking Approaches for
Comparing and Communicating Industrial Accidents,
Journal of
Hazardous Materials, Elsevier Science, Volume 59(1), March 1998,
p. 31-54.

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/29

Figure B

Severities of accidents reported to MARS

y
t
i
s
n
e
D
y
t
i
l
i

b
a
b
o
r
P

0 

0,2 

0,4 

0,6 

0,8 

1

Severity’s

From the left side of this plot it can be seen that there is a high probability of the occurrence of a number of
events with very low severity, i.e. a large number of near misses and accident precursors which have been
notified to MARS on a voluntary basis (1). The right side of the plot shows that there is a fairly high
probability that the accidents that do occur in Seveso plants will be more severe, with the number of accidents
of middle to low severity occurring rarely.

As a more specific example, we can look at the root cause contributors to the severity to see which has the
most weighting under particular circumstances, e.g. direct operator or component failure are the most likely
contributors to near misses, whereas an accident of high severity is most likely to occur due to a runaway
reaction (see Figure C).

Figure C

Root causes of accidents reported to MARS

operator error

component failure

runaway reactions

y
t
i
s
n
e
D
y
t
i
l
i

b
a
b
o
r
P

0 

0,1 

0,2 

0,3 

0,4 

0,5 

0,6 

0,7 

0,8 

0,9 

1

Accident Severity (ralative rank/percentile)

(1) C. Kirchsteiger, Impact of Accident Precursors on Risk Estimates
from Industrial Accident Databases, Journal of Loss Prevention in
the Process Industries, 10, No 3, Elsevier Science, May 1997, p.
159-167.

 
 
C 28/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

These analyses emphasise the continuing need for
performing studies on lessons to be learned from
accidents, and the importance of a reporting tool like
the MARS database (1).

quantitative statements on the frequency of major
accidents from Seveso plants in Europe (2).

6.2.5.

Trends in Accidents and their Characteristics

in the

industrial

risk management
(cid:145)Stakeholders(cid:146)
process
(public and governmental affairs officials,
general public, media, industry, academia) frequently
from the European Commission a
want
response to a simple question:
(cid:145)How Frequent are
Major Industrial Accidents in Europe?(cid:146)

to get

requires

the Member States

Seveso II
to report
accidents that fulfil certain criteria to MARS. Member
States are, however, not explicitly required to report
the number of Seveso plants and their characteristics
to the Commission, and only rough estimates of their
number are currently known.

The number of major accidents and their detailed
characteristics is the only information available on
European level. From the data necessary to estimate
an event frequency, i.e. number of event occurrences
per
of
(nominator)
and number
opportunities for an event
to occur (denominator),
only the rate’s nominator is known, and it is thus not
clear if major accidents from Seveso plants are fairly
infrequent events in Europe or not.

period

time

Further, besides lack of data on the denominator, the
question is which denominator best represents the
number of accident opportunities over
the large
spectrum of
industrial establishments covered by
Seveso II. (cid:145)Seveso plants(cid:146) vary greatly in size, type of
processes, type and quantities of chemical substances
stored and produced, operating characteristics, etc. As,
so far, there is no information on the characteristics
of Seveso plants available,
in a first
approximation, be considered as a homogeneous
population. The
a
dangerous substance in one Seveso plant always has
the same opportunity to be accidentally released than
does a dangerous substance in another plant. While
true and the
this approximation is certainly not
resulting accident
this
seems the only possibility at this moment to derive

rates certainly not perfect,

assumption implied is

they shall,

that

in: Special

(1) Kirchsteiger, Trends in Accidents, Disasters and Risk Sources in
Europe,
Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries on (cid:145)International Trends in Major Accidents and
Activities
European Commission towards Accident
Prevention(cid:146), Volume 12, No 1, Elsevier Science, January 1999, p.
7-17.

Issue of

the

by

To forecast the number of major accident occurrences
for an individual Seveso plant, we could take the
simple average or mean of all past observations, i.e.
419 accidents reported between 1986-1999 (3). This
gives a hazard rate, k, as:

k =

419 accidents

168 months (cid:215) N

(N being the number of Seveso plants and T=168
months our observation time). For a N=10 000 (4),
the major accident rate of a Seveso plant would
become ˝3 (cid:215) 10ﬂ3 aﬂ1, the Mean Time To Failure
(MTTF) ˝333a. A number of assumptions were made
for this simplistic calculation, such as the estimate of
N, and that all Seveso plants are identical.

6.2.6.

Extension of MARS beyond the EU

For Central and Eastern Europe there has so far been
no unified source of reliable information on industrial
accidents. The Central and Eastern European countries
are accession countries to the EU and will thus soon
environmental
required to comply with the
be
legislation and in particular Seveso II.

in May 2000,

At the third Meeting of EU Competent Authorities
(CCA)
the Competent Authorities
approved the chemical accident reporting and analysis
cooperation between MAHB and OECD. This will
mean that by the end of this year the MARS 4.0 tool
will be used by both EU and OECD members

(2) C. Kirchsteiger, How Frequent are Major Industrial Accidents in
Europe? Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Institution of
Chemical Engineers, TransIChemE, Volume 78, Part B, 2001
(forthcoming).

(3) Although some countries

reported events even from before
application of the (cid:145)Seveso I Directive(cid:146) (1982), the completeness of
reporting seems to be fairly good from the mid 1980’s onwards.
(4) The number 10 000 Seveso plants in the European Union is a
guess. However,
from discussions held with the Competent
Authorities and from an assessment of the Competent Authorities
themselves on the
complying with the
requirements of Seveso II recently distributed and evaluated by
CEFIC, it seems as if (cid:151) in the order of magnitude (cid:151) about 10 000
Seveso Plants under Seveso II could be a realistic number (CEFIC
Safety at Work/Major Hazards Group, Questionnaire relating to
industry cost of complying with the requirements of the Seveso II
Directive, CEFIC (cid:151) The European Chemical
Industry Council,
Brussels, undated).

costs of

industry

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/31

countries to report industrial accidents in the MARS
standard format to MAHB and to exchange accidents
information on this basis. Further, it was agreed that a
similar cooperation shall be set up between MAHB
and
to
the UN-ECE Convention on the
implementation of
Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents.

Secretariat with

the UN-ECE

regard

MARS will thus provide in the near future a unified
industrial accidents database for the whole of Europe,
based on both mandatory EU / UN-ECE and voluntary
OECD requirements, and an open control system
Competent
involving
Authorities in the Member States as well as the
European Commission, OECD and UN-ECE. Similar
transnational
of
for
schemes
industrial risks do not exist elsewhere.

the management

operators

industrial

and

provide

MARS will soon be used across the whole Europe and
and
will
comprehensive nature an integrated view on the
status of and trends in industrial hazards in Europe.

its wide

coverage

due

to

6.3.

Seveso
(SPIRS)

Plant

Information Retrieval

System

The Commission’s accident database MARS is now
complemented by SPIRS,
a distributed database
system which was set up in order to provide access to
risk related information from major hazardous
industrial establishments in Europe for all
interested
parties.

6.3.1.

Background

Rational decision-making in the risk assessment and
management of major hazards in industrial plants is
of paramount importance. Allowance should be made
for studying alternative strategies in which continuous
and consistent cross-comparison is made. For this
purpose, it is important that a common language is
developed to estimate and weigh the hazard and risk
potential of such plants against each other and judge
acceptability. The new Directive 96/82/EC
their
moves
in risk
such common language
assessment and management (1).

towards

(1) S. Contini, F. Bellezza, M. Christou, C. Kirchsteiger, The Use of
in Major Accident Risk
Systems
Geographic
Assessment and Management,
Journal of
Hazardous Materials, Volume 78, Nos. 1-3, November 2000, p.
223-246.

Information

in: Special

Issue of

The geographical component of risk is important,
especially when the spatial distribution of cost and
benefit factors related to the operation of industrial
plants with major hazard potential
is quite diverse
across the EU or with regard to new Member States
in Central/Eastern Europe. The common language for
representation
is
geographical maps. In the context of industrial risk
management, maps
thus
create
(cid:145)immediate(cid:146) understanding of the cause/effect relations
with regard to hypothetical major accidents on a
(cid:145)Seveso Plant(cid:146) site and their effect on the immediate
surroundings.

distributed

spatially

visual

data

and

of

a

6.3.2.

Features of the System

By using SPIRS, which is based on the requirements
of the Seveso II Directive, it is possible to analyse and
make available information about
the geographical
component of risk in Europe. This will mainly be
done by providing a map of all major hazardous
in Europe together with
industrial establishments
information on their basic risk related characteristics.
SPIRS will be used to support the authorities in their
risk management related decision-making processes.
the SPIRS tool consists of one
Similar to MARS,
the MAHB, and local
central database,
databases
the
Member States (2).

the Competent Authorities of

located at

for

6.3.3. Adoption of SPIRS by the Competent Authorities

At the third CCA meeting in May 2000, the new
version SPIRS 2.0 was presented together with the
new accident reporting software MARS 4.0 to the
Competent Authorities at a special
seminar. All
delegates present (from the EU Member States, EU
accession and EFTA countries, OECD and UN-ECE)
recognised the value of such a European database
containing the following basic information on Seveso
type of establishments:

(cid:151) geographical location (longitude, latitude),

(cid:151) name of the establishment,

(cid:151) name

and quantity of qualifying substances

on-site according to Seveso II.

All countries expressed their willingness to provide
this minimum information to SPIRS. The data will be
treated confidentially by the European Commission
and the Member States.

(2) C. Kirchsteiger, H. Gohla, A. Ostuni, Development of a GIS Tool
for Monitoring and Evaluating the Risk Potential of (cid:145)Seveso Plants(cid:146)
in the EU, Proceedings of the ESREL ’99 International Conference
on Safety and Reliability, Munich, Germany, Balkema Rotterdam,
13-17 September 1999.

C 28/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

6.3.4.

Current Status of Reporting

by

been

tested

having

successfully

After
the
Competent Authorities, the final versions of the new
MARS and SPIRS software tools was distributed to the
EU Member States, EU accession and EFTA countries,
OECD and UN-ECE countries for use in the context of
the OECD Chemical
the EU Seveso Directive,
Accidents
the UN-ECE
Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial
Accidents, in 2000.

Programme

and

for

So far only sample data has been reported. A total
number of 320 records reporting information from:
51 establishments from three provinces of Austria, 66
establishments
in Belgium, 190
establishments from one province in Germany and 13
establishments from one province in Spain. This is
about 5 % of the total number of establishments in
the EU.

from two towns

Concerning further developments
in the Member
States’ efforts, a complete set of all French Seveso type
of establishments to be reported to MAHB is expected
by mid of 2001.

The German authorities have decided to use the tool
for their recording of establishments that fall under
the requirements of the UN/ECE Convention on the
Transboundary Effects of
Industrial Accidents, and
will report these data to MAHB.

A modified version of the tool is to be used under the
JRC’s PECO Project on technological hazards
for
Central and Eastern European countries.

These

bibliographic

institutes.
include
document-related data fields, e.g. title, original title,
year of publication, source, availability, key words and
abstract.

data

MAHB manages
Centre on Industrial Risk (CDCIR), including:

the Community Documentation

(cid:151) acquisition of

relevant public-domain material,

both published and unpublished;

(cid:151) making

non-copyright material

available

to

authorities and other parties;

(cid:151) providing

continued

to
Directorate-General
the
reparation of reports on the implementation of
the Directive;

Envirmonment

assistance

in

(cid:151) preparation of a Bulletin on a regular basis with

details and summaries of material acquired.

In the reporting period,
three such Bulletins have
been produced and a total of about 900 requests have
been handled at the CDCIR. Most of MAHB’s studies
performed in this period are based on the CDCIR.

the

MAHB

homepage

Since early 2001, CDCIR is completely accessible
under
via
http://mahbsrv2.jrc.it/cdcir, including the possibility to
create user-defined Bulletins for download. For this
reason,
is not planned to continue with the
production and distribution of hardcopy Bulletins,
unless there is a specific request from the CCA.

it

6.4.

Community Documentation Centre on Industrial
Risk (CDCIR)

6.5.1.

Technical Working Groups

6.5.

Technical Working Groups;
workshops studies

seminars

and

scientific

the Community Documentation
The objective of
is to create a
Centre on Industrial Risk (CDCIR)
environment which
and
bibliographic
facilitates
information between the
exchange of
Member States on the control of major hazard
industrial activities, and to gain maximum knowledge
from the common European effort towards industrial
safety.

CDCIR contains only documents which are in the
public domain, but includes many documents that are
not easily found elsewhere ((cid:145)grey literature(cid:146) such as
accident reports, codes of practice, recommendations,
the end of 2000, CDCIR contained
laws etc.). At
more than 3000 reviewed documents,
issued by
and research
institutions,
governmental

industry

covered include

Technical Working Groups ((cid:145)TWGs(cid:146)) have been set up
by the Commission in certain technical domains
In particular,
connected with the Seveso Directives.
the domains
the
revision to the Directive
proposed fundamental
modifies or extends the provisions of
the current
Directive, and where there was therefore felt to be
need for guidance to expand on and explain the
requirements of the proposed new Directive. These
TWGs are in most cases administered jointly by the
MAHB and Directorate - General Environment.

some where

During the period concerned, 7 TWGs were in
existence or were finalising the suite of guidance
documents that accompanied the coming into force
of the new Directive.

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/33

TWG2,
(cid:145)Inspection Systems(cid:146) was revived in order to
the
develop guidance or other assistance aimed at
consistent and effective implementation of Article 18
of the Seveso II Directive within the Member States.
During
on
(cid:145)Inspections(cid:146) has been published (1).

this period

document

guidance

a

(cid:145)Safety Reports(cid:146)

WG3,
published a guidance document (2).

finished its discussions and

(cid:145)Carcinogens

TWG8,
in the Context of Council
Directive 96/82/EC(cid:146) held four meetings during the
reporting period and consistent with the statement of
the Council minutes related to the Seveso II Directive
produced recommendations for a comprehensive list
substances which can be considered as being
of
potentially
acute
for
exposures. Appropriate qualifying quantities were also
proposed and the recommendations of TWG 8 have
been published (7) and will form part of the proposal
for an Amendment to the Directive.

carcinogenic

(cid:145)single

shot(cid:146)

TWG4, (cid:145)Safety Management Systems(cid:146) finished its work
and published a guidance document (3).

6.5.2.

Seminars and workshops

TWG5, (cid:145)Land Use Planning(cid:146) was very active and held
4 meetings culminating in the publication of a
guidance (4).

TWG6,
(cid:145)Dispensations according to Article 9(6) of
Directive 96/82/EC(cid:146) held three meetings and produced
harmonised criteria for the application of Article 9(6)
of the Directive. These were formally adopted at the
CCA meeting in spring 1998. A guidance document
has been published (5).

to

the

Seveso

II Directive

TWG7 (cid:145)Substances Dangerous to the Environment(cid:146)
held four meetings during the reporting period and
consistent with the statement of the Council minutes
related
produced
recommendations for new qualifying quantities for
substances classified as being very toxic or toxic with
long term effects for the aquatic environment (risk
phrases R50 ,R50/53 and R51/53). At the same time
a new named substance was proposed which included
the kerosenes, diesels and gasoils into the (cid:145)automotive
petrol and other petroleum spirits(cid:146) category along
with
The
qualifying
recommendations of TWG 7 have been published (6)
and will form part of the proposal for an Amendment
to the Directive.

quantities.

suitable

These seminars are intended primarily for national
authorities, industry and academia concerned with the
implementation of the Seveso Directive. The approach
to hold these international seminars with a more
thematic orientation, comparing national experience
in one particular
several
countries, was continued.
In addition, a one day
seminar attached to the Committee of
technical
Competent Authorities meetings was started in 1999
where a seminar related to (cid:145)Computer Software(cid:146) was
held at the Turku

technical domain across

international

Three
1997-1999:

seminars were held

during

(cid:151) Linz 1997: Lessons Learnt from Accidents (8),

(cid:151) Rome 1998:
Report,

Inspection Systems and the Safety

(cid:151) Athens 1999: Seveso 2000 (cid:151) Risk Management
in the European Union of 2000: the Challenge of
Implementing Council Directive (cid:145)Seveso II(cid:146) (9).

6.5.3.

Studies

(1) G. Papadakis & S. Porter

(Eds): Guidance on Inspections as
Required by Article 18 of the Council Directive 96/82/EC (Seveso
II) EUR 18692 EN (1999).

(2) G. Papadakis & A. Amendola (Eds.): Guidance on the preparation
of a Safety Report to meet the Requirements of Council Directive
96/82/EC (Seveso II), EUR 17690 EN (1997).

(3) N. Mitchison & S. Porter (Eds.): Guidelines on a Major Accident
Prevention Policy and Safety Management System, as required by
Council Directive 96/82/EC (Seveso II), EUR 18123 EN (1998).
(4) M.D. Christou & S. Porter (Eds.): Guidance on Land Use Planning as
Required by Council Directive 96/82/EC (Seveso II), EUR 18695
EN (1999).

(5) J. Wettig & N. Mitchison (Eds.): Explanations and Guidelines for the
Application of the Dispensation Rule of Article 9, paragraph 6 of
the Council Directive 96/82/EC (Seveso II), EUR 18124 (1999).
(6) M.D. Christou (Ed): Substances Dangerous for the Environment in
the Context of Council Directive 96/82/EC, Report by Technical
Working Group 7, EUR 19651 EN (2000).

The following studies and contributions to research
activities were carried out by MAHB:

(cid:151) A review of

transmission pipeline

accidents

involving hazardous substances (10);

(7) M.D. Christou (Ed). Carcinogens

in the Context of Council
Directive 96/82/EC, Report by Technical Working Group 8, EUR
19650 EN (2000).

(8) C. Kirchsteiger (Ed). Lessons Learnt from Accidents, EUR 17733 EN

(1997).

(9) G.A. Papadakis (Ed). Seveso 2000 (cid:151) Risk Management

in the
European Union of 2000: the Challenge of Implementing Council
Directive (cid:145)Seveso II(cid:146), EUR 19664 EN (2001).

(10) G.A. Papadakis, Review of Transmission Pipeline Accidents

involving Hazardous Substances, EUR 18122 EN 1999.

C 28/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

(cid:151) A regulatory benchmark for a pipeline safety
from
an overview of

instrument,
Member States Competent Authorities;

responses

to a one year period. Additional
for
information sent to Member States have not always
allowed a clarification of the situation.

requests

(cid:151) Contribution to the Lupacs, EU shared cost
project aimed at using multi-criteria analysis for
land-use planning;

(cid:151) Contribution to the Assurance, EU shared cost
aimed
at
project,
a
quantifying
associated with
quantitative risk analysis for the chemical process
industry;

benchmark
the uncertainties

exercise

(cid:151) Contribution to the Smmarten, EU shared cost
project aimed at providing an effective safety
management system for small and medium sized
enterprises (SMEs);

(cid:151) Contribution to the Harsnet, EU thematic network
on chemical hazard analysis for batch reactions in
the process industry.

7.

SUMMARY

The information provided by the Member States
in the current
highlighted significant weaknesses
listed in
reporting system. Even if these weaknesses,
from drawing straightforward
section 7(1) prevent
conclusions,
the
specific
Directive have been more deeply analysed in section
7(2).

requirements of

some

that

shows

in particular

significant
The analysis
progresses have been achieved in the field of
the
information to the public and in the quality of the
safety reports but the current situation will still have
to be improved in the framework of the Seveso II
Directive. Efforts are still needed in the fields of
internal and external emergency plans.

Moreover, the numbers of sites are not comparable
within the EU as Member States continue to have
different approaches. For example, the large number
of sites in Germany is primarily due to the fact that
each installation within an industrial establishment is
counted as a site whereas the majority of Member
States defines
consists of
installations as one site. For the future it
different
the Seveso II Directive has
should be noted that
introduced
on
establishments.

an establishment

system based

unequivocal

that

an

The questionnaire was also focused on quantitative
aspects like number of sites, number of safety reports
received etc. Even if the numerical data give already
valuable information, it would be ingenious to draw
clear conclusions about the application of the Seveso
Directive only on the basis of the answers provided to
the questionnaire without any qualitative information
(quality of the information to the public, of the safety
reports(cid:133)).

and

Even if some successful attempts have been already
Joint Visit
made in the field of inspection (Mutual
Programme),
qualitative
reliable
if
information is a difficult challenge, it seems necessary
to do so in the framework of the Seveso II directive in
order to ensure a homogeneous application of the
Directive.

getting

7.2.

Main outcomes

7.1.

Weakness of the current reporting system

Even if all Member States, with the exception of
Sweden have provided some data during
this
reporting period, there are many missing data, thus
making it difficult
to compare the situation in
different Member States.

In particular, many Member States have not provided
answers on an annual basis but have often given only
figures related to the situation at the end of 1999.
The answer to some questions (number of inspections
for example) becomes then ambiguous as it is not
clear if the answer is related to a three years period or

Despite these difficulties, the information provided by
the Member States over the two reporting periods
allows to draw some interesting trends. During the
practical
reporting
implementation and enforcement of
the Seveso
Directive improved significantly in most Member
States in two critical fields, information to the public
and external emergency plans.

1997-1999,

period

the

Nevertheless, in other fields like inspection or safety
reports no real improvement have been detected. It is
expected that the framework of the Seveso II Directive
and of the national transposition measures will allow
significant enhancement in all these fields.

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/35

7.2.1.

Inspection system

The Seveso I Directive (Article 7(2)) requests the
Competent Authorities to organise inspections, but
there is no clear requirement on the periodicity of
these inspections. Maybe for this reason, it seems that
no clear progress have been achieved in this field. In
this context it is important to add that Germany has
provided no data, that France has not provided data

for the first reporting period (1994-1996) and that
Netherlands and the United Kingdom have not
provided any data for the present reporting period
(1997-1999).

The Seveso II Directive (Article 18) has clarified the
requirements related to the inspection system and we
expect
the next reporting period will show a
clear improvement in this field.

that

Figure 27

Sites subject to inspection (1)

B

DK

D

GR

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

AT

P

FIN

S

UK

aver.

1994

100 %

100 %

2 %

60 %

100 % 10 % 75 % 99 %

62 %

100 % 67 %

1996

100 % 100 %

83 % 52 %

100 % 42 % 75 % 100 % 56 % 67 % 100 % 52 % 100 % 82 %

1999

100 % 100 %

80 % 18 % 100 % 75 % 21 % 50 %

38 % 47 % 100 %

56 %

7.2.2.

Information to the public

The criteria for considering that a site has issued
information to the public at suited time intervals were
perhaps ambiguous in the Directive, thus leading to
different national requirements and to different way of
understanding the question.

The figures provided show that the percentage of sites
that have issued information to the public increased
in a significant way in most Member States over the
two reporting periods. Nevertheless,
the average
percentage
reached in 1999 seems not
satisfactory.

(61 %)

As a matter of fact, the responsibility for informing in
practice the public and the way to check that the
and
information
understood are very different in the different Member
States.

correctly

received

been

has

In many Member States, the information to the public
is issued by the local or regional authorities. In others
Member States the operator is in charge of informing
the public.

Therefore, comparison between Member States can
only give a very rough indication of the situation.

(1) Note: average value computed on the basis of the Member States
that provided data for 1994, 1996 and 1999. For this table the
data provided by Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy
and Portugal have been taken into account for the computation of
the average value.

As
the requirements contained in the Seveso II
Directive (Article 13) are much clearer, the situation is
expected to improve.

C 28/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

Figure 28

Sites that issued information to the public (1)

B

DK

D

GR

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

AT

P

FIN

S

UK

aver.

1994

12 %

38 % 62 %

1996

72 % 62 % 88 %

1999

86 % 61 % 82 %

2 %

2 %

2 %

17 % 66 % 78 % 50 %

18 %

43 %

81 % 42 %

16 % 64 % 70 % 74 %

19 % 32 % 43 % 87 %

80 % 52 %

26 % 75 % 81 % 100 %

62 % 52 % 50 %

80 % 61 %

7.2.3.

Safety reports

7.2.3.1. Expected safety reports and received safety reports

In 1999, the Competent Authorities have received almost all expected safety reports. As shown
on the figure below (2), the percentage of received safety experts has increased over the reporting
period 1997-1999 and reaches 100 % in most Member States that provided figures for 1999.

Figure 29

Received and expected reports

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %

Ratio received reports / expected
reports in 1996

Ratio received reports / expected
reports in 1999

B

DK

D

GR

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

AT

P

FIN

S

UK

98 %

100 % 100 % 100 % 94 % 100 % 95 % 100 % 100 % 97 % 71 % 100 % 89 % 100 % 95 %

100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 97 % 100 % 100 % 96 %

96 % 95 % 100 % 3 %

(1) Note : for computing the average value, only the values provided
by Member States that had given inputs for the years 1994, 1996
and 1999 have been used. In order to allow a comparison between
the average value has been computed without
Member States,
taking into account the sizes or number of sites of the different
Member States.

(2) The particular case of Finland can be explained by the transition
period following the entry into force of the Seveso II transposition
measures.

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/37

7.2.3.2. Sites with formal requests

If we consider the percentage of sites that have had
formal request or legal action taken by the competent
authority resulting from examination of
the safety
report, this percentage has increased slightly (36 % in
average in 1996 and 39 % in 1999).

An increase or decrease in this percentage can not be
considered by itself as a positive or negative element.
Indeed,
i.e. an increase in this percentage can be
considered as an enhancement of the quality of the
work done by the competent authorities or by an
enhancement of the quality of the reports provided by
the companies.

Figure 30

Sites with formal requests

B

DK

D

GR

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

AT

P

FIN

S

UK

aver.

1994

21 %

88 %

14 % 38 %

33 %

5 % 100 % 10 %

19 %

1996

60 % 86 %

42 % 34 %

15 % 20 % 100 % 8 %

48 % 24 %

1 %

80 %

1999

26 % 89 %

89 % 36 %

0 %

4 %

18 % 53 %

4 %

3 %

28 %

36 %

11 % 39 %

The comparison of the data provided in 1999 and in
1996 shows that both the number of received safety
reports and the number of expected safety reports
have increased in a significant way in some Member
States and decreased in a significant way in other
Member States.

There is obviously a clear correlation between the
number of expected safety reports and the number of
received safety reports, as the ratio between the two
magnitudes is close to one in most Member States.

Figure 31

Variation in the number of expected and received safety reports

Variation in the number of expected
safety reports

Variation in the number of received
safety reports

B

DK

D

GR

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

AT

P

FIN

UK

26 % 7 % –2 % 8 % 3 % 18 % –20 % –27 % 0 % 9 % 65 % –14 % –4 %

28 % 7 % –2 % 8 % 7 % 18 % –16 % –30 % 0 % 8 % 119 % –14 % –97 % 3 %

C 28/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

7.2.3.3. Number of sites and number of installations

Nevertheless, in many Member States there is no clear
link between the variation in the number of expected
safety reports and the variation in the number of
in some Member States (like Greece,
sites.
Spain, Ireland, Italy or Portugal), there is a very clear
like Belgium, Denmark,
correlation, and in other,

Indeed,

there is no
France or Netherlands
obvious explanation to the variation of the number of
safety reports.

for example,

It can be stressed that, for these Member States, the
analysis shows that there is also no clear correlation
between the number of safety reports and the number
of activities.

Figure 32

Variation in the number of sites between 1996 and 1999

20 %

10 %

0 %

–10 %

–20 %

–30 %

8 %

4 %

3 %

–1 %

B

DK

D

GR

E

16 %

4 %

4 %

IRL

I

NL

F
–5 %

AT
–5 %

P

FIN

UK

aver.

–4 %

–14 %

–14 %

–20 %

–27 %

Figure 33

Variation in the number of sites and activities between 1996 and 1999

20 %

0 %

–20 %

B

DK

D

GR

E

F

NL

AT

aver.

Variation in the mumber of sites (96 to
99)

Variation in the mumber of activities
(96 to 99)

–1 %

–14 %

4 %

9 %

–11 %

4 %

8 %

6 %

3 %

5 %

–5 %

6 %

4 %

3 %

–5 %

–1 %

19 %

5 %

Note : the figure covers only the Member States that have provided data related to the number of sites and the

number of activities in 1996 and 1999.

7.2.3.4. Percentage of

safety reports examined and judged

sufficient

The percentage of safety reports examined and judged
sufficient depends on two different factors. First the
capacity of the Member States to analyse the safety
reports and then the acceptance or not of the report,
this depending from the quality of the report and
from the national
requirements. On principle, an
increase in this indicator is a good sign, if we assume
it
the Competent
Authorities.

is not due to a lax position of

the

and

average

In most Member States the increase from the previous
reporting period has been confirmed over the period
European Union
1997-1999
percentage (of the Member States that provided data
for this item) reaches now 90 %. In this context,
it
would be of high interest to get also some figures
about the current time required for a company to get
its safety report examined,
for new
companies.

in particular

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/39

Figure 34

Safety reports examined and judged sufficient

B

DK

D

GR

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

AT

P

FIN

S

UK

aver.

1994

44 %

79 % 87 % 15 % 80 %

88 %

100 % 99 %

100 %

81 % 75 %

1996

94 % 76 % 83 % 33 % 89 %

89 % 20 % 100 % 87 % 50 % 100 % 68 %

99 % 83 %

1999

100 % 100 % 99 % 80 % 73 % 75 % 100 % 64 %

84 %      64 % 94 % 50 %

88 % 91 %

7.2.3.5. Safety reports and internal emergency plans

The percentage of safety reports that include an internal emergency plan remained stable since
1994. Even if this percentage is relatively high (80 % in average of the Member States that
provided data), no progress have been achieved.

Figure 35

Safety reports containing internal emergency plans

B

DK

D

GR

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

AT

P

FIN

S

UK

aver.

1994

100 %

62 %

74 % 100 % 54 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 83 %

100 %

62 % 82 %

1996

100 % 54 %

67 % 100 % 51 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 86 % 100 % 100 % 91 % 58 % 99 % 84 %

1999

100 % 43 %

88 % 100 % 52 % 100 % 100 %

96 %      64 % 100 % 50 %

58 % 82 %

7.2.3.6. Sites with external emergency plans

The percentage of sites with external emergency plans has increased again over the reporting
period 1997-1999 as shown by the figure here below. Nevertheless, progresses are still to be
achieved in this field.

C 28/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

Figure 36

Sites with external emergency plans

B

DK

D

GR

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

AT

P

FIN

S

UK

aver.

1994

56 %

96 %

1996

54 % 100 %

1999

86 % 100 %

4 %

4 %

4 %

52 % 59 % 78 % 45 % 75 % 68 %

45 %

93 % 60 %

77 % 58 % 70 % 44 % 75 % 69 % 36 % 45 % 52 % 59 % 92 % 61 %

71 % 75 % 75 % 87 %

80 %      17 % 50 %

88 % 72 %

31.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/41

ANNEX I

QUESTIONNAIRE ON DIRECTIVE 82/501/EEC FOR 1994

(cid:145)safety
The answers given should only relate to activities and sites covered by Article 5. The terms (cid:145)site(cid:146),
report(cid:146), (cid:145)internal emergency plan(cid:146) and (cid:145)external emergency plan(cid:146) (typed in bold and italics) are defined at the end of the
questionnaire.

(cid:145)activity(cid:146),

1.

(a) Total number of sites.

(b) Number of newly built sites (new construction or process/capacity modification).

(c) Number of existing sites newly covered after entry into force of Directive 88/610/EEC.

2.

(a) Total number of activities on sites given in (a).

(b) Number of newly built activities (new construction or process/capacity modification).

(c) Number of existing activities newly covered after entry into force of Directive 88/610/EEC.

3. Total number of safety reports:

(a) Already received by the competent authorities.

(b) Total expected (already received and not yet submitted).

4. How many safety reports:

(a)

Include internal emergency plans or have contributed towards a site internal emergency plan (as referred to
in Article 5(1) (c))?

(b) Have been examined by Competent Authorities and judged as sufficient for adequate administrative follow-up

to fulfil the obligations referred to in Article 7 fourth indent?

5. How many sites have had formal requests or legal action taken by Competent Authorities resulting from

examination of the safety report in respect of obligations under Article 7(1) last indent?

6. How many sites given in 1(a) have:

(a) An external emergency plan?

(b) Been subject to inspection referred to in Article 7(2)?

(c)

Issued information to the public as required by Article 8?

7. NOT compulsory (when possible or available)

(a) How many safety reports (with or without internal emergency plans) have been examined by an external

expert?

(b) How many sites given in 1(a) are subject to specific land use planning requirements for the mitigation of

major accidents?

Notes

1.

(a) The meaning of (cid:145)activity(cid:146) corresponds to the definitions given in Article 1(2)(a) of the Directive.

(b) The meaning of (cid:145)site(cid:146) corresponds to an industrial establishment where one or several activities take place and

are operated under the responsibility of the same manufacturer.

2.

(a) The meaning of (cid:145)safety report(cid:146) corresponds to information to be provided under Article 5(1) excluding the first

and third indent of paragraph (c).

(b) The meaning of (cid:145)internal emergency plans(cid:146) corresponds to information to be provided under Article 5(1) (c)

first and third indent.

3. The meaning of (cid:145)external emergency plan(cid:146) in this questionnaire corresponds to those referred to in the Directive,

Article 7(1) last indent.

C 28/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.1.2002

ANNEX II

QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF DIRECTIVE 82/501/EEC FOR
THE YEARS 1995 AND 1996

The answers given should only relate to activities and sites covered by Article 5. The terms (cid:145)site(cid:146),
(cid:145)safety
report(cid:146), (cid:145)internal emergency plan(cid:146) and (cid:145)external emergency plan(cid:146) (typed in bold and italics) are defined at the end of the
questionnaire.

(cid:145)activity(cid:146),

1.

(a) Total number of sites.

(b) Number of newly built sites (new construction or process/capacity modification).

2.

(a) Total number of activities on sites given in (a).

(b) Number of newly built activities (new construction or process/capacity modification).

3. Total number of safety reports:

(a) Already received by the Competent Authorities.

(b) Total expected.

4. How many safety reports:

(a)

Include nternal emergency plans or have contributed towards a site internal emergency plan (as referred to in
Article 5(1) (c))?

(b) Have been examined by Competent Authorities and judged as sufficient for adequate administrative follow-up

to fulfil the obligations referred to in Article 7?

5. How many sites have had formal requests or legal action taken by Competent Authorities resulting from

examination of the safety report in respect of obligations under Article 7(1) last indent?

6. How many sites given in 1(a) have:

(a) An external emergency plan?

(b) Been subject to inspection referred to in Article 7(2)?

(c)

Issued information to the public as required by Article 8?

7. NOT compulsory (when possible or available)

(a) How many safety reports (with or without internal emergency plans) have been examined by an external

expert?

(b) How many sites given in 1(a) are subject to specific land use planning requirements for the mitigation of

major accidents?

Notes

1.

(a) The meaning of (cid:145)activity(cid:146) corresponds to the definitions given in Article 1(2)(a) of the Directive.

(b) The meaning of (cid:145)site(cid:146) corresponds to an industrial establishment where one or several activities take place and

is/are operated under the responsibility of the same manufacturer.

2.

(a) The meaning of (cid:145)safety report(cid:146) corresponds to information to be provided under Article 5(1) excluding the first

and third indent of paragraph (c).

(b) The meaning of (cid:145)internal emergency plans(cid:146) corresponds to information to be provided under Article 5(1)(c)

first and third indent.

3. The meaning of (cid:145)external emergency plan(cid:146) in this questionnaire corresponds to those referred to in the Directive,

Article 7(1) third indent.

ANNEX III

SEVESO-I-QUESTIONNAIRE 1994

OVERVIEW

Question

1a

1b

1c

2a

2b

2c

3a

3b

4a

4b

5

6a

6b

6c

7a

7b

B

84

1

20

234

42

45

155

161

155

68

18

47

84

10

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

DK

24

1

4

33

10

4

34

34

21

27

21

23

24

9

7

7

D

2 358

338

(cid:151)

2 358

338

(cid:151)

1 773

2 358

(cid:151)

1 544

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

1 464

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

GR

49

5

0

50

5

(cid:151)

47

50

35

7

7

2

1

1

47

(cid:151)

E

147

9

19

F

383

13

85

134

687

9

19

118

140

119

94

56

77

88

25

94

2

18

16

633

687

341

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

227

(cid:151)

252

(cid:151)

325

IRL

18

0

2

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

17

18

17

15

6

14

18

14

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

I

418

30

70

1 080

45

150

418

418

418

(cid:151)

20

190

40

210

(cid:151)

60

L

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

NL

115

3

46

773

5

201

110

131

91

109

12

78

114

21

60

6

AT

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

P

42

1

1

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

42

42

42

42

8

19

26

18

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

FIN

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

S

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

UK

303

1

14

Total

3 945

403

264

470

5 823

1

6

483

497

300

391

12

283

303

245

(cid:151)

268

474

444

3 834

4 540

1 543

2 301

164

963

701

2 269

208

668

.

.

3
1
1
2
0
0
2

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

C

2
8
/
4
3

ANNEX IV

SEVESO-I-QUESTIONNAIRE 1995

OVERVIEW

Question

1a

1b

2a

2b

3a

3b

4a

4b

5

6a

6b

6c

7a

7b

B

86

2

254

48

161

164

161

142

33

53

86

61

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

DK

D

EL

21

(cid:151)

27

6

41

41

21

31

18

21

21

13

8

7

1 845

325

1 845

325

1 847

1 847

(cid:151)

1 521

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

1 496

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

49

(cid:151)

50

(cid:151)

47

50

35

7

7

2

1

1

47

(cid:151)

E

147

10

156

15

150

160

150

133

50

113

76

24

93

6

F

392

9

690

17

640

720

370

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

227

(cid:151)

252

(cid:151)

330

IRL

18

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

18

18

18

16

4

14

18

14

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

I

430

38

1 068

42

430

430

430

84

84

190

179

319

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

L

4

(cid:151)

4

(cid:151)

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

NL

122

7

773

21

116

141

84

111

13

78

120

22

6

8

AT

158

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

108

158

108

4

39

33

73

33

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

P

FIN

S

42

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

42

42

42

42

8

19

26

18

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

57

1

90

1

64

66

(cid:151)

45

1

(cid:151)

57

45

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

80

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

75

80

44

49

25

47

80

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

UK

304

8

Total

3 755

400

466

5 423

8

491

492

488

477

4

283

304

247

(cid:151)

269

483

4 234

4 413

1 955

2 666

290

1 083

1 044

2 545

154

620

C

2
8
/
4
4

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

.

.

3
1
1
2
0
0
2

ANNEX V

SEVESO-I-QUESTIONNAIRE 1996

OVERVIEW

F

IRL

I

L

392

(cid:151)

698

27

720

720

370

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

227

(cid:151)

252

(cid:151)

330

20

2

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

19

20

19

17

3

14

20

14

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

430

(cid:151)

1 068

(cid:151)

430

430

430

84

84

190

179

319

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

4

(cid:151)

4

(cid:151)

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

E

147

10

156

15

150

160

150

133

50

113

76

24

93

6

Question

B

DK

D

EL

1a

1b

2a

2b

3a

3b

4a

4b

5

6a

6b

6c

7a

7b

85

(cid:151)

266

4

162

165

165

152

51

46

85

61

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

21

(cid:151)

27

6

41

41

22

31

18

21

21

13

8

8

1 828

338

1 828

338

1 909

1 909

(cid:151)

1 582

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

1 612

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

52

5

53

5

52

52

35

17

22

2

43

1

47

(cid:151)

NL

124

6

592

3

119

123

102

103

10

86

124

23

2

9

AT

140

(cid:151)

213

(cid:151)

100

140

100

50

67

50

78

45

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

P

FIN

S

UK

Total

42

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

42

42

42

42

10

19

28

18

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

69

1

110

1

74

83

67

50

1

36

69

60

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

69

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

69

69

40

(cid:151)

55

41

36

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

308

3 731

1

363

466

5 481

1

400

493

4 384

519

4 477

488

2 034

477

2 742

10

385

283

1 131

308

1 070

247

2 689

(cid:151)

269

150

662

.

.

3
1
1
2
0
0
2

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

C

2
8
/
4
5

Question

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

AT

P

FIN

S

UK

Total

SEVESO-I-QUESTIONNAIRE 1997

OVERVIEW

1a

1b

2a

2b

3a

3b

4a

4b

5

6a

6b

6c

7a

7b

89

0

280

4

197

197

197

179

47

61

89

61

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

1 955

283

1 955

283

1 932

1 932

(cid:151)

1 754

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

1 610

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

19

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

18

19

18

18

0

13

16

16

0

0

35

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

35

35

35

35

26

18

20

18

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

76

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

76

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

76

0

(cid:151)

76

(cid:151)

0

(cid:151)

C

2
8
/
4
6

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

.

.

3
1
1
2
0
0
2

Question

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

SEVESO-I-QUESTIONNAIRE 1998

OVERVIEW

1a

1b

2a

2b

3a

3b

4a

4b

5

6a

6b

6c

7a

7b

89

2

293

4

207

207

207

186

19

67

89

67

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

1 893

273

1 893

273

1 868

1 868

(cid:151)

1 869

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

1 559

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

18

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

17

18

17

17

0

13

16

15

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

NL

124

1

591

3

124

129

116

110

7

104

(cid:151)

35

9

6

AT

P

FIN

S

UK

Total

33

1

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

33

33

33

33

18

18

15

18

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

76

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

76

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

76

0

(cid:151)

76

(cid:151)

0

(cid:151)

.

.

3
1
1
2
0
0
2

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

C

2
8
/
4
7

SEVESO-I-QUESTIONNAIRE 1999

OVERVIEW

Question

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

1a

1b

2a

2b

3a

3b

4a

4b

5

6a

6b

6c

7a

7b

84

1

289

1

208

208

208

208

22

72

84

72

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

18

0

24

9

44

44

19

44

16

18

18

11

7

7

1 903

271

1 903

271

1 874

1 874

(cid:151)

1 849

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

1 562

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

56

4

56

4

56

56

49

45

50

2

45

1

48

(cid:151)

152

371

5

164

5

160

165

160

116

55

108

80

40

100

6

0

740

130

850

850

441

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

280

(cid:151)

280

(cid:151)

301

16

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

16

16

16

16

0

12

12

13

0

0

313

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

301

313

301

(cid:151)

12

272

65

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

4

1

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

2

2

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

2

2

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(1) Refers to Seveso II Directive.

Total

NL

129

5

611

15

129

134

124

109

(cid:151)

103

(cid:151)

80

8

6

AT

133

0

253

14

219

231

141

141

24

23

50

69

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

P

FIN (1)

S

36

3

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

36

36

36

34

19

18

17

18

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

80

1

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

2

80

1

1

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

80

(cid:151)

0

80

UK

320

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

508

(cid:151)

293

(cid:151)

35

283

(cid:151)

255

(cid:151)

(cid:151)

C

2
8
/
4
8

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

.

.

3
1
1
2
0
0
2