Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances" (COM(2001) 624 final — 2001/0257 (COD))
Date: 2002-04-24
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: chemical pollution, dangerous substance, environmental protection, environmental risk prevention, exchange of information, industrial hazard, public awareness campaign

21.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 149/13

3.7.
The Committee is not clear what is meant by ‘ecore-
gions’ [cf. Article 4(1)(c)]. Who determines these regions
(according to what criteria)?
3.7.1.
how Regulation (EC) No 1257/99 on support

The Commission should draw up a report examining
for rural

development could to be framed so as to give greater support
for cultivating rare plant species and for keeping rare breeds
of productive livestock as a part of a multifunctional agriculture
and of a comprehensive programme for the conservation and
utilisation of genetic resources.

Brussels, 24 April 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the
control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances’

(COM(2001) 624 final — 2001/0257 (COD))

(2002/C 149/05)

On 21 December 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 April 2002. The rapporteur
was Mr Levaux.

At its 390th plenary session (meeting of 24 April 2002), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion unanimously.

1. Aim of the proposal

1.1.
The proposal under discussion is intended to update
the Council Directive, known as the Seveso II Directive, of
9 December 1996, which aims to prevent major accidents
which involve dangerous substances, and limit their conse-
quences for man and the environment.

This updating is intended to take account of certain

1.2.
recent large-scale industrial accidents, such as:

— that of Baia Mare in Romania, in January 2000, where a
cyanide spill from a tailings pond contaminated the
Danube;

— that of Enschede in the Netherlands, in May 2000, where

a series of explosions took place in a stock of fireworks.

1.2.1.
The Commission considered the need for immediate
amendment of the Seveso II Directive following the explosion

which occurred on 21 September 2001 at the AZF site in
Toulouse. In this case, it was noted that the Toulouse site,
unlike the sites of the accidents mentioned above, was fully
covered by the obligations imposed by the Directive. Moreover,
to wait for the full results of the enquiry would have meant
delaying the application of the amendments covered by the
present draft directive.

The Commission has

1.2.2.
therefore postponed its
decision on the timing of a new review of the Seveso II
Directive, emphasising at this stage that the consequences of
both the Toulouse and the Enschede accidents were aggravated
by the fact that the establishments concerned were situated
close to residential areas. The Committee emphasises that,
unfortunately, such areas have in some cases been created after
the establishment was set up.

C 149/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.6.2002

1.2.3.
The Commission points out that Article 12 of the
Seveso II Directive, on land-use planning, aims in the long
term to separate hazardous industrial establishments from
residential areas, and that in practice some Member States are
unaware of or do not enforce this separation.

2.1.3.
For its part, the Committee would point out that it
was only belatedly involved in this process of continuous
consultation. Thus it is now called upon to issue an opinion
within a shorter timescale, without having at its disposal all
the information accumulated at the consultation stage.

it will
To that end the Commission states that
1.2.4.
increase cooperation with the Member States to develop
appropriate follow-up to the accidents as regards a number of
specific aspects and that, in the light of work and investigations
in progress, it will examine the need to amend its proposal or
to propose a new modification to the Seveso II Directive.

On the AZF accident in Toulouse, which occurred on
2.2.
21 September 2001,
the Committee endorses the Com-
mission’s decision not to delay the present proposal but to put
off taking into account the consequences of this recent disaster
until the enquiry results are available.

The proposed updating is also intended to take account

1.3.
of the results of the work of two technical working groups:

— TWG 7 on ‘substances dangerous for the environment’;

— TWG 8 on ‘carcinogens’.

Finally, the updating makes it possible to make drafting
1.4.
changes to Annex I of the Seveso II Directive in order to
correct some slight inaccuracies or ambiguities.

2. General comments

2.1.
The Committee shares the views expressed in the
explanatory memorandum to the draft directive. This particu-
larly detailed and well-argued text throws much light on:

— the pragmatic nature of the approach, which seeks to
take into account the consequences of each accident soon
after it has happened;

— the joint planning arrangements set in train to prepare
modifications, which make it possible to involve as many
interested parties as possible at a very early stage.

2.1.1.
On this point, the Committee notes that the Com-
mission rightly stresses the full importance of the continuous
consultation process set up for the implementation of the
Seveso II Directive and on the changes and improvements
which could be made to it.

The Commission mentions the relevant conferences
2.1.2.
and seminars which have been held, and states that in drawing
up the present proposal it consulted the countries belonging
to the European Economic Area, the applicant countries,
environmental NGOs, European and national industrial feder-
ations and associations, and certain international organisations
including the UN.

2.2.1.
Nonetheless, and without wishing to prejudge the
results of the enquiries or future Commission proposals, the
Committee emphasises that the Toulouse accident occurred
on a site which was fully covered by the obligations imposed
by the Seveso II Directive. The Committee stresses that this
fact did not make it possible to avoid the accident, nor to limit
its disastrous consequences. Like the Commission, it therefore
feels it is essential to give prompt consideration to the changes
to the Directive which must now be envisaged.

2.2.2.
As regards Article 12 on land-use planning, and
more particularly the location of dangerous industrial sites in
relation to inhabited areas or other areas frequented by the
public, both common sense and experience with accidents
clearly show the need to impose strict rules of distance and
protection for the location of future sites. Once again the
Committee endorses — as it did in its opinion of 2 June
1994 (1) — the 1996 decisions which will be re-examined in
the light of recent events.

2.2.3.
However, for the existing sites the Committee has
doubts about the presentation of the Commission’s approach.
In point 1, paragraph 5 of its introduction, the Commission
states that in the near future it ‘will increase co-operation with
the Member States in order to develop an appropriate ...
follow-up to the accidents ...’.

2.2.4.
Seeking and using the lessons which can be learned
from accidents is undoubtedly useful and indeed essential, but
when presented in this way the approach belittles the priority
aspect of a prevention policy, which is the very foundation of
the Seveso II Directive.

The Committee stresses that this prevention policy
2.2.5.
must involve a systematic effort to provide information firstly
for the adult populations working nearby, but also for all
pupils of educational institutions.

(1) Economic and Social Committee Opinion of 2 June 1994 on the
Proposal for a Council Directive on the control of major-accident
hazards involving dangerous substances (COMAH)
(COM(94)
4 final — SYN 94/0014) — CES 760/94, OJ C 295, 22.10.1994.

21.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 149/15

the expression ‘in the near future’

2.2.6. Moreover,
is
inappropriate when particularly serious risks are involved. The
Committee feels it is necessary to stress the urgency of the
decisions to be taken, and therefore to oblige the industrialists
concerned to plan the measures to be implemented, so that
they programme their investments accordingly.

2.4.3.
Similarly, the Committee has noted that, unlike the
treatment of accidents occurring on sites covered by the
Seveso II Directive, there is no survey or systematic follow-up
at European level for accidents linked with the transport of
dangerous substances by pipeline, road, rail, inland waterway
and sea routes.

2.2.7.
Finally, the Committee is surprised that the Com-
mission envisages strengthening its cooperation only with the
Member States, when a number of applicant countries are
certainly lagging behind in this field and should immediately
start to redress this situation, which arouses concern for the
safety of their populations.

2.3.
On the Baia Mare accident, the Committee agrees with
the Commission on the need to modify the scope of the
Seveso II Directive. This accident demonstrated the existence
of serious risks, whereas in the 1980 Seveso I Directive and
the 1996 Seveso II Directive the exclusions made could be
justified by a lack of experience.

2.3.1.
The Committee appreciates the arguments set out by
the Commission in point 3.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum.
However, it regrets that the Commission has not given a better
idea of the scope of these exclusions by indicating how many
sites for storage and processing of dangerous substances linked
with mining activities would have been concerned; the same
applies to land-fill sites the use of which is linked with ore
processing. The Committee takes the view that, given that
transparency is essential for necessarily binding measures or
rules to be more easily accepted, it is vital to inform the public
and industrialists fully.

2.4.
As regards the changes linked with the Enschede
accident, the Committee endorses the Commission’s proposals,
which take account of the lessons drawn from this serious
disaster.

2.4.1. When drawing up this opinion, the Committee noted
that many problems exist with regard to explosive products
and more specifically pyrotechnic products imported into
Europe, mainly from Asia. The customs declarations classifying
these products in different categories are often incorrect, so
that their transport and storage take place under conditions
which do not comply with the rules: this can give rise to
serious accidents.

2.4.4.
The Committee notes that this problem does not
relate directly to those covered by the Seveso II Directive, but
points out that dangerous substances, apart from their presence
on the sites where they are used or stored, also have to be
transported and can give rise to major accidents in transit.

The Committee proposes that

the Commission
2.4.5.
should examine the possibility of creating, on the model used
for the follow-up of on-site accidents involving dangerous
substances, a similar follow-up for accidents occurring at the
transport stage. By extending the scope of its responsibilities,
such a task could be entrusted to the Major Accident Hazards
Bureau (MAHB) or to another body which has the relevant
expertise.

3. Specific comments

3.1.

The draft directive comprises four articles.

3.2.
Article 1, by reducing the number of exclusions laid
down in Article 4 (e) and (f) of the Seveso II Directive, broadens
its scope to cover chemical and thermal processing operations
and related storage linked with mining operations. The Com-
mittee, while noting that mining activities proper (exploitation,
exploration, extraction and processing) and quarrying activities
are still excluded from its scope, endorses the Commission
proposal which is the result of a balanced consensus worked
out through the prior consultation of the interested parties.
However, in the case of reprocessing of tailings containing
dangerous substances, the Committee would endorse either
the application to them of the Seveso II Directive or the
drawing-up of specific rules to cover them.

The same article broadens the scope to cover tailings
3.3.
disposal facilities which are used in connection with the
chemical and thermal processing of minerals and which
contain dangerous substances. The Committee notes that other
waste land-fill sites are still excluded, and endorses — the
Commission proposal on the same basis as above.

The Committee hopes that the Commission, which
2.4.2.
is aware of these problems, will take them into account when
considering a forthcoming review of the Seveso II Directive.

On the updating of Annex I to the Seveso II Directive,
3.4.
after taking note of the Explanatory Memorandum the Com-
mittee endorses the Commission proposals as a whole.

C 149/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.6.2002

3.4.1.
However, the Committee emphasises that the Com-
mission added hydrazine to the list of carcinogens after a
there was some disagreement
debate which showed that
about this substance, as the thresholds chosen result from a
compromise achieved at meetings with professionals.

3.4.2.
The Committee therefore suggests that the Com-
mission should further clarify the proposed text, the current
wording of which is difficult to follow, and at the time of the
next review should reconsider the position taken on hydrazine,
to verify the grounds for it in the light of new research.

3.4.3.
Furthermore, the Committee suggests the addition,
under Notes to Part 2 of Annex I, of a reference to Council
Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous
waste (1) to ensure complete and consistent classification of
dangerous substances and preparations.

3.5.
Article 2 sets a time-limit of 12 months for the
transposition of the directive. Given the nature of the proposed
changes and the importance of the Seveso II Directive in terms
of dealing with the consequences of major accidents involving
dangerous substances, the Committee endorses this time-limit,
which it regards as very short but reasonable.

3.5.1.
It hopes that, in the light of the de facto situation of
existing installations, each Member State will concert with the
interested parties to set realistic deadlines for the establish-
ments concerned to apply the new provisions. These deadlines
should be compatible with the specific economic conditions
and with the need to protect jobs.

(1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.

Brussels, 24 April 2002.

4. Conclusions

The Committee wishes to stress three points.

4.1.
Depending on which states are concerned, there are
substantial differences in risk assessment. Thus, in order to
encourage harmonisation, the Commission should organise,
with the Member States, exchanges between the inspectors
responsible for detecting these risks.

4.2.
Transport infrastructures pass through areas of high
population density where a major accident could have disas-
trous consequences. No database on this exists, and the
Commission, following the model used for risk sites, should
entrust a follow-up to accidents occurring in the transport
stage to the Major Accident Hazards Bureau (MAHB).

4.3.
In its Explanatory Memorandum, the Commission
emphasises that ‘the obligation to provide information to the
public on industrial risks and on the behaviour to adopt in the
case of an accident is of paramount importance for the
limitation of the consequences of major accidents’. However,
while respecting subsidiarity, the Commission should extend
its awareness-raising message to cover the local authorities
and the public, recommending the use of the guidelines it has
published (2). In addition, it should suggest that the Member
States pass on this message to young people through edu-
cational establishments.

(2) General guidelines for content of information to the public,
Directive 85/501/EEC — Annex VII, published by the European
Commission (available in English, French, German and Spanish at
http://mahbsrv.jrc.it/GuidanceDocs.html — Information for the
Public).

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS