The Administrative Control of Industrial/Chemical Parks in Germany Dr. Andrea Sundermann-Rosenow Federal Environmental Agency, Berlin Information for this presentation was given by the administrative bodies in charge for the control of Seveso II establishments, namely in Northrhine-Westphalia and Hessen, from the local authorities in Köln, Herten and Frankfurt. These authorities have experience with the control of several large Industrial Parks. There was also a research project commissioned by the Federal Environmental Agency about the subject; I will give the link to the report in the end of this presentation.

Definition of Operator/Establishment Identity of operator and establishment Who holds operational responsibility? Question: Who is the operator after restructuring. The individual company which has the means and is entitled to fulfill the obligations from Seveso II is the operator according to Art.3, No. 3 Seveso II Directive. The establishment is defined by its operator. As a general rule, responsibility is not assumed for the management of a group of companies or a parent company, even if companies are still closely related in terms of company law and capital. Operator is not the service company, if it does not operate installations itself. Operators are in most of the cases the user companies in an industrial park.

Close Cooperation and Production-related Links between Companies Shared infrastructure and production-related links Possible tacit contractual relationship When two independent companies work together serving the same objective those companies can form a new joint company even without any written contract. In practice , even in the case of production chains, a tacit contractual relationship is regularly not assumed. as installations are seperated by quick-closing valves or other devices.

Is it possible that the quantity of dangerous substances relevant for the Seveso II obligations is not met after the development of a site from single company ownership to an industrial park? Now I come to one of the bigger problems connected with the building of industrial parks..... In practice, such a case was not yet reported. But the possibility is given. Authorities cannot reverse corporate fragmentation for this reason, as this is a matter of private law only. If a licence is required for an installation, authorities can on the other hand reject the allowance for the separation of the installation into parts, if these parts cannot be operated seperately.

Is it required that installations within a Chemical/Industrial Park are located close to each other to form one establishment? As I told before, the establishment is defined by the operator. The question, which installations belong to the establishment of one operator, can arise, if these installations are scattered all over the site, like a sort of patchwork. In this case the question was put if.... In the administrative practice, this has not yet been a problem (but some problem was seen by lawyers). Installations can be placed all over the site and still belong to one establishment. Even if installations are placed on different sites, because they are e.g. seperated by public transport areas, they can be summed up to one establishment, if there is a possibility of a Domino effect between them. This can be either caused by proximity, or by other means, e.g. the presence of pipes connecting these installations.

Domino Effect Establishments in Industrial/Chemical Parks are often identified as „Domino Establishments“ The identification of establishments, which can cause domino effects because of their location and proximity, under Art. 8 of the Seveso II Directive is one appropriate instrument to control specific hazards caused by the proximity of the establishments in an Industrial/Chemical Park. Under the German Major Hazard Control Ordinance the identification of those establishments is made by administrative act. Arguments for a possible domino effect are e.g. the sharing of a fire brigade or common pipelines that serve different establishments with dangerous substances. In consequence of the domino effect, operators are required to exchange all necessary information and work together to inform the public and to draw up external alarm and emergency plans.

The obligation to take into account specific risks How are specific risks of chemical parks taken into account? If establishments are identified as „domino establishments“, the obligation of operators does not end with the exchange of information but it goes further: The operators have to make sure that their safety policy takes full account of the risks posed by the establishments of other operators in the chemistry park. How they fulfil this obligation is their own responsibility. There are no specific regulations or guidelines on the consideration of risks posed by other establishments.

Joint Major Accident Prevention Policies, Safety Management Systems and Safety Report Organisation by an infrastructure company responsible for central services is helpful Industrial parks often have a joint Major Accident Prevention Policy, organised by the so called „infrastructure company“ or „service company“. This is the company in charge of the „site policy“, and of all central services often including counseling, applying for licences and dealing with the authorities. The implementation of a joint MAPP and emergency management is often laid down by contract and is therefore required for every company establishing on the site of the industrial park. If there is such a joint MAPP, the infrastructure company will organise the information exchange and also care for the appropriate measures. Several cases were reported where the co-operation of service company and user companies was working well. On the other hand there were problems with a company planning to split in several independent companies as the newly founded companies rejected to produce their own safety reports; they were of the opinion, that the split would not cause additional risks, because they had one mother company and a safety report for them as a whole existed.

Internal Emergency Plans It is useful to have joint emergency management structures. Coordination with each single operator`s emergency plan is necessary. Joint emergency management structures are not mandatory, but very useful and often practised. The infrastructure company often organises the emergency planning, as it builds up the risk management for the site, including a shared onsite fire service. and the organisation of the alarm system. Each operator has to build up also a specific emergency planning for his establishment that is co-ordinated with that of the whole site. A problem that is reported by administrative bodies: The more companies are involved in one industrial park, the more co-ordination is necessary and the more problems of gaps or missing provisions can arise. The probabilty of these problems increases, if companies on the same site do not have the same mother company.

Inspections and controls More work for the competent authorities The workload of the competent authorities increases by: the building of new companies and the contol of their effects, namely domino effects, on other Seveso II establishments a higher number of establishments within Industrial/Chemistry Parks.

Links http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/anlagen/body_industrieparks.html http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/anlagen/fachgesprach_industrieparks_.html http://www.sfk-taa.de/ Berichte_reports/Berichte_SFK/sfk_gs_35.pdf Result research project (short report in Englisch), Result of a Workshop in July on Industrial Parks and Environmental Law in General Guideline of the Major Hazard Commission on the interpretation of „establishment“

Need for Guidelines on „Best Practise“? Conclusion Need for Guidelines on „Best Practise“? There is no specific legislation on Industrial Parks in Germany up to now. Problems could be solved in practice. But it is obvious, that structure and organisation of industrial parks are of great influence for the quality of industrial safety in these parks. So what is thought about, is the idea of having „Best Practise Guidelines“ for the internal contractual obligations.