CCA September 2012 French LUP Experience Seminar –September 2012 1 1

In the past 2

Explosives storage explosion in Paris, 1794 Beginning of the French regulation on major accidents  More than 1 000 fatalities  Parliament report: « there should be appropriate safety distances between dangerous factories and houses » 3

Deterministic approach in the 80’s - 90’s Six reference scenarios for all Seveso establishments Simple mapping to prevent new buildings in the vicinity 4

Deterministic approach in the 80’s - 90’s Six reference scenarios Liquefied flammable gases storages BLEVE Mapping based on circles around the vessel UVCE Cloud created after 10-minute leak and moved by a wind of 2 m/s Toxic gases storages Tank rupture Circle with a distance calculated with a 2 m/s wind Toxic gases unit Pipe leak Leak on the largest pipe. Circle with a distance calculated with a 2 m/s wind Flammable liquids storages Pool fire or gas explosion or « small » boil over Mapping based on circles around the tanks Explosive storages Solid explosion Mapping based on circles around each storage unit 5

And then came Toulouse September 21th 2011: accident AZF LUP revised around all upper tier Seveso establishments (PPRT) 6

Safety distances - future buildings 7

Policy built on Safety report conclusions All « Seveso » policies based on safety report Safety report Permit to operate Risk reduction Land use planning Emergency plans Public information 8

Only selected scenarios for LUP Key point 1: not all scenarios relevant for LUP Probability possible cut-off values in Europe: 10-6, 10-7, 10-8 France: probability cut-off value + protection barrier criteria to be met Events tree Ein 1 Ein 2 Ein 3 Ein 4 Ein 5 EC 6 Ein 7 EIn 8 EI ERC ERS Ph D EM Failure tree Protection barriers Prevention Protection AND OR 9

Only selected scenarios for LUP Key point 2: probabilistic – deterministic approaches not so different 10

Appropriate safety distances Key point 3: people in the vicinity expect a link between safety distances and quantity of dangerous substances on site 11

Appropriate safety distances Key point 3: people in the vicinity expect a link bewteen safety distances and quantity of dangerous substances on site 12

Appropriate safety distances Key point 4: a strong safety investment shall have an impact on the land use policy 13

Mapping – setting rules Key point 5: land use rules shall be more stringent if the accident has a higher possibility to happen Key point 6: on one map, there can be only one colour on one building 14

Appropriate LUP Key point 7: land use rules shall be less stringent if public concerned can be moved to a safe place before the accident happens  External Emergency Plan and Land-Use Planning shall be considered as connected tools 15

Safety distances - existing buildings 16

Towards reducing the size of the public concerned Main difference between French approach and many European approaches  « one-shot » policy after the Toulouse accident  only for upper-tier Seveso establishments  Expropriation or relinquishment in higher risk areas ► Funding: agreement between the Government, the operator and the local authorities  Population protection improvements through consolidation of buildings and infrastructures ► Funding: buildings and infrastructures owners (< 10 % of the market value) 17

Towards reducing the size of the public concerned Same mapping tool as for land use planning meetings including : State representatives, mayors / authorities, NGOs, operator, labour unions at the end, the State representatives make decisions 18

Process still on-going… 19

Thank you for your attention 20