1. Seminar on Land Use Planning 24 September – Nicosia Summary
THEMISTOCLIS KYRIACOU
LABOUR INSPECTION OFFICER
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR INSPECTION
CYPRUS 1

2. Presentations 10 presentations Case Studies 1 EC 2 JRC 6 MS 1 UNECE 2 2

3. EC Presentation Summary of legislative process
Main changes introduced by Seveso III
Transposition and implementation issues
Focus on Land Use Planning related aspects of the new legislation 3 3

4. JRC Presentation Land Use Planning – Case Study using the Aripar tool
MS Land Use Planning
History
Situation of land-use planning - legislation
Land-use planning approaches
Common Elements
Divergences
Case Study 4 4

5. MS Presentations LUP approaches Deterministic
Risk-based (or “probabilistic”)
Semi-quantitative 5 5

6. Deterministic approach
Consequence-based approach
Features:
Based on consequences of credible accidents
No explicitly quantified likelihood of the event, quantified assessment consequences
Comparison to agreed consequence thresholds
Usually two zones are defined:
Internal zone – lethal effects – no urban development allowed
External zone – beginning of irreversible effects – no sensitive population 6 6

7. Risk-based approach Identification of hazards
Calculation of probability of potential accidents
(Quantitative) Estimation of consequences
Integration into overall risk (individual and societal)
Comparison of risk to acceptance criteria
Zoning dependent on risk levels 7 7

8. Semi-quantitative approach
Features:
Specific subcategory of the risk-based or the consequence-based methods
Composition of quantitative and qualitative methods
Result is zoning according to matrix categories 8 8

9. Common Elements
Operate – if possible – without imposing any risk to the population outside the fence
Apply “state-of-the-art” at the source
Define a development restriction by “zoning”
Use of scenarios
No absolute “worst case scenarios”
LUP (as required by Seveso) is a political decision based on technical advise 9 9

10. Divergences
LUP decision has a connection to and an implication with safety report
LUP decision has no connection to the safety report but is based on separate assumptions
LUP decision is made with detailed knowledge of the case
LUP decision is made without detailed knowledge of the case but is based on generic assumptions
Different understanding of the role of additional safety measures
Different values for endpoint thresholds and failure frequencies
Different understanding of “state-of-the-art”
Implication with other tools like emergency response 10 10

11. UNECE Presentation
Siting decisions and land-use planning under the Convention of the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents
Past and future pan-European work under the UNECE Convention of the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents
decisions on the siting of hazardous activities and land-use planning in the vicinity of such sites. 11 11

12. Thank you for your attention….
Themistoclis Kyriacou
Tel.:
Fax.: 12