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

2. In the past 2

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

4. 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

5. 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

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

7. Safety distances - future buildings7

8. 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

9. 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

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

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

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

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

14. 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

15. 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

16. Safety distances - existing buildings16

17. 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

18. 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

19. Process still on-going…19

20. Thank you for your attention20