1. 19 January 2017
SEG Meeting
Analysis and summary of Member States’ reports on the implementation of Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances

2. Overview Presentation structure
Initial conclusions on implementation the Seveso Directive
Trends on major accidents and establishments
Benchmarking
Indicators

3. Presentation of the project
Assessment and summary of Member States’ implementation reports for the Seveso Directive for
Covering:
Last reporting period under Seveso II
Objectives of the project
Final report to be submitted February 2017
Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required.
Delivering on our promises
Useful to cover in intro why these projects are required:
Member States’ opportunity to provide feedback.
Commission’s check on state of implementation.
Feeds into future policy making direction.
Member States are requested to submit an implementation report on the basis of responses to a questionnaire provided by the Commission. The questionnaires are adopted as Implementing Decisions. The latest, covering the period, was adopted in June 2011
This study assesses the last implementation reports of Seveso II (for the period ), giving the Commission an opportunity to evaluate the implementation of the Directive as a whole. It will also assess the latest information reported on establishments and on major accidents

4. Initial conclusions on implementation of Directive
A total of Seveso establishments by end of 2014
Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if vrequired.
Delivering on our promises
When compared to the data reported at the end of 2011 there has been a net increase of 983 establishments, most of which are lower-tier establishments (756). Considering that the period had relatively low economic growth, this increase is perhaps unexpected.
We can observe that there are a lot of variations on the number of Seveso establishments per country. A significant share of these establishments were located in Germany (29%), France (10%), Italy (10%), the UK (8%) and Spain (7%).

5. Initial conclusions on implementation of Directive Activities of establishments
Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required.
Delivering on our promises
For the first time MS were asked to report on the activity of the Seveso establishments using SPIRS activity list

6. Initial conclusions on implementation of Directive Activities of establishments
Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required.
Delivering on our promises
As can be observed, the most common specific categories of activities are general chemicals (12%) and fuel storage (11%) although “other activities” is the single largest category (14%).
This trend can be observed in most Member States
The composition of the ‘other’ category is unclear, in particular it is unclear why such a large number of establishments are reported under this category. This may highlight difficulties of Member States to identify the relevant category for their establishments in which case more guidance could be appropriate. This may also reflect the situation of establishments conducting mixed activities, for example storage of other chemicals within a primarily pesticides handling establishment .

7. Initial conclusions on implementation of Directive
Reporting
Information on implementation reported by all Member States
Clarifications sought from several Member States, most responded
External emergency plans
Small share of establishments exempted
Overall, average 4% of upper tier establishments applying Article 11(6)
407 establishments without external emergency plans – 8% of total upper tier establishments
1,214 establishments with external emergency plans not tested
Range of criteria reported as being used for testing plans
Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required.
Delivering on our promises
If you have received a clarification and not responded, please do so as we can still update the report for it to reflect the situation of the member State most accurately.
Exemption of Article 11.6 – used by 13 Member States and this concerns 187 establishments. Most common reason is that consequences of a major accident were not expected to exceed the site’s boundary. This was often due to remote location of the establishment.
Trend constant with previous reporting period.
Overall low number of establishments without external emergency plans, there are variations at national level but trend seems to remain constant. In some instances this was because the deadline to adopt such plans had not expired yet for the establishments and many indicated those plans were being drafted which seems to indicate near compliance.
On average, 75% of the external emergency plans were tested during the reporting period.
When compared to previous reporting period, it was found that the latest reporting period is a slight improvement over the past reporting periods and more throughout the reporting under Seveso II Directive. In reporting period, 60% of the upper tier plans were reviewed and tested during the reporting period, in , the share increased to 73% and has now reached 75%. This seems to indicate that Member States are getting more efficient at reviewing and testing those plans.
This reporting period, on the spot exercises (field training exercises involving some or all of the actors involved) were reported by all Member States. In addition, table-top exercises (office based simulation) were also reported by all Member States with the exception of Austria and Latvia. Furthermore some simplified exercises were reported in some Member States, involving only some of the resources usually involved in a response to an incident.

8. Initial conclusions on implementation of Directive
Informing the public
Overall compliance with requirements of the Directive
Increased reliance on internet and social networks
Dedicated tools being created (e.g. BE ALERT, MoLaRi)
81% of upper tier establishments made safety information available
Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required.
Delivering on our promises
When compared with the previous reporting period responses it is noticeable that more phone based and internet based alarm systems are being reported by Member States as being used.
81% of upper tier establishments made information available. This represents a decrease from the data reported during the last reporting period where in 2011, 87% of the upper tier establishments had made information available in the former five years.

9. Initial conclusions on implementation of Directive
Inspections
Upper tier establishments
79% had annual inspections
86% inspected over the previous three years
Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required.
Delivering on our promises
All Member States have reported that inspections were undertaken across the upper tier establishments during the reporting period
for annual inspections, when taking away those Member States that have based inspection on a systematic appraisal of risks the percentage of upper tier establishments inspected annually is 79%. It is noticeable that a large number of Member States have successfully applied the requirements of the Directive to undertake annual inspections.
Member States were also required to provide data on the number of establishments inspected at least once during the reporting period.
From information reported under other questions, there appear to have been newly classified upper tier establishments during the reporting period which may explain in part why some were not inspected. However, this would explain only a minor share of establishments not being inspected.

10. Initial conclusions on implementation of Directive
Inspections
Lower tier establishments
77% inspected over the previous three years
Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required.
Delivering on our promises
All Member States have reported that inspections were undertaken across the lower tier establishments during the reporting period. On average, inspections were undertaken in 77% of the lower tier establishments.

11. Initial conclusions on implementation of Directive
Overall compliance with provisions on domino effect and land-use planning.
Lessons learned are valuable and to be further encouraged
IT tools for monitoring implementation available in 8 Member States
Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required.
Delivering on our promises
Several Member States conveyed that the implementation of this article is now well established thanks to past experience. The identity and number of domino establishments are mostly reported as being well known and the requirements and aspects to take into account are also well developed.
All Member States have provided general background information on measures for fulfilling the objectives of Article 12 in general and, in particular, for ensuring the control of new developments around existing sites as well as at new sites. It is clear from the reports that Member States submitted that the objectives of preventing major accidents and limiting the consequences of such accidents are taken into account in their land-use policies.
Only seven Member States provided a response to this question, but these were valuable sources of information and more reporting should be encouraged

12. Recommendations on reporting
Next reporting:
Clarify dates for the data to be reported – variations in responses
Emphasise sharing of actual practices and practical steps taken
Encourage sharing of lessons learned
Feedback from Member States on simplifying / improving reporting questionnaire?
Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required.
Delivering on our promises
Each year of the reporting period vs end of the reporting period
Variations year on year can make it confusing
Where data are reported only for the final year of the reporting period it can be more difficult to make sense of some results, for example the number of establishments inspected annually which may not match the total number of establishments due to variation in numbers of establishments during the reporting period.

13. Trends on major accidents and establishments
Since, 2005, gradual increase of establishments under the scope of Directive

14. Trends on major accidents and establishments
Since, 2005, gradual decrease in number of accidents and incidents reported per establishments
Note that data for 2014 are provisional and should not be used to conclude a reduction of major accidents at this stage. They are presented in our report, but we have to emphasise the limitations of the 2014 data at this stage.
NB: the data provided by MAHB for the last period are still preliminary

15. Tentative correlation between the directive and the trends on major accident
Seveso Directive I 24 June 1982
Seveso Directive II 9 December 1996
Seveso Directive III 4 July 2012
We tried to establish the correlation between the directives and the number of accidents, but it is not obvious that there is a correlation

16. Trends on major accidents and establishments
Several approaches to estimating socio-economic impacts of accidents
UK – HSE
France – information by categorisation in ARIA
Germany – direct cost of losses in ZEMA
In eMARS, only few information on socio-economic impacts of accidents ; some detailed reports provide information
Phenomenon
Toxic release
Fire
Explosion
Cost per site (€ million)
176 83
246

17. Trends on major accidents and establishments
Extrapolating HSE costs
estimate
Rough estimate only –
more work needed!
Year
Total Toxic Release (million €)
Fire (million €)
Explosion (million €)
Total (million €)
Total (billion €)
2000
1 932
248
246
2 426
2.4
2001
1 757
1 230
3 234
3.2
2002
828
1 721
4 306
4.3
2003
2004
2 284
166
984
3 433
3.4
2005
3 864
497
4 607
4.6
2006
2 986
331
738
4 055
4.1
2007
3 513
4 991
5.0
2008
1 405
492
2 145
2.1
2009
3 689
5 004
2010
4 216
662
3689
8 567
8.6
2011
2 459
3 608
3.6
2012
4 712
4.7
2013
1 970
2.0
2014
176
833
0.8

18. Benchmarking Methodology
Background - Better Regulation Agenda and upcoming Commission report under Article 29
Five steps:
1st step: Identification of the accident databases;
2nd step: Cleaning and compilation of the data;
Identification of major accidents in the databases
Merging of the data
3rd step: Compilation of the number of reported major accidents;
4th step: Building meaningful statistics;
Ratio with population
Ratio with GDP
5th step: Analysis of the statistics.
Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required.
Delivering on our promises

19. Benchmarking Results: Number of reported major accidents by period
Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required.
Delivering on our promises

20. Benchmarking Results: Number of reported major accidents per GDP (thousands of billions of $) per period
Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required.
Delivering on our promises

21. Benchmarking Results (2)
Difficult to compare objectively reported major accidents in the EU with other countries
Lack of major accident definition
Difficulty of accessing data
Significant and continuous decrease of the number of reported major accidents in the EU
Differences of reporting of major accidents in eMARS and the other databases
Very preliminary work – more work needed!
Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required.
Delivering on our promises

22. Indicators Methodology
Upcoming report under article 29 of the Seveso III Directive
Better Regulation Guidelines
Other source of indicators
Review of guidelines on safety indicators
OECD
UNECE
CCPS UN
INERIS
Metrics
Targeted public
Types of indicators suggested
Aspects to be monitored.
Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required.
Delivering on our promises
Report on implementation and efficient functioning of the Directive

23. Indicators Results Categories of indicators
Measuring safety achievements and identifying rooms for improvements requires the combination of different types of indicators.
Implementation and enforcement
Compliance
Intermediate outcomes of concern
Final outcomes of concern
Series of indicators based on five evaluation criteria
Many unidentified data needs
Stakeholder engagement
Literature review
Prioritisation of the indicators
Very preliminary work – more work needed!
Add a coloured transparent segment and caption if required.
Delivering on our promises

24. Thank you Questions? Victoria.cherrier@amecfw.com