17 MAJOR ACCIDENT HAZARDS INVOLVING DANGEROUS
SUBSTANCES
(24689)
—
—
| Draft Directive amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major
accident hazards involving dangerous substances.
|
| Legal base | Article 175(1) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Work and Pensions
|
| Basis of consideration |
EM of 30 June 2003 |
| Previous Committee Report |
None, but see footnotes |
| To be discussed in Council
| See paragraph 17.6 below |
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
17.1 The current requirements under Community legislation
to prevent, and respond to, major industrial accidents are set
out in Council Directive 96/82/EC[49]
(the so-called Seveso Directive). This identifies both named
substances (such as petrol, carcinogens, dioxins and furans, and
a range of elements and compounds) and broad categories of dangerous
substances regarded as potentially hazardous, and lays down certain
requirements according to whether the quantities present at a
particular establishment exceed either a basic or higher threshold.
17.2 Following a number of incidents, the
Commission reviewed the safeguards in the Directive, and, as a
result, it proposed in December 2001 a number of amendments.[50]
We considered these first on 13 February 2002, and again on 26
June 2002, when we recommended the document for debate in view
of concerns that the UK appeared to have been seeking less stringent
safeguards for carcinogens than those favoured by the Commission
(and indeed other Member States).
17.3 The Commission subsequently produced
an amended proposal[51]
in the light of the European Parliament's first reading on 9 July
2002, and we were told in a letter of 9 October 2002 from the
then Minister of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Nicholas Brown)
that the UK had significant concerns regarding two of the provisions
accepted by the Commission, namely (a) a requirement for all those
involved in preparing a safety report to be named, and (b) a requirement
on operators to provide for those likely to be affected a risk
map showing those areas which might be affected by an accident.
A letter of 30 October 2002 from the Minister confirmed that
the Council had adopted a common position on 17 October, and the
two proposals were subsequently debated in European Standing Committee
B on 4 December 2002.
The current document
17.4 We have recently received an Explanatory
Memorandum of 30 June 2003 from the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions (Mr Andrew Smith), saying that, at its second reading
on 19 June, the European Parliament adopted 11 amendments to the
Council's common position. He says that none of these is particularly
welcome to the UK, but that the Government has significant concerns
about four of the changes proposed, as follows:
- the development of guidelines
setting out a methodology for establishing appropriate safety
distances between establishments and sensitive areas, where the
Minister suggests that the European experience of operating land-use
planning policy around Seveso II establishments is not sufficiently
established to enable a practical methodology to be developed
which would meet the needs of all Member States;
- the development of a scheme of incentives and/or
funding to relocate establishments which are not separated from
sensitive areas by an appropriate safety distance: the Minister
says that the UK has limited areas to which such establishments
could be relocated without impacting on people or areas of environmental
importance, and that the provision could have an adverse impact
on local employment in a number of areas as well as major financial
implications (see paragraph 17.5 below);
- the re-introduction of a requirement for risk
maps to be provided to members of the public, showing which areas
might be affected by the consequences of an accident: the Minister
describes this as burdensome and too broad, as the area affected
depends upon a number of circumstances at the time of the accident,
though he adds that the UK could accept the provision of a risk
map as part of a safety report;
- the introduction of references to Directives
dealing with water and hazardous waste, which the UK regards as
unhelpful as the categories in these measures do not align with
those in the Seveso Directive.
17.5 The Minister has also provided with
his Explanatory Memorandum an update of the preliminary Regulatory
Impact Assessment which we were sent on 24 January 2002. The
estimated benefits (of between £11.7 million and £117
million over ten years) are in fact unchanged, though the cost
estimate has been slightly increased from (£8.7 million over
ten years to £9.4 million). However, the Minister adds that
these latter figures would increase if the latest amendments proposed
by the European Parliament were to be adopted, particularly in
the case of the relocation proposal, where he says the cost of
a new chemical plant of the type which would be affected would
be around £2.5 billion, plus remediation costs.
Conclusion
17.6 We are grateful to the Minister
for this information, from which we have also noted that the matter
is now likely to go through the conciliation procedure. In view
of the extensive consideration which the subject has received,
both from us and in European Standing Committee, we see no reason
for further questions from us or debate, but we are drawing these
latest developments to the attention of the House.
49 OJ No. L.10, 14.1.97, p.13. Back
50
(23070) 15275/01; see HC 152-xix (2001-02), paragraph 10 (13 February
2002), HC 152-xxxiv (2001-02), paragraph 1 (26 June 2002), and
HC 63-i (2002-03), paragraph 2 (20 November 2002). Back
51
(23846) 12530/02; see HC 63-i (2002-03), paragraph 2 (20 November
2002).
Back
|
