6 Major accident hazards from dangerous
substances
| (32396)
18257/10
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(10) 781
| Draft Directive on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances
|
| Legal base | Article 192(1) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Work and Pensions
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letters of 19 May and 1 December 2011
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 428-xv (2010-11), chapter 4 (2 February 2011)
|
| Discussion in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
6.1 Although EU legislation to prevent, and respond to, major
industrial accidents was first introduced in 1982, the current
requirements are set out in Council Directive 96/82/EC[35]
(the so-called "Seveso Directive"), which identifies
both named substances[36]
(in Part 1) and broad categories of dangerous substances[37]
(in Part 2) regarded as potentially hazardous, and lays down certain
requirements according to the quantities present at a particular
establishment. Where those quantities exceed a basic threshold,
the obligations on an operator involve notification to the Member
State of the quantities and physical form of any dangerous substances
present on a site, the activity carried out there, and its immediate
environment; the drawing up, and implementation, of an accident
prevention policy; and the reporting of any major accidents (including
any steps proposed to avoid a recurrence). In addition, the Member
State itself must ensure that the need to prevent major accidents,
and to limit their consequences, is taken into account in land
use policies. Where the quantities of a dangerous substance exceed
a higher threshold laid down in the Directive, the operator is
subject to more comprehensive requirements regarding the provision
of a major accident prevention policy and safety management system,
emergency plans, and the provision of information on safety measures
to those who could be affected by a major accident originating
at the site.
6.2 The current classification of substances in the
Annex to the Directive is based on that in two other measures,[38]
but these are being repealed and replaced by a new measure (Regulation
(EC) No 1272/2008) with effect from 1 June 2015. Since this will
in any case require a consequential amendment to Directive 96/82/EC,
the Commission carried out a wider review of that measure's effectiveness,
as a result of which it put forward in December 2010 this proposal.
6.3 As we noted in our Report of 2 February 2011,
the main effect would be to align Annex I of Directive 96/82/EC
with the classification of dangerous substances and mixtures contained
in Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, and to enable further technical
amendments to be made to that Annex to adapt its scope to new
technologies and emerging risks, and address how any unintended
or undesirable consequences of this alignment could be resolved.
In particular, the Commission proposes that the Annex could be
amended by delegated acts, which would develop criteria for derogations
where a substance has no major accident potential, and introduce
a safeguard clause for those which have major accident potential,
but which would fall outside the scope of the Directive.
6.4 We noted that the Government agreed that, as
the risks from major accident hazards are significant and can
be trans-boundary in nature, the same measures should be adopted
by each Member State to reduce the risks to humans and the environment,
and that this warranted action at EU level. More generally, the
Government described the new Directive as being an important step
in the development of major accident hazards legislation, and
it broadly welcomed the proposal as a proportionate and well-balanced
response. At the same time, it cautioned that this initial view
might change as the detail emerged, and suggested that one key
issue would be the scope of the new Directive, which is partly
dependent on the Commission's proposal to draw up new derogation
arrangements and a safeguard clause.
6.5 We were also told that, although the Commission
had prepared an impact assessment, much of the information relating
to the UK was out of date, but that a UK assessment which more
accurately reflects the costs and benefits of the proposal was
being developed. In the meantime, based on the Commission's assessment,
the initial estimate of the cost of the proposal to UK industry
and other bodies of the preferred
options in the proposal was around
£7 million over a ten year period, with annual costs of about
£0.8 million. In noting the Government's general support
for the proposal, we highlighted the importance of the scope of
the new Directive, which in turn was partly dependent on the Commission's
proposal to draw up new derogation arrangements and a safeguard
clause. We therefore said that we would hold the document under
scrutiny, pending further information on these points, and receipt
of the UK Impact Assessment.
Minister's letters of 19 May and 5 December 2011
6.6 We have since received two letters from the Minister
for Employment at the Department for Work and Pensions (Chris
Grayling), providing updates on the progress of negotiations,
and on the cost and benefits to the UK.
6.7 His first letter of 19 May 2011 says that an
Impact Assessment had shown that the costs to the UK over ten
years would range from £75-£95 million — about
ten times the Commission's estimate — with around £20
million for aligning the two measures, around £20 million
for operators to provide information to all those liable to be
affected, and some £40 million for the additional duties
falling on Member State competent authorities. He also said that
the proposal had received a first read-through in a Council working
group, which had taken on board many of the UK's suggestions,
which centred on four broad areas — the alignment of the
Annex I with the new Regulation, the correction mechanism for
dealing with any consequential unwelcome effects, information
for the public, and inspection. The Minister said that the proposal
would now be considered by the European Parliament, and he said
that he would write to us again later in the year before its first
reading. In view of this, our Chairman replied saying that, whilst
we had noted the position, we felt it would be best to await that
further information before we considered drawing the proposal
to the attention of the House, and we have now received a letter
of 1 December 2011 from the Minister saying that a first reading
vote is expected in the European Parliament plenary on 1 February
2012. In the meantime, he says that the Parliament's Environment,
Public Health and Food Safety Committee had adopted 145 amendments
to the proposal, some of which were helpful to the UK, and others
less so. Those in the first category included:
- allowing inspection frequencies
for Seveso sites to be based on a systematic appraisal of major
accident hazards, rather than relying solely on prescriptive inspection
intervals: the UK already sets inspection frequencies based on
hazard and risk and would not wish to regress to prescriptive
intervals;
- implementing major accident
prevention policies by appropriate safety management systems,
which is more in line with the UK position than the Commission
proposal;
- a proposal on confidentiality which covers both
public requests for information as well as information which regulators
have to disclose: the UK is pressing for a strong provision on
confidentiality to balance the broad public information rights.
6.8 On the other hand, the Committee was less helpful
in other areas in that:
- it agreed with the Commission's
proposal for an expansion of scope regarding which dangerous substances
are included in the Directive, and has indicated that this issue
is key to achieving a first reading deal: the UK prefers a more
limited scope to make it more in line with the current position;
- whilst the UK supports providing an easily understandable
summary of public information, the Committee is pushing for more
detailed information to be provided, such as a definitive list
of dangerous substances: this may have security implications,
be costly and would be unlikely to help a layperson;
- an amendment seeks to extend the proposal to
include protection of property (in addition to people and the
environment), and requests the Commission to examine whether there
should be an extension at a later date to include offshore oil
exploration, pipelines and certain nano-materials: the UK line
on both these points is that other legislation already adequately
covers these issues.
The Minister adds that one of the UK priorities during
the remaining negotiations will be to resist as far as possible
movement to the ENVI Committee position on the more problematic
subjects.
6.9 The Minister also says that the UK Impact Assessment
has recently been updated to reflect better scientific analysis
about which substances will come into scope of the proposal, and
that it is now estimated that the total cost of implementation
to the UK over 10 years is £55-70 million, much of the decrease
being due to a 60% reduction in the net number of new sites expected
to move into scope of the Directive (from 65 to 27). However,
he emphasises that there is considerable uncertainty around the
effect of the proposal on sites which are currently out of scope,
and that this uncertainty will remain until sites actually notify
once the Directive has been implemented in the UK. He adds that
the Assessment will be further refined to reflect the emerging
results of the negotiations, in which the UK will continue to
push for amendments which maintain or improve protection for workers,
the public and environment, and minimise costs to UK industry
and regulators. He also says that he will write to us again in
advance of the plenary vote in the European Parliament.
Conclusion
6.10 We are grateful to the Minister for these
updates, which we think it right to draw to the attention of the
House at this stage. However, as the Minister has said that he
will be writing to us again before the matter comes before the
European Parliament plenary, we are continuing to hold the document
under scrutiny pending that letter and any further developments.
35 OJ No. L 10, 14.1.97, p.13. Back
36
These include elements (such as bromine and chlorine), compounds
(such as ammonium nitrate, phosgene, and those derived from arsenic
and nickel), petrol, carcinogens, and dioxins and furans. Back
37
These are described in terms of such qualities as toxicity, explosivity,
flammability, and substances which are toxic to the aquatic environment. Back
38
Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC on the classification, packaging
and labelling of dangerous substances. Back
|
