The European Working Group on LandUse Planning and the Guidelines for LUP in the context of Seveso I

1

Institute for the Protection and Security of the
Citizen
The European Working Group on Land-Use Planning
and the Guidelines for LUP in the context of
Seveso II Michalis D. Christou Major Accident
Hazards Bureau http//mahbsrv.jrc.it
http//landuseplanning.jrc.it Strasbourg, 22
November 2006
2
Land Use Planning
in the vicinity of a Seveso Establishment
3
Toulouse, 21 September 2001
4
Land-use planning (Seveso II - Art. 12)

• Art. 12 requires that
• LUP policy shall take account of major accident
  hazards (prevention/mitigation) through controls
  on
• siting of new establishments
• modifications of existing sites (Art. 10)
• new developments (transport links, locations
  frequented by the public, residential areas,
  major transport routes)
• Establish and maintain Appropriate Distances or
  Additional Technical Measures
• Set up consultation procedures to ensure that
  technical advice on the risks is available when
  decisions are taken
• Amendment Directive requires the preparation of
  Guidelines for the development of a database of
  common accident scenarios and harmonised RA data

5
Appropriate Distances
Risk at desirably low level
Decide - Method to measure risk -
Criteria (understand implications, support
infrastructure, etc.)
6
Protection from accidents
Commercial estate
Residential estate
Mixed-use area
Mixed-use area
Industrial site
Industrial site

7
Protection from accidents
Commercial estate
Residential estate
Mixed-use area
Mixed-use area
Industrial site
Industrial site

8
Protection from accidents
Commercial estate
Residential estate
Mixed-use area
Mixed-use area
Industrial site
Industrial site

9
Some considerations

• Which scenario(s)?
• Consider likelihood of accidental scenarios?
• How to measure risk?
• How to decide tolerability / compatibility?
• What procedures?
• What restrictions in developments around
  establishments?
• Significant differences in LUP approaches amongst
  the EU MS ? Need for consistency
• Work of EWGLUP (2003-2006)

10
EWGLUP Guidance on Land-Use Planning

• Principles
• Principles of LUP, provisions of Art.12
• and how to make them operational

• Roadmaps
• Possible ways to achieve targets
• Principles
• Good practice

• Scientific Basis
• Develop a technical database
• Common accident scenarios
• Failure frequencies
• Risk assessment data

11
Guidance on Land-Use Planning
Electronic Community of Interest

• Principles
• Principles of LUP, provisions of Art.12 and how
  to make them operational

• Roadmaps
• Possible ways to achieve targets
• Good practices in LUP

• Scientific Basis
• Develop a technical database
• Common accident scenarios
• Failure frequencies
• Risk assessment data

12
Principles of Good LUP practice

• The LUP policy should be consistent Outcomes
  from broadly similar situations are broadly the
  same under similar conditions
• Hazard/Risk Assessment method should exist
• Input includes a representative set of scenarios
• Planning decisions should be broadly similar
• The LUP policy should be reasonable and the
  constraints should be proportional to the level
  of risk
• Criteria should exist for unacceptable risk/harm
• Development types are characterised
• Judgement framework is described
• The LUP policy should be transparent Clear
  understanding of the decision-making process
• Understandable and clear system with
  responsibilities of key actors described
• Mechanisms for independent internal control exist
• Decisions can be understood at the time they are
  made and later.

13
Principles of Good LUP practice

• Explaining the obligations of Art.12 in
  operational terms
• Explaining the legal text
• Addressing existing situations of concern
• Principles for the use of Additional Technical
  Measures
• Examples of principles for addressing existing
  situations
• The authority needs to calculate the area that
  requires LUP (and consider new developments when
  proposed)
• The authority needs to identify the LU patterns
  of concern and rank them according to risk
• Need for definition of compatibility indices
• Need for updated information (e.g. population
  density)
• 3 way approach prevention mitigation on-site
  LUP emergency planning

14
Commonly used approaches in support to Land-Use
Planning decisions

• Four broad categories
• Risk-based approach - assessment of both the
  consequences and the likelihood of occurrence for
  a large number of accident scenarios and
  calculation of risk as a function of likelihood
  and consequences. Risk tolerability criteria
  (individual risk / societal risk).
• Consequence-based approach - assessment of
  consequences of the worst scenario within a
  (small) set of reference accident scenarios.
  Worst-in-absolute scenario not necessarily
  included. Frequencies implicitly taken into
  account as a limiting factor for definition of
  scenarios. Consequence zoning criteria (LC1,
  IDLH, ERPG, AEGLs).
• Deterministic approach with implicit judgement of
  risk state-of-the-art - target to operate
  without imposing any risk to the population
  outside the fence. Apply state-of-the-art
  technology and take additional safety measures on
  the source in order to restrict the consequences
  within the fence. Risk is taken implicitly into
  account in the definition of the
  state-of-the-art. For LUP, use of zones derived
  from the consequences of representative
  scenarios.
• Generic safety distances, for standardised
  installations, deriving from standard risk/hazard
  assessment of a typical facility, and used as
  default or for screening purposes.

15
Common elements of the approaches used in support
to Land-Use Planning decisions

• Scenarios Use either directly (large or small
  numbers), pre-selected (reference) or implicitly
  for derivation of generic distances.
• Failure rates and event frequencies Use either
  directly (in the risk assessment), indirectly as
  limiting condition for selection of scenarios or
  implicitly for determination of the
  state-of-the-art.
• Scenario evaluation and endpoint values
  Probabilistic or consequence endpoint values.
  Applied in quantitative calculations, the
  deterministic method and implicitly in generic
  safety distances.
• Additional Technical Measures, are measures that
  reduce the likelihood and/or mitigate the
  consequences of a major accident.

• First step Technical database of risk data and
  risk scenarios for LUP
• Under preparation by the Commission and the
  Member States

16
Risk / Hazard Assessment Database

• What it is
• NOT a Computational Tool
• NOT a Model to perform evaluations
• NOT a black-box that decides Uses of Land /
  Acceptability
• RHAD is a source of consistent data to be used in
  the Risk Assessments and Hazard Assessment
  supporting LUP decisions
• RHAD data
• Scenarios
• Causes
• Conditions for a scenario to be excluded
• Failure Frequences
• Consequence endpoints
• Technical Prevention and Mitigation measures

17
Scenario 1,2......n
The bow-tie approach
18
Substance
Generic Scenarios
Evaluation Qualitative/ Quantitative
Data D/P
Installation
Causes
If incompatible
If compatible
Frequencies
Conditions
Revised list of Scenarios
For Re-Evaluation
Technical Measures (efficiency??)
19
Future challenges for EWGLUP

• Bridge the gap between LU planners and safety
  authorities
• Translate the Guidelines in their language
• Adapt it to their needs
• Support its application
• Address pre-existing situations
• Economic/social impact on industry/communities
• Opportunities for improvement
• Measurement of improvement (for monitoring,
  priority setting, C/B evaluations)
• Sustainability options
• Supply chain studies
• Standards development
• Complete and coordinate updating of the RHAD
  Database
• Continue discussion on major topics
• R/A practices, probability studies.

20
Thank you.