Land use planning in the vicinity of dangerous installations

Seveso Directive 2 and 3 art. 8 domino effects art 11 emergency plans: internal and external art. 12 land use planning

Way to decide safety distances from a hazardous installations 1. “A priori” distance 2. Distance decided upon an acceptable level of risk: probabilistic criteria 3. Distance decided upon an acceptable level of risk: deterministic criteria 4. Distance decided upon an acceptable level of risk: mixed approach

The starting point, the basic information is the distance at which lethal and irreversible consequences for health may occur

Events probability Effects probability Highly lethal Lethal Irreversible effects Reversible health effects A= residential areas high density, public open spaces B= residential areas medium density, public spaces C= residential areas medium-low density, railways stations… D= residential areas low density, public spaces used once a month E= sparse houses, agricultural areas, industrial areas F= within the plant fence

Ways to decide safety distances from hazardous installations 1. “A priori” distance: 1 km, 500 mt.

Ways to decide safety distances from hazardous installations 2. Distance decided upon acceptable risk: probabilistic approach. The Netherlands case Social riskIndividual risk

Ways to decide safety distances from hazardous installations 2.. Distance decided upon acceptable risk: probabilistic approach. The Netherlands case Individual risk Individual risk: Yearly probability that a person staying 24 h in an unprotected environment dies as a consequence of an accident in the plant. Contours of euqal probabilities are assessed (increase at decreasing distances from the plant)

Social risk As Low As Reasonably Practible Social risk: Framer curve: Yearly probability that a group of more than N people will die as a consequence of an accident in the plant.

Example: supermarket or disco. High social risk (high people conentration) Low individual risk

Ways to decide safety distances from hazardous installations The Italian approach: mixed Events probabilit y Effects probability Highly lethal Lethal Irreversible effects Reversible health effects A= residential areas high density, public open spaces B= residential areas medium density, public spaces C= residential areas medium-low density, railways stations… D= residential areas low density, public spaces used once a month E= sparse houses, agricultural areas, industrial areas F= within the plant fence

Ways to decide safety distances from hazardous installations 3. Distance decided upon acceptable levels of risk. The French case

Distance decided upon acceptable levels of risk. The French case Law87/565 Zone Z1  zone where an accident my have lethal consequences for at least 1% of people exposed Zone Z2  zone where severe health effects or injuries may occur as a consequence of an accident In these zones absolute denial of any new construction; aquisition of public use value

Look at the “domino effect”

Law 95/101 passed 2/2/1995 based of the following principles: precaution, lack of certainty should not delay preventative measures; Prevention principle, adopting state of the art best techniques at acceptable costs Principle of “polluters pays” Principle of participation, any citizen has the right to know facts about the environment, including those related to industrial activities (but also natural hazards) Establishes the PPR (Risk prevention plans, plan de prevention des risques)

AZF (Toulouse) accident

Distance decided upon acceptable levels of risk. The French case Law 2003 – 699 approved 30/7/2003 on tehcnological and natural hazards  Introduces the possibility of building limitations also close to installations that must be modified  Introduces in the PPR also the industrial risk (including Catnat insurance system) N.B.  Introduces the right for public authorities to acquire areas exposed to high hazards, even taking, according to the new urban planning law

Aucune canalisation de produits dangereux ne traverse le territoire de la commune, cependant de l'autre côté de l'Isère passent quatre canalisations véhiculant de tels produits. Ce sont :  Le gazoduc de gaz naturel exploité par Gaz de France ;  Le pipeline de la SPMR (Société pétrolière Méditerranéen - Rhône)  Le gazoduc ETEL transportant de l'éthylène ;  Le gazoduc TRANSUGIL transportant du Propylène Il est recommandé par la DRIRE d'attacher une importance particulière à l'examen de tout projet d'implantation d'habitats collectifs, d'établissements d'enseignement, de soins ou d'établissements destinés à recevoir du public, dans une zone située de part et d'autre de la canalisation et dont la largeur dépend de la nature du produit transporté. La canalisation présentant le plus de danger est le gazoduc ETEL pour lequel des précautions d'urbanisation sont recommandées dans une bande de 500 m de part et d'autre de la canalisation. A titre d'information, le tracé de ce gazoduc ainsi que la bande de terrain soumise à un risque sont donnés dans la carte jointe. Le territoire touché ne concerne pas la commune de Veurey

«Member states shall ensure that their land-use and/or other relevant policies and procedures for implementing those policies take account of the need, in the long term to maintain appropriate distances between establishments covered by this Directive and residential areas, buildings and areas of public use, major transportation routes as far as possible, recreational areas and areas of particular natural sensitivity or interest, and, in the case of existing establishments, of the need for additional technical measures so as not to increase the risks to people» Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003, amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances