1 French LUP Experience Seminar September 2012 CCA

1 French LUP Experience Seminar –September 2012 CCA – September 2012 www. developpement-durable. gouv. fr

In the past 2

Explosives storage explosion in Paris, 1794 Beginning of the French regulation on major accidents More than 1 000 fatalities Parliament report: « there should be appropriate safety distances between dangerous factories and houses » 3

Deterministic approach in the 80’s - 90’s § Six reference scenarios for all Seveso establishments § Simple mapping to prevent new buildings in the vicinity 4

Deterministic approach in the 80’s - 90’s Six reference scenarios Liquefied flammable gases storages BLEVE Mapping based on circles around the vessel UVCE Cloud created after 10 -minute leak and moved by a wind of 2 m/s Toxic gases storages Tank rupture Circle with a distance calculated with a 2 m/s wind Toxic gases unit Pipe leak Leak on the largest pipe. Circle with a distance calculated with a 2 m/s wind Flammable liquids storages Pool fire or gas explosion or « small » boil over Explosive storages Solid explosion Mapping based on circles around each storage unit Mapping based on circles around the tanks 5

And then came Toulouse § September 21 th 2011: accident AZF § LUP revised around all upper tier Seveso establishments (PPRT) 6

Safety distances - future buildings 7

Policy built on Safety report conclusions All « Seveso » policies based on safety report Permit to operate Risk reduction Safety report Land use planning Emergency plans Public information 8

Only selected scenarios for LUP Key point 1: not all scenarios relevant for LUP Probability possible cut-off values in Europe: 10 -6, 10 -7, 10 -8 France: probability cut-off value + protection barrier criteria to be met Ein 1 EM AND EI Ph D EM Ein 2 ERS Ein 3 EI OR Ein 4 Ph D OR ERC Ein 5 EM AND EI Ph D EM EC 6 ERS Ein 7 EM OR EI Ph D EM EIn 8 Prevention Failure tree Protection barriers Protection Events tree 9

Only selected scenarios for LUP Key point 2: probabilistic – deterministic approaches not so different 10

Appropriate safety distances Key point 3: people in the vicinity expect a link between safety distances and quantity of dangerous substances on site 11

Appropriate safety distances Key point 3: people in the vicinity expect a link bewteen safety distances and quantity of dangerous substances on site 12

Appropriate safety distances Key point 4: a strong safety investment shall have an impact on the land use policy 13

Mapping – setting rules Key point 5: land use rules shall be more stringent if the accident has a higher possibility to happen Key point 6: on one map, there can be only one colour on one building 14

Appropriate LUP Key point 7: land use rules shall be less stringent if public concerned can be moved to a safe place before the accident happens External Emergency Plan and Land-Use Planning shall be considered as connected tools 15

Safety distances - existing buildings 16

Towards reducing the size of the public concerned Main difference between French approach and many European approaches « one-shot » policy after the Toulouse accident only for upper-tier Seveso establishments Expropriation or relinquishment in higher risk areas ► Funding: agreement between the Government, the operator and the local authorities Population protection improvements through consolidation of buildings and infrastructures ► Funding: buildings and infrastructures owners (< 10 % of the market value) 17

Towards reducing the size of the public concerned Same mapping tool as for land use planning meetings including : State representatives, mayors / authorities, NGOs, operator, labour unions at the end, the State representatives make decisions 18

Process still on-going… 19

Thank you for your attention 20