Q: Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Question : Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment? Answer : Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas. It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Q: Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Question : Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment? Answer : Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas. It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Q: Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Question : Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment? Answer : Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas. It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Q: Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Question : Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment? Answer : Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas. It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Q: Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Question : Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment? Answer : Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas. It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Q: Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Question : Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment? Answer : Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas. It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Q: Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Question : Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment? Answer : Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas. It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Q: Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Question : Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment? Answer : Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas. It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Q: Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Question : Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment? Answer : Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas. It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Q: Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Question : Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment? Answer : Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas. It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 1

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 2

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 3

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 4

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 5

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 6

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 7

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 8

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 9

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 10

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 11

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 12

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 13

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 14

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 15

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 16

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 17

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 18

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 19

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 20

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 21

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 22

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 23

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 24

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 25

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 26

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 27

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 28

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 29

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 30

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 31

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 32

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 33

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 34

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 35

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 36

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 37

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 38

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Question 39

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 - UE -  Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Would two areas under the control of the same operator and separated only by a road be considered as one establishment?

Answer: Two areas under the control of the same operator where dangerous substances are produced, used, handled or stored are to be considered as one establishment, in particular for the purpose of calculating the thresholds, even if a road separates both areas.

It follows from the definition of “installation” that warehouses or similar structures would also be part of the installation and thus of the establishment. Such warehouses are frequently situated at a certain distance from the other parts of the installation/establishment, often separated from these by a (private) road. The fact that it would be a public (and not a private) road which runs through the area where several installations of a same establishment are situated, should not allow to circumvent the rules for calculating the thresholds, since it would be contrary to the spirit and the objectives of the Directive, which is to prevent accidents resulting from the accumulated presence of dangerous substances present in one or more installations of an establishment, whether or not these installations are separated from each other by a private or public road.

Question 40

Quesito 004 – 1/1/15 - UE - Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera n) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(11) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di Presenza di sostanze pericolose, questa definizione individua gli stabilimenti nei quali sostanze pericolose possano essere generate come risultato di una perdita di controllo dei processi in quantità che eccedano le soglie riportate in Allegato 1 [I], anche se lo stabilimento normalmente non ricadrebbe nel campo di applicazione della Direttiva Seveso?

Lucia Rocca · Accepted Answer

Question: Does this notion aim to cover establishments where dangerous substances may be generated as a result of loss of control of the processes in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds in Annex I, even if such establishment would not normally fall under the scope of the Seveso Directive, for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of dangerous substances in quantities above the qualifying thresholds?

Answer: The definition in Article 3(11) refers to:

(1)    the actual presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(2)    the anticipated presence of dangerous substances in the establishment,
(3)    the dangerous substances which it is reasonable to foresee that may be generated during loss of control of the process, including storage activities, in any installation within the establishment.

The reference in (3) to “any installation within an establishment” cannot be understood as meaning to restrict the scope of this third scenario to only those substances that could be created as a result of loss of control in installations already covered by the Seveso Directive for reason of the actual or anticipated presence of (other) dangerous substances.
The notions “presence of dangerous substances”, “installations” and “establishments” are interlinked and used in a circular way. No conclusions shall be drawn from these cross-references.

The Seveso Directive underlines the need to ensure that appropriate precautionary action is taken to ensure a high level of protection throughout the Union for citizens, communities and the environment (recital (2) of the Directive). Such high level of protection can only be achieved if the necessary prevention and control measures are taken in all establishments where dangerous substances could be present in quantities above the thresholds.

Therefore, if it is reasonable to believe that, in case of an incident, dangerous substances could be created in quantities exceeding the qualifying thresholds, then the operator of the establishment where non-Seveso substances are present or where Seveso-substances are present but below the qualifying quantities, should notify its activities as if it were a Seveso establishment.

Editoria

TUTTE LE FAQ

Domande generali sull’ambito di applicazione

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Esclusioni

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Definizioni

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Sostanze pericolose

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Generalità

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Primo invio della notifica

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Problematiche di carattere generale relative alla trasmissione online di notifica ed Allegato 5

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Problematiche relative alla compilazione delle sezioni della notifica ed alla sua trasmissione online a Ispra

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Generalità

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Generalità

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Generalità

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Generalità

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Generalità

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Generalità

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Argomenti trasversali

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Allegato 1 parte 2 D.Lgs. 105/15 Sostanze pericolose specificate - Allegato I parte 2 Dir. 2012/18/UE

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Prodotti petroliferi & combustibili alternativi

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Argomenti connessi alle note dell’Allegato 1 D.Lgs. 105/15 - Allegato I Dir. 2012/18/UE

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Generalità

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Modalità di presentazione del RdS

Quesito 003 – 1/1/15 – UE – Con riferimento all’art. 3 comma 1 lettera a) D.Lgs. 105/15 [Art. 3(1) Dir. 2012/18/UE] relativo alla definizione di stabilimento, due aree sotto il controllo dello stesso gestore e separate solo da una strada sono da considerare un unico stabilimento?

Link agli Enti di riferimento per l’applicazione D.Lgs. 105/15

Scopri il software Seveso 3