Preface

Acceptance criteria in Denmark and the EU

In connection with an environmental and emergency-planning review of major hazard establishments in Denmark, the Danish Emergency Management Agency, the Agency for Spatial and Environmental Planning, and the Environmental Protection Agency decided to investigate the use of acceptance criteria for risk to third parties in other EU countries, and compare these with Danish criteria. A task force has gathered the relevant information from a number of EU countries. This report contains the results from a review of this information, and makes comparisons with the situation in Denmark. The report concludes with some observations on how these experiences from other countries can be applied within Denmark. The report thus serves as a supplement to previous contributions in this area.

The report is targeted at major hazard authorities in Danish local authorities and the regional environmental centres of the Danish Ministry of the Environment, and may also be of interest to the major hazard establishments themselves.

Major hazard authorities need risk acceptance criteria that can be used in the following situations:

when auditing environmental permits for existing major hazard establishments,
when planning changes in land use (in municipal or local plans) close to existing major hazard establishments,
in connection with environmental impact assessment and environmental permit for expansion or changes to existing major hazard establishments, and
when establishing new major hazard establishments.

Risk acceptance criteria have to protect human life and health, as well as environmental resources and natural areas.

“Environment Project 112” (Taylor et al., 1989) provides an important data basis by gathering methods and data for risk assessment of major hazard establishments in Denmark. Most of the considerations in Environment Project 112 are still current. This report may therefore be viewed as an update to the basis of Environment Project 112, based on developments and experience within Denmark and a number of other European countries since 1989.

The report has the following structure:

Chapter one reviews the relevant terms used in risk assessment, and provides a brief description of two different types of risk analysis method (quantitative and qualitative). A glossary at the end of the report contains a brief explanation of these and other relevant terms in the report.

Chapter two reviews previous Danish studies. This includes Environment Project 112, and a recent report reflecting changes in risk analysis and acceptance practices in Denmark.

Chapter three reviews risk analysis and acceptance practices in the European Union, based on documents prepared by the European Commission, and special information obtained from selected countries (Finland, Flanders, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom).

Chapter four discusses and compares the information presented in chapters two and three to provide a picture of the current status of certain issues. The chapter closes with a number of conclusions for the areas where the review indicates consensus, and provides possible solutions where consensus is lacking – for example, in relation to dealing with environmental damage.

Chapter five concludes with recommendations for how this experience might be applied in Denmark. These recommendations consist of a summary of a number of requirements for general risk acceptance criteria and assessment methods, and a proposal for the general design of risk acceptance criteria and assessment methods in Denmark.

Chapter six includes a glossary of the most important terms used in this report.

This report was prepared by Nijs Jan Duijm (DTU Management Engineering, consultant and writer) between November 2007 and April 2008.

A task force consisting of:

Allan Thomsen (Danish Emergency Management Agency)
Anne Christine Bryderup (Danish Emergency Management Agency)
Gert Johansen (Danish Agency for Spatial and Environmental Planning)
Nanna Rørbech (Danish Environmental Protection Agency)
Anders Skou (Danish Environmental Protection Agency) and
Axel Bendtsen (Danish Environmental Protection Agency, coordinator)

has served as a monitoring group.

The conclusions of the report do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Danish Emergency Management Agency, the Agency for Spatial and Environmental Planning, or the Environmental Protection Agency.