TUTTE LE FAQ

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.

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: 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.

Contesto: La definizione di sostanza pericolosa secondo l’articolo 3, comma 10 della direttiva include “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi”. Un’azienda sostiene che i solventi coinvolti in un processo chimico sarebbero esclusi perché non rientrano in questa lista.

Risposta: Sì. I solventi rientrano nella direttiva Seveso III. La definizione “le sostanze pericolose sotto forma di materie prime, prodotti, sottoprodotti, residui o prodotti intermedi” va inteso come una lista onnicomprensiva di sostanze chimiche presenti in uno stabilimento. Questo intento è espresso più chiaramente al punto 12 nella premessa della direttiva Seveso III, come è riportato di seguito: “Quando in uno stabilimento sono presenti sostanze pericolose al di sopra di determinate quantità, il gestore dovrebbe fornire all’autorità competente informazioni sufficienti per consentire di individuare lo stabilimento, le sostanze pericolose presenti e i pericoli potenziali.”

Nota: Possono verificarsi dei casi in cui, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica che suggerisca che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro che essi non sono soggetti ad essa. Per esempio, l’amianto usato nei materiali da costruzione per la costruzione di edifici. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Are solvents covered by the Seveso-III-Directive?

Background: The definition for dangerous substance given in Article 3(10) of the
Directive includes “…. and present as a raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate…” A company claims that solvents involved in a chemical process would be excluded because they were not covered by the above list.

Answer: Yes. Solvents are covered by the Seveso-III-Directive. The text “….raw material, product, by-product, residue or intermediate, etc.” is intended as a comprehensive list covering all cases of chemicals present at an establishment. This intent is made more clear in recital (12) of the Seveso-III- Directive, as given below: ”(…) Where dangerous substances are present in establishments above certain quantities the operator should provide the competent authority with sufficient information to enable it to identify the establishment, the dangerous substances present and the potential dangers (…)”.

Note: There may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.

Esempio: Un edificio o un vagone ferroviario nei quali l’amianto era usato come materiale da costruzione (per esempio, pannelli di amianto).

Risposta: No, l’amianto non ha una classificazione contemplata nell’allegato I della direttiva Seveso III. La definizione condivisa di “sostanze pericolose” prevede che ci possano essere casi non contemplati, sebbene possa esistere una motivazione teorica per suggerire che materiali o sostanze rientrino nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva Seveso III, è chiaro come essi siano soggetti ad essa, per esempio l’amianto usato nei materiali per la costruzione di edifici.
La demolizione di un edificio non è normalmente considerata un’attività assoggettabile alla direttiva, nè la demolizione dei vagoni ferroviari contenenti amianto. Allo stesso modo le attività di rimozione dell’amianto utilizzato negli edifici o nei mezzi di trasporto non si considerano assoggettabili alla direttiva.
Tuttavia un sito la cui attività è la demolizione dei vagoni contenenti materiali tossici potrebbe esserlo; in generale questi materiali dovrebbero essere trattati come rifiuti. (Fonte MinAmb)

Question: Does the Seveso-III-Directive apply to the demolition of a building or means of transport containing asbestos?

Example: A building or a railway carriage in which asbestos was used as construction material (e.g. asbestos board).

Answer: No. Asbestos typically has no classification that would be covered by Annex I to the Seveso-III-Directive.
The agreed interpretation of “dangerous substances” notes that there may be some cases which, although there could be a theoretical argument to suggest that they could fit within the scope of the Directive, are clearly not intended to be covered.
e.g. asbestos used in building materials for the construction of buildings.
A building in demolition would not normally come under the Seveso-III-Directive, nor would a railway carriage in demolition. Similarly, the removal of asbestos board used in buildings or means of transport is not within the scope of the Seveso-III-Directive.
However, a site whose activity was the demolition of railway carriages containing toxic materials could do so; in general the materials concerned would be treated in the same way as waste.