法国预防科技灾害的法律措施^*

Manuel PENNAFORTE （潘富石） （法中环境协会）

2001年9月21日星期五，法国GRANDE PAROISSE公司旗下，位于图卢兹的AZF化工厂发生爆炸，造成31人死亡，2500余人受伤，并造成了巨大财产损失。大部分受害者受到了爆炸气体的直接伤害或间接伤害（即被爆炸气体掀起的物体所伤）。在财产损失方面，被毁坏建筑的修缮和重建成本约为20亿欧元。

该工厂起初建于远离人群的地方。尽管该工厂生产的化学物质（硝酸铵）属于具有爆炸危险的物质，然而居民们不顾风险，在获得市政府批准后，逐渐定居在工厂附近。虽然进行了大量的调查以及长达十一年的刑事诉讼，该事故的原因仍然存在疑问。

因其影响巨大，该事故在法国国内引起了广泛的讨论，最终导致立法机关于2003年7月30日通过了第2003-699号《科技和自然风险预防及损失赔偿法案》。该法案是欧洲指令，亦称塞维索（Seveso）[①]指令的补充，也是实施了三十年之久的科技灾害预防政策的延续。

第一，法国在该领域实施的防范政策重点关注那些可能引发“重大事故危险”的设施，亦即可能因爆炸或释放有害物质，而对周边居民的健康或安全、对环境造成严重威胁的设施。（法国《环境法典》第L. 515-8-I条）

此类设施在分类管理的设施清单^[②]（Nomenclature des Installations Classées）中被归为“S”类 —“servitude（地役权）”一词的首字母。根据“相加性规则”，同一地域本来单项不属于“S”类的存储设施，如果相加在一起，其存储容积总数超过“S”类的规定，则须对其执行“S”类设施的管理规定。据法国环境部数据，2011年底法国共有616处“S”类设施（占法国分类设施[③]总数的0.13%）。

第二，该法令旨在降低“S”类设施中科技灾害的发生概率。因此，“S”类设施受到更为严格规定的限制及监督，同时，也会受到城市化措施的约束。在这些更加严格的规定中，特别包括如下义务：

l 每三年对存在于设施中的危险物质进行定期清查和统计；

l 制定重大事故预防政策（PPAM），使安全责任和措施制度化；

l 建立安全管理体系，明确重大事故预防政策（PPAM）的组织、程序及资源；

l 遵守抗震规定；

l 制定及更新重大危险的评估；

l 制定内部应急预案；

l 设立经济担保以应对重大事故后果

此外，分类设施清单中的“S”类设施有明显的特殊性。针对该类设施，通过采取土地产权措施允许政府控制城市化是必要条件抑或强制要求。与此相对应的法律手段为公共事业地役权（SUP），其可分为如下两类：

第一类，行政机关（省长，即国家派驻地方的代表）可以主动或者在经营者或市长的要求下，制定“远离”公共地役权的规定，旨在限制或禁止设施周边的建筑项目或某些整治工程，使建筑工程许可服从相关技术规定，或减少雇员出现频率。

“远离”公共地役权可通过一个简易程序来设立，但是不能依据该地役权，强制要求拆除或废弃现有的符合之前规定而建成的建筑物。在“远离”公共地役权被纳入到城市规划文件之后，其具有可抗辩性，相关的权利人有权要求停止一切不符合相关规定和限制的工程项目。反之，如 “远离”公共地役权对财产所有权造成损害时，受损害的业主有权获得赔偿。

第二类，在有权经营“S”类设施的地区，省长有义务制定并实施科技风险预防方案（PPRT），其与公共事业地役权具有同等的司法价值。

在对AZF工厂事故进行反思的基础上产生的科技风险预防方案（PPRT），旨在根据危险评估中描述的风险性质、强度以及所采取的风险防范措施，来界定受灾害威胁的范围。与非强制性的公共事业地役权（SUP）一样，科技风险预防方案（PPRT）旨在限制存在风险的设施周边的城市化。但是，两者也存在多方面的不同。

首先，科技风险预防方案（PPRT）的实施是强制性的，其制定程序较为复杂。制定程序需要与该方案直接相关的各方人员（市镇、设施经营者、地方信息与协调委员会）的参与，并在很大程度上取决于上述人员与公众之间的协商。

其次，科技风险预防方案（PPRT）可以制定土地措施或者建筑保护措施。土地措施主要是划定整治工程，或者被禁止或服从技术规定的新建、扩建工程的区域。根据风险类型、严重程度、发生概率等，市镇在这些区域设立优先购买权（产权所有者一旦有出售意向，市镇可以优先购得该产权）、建筑放弃权（如果产权所有者提出要求，市镇必须购买其物业）或保留出于公共用途对其产业进行征用的可能性。科技风险预防方案（PPRT）还可以制定对居民的保护措施，应对由土地整治、建筑、工程、设施及交通道路的使用或经营造成的危险。

最后，科技风险预防方案（PPRT）的资金来源也有其特殊性。土地措施依据国家、相关设施经营者及市镇三方共同签署的协议来提供资金。另外，关于建筑保护措施，产权所有者可享受税收优惠，优惠数额为保护工程费用总额的30%（此类保护工程费用总额不能超过该产业市价的10%）。

根据上述报告可以看出，存在科技灾害风险的设施的经营者须受到众多限制与约束。如果不遵守相关规定和义务，经营者将面临严厉的行政处罚（如暂停设施的营运等）及刑罚制裁。

法国预防政策的特点在于其运用独特的手段，最大限度地控制高风险设施周边的城市化。科技风险预防方案（PPRT）在这一点上表明了法国政府机关的具体行动力及其尽可能多地从AZF化工厂事故中吸取经验教训的意愿和决心。

作者简介：Manuel PENNAFORTE 先生（中文名：潘富石），法中环境协会法方会长，巴黎律师公会律师，法国布瓦万律师事务所合伙人。

The Prevention of The Risk of Technological Catastrophes under French Law by Manuel PENNAFORTE

Lawyer at the Paris Bar – Boivin & Associés French President of Environnement France Chine

Abstract: Following the explosion in the French “AZF” factory in Toulouse in 2001, in order to protect the environment the authorities immediately put into motion extensive legislative reform regarding classified installations. They have been working to reinforce the legal tools necessary for the prevention of the risk of major accidents for over thirty years and the law of 19 July 1976 was passed nine days after the Seveso catastrophe in Italy. Since then the European ‘Seveso Directives’ 1 and 2 have come into force providing the principles of the prevention of major accident risks. The approach to risk has become more global and detailed. French law is now based on the precise identification of those installations which are likely to generate a risk of a major accident and provide original tools such as the plan for the prevention of technological risk (PPRT) which aims to ensure the best control possible of urban development around the installations that present a high risk.

Friday 21 September 2001, 10:17 am: the factory “AZF” (AZote Fertilisants) in Toulouse, France, is completely devastated by a gigantic explosion killing thirty-one people and injuring about 2,500, also causing considerable material damage.

Most of the victims suffered from the direct effects of the blast of the explosion or its indirect effects when hit by objects carried by the blast. According to official sources many survivors are still suffering from mental disorders and also auditory problems.

From a material point of view, the destruction caused by the explosion was considerable in the south-west part of the town. It was the northern-most part of the factory site which was damaged. The cost incurred by the repair and reconstruction of the damaged buildings has been estimated at around two billion Euros, thirty-three million of which concern government buildings alone.

The AZF factory , which is no longer in operation and has been dismantled, was operated by the company GRANDE PAROISSE, a subsidiary of the company ATOFINA, itself a subsidiary of the group TOTAL, the leading French oil company. It is located about 5 kilometres south of the centre of Toulouse. Initially built outside the town at the beginning of the twentieth century, it has been progressively encroached upon by housing, the local authorities having given the necessary building permits.

On the day of the catastrophe, the factory employed just fewer than 500 people on a piece of land measuring about 70 hectares. Its main production was ammonium nitrate for agricultural purposes (fertiliser) and to a lesser extent industrial ammonium nitrate (a product used in the manufacture of explosives used notably in quarries). The factory also made several other products such as melamine, resins and chlorine products used to disinfect swimming pools.

Several days after the catastrophe, the public prosecutor charged with the criminal investigations declared he considered there to be a “90% chance of it being an accident”. This declaration was made in an attempt to calm the hysteria which followed the catastrophe, coming just ten days after the terrorist attacks of September 11^th, 2001.

Since then there have been more inquiries, many explanations have been sought, the victims have been indemnified (the company GRANDE PAROISSE has paid out more than two billion euros) and the trial has just finished, awaiting the final judgment. One thing is certain after these eleven years of procedure: contrary to the hasty conclusions of the public prosecutor it has not been possible to establish that the origins of the catastrophe were accidental.

This catastrophe has led to a wide debate in the public opinion due to the scale of human and material loss and the emotion it has engendered. The French authorities immediately put in motion extensive legislative reform which changed existing laws significantly.

Adopted by French law n°2003-699 of 30 July 2003 pertaining to the prevention of technological and natural risks and the repair of damage, the reform undertaken by the French parliament retains the essence of the principles initially assigned to the texts in implementation of law n°76-663 of 19 July 1976 relative to the classified installations for the protection of the environment.

For more than thirty years, the French authorities have been working to reinforce the legal tools necessary for the prevention of the risk of major accidents. It was no coincidence therefore that the afore-mentioned law, law n°76-663 of 19 July 1976 relative to the classified installations for the protection of the environment, was passed nine days after the Seveso catastrophe which occurred on 10 July 1976 in Italy, near the municipality of Seveso. One year later, the implementation decree of law n°76-663 of 19 July 1976 introduced the obligation for the operator of an installation presenting a relatively high risk to include a “danger study” in the application for authorisation, an essential tool in the analysis of major accident risks.

France was then actively involved in the reflection which six years later led to the publication of the European Directive n°82/501/CEE of 24 June 1982 concerning the risk of major accidents in certain industrial activities, referred to as the “Seveso Directive”. The founding principles of the prevention of major accident risks are defined by the “Seveso Directive”.

The regulation in force at the time of this article’s publication follows on from it directly.

In the aftermath of the Bhopal catastrophe and other technological accidents which occurred worldwide since the “Seveso Directive” came into force, the European Union adopted Council Directive n°96/82/CE of 9 December 1996 on the control of the risk of major accidents involving dangerous substances, referred to as the “Seveso 2 Directive”.

The “Seveso 2” Directive repeals the “Seveso Directive”, but nevertheless retains the guiding principles while adding essential complementary elements. The approach to risks has become more global and detailed: the operator whose industrial activity involves a high technological risk must from now on consider the “installation” as part of an “establishment”, (“high threshold” or “low threshold”). The operator must also establish a policy of major accident prevention (PPAM) and put into place a system of safety management (SGS).

As a direct result of the review process carried out following the “AZF catastrophe”, the French law n°2003-699 of 30 July 2003 (mentioned above) completes the existing legal framework introduced by the two “Seveso” Directives.

French law is now based on the precise identification of installations which are likely to generate a risk of a major accident (1). It also provides for a series of specific instruments destined to reduce the probability of technological catastrophes occurring (2).

1 The Identification of Installations Likely to Generate a Risk of Major Accidents According to the French Environmental Code, the installations likely to generate a risk of a « major accident » are those which present “serious risks to the health or safety of neighbouring populations and to the environment through the danger of explosion or the emanation of noxious products” (C. env., art. L.515-8, I).

It is the Prime Minister’s responsibility to specify the list of installations concerned which are listed under the letter “S” – the initial of the word “servitude” – in the list of classified installations. However, the fact, for a given installation, that it is not directly listed under the letter “S” does not necessarily mean that it is not part of the list. The law provides an “addition rule” for amounts contained in installations where substances are stored. Due to this “addition rule” a business can come under the obligations applicable to the “S” installations, while when taken individually they do not.

According to the Press Release on the French Ministry of the Environment’s website, 616 installations came directly or indirectly under the category “S” of the list of the classified installations of 31 December 2011 which represented approximately 1.4% of the installations subject to environmental permit (authorisation) and 0.13% of all classified installations ^[④].

2 Specific Instruments Aiming at Reducing the Probability of Occurrence of Technological Catastrophes When an installation is listed in the “S” category this leads to a considerable increase in the obligations imposed on the operator who is then placed under the very high surveillance of the State (2.1). Furthermore, the existence of an installation “S” from the authorities’ point of view leads to the necessity or obligation to define the specific measures regarding the control of urban development, thanks to the land and water use restrictions (SUP) which include the “plan for the prevention of technological risks” (PPRT) (2.2).

2.1 Reinforcement of Obligations Imposed on the Operator The operator of a classified installation listed under category “S” must:

- consider his/its installation as part of an “establishment”, that is to say, in more general terms, as an integral part of the site as a whole;

- carry out a check at regular intervals on the dangerous substances or preparations present in the establishment;

- draw up a policy of major accident prevention (PPAM);

- put into place a system of safety management (SGS);

- respect the “paraseismic regulations”;

- expect to be thoroughly monitored by public authorities;

- establish and update (at least every five years) an “in-depth” danger study, which the operator communicates to the operators of neighbouring classified installations;

- define an internal emergency plan, entitled “internal operation plan”, before the installation comes into operation and update it at least every three years;

- have financial guarantees in a banking establishment to ensure the financial reserves necessary to deal with the economic consequences of major accidents the scenarios of which are described in the danger study;

- bear in mind the fact that if the classified activity is transferred to a new operator, the new operator will beforehand have to obtain the environmental permit (authorisation) from the State departments (Préfet).

Among the obligations listed above, the first four require some specific comments as they characterise the originality of the provision which comes from the implementation of the “Seveso Directive”.

2.1.1 Notion of “Establishment”

The operation of an installation which comes under the category “S” of the list of classified installations takes place within an “establishment”, which includes “all the installations […] under the responsibility of the same operator on the same site […]” (C. env., art. R. 511-10, I) “including the equipment and connected activities” (ministerial order of 10 May 2000, art. 2). The notion of establishment is based on a global approach in line with the “integrated” approach governing the legislation relative to classified installations in general.

The “Seveso 2 Directive” introduced a two-level analysis which requires the identification of two types of establishment: “high threshold” establishments and “low threshold” establishments.

- “high threshold” establishments are those which have installations containing quantities higher than or equal to the “high thresholds” designated in the Directive; the “high thresholds” have been implemented into the list of classified installations;

- ”low threshold” establishments are those which have installations which contain quantities higher than or equal to the “low thresholds” designated in the Directive; the “low thresholds” were implemented in France by the ministerial order of 10 May 2000.

A good understanding of the two mechanisms described above is indispensable as the consequences which follow on from them are radically different, in terms of statutory obligations, depending on whether an operator is at the head of a “high threshold” establishment or a “low threshold” establishment.

In the first case (“high threshold” establishment), the operator must respect all the obligations attached to the operation of the installations which come under the category “S” of the list.

On the other hand, in the second situation, the operator only has a limited number of supplementary obligations compared to those which apply to the operators of installations requiring only authorisation. He has only, therefore, to carry out regular checks of the dangerous substances or preparations likely to be present in the establishment and draw up a major accident prevention policy (PPAM).

According to the French Ministry of the Environment, on 31 December 2011 1,308 installations were covered either directly or indirectly by the notion of “high threshold” establishment or “low threshold” establishment, (3% of the installations requiring authorisation and 0.26% of all the 500,000 classified installations^[⑤]).

Other animal rearing: 28%

IPPC: animal rearing: 7%

IPPC: industries 8%

Quarries: 10%

Seveso: 3% “High threshold” establishments & “low threshold” establishments

Waste: 1%

Other industrial establishments: 43%

2.1.2 Regular Assessments of Chemicals

The operator of classified installations forming a “high threshold” or “low threshold” establishment must carry out a regular assessment of the dangerous substances and preparations likely to be present on the site. The assessment covers the nature and physical state of the substances concerned, as well as their quantity. It must be carried out every three years, before the 31^st December of the year in question and a report must be sent to the Préfet.

2.1.3 Policy of Major Accident Prevention

The operator of classified installations which form a “high threshold” or “low threshold” establishment must describe the major accident prevention policy (PPAM) in a document kept up to date and made available for the inspection of classified installations. Furthermore, like the danger study, the definition of the PPAM is the operator’s key responsibility. The PPAM formalises the management commitments towards safety and states it in writing. It must also be examined during the routine checks.

2.1.4 System of Safety Management

The operator of classified installations forming a “high threshold” establishment (contrary to the operator of a “low threshold” establishment) must put a safety management system (SGS) in place applicable to all the installations likely to generate major accidents on the site. He must provide the SGS with the appropriate resources and ensure it functions well. Moreover, the SGS is also part of the general management system of the establishment. Therefore, in the event for example of an operator deciding to put a safety management system in place, either one specifically created for the company, or one which has been purchased, the SGS must be part of this system.

In substance, the SGS must define the organisation, the functions of the personnel, the procedures and the resources which enable the major accident prevention policy to be put into practice. For this purpose it must be set out in seven chapters under the following topics:

- organisation and training;

- identification and evaluation of the risk of major accidents;

- control of procedures and operation control;

- management of modifications;

- management of emergency situations;

- management of feedback;

- inspection of SGS.

2.1 Control of Urban Planning The installations which come under section “S” of the list require a specific treatment compared to other installations: they make it necessary or compulsory, depending on the case, to put measures in place in the aim of enabling the authorities to “control urbanisation” around the “high threshold” establishments concerned.

The legal tools available are the land and water use restrictions (SUP). Concerning the operators of installations which come under section “S” of the list, the French Environmental Code distinguishes two types both of which can apply: the “optional” environmental restrictions (2.2.1), and the obligatory restrictions (2.2.2).

2.2.1 Optional Environmental Restrictions

The Préfet, on behalf of the State, can establish land and water use restrictions (referred to as distancing “SUP”) within a specified area around the installation either on his/her own initiative or at the request of the operator or the mayor of the concerned municipality (city, town or village).

Within this specified area, the land and water use restrictions:

- restrict or forbid the right to build or set up constructions, camping sites or caravan parks;

- make building permits contingent on technical regulations regarding the limitation of the risk of explosions or concerning the protection of buildings against noxious emanations;

- reduce the number of employees in industrial and commercial installations built at a later date.

There is, however, a limitation: the land and water use restrictions “can not make compulsory the demolition or abandon of existing constructions built according to the laws and regulations in force before the existence of these restrictions” (C. env., art. L.515-8, III).

The environmental restrictions described above can come into force when a new installation is built on a new or existing site, or during the modification of an existing installation requiring the issue of a new permit. They are laid down by the Préfet following a procedure which includes a public enquiry and several consultation phases to collect, among others, the opinions of the State, local authorities, representatives of environmental protection associations and the operator.

The land and water restrictions must be added as appendices to the town-planning document. This is essential, since from the moment they are included, the land and water restrictions “can be used to refuse all requests for planning permission” (C. urb., art. L. 126-1 paragraph 3), and thereby foil all plans for building in the area concerned.

Finally, the ‘Préfectoral’ order which enforces the land and water use restrictions is made known by the Préfet to each owner concerned. It also constitutes a fundamental legal document as the land and water use restrictions which lead to a direct, material tort and some give the right to compensation for the owners. The interested parties must address their requests for compensation to the operator within three years from the date notifying the decision to implement the restriction. In the event of an agreement not being found, the amount of compensation is set by the judge in charge of “expropriation” (i.e., compulsory purchase order). The payment of compensation is the responsibility of the operator.

2.2.2 Compulsory Environmental Restrictions

In the zones where installations classified under section “S” of the list are in operation, the Préfet is responsible for the drawing up and application of the plans for protection against technological risks (PPRT) which define the effects of accidents likely to occur in these installations (C. env., art. L. 515-15, 1^rst paragraph). For this purpose the Préfet takes a “prescription” order of the PPRT. Once approved (by a ‘prefectoral’ order of “approval”), the PPRT is considered as a “land and water use restriction”.

In the light of the explosion of 21^st September 2001 in the “AZF factory”, PPRTs were introduced by the afore-mentioned law n° 2003-699 of 30 July, 2003. The PPRT defines an area exposed to risks according to the nature and intensity of the technological risks described in the danger studies and the prevention measures put in place. Seen from this angle, the PPRT has an identical approach to those of the “optional” SUP described above: it aims at restricting urban development around sites “which present a risk”. Nevertheless, it is characterised by the fact it is compulsory.

It differs, however, by the large variety of legal tools (2.2.2.1) which enable its implementation, original measures provided to ensure its financing (2.2.2.2) and the number of consultations necessary for its creation (2.2.2.3).

2.2.2.1 The legal tools of the PPRT

Two of these have essential characteristics: real estate property measures and the protection of existing constructions.

The real estate property measures

The PPRT can, depending on the type of risk, its gravity, its likelihood and its kinetics:

- define the zones where development or building work as well as new construction and the extension of existing constructions is forbidden or controlled by the respect of regulations relative to building, use or operation; in these zones, the municipality (city, town or village) or groups of municipalities may apply the right to urban pre-emption; the right to urban pre-emption enables them to acquire the property in question when its owner informs them of his/her/its intention to part with it by means of a “declaration of intention to yield ownership” (DIA); however, the municipality or groups of municipalities are not obliged to take action on the DIA; therefore, if they decide not to take action on the DIA, the proprietor is then free to part with his/her/its property;

- define the sectors within these same zones where, because of the existence of a high risk of major accidents with rapidly developing kinetics, there is a serious danger to human life, competent municipalities (cities, towns or villages) or groups of municipalities can implement a right to relinquish buildings or parts of buildings existing at the time of the approval of the plan; thus, to determine the acquisition price, the value of the property is estimated without taking into account the eventual supplementary depreciation brought by the urban developments restrictions imposed by the PPRT in the zones in question; from a practical point of view, when a proprietor exercises his/her/its right of relinquishment, the municipalities or groups of municipalities are obliged to acquire the building at stake; in the case of a disagreement over the price, the expropriation judge is referred to by the most diligent party;

- define the sectors within these same zones where, because of the existence of a high risk of accident with rapidly developing kinetics presenting an extremely serious danger to human life, the State can declare, in the public interest, the expropriation of buildings by the competent municipalities (cities, towns or villages) or groups of municipalities and for them to benefit from the buildings and the rights to real estate; however, a specific condition determines the possibility for members of the public concerned to initiate the expropriation process: the means of saving and protecting the populations that are put in place must prove to be impossible or more expensive than expropriation (cf. Env. Code).

Protection of existing constructions

The PPRT can prescribe measures to protect populations facing the risks incurred relative to the development, the use or operation of constructions, works, installations and roads existing at the time of the plan’s approval/adoption. The measures concerned can, in particular, contain regulations relative to the movement and parking of vehicles transporting dangerous substances.

When protection building work is prescribed, it can only concern developments where the cost does not exceed more than 10% of the market value or estimated value of the property before the intervention of the order prescribing the PPRT.

2.2.2.2 Financing the PPRT

The property measures prescribed in application of the PPRT (only the right to relinquish and the expropriation procedure) are financed by means of a three-party convention drawn up between the State, the operators of installations at the origin of the risk and the communes or groups of communes.

Inevitably the question arises on the amount each “financer” should pay respectively by virtue of the conventions. The legislator has fixed rules which provide for different shares of costs according to the total amount of the measures inferred by the exercise of the right of relinquishment or the expropriation process (the share varies based on whether the total amount is less than or more than thirty million Euros).

Rules for the financing concerning measures relative to the protection of existing constructions do not exist (a change in the law on this point is, however, underway). The proprietors concerned are nevertheless not neglected by the legislator who has given them the possibility of income tax relief representing 30% of the amount spent on the necessary protection works.

2.2.2.3 Procedure for the Creation, Regulation and Approval of the PPRT

The implementation of a PPRT includes three successive stages which involve those directly concerned by the project (at the minimum: competent municipalities or groups of municipalities, operators at the origin of the risk and local committee of information and consultation) and depends on a very wide “consultation”, including not only those associated, but also the public in general.

First step: “Technical study stage”

This stage, which aims to represent the risks to which the concerned territory is exposed includes notably the analysis and the mapping of the technological risks from installations listed under section “S”:

The levels of risk Enveloping circle – slow kinetics Map superimposing the risks and showing possible consequences

Second step: “PPRT strategy phase”

This stage establishes the principles of the future PPRT through use of the specific tools, on the regulation principles and on the reference elements (for example, Guide for the use of local councillors), drawn up by the Ministry of Environment departments.

It aims at:

- identifying the urban development control actions which need to be carried out in the most exposed zones of the area under study; at this time the choices available (right to urban pre-emption, relinquishment, expropriation, protection of the existing constructions) are specified according to the local context;

- discussing with the associated stakeholders in order to establish the PPRT arrangements taking into account the specificities of the area.

The strategy phase of the PPRT enables urban planning and construction rules to be considered with regard to property customs and tools (DPU, relinquishment, expropriation), distinguishing zone and sector types according to the level of risk. An analysis sheet is available in the methodological guides distributed by the Ministry of Environment.

Third step: “PPRT preparation stage”

The purpose of this step is to translate the conclusions which result from the preceding ones in a statutory form. For this purpose competent public authorities make up a file which includes, notably:

- a presentation note describing the installations or storage areas at the origin of risk, their nature and intensity and setting forth the reasons which lead to the definition of the area exposed to risk;

- diagrams showing the “area exposed to risk”, the DPU zone and the relinquishment or expropriation sectors selected; for this purpose a “plan of prescribed zones” is established, presented as follows:

Example of a project of prescribed zones:

- a regulation project including, for each zone or sector: measures forbidding and regulations restraining construction, utilisation or operation; the above-mentioned “compulsory” SUP (among others); the setting up of the right of relinquishment, the right of pre-emption or the possibility to launch an expropriation procedure; the measures for the protection of the existing constructions as well as the schedule of the implementation of the measures provided for by the PPRT;

- the recommendations aimed at strengthening the protection of the populations;

- the estimation of the cost of the measure likely to be taken in the event of relinquishment or expropriation;

- the order of priority decided upon for the implementation of the measures provided for by the PPRT.

The file is then submitted to a public enquiry. In order to complete the information from the public, the documents drawn up following the “consultation” (“evaluation of the consultation”), in particular are put as appendices to the file.

The enquiry lasts a month and can, if necessary, be extended for one more month.

After the public enquiry, the PPRT (modified, if required) is approved by a prefectoral order. For this, the Préfet has a period of three months from the time of the reception of the ‘commisaire-enquêteur’s’ or the board of enquiry’s report.

The PPRT is revised following a procedure identical to that which led to its approval.

---oooOOOooo---

In the light of the account above, it appears that France has a strong set of rules and regulations to reduce the probability of the occurrence of technological catastrophes. The operators of installations likely to produce major accidents are under tight restrictions. Among these is the obligation to put an efficient system of safety management in place. If these obligations are not respected, the interested parties run the risk of administrative sanctions, such as the suspension of the operation of the installations concerned. They also run the risk of severe criminal penalties: the non-respect of a simple formal notice can, as an example, lead to a prison sentence of a maximum of two years and/or a fine of Euros 150,000.

Beyond the coercive mechanisms that come into action in the case of a breach of the obligations applicable, the French provision in the case of the risk of a technological catastrophe is characterised by the originality of its tools aiming to ensure the best control possible of urban development around the installations presenting a high risk. The plan for the prevention of technological risk (PPRT) illustrates, in this purpose, the concrete example of the public authorities’ desires to make best use of what was learnt following the “AZF catastrophe” of 21 September 2001 in Toulouse.

Paris, June 4^th, 2012.

* 本文是翻译文本，若与原文意思不一致，以法文版的原文意思为准。

[①] 联合国欧洲经济委员会于1982年6月24日颁布的第82/501/CEE号关于《工业活动中的重大事故风险 》的指令和欧盟于1996年12月9日颁布的第 96/82/CE号 关于《重大事故及其有害物质的危害控制》的指令.

[②] ICPE法则中进行分类管理的设施清单（Nomenclature des Installations Classées）。ICPE（Installations Classées pour la Protection de l’Environnement）法及其实施细则是国家为了达到保护环境的目的，而对各种设施进行分类管理的一系列法律法规的总称。

[③] 通过ICPE法则进行管理的设施，在本文中，我们简称为分类设施。

[④] http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/15-02-12_-_DP_-_Installations_classees_vfinale.pdf

[⑤] http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/15-02-12_-_DP_-_Installations_classees_vfinale.pdf