The Long Road to Recovery: Community Responses to Industrial Disasters (UNU, 1996, 307 p.): 4 Seveso: A paradoxical classic disaster: The European Community's institutional response to Seveso: (introduction...)

The Long Road to Recovery: Community Responses to Industrial Disasters (UNU, 1996, 307 p.)

(introduction...)

Note to the reader from the UNU

Introduction

1 Improving community responses to industrial disasters

(introduction...)

Introduction

The nature of industrial disaster

Industrial disaster burdens

The evolution of responses

Routine disasters

Surprises

Coping with surprise

Reducing the impact of industrial disaster surprises: The range of choice

Recovering from surprise

Conclusions

Notes

References

2 Responses to Minamata disease

(introduction...)

Introduction

Who are the victims of Minamata disease?

Official recognition of Minamata disease and the initial response

Chisso's grip on the local community

The making of Minamata

Environmental destruction before Minamata disease

Neglect in preventing the spread of disease

Manoeuvres to avoid a ban on fishing

Obstacles to identifying the cause of Minamata disease

Efforts to halt the dumping of contaminated wastes

Problems associated with relief and reparations

Relief

Reparations

Measures to aid the fisheries

How the local community suppressed the victims

Conclusions

Editor's postscript

Chronology

Notes

References

3 Environmental contamination, community transformation, and the Centralia mine fire

(introduction...)

Introduction

Centralia: A dependent town

The Centralia mine fire

A stage model of industrial contamination

Conclusions

Implications

Recommendations

References

4 Seveso: A paradoxical classic disaster

(introduction...)

Introduction

Overview

The chemical release

Dioxin

The Seveso Directive

The European Community's institutional response to Seveso

(introduction...)

The Directive and its annexes

Other institutional effects of the Seveso Directive

The lessons of Seveso

A model for managing uncertainty

Modelling the Seveso disaster

Modelling the Seveso Directive

Modelling the Karin B incident

A moral paradox

A scientific paradox

Industrial accidents, industrial society, and recovery

Conclusion: ''Seveso'' - A paradoxical symbol

Acknowledgements

Chronology

Notes

References

5 Long-term recovery from the Bhopal crisis

(introduction...)

Introduction

The Bhopal toxic gas leak crisis

Antecedents and failures

Inside the plant

Outside the plant

A multiple-perspectives understanding of crises

Recovery of the victims and their community

(introduction...)

Medical recovery

Economic recovery

Struggle for compensation

Victims remain victims

Recovery of Union Carbide

Financial restructuring

Legal battles and the ''sabotage'' defence

Recovery of the government

Political management of the crisis

Learning by government institutions

Implications for long-term disaster recovery

(introduction...)

Crisis morphology

The permanence of victims

Revising stage models of disasters

Policy implications

Note

References

6 Iranian recovery from industrial devastation during war with Iraq

(introduction...)

Introduction

Military and strategic context

Impacts of the war on human health and long-term habitability of the region

Human losses

Environmental damage

Damage to human settlements and the economy

Recovery from war

(introduction...)

National reconstruction plans

Support from international organizations and local communities

Urban reconstruction

Housing reconstruction

Industrial reconstruction

Conceptual framework for a model of post-war reconstruction and industrial hazard recovery

(introduction...)

A reconstruction strategy

The reconstruction process

Improving recovery and policy implications

Notes

References

7 The Chernobyl disasters Its effect on Belarus and Ukraine

(introduction...)

Introduction

The accident and its immediate aftermath

(introduction...)

The accident is ''under control''

Focus on the West

International cooperation

The affected community

Regeneration and recovery

(introduction...)

Victim action groups

International aid

Towards a model for nuclear and industrial accidents

(introduction...)

Stages of crisis management

Three Mile Island, 1979

The international nuclear energy industry's response to Chernobyl

Summary

Suggestions for a general model of recovery from industrial accidents

Acknowledgement

Chronology

Notes

References

Media sources

8 The Exxon Valdez oil spill, Alaska

(introduction...)

Introduction

The oil industry and the spill

(introduction...)

The accident

Historical and cultural contexts

(introduction...)

The Katmai eruption

The great Alaskan earthquake

The oil spill: Community impact

(introduction...)

Psychological, social, and cultural impacts

The villages

Town responses

Recovery

(introduction...)

Litigation initiatives

The communities

Organizational responses

New risks

Other kinds of recovery activities

But, what is recovery?

Conclusions

Chronology of the first 10 days

Notes

References

9 Signposts on the road to recovery

(introduction...)

Surprising events and disquieting outcomes

Responding effectively to industrial disaster surprises

(introduction...)

Awareness

Information

Action

Recommendations

References

Contributors

(introduction...)

Directives are one type of legislation issued by the European Community. Others include regulations, decisions, recommendations, and opinions. Some of these are binding on the 12 European states that make up the Community,⁴ while others are not. Several different units of the Community are involved in the process of legislating a directive (table 4.1).

Table 4.1 Units of the European Community involved in legislating a directive

European Community Unit	Characteristics
Commission	Seventeen members appointed by 12 Member State governments for four years.
Council	Twelve representatives, one from each Member State government; presidency rotates among countries every six months.
European Parliament	Elected by peoples of the EC for five-year term according to each Member State's electoral system (518 members in 1992).
European Court of Justice	Thirteen judges appointed by agreement among Member State governments for six-year terms. Assisted by six advocates-general.
Economic and Social Committee	Assists the Council and the Commission with European Economic Community and European Atomic Energy Community matters; 189 members from various economic and social sectors.

The path for adopting a directive is as follows.⁵ The Commission presents a proposal to the Council. After consultation with the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee (whose opinions must be heard even if they are not strictly binding), the Council may formally adopt the proposal. After adoption, an EC directive is not immediately applicable to a Member State. Individual states must incorporate the directive into national legislation and take all the necessary measures for compliance within a specified period. Such a procedure allows for effective implementation, while respecting different juridical and administrative traditions. If a Member State fails to comply, the Commission may bring a case before the European Court of Justice.

In practice, the process of arriving at the directive on major accident hazards was long and complex. Technical and political problems required extended consultations among different parties and institutions. A proposal was finally presented by the Commission to the Council in July 1979. The required opinions of the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee were expressed in 1980 and it took two more years of further consulting and discussion before a directive was finally adopted, on 24 June 1982, 8 January 1984 being the anticipated deadline for implementation by the 10 EC Member States of that time. Directive 82/501/EEC soon became known as the Seveso Directive, despite opposition from Seveso residents, who formally complained to EC authorities in Brussels about what they perceived as an implied insult.

Before the Seveso Directive, manufacturers in different Member States were subject to obligations of varying stringency. For example, the submission of a safety report by the manufacturer responsible for a hazardous installation was not mandatory in all countries. Therefore, the Directive's main purpose was to ensure harmonization of regulations among different countries. This was achieved by establishing minimal EC requirements and permitting Member States to enforce stricter regulations. Such a general purpose is consistent with the overall EC policy on environmental health and safety matters. It is instructive to review the Directive's major components.