To whom it may concern,

In relation to case EIA/IC/INFO/16 on Ugljevik thermal power plant, we would like to inform you of some new developments regarding the case. In parallel with the information form submitted to the Espoo Convention Implementation Committee, as was explained in the text of the form, a court complaint was filed to the District Court on 13 December 2013, filed under number 11 0 U 013268 13 U. The complaint covered various procedural issues, the lack of transboundary consultations and the lack of a Plan for the Prevention of Major Accidents.

In addition to this, on 16 December 2014 a complaint was submitted by Center for Environment to the Energy Community Dispute Settlement Mechanism.1 This complaint included issues which were discovered only after the court complaint had been submitted, regarding the emission limit values of the power plant. A scientific analysis of the Environmental Impact Assessment document showed that the figures provided on emissions to air were internally inconsistent and could not possibly be correct.2 Therefore it was impossible for the Environmental Impact Assessment to properly analyse the plants’ impact on the environment, domestically or transboundary.

The complaint to the District Court was rejected in verdict no 11 0 U 013268 13 U of 24.9.2015. A court appeal against the verdict and seeking the cancellation of the environmental permit for the Ugljevik III power plant was filed to the Supreme Court of by the Center for Environment on November 13, 2015.

On 31 May 2017 the Supreme Court reached its verdict, upheld our complaint, modified the verdict of the District Court, and annulled the environmental permit for Ugljevik III (See Annex 1).

However, on 24 July 2017 the Republika Srpska Ministry of Spatial Planning, Construction and Ecology issued a new Environmental Permit (reference number 15.04-96-120/13) without any kind of public information and consultation process (See Annex 2).

On 29.08.2017 Center for Environment submitted an administrative lawsuit to the Banja Luka District Court requesting the cancellation of the revised Environmental Permit.

1 https://bankwatch.org/sites/default/files/complaint-EnCom-Ugljevik-16Dec2014.pdf

2 https://bankwatch.org/news-media/for-journalists/press-releases/environmental-impact-assessment-new- bosnia--coa The main points of the lawsuit are as follows:

 In the Environmental Permit, the Ministry claims that there is no evidence of the presence of dangerous substances in the plant in quantities larger than those laid out in Articles 5 and 6 of the Regulation (Pravilnik) on installations that may be put into operation only if they possess an environmental permit, and that the installation therefore does not fall into the category of installations which may cause major accidents and therefore does not need a Plan for the Prevention of Major Accidents. In the permit, it is stated that for the purposes of Ugljevik 3 power plant, in order to start the boilers, 1720 tonnes of light fuel oil will be used, and 86 kg of hydrogen. However this data cannot be found in the EIA study from 2013, on which both the 2013 and new environmental permit were based. In the EIA, no quantities are given, and instead of light fuel oil, heavy fuel oil is mentioned, which significantly changes the classification of hazardous substances. This means that there appears to be no evidence supporting the conclusion that the plant is not an installation which could cause major accidents and does not need a prevention Plan.  The Ministry claimed in its Decision to issue the environmental permit that the plant will not have significant transboundary impacts and that none of the neighbouring countries or entities had requested consultations. However it offers no evidence to prove that there will not be significant transboundary impacts. Indeed, the 2013 EIA is currently subject to a dispute settlement procedure at the Energy Community precisely because of the fact that the data on emissions to air is demonstrably wrong and therefore does not allow the environmental impact of the plant – local or transboundary – to be assessed. In addition, the other Entity, Brčko district and other state could hardly express interest in being consulted when they had not been notified about the construction of Ugljevik 3. In fact, after a complaint was sent to the Espoo Convention Implementation Committee by the Center for Environment, the report of its 37th session in December 2016, mentions Serbia’s interest and wish to be informed about the transboundary impact of Ugljevik 3.  The description of waste water sources, quality and treatment defined in the Environmental Impact Assessment is very inadequate. It doesn’t give a clear picture how effluents will be treated, which composition they will have and what will be the real impact of effluents released in the Mezgraja river.  Chapter 11 of the EIA does not provide any useful information on the impact on human health from Ugljevik 3, especially considering the fact that RiTE Ugljevik already exists in the immediate vicinity and will have a cumulative influence in the future.  The coal store for the plant is of a scale (capacity 303 600 tonnes) that would require an environmental impact assessment, but this has been neither included in the Ugljevik III EIA nor required separately.

In addition to this, on 28 July 2017 the Energy Community Secretariat sent an opening letter to regarding the Ugljevik III coal power plant,3 thus signaling the official start of a dispute settlement procedure on the case.

In light of these very recent developments, we ask the Espoo Convention Secretariat to bring this additional information to the attention of the Implementation Committee during the 39th Session taking place between 5-7 September and to continue consideration to the case under the “information gathering” procedure.

We will keep you informed of any further developments in the case.

Kind regards,

Annex 1 – Supreme Court Verdict, 31.05.2017

Annex 2 – Updated environmental permit for Ugljevik III, 24.07.2017

Annex 3 – Court case against updated environmental permit, submitted 29.08.2017

3 https://energy-community.org/news/Energy-Community-News/2017/08/08.html