Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis at the Local and Regional

European Commission DG EnvironmentCapacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis at the Local and Regional LevelCapacity Review ReportRomaniaDate: 05.11.2004Prepared by: Luminita StefanescuChecked by: Norman Sheridan Client Ref. No.: EuropeAid/116215/CSV/PHACMDC Joint Venture: Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review - RomaniaForewordBackground of the Project In 2003 the European Commission, Directorate General for Environment, decided to launch a project in the 10 Phare countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania) aimed at improving the implementation of the following directives: - Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (Directive 96/61/EC) - Environmental Impact Assessment (Directive 97/11/EC) on regional and local level. Each country has selected 4 to 8 pilot areas in which the training takes place. The training comprises regional workshops in each pilot area plus national workshops. Two Multi-country workshops, where the 10 participating countries can exchange experience and views, are included in the project. The project was initiated in December 2003 and is expected to end in June 2005.The project is implemented and managed by a Consortium comprising 4 international consulting companies (Carl Bro, COWI, DHV and Milieu) assisted by national companies in the 10 Phare-countries - including subsidiaries of the consortium companies. The objectives of the projectOverall objectives The overall objective is as follows: To develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of EIA and IPPC. This will be done through an approach that is tailored to the needs and conditions of each particular country, but also ensuring the possibility for countries to learn from the experiences of their neighbours.Specific objectives The specific objectives of this contract are as follows: Better understanding in the PHARE countries of the steps needed to improve implementation of EIA and IPPC directives at local and regional level.  Better trained local and regional authorities in each country able to effectively implement environmental acquis, particularly the EIA and IPPC directives.  Preparation of models of good environmental administration at the local and regional level in the PHARE countries  Preparation of strategies for broader application of the experiences of the pilot areas within each PHARE country.Objective of This Report The objective of this report is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the present administrative practice and capacities in the countries. It focuses on EIA and IPPC implementation, and is based on the Institutional Review which focuses on the administrative structures in place for implementation, including an assessment of the transposition of the EIA and IPPC Directives, and the Training Needs Assessment which assesses the needs of the regional staff selected for training under this project. This Report forms an essential backgroundFinal Version 19-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture i Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review - Romania review of the current state of play in the country, and will serve as a basis for any recommendations for improvements to legal arrangements and/or administrative practices to ensure full effective implementation of the EIA and the IPPC Directive.Preparation of Report This report is prepared by Country Manager Luminita Stefanescu. Further information may be obtained from Luminita Stefanescu ([email protected]) or from Assistant Team Leader Grith Lindgreen Petersen ([email protected])Final Version 19-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture ii Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review - RomaniaContentsForeword...... i Contents...... iii Abbreviations...... iv A. Capacity Review Environmental Impact Assessment...... 1A.1. Summary...... 1 A.2. Introduction...... 1 A.3. The Current Legal Framework...... 2 A.4. Institutional Arrangements...... 3 A.5. Trainees Review...... 5 A.6. Assessment of Current Administrative Practices...... 14 B. Capacity Review Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control...... 16B.1. Summary...... 16 B.2. Introduction...... 16 B.3. The Current Legal Framework...... 17 B.4. Institutional Arrangements...... 19 B.5. Trainees Review...... 22 B.6. Assessment of Current Administrative Practices...... 29 C. Annex I: Institutional Review - EIA...... 33C.1. Introduction...... 33 C.2. Legal Assessment...... 33 C.3. Publicly Available Guidance Documents...... 38 C.4. Institutional Arrangements...... 38 C.5. Procedural Issues...... 41 D. Annex I: Institutional Review - IPPC...... 64D.1. Introduction...... 64 D.2. Legal Assessment...... 64 D.3. Publicly Available Guidance Documents...... 72 D.4. Institutional Arrangements...... 73 D.5. Number of IPPC operators in Romania by region...... 80 D.6. Procedural Issues...... 83 E. Annex II: Conclusions on the Training Needs Assessment - EIA...... 90E.1. Overall Staff Capacities, i.e. Characteristics of Staff Involved in EIA Determination in Romania...... 90 E.2. Subject Matter Knowledge Capacities and Experiences...... 91 E.3. Conclusion on Knowledge and Experience of Staff Dealing with EIA Determination..93Final Version 19-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture iii Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review - RomaniaF. Annex II: Conclusions on the Training Needs Assessment - IPPC...... 94F.1. Overall Staff Capacities, Characteristics of Staff Involved in IPPC Permits in Romania’s Pilot Regions...... 94 F.2. Subject Matter Knowledge Capacities and Experiences...... 95 F.3. Conclusion on Knowledge and Experience of Staff Dealing with IPPC Issues...... 98AbbreviationsBAT Best Available Technique BREF BAT Reference Document CA Competent Authority CEPA Central public authority for environmental protection DDBRA Delta Danube Biosphere Reservation Administration EG Environmental Guard EGO Emergency Governmental Ordinance EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIS EIA Statement ELV Emission Limit Value EPER European Pollutant Emission Register EU European Union GD Governmental Decision GEO Governmental Emergency Ordinance ICIM Bucharest National Research and Development Institute for Environmental Protection IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control LEPA Local Environmental Protection Agency (county level) MAFWE Ministry of Agriculture Forest Water and Environment (title from June 2003 to March 2004) MAI Ministry of Administration and Internal Affairs MEI Ministry of European Integration MET Ministry of Economy and Trade MEWM Ministry of Environment and Water Management (title from March 2004) MHF Ministry of Health and Family MIR Ministry of Industry and Resources MO Ministerial Order MoAFWE Ministry of Agriculture Forest Water and Environment (title from June 2003 to march 2004) MoAI Ministry of Administration and Internal Affairs MoEI Ministry of European Integration MoEWM Ministry of Environment and Water Management (title from March 2004 till present) MoHF Ministry of Health and Family MoIR Ministry of Industry and Resources MoPWSP Ministry of Public Works and Spatial Planning MoTCT Ministry of Transports, Constructions and Tourism MoWEP Ministry of Water and Environmental Protection (title from 2000 to June 2003) MoWFEP Ministry of Water Forest and Environmental Protection (title from 1996 to 2000) MPWSP Ministry of Public Works and Spatial Planning MTCT Ministry of Transports, Constructions and Tourism MWEP Ministry of Water and Environmental Protection (title from 2000 to June 2003) MWFEP Ministry of Water Forest and Environmental Protection (title from 1996 to 2000) NAAR National Administration Apele Romane NEPA National Environmental Protection Agency NGO Non Governmental Organisation REPA Regional Environmental Protection Agency (development region level) TRC Technical Review Committee Final Version 19-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture iv Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review EIA - RomaniaA. Capacity Review Environmental Impact AssessmentA.1. SummaryThe overall objective of the project “Capacity building in implementation of the environmental acquis” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). This Capacity Review Report focuses on EIA implementation in Romania, and is based on the Institutional Review which focuses on the administrative structures in place for implementation, including an assessment of the transposition of the EIA Directive, and the Training Needs Assessment which assesses the needs of the regional staff selected for training under this project. This Report forms an essential background review of the current state of play in Romania and will serve as a basis for any recommendations for improvements to legal arrangements and/or administrative practices to ensure full effective implementation of the EIA Directive. The EIA Directive has been transposed into Romanian legislation, although not all aspects of Directive 2003/35/EC on public participation and access to justice have been fully transposed. These will be transposed in 2005 via amendment to GD 918/2002 and MO 860/2002.The EIA procedure is decentralised in Romania with the Competent Authorities (CAs) being determined by the nature of the project. The divisions of responsibilities between MoEWM, REPAs and LEPAs are well defined and there are no apparent problems. Statutory consultation authorities participate in the decision-making process via the establishment of Technical Review Committees, where their opinions may be expressed. A Handbook on EIA has been prepared and is available to stakeholders, but is not generally available to the public at large. Methodological guidelines on screening, scoping and review have been prepared and are widely available. In addition, draft guidelines for certain types of activity have been prepared, but are not yet formally adopted. Staffing levels at the central and regional/local authorities for EIA are reported to be insufficient for the tasks, especially as many of the staff have other duties and responsibilities. Staff would benefit from improved access to computers and the internet. The EIA procedure is relatively new in Romania and, while staff have been trained on EIA, they have not been exposed to many EIA applications as yet and would benefit from “hand-on” training where actual cases are studied. A.2. IntroductionThe overall objective of the project “Capacity building in implementation of the environmental acquis” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). This will be done through an approach that is tailored to the needs and conditions of each particular country, but also ensuring the possibility for countries to learn from the experiences of their neighbours.This Capacity Review Report focuses on EIA; a separate Report focuses on IPPC. The time for transposition of the EU Directives into the national legislation, and the effective implementation of this national legislation into the public administrative practise at local and regional level is now very short – for Romania the deadline for having administrative structures in place is the year 2004. Therefore it is essential that the training provided by this project to theFinal Version 11-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture 1 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review EIA - Romania local/regional authorities with responsibilities for EIA are focused and specifically directed at their needs and at identified weaknesses or areas of concern. In addition to the focused training directed to the needs of the trainees in the competent authorities at local/regional level, the project is also required to make proposals for any recommended revision of existing administrative regulations to enhance the implementation of the EIA Directive. The scope of these recommended revisions means that it is necessary to consider not just the legal and regulatory framework for implementation of EIA but also any administrative and technical guidance documents. It will also consider the actual implementation and enforcement – that is to say the administrative practices – currently in place. Thus it is essential that appropriate background material is collected, reviewed and assessed. This Capacity Review Report summarises this material and assessment. The information itself has been collated in two reports: the Institutional Review - focused on the strength and weaknesses of the administrative structures - and the Training Needs Assessment - focused at the needs of the employees selected for training. The two reports appear as annexes to this report.A.3. The Current Legal FrameworkNational Pieces of Legislation Relevant to the EIA Directive.  Environment Protection Law 137/95 amended by EGO 91/2002, approved by Law 294/2003  Law 22/2001 for ratifying the Convention on environmental impact assessment in a trans-boundary context (Espoo Convention)  Law 645/2002 for approval of EGO 34/2002 on integrated pollution prevention and control  Law 86/2000 for the ratification of Aarhus Convention  Law 462/2002 for approval of EGO 236/2000 regarding natural protected areas and conservation of natural habitats and wildlife  Law 544/2001 on the free access to information of public interest  GD 123/2002 for approval of methodological norms regarding the application of Law 544/2001  GD 1115/2002 on the free access to environmental information  GD 918/2002 on setting up the environmental impact assessment framework procedure and for the approval of the list containing projects subject to this procedure  MO 860/2002 of MoWEP for the approval of procedures for environmental impact assessment and issuance of the environmental agreement  MO 863/2002 of MoWEP for the approval of the methodological guidelines applicable to the stages of the environmental impact assessment framework procedure  MO 864/2002 of MoWEP on the approval of the environmental impact assessment procedure for projects in a trans-boundary context and public participation to this procedure  MO 1182/2002 of MoWEP on approval of methodological norms for collection, processing and dissemination of environmental information  MO 1388/2003 of MoWEP on setting-up the Technical Review Committee at central level  MO 978/2003 of MoWEP for the approval of the regulation on certifying natural or legal persons that carry out environmental impact studies  MO 1943/2002 of MPWSP regarding permitting procedure of construction works. The Romanian EIA legislation fits and interacts with other planning legislation, as well as interacts with the IPPC legislation. Final Version 11-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture 2 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review EIA - RomaniaAll Annex I projects of the Directive are covered by national legislation as subject to EIA, being listed in Annex I.1 of the MO 860/2002. Additionally, Annex I.1 nominates as subjects to EIA mining activities with a production capacity larger than 5 million tonnes/year and exploitation surface exceeding 1000 ha. According to GD 918/2002, the central public authority for environmental protection may grant exemptions from the EIA for projects, in whole or in part, in exceptional cases such as the ensuring of public order or national security, based on a motivated request of the project developer and after the developer agrees to carry out another form of assessment. There is no provision to inform the European Commission about exemptions granted; this requirement will be complied with when Romania will become an EU Member State.All projects from Annex II of the EIA Directive are listed in Annex I.2 of the MO 860/2002. Every project mentioned in Annex I.2 of the MO 860/2002 is subject to the screening procedure which in Romania means a case-by-case examination. In doing so, the environmental authorities with the help of the Technical Review Committee (TRC) (which includes all other public authorities needed for the consultation process) use the EC guidelines adopted and published as Annex 1 of the MO 863/2002 and the screening checking lists that refer to the project characteristics and to the location characteristics. Relevant selection criteria of Directive’ Annex III are transposed in Annex III of the GD 918/2002The EIA Directive has been fully transposed into national legislation. The requirements of Aarhus Convention related to EIA process with regard to public participation, that have been lately incorporated into Directive 2003/35/EC, are only partially transposed in MO 860/2002 in accordance with GD 918/2002, art. 12. A process of amending the GD 918/2002 and MO 860/2002 is going on now in order to fully transpose Directive 2003/35/EC especially with regard to definitions and the requirements for access to justice. Publicly Available Guidance Documents The Handbook prepared in 2003 within the project EUROPEAID/112525/D/SV/RO provides an overview of both national EIA legislation and procedures. A booklet for public participation in EIA process is also available. Methodological guidelines applicable to screening, scoping and review stages were prepared also as part of the same project and published in January 2003 as Annex 1, 2 and 3 of MO 863/2002 of MoWEP. These documents have been taken into account the Guidances prepared for the European Commission. A.4. Institutional ArrangementsTable A.4.1 below shows the division of responsibilities between the different layers of government (national, regional and local) for specific obligations relating to EIA.Table A.4.1 Competent Authorities for EIAResponsibilities Central Regional Local Comments (county) Deciding whether a MoEWM REPA LEPA Depending on competence project requires an assigned in OM 860/2002 EIA Annex I.1 and I.2 Making the EIA MoEWM REPA LEPA Depending on competence decision assigned in OM 860/2002 Annex I.1 and I.2 Issuing guidance on MoEWM REPA LEPA Depending on competence EIA assigned in OM 860/2002 Annex I.1 and I.2 Trans-boundary MoEWM - LEPA MoEWM’ and LEPA’ roles issues are defined in OM 860/2002 art.9(2) and in MO 864/2002 Issues of commercial MoEWM REPA LEPA Depending on competence confidentiality assigned in OM 860/2002 Annex I.1 and I.2Final Version 11-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture 3 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review EIA - RomaniaResponsibilities Central Regional Local Comments (county) Consultation with MoEWM REPA LEPA Depending on competence other authorities assigned in OM 860/2002 Annex I.1 and I.2 Ensuring public MoEWM REPA LEPA Depending on competence consultations assigned in OM 860/2002 Annex I.1 and I.2 Inspection Environmental Environmental Environmental Common Protocol with Guard Guard Guard MoEWP Enforcement MoEWM REPA LEPA Controls enforcement according to the competence assigned in OM 860/2002 Annex I.1 and I.2 Maintaining an EIA MoEWM REPA LEPA Depending on competence register assigned in OM 860/2002 Making information MoEWM REPA LEPA Depending on competence available to the assigned in OM 860/2002 publicThe Ministry of Environment and Water Management (MoEWM) and the 42 Environmental Protection Agencies (EPAs) plus Delta Danube Biosphere Reservation Administration (DDBRA) are the competent authorities responsible for performing duties arising from the EIA process. The division of competencies between MoEWM and the Regional and Local EPAs to take decisions from the screening stage till issuing the environmental agreement are exactly established in the Annexes I.1 and I.2 of the Ministerial Order 860/2002. Application for any environmental agreement is submitted to the Local EPA (LEPA) on the territory of which the project is located; a copy of the application file accompanied by LEPA’s opinion/point of view is transmitted to MoEWM/REPA within 5 days period, if MoEWM/REPA is the competent authority for one type of particular project; MoEWM/REPA may decide afterwards to delegate some competences to LEPA in order to fulfil certain tasks of the EIA procedure. The unit within MoEWM responsible for EIA implementation is the Directorate for Integrated Monitoring, Permitting and Compliance Control. Its staff implements the permitting procedure at national level, issues the environmental agreements and co-coordinates the activity of Permitting Departments within REPA-s and EPA-s.At local level, the Permitting Departments within EPA-s are responsible for the implementation of the EIA procedure and taking all related decisions. They organise the EIA process, especially by determining what projects from Annex I.2 to be subject to EIA, giving opinion on the information to be supplied by the project developer, leading the public consultation process and finally, issuing environmental agreements. The public authorities likely to be concerned by the project have the opportunity to express their opinion within an institutionalised framework approved by the MO 1388/2003. It has settled the Technical Review Committee (TRC) at the central level with the representatives from the following central public authorities: MoEWM, MoET, MoIR, MoHF, MoAI, MoTCT, MoEI, MoAI- Firemen and Civil Protection Commandment and, as needed, representatives of the structures responsible for: supply of public utilities and services, public parks and gardens, architecture, archaeological sites and historical monuments, protected areas, natural monuments, etc.. TRC may be enlarged as the specific conditions of the project will impose it, e.g., with experts, scientists or legal experts.TRC at local level is created based on a Common Decision of the Prefect and the President of the County Council. It consists of representatives of local public administration, Public Health Inspectorate, Work Protection Inspectorate, National Administration “Apele Romane”, City Hall Departments for public works and utilities, architecture, historical monuments and archaeological sites, protected areas fields, etc. At central level, within the MoEWM, the unit dealing with EIA issues is the Department of Integrated Monitoring, Permitting and Conformity Control. At present this department comprises Final Version 11-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture 4 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review EIA - Romania16 persons, medium aged and high skilled. There are plans to adjust the department structure and tasks. One of their main tasks is providing information and advice to the REPAs and LEPAs – however this tasks will be transferred to the National EPA and REPAs. For the moment, having not enough personnel, many tasks are performed with the help of international and national consultants. One organization that is mostly supporting this department is ICIM Bucharest – the National Research and Development Institute for Environmental Protection.At the regional/local level, the numbers of staff are also said to be insufficient for the tasks. There are some 76 EIA applications expected in 2004 (and 69 in 2005) for the seven pilot regions, the 37 staff dealing with these applications also have other duties and do not work on EIA exclusively. Two of the pilot regions do not have an electronic register of EIA applications etc, and information to the public is only available on-line in three of the regions. A.5. Trainees ReviewSome 27 staff from the EPAs in the seven pilot regions were selected for training. In general it can be said that these staff have been exposed to little training on EIA previously. All targeted personnel have not participated into a large number of EIA procedures, as required in the Directives, because the legislation which completely transposed the EIA Directives is quite new and also because the number of new investment projects is very low at present in Romania. Thus, while the trainees have reasonable knowledge of all the steps in the EIA process, they have limited experience and would benefit from “hand-on” training dealing with actual cases during the training programme. Final Version 11-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture 5 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review EIA - RomaniaTable A.5.2 Trainee review and capacity overviewRegion 1 - ARGES Number of staff involved in EIA-s 4 Educational background of staff Chemists Biologists Engineers Lawyers Others involved in EIA determinations2 - - - 2Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 14Average duration of present employment 6Position of staff involved in EIA Junior Medium High 1 2 1 Media specialisation of staff Water Waste Air Other 2 2 Average number of training days of EIA staff has been exposed to 1 Number of EIA determinations staff has been involved in as lead 0-4 Number of EIA determinations to which staff have contributed 0-4 Familiarity with the English language, summaries Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at all Speaking 2 2 Reading 2 2 Writing 2 2 Computer knowledge and familiarity No. of very advanced No. of experienced No. of inexperienced No. of non-users and experienced users, users, using some of and occasional users, using the full office the office package not conversant with e- package and e-mail programmes and e-mail mail and internet and internet facilities and internet facilities 1 3 - - Status of IT No. of staff fully No. of staff using No. of staff with e- No. of staff with No. of staff which equipped with Windows later mail facilities internet has no - or only PCs, peripherals than win95 connections rarely - access to and office IT facilities package 4 4 1 1 -Final Version 11-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture 6 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review EIA - RomaniaRegion 2 – BACAU Number of staff involved in EIA-s 4 Educational background of staff Chemists Biologists Engineers Lawyers Others involved in EIA determinations- - 4 - -Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 16.5Average duration of present employment 10Position of staff involved in EIA Junior Medium High 2 2 Media specialisation of staff Water Waste Air Other 4 3 4 - Average number of training days of EIA staff has been exposed to 7 Number of EIA determinations staff has been involved in as lead 0-186* Number of EIA determinations to which staff have contributed 0-200* Familiarity with the English language, summaries Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at all Speaking 2 1 1 Reading 2 2 1 Writing 1 2 1 Computer knowledge and familiarity No. of very advanced No. of experienced No. of inexperienced No. of non-users and experienced users, users, using some of and occasional users, using the full office the office package not conversant with e- package and e-mail programmes and e-mail mail and internet and internet facilities and internet facilities - 4 - - Status of IT No. of staff fully No. of staff using No. of staff with e- No. of staff with No. of staff which equipped with Windows later mail facilities internet has no - or only PCs, peripherals than win95 connections rarely - access to and office IT facilities package 4 4 3 1 - * The large number is explained by the former legal request, based on MO 125/1996 (no more in force), for any new activity to have an impact assessment study.Final Version 11-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture 7 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review EIA - RomaniaRegion 3 – BISTRITA Number of staff involved in EIA-s 4 Educational background of staff Chemists Biologists Engineers Lawyers Others involved in EIA determinations2 2 Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 14Average duration of present employment 6 Position of staff involved in EIA Junior Medium High 1 2 1 Media specialisation of staff Water Waste Air Other 2 2 Average number of training days of EIA staff has been exposed to 1 Number of EIA determinations staff has been involved in as lead 0-4* Number of EIA determinations to which staff have contributed 0-4* Familiarity with the English language, summaries Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at all Speaking 2 2 Reading 2 2 Writing 2 2 Computer knowledge and familiarity No. of very advanced No. of experienced No. of inexperienced No. of non-users and experienced users, users, using some of and occasional users, using the full office the office package not conversant with e- package and e-mail programmes and e-mail mail and internet and internet facilities and internet facilities 2 3 - - Status of IT No. of staff fully No. of staff using No. of staff with e- No. of staff with No. of staff which equipped with Windows later mail facilities internet has no - or only PCs, peripherals than win95 connections rarely - access to and office IT facilities package 4 4 1 1 -* Under the legislative framework in accordance with the Directive Final Version 11-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture 8 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review EIA - RomaniaRegion 4 - GALATI Number of staff involved in EIA-s 3 Educational background of staff Scientists Planners Engineers Lawyers Others involved in EIA determinations- - 3 - -Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 11Average duration of present employment 5Position of staff involved in EIA Junior Medium High 1 2 Media specialisation of staff Water Waste Air Other 1 1 1 Average number of training days of EIA staff has been exposed to 0.7 Number of EIA determinations staff has been involved in as lead 0-120* Number of EIA determinations to which staff have contributed 0-20* Familiarity with the English language, summaries Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at all Speaking 3 Reading 3 Writing 3 Computer knowledge and familiarity No. of very advanced No. of experienced No. of inexperienced No. of non-users and experienced users, users, using some of and occasional users, using the full office the office package not conversant with e- package and e-mail programmes and e-mail mail and internet and internet facilities and internet facilities 2 1 - - Status of IT No. of staff fully No. of staff using No. of staff with e- No. of staff with No. of staff which equipped with Windows later mail facilities internet has no - or only PCs, peripherals than win95 connections rarely - access to and office IT facilities package 3 3 0 1 -* The large number is explained by the former legal request (based on MO 125/1996) for any new activity to have an impact assessment study.Final Version 11-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture 9 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review EIA - RomaniaRegion 5 – OLT Number of staff involved in EIA-s 4 Educational background of staff Chemists Biologists Engineers Lawyers Others involved in EIA determinations1 1 2 - -Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 26Average duration of present employment 8Position of staff involved in EIA Junior Medium High - 2 2 Media specialisation of staff Water Waste Air Other 4 2 1 Average number of training days of EIA staff has been exposed to 3.7 Number of EIA determinations staff has been involved in as lead 1-25 Number of EIA determinations to which staff have contributed 1 Familiarity with the English language, summaries Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at all Speaking 1 1 2 Reading 1 1 2 Writing 1 - 3 Computer knowledge and familiarity No. of very advanced No. of experienced No. of inexperienced No. of non-users and experienced users, users, using some of and occasional users, using the full office the office package not conversant with e- package and e-mail programmes and e-mail mail and internet and internet facilities and internet facilities - 3 1 - Status of IT No. of staff fully No. of staff using No. of staff with e- No. of staff with No. of staff which equipped with Windows later mail facilities internet has no - or only PCs, peripherals than win95 connections rarely - access to and office IT facilities package 4 4 1 1Final Version 11-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture 10 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review EIA - RomaniaRegion 6 – SIBIU Number of staff involved in EIA-s 4 Educational background of staff Chemists Biologists Engineers Lawyers Others involved in EIA determinations1 1 - - 2 Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 16Average duration of present employment 6 Position of staff involved in EIA Junior Medium High 2 2 Media specialisation of staff Water Waste Air Other 1 4 1 0 Average number of training days of EIA staff has been exposed to 3.25 Number of EIA determinations staff has been involved in as lead 10-71* Number of EIA determinations to which staff have contributed 15-80* Familiarity with the English language, summaries Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at all Speaking 1 3 - - Reading 1 3 - - Writing 3 1 - Computer knowledge and familiarity No. of very advanced No. of experienced No. of inexperienced No. of non-users and experienced users, users, using some of and occasional users, using the full office the office package not conversant with e- package and e-mail programmes and e-mail mail and internet and internet facilities and internet facilities 1 3 - - Status of IT No. of staff fully No. of staff using No. of staff with e- No. of staff with No. of staff which equipped with Windows later mail facilities internet has no - or only PCs, peripherals than win95 connections rarely - access to and office IT facilities package 4 4 4 (local network) 4 (local network) * The large number is explained by the former legal request (based on MO 125/1996) for any new activity to have an impact assessment study.Final Version 11-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture 11 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review EIA - RomaniaRegion 7 - VALCEA Number of staff involved in EIA-s 4 Educational background of staff Chemists Biologists Engineers Lawyers Others involved in EIA determinations1 - 2 - 2Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 12Average duration of present employment 7Position of staff involved in EIA Junior Medium High 2 1 1 Media specialisation of staff Water Waste Air Other 2 No data No 2 data Average number of training days of EIA staff has been exposed to 2 Number of EIA determinations staff has been involved in as lead 0-5 Number of EIA determinations to which staff have contributed 0-20* Familiarity with the English language, summaries Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at all Speaking 3 1 Reading 1 2 1 Writing 1 1 2 Computer knowledge and familiarity No. of very advanced No. of experienced No. of inexperienced No. of non-users and experienced users, users, using some of and occasional users, using the full office the office package not conversant with e- package and e-mail programmes and e-mail mail and internet and internet facilities and internet facilities - 4 - - Status of IT No. of staff fully No. of staff using No. of staff with e- No. of staff with No. of staff which equipped with Windows later mail facilities internet has no - or only PCs, peripherals than win95 connections rarely - access to and office IT facilities package 4 4 2 2 -* The large number is explained by the former legal request (based on MO 125/1996) for any new activity to have an impact assessment study.Final Version 11-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture 12 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review EIA - RomaniaInstitutional Framework for Environmental Protection in RomaniaFinal Version 11-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture 13 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review EIA - RomaniaA.6. Assessment of Current Administrative PracticesThe assessment of the current administrative practices for the effective implementation of the EIA Directive can be divided into three categories:1. Procedures 2. Training-related issues 3. Non-training related issues. The strengths and weaknesses of the current administrative practices for the effective implementation of EIA are summarised in the three tables below.Table A.6.3 Capacity assessment of current procedural issuesStrengths Weaknesses EIA Directive and associated directives Directive 2003/35/EC is not yet fully transposed in are fully transposed and implemented national legislation The competent authorities are defined Public participation in the decision process is a new practice for Romania and sometimes is not correctly used; individuals are oriented mostly by economic interests while NGO-s are seldom manipulated. The tasks of each competent authority is Specific requirements for public concerned to clear make proposals at the scoping stage should be added in the model for public announcement The framework procedure is the same as Although the access to information related to in the EU Directive and Guidance environment is provided by law, it is not enough Documents. A detailed national used by the public procedure has been adopted and applied since January 2003 There are similar guidelines and Procedure for determining an application checklists which are compulsory to be confidentiality is not well defined used. Public information and consultation The definition of “public concerned” is vague in procedures are established for all EIA MO 860/2002, being made clear only into a stages, as well as the manner of taking booklet that has not a large spreading into account the public and other involved authorities opinions Procedures in case of transboundary EU Provisions related to access to justice are not impact provide the consultation between fully transposed. the Origin and the Affected Party. Access to justice and appeal procedures for all categories of EIA participants, including the concerned public, is ensured Representatives of other competent authorities are actively participating in EIA processes within the Technical Review CommitteeFinal Version 11-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture 14 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review EIA - RomaniaTable A.6.4 Capacity assessment – training issuesStrengths Weaknesses Many employees involved in EIA are Half of the personnel within the pilot areas were medium and high skilled, some of them not trained at all on EIA issues. being specialised in more than one environmental media LEPA-s and local authorities The questioned staff has not enough English representatives have already received language knowledge good EIA training on requirements of GD 918/2002 and MO 860/ 2002 that are transposing EU Directive, in 2003 Almost all staff has enough knowledge Only a small number of employees are for using PC-s specialised in air quality protection The most known/experienced issues The less known/experienced EIA issues are: are: - alternatives to the proposed project key principles of EIA - identifying procedure errors legal acts on EIA - preparation of plans for public participation EIA procedures - recommending monitoring measures screening - recommending mitigation measures scoping - analysing EIA Reports decision making Most personnel declares poor knowledge of EU Directives but good knowledge of Romanian legislation that transpose them The issue of proposed projects division in order to facilitate the obtaining of environmental agreement was not understood by trainees but it has to be deeply focused during the training session, being a future risk. Identification of the public interested in each case of EIA process The targeted personnel has not participated into a large number of EIA procedures as required by the Directives because of its rather recent transposition into the national legislation. This situation is illustrated by the marks within the filled in questionnaires that are smaller for experience than for knowledge Table A.6.5 Capacity assessment – non-training issues Strengths Weaknesses All questioned EPA personnel has Staff is insufficient, both at central and local level. access to PC-s The local Permitting Departments have 4 - 7 persons in total, while at central level there are 16 employees having other duties, too Almost all PC-s used by EIA personnel The same staff is dealing with both – EIA and are provided with new Windows version IPPC issues Real support staff is not usually available No legal advisers (lawyers) are involved in the permitting process Laboratory equipment is insufficient at local level (lack of equipment especially for air and noise monitoring) Most staff has no Internet connexion Final Version 11-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture 15 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review IPPC - RomaniaB. Capacity Review Integrated Pollution Prevention and ControlB.1. SummaryThe overall objective of the project “Capacity building in implementation of the environmental acquis” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). This Capacity Review Report focuses on IPPC implementation in Romania, and is based on the Institutional Review which focuses on the administrative structures in place for implementation, including an assessment of the transposition of the IPPC Directive, and the Training Needs Assessment which assesses the needs of the regional staff selected for training under this project. This Report forms an essential background review of the current state of play in Romania and will serve as a basis for any recommendations for improvements to legal arrangements and/or administrative practices to ensure full effective implementation of the IPPC Directive. The IPPC Directive has been transposed into Romanian legislation, although there are some translation issues with some of the categories of industry covered by this legislation. There are also inconsistencies with the deadlines for existing installations to obtain permits. In addition, while an integrated permit is anticipated, other permits are also required which results in some duplication (especially for water related permit conditions). The Directives 2003/35/EC on public participation and 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading and amending the IPPC Directive, have not yet been transposed into Romanian legislation.A number of Guidance Documents on IPPC are widely available to stakeholders and the public; however these are reported to require revision Some national BAT Reference Documents have also been prepared for certain categories of industry. IPPC permits are issued at the regional level by REPAs (which have only recently been established). Technical Review Committees (TRCs) are established by the REPA to ensure participation of other authorities. There is some concern over the division of responsibilities between REPAs and LEPAs, and how to effectively establish the TRCs. The staff at the REPAs are responsible for both IPPC and EIA (and other duties). While they have been exposed to some training already, this is rather limited and they require detailed training on most aspects of the IPPC process in Romania. They would also benefit from some ‘hand-on’ training working with practical examples of IPPC permits. Staffing levels at the REPAs will become a problem as more EIA and IPPC applications will have to be assessed. They may also benefit from improved computer and internet access. B.2. IntroductionThe overall objective of the project “Capacity building in implementation of the environmental acquis” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). This will be done through an approach that is tailored to the needs and conditions of each particular country, but also ensuring the possibility for countries to learn from the experiences of their neighbours.This Capacity Review Report focuses on IPPC; a separate Report focuses on EIA. Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 16 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review IPPC - RomaniaThe time for transposition of the EU Directives into the national legislation, and the effective implementation of this national legislation into the public administrative practise at local and regional level is now very short – for Romania the deadline for having administrative structures in place is 2007. Therefore it is essential that the training provided by this project to the local/regional authorities with responsibilities for IPPC are focused and specifically directed at their needs and at identified weaknesses or areas of concern. In addition to the focused training directed to the needs of the trainees in the competent authorities at local/regional level, the project is also required to make proposals for any recommended revision of existing administrative regulations to enhance the implementation of the IPPC Directive. The scope of these recommended revisions means that it is necessary to consider not just the legal and regulatory framework for implementation of IPPC but also any administrative and technical guidance documents. It will also consider the actual implementation and enforcement – that is to say the administrative practices – currently in place. Thus it is essential that appropriate background material is collected, reviewed and assessed. This Capacity Review Report summarises this material and assessment. The information itself has been collated in two reports: the Institutional Review - focused on the strength and weaknesses of the administrative structures - and the Training Needs Assessment - focused at the needs of the employees selected for training. The two reports appear as annexes to this report.B.3. The Current Legal FrameworkB.3.1. Legislation The Romanian legislation relevant to the IPPC Directive is as follows:1. Emergency Governmental Ordinance no. 34/2002 on integrated pollution prevention, mitigation and control, approved and amended by Law no. 645/2002. 2. Order no. 818/2003 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, Water and Environment (former national environmental authority, recently named Ministry of Environment and Water Management) for the approval of the integrated environmental permits procedure. 3. Order no 1140 /2002 for approval of the National Guidance on the Register of Emitted Pollutants (EPER Guidance) 4. Order no. 1144/2002 transposing EU requirements related to EPER 5. Order no. 37/2003 for approval of BREF-s related to Cement and Lime and Pulp and Paper Industries 6. Order no. 169/2004 for approval of the use of EU BREF-sThe provisions of the Directive 96/61/EC (IPPC Directive) have been transposed into Romanian legislation by the Governmental Emergency Ordinance (GEO) No 34/2002 on integrated pollution prevention, reducing and control, subsequently modified and approved by the Parliament through the Law 645/2002. The transposed legislation introduces the principles of an integrated approach to the measures necessary to reduce, prevent and control pollution and also establishes the measures for granting the integrated environmental permit for the industrial activities listed in the Annex 1 of the Directive 96/61/EC, which was transposed, with just a couple of mistakes due to translation, as Annex 1 of GEO 34/2002. According to the provisions of GEO No. 34/2002, as approved by the Law 645/2002, the procedure for the “integrated environmental agreement” (used for obtaining the development consent) requires EIA for all IPPC installations, which will be built after 2003. The Ministerial Order no. 860/2003 on EIA details the procedure to be followed in such a situation. All existing installations operating at the date of entry into force of GEO 34/2002 on integrated pollution prevention and control, as well as the installations foreseen to be put into operation after this date, have to comply with its provisions concerning integrated permitting and implementation of BAT. For the existing installations, which are not in compliance with the IPPC requirements for permitting, it is stated that the operator will elaborate a compliance schedule, in order to be negotiated with, and approved by the environmental authority. Such existingFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 17 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review IPPC - Romania installations must have an integrated permit by 30 October 2007, but there is no staggered time schedule for when different categories of industry become subject to IPPC. This runs the risk that the Competent Authorities will be inundated with applications if industries leave it to the last months to apply for their IPPC permit. The main legislative instrument under GEO 34/2002 - Law 645/2002 is the Ministerial Order no. 818/2003 for the approval of the Procedure for issuing the Integrated Environmental Permits. The procedure establishes the responsibilities of environmental authorities in relation to the integrated permitting process, obligations of applicants, conditions for other authorities’ involvement and public participation.Legal inconsistencies. It should be noted the contradiction of deadlines for compliance between the provisions of the GEO 34/2002/Law 645/2002 (year 2015 for all installations) and those of the Ministerial Order 818/2003 (31 December 2006 for existing installations and 30 October 2007 for installations put in function between 30.10.1999 and 4.04.2002). In the meantime, in the Chapter 22 of the Complementary Position Document prepared for the European Commission, Romania requested a shorter transition period and only for some installations under the provisions of Directive 96/61/EC.It is the MoEWP’s intention to modify the above mentioned regulations after the approval of the Romanian Position Document by the European Commission.The national legislation requires one final integrated permit, but it cannot be said that there is a single one; other permits for operating are still issued by other authorities prior to the issuance of the integrated permit. One of these permits of significant importance is the water management permit, issued by the National Administration “Apele Romane” (Romanian Waters), which is an economic autonomous entity under the co-ordination of the Ministry of Environment and Water Management. The integrated approach in permitting is ensured by “the participation of the authorities involved in the integrated environmental permit procedure” achieved within the Technical Review Committee (TRC), organised by the authority competent to apply the integrated environmental permit procedure”. For each IPPC application received, the regional authority for environmental protection “instructs and supervises” the TRC composition in which “all the authorities involved in the permitting and regulating the operation of the activity/installation” are represented.There is still need for clarification of the procedure related to participation of other local authorities involved in permitting within TRC organised at regional level. In the same time, the national IPPC regulations should be subject of a thorough analysis in relation with the entire environmental legislation in order to evaluate its effectiveness. The IPPC permit is valid for a period of five years, and is reviewed/updated under specified circumstances. The environment permits for the existing installations needing an approved compliance schedule are issued with “validity term on the period each measure included in this programme is accomplished”.After obtaining all the necessary information by field visit and by an active dialogue with the operator during the elaboration of the application, the time period (beginning after the official registration) for making a decision on the IPPC permit application is 120 days (except in cases where additional information or transboundary consultations are required). The authorities have effectively 30 days within this period to write the permit conditions, after all procedural phases have been fulfilled. Of greater concern is the fact that if the authority does not make a decision within the stipulated time period, the lack of the answer is equivalent to the acceptance of the application and obliges the authority to grant the requested permit.Status of transposition/implementation. Romania has transposed the IPPC Directive into Law, by almost direct translation with addition of some implementing provisions (GEO 34/2003 - Law 645/2002). Order 818/2003, which sets out the means of issuing a permit, is at variance with the intention of the IPPC Directive with respect to the issue of multiple permits for the same site. Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 18 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review IPPC - RomaniaThe Directives 2003/35/EC on public participation and 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading and amending the IPPC Directive, have not yet been transposed into Romanian legislation. The deadlines for their transposition refer to Member States. Romania has to comply with those Directives’ provisions by accession date (2007). However, the Ministry of Environment and Water Management has planned to amend the existing legislation on EIA and IPPC in order to comply with (and fully transpose) the provisions of Directive 2003/35/EC with regard to public participation and access to justice requirements. The deadline for these amendments is established at the end of 2004. There are no plans yet for the transposition of Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission trading and amending the IPPC Directive.Practical implementation on the ground has not been successful so far. The institutional entities required to implement the law (regional EPA-s) are not really in place / yet ready, and transition periods for existing industries are still subject of negotiation with the EU Commission. Publicly Available Guidance Documents General Technical Guidelines for the implementation of GEO no. 34/2003 – Law no. 645/2003 regarding prevention, reducing and control of pollution have been prepared and is available on the web-site of the MoEWM (http://www.mappm.ro). These Guidelines are providing explanations on the national legislation and procedures and use of BATs; they are mainly directed to authorities and applicants, but contain as well information for the public participation. The General Technical Guidelines indicate as well the use of the existing EU BREFs, as published on the web-site of Sevilla Bureau. The Manual containing General Technical Guidelines provides no explanation and guidance on interpreting “substantial change”, nor on commercial confidentiality issues. The confidentiality issues are covered by the legislation in force (GD no.1150/2002) transposing the provisions of the Directive 91/313/EEC (without amendments) on the freedom of environmental information. Other guides related to IPPC, available on the MoEWM website http://www.mappm.ro are the following:  National Guidance on the Register of Emitted Pollutants (EPER Guidance) approved by the Ministerial Order no. 1140/2002 and set up according to the Ministerial Order no. 1144/2002 transposing the EU requirements related to EPER  Guidance on the Emissions’ Reduction.  EU BREF s. Romania started to transpose by direct translation and adoption EU BREFs into the national procedures. So far, 11 of the existing BREF-s are available on MoEWM website . B.4. Institutional ArrangementsTable B.4.6 shows the division of responsibilities between local, regional and central environmental authorities. The regional authorities have the main role in applying the IPPC permitting procedure and issuing environmental integrated permits. (In Romania there are 8 regional environmental authorities – REPA-s to which a number of 4-7 local environmental authorities – LEPA-s – are subordinated). Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 19 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review IPPC - RomaniaTable B.4.6 Division of responsibilities between different layers of government specific obligations relating to IPPCResponsibilities Central Regional Local Other Remarks MEWM/ REPA LEPA (specify) NEPA Deciding whether an installation requires an  integrated permit Issuing integrated permits  Issuing guidance on BAT  Trans-boundary issues  Issues of commercial   Responsibilities confidentiality not specified by law. Co-ordination with other   authorities Ensuring public   consultations Monitoring   Inspection  Enforcement   Maintaining a register of   emissions Making information    available to the publicAs established by MO 818/2002, LEPA-s responsibility in IPPC permitting is to receive IPPC applications, perform a preliminary review in order to check if all documents required are included and ask for completion, if the case. LEPA -s are also in charge to guide the applicants in the elaboration of the application and, after reviewing it, to inform the applicants and the regional authorities – REPA - about the acceptance or rejection of the application.Afterwards, the application and the LEPA point of view are sent to REPA whose tasks are as follows:- to make a detailed review of the application, - to organise and lead the consultations with other involved authorities within the Technical Review Committee (TRC), - to collect comments from the public and ask for supplementary information, if necessary, - to draft the permit or the justified rejection of the application, - to make the public announcement about the decision taken through mass- media, - and finally to issue the integrated permit.In case of trans-boundary impact of the activity, REPA has to inform the central authority within 10 days from the acceptance of the application. The central authority for environmental protection will inform the central authority for environmental protection of the affected state, under terms of reciprocity and according to the provisions of the bilateral collaboration agreements.At present, there is not yet clear how REPA-s will manage to organise the TRC at regional level taking into account that all other involved authorities are organised at local level. It is also unclear how public hearing / participation could be organised by the REPA-s. Article 6 (2) of MO 818/2002 provides that some competencies could be delegated by REPA-s to LEPA-s but gives no details on such actions. The number of permits expected to be issued by 2004 - 2005 is also uncertain, although the main effort is supposed to be in 2006. The project team encountered difficulties in obtaining correct figures for the number of IPPC installations, possible applicants and expected permit applications. The main explanation is that the definition of an IPPC installation is not clearly understood within the pilot regions. This is why there are different data registered at theFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 20 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review IPPC - RomaniaMoEWP (February 2004) and declared through the filled in tables 4.3 and 5.1 of the Institutional Review elaborated in the frame of this project (April - May 2004). Staffing levels at the MoEWM are said to be not sufficient for their IPPC tasks – although international and local consultants have been used/may be used for some tasks, and some tasks will be transferred to the National Environmental Protection Agency. At the regional level, the staff numbers are also said to be insufficient – staff at the REPAs also have responsibilities for EIA and other tasks. There are some 26 IPPC applications expected in 2004 (and 60 for 2005) in the seven pilot regions which the 36 staff have to process. Two of the pilot regions do not have an electronic register of IPPC applications etc, and information to the public is available on line in only two of the regions. B.5. Trainees ReviewB.5.1. Overall Trainee Capacities, Characteristics of Staff Involved in IPPC Permits in Pilot Regions Some 28 staff at the EPAs in the pilot regions were selected for training – many being the same as for training in IPPC. At present, they are involved in a total of 23 IPPC permits as lead and they contribute to another 20 IPPC permits. In general it can be said that the trainees have been exposed to little training in IPPC. B.5.2. Other Comments  The staff in local/regional EPA-s is not organised in specialised IPPC or EIA offices. The same personnel are dealing both with EIA and IPPC issues.  The staff within the Permitting Departments of EPA-s is not sufficient, considering that each person has different duties and that the number of IPPC installations within the pilot zones, to be analysed in the next 2.5 years, is very large (265 – as resulted from table 4.3 of the Capacity Report).  Engineers represent 53% of the personnel, followed by chemists and other professions – 21% each. No lawyers are activating as legal advisers in IPPC field.  Most personnel is specialised water (64%) and waste (28.5%); only 17.8% is declared specialised in air quality protection.  As staff position, the majority is medium qualified respectively 57% (16 persons), 32% is high positioned, while only 11% (3 persons) are junior staff.  Taking into account the number of IPPC applications the staff is involved, it results that only EPA Bacau personnel has some experience (lead - 15 applications and contributed to – 10 applications). Staff in EPA Bistrita was not involved in any IPPC application, while Sibiu and Valcea personnel lead/ contributed to 3 applications each.  Considering the average number of training days it results that only EPA Sibiu personnel could be considered as trained but not exactly sufficient (1 person not trained). The personnel of 3 pilot regions (Arges, Bacau, Valcea) is insufficient trained, while Bistrita and Galati staff is the less trained of all pilot regions. Within the pilot regions EPA-s there are 6 persons that received no IPPC training at all. This situation is specific for Romania and the need for training is massive. Therefore, MoEWM suggested facilitating the participation into local workshops of the staff from other zones (counties), not covered by any of the two projects related to IPPC implementation.Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 21 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review IPPC - RomaniaTable B.5.7 Staffing review and capacity overview Region 1 – ARGES (EPA Pitesti) Number of staff involved in IPPC 4 Educational background of staff Chemists Biologist Engineers Lawyers Others involved in IPPC permitting4Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 15.25Average duration of present employment 12Position of staff involved in IPPC Junior Medium High 3 1 Media specialisation of staff Water Waste Air Other 3 1 1 Average number of training days of IPPC staff has been exposed to 1.25 Number of IPPC permits staff has been involved in as lead 0 Number of IPPC permits to which staff have contributed 1 Familiarity with the English language, summaries Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at all Speaking 1 2 1 Reading 1 2 1 Writing 1 2 1 Computer knowledge and familiarity No. of very advanced No. of experienced No. of inexperienced No. of non-users and experienced users, users, using some of and occasional users, using the full office the office package not conversant with e- package and e-mail programmes and e-mail mail and internet and internet facilities and internet facilities 1 2 1 Status of IT No. of staff fully No. of staff using No. of staff with e- No. of staff with No. of staff which equipped with Windows later mail facilities internet has no - or only PCs, peripherals than win95 connections rarely - access to and office IT facilities package 4 2 3Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 22 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review IPPC - RomaniaRegion 2 - BACAU Number of staff involved in IPPC 4 Educational background of staff Chemists Biologist Engineers Lawyers Others involved in IPPC permitting4Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 16.5Average duration of present employment 11Position of staff involved in IPPC Junior Medium High 2 2 Media specialisation of staff Water Waste Air Other 4* 3* 4* Average number of training days of IPPC staff has been exposed to 1.25 Number of IPPC permits staff has been involved in as lead 15 Number of IPPC permits to which staff have contributed 10 Familiarity with the English language, summaries Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at all Speaking 2 1 1 Reading 2 2 1 Writing 1 2 1 Computer knowledge and familiarity No. of very advanced No. of experienced No. of inexperienced No. of non-users and experienced users, users, using some of and occasional users, using the full office the office package not conversant with e- package and e-mail programmes and e-mail mail and internet and internet facilities and internet facilities 4 Status of IT No. of staff fully No. of staff using No. of staff with e- No. of staff with No. of staff which equipped with Windows later mail facilities internet has no - or only PCs, peripherals than win95 connections rarely - access to and office IT facilities package 4 4 3 1* The same persons are specialised in many fieldsFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 23 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review IPPC - RomaniaRegion 3 - BISTRITA Number of staff involved in IPPC 4 Educational background of staff Chemists Biologist Engineers Lawyers Others involved in IPPC permitting2 2Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 14Average duration of present employment 6Position of staff involved in IPPC Junior Medium High 1 2 1 Media specialisation of staff Water Waste Air Other 2 2 Average number of training days of IPPC staff has been exposed to 1 Number of IPPC permits staff has been involved in as lead 2 Number of IPPC permits to which staff have contributed 2 Familiarity with the English language, summaries Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at all Speaking 2 2 Reading 2 2 Writing 2 2 Computer knowledge and familiarity No. of very advanced No. of experienced No. of inexperienced No. of non-users and experienced users, users, using some of and occasional users, using the full office the office package not conversant with e- package and e-mail programmes and e-mail mail and internet and internet facilities and internet facilities 1 3 - - Status of IT No. of staff fully No. of staff using No. of staff with e- No. of staff with No. of staff which equipped with Windows later mail facilities internet has no - or only PCs, peripherals than win95 connections rarely - access to and office IT facilities package 4 4 1 1 -Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 24 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review IPPC - RomaniaRegion 4 - GALATI Number of staff involved in IPPC 3 Educational background of staff Chemists Biologist Engineers Lawyers Others involved in IPPC permitting3Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 11Average duration of present employment 5Position of staff involved in IPPC Junior Medium High 1 2 Media specialisation of staff Water Waste Air Other 1 1 1 Average number of training days of IPPC staff has been exposed to 0.7 Number of IPPC permits staff has been involved in as lead 1 Number of IPPC permits to which staff have contributed 3 Familiarity with the English language, summaries Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at all Speaking 3 Reading 3 Writing 3 Computer knowledge and familiarity No. of very advanced No. of experienced No. of inexperienced No. of non-users and experienced users, users, using some of and occasional users, using the full office the office package not conversant with e- package and e-mail programmes and e-mail mail and internet and internet facilities and internet facilities 2 1 Status of IT No. of staff fully No. of staff using No. of staff with e- No. of staff with No. of staff which equipped with Windows later mail facilities internet has no - or only PCs, peripherals than win95 connections rarely - access to and office IT facilities package 3 3 1 1Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 25 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review IPPC - RomaniaRegion 5 – OLT (EPA Slatina) Number of staff involved in IPPC 4 Educational background of staff Chemists Biologist Engineers Lawyers Others involved in IPPC permitting1 1 2Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 26Average duration of present employment 8Position of staff involved in IPPC Junior Medium High 2 2 Media specialisation of staff Water Waste Air Other 4* 2* 1* Average number of training days of IPPC staff has been exposed to 3.25 Number of IPPC permits staff has been involved in as lead 1 Number of IPPC permits to which staff have contributed 1 Familiarity with the English language, summaries Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at all Speaking 1 1 2 Reading 1 2 1 Writing 1 3 Computer knowledge and familiarity No. of very advanced No. of experienced No. of inexperienced No. of non-users and experienced users, users, using some of and occasional users, using the full office the office package not conversant with e- package and e-mail programmes and e-mail mail and internet and internet facilities and internet facilities 3 3 Status of IT No. of staff fully No. of staff using No. of staff with e- No. of staff with No. of staff which equipped with Windows later mail facilities internet has no - or only PCs, peripherals than win95 connections rarely - access to and office IT facilities package 4 4 4* same persons are specialised in different fieldsFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 26 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review IPPC - RomaniaRegion 6 - SIBIU Number of staff involved in IPPC 4 Educational background of staff Chemists Biologist Engineers Lawyers Others involved in IPPC permitting2 - - - 2Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 17Average duration of present employment 3.5Position of staff involved in IPPC Junior Medium High - 1 3 Media specialisation of staff Water Waste Air Other 2 3* 1 - Average number of training days of IPPC staff has been exposed to 5 Number of IPPC permits staff has been involved in as lead 1 Number of IPPC permits to which staff have contributed 3 Familiarity with the English language, summaries Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at all Speaking 1 1 2 Reading 1 3 Writing 2 1 1 Computer knowledge and familiarity No. of very advanced No. of experienced No. of inexperienced No. of non-users and experienced users, users, using some of and occasional users, using the full office the office package not conversant with e- package and e-mail programmes and e-mail mail and internet and internet facilities and internet facilities - 4 - - Status of IT No. of staff fully No. of staff using No. of staff with e- No. of staff with No. of staff which equipped with Windows later mail facilities internet has no - or only PCs, peripherals than win95 connections rarely - access to and office IT facilities package 4 4 4 (network) 4 (network) -* two persons are specialised both in water and waste issuesFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 27 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review IPPC - RomaniaRegion 7 – VALCEA Number of staff involved in IPPC 5 Educational background of staff Chemists Biologist Engineers Lawyers Others involved in IPPC permitting1 2 2Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 23Average duration of present employment 7.5Position of staff involved in IPPC Junior Medium High 1 4 Media specialisation of staff Water Waste Air Other 1 3 Average number of training days of IPPC staff has been exposed to 1.8 Number of IPPC permits staff has been involved in as lead 3 Number of IPPC permits to which staff have contributed 3 Familiarity with the English language, summaries Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at all Speaking 4 1 Reading 2 2 1 Writing 1 2 2 Computer knowledge and familiarity No. of very advanced No. of experienced No. of inexperienced No. of non-users and experienced users, users, using some of and occasional users, using the full office the office package not conversant with e- package and e-mail programmes and e-mail mail and internet and internet facilities and internet facilities 3 2 Status of IT No. of staff fully No. of staff using No. of staff with e- No. of staff with No. of staff which equipped with Windows later mail facilities internet has no - or only PCs, peripherals than win95 connections rarely - access to and office IT facilities package 5 5 2 1B.6. Assessment of Current Administrative PracticesThe assessment of the current administrative practices for the effective implementation of the IPPC Directive can be divided into three categories: 1. Procedures 2. Training-related issues 3. Non-training related issues. The strengths and weaknesses of the current administrative practices for IPPC are summarised in the three tables below. Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 28 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review IPPC - RomaniaTable B.6.8 Capacity assessment of current procedural issues Strengths Weaknesses IPPC Directive was transposed almost by Procedures are not enough clear; there is a need for direct translation into national legislation as clarification related to participation of other local GEO 34/2002or Law 645/2202. authorities involved within TRC which is organised at Most related Directives mentioned within regional level Annex II of IPPC Directive have been also No templates/models/formats for the IPPC application transposed or the IPPC permit are provided Guidance for application documents elaboration is not well knownThe competent authorities are defined by law At present, designated regional authorities to deliver IPPC permits do not function. These structures could become functional in the next monthsResponsibilities of environmental authorities Delegation of competences from regional to local and obligations of applicants are defined by law authorities – as provided by national legislation - is a common practice at present but the procedure is not clear in this respect (what competencies could be delegated, who informs the public on such delegation); sometimes it generates lack of efficiency and delays in permitting processThe integrated approach in permitting is The existing regulations still need revision. They will ensured by participation of all other authorities be completed/modified in order to eliminate involved within TRC (Technical Review translation mistakes and inconsistencies (such as Committee) deadlines for installations to comply with the IPPC requirements, multiple permits for the same site or only one final integrated permit, IPPC requirements versus other regulations requirements) General Guidance Manual on IPPC and an Directive 2003/35/EC on public participation and EPER Guidance are available on MoEWM web Directive 2003/87/EC on greenhouse gas emission site. They contain explanation on national trading have not yet been transposed into Romanian legislation and procedures addressed to legislation; Romania should comply with those environmental authorities, applicants and the Directives by accession date. public A number of 11 BREF-s have been translated Transition periods for existing installations are still and officially adopted; they are available on the subject of negotiation with the EU Commission MoEWM website In order to comply with the Directive The guidance manuals for competent authorities and 2003/35/EC on public participation and access stakeholders are not satisfactory conceived and need to justice MoEWM intend to amend the revision legislation on EIA and IPPC till the end of 2004. Although there was provided a software for electronic register of IPPC applications and delivered permits, this one is not put in function yet.Practical implementation of IPPC requirements is not yet achievedFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 29 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review IPPC - RomaniaTable B.6.9 Capacity assessment – training issues Strengths Weaknesses The training organised in 2003 under the Most EPA-s staff is not trained at the level needed to project EIA EUROPEAID/112525/D/SV/RO implement IPPC requirements. was attended by part of the questioned future TNA shows that EPA-s personnel do not know trainees enough the IPPC national legislation, either as technical nor as practical elements of permitting At present, the PHARE project 0107.15.04.01 As IPPC knowledge, personnel in none of the 7 pilot is offering training for EPA-s staff in 10 regions could be considered even at medium level counties. The remaining 32 counties have to be As IPPC experience, almost all EPA-s personnel is covered by this project very little experienced. Many staff members involved in IPPC are Only a small number of employees are specialised in medium and high skilled in environmental air quality protection issues, some of them being specialised in more than one environmental media. Most of the questioned personnel is specialised in water and waste issuesAlmost all staff has enough knowledge for Only few persons within the pilot regions have ability using PC-s and some persons know how to to use Internet information use internet information The questioned staff has not enough English language knowledgeLess or not known/experienced IPPC issues are: permit in general BAT and BREF-s emission limit values substantial changes prevention of accidents air and water dispersion models EMS and EMAS trans-boundary pollution The targeted personnel have not participated into a large number of IPPC procedures as required by the Directives because of its rather recent transposition into the national legislation. This situation is illustrated by the marks within the TNA filled in questionnaires that are lower for experience than for knowledgeTable B.6.10 Capacity assessment – non-training issues Strengths Weaknesses All future trainees have access to PC-s At local and regional level there are no IPPC specialised departments; IPPC issues are solved by the existing permitting departments whose personnel deals with all types of environmental permitting There is not enough personnel appointed for IPPC related activities within central and local authorities The same staff is dealing with both – EIA and IPPC issues Almost all PC-s used by IPPC personnel are No sufficient support personnel is assured for IPPC provided with new Windows versions related activities (laboratories) There are Internet connexion at least for part of There is only rarely a lawyer within EPA staff and persons dealing with IPPC applications this one is not trained on environmental issues There are no inspectors within the central and regional/local environmental authorities The Environmental Guard is subordinated to the National Authority for Control and the collaboration Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 30 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review IPPC - RomaniaStrengths Weaknesses with environmental authorities is difficult Local EPA-s have only seldom WEB pages where information on requests of integrated environmental permits could be announced There is no enough PC-s for each employee involved in IPPC procedure to have one for his own use Laboratories for monitoring IPPC installations have not enough equipment and personnelFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 31 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaC. Annex I: Institutional Review - EIAC.1. IntroductionThe overall objective of the project “Capacity building in implementation of the environmental acquis” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of EIA and IPPC. This will be done through an approach that is tailored to the needs and conditions of each particular country, but also ensuring the possibility for countries to learn from the experiences of their neighbours.One of the specific activities to be carried out by the project is an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the present administrative practices and capacities in the application of the relevant environmental acquis in the pilot areas selected in the country, with reference to the regulatory acts in each country which define the role of the local and regional authorities in implementation of environmental acquis. This Capacity Assessment will form an essential background review of the current state of implementation and highlight any weaknesses, either in the administrative practices or in the capacity of the local/regional authorities, which may hinder the effective implementation of the national legislation transposing the EU acquis.The Capacity Assessment is in two parts: this part, the Institutional Review, and a Training Needs Assessment. Together they form an important baseline for the preparation of training materials and programmes, which will thus be directed at the specific needs in the pilot regions.This Institutional Review, on the implementation of the EIA Directive in Romania has been completed by the Country Manager, assisted by the national EIA experts and the national lawyers on the project team, based on information available and on interviews with the relevant authorities at both national and at local/regional level.Section 2 of the Institutional Review provides an overview of the national legislation in place for EIA, and Section 3 looks at any Guidance Documents that have been prepared to provide information on implementation. Section 4 examines the institutional arrangements for the implementation of the EIA procedures and the capacities of the competent authorities at local/regional level. Specific procedural issues for the effective implementation of the EIA legislation are examined in some detail in Section 5.C.2. Legal AssessmentC.2.1. Legislation The list of all national legal acts relevant to the EIA Directive is presented below followed by a brief overview of each piece of the legislation and how they interact. Environment Protection Law 137/95 amended by Emergency Governmental Ordinance (EGO) 91/2002, approved by Law 294/2003  Law 22/2001 for ratifying the Convention on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context (Espoo Convention)  Law 645/2002 for approval of EGO 34/2002 on integrated pollution prevention and control  Law 86/2000 for the ratification of Aarhus Convention  Law 462/2002 for approval of EGO 236/2000 regarding natural protected areas and conservation of natural habitats and wildlife  Law 544/2001 on the free access to information of public interestFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 32 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - Romania Governmental Decision (GD) 123/2002 for approval of methodological norms regarding the application of Law 544/2001  GD 1115/2002 on the free access to environmental information  GD 918/2002 on setting up the environmental impact assessment framework procedure and for the approval of the list containing public or private projects subject to this procedure  Ministerial Order (MO) 860/2002 of MWEP for the approval of the environmental impact assessment and the issuance of the environmental agreement procedures  MO 210/2004 of MAFWE on changing the MO 860/2002 of MWEP  MO 863/2002 of MWEP or the approval of the methodological guidelines applicable to the stages of the environmental impact assessment framework procedure  MO 864/2002 of MWEP on the approval of the environmental impact assessment procedure of projects in a transboundary context and public participation to this procedure  MO 1182/2002 of MWEP on approval of methodological norms for collection, processing and dissemination of environmental information  MO 1388/2003 of MWEP on setting-up the Technical Review Committee at central level  MO 978/2003 of MWEP for the approval of the “Regulation for accreditation of the natural or legal persons that carry out EIA Statements”.  MO 1943/2002 of MPWSP regarding permitting procedure of construction works The amendment of the Environment Protection Law 137/95 by EGO 91/2002, approved by the Law 294/2003, ensures the general framework of organization and functioning of the system established for preventing pollution, protecting the environment, monitoring the activities with impacts on the environment, enforcing and efficient-turning the measures imposed. It stipulates the development of some procedures which the public’s participation in the decision- making process of environmental matters is ensured through and nominates the central public authority for environmental protection (i.e. the Ministry of Environment under different names along the years, and currently the Ministry of Environment and Water Management (MEWM)) and the territorial public authorities for environmental protection as being the competent authorities responsible for performing duties arising from EIA. It defines terms like EIA, project developer, EIA Statement/Report, permitting procedure, environmental agreement and integrated environmental agreement, environmental permit and integrated environmental permit. The environmental permitting procedure is defined as the procedure at the end of which the (integrated) environmental agreement for new projects or the (integrated) environmental permit for commissioning of the already constructed facilities are issued as legal acts. It stipulates that the permitting procedure for new projects with significant environmental impact should be based on the EIA process. Law 22/2001 for ratifying the Convention on EIA in a transboundary context (Espoo Convention) contributes to the general legal framework by easing the harmonization process of the national legislation with the acquis communautaire’s requirements in this sector.The full transposition of the EIA Directives was carried out by GD 918/2002 that sets up the EIA framework procedure with screening, scoping and review as mandatory stages and approves the lists containing the types of public or private projects subject to this procedure, similar to the Annexes I and II of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC.The natural areas and wildlife species that require a protection regime at national or local level are listed in the annexes of Law 462/2002 for approval of EGO 236/2000; this law is also a precursor to the establishment of Natura 2000 sites.Full implementation of the EIA Directive means implementation of the GD 918/2002 and this is done by enforcing the dispositions of the subsequent ministerial orders. MO 860/2002 of MWEP which is in force since 30.01.2003 details the permitting procedure for new projects. It stipulates the competencies of issuing the environment agreement, details all procedural stages, institutionalises the framework of consulting the authorities involved in the EIA process by means of a Technical Review Committee (TRC), regulates actions necessary for public involvement in accordance to the requirements of EIA Directives, Aarhus Convention and Directive 2003/35, and specifies mandatory time intervals for the public’s participation in the procedure. This order covers three different categories of projects: Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 33 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - Romania Activities with insignificant environmental impact: residential activities in individual houses or annexes thereof, solely directed at meeting the needs of the respective housing unit/ individual house and not located in areas placed under special protection regime (Natura 2000), as well as activities not requiring environmental permits under the existing legal provisions regarding permitting by the One Stop Office (see the below explanations regarding relation with other planning legislation). For this type of activities, including new investment projects and changes to existing ones related to them, an environmental agreement shall not be required.  Activities with low environmental impact: those so mentioned under Annex no. I.2 of the MO 860/2002 for which, once the screening stage was completed, it was established that they should not be subject to the EIA procedure, as well as other activities regulated by the legal existing provisions on permitting through the One Stop Office that are not subject to the EIA procedure. Such activities shall only require environmental permit and the projects relevant to such activities regarding new investments or alteration of existing ones, including decommissioning, shall be subject to the simplified environmental permitting procedure applicable for the issuance of the Development Consent.  Activities and/or installations with significant environmental impact: those so provided in Annex I.1 of the MO 860/2002, as well as those provided in Annex I.2, that, following the screening stage, shall be subject to the EIA procedure. For new investment projects or substantial changes to existing ones, including for decommissioning projects, relevant to such activities, an environmental agreement or an integrated environmental agreement shall be issued as applicable. The documentation submitted for the environmental permitting process shall be the basis for the issuance of an environmental permit/integrated environmental permit, issued prior to the facility being commissioned.MO 210/2004 of MAFWE changes some provisions of MO 860/2002 of MWEP, especially those related to time intervals mandatory for different steps of EIA procedure which are increased.MO 863/2002 of MWEP also in force since 30.01.2003 approves the methodological guidelines applicable to screening, scoping and review stages, makes the checklists compulsory for each stage and subdues them to the analysis of the Technical Review Committee (TRC) with the purpose to ensure the evaluation process’ quality. MO 864/2002 of MWEP in force since 09.06.2003 details the provisions of art.13 of GD 918/2002 and correlates them with the provisions of Espoo Convention; it also indicates the minimum intervals of time for information transmitting to the possibly affected state. Its provisions apply to activities that are wholly or partly within Romania, named as “the Origin Party”, with adverse significant impact on the environment under jurisdiction of another state, named as “the Affected Party”, and complete the provisions of MO 860/2002. The EIA in the transboundary context shall be carried out according to the legal provisions in force within the territory of Romania except for the time frames provided for the actions of the environmental protection authorities which shall be correlated with the times for response of the Affected Party established by MO 864/2002 and/or by bilateral or multilateral agreements. MO 1388/2003 of MWEP in force since 31.03.2003 provides the general organization and functional requirements of the TRC at central (national) level and stipulates the model to be followed at local level.MO 978/2003 in force since 31.12.2003 approves the Regulation for accreditation of the natural or legal persons entitled to carry out EIA studies and draft EIA Statements; the accredited persons should be independent from the competent authority that issues/rejects the environmental agreement as well as from the project developer.Within the legal context of Law no. 86/2000 for ratification of the Aarhus Convention, the GD 1115/2002 and MO 1182/2002 carry out a classification of environmental information types and set the conditions in which the environmental information held by the public authorities are released to the public by the means of the compulsory/active information flow and of the “onFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 34 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - Romania request”/passive one as well, with the purpose to provide the free access and to disseminate the information. The interrelation between the EIA legislation and other planning legislation is given by provisions of MO 860/2002 and MO 1943/2002 of MPWSP. MO 1943/2002 provides that any project for construction works needs “development consent” prior to the commencement of construction works. The development consent should be issued by a commission consisting of the representatives of all interested authorities, on the basis of the project analysis performed by these authorities according to their own procedures and taking into account at least the information about the project which the proponent had provided. This commission is organized on county level within the so called “one stop office”. The CA carries out such a project analysis following the EIA procedure established by the MO 860/2002. For the projects being decided to need an EIA the procedure is concluded by the decision, upon the case, to issue the legal act named “environmental agreement” (as defined in Annex 1 of EPL 137/95 amended by EGO 91/2002 approved by Law 294/2003) or to reject the project developer’s application for such development. As far as the relation with the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) legislation is concerned, the following aspects have to be discussed:  According to the provisions of Law 645/2002 for approval of EGO 34/2002 on integrated pollution prevention and control, the new projects lying under the incidence of IPPC Directive need an “integrated environmental agreement” (as defined in Annex 1 of Law 137/95 amended by EGO 91/2002 approved by Law 294/2003) that is also a legal act. This legal act establishes from the very beginning the conditions which the project should observe in order to fully comply with the requirements of IPPC Directive and of the other related directives: BAT, Emission Limit Values, general binding rules and local/specific rules, security reports, and so on.  Issuing of the integrated environmental agreement does not exempt the projects from the requirement to obtain the integrated permit before commissioning.  Furthermore, the Annex I.1 of MO 860/2002 indicates clearly if each type of project, for which the EIA is mandatory, needs an “environmental agreement” or an “integrated environmental agreement”.C.2.2. Screening The screening stage of the EIA process as implied by the requirements of the EIA Directive that the competent authority shall decide on whether an EIA is required for a specific project, is covered in the national legislation in the following approach:  All projects from Annex I of the EIA Directive, that are compulsory to be subject to EIA, are listed in Annex I.1 of the MO 860/2002 and the threshold values for project size are also the same as in Directive. Additionally, Annex I.1 contains the following type of projects: mining activities with a production capacity larger than 5 mil.tonnes/year and the exploitation surface exceeding 1000 ha.  The EIA is compulsory also for any project located in a Natura 2000 site (art.13, letter a) even if such sites have not been established in Romania yet.  All projects from Annex II of the EIA Directive are listed in Annex I.2 of the MO 860/2002. Thresholds mentioned in Annex I.2 of MO 860/2002 are the same as those in the EIA Directive and they are set in order to separate these activities from those in Annex I.1; they are only upper/positive thresholds having the meaning that any project below the threshold is subject to the screening procedure by applying the selection criteria and the screening checking list. Every project on Annex I.2 of the MO 860/2002 is subject to the screening procedure which in Romania means a case-by-case examination. In doing so, the CA with the help of theFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 35 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaTRC (which includes all other public authorities needed for the consultation process) use the EC guidelines adopted and published as Annex 1 of the MO 863/2002 and the screening checking lists that refer to the project characteristics and to the location characteristics. Relevant selection criteria in the Directive’s Annex III are set in Annex III of the GD 918/2002 and are also part of the above mentioned guidelines; their use is mandatory as long as it is required by the enforced legislation.  Art.5, par.(1) letter a) of GD 918/2002 excludes projects serving national defence purposes from the EIA requirements in the same way as Directive does. Letter b) of the same article excludes also the projects the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation only if the requirements of the quoted GD including those on making information available to the public are complied with within the process required by that respective legal act.  According to GD 918/2002, art.5, par.(2), letters a), b) and c), the MEWM may grant exemptions from the EIA for projects, in whole or in part, in exceptional cases such as the ensuring of public order or national security, based on a motivated request of the project developer and after the developer agrees upon the following actions: to carry out another form of assessment, to inform the public on the environmental information gathered as the assessment results and to inform public about the exemptions granted and the reasons for granting such exemptions. The Directive’ requirement to inform the Commission about exemptions granted will be complied with when Romania becomes a Member State.C.2.3. Status of Transposition The EIA Directive has been fully transposed into national legislation. C.2.4. Directive 2003/35/EC The requirements of Aarhus Convention related to EIA process with regard to public participation that have lately been incorporated into Directive 2003/35/EC have been partially transposed in MO 860/2002 in accordance with GD 918/2002, art. 12.Chapter III of MO 860/2002 provides details on “Public information and participation to the EIA procedure” prior to the environmental agreement issuing. The CA has the responsibility to closely observe and apply these provisions in order to fulfil the procedure correctly.  The project developer informs the public on the following steps: - submission of the environmental agreement application for the project; - the decision of the screening stage; - the public debate of the EIA Statement, which is organized and takes place under the guidance of the competent CA; - the decision of the EIA Statement quality review stage i.e the final decision on issuing/rejecting the environmental agreement. The CA drafts the public announcement, based on the model provided in Annex II.4 of the MO 860/2002. This announcement is published by the project developer at his own expense. In order to ensure the public participation in the scoping procedure, the first public announcement or the second one, upon the case, has to invite the public to make proposals about the aspects to be included in the EIA.  Requirements with regard to access to justice related to EIA process are also fulfilled: both the project developer and the public have the right to contest the CA decisions including in court.Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 36 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaThe process of amending the GD 918/2002 and MO 860/2002 is going on now in order to fully transpose Directive 2003/35/EC especially with regard to definitions and the requirements for access to justice, with the deadline in the second quarter of 2005.C.3. Publicly Available Guidance DocumentsA Handbook that provides the overview of both national EIA legislation and procedures and a booklet for public participation in EIA process have been prepared in 2003 within the project EUROPEAID/112525/D/SV/RO. Copies have been distributed to Local Environmental Protection Agencies (LEPAs), ministries, local authorities, public institutions and so on, but it cannot be said they are available for the large public. Methodological guidelines applicable to screening, scoping and review stages were prepared also as part of the same project and published in January 2003 as Annex 1, 2 and 3 of MO 863/2002 of MWEP. These guidelines are based on the Guidance on EIA Screening, Scoping and Review prepared for the European Commission by ERM and published in June 2001.Drafts of class EIA guidelines for gold and silver ore mining activity, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, waste incineration plants and combustion plants as well as a methodological guideline for assessing the impact on biodiversity have been prepared as part of the same project, but none of them have been formally adopted so far. Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice, 1999, prepared by the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) have been taken into account when these guidelines have been drafted.All guidance documents address both to authorities, project developers and public. The class EIA guidelines target especially the authorities, project developers and consultants in charge of the EIA statement.C.4. Institutional ArrangementsC.4.1. Competent Authorities – Overview Table C.4.11shows the division of responsibilities between different layers of government (national, regional, local) for specific obligations relating to EIA. Table C.4.11 Competent Authorities for EIA Responsibilities Central Regional Local Remarks (county) Deciding MEWM REPA LEPA Depending on competence whether a project assigned in OM 860/2002 Annex requires an EIA I.1 and I.2 Making the EIA MEWM REPA LEPA Depending on competence decision assigned in OM 860/2002 Annex I.1 and I.2 Issuing guidance MEWM REPA LEPA Depending on competence on EIA assigned in OM 860/2002 Annex I.1 and I.2 Trans-boundary MEWM - LEPA MoEWM’ and LEPA’ roles are issues defined in OM 860/2002 art.9(2) and in MO 864/2002 Issues of MEWM REPA LEPA Depending on competence commercial assigned in OM 860/2002 Annex confidentiality I.1 and I.2 Consultation with MEWM REPA LEPA Depending on competence other authorities assigned in OM 860/2002 Annex I.1 and I.2 Ensuring public MEWM REPA LEPA Depending on competence consultations assigned in OM 860/2002 Annex Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 37 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaResponsibilities Central Regional Local Remarks (county) I.1 and I.2 Inspection Env. Env. Env. Common Protocol with MoEWM Guard Guard Guard Enforcement MEWM REPA LEPA Depending on competence assigned in OM 860/2002 Annex I.1 and I.2 Maintaining an MEWM REPA LEPA Depending on competence EIA register assigned in OM 860/2002 Annex I.1 and I.2 Making MEWM REPA LEPA For each level of competence information available to the publicC.4.2. Competent Authority for EIA MEWM and the 42 EPAs plus Delta Danube Biosphere Reservation Administration (DDBRA) are the competent authorities responsible for performing duties arising from EIA. The division of competencies between MEWM, REPA and LEPA to take decisions both at screening stage and on issuing the environmental agreements are detailed in the Ministerial Order 860/2002, annex I.1 and I.2.Application for any environmental agreement is submitted to LEPA on the territory of which the project is located; a copy of the application file accompanied by LEPA’s opinion/point of view is transmitted to MEWM or REPA in 5 days when MEWM or REPA is the CA for one particular project; MEWM or REPA may decide afterwards to delegate some competences to LEPA in order to fulfil certain tasks in the EIA procedure. The Directorate responsible for EIA implementation is the Directorate for Integrated Monitoring, Permitting and Compliance Control within MEWM. This Directorate’s staff implement the permitting procedure at national level, issue the environmental agreements for projects under MEWM competence and co-coordinate the activity of Regulation Departments within regional and local EPAs related to permitting procedure.At local level, the Regulation Departments within EPAs are responsible for the implementation of the EIA procedure and taking the related decisions. They lead the EIA process, especially by performing the next actions: determine projects from Annex I.2 to be subject to EIA, give opinion on the information to be supplied by the project developer, lead the public consultation process, issue environmental agreements, etc. C.4.3. Statutory Consultation Authorities The public authorities likely to be concerned by the project are given the opportunity to express their opinion within an institutionalised framework approved by the MO 1388/2003. It settles the Technical Review Committee (TRC) at the central level with the representatives from the following central public authorities: MEWM, MIR, MHF, MAI, MTCT, MEI, MAI-Firemen and Civil Protection Commandment, and, as needed, representatives of the structures responsible for: supply of public utilities and services, public parks and gardens, architecture, archaeological sites and historical monuments, protected areas, natural monuments, etc. The TRC may be enlarged as the specific conditions of the project require, e.g., with experts, scientists or legal experts. The TRC at local level is created based on a Common Decision of the Prefect and the President of the County Council. It consists of representatives of local public administration, Public Health Inspectorate, Work Protection Inspectorate, National Administration “Apele Romane”, Department of Public Works and Utilities, firemen, architecture, historical monuments and archaeological sites, protected areas offices, etc.Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 38 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaC.4.4. Institutional Capacity at Central LevelTable C.4.12 Institutional capacity at central levelActivity No. Are there Comments of sufficient staff staff for the task (Y/N) Preparing Legislation 1 For the needs to write a new piece of legislation or to change something as long as most legal acts have already been prepared. ICIM Bucuresti is also involved in this work on contract basis and prepare studies to support this activity. Preparing general Similar as above Guidance Documents Preparing Internal Similar as above Procedural Manuals Maintaining national 1 Software for electronic register has been registers (on projects, prepared within the project decisions etc ) EUROPEAID/112525/D/SV/RO. Legal Advisers 0 Review of legislation drafts is performed by the competent staff of Legal Department of the ministry. Providing advice to the This will be the attribution of NEPA and REPAs regional/local authorities Support staff 0 No position is provided for support staff in the organization chart of the ministry.C.4.5. Institutional Capacity at Regional/Local LevelTable C.4.13 Institutional capacity at local level Activity Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7- Arges Bacau Bistrita Galati Olt Sibiu Valcea No. EIA 8 20 8 11 1 12 16 applications 2004 No. EIA 4 30 5 20 - - 10 applications 2005 No. Staff for 4 5 4 7 5 7 5 EIA determinations No. Support 4 8 - 1 - 3 1 staff No. Staff for 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 maintaining registers No. Staff at 8 5 7 6 9 6 10 other statutory authorities No. Support 6 - - - - - 4 staff No. Legal - 1 1 - 1 1 1 advisers No. 4 5 4 7 6 6 5 Computers in Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 39 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaActivity Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7- Arges Bacau Bistrita Galati Olt Sibiu Valcea EIA Dept. Is register yes yes yes yes yes no no electronic (Yes/No) Is there an yes yes yes yes yes yes yes electronic connection with the central authority (Yes/No) Is public no yes no yes no yes no information available on- line (Yes/No) Comments: Line 1: The largest number of EIA applications in 2004 was declared for Bacau, Galati, and Valcea Line 2: The number of EIA applications in 2005 depends of the new projects proposed which is not known at present. It is to expect that a larger number of new investments to be registered in the former very industrialised counties - Bacau, Galati, and Valcea. Line 3: The declared number represents the staff within the Permitting Departments which vary from 4 to 7 persons. The staff is appointed not only for EIA but also for IPPC procedures. There are complaints on the lack of personnel and the need to hire staff for REPA-s Line 4: As support staff the EPA-s answers indicate either the databases or the laboratories personnel Line 5: Usually there is only one person responsible for registering EIA activities Line 6: The reported number represents persons within the Technical Review Committee - TRC Line 7: Declared figures represent persons occasionally participating in Technical Review Committee Line 8: Even when declared the legal advisers - lawyers - are not trained in environmental issues Line 9: The reported number represents number of PC-s in the whole Permitting Compartment Line 10: Only some EPA-s have electronic evidence of EIA applications. The electronic register is not organized by using a specific and adequate programme Line 11: The electronic connexion with the central authority is made by e-mail and web pages Line 12: A small number of EPA-s already has web pages available to the publicC.5. Procedural IssuesC.5.1. The EIA Screening stage which is mandatory in the national EIA procedure is based on a prior request for an opinion from the project developer. The CA performs an “initial evaluation of the project” to see if the project falls within one of the next three categories: i) list of Annex I.1 of MO 860/2002, ii) list of Annex I.2, iii) “other activities” . The procedure continues with:  scoping stage - for projects within Annex I.1 or in “other activities” but located in a “Natura 2000” site;  exclusion from the environmental permitting procedure - for projects within “other activities” category which are not located in a “Natura 2000” site, protected areas or restricted development zones;  screening stage - for projects within Annex I.2. or within “other activities” category which are located in a “Natura 2000” site, protected areas or restricted development zones.Following the initial evaluation, the projects in need of screening or directly scoping are subject to a thorough site visit. A first draft of the checklist is filled in on this occasion in accordance with the Guidelines for the project screening stage. Findings of project evaluation and site visitFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 40 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - Romania including the additional documentation/information that are further needed and the indication on how the project developer could gather this information (studies, findings of other authorities and so on) shall be recorded in a Site Report based on the model provided in Annex no.II.3 of MO 860/2002. Screening is performed according to steps provided in Art. 14 of MO 860/2002, based on information submitted by the project developer including supplementary ones if so required after site visit, TRC consultation, Checklists with respect to project characteristics and project location. For this purpose, the competent authorities for environmental protection shall: a) review the information and additional documents requested of and received from the project developer, as relevant; b) complete the checklists; c) call the TRC and notify the applicant of the date set for the presentation of the project to the technical review committee; d) present the project and the proposal for the carrying out of the screening stage to the TRC; e) develop, based on the comments and observations received from the other authorities, the decision of the TRC on the screening stage f) prepare the public announcement on the screening stage decision g) send the decision and the content of public announcement to the project developer.If the decision requires an EIA for that project, the public announcement should invite the public to make proposals about aspects to be taken into account in the scoping stage. This is not very clearly stated in the model form attached in Annex II.3 of MO 860/2002 and should be introduced. The developer is required to provide information according to the model in Annex no. II.2 of MO 860/2002 that includes: general data, project purpose and importance, public utility, project description, project physical characteristics, main characteristics of the production and technological processes, raw materials, products, description of the likely significant effects on the environment generated by use of the natural resources or by sources of pollutants, protection of environmental components (water, air, soil and subsoil, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, landscape, human settlements and other objectives of public interest), protection against noise, vibrations, radiation and biological contamination, management of waste generated on the site, management of toxic and hazardous substances, works for site restoration/recovery, identified cases of potential risk, foreseen measures for prevention, mitigation and, where possible, counteraction of the adverse significant effects on the environment, provisions for environmental monitoring.This information may be prepared by the project developer himself, by the designer of the project, or by other consultants. There is no specific requirement for these outside consultants to be accredited by an environmental accreditation body. As mentioned in 2.1, only consultants who carry out EIA studies and draft EIA Statements should have an environmental accreditation.The CA should be able to assess the completeness of the information submitted in the application file even in the stage of initial evaluation but also as the result of the site visit/review and will inform the project developer about the need of additional information and the sources and means to obtain them. Scoping is also a mandatory stage of the EIA procedure and it is performed  for projects found within Annex I.1 or those belonging to “other activities” category but located in a “Natura 2000” site;  for projects decided to need an EIA process as resulting from the screening stage.The CA conducts the assessment scoping stage, as follows: a) review, as applicable, the requested additional information and documentation received from the project developer; completes as much as possible the Checklist attached to the site checking report using the corresponding methodological Guidelines ; b) ask for the TRC meeting and notify the applicant of the date established for this meeting; c) discusses the project and the checklist with the TRC; d) compiles, based on the comments and observations received from the other authorities and eventually from the public, a “scoping document” of specific issues to be included in the EIAFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 41 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - Romania study and the list of regulatory acts that should be issued by other authorities according to the law.Methodological guidelines on scoping (which is Annex 2 of MO 863/2002) refers in Part II to the recommended content of EIA statement that has to cover the following aspects: 1) general information including information on the physical and biological pollutants which affect the environment as well as description of the main alternatives studied by the developer and reasons for choosing one of them, 2) technological processes, 3) waste production, management and disposal, 4) all forms of the potential impact - including transboundary one - on the environmental components (water, air, soil, geology, biodiversity, landscape, social and economic environment, cultural and ethnical conditions, cultural heritage), mitigation measures and assessment of the residual impact, 5) detailed alternative analysis, 6) monitoring, 7) risk assessment, 8) description of the difficulties encountered in carrying out the EIA, 9) non-technical summary.The developer is then required to prepare the EIA Statement (EIS) and submit it to the Competent Authority. The Review stage should be carried out by the CA in accordance with the Methodological Guidelines (Annex 3 of MO 863/2002). The EIS review stage uses as key tool the corresponding checklist, the purpose of which is: assessment of the report quality (adequate/inadequate) and identification of the need to improve the EIA process. An EIS should have certain qualities: a clear description of the processes; concise, comprehensive and objective; written in an impartial manner; etc. It is important to underline that the objectives of the checklist are: to supply all necessary information for the decision making and to allow efficient communication with the consultees and the public. Mo 860/2002 provides the next procedural steps for reviewing the EIA Statement: a) Following the EIA statement submission to the CA and under CA guidance, the project developer shall organise the public debate; b) Project developer shall prepare an evaluation of the well grounded comments of the public, containing solutions for the identified problems, according to the model given in Annex IV.2 and forwards it to the CA ; c) CA shall review the EIA Statement and the evaluation of the public comments, inform the TRC and invite the developer to take part in the TRC meeting; d) EIA Statement and the evaluation of public comments are discussed within the TRC meeting; the opinions expressed and conclusions of TRC meeting are recorded; e) TRC authorities may express their opinion on the quality of the EIA Statement directly in the meeting or may send it, in writing, to the CA not later than 5 days; f) The TRC authorities have the right to request the project developer, on well-documented grounds, to amend or correct the EIA Statement; g) The EIA Statement, with all necessary amendments and corrections, shall be forwarded for a new review to the TRC.Steps presented above from points c) to g) have to be accomplished within 40 days. Any potential requirement for further information at this procedural stage is regarded as an amendment /correction of the EIA Statement which means also a remake of the review stage. There is neither a limited time period provided for the developer to comply with this request nor a limit on the number of times for CA or TRC to request additional information. The maximum time period necessary for CA and TRC to achieve all procedural steps is about 225 working days at a maximum, from the date of application submission to the date of taking the decision on approving or denying the issue of the (integrated) environmental agreement. This period does not include periods for actions which the developer is responsible for: to undertake EIA studies and prepare the EIA Statement, to organize the public debate, to submit further information.If the CA does not make the decision within the relevant time period then the developer has the right to contest.Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 42 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - Romania C.5.2. Statutory Consultation Authorities All authorities involved in the EIA process are informed and consulted within a Technical Review Committee (TRC) which meets at least three times (once for each stage of the EIA procedure) for every project subject to the EIA procedure and has the following competencies: - participates at the screening, scoping and review stage of every project subject to EIA; - participates in the decision-making process on issuance/grounded rejection of the environmental agreements; - requires supplementary information from the project developer, if needed; - may require, as applicable, an expertise of the EIA Statement; - participates in the public debate meetings, as applicable; - reviews the assessment of the public proposals achieved by the project developer; - recommends, by consensus, the final decision.The competent authority for IPPC is the same as the competent authority for EIA so it is not only consulted but directly responsible. C.5.3. Trans-Boundary Considerations Provisions of MO 864/2002 of MWEP that details those of art.13 of GD 918/2002 and correlates them with Espoo Convention’ provisions are applied when a project is likely to have significant effects on the environment in another Member State, and when a project in another Member State is likely to have significant effects on the environment in the national territory.Any LEPA receiving an application for projects likely to have a significant environmental impact in another state shall notify the CA for such projects (which is the Central Public Authority for Environmental Protection) within 10 days from the submission of such application. This provision is mandatory for: a) all the projects listed in Annex no. I.1 of MO 860/2002 with the specification “Activities/installations mentioned in Annex no. 1 of the Convention on transboundary environmental impact assessment, adopted at Espoo on 25 February 1991, ratified by Law no. 22/2001”, b) all the projects subject to the environmental impact assessment procedure, for which the LEPA shall establish they are likely to affect the environment of another state, by their nature, size or location (screening). For any project likely to have a potential significant impact on the environment of the Affected Party, provided in Annex I of the Espoo Convention or deemed as such as a result of the screening stage, the MEWM shall notify the CA of the Affected Party.The notification shall contain: a) a notification letter, indicating a limited period of time for answering and the contact person; b) a copy of the application concerned; c) a copy of the project technical memorandum to which the application relates; d) any available information on the likely transboundary impact of the activity; e) information on the EIA procedure within the origin Party; f) the next step in the procedure in relation to the size, nature or location of the proposed activity; g) an indication of a reasonable timeframe, but no longer than 4 weeks, within which a response is required; h) any other relevant information, as applicable, regarding the procedure established by MO 864/2003In view of establishing the framework for sufficient and efficient consultations, the notification of the Affected Party shall be made during the same time as for informing the own public, according to the enforced legislation. The time period for the affected member state to decide whether it wishes to participate in the EIA procedure is a Maximum 4 weeks.Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 43 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaThe Affected Party shall communicate whether it intends to participate in the environmental impact assessment procedure, indicating in this case the name of the contact person and his coordinates – department, telephone number, fax number, etc.The detailed arrangements for implementation of Article 7 of the Directive are the following:  If the CA of the Affected Party declares that it does not wish to participate in the EIA procedure, or if it does not respond within the time specified in the notification, the EIA shall be carried out according to the provisions of MO 860/2002.  If the CA of Affected Party has communicated its intention to participate in the procedure set by this Order, the CA of the Origin Party shall invite the Affected Party to participate in discussions about its involvement in the procedure prior to the commencement of an EIA.  The CA of the Origin Party may require the Affected Parties to provide reasonably obtainable information relating to the current state of the environment likely to be significantly affected, where such information is necessary for the preparation of the EIA documentation. The response shall be provided in English, promptly and as appropriate, and shall include information about the size of the area, the current environmental status, current permitting activities for that area, protected areas, national parks, etc. The translation of the materials shall be achieved by concern and on expense of the project developer.  The CA of the Origin Party shall ensure necessary conditions in order to give an opportunity to the CA of the Affected Party and any concerned members of the affected public to forward, in writing, within a reasonable time, before setting of the EIA scope, their comments as to the supplied information.  The CA of the Origin Party shall inform the CA of the Affected Party, the latter ensuring that, within 2 weeks of the original notification, the public in the areas likely to be affected be informed of, and be provided with possibilities for making comments or raising objections, either directly to the competent authority of the Origin Party, or through the CA of the Affected Party, if no other way is provided by the bilateral agreements or as a result of the discussions carried out according to the provisions mentioned above.  Within 6 weeks of receipt of the notification, the Affected Party shall transmit an accurate summary, in English, of the observations of the public and the competent authorities as regarding the proposed project, together with requests for additional details identified from public individual requests.  The CA of the Origin Party shall require the Affected Party to provide information regarding the potential impact of the project on the environment of the Affected Party, if this information has not already been indicated in the response to the notification; the period of time for such a request is 6 weeks of receipt of the notification, and the application shall be addressed in English.  The information received from the Affected Party, together with its public comments, shall be included by the CA of the Origin Party within the guidance developed when scoping the EIA. The EIS shall be achieved in accordance with the national legislation in force.  Should a Party deem itself likely to be affected by a significant adverse transboundary impact due to a project listed in Annex no. I of the Convention on transboundary environmental impact assessment, ratified by Law no. 22/2001 and it has not been notified, it may ask the Origin Party to exchange enough information, with the purpose of entering into consultations regarding the project potential transboundary impact. If the parties involved in such a situation agree that a significant adverse transboundary impact is likely to occur, the provisions of MO 864/2002 relating to the information and consultation of the Affected Party shall therefore apply, unless another way for settling the dispute is chosen. If the parties involved do not reach an agreement, any of the Parties have the right to subject the issue to an investigation commission set through bilateral or multilateral agreements, unless another way for settling the dispute is chosen.  The EIS shall include, as a minimum, the information described in Annex no. II of the Convention on transboundary environmental impact assessment, ratified by Law no. 22/2001.  CA of the Origin Party shall transmit to the Affected Parties the EIS and non-technical summary as well as the following additional information included or not in the EIS: the potential nature of the final decision, any potential significant environmental impacts likely to affect the Affected Parties, a description, where necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major adverse effects of the project; the indicated response time shall be no longer than 4 weeks. Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 44 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - Romania CA of the Affected Party shall distribute the received documents to the authorities and the public in the areas likely to be affected; it shall also transmit the comments and objections received from its own public and authorities to the Origin Party.  CA of the Origin Party shall participate, together with the project developer, in the public debate of the environmental statement organised within the Affected Parties, on the basis of the provision of the bilateral agreements.  CA of the Origin Party shall carry on with the review stage of the quality of EIS according to the legislation in force and taking into account the evaluation of the comments and observations raised by the affected Parties.  During the review stage, the CA of the Origin Party shall also initiate consultations with the CA of the Affected Party regarding the measures to reduce or eliminate the potential transboundary impact of the proposed activity. The consultations shall consider: a) possible alternatives to the proposed activity, including the ‘zero’ alternative of not carrying out the project and possible measures to mitigate the significant adverse transboundary impact and/or to monitor the effects of such measures; b) other forms of possible mutual assistance in reducing any significant adverse transboundary impact of the proposed activity; c) any other appropriate matters relating to the proposed activity.  Results of the EIA, comments received and the results of the consultations shall be considered in making the final decision regarding the project.  CA of the Origin Party shall transmit the final decision to the CA of the Affected Party, together with its grounds and considerations, including: a) the content of the decision and any conditions attached thereto; b) the main reasons and considerations upon which the decision is based; c) a description, where necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce and if possible, offset the major adverse effects.  If additional information on the significant transboundary impact of the project, which was not available at the time when a decision was made and the absence of which could have influenced the decision, becomes available to an Affected Party, that Party shall immediately inform the Origin Party. At the discretion of Origin Party, further consultations shall be available to the Affected Party as to whether the decision shall be revised. The provisions of MO 864/2002 are applicable to every state potentially affected regardless of its EU membership, but their full implementation depends mainly on the bilateral agreements concluded between Romania and these states. When Romania is the Affected Party, it would apply the provisions of Espoo Convention ratified in Romania by Law no. 22/2001. For the purpose of complying with the obligations resulting from the implementation of the Convention, the MEWM shall introduce specific requirements in the existing bilateral agreements and in any other agreement in force, or shall conclude new agreements, as applicable. These agreements may take over, as basic elements, the provisions of Annex no. VI of Espoo Convention and they will be also applicable for the situations when the Origin Party had not ratified the Espoo Convention. Thus the Romanian CA would then organise public hearings etc, but the detailed arrangements for implementation should be included in these bilateral agreements. More than that, the framework provisions for action in case of projects with significant transboundary impact are set up within GD 918/2002 art. 13. Para. (5) states that The Ministry of European Integration and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs support the measures of the MEWM foreseen in paragraphs (1)-(4) and take the necessary measures to apply these dispositions, including in the case of the projects with likely significant effects on the territory of Romania, initiated in other states. It should be mentioned that measures foreseen in paragraphs (1)-(4) are those detailed in MO 864/2002 that have been presented above.C.5.4. Issues of Confidentiality As provided by GD 1115/2002, the public environmental authorities may reject the request for an environmental information release in the following cases:Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 45 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - Romania information is covered by a confidentiality clause,  information release means the release of any unfinished documents  request formulation is unclear or makes the information identification impossible  information is not availableConfidentiality clause refers to cases when the information release may affect for instance: a) national defense, public order or security; b) confidentiality of commercial or industrial activities; c) protection of an economic interest or intellectual right; d) interest of a third party that offered that information not being legally bound to do so and had not consented to make that information publicly available; e) environment, if the required information refers to issues whose spreading may increase the environmental risk; f) secret of classified information.However, the confidentiality clause may not be invoked in relation with information on pollutant emission, transfer and disposal.The procedural arrangements for determining an application for confidentiality as well those for ensuring that confidential information is kept off the public register are not defined yet. C.5.5. Public Information and Consultation As defined in Law 137/1995 with consequent modifications, “public” means one or more than one physical and legal person and, according to the national legislation, their associations, organizations and groups.A reference to the “public concerned” is only in the first article of Chapter III of MO 860/2002 “Public Information and Participation in the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures”. Afterwards, all references are to the “public”.Although both GD 918/2002 and MO 860/2002 provide that the CA shall encourage the project developer in identifying the public concerned and engaging a direct dialogue with the public concerned, a clear definition of “concerned” is not given. The Booklet on Public Participation in EIA process mentions that: “Public is not a self standing entity but rather represents more interests including: citizens of local communities;  representatives of local and regional authorities;  NGOs, communities, groups, professional associations;  research and educational institutions;  public interest groups;  mass-media.” Chapter III of MO 860/2002 deals with steps of public information and participation in the whole EIA procedure. Further guidance in this respect is provided in the booklet about Public Information and Participation that has been published and is available for all LEPAs. The project developer shall support the public information and participation in the EIA process and shall inform the public on the following steps: - Submission of the environmental agreement application for the project; - Decision of the screening stage; - Public debate on the EIA findings; - Decision of the review stage.The information made available to the public following the application submission and the screening stage decision shall refer to: a) name of the developer; b) project and site presentation; c) where and when information regarding the project may be obtained; d) to whom the well grounded public opinions regarding the environmental impact assessment for the project should be addressed.Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 46 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaAs regards the public consultation, MO 860/2002 as amended by MO 210/2004 provides that the CA has the responsibility to identify the public concerned and to engage in a direct dialogue with it during the entire period of the EIA decisional process, but there are no strict and concrete procedural arrangements in this respect.The public may be informed about the opportunity to express the opinion by different means depending on the project importance and complexity. The mandatory public announcements shall contain: developer name; brief information about project name, size and location; where and when information regarding the project may be obtained; where the observations and comments may be addressed. These announcements shall be displayed at public gathering places (municipal council), in the national or local press, on radio or TV. Hard copies of documents are made available to the public at the headquarters of the local council, CA and project developer.The CA shall make available to the public, on request, the relevant documents for the considered project, other than those supplied by the project developer, as applicable.The public may also be consulted by different means including: radio and TV interviews and other broadcastings; exhibitions of documents related to the project such as maps, plans, drawings, charts, physical models and other materials; public meetings and debates. The CA has the obligation to reply in writing to any comments and question raised by the public.Statutory authorities express their opinion within TRC activity and this opinion substantiates the decision taken at each procedural stage which is made available to the public. Minutes of any TRC meeting is also registered and may be available to the public on request. Public consultation is open during the whole procedure and even afterwards since art 46 of the MO 860/2002 allows for well grounded public opinion to be taken into account within 10 days from the date of publishing the final decision on issuing the environmental agreement.C.5.6. Taking Account of Information and Consultation Opinions The procedural arrangements for the review stage described in point 5.2 as well as the information presented below might give a clear view about how the information contained in the Environment Statement is taken into consideration in the development consent procedure: Once the environmental impact process is completed, and the EIS is carried out, the project developer shall, using the above-mentioned information channels, provide the following information to the public, at least 30 days prior to the date set for the public debate meeting: a) the place and date of the public debate; b) the place and date on which the EIS will be made available for consultation; c) to whom should be submitted the justified proposals concerning the environmental impact assessment to be addressed in the EIS.  The public may forward justified proposals regarding the EIA to the CA up to the date for which the public debate is set, and no later than this date.  In forwarding justified proposals concerning the EIA, the members of the public shall state their name, surname, address, and the date that the competent authority for environmental protection shall record these data in a form based on the model included in Annex no. IV 1.  The public debate meeting should take place in the presence of the representatives of the competent authority for environmental protection, in the most convenient way for the public, on the territory where the project aims to be implemented, and after working hours.  Prior to the public debate meeting, the project developer and the competent authority for environmental protection shall designate a chairperson and a recorder who would register the participants. The participants’ opinions shall be recorded in report/minutes. The meeting report shall be signed by the chairperson, recorder and, on public request, by a representative thereof.  Should nobody from the public come to the meeting within 90 minutes of the time set for the meeting to begin, it may be concluded that there is no public concerned by the respectiveFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 47 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - Romania project, and this statement shall be recorded in the meeting report signed by the chairperson and recorder.  During the public debate meeting, the developer shall: a) describe the proposed project, and the EIA performed, answer questions from the public, provides documented responses to the justified proposals from the public received in writing prior to the respective public debate meeting; b) record the well grounded proposals from the public expressed during the meeting on the same form used to record the well grounded proposals received prior to the date of the public debate.There are also procedural arrangements for taking into account the opinions of the public concerned: Based on the results of the public debate, the project developer prepares a document that should contain the evaluation of the well documented issues and proposals coming from the public as well as solutions proposed to the identified problems, using the form presented in Annex IV 2 of MO 860/2002. This document is submitted to the CA.  The representative(s) of the CA shall guide the developer to evaluate and integrate the well documented proposals from the public.Opinions received from affected member and non-member states are considered according to the provisions presented in chapter 5.3.C.5.7. Information on Decisions The procedural arrangements for informing the public on the decision taken whether an EIA is required are the following: project developer should inform the public on the screening stage decision (by announcements in mass media), within 10 days from receiving it;  within 10 days of the publication of the screening stage decision, the public has the right to submit documented proposals for decision reconsideration to the CA; this might happen especially if the decision denies an EIA as mandatory for that project;  within 5 days of receiving the well grounded proposals from public to reconsider the decision of the screening stage, the CA together with the authorities involved in the TRC shall prepare the final screening stage decision, with due consideration of the public opinions.;  should the final decision of the screening stage of the procedures not concord with the previous decision, the project developer shall inform the public as provided in Chapter III of MO 860/2002;  if the final decision does not contradict the previous decision, the CA shall issue a written response justifying the final decision and send it to the members of the public that contested the decision.This is the way for informing the public about the decision whether to grant the development consent or not:  Within 5 working days from taking the decision, the CA shall send to the developer the decision to issue or reject, as applicable, the (integrated) environmental agreement and the content of the public announcement, for publication in the mass-media.  Within 20 working days of the publication of this announcement and in the absence of public comments that should require new information or further investigation, the CA shall issue the (integrated) environmental agreement.  In all the cases in which the comments received from the public justify further assessment and the request for additional information or investigations, the CA shall decide the resumption of the procedures starting with the step where such information was requested.  The project developers not meeting the conditions for environmental agreement shall be notified thereof in writing, within 10 working days from the decision making date; the notification should mention the identified non-compliances and/or regulations not complied with.Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 48 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaBy a public announcement the public is informed on:  the content of the adopted decision and all the attached conditions;  the grounds on which the decision was made;  information on the main measures to avoid, reduce and, is possible, remove the negative environmental impacts;  the date by which other public comments may be received, if any .The CA should post the information on its Internet page or display it at its own officesIn case of projects with potential transboundary impacts, where a consultation of the affected states has been conducted, CA of the Origin Party shall transmit the final decision to the CA of the Affected Party, together with its grounds and considerations, including:  the content of the decision and any conditions attached thereto;  the main reasons and considerations upon which the decision is based; and,  a description, where necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce and if possible, offset the major adverse effects.As mentioned before, any arrangement in relation with EIA in transboundary context including information and consultation apply to the potentially Affected Party no matter whether this is a member state or not. C.5.8. Appeals Generally speaking, appeals might be made by the developer, public and statutory authorities. Provisions for public appeals can be described as following: Within 10 days of the publication of the screening stage decision as to not conduct an EIA, the public shall have the right to submit documented proposals for reconsideration of that decision to the CA. This provision is applicable also for all projects as long as the screening decision refers to any application, including those for projects “exempted” from EIA procedure.  The public has the right to complain also when it feels that there was not proper public consultation and the CA should answer to any complaints. When the public does not agree with the decision to grant development consent or with the conditions attached to the decision to grant development consent, it has the right to make any comments on the decision, to require new information or further investigation within 20 working days from public announcement on the decision to grant an environmental agreement. In all the cases in which the comments received from the public should justify further assessment and the request for additional information or investigations, the CA shall decide the resumption of the procedures starting with the step where such information was requested. As for the developers, they have the following means to appeal: Within 5 days of receiving the screening stage decision on a mandatory EIA, the project developer shall have the right to present to the CA an appeal to the respective decision and documented request to reconsider the respective decision. The project developers whose applications for environmental agreement have been rejected, may apply for resumption of the procedure within 90 days of rejection at the latest, and shall pay the relevant tariffs for the procedural stages that need to be resumed. Failure to comply with the 90 day deadline shall trigger a resumption of the environmental agreement procedure based on full payment of all the relevant fees and tariffs.Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 49 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - Romania The developer may contest the decision of rejection of the application for environmental agreement, according to the Law on proceedings before administrative courts no. 29/1990, as amended. The same procedure is applicable when the developer does not agree with the conditions attached to the decision to grant development consent.As far as the statutory consultation authorities are concerned, differences of opinions are tackled within the TRC:  Any decision in relation with the EIA procedure stages is taken within the TRC and is based on its members’ opinion. This is also the case with the decision to grant or not the environmental agreement. Should the decision not be concluded during the meeting of the Technical Review Committee organised with this goal, the authorities taking part in the respective meeting shall send, in writing, to the CA their points of view on reviewing the quality of the report on the environmental impact assessment study within 5 days of the review meeting. Failure to receive the points of view of the authorities involved in the TRC within the deadline provided under para (1), shall be deemed to mean there are no objections related to the issuing of environmental agreement. Should the conclusions of the authorities in the TRC be discordant, the competent authority shall, prior to issuing the final decision, invite the stakeholders to a meeting aimed at reconsidering their opinion.  If a consensus cannot be achieved, the CA assumes the responsibility for taking the decision and any other authority that disagrees with this decision has the right to contest it according to the Law on proceedings before administrative courts no. 29/1990, as amended.. Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 50 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaANNEX I.1List of activities and/or installations of significant environmental impact subject to environmental impact assessmentActivity and/or installation Competences Regulatory act Central Regional Local Environmental Integrated agreement environmental agreement 1.Agriculture 1.1. Installations for intensive rearing of pigs with more than: a) 750 places for sows; X X b) 2000 places for production pigs X X over 30 kg; 1.2. Installations for intensive rearing of poultry with a capacity at least equal to: a) 40000 places for broilers; X X b) 40000 places for hens. X X 1.3. Clearing of areas larger than X X 10 ha* 2. Extractive industry of oil, natural gas, coal and peat 2.1. Extraction of petroleum: when the amount extracted X X exceeds 500 tonnes / day; extraction of petroleum in the X X continental platform*. 2.2. Extraction of natural gas, when X X the amount extracted exceeds 500,000 m³ / day 2.3. Extraction of coal in mining X X exploitations of surface, when the site area goes beyond 25 ha* 2.4. Extraction of peat, when the X X surface of the site exceeds 150 ha. 3. Energetic industry 3.1. Thermal power stations and X X other combustion installations, including industrial installations for for production of electricity, heat, steam or hot water, with a heat output of 50 megawatts or more* 3.2. Oil and gas processing X X refineries* 3.3. Coke ovens X X 3.4. Coal gasification and X X liquefaction plants* 3.5. Bituminous shale gasification X X and liquefaction plants, of a capacity of 500 tonnes/day or more* 3.6. Nuclear power stations and X X other nuclear reactors, including dismantling or decommissioning of such power stations or reactors¹ (except research installations for Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 51 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaActivity and/or installation Competences Regulatory act Central Regional Local Environmental Integrated agreement environmental agreement the production and conversion of fissionable and fertile materials, whose maximum power does not exceed 1 kilowatt continuous thermal load)*; 1 Nuclear power stations and other nuclear reactors cease to be considered as such when all nuclear fuel and other radioactively contaminated elements have been permanently removed from the installation site.3.8. Installations for the X X reprocessing of irradiated nuclear fuel* 3.9.Installations for*: a) the production or enrichment of X X nuclear fuel; b) the processing of irradiated X X nuclear fuel or high level radioactive waste; c) the final disposal of irradiated X X nuclear fuel; d) solely for the final disposal of X X radioactive waste; e) solely for the storage, planned X X for more than 10 years, of irradiated nuclear fuels or radioactive waste, in a different site than the production site; 3.10. Construction of overhead (X dupa (X dupa X X electrical power lines with a voltage caz) caz) of 220 kV or more and a length of more than 15 km.4. Production and processing of metals 4.1. Metal ore roasting or sintering X X installations (including sulphide ore)* 4.2. Integrated installations for the X X production of pig iron and steel (initial or secondary smelting), including continuous casting installations with a capacity exceeding 2,5t/h* 4.3. Installations for the processing of ferrous metals: a) hot-rolling mills of a capacity of X X more than 20 tonnes of crude Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 52 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaActivity and/or installation Competences Regulatory act Central Regional Local Environmental Integrated agreement environmental agreement steel/h; b) smitheries with hammers, the X X energy of which exceeds 50 kJ/hammer, where the calorific power used exceeds 20 MW; c) application of protected fused X X metal coats, with a treatment capacity of more than 2 tonnes of crude steel/h; 4.4. Ferrous metals foundries, with X X a capacity of more than 20 tonnes/day 4.5. Installations for: a) installations for the production of X X non-ferrous crude metals from ore, concentrates or secondary raw materials by metallurgical, chemical or electrolytic processes*; b) for the smelting, including the X X alloyage, of non-ferrous metals, including recovered products, (refining, foundry casting, etc.) with a melting capacity exceeding 4 tonnes per day for lead and cadmium or 20 tonnes per day for all other metals; 4.6. Installations for surface X X treatment of metals and plastic materials using an electrolytic or chemical process where the volume of the treatment vats exceeds 30 m³ 5. Industry of construction mineral materials 5.1. Installations for the extraction of asbestos and for the processing and transformation of asbestos and the products containing asbestos*: a) installations for asbestos-cement X X products; b) installations for friction materials; X X c) installations for other uses of X X asbestos. 5.2. Installations for the production X X of cement clinker in rotary kilns with a production capacity exceeding 500 tonnes per day or lime in rotary kilns with a production capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day or in other furnaces with a production capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day 5.3. Installations for the X X manufacture of glass including Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 53 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaActivity and/or installation Competences Regulatory act Central Regional Local Environmental Integrated agreement environmental agreement glass fibre with a melting capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day 5.4. Installations for melting mineral X X substances including the production of mineral fibres with a melting capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day 5.5. Installations for the X X manufacture of ceramic products by firing, in particular roofing tiles, bricks, refractory bricks, tiles, stoneware or porcelain, with a production capacity exceeding 75 tonnes per day, and/or with a kiln capacity exceeding 4 m³ and with a setting density per kiln exceeding 300 kg/m³ 5.6. Other mining activities*: a) mining activities with a X X production capacity of nore than 5 mil. tonnes/year and the exploitation area exceeds 1000 ha; b) quarries and open-cast mining, X X X when the site area exceeds 25 (more (up to hectares, but no more than1000ha. than 100 100 ha) ha) 6. Chemical and petrochemical industry 6.1. Integrated chemical installations*, i.e. those installations for the manufacture at industrial scale of substances using chemical conversion processes, in which several units are juxtaposed and are functionally linked to one another and which are used for: 6.1.1. The production of basic organic chemicals: a) simple hydrocarbons (linear or X X cyclic, saturated or unsaturated, aliphatic or aromatic); b) oxygen-containing hydrocarbons X X such as alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids, esters, acetates, ethers, peroxides, epoxy resins; c) sulphurous hydrocarbons; X X d) nitrogenous hydrocarbons such X X as amines, amides, nitrous compounds, nitro compounds or nitrate compounds, nitriles, cyanates, isocyanates; e) phosphorus-containing X X hydrocarbons; f) halogenic hydrocarbons; X X g) organometallic compounds; X X h) basic plastic materials (polymers X X synthetic fibres and cellulose-basedFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 54 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaActivity and/or installation Competences Regulatory act Central Regional Local Environmental Integrated agreement environmental agreement fibres); i) synthetic rubbers; X X j) dyes and pigments; X X k) surface-active agents and X X surfactants; 6.1.2. The production of basic inorganic chemicals: a) gases, such as ammonia, X X chlorine or hydrogen chloride, fluorine or hydrogen fluoride, carbon oxides, sulphur compounds, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen, sulphur dioxide, carbonyl chloride; b) acids, such as chromic acid, X X hydrofluoric acid, phosphoric acid, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid, oleum, sulphurous acids; c) bases, such as ammonium X X hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide; d) salts, such as ammonium X X chloride, potassium chlorate, potassium carbonate, sodium carbonate, perborate, silver nitrate; e) non-metals, metal oxides or X X other inorganic compounds such as calcium carbide, silicon, silicon carbide; 6.1.3. The production of X X phosphorous-, nitrogen- or potassium-based fertilizers (simple or compound fertilizers) 6.1.4. The production of basic plant X X health products and of biocides 6.1.5. The production of basic X X pharmaceutical products using a chemical or biological process 6.2. The production of explosives X X 6.3. Installations for storage of X X petroleum, petrochemical or chemical products with a capacity of 200,000 tonnes or more* 6.4. Construction of pipelines for X – as X – as X X the transport of gas, oil or required required chemicals, with a diameter of more than 800 mm and a length of more than 40 km* 7. Industry of wood and paper 7.1. Industrial plants for the X X production of pulp from timber or similar fibrous materials 7.2. Industrial plants for the X X production of paper and board with a production capacity exceeding 20 tonnes / day*Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 55 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaActivity and/or installation Competences Regulatory act Central Regional Local Environmental Integrated agreement environmental agreement 8. Infrastructure projects 8.1. Construction of lines for long X – as X – as X X distance railway traffic* required required 8.2. Construction of airports² X X equipped with a basic runway length of 2100 m or more* 2Airport – the airports which comply with the definition in the Chicago Convention (1944) setting up the International Civil Aviation Organization (Annex 14). 8.3. Construction of motorways and X (dupa X (dupa X X express roads³* caz) caz) 3 Express road – road complying with the definition in the European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries of 15 November 1975. 8.4. Construction of a new road of X (dupa X (dupa X X four or more lanes or realignment caz) caz) and / or widening of an existent road, of two lanes or less so as to provide four or more lanes, where such new road or realigned and / or widened section of road would be 10 km or more in a continuous length 8.5. Inland waterways and ports for X X inland-waterway traffic which permit the passage of vessels of over 1350 tonnes* 8.6. Trading ports, piers for loading X X or unloading connected to land and outside ports (excluding ferry piers), which permit the passage of vessels of over 1350 tonnes*. 9. Waste management 9.1. Installations for the disposal or X (over X (over X X X (over 10 recovery of hazardous waste* 750 10 t/zi; (below t/day) kg/h) below 10 750 kg/h) t/day and below 750 kg/h) 9.2. Installations for the incineration X X of municipal waste with a capacity of more than 3 t/h* 9.3. Installations for the disposal of X X non-hazardous waste, including by chemical treatment, with a capacity of more than 50 tonnes/day 9.4. Landfills receiving more than X X 10 tonnes per day or with a total capacity exceeding 25 000 tonnes, excluding landfills of inert waste 10. Other types of projects 10.1. Groundwater abstraction X X schemes where the annual volume Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 56 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaActivity and/or installation Competences Regulatory act Central Regional Local Environmental Integrated agreement environmental agreement of water abstracted is equivalent to or exceeds 10 million m³* 10.2. Artificial groundwater X X recharge schemes, where the annual volume of water recharged is equivalent to or exceeds 10 million m³ 10.3. Works for the transfer of X X water resources between river basins where this transfer aims at preventing possible shortage of water and where the amount of water transferred exceeds 100 million m³ / year; transfer of piped drinking water is excluded 10.4. Works for the transfer of X X water resources between river basins, where the multi-annual average flow of the basin of abstraction exceeds 2000 million m³ / year and where the amount of water transferred exceeds 5 % of this flow; transfer of piped drinking water is excluded 10.5. Dams and other installations X X designed for the holding back or permanent storage of water where a new or additional amount of water held back or stored exceeds 10 million m³* 10.6. Waste water treatment plants X X for human agglomerations with a capacity exceeding 150,000 population equivalent4 4 Population equivalent” expresses the waste water loading with polluting, according to the definition of the Decision of Government (HG) no. 188 / 2002 for approval of certain rules regarding the discharging of waste water in the aquatic environment 10.7. Plants for the pretreatment X X (operations such as washing, bleaching, mercerization) or dyeing of fibres or textiles with a capacity of more than 10 tonnes/day 10.8. Plants for leather tanning of X X hides and skins with a treatment capacity of more than 12 tonnes/finished articles/day; 10.9. Food industry: a) installations for the slaughter of X X animals with a capacity to produce the animal carcases of more than tonnes/day; b) treatment and processing for the X X purpose of producing food productsFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 57 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaActivity and/or installation Competences Regulatory act Central Regional Local Environmental Integrated agreement environmental agreement of: - animal raw materials (other than milk), with a finished product production capacity greater than 75 tonnes/day; - vegetal raw materials with a X X finished product production capacity greater than 300 tonnes/day (average value on a quarterly basis); c) treatment and processing of milk, X X the quantity of milk received being greater than 200 tonnes/day (average value on an annual basis). 10.10. Installations for the disposal X X or recycling of animal carcases and animal waste with a treatment capacity exceeding 10 tonnes/day; 10.11. Installations for the surface X X treatment of materials, objects or products using organic solvents, in particular for dressing, printing, coating, degreasing, waterproofing, sizing, painting, cleaning or impregnating, with a consumption capacity of more than 150 kg per hour or more than 200 tonnes per year 10.12. Installations for the X X production of carbon (hard-burnt coal) or electrographite by means of incineration or graphitisation *Activities/installations mentioned in Annex no. 1 of the Convention on Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment, adopted at Espoo on 25 February 1991, ratified by Law no. 22 of 22 February 2001. Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 58 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaANNEX I.2List of activities and/or installations with potential significant impact on the environment which shall be made subject to environmental impact assessment procedure Activity and/or installation Competences Central Regional Local 1. Agriculture, silviculture and aquaculture a) Projects for the restructuring the rural land holdings; X (as X required) b) Projects for the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas X (as X for intensive agricultural purposes; required) c) Water management projects for agriculture, including irrigation X and land drainage projects; d) Initial afforestation X (as X required) e) Deforestation with the purpose of conversion to another X (as X type of land use; required) f) Intensive livestock installations (projects not included in Annex X no. I.1); g) Intensive fish farming; X h) Reclamation of uncultivated land, including that from the X sea. 2. Extractive industry a) Quarries, open-cast mining and peat extraction (projects X not included in Annex no. I.1); b) Underground mining (projects not included in Annex no. I.1); X c) Extraction of minerals by fluvial or marine dredging; X d) Deep drillings, in particular: X (i) geo-thermal drilling; X (ii) drilling for the storage nuclear waste material; X (iii) drilling for water supplies, X with the exception of the drillings for investigating the stability of the soil; e) Surface industrial installations for the extraction of coal, X petroleum, natural gas and ores, as well as bituminous shales (projects not included in Annex no. I.1). 3. Energetic industry a) Industrial installations for the production of electrical and X thermal energy (projects not included in Annex no. I.1); b) Industrial installations for carrying gas, steam and hot X (dupa X water; transmission of electrical energy by overhead caz) cables (projects not included in Annex no. I.1); c) Surface storage of natural gas; X d) Underground storage of combustible gases; X e) Stocking fossil combustibles at surface; X f) Industrial briquetting of coal and lignite; X g) Installations for the processing and storage of X radioactive waste, (unless included in Annex no. I.1); h) Installations for hydroelectric energy production; X i) Installations for the harnessing of wind power for X energy production; 4. Production and processing of metals a) Installations for the production of pig iron or steel by X primary or secondary fusion, including continuous casting, with a capacity of less than 2.5 tonnes/h; b) Installations for the processing of ferrous metals: (i) hot-rolling mills, with a capacity of less than 20 tonnes X crude steel/h; (ii) smitheries with hammers, the energy of which does not XFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 59 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaActivity and/or installation Competences Central Regional Local exceed 50 kJ/hammer, where the calorific power used is of less than la 20 MW (iii) application of protected fused metal X coats, with a treatment capacity of less than 2 tonnes of crude steel/h; c) Ferrous metals foundries, with a capacity of less than 20 X tonnes/day; d) Installations for the smelting, including the alloyage, of X non-ferrous metals, excluding precious metals, including recovered products (refining, foundry casting etc.), with a melting capacity less than 4 tonnes per day for lead and cadmium or less than 20 tonnes per day for all other metals; e) Installations for surface treatment of metals and plastic X materials using an electrolytic or chemical process where the volume of the treatment vats does not exceed 30 m³; f) Manufacture and assembly of motor vehicles and manufacture X of engines for motor vehicles; g) Shipyards; X h) Installations for the construction and repair of aircraft; X i) Manufacture of railway equipment; X j) Swaging by explosives; X k) Installations for roasting and sintering metallic ores. X 5. Mineral industry a) Installations for the production of cement in rotary kilns with a X production capacity less than 500 tonnes per day or lime in rotary kilns with a production capacity less than 50 tonnes per day or in other furnaces with a production capacity less than 50 tonnes per day; b) Installations for the manufacture of glass including glass fibre X with a melting capacity less than 20 tonnes per day; c) Installations for melting mineral substances including the X production of mineral fibres with a melting capacity less than 20 tonnes per day; d) Installations for the manufacture of ceramic products by firing, X in particular roofing tiles, bricks, refractory bricks, tiles, stoneware or porcelain, with a production capacity less than 75 tonnes per day, and/or with a kiln capacity less than 4 m³ and with a setting density per kiln less than 300 kg/m³; 6. Chemical industry a) Treatment of intermediate products and production of X chemicals (projects not included in Annex no. I.1); b) Production of basic plant health products, pharmaceutical X products, paint, varnishes, elastomers and peroxides (projects not included in Annex no. I.1); c) Storage facilities for petroleum, petrochemical and chemical X products (projects not included in Annex no. I.1), with a capacity up to 200,000 tonnes. 7. Food industry a) Manufacture of vegetable oils fats, with a finished X article production capacity of less than 300 tonnes/day (average value on a quarterly basis) and of animal oil fats, with a finished article production capacity of less than 75 tonnes/day; b) Packing and canning of vegetable and animal products; X c) Manufacture of dairy products, the quantity of milk received X being less than 200 tonnes/day (average value on an annual basis); d) Brewing and malting; X e) Confectionery and syrup manufacture; X f) Installations for the slaughter of animals (projects not included XFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 60 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaActivity and/or installation Competences Central Regional Local in Annex no. I.1); g) Industrial starch manufacturing installations; X h) Fish-meal and fish oil factories; X i) Sugar factories. X 8. Textile, leather, wood and paper industries a) Industrial plants for the production of paper and board with a X production capacity of less than 20 tonnes/day; b) Plants for the pretreatment (operations such as washing, X bleaching, mercerization) or dyeing of fibres or textiles, with a treatment capacity of less than 10 tonnes/day; c) Plants for leather tanning of hides and skins, with a treatment X capacity up to 12 tonnes/finished articles/day; 9. Rubber industry Manufacture and treatment of elastomer-based products. X 10. Infrastructure projects a) Industrial estate development projects; X b) Urban development projects, including the construction of X shopping centers and car parks; c) Construction of railways (projects not included in Annex X (dupa X no. I.1), and of intermodal terminals; caz) d) Construction of airfields (projects not included in Annex X no. I.1); e) Construction of roads, harbours and port installations, including X fishing harbours (projects not included in Annex no. I.1); f) Inland-waterway construction not included in Annex no. I.1, X canalisation and flood-relief works; g) Dams and other installations designed to hold water or store it X on a long-term basis (projects not included in Annex no. I.1); h) Tramways, underground and elevated railways, suspended X (dupa X lines or similar specific lines, used exclusively or mainly for caz) passenger transport; i) Oil and gas pipeline installations (projects not included in Annex X (dupa X no. I.1); caz) j) Installations of long-distance aqueducts; X k) Coastal works to combat erosion and maritime works capable X of altering the coast through the construction, for instance, of dykes, moles, jetties or other sea defence works, excluding the maintenance and reconstruction of such works; l) Groundwater abstraction and artificial groundwater recharge of X the dam reservoirs (projects not included in Annex no. I.1); m) Works for the transfer of water resources between river basins X (projects not included in Annex no. I.1). 11. Other projects a) Permanent racing and test tracks for motorised vehicles; X b) Installations for the disposal of waste (projects not included in X Annex no. I.1); c) Waste water treatment plants (projects not included in X Annex no. I.1); d) Deposition sites for sludge resulted from waste water treatment X plants; e) Storage of scrap iron, used vehicles, including scrap X vehicles; f) Test benches for engines, turbines or reactors; X g) Installations for the manufacture of artificial mineral fibres; X h) Installations for the recovery or destruction of explosive X substances; i) Knackers’ yards. X 12. Tourism and leisure a) Ski-runs, ski-lifts, cable cars and associated XFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 61 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – EIA - RomaniaActivity and/or installation Competences Central Regional Local developments; b) Marinas; X c) Holiday villages and hotel complexes outside urban areas and X associated developments; d) Permanent camp sites and caravan sites; X e) Theme parks. X 13. Changes or extensions of projects; projects carried out for testing a) Any change or extension of projects listed in Annex no. 1 or in X the present Annex, already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed, which may have significant effects on the environment; b) Projects in annex no. I.1, undertaken exclusively or mainly for X the development and testing of new methods or products and not used for more than two years.Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 62 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - RomaniaD. Annex I: Institutional Review - IPPCD.1. IntroductionThe overall objective of the project “Capacity building in implementation of the environmental acquis” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of EIA and IPPC. This will be done through an approach that is tailored to the needs and conditions of each particular country, but also ensuring the possibility for countries to learn from the experiences of their neighbours.One of the specific activities to be carried out by the project is an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the present administrative practices and capacities in the application of the relevant environmental acquis in the pilot areas selected in the country, with reference to the regulatory acts in each country which define the role of the local and regional authorities in implementation of environmental acquis. This Capacity Assessment will form an essential background review of the current state of implementation and highlight any weaknesses, either in the administrative practices or in the capacity of the local/regional authorities, which may hinder the effective implementation of the national legislation transposing the EU acquis.The Capacity Assessment is in two parts: this part, the Institutional Review, and a Training Needs Assessment. Together they form an important baseline for the preparation of training materials and programmes, which will thus be directed at the specific needs in the pilot regions.This Institutional Review, on the implementation of the IPPC Directive in Romania has been completed by the Country Manager, assisted by the national IPPC experts and the national lawyers on the project team, based on information available and on interviews with the relevant authorities at both national and at local/regional level.Section 2 of the Institutional Review provides an overview of the national legislation in place for IPPC, and Section 3 looks at any Guidance Documents that have been prepared to provide information on implementation. Section 4 examines the institutional arrangements for the implementation of the IPPC procedures and the capacities of the competent authorities at local/regional level. Section 5 provides information on the numbers of installations covered by the IPPC legislation in the pilot regions. Finally, specific procedural issues for the effective implementation of the IPPC legislation are examined in some detail in Section 6. The Annex provides details of all IPPC installations in the country, by industrial sector. D.2. Legal AssessmentD.2.1. Legislation The legislation relevant to the IPPC Directive includes: Environmental Protection Law no.137/1995, as modified by the Governmental Emergency Ordinance no.91/2002, approved with modification by Law no.294/2002  Governmental Emergency Ordinance no. 34/2002 on integrated pollution prevention, mitigation and control, approved and amended by Law no. 645/2002.  Order of the Minister of Water and Environmental Protection no. 890/2002 sets the IPPC Office within MWEP;Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 63 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - Romania Order of the Minister of Water and Environmental Protection no. 860/2002 (Of. J no. 52/03.01.2003) approving the Procedure for the environmental impact assessment and granting the environmental integrated agreement (in order to obtain the development consent);  GD no. 918/2002 (Of.J.no.686/17.09.2002) approving the framework procedure for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and for the approval of the list of public and private projects submitted to this procedure.  Order of the Minister of Water and Environmental Protection no. 1144/2002 (Of. J. no. 35/22.01.2003) on setting up the Register on the pollutants released in the environment by the activities falling within the scope of the provisions of EGO 34/2002, approved by the Law no 645/2002;  Order of the Minister of Water and Environmental Protection no. 1440/2003 (Of. J. no. 177/20.03.2003) approving the National Guidebook for carrying out the Pollutant Emission Register; The Guidebook was published on the MEWM site, at www.mappm.ro  Order of the Minister of Water and Environmental Protection no. 37/2003 (Of. J. no. 247/10.04.2003) approving the Guidebook on the Best Available Techniques for the cellulose and paper industry; The Guidebook was published on the MEWM website: www.mappm.ro  Order of the Minister of Agriculture, Forests, Water and Environment no. 566/2003 (Of. J. no. 689/01.01.2003) approving the Reference Document on the Best Available Techniques in the lime and cement industry. The Document was published on the MEWM website: www.mappm.ro  Order of the Minister of Agriculture, Forests, Water and Environment no. 818/2003 (Of. J. no. 800/13.11.2003) approving the procedure for issuing the integrated environmental permit. The document was published on MEWM website: www.mappm.ro  Order of the Minister of Agriculture, Forests, Water and Environment no. 36/2004 (Of. J. no. 43/19.01.2004) approving the General Technical Guide enforcing the procedure of issuing the environmental integrated permits. The document was published on MEWM website: www.mappm.ro  Order of the Minister of Agriculture, Forests, Water and Environment no. 169/2004 (Of. J. no. 206/09.03.2004) approving the direct confirmation method of the Reference documents concerning Best Available Techniques (BREF) approved by the European Union (for 9 reference documents: chlor-alkali, non- ferrous metallurgy, cast iron producing, glass industry, fur and leather tanning, textile industry, food and milk industry, cooling industrial systems, monitoring). The document was published on MEWM website: www.mappm.ro.According to the EU rules for legal transposition, the provisions of the Directive 96/61/EC (IPPC Directive) have been transposed into Romanian legislation by the Governmental Emergency Ordinance (GEO) No 34/2002 on integrated pollution prevention, reducing and control, subsequently modified and approved by the Parliament through the Law 645/2002. The transposed legislation introduces the principles of an integrated approach to the measures necessary to reduce, prevent and control pollution and also establishes the measures for granting the integrated environmental permit for the industrial activities listed in the Annex 1 of the Directive 96/61/EC, which was transposed, with just a couple of mistakes due to translation, as Annex 1 of GEO 34/2002. Requirement for EIA Procedure According to the provisions of GEO No. 34/2002, as approved by the Law 645/2002, the procedure for the “integrated environmental agreement” (used for obtaining the development consent) requires EIA for all IPPC installations, which will be built after 2003. The Ministerial Order No. 860/2003 on EIA details the procedure to be followed in such a situation. Integrated Permitting of New and Existing Installations All existing installations operating at the date of entry into force of GEO 34/2002 (modified and approved by Law 645/2002) on integrated pollution prevention and control, as well as theFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 64 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - Romania installations foreseen to be put into operation no later than one year after this date, have to comply with its provisions concerning integrated permitting and implementation of BAT. For the existing installations, which are not in compliance with the IPPC requirements for permitting, it is stated that the operator will design a compliance schedule, in order to be negotiated with, and approved by the environmental authority. The deadline mentioned in the above law for compliance of the existing installations is 2015. In the meantime, in the Chapter 22 of the Complementary Position Document prepared for the European Commission, Romania requested shorter transition period and only for some installations under the provisions of Directive 96/61/EC.It should be noted as well the contradiction on deadlines for compliance between the provisions of the GEO 34/2002/Law 645/2002 (2015 for all existing installations) and those of the Ministerial Order 818/2003 (31 December 2006 for new installations and 30 October 2007 for existing installations). The principal legislative instrument under GEO 34/2002 - Law 645/2002 is the Ministerial Order no. 818/2003 for the approval of the Procedure for issuing the Integrated Environmental Permits. The procedure establishes the responsibilities of environmental authorities in relation to the integrated permitting process, obligations of applicants, conditions for other authorities’ involvement and public participation. D.2.2. Categories of Industrial Activities Covered by National Legislation on IPPC The IPPC Directive’s Annex I “Categories of industrial activities referred to in article 1”, including reference to threshold values, was transposed as Annex 1 of the GEO 34/2002 – Law 645/2002, called “Categories of activities for which an integrated permit has to be obtained”. The list of activities presented in the GEO’s Annex 1 represents the translation of the IPPC Directive’s Annex 1, with the same threshold values. There should be noted some mistakes due to the incorrect translation exercise. (sections 2.5; 5.1; 5.3;6.6) No additional categories of industry are covered by the national legislation on integrated permitting. However, even if the categories of activities are more or less the same as those required by the Directive, the interpretation of “installation” definition is the only explanation for the difference between the total amount IPPC installations indicated at the first inventory (2003) and the results of the inventory conducted in 2004, which indicates a smaller number of IPPC installations. D.2.3. One Integrated Permit or Several Permits By reference to national legislation, there is one final integrated permit, but it cannot be said that there is a single one; however, other permits for operating are still issued by other authorities prior to the issuance of the integrated permit. One of these permits of significant importance is the water management permit, issued by the National Administration “Apele Romane” (Romanian Waters) (NAAR), which is an economically autonomous entity under the co-ordination of the Ministry of Environment and Water Management (MEWM), through the State Secretary of Water Department. The provisions of this permit include emission limits and also a compliance programme approved by the State Secretary for Water Department from the Ministry of Environment and Water Management. Consequently, but not yet applied, the compliance indicators for water management should be checked by two different bodies: National Environmental Guard and branches of NAAR, organised at river basin level. It should be noted as well that none of these is subordinated to the Ministry of Environment and Water Management, but just co-ordinated by this Ministry. The National Environmental Guard with local branches at each county is subordinated to the National Authority for Control.This means that water ELVs etc shall be set out in both the integrated permit and the water management permit.The integrated approach in permitting is ensured by “the participation of the authorities involved in the integrated environmental permit procedure” achieved within the Technical ReviewFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 65 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - RomaniaCommittee (TRC), organised at the level of the authority competent to apply the integrated environmental permit procedure” (MO 818/2003). For each IPPC application received, the regional authority for environmental protection “instructs and supervises” the TRC composition in which are represented “all the authorities involved in the permitting and regulating the operation of the activity/installation”. As the local environmental authorities are responsible just for the preliminary “analysis” (review) of the application, this provision of the MO 818/2003 could be interpreted as a request for a TRC organised at regional level, which is not applicable because the other authorities, excepting regional development agencies, are organised only at county level. However, this provision should be clarified when starting to implement the integrated permitting procedure. D.2.4. General Binding Rules The provisions of article 9.8 of the IPPC Directive are not transposed by the Romanian IPPC specifically related legislation. However, most of the Directives listed in the Annex II of the Directive 96/61/EC are transposed into Romanian legislation and are establishing general biding rules.D.2.5. Status of Transposition The main Romanian legislation transposing the IPPC provisions were presented in the section 2.1 above. Other relevant legislative instruments for the implementation of the IPPC Directive’s provisions are, as following:EU Directives Regulations in Romania r o 2001/80/EC – on the limitation of - GD no. 541/2003 (Of. J. no. 365/29.05.2003) on the t c e emissions of certain pollutants into limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into air from S l the air from combustion plants large combustion plants. o r t 1999/13/EC – on the limitation of - GD no. 699/2003 (Of. J. no. 489/8.07.2003) regarding n o emission of volatile organic the setting up the measures for the limitation of volatile C compounds due to the use of organic compounds emissions due to the use of organic n o i solvents in certain activities and solvents in certain activities and installations t u l l installations o P l a 96/82/EC - on the control of major – - GD no. 95/2003 (Of. J. no. 120/25.02.2003) on the i r t accident hazards involving control of activities which may generate major accident s u dangerous substances hazards involving dangerous substances d n I Regulation no. 761/2001 Allowing - Order of the Minister of Agriculture, Forests, Water and Voluntary Participation by Environment no. 50/2004 (Of. J. no. 81/30.01.2004) Organizations in a Community Eco- establishing the procedure for organization and co- management and Audit Scheme ordination of eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) (EMAS). aiming to voluntary participation of organizations at this scheme. Regulation 1980/2000/EC on Eco - GD no. 189/2002 (Of. J. no. 166/08.03.2002) on the Label and specific regulation for award procedure of the eco-label. different products, voluntary environmental labelling scheme. y t i 96/62/EC – Directive framework for - EGO 243/2000 (Of. J. no. 633/06.12.2000) on l a air quality and daughters directives: atmosphere protection; approved by Law 655/2001 (O.J. u q 99/30/EC setting the limit values for no. 773/04.12.2001) r iA sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, -The Order of the Minister of Water and Environmental particulate matter, and lead in the air Protection No. 592/2002 (Of. J. no 765/21.10.2002) 2000/69/EC - on the limit value for approving the Norms establishing of the limit values, of the benzene and carbon monoxide in the thresholds values and of criteria and methods of ambient air assessment of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and 2002/3/EC - on the ozone air nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, (PM10 and PM2,5) pollution lead, benzene, carbon monoxide and ozone in ambient air; -The Order of the Minister of Water and Environmental Protection No. 745/2002 (Of .J. no 739/09.10.2002) establishing the agglomerations and classification of the agglomerations and of the zones for the assessment of the air quality in Romania. Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 66 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - RomaniaEU Directives Regulations in Romania y t i 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by l a dangerous substances discharged u q into water - GD 118/07.02.2002 (Of. J. no 132/20.02.2002) r e t 82/176/EEC contains quality approving the action Programme for the reduction of a objectives for the mercury discharges pollution of the aquatic environment and underground W from the industry of alkaline chlorides waters, caused by some discharges of dangerous electrolysis substances 84/156/EEC contains the quality objectives for the mercury discharges from industrial sectors others than the industry of alkaline chlorides - GD 188/20.03.2002 (Of. J. no 187/20.03.2002) electrolysis approving some norms referring to the discharging 86/280/EEC contains the quality condition of the waste waters in the aquatic environment. objectives for DDT, carbon tetrachloride and pentachlorydephenol 88/347/EC contains the quality objectives for the discharges of aldrine, dieldrine, endrine, izodrine, hexachloridebenzene, hexachloridebutadiena and chloroform 90/415/EC contains the quality objectives for 1,2-dichlorideethane, trichlorideethane, perchlorideethane and trichloridebenzene. 2000/60/EC Directive Water Framework 78/659/EEC referring to the clean - GD 202/2002 (Of. J. no 126/22.03.2002) approving the waters quality allowing the fish living technical norms on the quality of surface water quality needing protection and amelioration to sustain the fish life 75/440/EEC includes values for 46 - GD 100/2002 (Of. J. no 130/19.02.2002) approving the indicator parameters of the surface quality Norms the surface waters have to meet as they are water quality intended for abstraction used for abstraction and the Normative on the measuring of drinking water methods and the frequency of sampling and analysis of the surface water samples aimed for abstraction of drinking water. e t 89/369/EC (M. Of. 686/ s a 17.09.2002) referring w to air pollution Replaced - GD 128/2002 (Of. J no 160/06.03.2002) on waste preventing in the new with incineration incineration 2000/76 on installations of the the waste municipal waste incineration 94/67/EC referring to the dangerous waste incineration 75/442/EEC referring to waste, - EGO 78/2000 (Of. J. no. 283/22.06.2000) on waste amended by Directive 91/156 regime, modified and approved by Law No 426/2001 (O. J 91/689/EC referring to hazardous No 411/25.07.2001) waste 75/439/EEC referring to waste oil - GD 662/2001 (Of. J. no. 446/08.08.2001) on the management of waste oils Decision of the Commission - GD 856/2002 (Of. J no 659/05.09.2002) on the evidence 2001/118/EC amending the of waste management and for the approval of the list of Commission’s Decision 2000/532/EC waste, including hazardous waste replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1 (a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 67 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - RomaniaEU Directives Regulations in Romania Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EC on hazardous waste. Directive 99/31/EC on the landfill of - GD 162/2002 (Of. J. no 164/07.03.2002) on the landfill waste of waste t n Directive 85/337/EEC, modified - GD 918/2002 (Of. J. no 686/17.09.2002) establishing e m through Directive 97/11/EC on the the assessment framework procedure of the impact of s s assessment of effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and e s public and private projects on the approving the list of the public and private projects subject s A environment to this procedure; t c - Order of the Minister of Water and Environment a p Protection no 860/2002 (Of. J. no 52/30.01.2003) m I approving the assessment procedure of the impact on the environment and of the issuing the environmental license; - Order of the Minister of Water and Environment Protection nr.863/2002 (Of. J. no. 52/30.01.2003) approving the methodological Guidance applicable to the stages of the assessment framework procedure of the impact on the environment; - Order of the Minister of Water and Environmental Protection No. 864/2002 (Of. J. no. 52/30.01.2003) approving the Procedure for environmental impact assessment in transboundary context and for public participation in decision making for projects with transboundary impact - EGO 76/2001 (Of. J. no 283/31.05.2001), republished in 2002, on simplifying of certain administrative formalities at the registration and the authorization of the traders; - GD 573/2002 (Of. J. no 414/14.06.2002) approving the authorization procedure for the traders functioning n o Directive 90/313/EC on access to the - GD 1115/2002 (Of. J. no 781/28.10.2002) on free access i t a environment information to environmental information m r - Order of the Minister of Water and Environmental o f Protection no 1182/2002 (Of. J. no 331/15.05.2003) n i t approving the methodology of the management and the n e supplying of the environmental information held by the m n public authorities for the environmental protection o r i - Law 86/2000 (Of. J. no 224/22.05.2000) ratifying the v n Convention on the access to information, public e participation in decision- making process and on the e h t access to justice in environmental matters (the Aarhus o tConvention) s s - Law 22/2001 (Of. J. no 105/01.03.2001) ratifying the e c Convention on the environment transboundary impact cA assessment (Espoo Convention)Romania has transposed the IPPC Directive into Law, by direct translation with addition of some implementing provisions (GEO 34/2003 - Law 645/2002). Nevertheless, the Ordinance should be subject to a thorough analysis in relation with the entire environmental legislation in order to evaluate its effectiveness. Order 818/2003, which sets out the means of issuing a permit, is at variance with the intention of the IPPC Directive with respect to the issue of multiple permits for the same site. Practical implementation on the ground has not been successful as yet. The institutional entities required to implement the law (regional EPA-s) are not yet ready, and transition periods for existing industries are still subject of negotiation with the EU Commission. D.2.6. Directives 2003/35/EC and 2003/87/EC The Directives 2003/35/EC on public participation and 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading and amending the IPPC Directive, have not yetFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 68 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - Romania been transposed into Romanian law. The deadlines for their transposition, refer to Member States. Romania has to comply with those Directives’ provisions by accession date (2007). However, the Ministry of Environment and Water Management has planned to amend the existing legislation on EIA and IPPC in order to comply with (and fully transpose) the provisions of Directive 2003/35/EC with regard to public participation and access to justice requirements. The deadline for these amendments is established at the end of 2004. There are no plans yet for the transposition of Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission trading and amending the IPPC Directive.D.2.7. Permit Validity PeriodValidity Period By reference to the national legislation, any environmental permit is valid for a maximum period of five years (Environmental Protection Law 137/1995, as subsequently modified). The legislation transposing IPPC Directive includes new provisions with respect to the validity period of a permit. If the examination of the conditions shows that the existing installation cannot frame in the IPPC requirements, the operator of the activity “will prepare a draft compliance schedule to be approved by the competent authority”. The environment permits for the installations functioning on the basis of a compliance schedule approved are issued with “validity term on the period each measure included in this programme is accomplished”.Reconsidering Conditions of the Permit In accordance with the provisions of GEO 34/2003 – Law 645/2003, the competent authority for the environment protection “re-examines periodically and updates, if necessary, the authorization conditions”. “Re-examination” is mandatory for the following situations mentioned by art.7, GEO 34/2003 – Law 645/2003 compiled with art. 33, MO 818/2003): a) the pollution caused by the installation makes necessary the revision of the emission limit values included in the existing authorization and setting up of new emission limit values; b) when substantial changes and extension of installations, or modifications of the best available techniques allowing a significant cut of emissions occurred; c) the security of the exploitation and activity’s development makes necessary the resort to other techniques; d) the result of the inspection and compliance control activities reveals new aspects, unspecified by the submitted documentation for supporting the application or further changes to the issuance of the permitting act; e) the provisions of some new legal regulations impose it.Substantial Changes When there a substantial change in operation occurred at the installation and when this is considered as changing the “conditions of operating”, a new permit should be issued for the whole installation. It should be noted as well that for substantial changes of installations or part of installations, an EIA is required for the issuance of the “integrated environmental agreement” in order to obtain the “development consent”.The “integrated environmental agreement”, as well as the “development consent”, shall be obtained just for that part of installation affected by the substantial changes, while the integrated permit shall be obtained for the entire installation as a whole. Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 69 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - Romania D.2.8. Time Limit for the Decision Making Process As the national legislation (MO 818/2003) has established, the time periods in which the CA must make a decision on the application for an integrated permit, relate to each stage of the integrated permitting process, as follows: (b) preliminary review carried out at the level of local environmental authorities, where the application is received, lasts 10 days at maximum. After the preliminary analysis of the application related documentation, the competent authority for environmental protection sends in writing to the activity developer/operator, within 10 working days, the response as regarding acceptance of the application or grounded rejection and informs the regional environmental authority about its decision. (c) Consultation of other authorities (TRC) on the application received is organised by the regional environmental authority within 15 working days after the date of accepting the application and within 10 days of the date of the evaluation in TRC, the regional authority for environmental protection sends the report of the “analysis” to the activity developer/operator. (d) Trans-boundary consultations (when it is the case). In the case of the activities/installations whose operation might have significant impacts on the environment of another country, the competent authority for environmental protection will inform the central authority for environmental protection within 10 days of accepting the application. The central authority for environmental protection will inform the central authority for environmental protection of the affected state, under terms of reciprocity and according to the provisions of the bilateral collaboration agreements. (e) Public consultation is organized on the phases of the integrated permitting procedure; “the public has the right to present in writing or verbally the comments on the application for obtaining the integrated environmental permit within 30 days from the submission of the application” (art.50 (1) of the MO 818/2003). Other issues related to the public consultation are detailed in the section 6.5. (f) Preparing draft integrated permit. Within 30 working days after completion of the procedure of issuing the integrated environmental permit, after the consultation with the public and in absence of some fundamental observations, the regional authority for environmental protection “prepares the project of integrated environmental permit or proposes the justified rejection of the application”. (g) Consultation of other authorities on the draft integrated permit. The regional environmental authority forwards the project of integrated environmental permit or of justified rejection of the application to the TRC members and asks for the written comments/points of view within 10 working days. In the same time, it announces the activity developer about this action. Within 10 days after the receiving of the comments from other authorities, the regional authority for environmental protection calls together TRC in a plenum session in the view of finalising the project of integrated environmental permit, respectively the environmental permit with compliance schedule. (h) Public announcement of the decision. Within 5 days after the plenum consultation of TRC, the regional authority for environmental protection announces the public, through the mass-media, on the decision of issuing or rejecting the integrated environmental permit. (i) Final decision. Within 30 days from the public announcement of issuing an integrated environmental permit with compliance programme and in the absence of some fundamental observations from the public, the regional authority for environmental protection issues the integrated permit.According to the procedure (MO 818/2003) the time period could be extended, in the following circumstances:  In the case of the activities/installations whose operation might have significant impacts on the environment of another country and the central authority initiates the transboundary consultations;  When the regional authority for environmental protection requests completions of the documents submitted, and when the activity developer/operator must transmit the new information / data within 30 days, in view of continuation of the procedure. Failure to comply with this period leads to rejection of the application.  The activity developers/operators whose applications for issuing the integrated environmental permit were rejected can apply again for the procedure within maximum 90 days from the rejection date, with the payment of the corresponding tariffs.If the competent authority does not make the decision within the relevant time period and does not announce the applicant about the reasons of the delay, according to the relevant RomanianFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 70 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - Romania legislation in force, the lack of the answer is equivalent to the acceptance of the application and obliges the authority to grant the requested permit. D.3. Publicly Available Guidance DocumentsIPPC General Technical Guidelines A General Technical Guidelines approved by the Ministerial Order no. 36/2004 for the implementation of GEO No. 34/2003 – Law No. 645/2003 regarding prevention, reducing and control of pollution has been prepared and is available on the web-site of the Ministry of Environment and Water Management (http://www.mappm.ro). These Guidelines provide explanations on the national legislation and procedures, together with the use of BATs; they are mainly directed to authorities and applicants, but contain as well information for the public participation. The General Technical Guidelines indicate as well the use of the existing EU BREFs, as published on the web-site of Sevilla Bureau at http://www.eippcb.jrc.es. The Manual containing General Technical Guidelines provides no explanation and guidance on interpreting “substantial change”, nor on commercial confidentiality issues. The confidentiality issues are covered by the legislation in force (GD no.1115/2002) transposing the provisions of the Directive 90/313/EEC (without amendments) on the freedom of environmental information and Ministerial Order no. 1188/2002 on the implementation of the Directive mentioned above taking into account the provisions of Arhus Convention.Other Guidance Documents Other guidance documents related to IPPC have been developed and made available on the web-site of MEWM (http://www.mappm.ro). These are the following:  National Guidance on the Register of Emitted Pollutants (EPER Guidance) approved by the Ministerial Order no. 1140/2002 and set up according to the Ministerial Order no. 1144/2002 transposing the EU requirements related to EPER  Guidance on the Emissions’ Reduction.BAT/BREFs Romania started to transpose EU BREFs into the national procedures. So far, many of the existing BREFs have been transposed and are available on the site of MEWM (http://www.mappm.ro). The transposition consists exclusively in translation of the EU BREFs. The transposed BREFs available on the site of MEWM are as follows: Reference document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement and Lime Manufacturing Industries  Reference document on Best Available Techniques in the Pulp and Paper Industry  Best Available Techniques reference document on the Production of Iron and Steel  Reference document on the Best Available Techniques for Textile Processing  Reference document on Best Available Techniques in the Chlor-Alkali Manufacturing Industry  (The second draft) BREF on BAT in the Food, Drink and Milk Industry  Reference document on general principles of Monitoring  Reference document on Best Available Techniques in the Non-Ferrous Metals industry  Reference document on the application of the Best Available Techniques to IndustrialCooling Systems  Reference document on the Best Available Techniques in the Glass Manufacturing Industry  Reference document on Best Available Techniques for the Tanning of Hides and SkinsFor those categories of installations where no EU BREFs are prepared yet, Romania requested technical assistance and use of MS experience. Two twinning projects assisting the regional environmental agencies are planned to start early in 2005, each of them having as specific task the development of national BREFs for categories of installations where EU BREFs are not yetFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 71 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - Romania prepared. It should be noted as well that each of the eight Regional Environmental Protection Agencies (REPA-s) will be assisted by a twinning project of two years duration, focussed on providing assistance on performing the daily activities of regional authorities, including for the integrated permiting procedure.Other Relevant Legislation The main IPPC procedure (approved by the Ministerial Order no. 818/2003), as well as the General Technical Guidance approved by the Ministerial Order no. 36/2004, make mandatory the use of the Ministerial Order no. 184/1997 on the scope and content of Environmental Audits in order to prepare the Site Report. The Ministerial Order no. 184/1997 was amended to better respond to the requirement of the IPPC procedure. The above-mentioned amendments were introduced through the Ministerial Order no. 1133/2002. It should be noted that these amendments have not been published in the Official Gazette, nor on the web-site of the MEWM and further amendments/ new regulations are needed in order to fully comply with the requirement for the preparation of the “Site Report”, as part of the application form for the integrated permit. The IPPC procedure also requires the compliance with the SEVESO Directive provisions, where applicable. The SEVESO Directive was transposed into the Romanian legislation by the Governmental Decision no. 95/2002. D.4. Institutional ArrangementsD.4.1. Competent Authorities – Overview Table D.4.14 shows the division of responsibilities between different layers of government (national, regional, local) for specific obligations relating to IPPC. Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 72 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - RomaniaTable D.4.14 Division of responsibilities Responsibilities Central Regional Local Remarks MEWM/ REPA LEPA/ EG NEPA Deciding whether an installation requires an  integrated permit Issuing integrated permits  Issuing guidance on BAT  Trans-boundary issues  Issues of commercial   Resp. not specified by confidentiality law. Co-ordination with other   authorities Ensuring public consultations   Monitoring   Inspection  Enforcement   Maintaining a register of   emissions Making information available    to the publicIn accordance with the DECISION No. 1625 of 23 December 2003 on the establishment, organization and functioning of the National Environmental Protection Agency, NEPA, as a special body of the central public authority for environmental protection, shall technically coordinate territorial public environmental protection authorities at regional and local level, providing necessary training process. In the field of IPPC regulation, NEPA guides and assists Regional Environmental Protection Agencies in the process of permitting the activities under EGO No. 34/2002 on integrated pollution prevention, reduction and control, approved, with amendments and additions, by Law No. 645/2002.D.4.2. Competent Authority for IPPC PermitsCompetencies The competencies for issuing integrated permits are established by the Ministerial Order no. 818/2003 on integrated permitting procedure and stated by the Decision of Romanian Government no. 1626/2003 on setting up regional environmental authorities. According to the national legislation, the integrated permits are issued by the Regional Environmental Protection Agencies (REPA-s). All other responsibilities related to the integrated permitting procedure, except the preliminary review, belong to the regional authority. However, the Ministerial Order no. 818/2003 approving the integrated environmental permitting procedure mandates the transfer of competency from regional to local authority. The article 6, paragraph (2) says: “The regional authority for environmental protection upon which the responsibility for issuing the permit devolves shall co-ordinate and control the integrated environmental procedure and may delegate the competence of analysing certain procedural stages to the local authorities”. Co-ordination between Different Departments The newly created REPAs just started to operate in April-May 2004. Apparently, all competencies for issuing integrated permits belong to the regulatory office operating within these authorities. Certain issues, such as, how the waste department operating at the same level will be involved in the issuance of integrated permits definitely need further consideration. Involvement/ Consultation of other authorities According to the Ministerial Order no. 818/2003, art. 2 (2), “the participation of the authorities involved in the integrated environmental permit procedure shall be achieved within the Technical Review Committee (TRC), organised at the level of the authority competent to apply the integrated environmental permit procedure” Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 73 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - RomaniaOther authorities involved in the integrated permitting procedure are all authorities which, according to their legal competency, are also issuing operating permits for the activities subject to an IPPC application. These authorities are consulted within an organised framework through a “Technical Review Committee” established by the MO no. 818/2003. The authorities which are participating in an integrated permitting procedure are established case by case by the REPA and involve authorities responsible for water management, health and safety, public administration, etc. D.4.3. Inspection and EnforcementCompetent Authorities for Inspection and Enforcement The competent authority for environmental inspection, including IPPC compliance, is the National Environmental Guard, which has local branches at each county level and is subordinated to the National Authority for Control. Recently, through the Decision of Government for setting up the structure of the new re-created Ministry of Environment and Water Management, legal provisions have been introduced allowing the co-ordination (without subordination) of National Environmental Guard by the Ministry of Environment and Water Management. It should be noted here that the legislation in force also mandates responsibilities for enforcement at the level of “competent environmental authorities” - regional and local environmental agencies, but the only body responsible with inspection is the National Guard. It should be also mentioned that the Water Administration “Apele Romane” is in charge with enforcement and inspection activities to ensure compliance with water management regulations.Legal measures when the Operator Fails to Meet the Permit Conditions There are two categories of situations when the operators fail to meet the permit conditions. The first category refers to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Law no. 137/1995, as subsequently modified, which specifies the fines and administrative measures to be taken for each specific situation when the provisions of the law are broken by an operator.The second category of situations refers specifically to the IPPC legal requirements (EGO no. 34/2002 – Law 645/2003) and covers specifically the permits issued with a compliance schedule (see section 2.1 above). When the deadline for compliance expires the installations that do not meet the criteria imposed by the compliance schedule should cease their activity (art. 1, EGO no. 34/2002). The environment permits for the installations operating on the basis of an approved conformation programme are issued with validity term on the period each measure included in this programme is accomplished. Non-observance of deadlines and measures included in the conformation programme leads to cessation of the environment authorization’s validity and to suspension of installation activity until the programme is achieved. Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 74 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - RomaniaD.4.4. Institutional Capacity at Central LevelTable D.4.15 Institutional capacity at central levelActivity No. of Are there Comments staff* sufficient staff for the task (Y/N) Preparing Legislation 5 no For the needs to write a new piece of legislation or to change the existing ones, as long as most legal acts have already been prepared, international and local consultants are used. ICIM Bucharest is also involved in this activity by preparing support studies. Preparing General 3 no International and local consultants are used, as Guidance Documents well as ICIM Bucharest In the future this activity will be the task of NEPA Preparing Internal 2 no International and local consultants are used, as Procedural Manuals well as ICIM Bucharest In the future this activity will be the task of NEPA Developing BAT no BAT references will be transposed directly in reference documents Romania immediately after their adoption Maintaining national 1 no ICIM Bucharest developed the first inventory of registers (on IPPC installations, as well as the first variant of installations, EPER. emissions, EPER In the future this activity will be the task of NEPA etc) Legal Advisers 2 no Review of legislation drafts is performed by the competent staff of the Ministry Legal Department Providing advice to 5 no This is a day by day activity made by all persons the regional/local within the department. authorities In the future this will be the attribution of NEPA and respectively REPA-s Support staff 0 no No position is provided for support staff in the actual organizational chart of the ministryFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 75 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - RomaniaD.4.5. Institutional Capacity at Regional/Local LevelTable D.4.16 Institutional capacity at local/regional level Line Activity Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 no Arges Bacau Bistrita Galati Olt Sibiu Valcea 1 No. IPPC installations 57 74 18 81 11 16 23 2 No. permits 2004 5 5 2 5 - 6 3 3 No. permit 2005 8 5 7 5 11 10 14 4 No. Staff for issuing 4 5 4 6 5 7 5 IPPC permits 5 No. Support staff 3 8 - - - 3 1 6 No. Staff for maintaining 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 registers 7 No. Inspectors 4 5 4 6 5 7 5 8 No. Support staff 2 1 - - - - 1 9 No. Legal advisers 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 No. Computers in IPPC 4 5 4 2 6 6 5 Dept. 11 Is register electronic yes yes yes yes yes no no (Yes/No) 12 Is there an electronic yes yes yes yes yes yes yes connection with the central authority Yes/No) 13 Is public information no yes no yes no no no available on-line (Yes/No)Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 76 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - RomaniaComments:Line 1: The largest number of IPPC installations that have to be authorised was declared for Bacau, Galati, and Valcea Line 2: The number of IPPC permits to be issued in 2004 was declared only by Bacau, Sibiu and Bistrita pilot region. Line 3: The number of IPPC permits to be issued in 2005 was declared by all pilot regions except Valcea pilot region. Line 4: The declared figures represent the staff within the Permitting Departments which vary from 4 to 7 persons. These personnel are appointed not only for IPPC but also for EIA procedures. There are complaints on the lack of personnel and the need to hire new staff for REPA-s Line 5: As support staff the answers of pilot regions EPA-s indicate either the databases or the laboratories personnel Line 6: Usually there is only one person responsible to maintain /update IPPC register Line 7: The reported numbers represent the personnel that will receive the obligation to verify the conformity with the permits conditions, but not having the right of punishment for non- compliance Line 8: When declared, figures represent specialists occasionally participating in Technical Review Committee Line 9: Declared legal advisers - lawyers - are not trained in environmental issues Line 10: Reported data represents the number of PC-s in the whole Permitting Compartment Line 11: Only some EPA-s have electronic register for IPPC applications. The electronic register is not organized by using a specific programme, although adequate software was provided to the MEWM within the project EUROPEAID/112525/D/SV/RO Line 12: The electronic connexion with the central authority is ensured by e-mail and web pages Line 13: Only few EPA-s already have web pages available to the publicD.4.6. Capacity for monitoringSelf-monitoring is the task of each operator and it is achieved by using its own laboratories - when existent – or laboratories of other state or private entities performing analytical services under contracts. There are not sufficient such laboratories and only seldom they are accredited by national or international organisations.For controlling the conformation with conditions imposed through permits, at present, each local EPA (LEPA) is provided with a laboratory and performs some analyses for monitoring emissions and the quality of environment. The amount of equipment differs from one location to another. In general, the analytical capacity and laboratory staffing is not sufficient. These laboratories are not yet accredited, but there is a planned action for accreditation. Future REPA-s laboratories will be developed on the basis of LEPA laboratories through specific investment programmes (see table below). Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 77 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - RomaniaTable D.4.17 Regional/Local EPA which are/ will be equipped for IPPC reasonsRegion Regional EPA-s included into Proposed REPA/LEPA for Environmental EuropeAid/114901/D/S/RO receiving additional Protection IPPC Investment Component equipment for IPPC Agency monitoring 1 Bacau Bacau Iasi 2 Galati Galati Constanta Buzau 3 Pitesti Pitesti Ploiesti 4 Craiova Craiova5 Timisoara Timisoara Timisoara6 Cluj Cluj Baia Mare 7 Sibiu Sibiu Brasov Oradea 8 Bucharest BucharestD.5. Number of IPPC operators in Romania by region Table D.5.18 Number of IPPC operators by counties and development regions (Development regions are establishing by the GD no. 125/2003) Name and number of Counties within the regions Number of IPPC operators in 2004 regions Bacau 18 Botosani 5 Iasi 21 Region 1 – North -East Neamt 20 Suceava 14 Vaslui 12 Total 90 Galati 10 Braila 16 Buzau 11 Region 2 –South-East Constanta 22 Tulcea 8 Vrancea 10 Total 77 Region 3 – Muntenia Arges 18 South Calarasi 17 Giurgiu 12 Dambovita 25 Ialomita 19Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 78 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - RomaniaName and number of Counties within the regions Number of IPPC operators in 2004 regions Prahova 27 Teleorman 19 Total 137 Dolj 3 Gorj 10 Region 4- Mehedinti 3 Region 4 –Oltenia South- 15 West Olt Valcea 6 Total 37 Timis 22 Arad 11 Region 5 – West Caras 20 Hunedoara 24 Total 77 Cluj 16 Bihor 23 Salaj 10 Region 6 – North-West Satu Mare 10 Maramures 12 Bistrita 18 Total 89 Sibiu 16 Alba 15 Brasov 37 Region 7 – Centre Covasna 6 Harghita 7 Mures 35 Total 116 Bucharest 31 Region 8 -Bucharest Ilfov 8 Total 39Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 79 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - RomaniaTable D.5.19 Number of installations and permits per pilot region Nr Questions Pilot-regions crt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Arges Bacau Bistrita Galati Olt Sibiu Valcea 1 Total No. Installations 57 74 18 81 11 16 23 2 No. existing installations 57 74 18 79 11 14 23 3 No. new installations - - - 2 - 2 - 4 No. IPPC permits already issued ------5 Expected No. permits to be issued in 2004 5 5 2 5 - 6 3 6 Expected No. permits to be issued in 2005 8 5 7 5 11 10 14 7 Comments on 2004 permits -  activity code as mentioned in the Annex 1 of GEO 34/2002 1.2 (e.i.-12) 1.2 (e.i. –1) 4.2.e.(e.i.-1) 1.1.(e.i.-8) 2.1 (e.i.- 4) e.i.-1 with  n.i. – new installation 4.1 (e.i.-12) 4.1 (e.i.-9); 4.2.d.(e.i.-1) 2.6. (e.i-1) 2.5.a (e.i.-1) 4.1. b, 4.1.d,  e.i.- existing installation 1.1 (e.i.-7) 4.2. (e.i.-5); 6.6.b(e.i.-1) 2.5.b (e.i.-1) 4.1. f, 4.2 b, 5.4 (e.i.-1) 6.1. (e.i.-1) 3.5. (e.i.-1) 2.5.a (n.i-1) 4.2 c, 4.4 6.6 (e.i.-1) 4.1. (e.i. –1) 2.6. (e.i.-1) 2.6 (e.i-2) activities 6.6.b (e.i-1) 4.2 (e.i-1) 4.1 j (e.i.-1) 8 Comments on 2005 permits 2.3 (e.i.-1) 1.1. (e.i.-3) 1.1 (e.i.-1) 6.6. a (e.i.-1)  activity code as mentioned in the 2.6 (e.i.-2) 6.6. (e.i.-18) 2.2.(e.i.-1) 2.6. (e.i.-1) 2.5. (e.i.-1) 2.6 (e.i-1) 6.6 b (ei-2) Annex 1 of GEO 34/2002 6.6 (e.i.-5) 6.6. (e.i.-7) 5.4 (e.i.-2) 5.4. (e.i.-1; 2.5. (e.i.-1) 3.3 (e.i-1) 6.6.a (ei-4)  n.i. – new installation 5.4 (e.i.-1) 2.6. (e.i.-1) 5.4. (n.i.-2) 2.3 (e.i.-1) 3.5 (e.i-1) 4.1 f (ei-1)  e.i.- existing installation 6.7 (e.i.-1) 3.5. (e.i.-1) 1.3. (e.i.-6) 2.5. (e.i.-1) 6.3 (e.i-1) 2.2 b (e.i.-1) 2.6 (e.i.-1) 4.1. (e.i.-1) 2.1. (e.i.-7) 6.6. (e.i.-1) 6.6.b (e. i -2) 1.1 (e.i.- 4) 2.4 (e.i.-1) 2.2. (e.i.-18) 6.8. (e.i.-1) 6.6.a (e.i-1) 4.1. j (e.i.-3) 3.1 (e.i.-3) 3.1. (e.i.-5) 6.4. (e.i.-1) 2.6 (e.i-1) 4.4 (e.i.-1) 2.3. (e.i.-7) 6.4. (e.i.-1) 4.1.j (e.i-1) 2.5 b (e.i.-1) 2.3. (e.i.-1) 4.1. (e.i.-1) 5.4 (n.i-1) 6.5 (e.i.-1) 1.1. (e.i.-19) 2.2. (e.i.-1) 5.4 (e.i.-1) 6.4.b (e.i.-1) 4.1. (e.i.-1)Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 80 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - RomaniaD.5.1. Deadlines for Integrated Permits The deadline by which the new installations must have an integrated permit in order to operate is dictated by the accession time proposed for Romania to be in 2007. Thus, the “existing new” installations must have an integrated permit no later than 31 December 2006. The deadline by which “existing new” installations must have applied for an integrated permit is not clearly specified in any national legislation. However, any new IPPC installation which was subject to an EIA, cannot start to operate without an environmental integrated permit.As mentioned before, the deadline by which the “existing installations” must have an integrated permit in order to operate is dictated by the provisions of the Directive 96/61 (taking into account the accession time). Thus, the existing installations must have an integrated permit by 30 October 2007. The deadline by which the existing installations must have applied for an integrated permit is not specified in any legislation. However, the framework law 137/1995, as consequently modified, specifies that any installation cannot operate without an environmental permit. Legal ProvisionsAs the interpretation provided above on deadlines for granting the integrated permits are more logical than rigorously “ad litteram”, the legal requirements are quoted below. Ministerial Order no. 818/2003, Art. 17 (1): “The elaboration of the draft compliance schedule for existing installations shall be made depending on the date of commissioning the activity/installation. (2) For the activities/installations commissioned before 30 October 1999, the deadline for finalising the implementation of the compliance schedules is 30 October 2007. (3) For the activities/installations commissioned in the period 30 October 1999 – 4 April 2002, the deadline for finalising the implementation of the compliance schedules is 31 December 2006”.It should be stressed again, as mentioned before, in the section 2.1, the contradiction in terms of deadlines for compliance within different legal acts. The deadline mentioned in the GEO 34/2002 – Law 645/2002 for compliance of the existing installations is 2015. D.6. Procedural IssuesD.6.1. The Integrated Permit The legal requirements for assessing the permit application, including preliminary assessment made by the local environmental authority, as well as the final assessment at regional level and consultation of other authorities are provided by the Ministerial Order no. 818/2003 for the approval of the integrated environmental permit procedure. Both GEO 34/2002 – Law 645/2002 and MO 818/2003 provide the legal requirements for applying BAT, establishing the compliance schedule, when applicable, and reviewing permit conditions. The Ministerial Order no. 860/2002 on EIA procedure provides legal EIA requirements for substantial changes of installations. Requirements for applying for a new permit in case of substantial changes of an installation are contain in the MO no. 818/2003. The MO no.1144/2002 on setting up the EPER establishes conditions for self-monitoring. Provisions for determining permit conditions are provided by the National General Guidelines for the implementation of GEO no. 34/2002 – Law no. 645/2002, approved by the Ministerial Order no. 36/2004.Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 81 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - RomaniaFurthermore, secondary legislation for the implementation of the IPPC Directive is obviously needed. This becomes critical when talking about certain sensitive issues, such as determining emission limit values. The only “internal” procedure manual for IPPC to date is the National General Guidelines (MO no. 36/2004). These Guidelines are merely translating the provisions of the British similar Guidelines (general ones, for applicants and authorities - versions 2000), but do not cover sufficiently detailed all issues of the integrated permitting procedure.Emission modelling tools were developed within previous bilateral or PHARE financed projects, but these to not seem to be available to the authorities around the country as a whole. There are no emission modelling tools available for specific installations. At this moment there is nothing available to ensure that the permit conditions are written in clear, precise and unambiguous terms and, nevertheless, possible to be enforced. As mentioned in the section 2.1, the inspectors from the National Environmental Guard belong to a different authority (National Authority for Control) and further arrangements are needed to enable both environmental and control authorities to access their specific documents, including permits and inspection reports, respectively. According to the existing legal requirements, there are not any procedural defects applicable nationally, nor to one or more pilot regions. D.6.2. Trans-boundary Considerations The provisions of the IPPC Directive regarding the consultation procedures when the operation of an installation is likely to have significant negative effects on the environment in another Member State are transposed into the Romanian legislation by the GEO no. 34/2002 – Law no. 645/2002 and detailed by the MO no. 818/2003, article 27: “(1) In the case of the activities/installations whose operation might have significant impacts on the environment of another country, the competent authority for environmental protection will inform the central authority for environmental protection within 10 days of accepting the application. (2) The central authority for environmental protection will inform the central authority for environmental protection of the affected state, under terms of reciprocity and according to the provisions of the bilateral collaboration agreements. (3) The central authority for environmental protection takes the final decision of issuing or of rejecting the integrated environmental permit, only after the consultations with the other states are finished. The central authority for environmental protection takes into consideration any observation received from the other states”.It should be noted as well that, likely to the implementation of the EIA procedure in the transboundary context, this provisions should be introduced into the bilateral collaboration agreement/treaties/conventions between Romania and its neighbouring States. No other IPPC specific requirements exist so far with respect to the transboundary context. The national IPPC legislation does not provide any specific legal requirements related to the procedure for consultation with other MS or non EU states that have installations likely to negatively affect the environment of the national territory. However, some of these issues are covered by UN Conventions ratified by Romania.D.6.3. Issues of Confidentiality The (only) specific provisions related to the issues of confidentiality contained in the IPPC legislation are provided by the art. 30 of MO no. 818/2003: “The information sent for public consultation is the information required to be provided to the public by the Aarhus Convention, information without a commercial value or national security”.Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 82 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - RomaniaThe issues of confidentiality are also covered by the national legislation (GD no. 1150/2002) transposing the provisions of Directive 90/313/EEC (without amendments) on the freedom of environmental information and secondary legislation (MO no. 1182/2002) for the implementation of this Directive together with the provisions of Aarhus Convention. D.6.4. Emission Modelling Taking into account that the Romanian authorities got since 1996 a lot of practices on dealing with a permitting procedure which involved (integrate) the other authorities, the main changes brought by the new integrated procedure are basically related to determining the emission limit values (ELVs)under the IPPC conditions. The IPPC legal provisions on emission limit values specify that the authority shall provide the local specific conditions for emission limit values to operators. It is suggested that, for Romania, determining ELVs may represent the critical obstacle on issuing integrated permits for most of the installations, unless modelling techniques are provided and applied in a consistent manner all around the country. This aspect was taken into account when asking EU assistance through the next PHARE programme (2004-2006). The main assistance shall consist in 9 twinning projects, one to each of the 8 regional environmental agencies and one to NEPA for their co-ordination, assisting the REPA-s on their daily activities, mainly on the permitting process.D.6.5. Access to Information and Public Participation The Chapter IX of MO no. 818/2003 provides the rules for the access to information and the public participation in the procedure of issuing the integrated environmental permit.The access of the public to the information is “ensured and guaranteed” (art. 46) by the environmental authorities, by: a) making available to the public all the permitting applications of the new installations or of substantial modification of the existing installations so that, in relation with the necessary period and the informing modality, the public can tell his opinion before the decision taking; b) making available to the public the decision taken and of a copy after the issued permit, as well as a copy after each update thereof; c) making available to the public the results of the emission supervising, received from the activity developer/operator according to the permitting conditions. The public participation to the procedure of issuing the integrated environmental permit is also ensured through specific provisions, such as:- ”The activity developer/operator must make public the application for the integrated environmental permit – inclusively the application for the essential changing of the operating modality and the updating of the permitting conditions – simultaneously with the submitting of the documentation, inclusively in the mass-media but not restrictive, in a local/national/regional newspaper” (art. 47). - “The public authority for environmental protection establishes the final decision regarding the granting or rejecting of the integrated environmental permit only after the consultations with the other states are closed. The public central authority for environmental protection must take into consideration any observation received from the other states” (art. 48 – (1)); “ The procedure regarding the international communications related to the applying of the provisions of paragraph (1) will be established through bilateral agreements with the other neighbour states, at the proposal of the central authority for environmental protection” (art. 48 – (2)); . - “The documentation for the supporting of the integrated environmental permit, together with all the relevant data, except the ones that represent state secrets and commercial information for which confidentiality is required, must be available to the public for consultation at the headquarters of the competent authority for environmental protection or at the headquarters of the local city hall from the area where the installation is located” (art. 49); - “The public has the right to present in writing or verbally the comments on the application for obtaining the integrated environmental permit, within 30 days from the submission of the application” (art. 50 – (1)).Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 83 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - Romania- “The justified comments of the public will be recorded in the minutes of the public debate and they can be submitted/sent in written to the premises of the competent authority for environmental protection or can be sent by electronic mail” (art. 50 – (2)). - “The competent authority for environmental protection sends in writing to the activity developer/operator the observations received from the public and display them on their own website within 5 days from the specified date in paragraph (1) (art. 50 – (3)); - “Public access may be refused as regarding the following information: a) the confidential minutes of the public authority, where the confidentiality is ensured by law; b) the documents regarding the international relations the public security or the national defence; c) the industrial or commercial information, when the confidentiality is ensured by regulations at national or local level for protecting the legitimate economical interests, inclusively the interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the statistical data and taxes; d) the intellectual property rights; e) the personal data and/or the confidential folders regarding the personnel, when the person gives the consent of not revealing this information to the public and when the confidentiality is ensured through regulations at national and local level” (art. 51 – (1)). - “The refusal of the access to the information mentioned in paragraph (1) will be done according to the legislation in force” (art. 51 – (2)); - “The content of the decision, inclusively the copy of the integrated environmental permit, taken within the process of developing of the present procedure – except the data classified as state secrets and the confidentiality of the commercial information – there must be made available to the interested public by the competent authority for environmental protection, at its headquarters and the one of the local city hall, on the period of the installation functioning” (art. 52 – (1)); - “Together with the publication of the decision there must be displayed the reasons and the considerations on which the decision is based on, inclusively the information regarding the process of public participation” (art. 52 – (2); - “The publication of a decision must be accompanied by practical information regarding the public access to the content of the relevant administrative and juridical procedures” (art. 52 – (3); - “The data referring to the emissions coming from the installation must be made available to the public on a hard/electronic support in order to be consulted at the headquarters of the local administration in whose area is the installation” (art. 53); - “The national register of evidence of the integrated environmental permits is public” (art. 54); - “The national register of evidence of the integrated environmental permits must be made available for consultation on the web page of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, Water and Environment” (art. 55).National Register for Emitted Pollutants The National Guidance on the Register of Emitted Pollutants (EPER Guidance) was prepared and approved by the Ministerial Order no. 1140/2002 and set up according to the Ministerial Order no. 1144/2002 transposing the EU requirements related to EPER.The responsible body for EPER is the Technical Secretariat within the department for Industrial Pollution Control of MEWM. The register contain the emissions in water and air for all pollutants exceeding threshold values as specified in the annex 1 of the Decision 2000/479/EC on the EPER. The Ministerial Order no. 1144/2002 for setting up the EPER, specifies that the first report on emissions shall be made available on-line after its approval by the Inter-ministerial Committee in December 2003. The local environmental authorities are responsible for preparing and reporting to the Technical Secretariat the emissions from each operator of one of the activities listed in the annex 1 of GEO no. 34/2002 – Law no. 645/2002. The report should contain every pollutant emissions in water and air, which are exceeding the threshold value specified in the annex 1 of the MO no. 1144/2002.The emission values are reported for each operator and each installation on a standard form presented in the annex A2 of the MO no. 1144/2002Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 84 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - RomaniaAccording to the provisions of the art. 5 (2) of the MO no. 1144/2002, the Technical Secretariat for EPER shall report the information contain in EPER to the European Environmental Agency. D.6.6. Appeals “In accordance with the legal provisions in force, the complaints against the decision of granting the integrated environmental permit, issued by the competent regional authority for environmental protection, are addressed to the Administrative Appeal Body from the central authority for environmental protection” (MO no. 818/2003, art. 43).Disputes generated by releasing or rejecting, reviewing, suspension or cancelling of the integrated permit/ solves environmental permit according to Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts no. 29/1990, with the further completions and amendments.“The disputes generated by the non-compliance of the public participation at the procedure of issuing the integrated environmental permit, will be solved in court by submitting a notification within 30 days from the date of taking the decision of issuing the integrated environmental permit” (MO no. 818/2003, art. 45).The submission of the complaints to the Administrative Appeal Body, their analysis and solution, are performed without charging taxes and tariffs.Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 85 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - Romania ANNEX 1 Total number of installations in Romania by categoryCategories of industrial activities Annex I Definition Total number of code of installations the sector 1. Energy industries 186 1.1. Combustion installations with a rated thermal input exceeding 50 MW 175 1.2. Mineral oil and gas refineries 11 1.3. Coke ovens 1.4. Coal gasification and liquefaction plants 2. Production and processing of metals 79* 2.1. Metal ore (including sulphide ore) roasting or sintering installations.2.2. Installations for the production of pig iron or steel (primary or secondary fusion) including continuous casting, with a capacity exceeding 2,5 tonnes per hour2.3.(a). Installations for the processing of ferrous metals. Hot-rolling mills with a capacity exceeding 20 tonnes of crude steel per hour 2.3.(b). Installations for the processing of ferrous metals. Smitheries with hammers the energy of which exceeds 50 kilojoule per hammer, where the calorific power used exceeds 20 MW 2.3.(c). Installations for the processing of ferrous metals. Application of protective fused metal coats with an input exceeding 2 tonnes of crude steel per hour 2.4. Ferrous metal foundries with a production capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day 2.5.(a). Installations for the production of non-ferrous crude metals from ore, concentrates or secondary raw materials by metallurgical, chemical or electrolytic processes 2.5.(b). Installations for the smelting, including the alloy age, of non-ferrous metals, including recovered products, (refining, foundry casting, etc.) with a melting capacity exceeding 4 tonnes per day for lead and cadmium or 20 tonnes per day for all other metals 2.6. Installations for surface treatment of metals and plastic materials using an electrolytic or chemical process where the volume of the treatment vats exceeds 30 m3 3. Mineral industry 57* 3.1. Installations for the production of cement clinker in rotary kilns with a production capacity exceeding 500 tonnes per day or lime in rotary kilns with a production capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day or in other furnaces with a production capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day 3.2. Installations for the production of asbestos and the manufacture of asbestos-based products 3.3. Installations for the manufacture of glass including glass fibre with a melting capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day 3.4. Installations for melting mineral substances including the production of mineral fibres with a melting capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day 3.5. Installations for the manufacture of ceramic products by firing, in particular roofing tiles, bricks, refractory bricks, tiles, stoneware or porcelain, with a production capacity exceeding 75 tonnes per day, and/or with a kiln capacity exceeding 4 mł and with a setting density per kiln exceeding 300 kg/mł 4. Chemical industry 65* 4.1. Chemical installations for the production of basic organic chemicals 4.2. Chemical installations for the production of basic inorganic chemicals 4.3. Chemical installations for the production of phosphorous-, nitrogen- or potassium-based fertilizers (simple or compound fertilizers) 4.4. Chemical installations for the production of basic plant health products and of biocidesFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 86 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I - IR – IPPC - RomaniaAnnex I Definition Total number of code of installations the sector 4.5. Installations using a chemical or biological process for the production of basic pharmaceutical products 4.6. Chemical installations for the production of explosives 5. Waste management 128* 5.1. Installations for the disposal or recovery of hazardous waste as defined in the list referred to in Article 1 (4) of Directive 91/689/EEC, as defined in Annexes II A and II B (operations R1, R5, R6, R8 and R9) to Directive 75/442/EEC and in Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, with a capacity exceeding 10 tonnes per day 5.2. Installations for the incineration of municipal waste, with a capacity exceeding 3 tonnes per hour 5.3. Installations for the disposal of non-hazardous waste as defined in Annex II A to Directive 75/442/EEC under headings D8 and D9, with a capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day 5.4. Landfills receiving more than 10 tonnes per day or with a total capacity exceeding 25 000 tonnes, excluding landfills of inert waste 6. Other activities 202 6.1.(a). Industrial plants for the production of pulp from timber or other fibrous materials 12 6.1.(b) Industrial plants for the production of paper and board with a production capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day 6.2. Plants for the pre-treatment (operations such as washing, bleaching, mercerization) or dyeing of fibres or textiles where the treatment capacity 6 exceeds 10 tonnes per day 6.3. Plants for the tanning of hides and skins where the treatment capacity 1 exceeds 12 tonnes of finished products per day 6.4.(a). Slaughterhouses with a carcase production capacity greater than 50 tonnes per day 6.4.(b). Treatment and processing intended for the production of food products from: animal raw materials (other than milk) with a finished product production 20 capacity greater than 75 tonnes per day vegetable raw materials with a finished product production capacity greater than 300 tonnes per day (average value on a quarterly basis) 6.4.(c). Treatment and processing of milk, the quantity of milk received being greater than 200 tonnes per day (average value on an annual basis) 6.5. Installations for the disposal or recycling of animal carcases and animal 5 waste with a treatment capacity exceeding 10 tonnes per day 6.6. Installations for the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs with more than: 40 000 places for poultry 2 000 places for production pigs (over 30 kg), or 145 750 places for sows 6.7. Installations for the surface treatment of substances, objects or products using organic solvents, in particular for dressing, printing, coating, 11 degreasing, waterproofing, sizing, painting, cleaning or impregnating, with a consumption capacity of more than 150 kg per hour or more than 200 tonnes per year 6.8. Installations for the production of carbon (hard-burnt coal) or 2 electrographite by means of incineration or graphitization Others Any other categories of installations subject to national integrated permits, not covered by the IPPC Directive TOTAL NUMBER OF INSTALLATIONS 716* Where one operator carries out several activities falling under the same heading in the same installation or on the same site, the capacities of such activities were added together.Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 87 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex II - TNA – EIA - RomaniaE. Annex II: Conclusions on the Training Needs Assessment - EIAE.1. Overall Staff Capacities, i.e. Characteristics of Staff Involved in EIA Determination in RomaniaThe total number of staff involved in EIA within Environmental Protection Agencies (EPA) of the 7 pilot regions in Romania which is proposed to be trained is 27, out of these 5 are chemists, 2 – biologists, 14 – engineers, and 6 are representing other professions. Their media specialisation is 15 - in water, 11 - in waste, 5 - in air and 2 - in other areas. Some persons are specialised in two areas. No lawyers are employed for EIA activities.The average professional experience of the trainees involved in EIA determinations is of 14 years, and the majority of the staff is medium ranked (4 juniors, 14 medium ranked, 9 high ranked). They have been involved in a large number of EIAs based on the former Ministerial Order 125/1996 which required a procedure that was not totally in compliance with the EIA Directive. Considering the recent legislation in accordance with the Directive the questioned personnel participated only into a small number of applications (Arges - 8, Bacau – 3, Bistrita – 0, Galati – 2, Olt – 3, Sibiu – 2, Valcea – 2)The trainees have been exposed in general to little training except the personnel within Bacau EPA, which has reported in average 7 training days/person. Trainees in Sibiu and Olt (Slatina) EPA-s have received 3.25 and respectively 2.7 training days in average.The less trained trainees are in Bistrita and Galati EPA-s with respectively 1.0 and 0.7 average training days. There are significant regional variations between the personnel inside the same region. For example : - in Bacau pilot region: 2 persons reported 12 and 13 training days while the other 2 persons – no training - in Valcea pilot region: 2 persons have 4 training days each and 2 persons - any training Other Comments  The staff in the permitting Departments is not sufficient (considering that each person has many duties) and there is a stringent need to be supplemented in order to apply the requirements of the EIA Directive. As professions, the engineers represent 52% while the chemists and other professions – 48%. No lawyers are involved in EIA. Most personnel is specialised in water protection (55%) and only a small number in air quality protection (18.5). The largest number of staff is medium positioned and qualified (52%); the junior staff represent only 15%. None of the targeted personnel had participated into a large number of EIA procedures as required in the Directive because the legislation which completely transposed the EIA Directives is quite new. Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 88 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex II - TNA – EIA - Romania E.2. Subject Matter Knowledge Capacities and ExperiencesThe following paragraphs present the details of the TNA. Reference is made to the TNA tick-off tables. In order to do justice to the particularities of the pilot regions, the tables are arranged region-wise. Legend:K = knowledge E = experience(a) = very knowledgeable/very experienced = 3.1 –2.8 average score (b) = knowledgeable/some experience = 2.7 - 1.8 average score (c) = novice/very little experience = 1.7 - 0.8 average score (d) = acknowledgeable/no experience = lower than 0.8 average scoreK E Relevance of EU membership to EIA pilot region 1 – ARGES a b pilot region 2 – BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA b c pilot region 4 – GALATI b b pilot region 5 – OLT b c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA b bK E Key principles of EIA pilot region 1 – ARGES b b pilot region 2 – BACAU a b pilot region 3 – BISTRITA b c pilot region 4 – GALATI b c pilot region 5 – OLT b c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b b pilot region 7 – VALCEA b bK E Legal acts - knowledge pilot region 1 - ARGES b c pilot region 2 - BACAU b b pilot region 3 – BISTRITA b b pilot region 4 - GALATI b c pilot region 5 - OLT b c pilot region 6 – SIBIU a b pilot region 7 – VALCEA b bK E EIA procedures pilot region 1 - ARGES b c pilot region 2 - BACAU b b pilot region 3 – BISTRITA b b pilot region 4 - GALATI b c pilot region 5 - OLT b c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b b pilot region 7 – VALCEA b bK E EU directives pilot region 1 - ARGES c d pilot region 2 - BACAU b b pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c c pilot region 4 - GALATI b d pilot region 5 - OLT c c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA b cFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 89 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex II - TNA – EIA - RomaniaK E Screening pilot region 1 - ARGES b c pilot region 2 - BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA b b pilot region 4 - GALATI b c pilot region 5 - OLT b c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b b pilot region 7 – VALCEA b bK E Scoping pilot region 1 - ARGES b c pilot region 2 - BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA b c pilot region 4 - GALATI b c pilot region 5 - OLT b c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA b bK E Reporting pilot region 1 - ARGES b c pilot region 2 - BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c d pilot region 4 - GALATI b c pilot region 5 - OLT c c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b b pilot region 7 – VALCEA b cK E Mitigation measures pilot region 1 - ARGES c c pilot region 2 - BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c d pilot region 4 - GALATI b c pilot region 5 - OLT c c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA b bK E EIA reviews pilot region 1 - ARGES b c pilot region 2 - BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c d pilot region 4 - GALATI b c pilot region 5 - OLT b c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b b pilot region 7 – VALCEA b cK E Decision making pilot region 1 - ARGES b c pilot region 2 - BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA b b pilot region 4 - GALATI b c pilot region 5 - OLT b c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA b cFinal Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 90 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex II - TNA – EIA - RomaniaK E Monitoring pilot region 1 - ARGES b c pilot region 2 - BACAU b b pilot region 3 – BISTRITA b b pilot region 4 - GALATI b c pilot region 5 - OLT c c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA c cK E Public Participation pilot region 1 - ARGES b c pilot region 2 - BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA b c pilot region 4 - GALATI b c pilot region 5 - OLT c c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b b pilot region 7 – VALCEA b bK E Preparation of plans for Public Participation pilot region 1 - ARGES b c pilot region 2 - BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA b c pilot region 4 - GALATI c c pilot region 5 - OLT b c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA b bK E Procedures error pilot region 1 - ARGES b c pilot region 2 - BACAU c c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c d pilot region 4 - GALATI c d pilot region 5 - OLT c c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA b bE.3. Conclusion on Knowledge and Experience of Staff Dealing with EIA DeterminationIn term of knowledge, the EIA involved personnel in the 7 pilot zones could be classified as: having medium knowledge (scores 2.36 - 2.0) – in Bacau Sibiu, Arges, Valcea, Galati  having little knowledge (1.76 – 1.74) - in Olt and BistritaIn term of experience, at the inferior limit of the medium level (1.84 - 1.80): personnel in Valcea, Sibiu, Bacau  only little experience (1.41-1.74): personnel in Arges, Olt, Galati, Bistrita.It results that the best professionally prepared trainees could be considered those of EPA-s Bacau, Sibiu, Valcea and Arges. The less prepared is the trainees in Olt and Bistrita regions.Final Version 5-11-04 CMDC Joint Venture 91 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex II - TNA – IPPC - RomaniaF. Annex II: Conclusions on the Training Needs Assessment - IPPCF.1. Overall Staff Capacities, Characteristics of Staff Involved in IPPC Permits in Romania’s Pilot RegionsThe total number of personnel involved in IPPC permitting who were proposed as trainees in the 7 pilot regions of Romania was found to be 28, out of these 6 are chemists, 1 - biologist, 15 - engineers, no lawyers and 6 are representing other professions. Their media specialisation is 18 - in water, 8 - in waste, 5 - in air and no person in other media. The average professional experience of the trainees involved in IPPC permitting is 17.5 years, the majority of the trainees is medium ranked (3 - junior, 16 - medium, 9 – high positioned). At present, they are involved in a total of 23 IPPC permits as lead and they contribute to another 20 IPPC permits. The trainees have been exposed in general to little training. So, the most trained staff is within EPA Sibiu – in average 5 training days, followed by EPA Slatina – in average 3.25 training days and EPA-s in Valcea, Bacau, Pitesti – 1.25 -1.8 average training days. The less trained staff is in Bistrita and Galati EPA-s with respectively 1.0 and 0.7 average training days. There are significant regional variations between the personnel inside the same region. For example :  in Sibiu pilot region : 3 persons with 3-6 training days and 1 person – no training  in Valcea pilot region: 3 persons with 3 training days and 2 persons - no training Other Comments  The staff in local/ regional EPA-s is not organised in specialised IPPC or EIA offices. The same personnel is dealing both with EIA and IPPC issues. The staff within the Permitting Departments of EPA-s is not sufficient, considering that each person has different duties and that the number of IPPC installations within the pilot zones, to be analysed in the next 2.5 years, is very large (265 – as seen from table 4.3 of the Capacity Report). Engineers represent 53% of the personnel, followed by chemists and other professions – 21% each. No lawyers are active as legal advisers in the IPPC field. Most personnel is specialised in water (64%) and waste ( 28.5%); only 17.8% is declared specialised in air quality protection. As staff position, the majority is medium qualified respectively 57% (16 persons), 32% is high positioned, while only 11% (3 persons) are junior staff. Taking into account the number of IPPC applications the staff is involved in, it results that only EPA Bacau personnel has some experience (lead - 15 applications and contributed to – 10 applications). Staff in EPA Bistrita was not involved in any IPPC application, while Sibiu and Valcea personnel lead/ contributed to 3 applications each. Considering the average number of training days it results that only EPA Sibiu personnel could be considered as trained but not exactly sufficient (1 person not trained). The personnel of 3 pilot regions (Arges, Bacau, Valcea) is insufficiently trained, while Bistrita and Galati staff is the least trained of all pilot regions. Within the pilot regions EPA-s there are 6 persons that received no IPPC training at all. Final Version 16-06-04 CMDC Joint Venture 92 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex II - TNA – IPPC - RomaniaF.2. Subject Matter Knowledge Capacities and ExperiencesThe following paragraphs present the details of the TNA. Reference is made to the TNA tick-off tables. In order to do justice to the particularities of the pilot regions, the tables are arranged region-wise. Legend:K = knowledge E = experience(a) = very knowledgeable/very experienced = 3.1 –2.8 average score (b) = knowledgeable/some experience = 2.7 - 1.8 average score (c) = novice/very little experience = 1.7 - 0.8 average score (d) = acknowledgeable/no experience = lower than 0.8 average scoreK E Legal acts pilot region 1 – ARGES c d pilot region 2 – BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c c pilot region 4 – GALATI b c pilot region 5 – OLT c d pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA b cK E Competent authorities and contacts details pilot region 1 - ARGES c d pilot region 2 - BACAU c c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA b c pilot region 4 - GALATI b d pilot region 5 - OLT c c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b b pilot region 7 – VALCEA b dK E Applications pilot region 1 - ARGES b c pilot region 2 - BACAU b b pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c c pilot region 4 - GALATI b d pilot region 5 - OLT b c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b b pilot region 7 – VALCEA c cK E Permit in general pilot region 1 - ARGES c d pilot region 2 - BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA b d pilot region 4 - GALATI c d pilot region 5 - OLT d d pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA c cFinal Version 16-06-04 CMDC Joint Venture 93 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex II - TNA – IPPC - RomaniaK E Emission limit values (ELVs) pilot region 1 - ARGES c d pilot region 2 - BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c d pilot region 4 - GALATI c d pilot region 5 - OLT c d pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA d dK E BAT abd BREFs pilot region 1 - ARGES d d pilot region 2 - BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c d pilot region 4 - GALATI c d pilot region 5 - OLT c d pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA c cK E Self-monitoring programmes and EMS pilot region 1 - ARGES c d pilot region 2 - BACAU b b pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c d pilot region 4 - GALATI c d pilot region 5 - OLT c c pilot region 6 – SIBIU c c pilot region 7 – VALCEA c cK E Trans-boundary pollution pilot region 1 - ARGES c d pilot region 2 - BACAU c d pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c d pilot region 4 - GALATI c d pilot region 5 - OLT d d pilot region 6 – SIBIU c d pilot region 7 – VALCEA c dK E Confidentiality pilot region 1 - ARGES c d pilot region 2 - BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c d pilot region 4 - GALATI c d pilot region 5 - OLT b c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b b pilot region 7 – VALCEA b cK E Prevention of accidents pilot region 1 - ARGES d d pilot region 2 - BACAU c c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c d pilot region 4 - GALATI c d pilot region 5 - OLT c d pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA b cFinal Version 16-06-04 CMDC Joint Venture 94 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex II - TNA – IPPC - RomaniaK E Public participation procedures pilot region 1 - ARGES b b pilot region 2 - BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c d pilot region 4 - GALATI b c pilot region 5 - OLT c c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b b pilot region 7 – VALCEA b cK E EPER pilot region 1 - ARGES b c pilot region 2 - BACAU c c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c d pilot region 4 - GALATI c d pilot region 5 - OLT c d pilot region 6 – SIBIU b d pilot region 7 – VALCEA c cK E Relations to other permits pilot region 1 - ARGES c d pilot region 2 - BACAU c c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c d pilot region 4 - GALATI c d pilot region 5 - OLT b c pilot region 6 – SIBIU c c pilot region 7 – VALCEA b cK E Review of permits pilot region 1 - ARGES c d pilot region 2 - BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c d pilot region 4 - GALATI c c pilot region 5 - OLT b c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA c cK E Substantial changes pilot region 1 - ARGES d d pilot region 2 - BACAU c d pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c d pilot region 4 - GALATI d d pilot region 5 - OLT c d pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA b cK E Cessation of operation and financial security pilot region 1 - ARGES d d pilot region 2 - BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA c d pilot region 4 - GALATI c d pilot region 5 - OLT b c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA b cFinal Version 16-06-04 CMDC Joint Venture 95 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex II - TNA – IPPC - RomaniaK E Odour – knowledge and experience pilot region 1 - ARGES d d pilot region 2 - BACAU c c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA d d pilot region 4 - GALATI c d pilot region 5 - OLT c d pilot region 6 – SIBIU c d pilot region 7 – VALCEA c cK E Links to other directives pilot region 1 - ARGES b c pilot region 2 - BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA b c pilot region 4 - GALATI c d pilot region 5 - OLT c d pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA b cK E Air and water spreading models pilot region 1 - ARGES c d pilot region 2 - BACAU d d pilot region 3 – BISTRITA d d pilot region 4 - GALATI c d pilot region 5 - OLT c d pilot region 6 – SIBIU c d pilot region 7 – VALCEA c cK E Noise pilot region 1 - ARGES b c pilot region 2 - BACAU b c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA b c pilot region 4 - GALATI c c pilot region 5 - OLT c c pilot region 6 – SIBIU b c pilot region 7 – VALCEA b cK E EU priority list of dangerous substances pilot region 1 - ARGES c c pilot region 2 - BACAU b b pilot region 3 – BISTRITA d d pilot region 4 - GALATI c d pilot region 5 - OLT c c pilot region 6 – SIBIU c c pilot region 7 – VALCEA b cK E Voluntary schemes – EMS and EMAS pilot region 1 - ARGES d d pilot region 2 - BACAU c c pilot region 3 – BISTRITA d d pilot region 4 - GALATI c d pilot region 5 - OLT d d pilot region 6 – SIBIU c c pilot region 7 – VALCEA c dF.3. Conclusion on Knowledge and Experience of Staff Dealing with IPPC IssuesIn terms of knowledge the EPA-s personnel in the 7 pilot zones could be classified as follows: - having some knowledge but still novice: Arges, Bacau, Galati, Olt, Sibiu, Valcea - having only little knowledge – novice: Bistrita Final Version 16-06-04 CMDC Joint Venture 96 Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex II - TNA – IPPC - RomaniaIn terms of experience, which is lower than knowledge, the pilot zones personnel could be considered : - as novice: Bacau, Sibiu, Valcea - very little experienced: Arges, Bistrita, Galati, Olt.This situation is specific for Romania and the need for training is massive. Therefore, MoWEP suggested facilitating the participation into local workshops of the staff from other zones (counties), not covered by any of the two projects related to IPPC implementation.Final Version 16-06-04 CMDC Joint Venture 97

Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis at the Local and Regional

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support