Transcript Romanian experience in Seveso - Home

Romanian experience and
lessons learnt
implementing SEVESO
Directive
Francisc Senzaconi
Magdalena Duta Ghergut
Romanian experience implementing
SEVESO Directive
 Starting 1st of January 2007 Romania is an European
Union Member State
 The first transposition of Directive 96/82/EC - Seveso II
was done in 2003
 The subsequent legislation for implementing the
directive’s requirements was draw up mostly before 2007
13.06.2014
Brussels
2
Romanian Competent Authorities
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
AND CLIMATIC CHANGES
MINISTRY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS
NEPA
NEG
GIES
LEPA
CCNEG
CIES
13.06.2014
Brussels
3
Steps for transposition







Assessment of the existing legal requirements
Development of a National policy
Development of an Action plan, incl. transposition with
deadlines, targets and clearly delegated responsibilities
Drafting of the new legislation
Assessment of the compliance with the EU requirements
Impact assessment of the proposed legislation
Twining project on the implementation of the legislation Twinning
Project RO 2002/2002/IB/EN-02 between Romanian MEWM and the
German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and
Nuclear Safety;

Final endorsement of the legislation
13.06.2014
Brussels
4
How the cooperation works
 Updating of the Seveso II operators inventory;
 Analyzing the documentation (Notification, MAPP, SMS
and SR);
 Common inspections;
 Land use planning & Domino Effects;
 Testing of EEP’s;
 Investigation of major accidents;
 Technical assistance for operators;
 Common reports to national CA’s;
 Participating in environmental licensing procedures.
13.06.2014
Brussels
5
Analyzing the documentation
 The interface with operators is LEPA (the only
exception is for emergency planning)
 Which part?
 Documentation is assessed by all authorities, each of them
coming with its own expertise
 How?
 Each authority assess the whole SR regarding the
completeness and correctness;
 During the assessment, before the finalization of the written
answer to the operator, it is organized least one common
inspection for verification of the SR.
13.06.2014
Brussels
6
Problems faced in implementation
 Immediately after de transposition of the
directive in 2003:
 lack of experience,
 lack of institutional capacity,
 lack of training
 lack of trust and cooperation between the authorities.
13.06.2014
Brussels
7
Lessons learnt – steps for a good
cooperation
 Agreements between CA’s
 Regular meetings between CA’s;
 Establishing of national CCA and TWG’s (with industry, with
other authorities and only with CA’s);
 Building a common strategy for the implementation of
Seveso II Directive requirements at national and local level;
 Review and update the legal framework together;
 Common training activities;
13.06.2014
Brussels
8
Lessons learnt – steps for a good
cooperation
 Exchanging information in COMAH domain;
 Participating together to the seminars, conferences, workshops
in Seveso II field;
 Common investigation in case of some complex incidents
occurrence at the request of local CA’s;
 Technical assistance in the assessment of some complex SR’s
at the request of local CA’s;
 Common audits of local subordinated structures;
 Accessing EU funds through common project on
implementation of Seveso II Directive requirements.
13.06.2014
Brussels
9
Lessons learnt - threats and challenges
 Threats:
 Economical recession – shut down of factories
 Reorganization of public institutions – loosing of administrative
capacity
 Loosing of trained human resources – lowering of technical
capacity
 Tendency to forget the disasters happened in the past – operators
concentrate more on business and less on industrial safety
 Challenges:
The very young personnel in the Seveso domain
New industrial domains
13.06.2014
Brussels
10
Programme for the Prevention, Preparedness
and Response to Man-made and Natural
Disasters in the ENPI East Region (PPRD East)
SEVESO Directives Capacity Development
 Regional Workshop – April 22-24, 2013, Moldova
 Sub-regional workshop (Armenia, Georgia and
Ukraine) – September 23-27, 2013, Ukraine
 Sub-regional workshop (Azerbaijan, Belarus and
Moldova) – December 2-6, 2013, Belarus
 Exchange of Experts – April 28 – May 1, 2014, Brasov,
Romania
13.06.2014
Brussels
11
Objectives
 To introduce the specialists from the Eastern Partnership
Countries in the COMAH field,
 To achieve an understanding of the scope of Seveso Directive,
 To achieve an understanding of definitions/ terminology,
 To describe and outline the main requirements and future
challenges in this field;
 To introduce the participants in the field of implementation of
Seveso Directive requirements,
 To outline the importance of legislative, administrative and
operational capacities for the implementation of Seveso Directive
requirements and the cooperation between them.
13.06.2014
Brussels
12
Objectives
 If in the regional workshop there were presented and discussed
all the requirements of Seveso Directives in the sub-regional
workshops all the work was concentrated more on practical
implementation issues.
 The exchange of experts workshop on Seveso Directives held in
Brasov, Romania was aimed to present the way in which the
Romanian competent authorities implemented the requirements of
the Seveso Directives, an important part of the time being
dedicated to practical exercises (testing of an Internal
Emergency Plan and an External Emergency Plan at two upper
tier Seveso establishments). There were also simulated two
inspections and the participants played an important role in
performing them.
13.06.2014
Brussels
13
Results
 Theoretical training in the main COMAH aspects;
 Almost all issues presented and discussed in the
theoretical part of the programme were putted into
practice, offering an applied training;
 A vivid discussions and exchanges of opinions as well as
sharing of experience between participants and between
countries;
 Creating the premises for team work between different
authorities of the same country;
13.06.2014
Brussels
14
Results
 Creating the premises for a good transboundary
cooperation through working in mixed teams of
representatives from different countries;
 Increasing the knowledge of the participants in
organizing / planning inspections and emergency
response exercises;
 Increasing the knowledge of participants in assessing
the documentation in the field of COMAH (Notification,
PPAM, SR, IEP, EEP, LUP).
13.06.2014
Brussels
15
Possible issues to be considered for the
phase II of PPRD-East
 Help for transposition, implementation and adaptation of
the national legislation to the Seveso Directive into
participant countries;
 Help for capacity building and raise the inter-institutional
interest and cooperation for the Seveso Directive
implementation;
 Training on the connection of Seveso II Directives with
other EU Directives for a broader view on industrial safety;
13.06.2014
Brussels
16
Possible issues to be considered for the
phase II of PPRD-East
• Developing trainings programmes for:
– Seveso inspections;
– Emergency planning in case of major accidents involving
dangerous substances;
– Industrial accidents investigation;
– Support to elaborate a training programme for CA’s based on
accidents happened in industry;
– Risk assessment, risk measurement and acceptable risk;
– Land-use planning in the context of Seveso Directives;
• Risk mapping and data bases
• Programmes for rising up the public implication and
involvement in the COMAH domain
13.06.2014
Brussels
17
13.06.2014
Brussels
18