1. Romanian experience and lessons learnt implementing SEVESO Directive Francisc Senzaconi Magdalena Duta Ghergut

2. Romanian experience implementing SEVESO Directive  Starting 1 st 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 Brussels2

3. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATIC CHANGES MINISTRY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS CCNEG LEPA NEPANEGGIES CIES Romanian Competent Authorities 13.06.2014 Brussels3

4. 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 Brussels4

5. 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 Brussels5

6. 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 Brussels6

7. 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 Brussels7

8. 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 Brussels8

9. 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 Brussels9

10. 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 Brussels10

11. 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 Brussels11

12. 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 Brussels12

13. 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 Brussels13

14. 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 Brussels14

15. 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 Brussels15

16. 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 Brussels16

17. 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 Brussels17

18. 13.06.2014 Brussels18