After getting acquainted with the proposed proposals for amendments and additions to the Environmental Protection Act and the draft amendments to the Ordinance for the Prevention of Major Accidents with Hazardous Substances and for Limiting their Consequences, the KRIB expresses the following opinion:
I. Draft Law on Amendments and Additions to the Environmental Protection Law
1. According to § 1 to change Art. 83 of the Environmental Protection Agency - the proposed amendment to Art. 83 of the ZOOS, which envisages the removal of the Register of experts at the Ministry of Education and Culture, who carry out the environmental assessment, as well as the assessment of the impact on the environment of the plans, programs and investment proposals for construction, is inexpedient. KRIB's position is that the proposed amendment should be dropped.
Motives
In the current art. 83 of the Environmental Protection Agency, it is determined that the evaluations under Art. 81, para. 1 of the ZOOS are assigned to a team of registered experts. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications maintains a register of experts who meet the requirements specified in the same article. The procedure for entry into the register is determined by an ordinance of the Minister of Environment and Water. The register is publicly available. Having access to the register, the contracting authority can make an easy choice and avoids future administrative problems.
With the proposed amendment, the regime of registration of experts is removed, but the requirements for the persons who prepare the assessments under Art. 81, para. 1 of the Zoo. Thus, the entire burden of verifying the fulfillment of the conditions under paragraphs 2, 3 of the proposed text of Art. 83 is transferred to the business. With the proposed amendment, the contracting authority must independently search for the relevant experts, ask them for the relevant documents and check them for authenticity and completeness.
The circumstances under Art. 83, para. 2 and 3 are proved with the relevant documents, which are applied as a separate appendix to the assessments under Art. 81, para. 1 or it is envisaged that the competent authority will check them. This assessment is available to the public, who should be aware of the evidence that the experts meet the requirements. In this case, it is not clear how they will protect personal data.
This means double checking and creates conditions for administrative arbitrariness. In the proposed amendment to Art. 83 of the ZOOS, it is not determined when and by whom a check is made for the presence of the circumstances under paragraphs 2 and 3, what happens if one of the experts does not meet the requirements. An entirely new report should be required because the procedure becomes vulnerable on appeal.
If the desire is to abolish the regime of voluntary registration, the requirements specified in Art. 83, para. 2 and 3 and that any person can prepare these assessments. The only criterion to remain is the quality of the prepared document. Otherwise, instead of a clear and transparent procedure for voluntary registration, the contractor is assigned activities and responsibilities that are not inherent to him.
2. According to § 3 – creation of a new Art. 103a of the ZOOS - the proposed text aims to take measures to prevent major accidents and limit their consequences already during the preparation of the spatial planning of the territory and the planning of the protection of the population and the environment.
KRIB expresses a positive opinion regarding these proposals, but it should be borne in mind that the project foresees additional requirements that may have an impact on the work of the industry and, in particular, of the enterprises from the mining branch in their activities related to the spatial planning of the territories. The provisions listed in the new art. 103a of the ZOOS imposes an obligation and additional procedures in the event of a change in the structure of the territories necessary for the production activity of the companies from the mining industry, which is a dynamic and permanent process in the practice of industrial enterprises. Thus, in addition to the procedures under Chapter 6 of the ZOOS, it will also be necessary to carry out procedures under Chapter 7 of the ZOOS for spatial planning of the territories, which will involve additional financial, personnel and time resources of the companies.
WE OFFER:
1. Editing of the text of the newly proposed Art. 103a, aimed at the non-application of the permit regime in the case of Art. 103 (4) of the Environmental Protection Act;
2. In the event that the proposal under item 1 is not accepted, to provide for the reconciliation of the procedures under Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of the Environmental Protection Agency in the process of spatial planning of the territories.
3. Regarding the amendment and supplement to Art. 110 of the Environmental Protection Agency
We approve the change, as it aims to bring greater clarity to the criteria for dividing enterprises and/or facilities with low and high risk potential. It also establishes a more precise order for the implementation and protection of confidential information that may be contained in reports on the prevention of major accident hazards and the limitation of their consequences. In compliance with the relevant directives of the Council of the European Community, it is possible to protect commercial and/or professional secrecy, which may include the information provided to the Minister of Environment and Water.
4. Regarding the amendment and addition of Art. 116, Art. 116c and Art. 116h of the Environmental Protection Agency
In the mentioned legal norms, some clarifications are introduced, which refer to the indication of more specific terms for the implementation of the powers, as well as the introduction of a new obligation for the operators in the enterprises to cooperate in the exchange of information, as with the Minister of Environment and Water , with the regional security council and with the public. We agree with the amendment and addition of these regulations, as this will create conditions for a faster and more efficient resolution of tasks in the event of a danger of an accident or an actual accident, through this cooperation it will be possible to prevent or reduce their adverse consequences.
5. Regarding the amendment of Art. 163, Para. 1 and Art. 166, Item 3 of the Environmental Protection Agency
A change in Art. 163, para. 1 of the ZOOS is a consequence of the changes to the persons performing the environmental assessments and environmental impact assessment, without making a change in the amount and type of the provided administrative penalty.
Through the amendment of Art. 166, item 3 of the ZOOS, new hypotheses of administrative violations are added - failure to comply with the mandatory instructions given in the relevant control protocols. We do not object to the amendment, as it would lead to stricter compliance with the instructions given by the control authorities.
6. Regarding the amendment of a number of concepts in §1 of the DR of the ZOOS
In the concept of "Facility" - its scope is expanded and includes more components and elements, in the presence of which an accident may occur.
An important clarification is introduced in item 29, since only available dangerous substances can be stored and only over such substances can actual authority be exercised and responsibility for illegal behavior sought.
In item 53a. "Substantial change of an enterprise and/or facility", b. "A" again expands the scope of the concept, which makes it possible to include more possible hypotheses for assessing in each specific case whether there is a significant change to an enterprise and/or facility.
In item 53a, b. "B" – a change is planned by including new (newly discovered) dangerous substances that can affect and lead to the occurrence of an accident and danger to the life and health of people and to environmental pollution. This is intended to cover more potentially dangerous substances that can cause or threaten to cause accidents.
In item 54a, the scope is again expanded and the separate signs of the concept of "accident" are formulated more precisely, as an uncontrollable event, which is considered such even when it creates a serious danger to human health and/or a danger to the environment. Thus, the fundamental right of citizens guaranteed in Article 55 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria - the right to a healthy and favorable environment - is protected to a greater extent.
7. Regarding the amendment in Appendix No. 3 to Art. 103, Para. 3 of the Environmental Protection Agency
A number of amendments have been made to the mentioned Appendix No. 3 to Art. 103, Para. 3 of the Environmental Protection Act, which refer to the presence and degree of concentration of individual hazardous substances in enterprises and/or facilities, and depending on these indicators, it should be determined whether the enterprise and/or the facility and with low or high risk potential.
With regard to these amendments, we propose to request the opinion of specialists in this field, who will assess to what extent the new amendments and additions are appropriate and whether they are synchronized with the Directives of the European legislation.
II. Regarding the proposed changes to the provisions of the Ordinance on the Prevention of Major Accidents with Hazardous Substances and on Limiting their Consequences (NPGAOVOPT)
1. Regarding the creation of new provisions of Art. 7a, Art. 7b and Art. 7c of the Ordinance
In the Project for changes, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications envisages the introduction of several new legal norms in the Chapter "Form and content of the documents necessary for issuing the permit under Article 104, Paragraph 1 of the Law on Environmental Protection.
The amendments envisage the introduction of new powers of the mayors of the municipalities when developing and submitting for approval by the municipal council an external emergency plan for the measures that should be taken outside the enterprise and/or facility.
It is envisaged that this external emergency plan could be part of the municipal disaster protection plan. The objectives in drawing up this external plan are stated. When preparing this external emergency plan, consultations should be held with the public in the area around the enterprise and/or facility. This change introduces the principle of publicity, which enables civil society to exercise its rights by participating in the preparation of these plans. The obligation to check, revise and/or update these external emergency plans is introduced, and the period cannot be longer than 3 years, as in case of significant changes in the enterprise and/or facility. These powers of the local bodies of the executive power create the possibility of modernization and a higher degree of adequacy of these plans.
Article 7b of the Ordinance gives the right, if necessary, in the event of a major accident or uncontrolled event, for the mayor of the municipality together with the operator to immediately implement the relevant emergency plan. Necessary actions after the occurrence of a major accident are also foreseen.
We approve the amendment because the introduction of these powers and external emergency plans creates greater certainty for human health as well as the environment, and implementation of these plans will prevent the occurrence or at least reduce and limit the occurrence of adverse events. consequences. Also, the inclusion of various bodies of the executive power - mayors of municipalities, the Minister of the Environment and Waters, creates an opportunity for the exercise of their other powers arising from more general and structural laws, which enables the use and cooperation of other bodies to prevent, control accidents, as well as limit and eliminate adverse consequences for human health and life and environmental protection.
2. Regarding the creation of new paragraphs of Article 11 of the Ordinance
The principle of publicity is re-introduced and the public is given the opportunity in the event of a major accident to take all possible measures to stop and prevent adverse consequences. KRIB positively evaluates these changes.
3. Regarding the creation of additional provisions of §1 of the Ordinance
The project foresees a definition of the concepts "Danger" and "Risk", which introduces greater accuracy in determining whether each specific case meets these criteria. KRIB's assessment of this provision is positive.
4. Regarding the amendments in Appendix No. 1, Appendix No. 3, Appendix No. 4, Appendix No. 5, Appendix No. 6 and Appendix No. 7 to the relevant articles of the Ordinance.
A number of amendments have been made to the specified Annexes No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, No. 6 and No. 7 to the relevant articles of the Ordinance, which refer to various required documents - Notification regarding the classification of enterprises and/or facilities, Form and content of the report for the major accident prevention policy, Form and content of the safety report, Form and content of an emergency plan of the enterprise and/or facility, Information on the planned safety measures and ways of behavior and action in the event of an accident. With regard to these changes, the opinion of the relevant specialists in this field should be requested again, who will assess whether and to what extent these changes are appropriate and consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and other current Bulgarian laws, as well as the relevant Directives of the European legislation.
In conclusion, it can be noted that the proposed changes in the Environmental Protection Act and the Ordinance largely meet the requirements for synchronizing Bulgarian legislation with the relevant European directives, contributing to the expansion of measures to prevent the occurrence and control of accidents that have occurred, as well as to prevent the occurrence and eliminating the adverse consequences of accidents. These changes contribute to the protection of human life and health and the cleanliness of the environment to a greater extent.
http://www.turbulence.tech