SECTION 1
By Helene Izidi, consultant on behalf of Campagna per la riforma della Banca mondiale
At the local Environmental Protection Inspectorate in
Constanta that the Fact-Finding Mission visited on Monday 20th January 2003, the
FFM was able to briefly consult the whole Environmental Impact Assessment
documentation available to the public.
The mission faced with the following documents:
? The "Report on the EIA carried out by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL)"
- in Romanian "Raport" - a summary in Romanian of the AECL Study, published in
July 2001;
? An Environmental Assessment Study for the Cernavoda 2 NPP project carried out
by ICIM and published in January 2002;
? A summary in English of the ICIM EIA Study published in July 2002;
? A summary in Romanian of the ICIM EIA Study published in August 2002;
? "Borderau" of documents needed to obtain environmental agreement for Cernavoda
2 NPP project - due diligence carried out by the local environmental protection
inspectorate in Constanta;
? Report on the proceedings of the public consultation which took place between
15.08.2001 and 21.09.2001;
? Governmental order No. 234 31.03.99 regarding environmental agreement for
Cernavoda 1 NPP;
? Two ICIM Studies produced in 1999 and 2000 about thermal impacts of the
Cernavoda NPP on the Danube Canal;
? A safety study on combined accidents both at unit 1 and 2, #515/25.10.2001.
The environmental impact assessment process apparently began with a first set
of environmental studies carried out by the AECL. This led to two summaries, one
in Romanian, in July 2001, and the other in English, published in Canada in
December 2001 under request of export development of Canada. Initially, it
seemed that both summaries were not exactly the same. A public consultation was
organised from August 15th to September 21st 2001, following the publication of
the Romanian version (the "Raport"). Then at the beginning of 2002, a second set
of environmental studies was carried out by ICIM, and led to further summaries,
one in English and the other in Romanian.
This numerous studies and reports produced a certain confusion. In fact, the FFM
was faced with so many reports, that we were not able to identify with certainty
which document was the official one. It should be noted that at this date the
team has only received an electronic copy of the ICIM EIA study in Romanian,
excluding relevant maps, the "Raport" and other relevant environmental
documents, despite requests to the Romanian environmental authorities under the
Romanian Law 544/2001 on Access to Information.
Box I : Romanian Legislation on Environmental Impact Assessment
The two regulations that were in force at the beginning of
the EIA process relating to the Cernavoda II project were :
? The Environment protection is regulated by the Environmental Protection Law (
EPL), No. 137/December 29.1995, published in the official Gazette, Part I , No.
304/December 30, 1995.
? The Ministerial Order No. 125/1996, Permitting Procedure for economic and
social activities having an environmental impact according to the EPL No.
137/1995 establishes the procedure for Environmental Impact Assessments.
Under EPL legislation, electrical power plants are bound by environmental
agreements, that is to say, "technical and legal act which establishes the
condition for implementing a project or an activity from the environmental
impact point of view" ( Appendix No. I, EPL). The CEPA (Central Environmental
Protection Authority) is responsible for issuing this agreement. In addition to
this, Nuclear Production activity are listed as an activity that may have a
significant environmental impact through its nature, size or location ( Annex II
of EPL) and therefore requires an environmental impact study for the issuing of
the environmental agreement.
The EPL legislation was amended on June 20, 2002 and came into force in its
revised version on January 17, 2003. Among other things this strengthened the
public opportunity to be informed and to take part in decisions on specific
activities. These amendments harmonize the law with the European legislation and
above all the provisions of the UN/ECE Aarhus Convention on Access to
Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in
Environmental Matters, ratified by the Romanian Parliament through the Law No.
86/2000, in 2000, with relative implementing procedures issued in 2002.
Specifically this Convention enables the public to become more involved in
environmental matters and to actively participate in the preservation and
protection of the environment. To achieve this aim, the Convention proposes an
action in three areas :
? Allow public access to environmental information held by public authorities
? Promote public participation in the decision-making process on certain
activities deemed likely to significantly affect the environment
? Widen access to justice in environmental matters.
It came into force on October 30 2001.
Box II : The stages of the environmental agreement
issuance procedure, According to article 4 of the Permitting procedure for
economic and social activities having an environmental impact, the following
steps are needed:
? The project titleholder should submit the environmental agreement application.
The submission must be accompanied by the description of the project and the
main information available at that time. At the same time it must advertise the
application through at least one of the publicity methods.
? The Local Environmental Protection Authority (LEPA) analyses the application
in order to see whether this activity requires an impact study or not. LEPA
analyses the purpose of the proposed activity and whether the project can be
environmentally regulated. They shall request additional information or
preliminary environmental impact study.
? If the project can be regulated, LEPA prepares guidelines in order to figure
out what have to be addressed in the EIA study. To prepare these guidelines,
LEPA have to consider the preliminary comments received from the public
following the public announcement of the application.
? The EIA study is carrying out according to the methodology described in Annex
4 of the Permitting procedure No. 125/ 1996.
? The would-be Licence holder of the project must give to LEPA the report of the
EIA study ("Raport"). This report must contain all alternatives analysed,
including that of renouncing the activity. "Minimum contents" of the report on
EIA are provided in Annex 5 of the Permitting Procedure No. 125/1996.
? LEPA analyse the report. For this purpose, they can be helped by the technical
review team, consisting of representatives of the local public administration
and the bodies that issue the preliminary endorsements required for the release
of the environmental agreements. LEPA accept it or request for the report to be
revised.
? The accepted report has to be subjected to public debate by LEPA.
? After the completion of the public comment, LEPA makes the decision on whether
to continue the regulating procedure - from the investment activities that are
within the regulatory competence of the Central Environmental Protection
Authority (CEPA), as it is the case concerning the Cernavoda II project, the
decision is made after the prior consultation of such authority.
? If the decision made is favourable, the would-be licence holder must present
to LEPA the following documents : technical memo prepared in accordance with the
contents provisions stated in Annex 6 of the Permitting procedure, regulatory
acts, and the Environmental impact study.
? LEPA and, if appropriate the technical review team, analyse the documents and
verify them if necessary; LEPA submit them to CEPA for activities under CEPA
competence. CEPA may carry out verifications.
? LEPA or CEPA, make the final decision regarding the issuance of the
environmental agreement for the activities under its competence. The decision
must be made public and the documents the decision has been based on, made
available upon request. The decision can be appealed within 30 days from the
announcement.
The summary, "Raport", in Romanian of the EIA Study by AECL has been presented
to the FFM as the official one, that was used for Public consultation. At first
sight, it seemed to the mission that a summary of 54 pages is rather lightweight
for a report of the EIA study. The Environmental Assessment Summary (EAS) made
public by AECL at the end of 2001 on the basis of the full Canadian EIA study
consists of more than hundred pages. To this respect, it should be noted that
the full EIA study by AECL was not available, although it should have been given
to the LEPA as part of the environmental agreement issuance procedure (see Box
II above). A follow-up visit to the LEPA in Constanta by an independent
consultant of Campagna per la riforma della Banca mondiale in February 2003
proved that the two summary are different and have not got the same structure
either. In particular, the two studies include a different assessment of
estimated future energy needs in Romania. Furthermore, all the references to
economic justification of the nuclear project and non-nuclear alternatives
included in the EAS by AECL, even though in a limited and inadequate manner,
are not included in the "Raport", although a study of the alternatives, taking
into account the associated environmental impacts, is essential to appreciate
the necessity and the relevance of such a project. This is also an explicit
requirement under the Permitting Procedure for economic and social activities
having an environmental impact according to the Romanian Environmental
Protection Law No. 137/1995 ( Article 4.3.2). As a result, the FFM has serious
doubts whether the public consultation has been based on appropriate information
on the project.
To this respect, the FFM's independent environmental due diligence of the
project has detected, moreover, some anomalies in the public consultation
process. A public announcement was made in two local and one national
newspapers that three public debates be organised about the Cernavoda II
Project. A first public meeting took place in Constanta on August 15, 2001, a
second one in Cernavoda on the August 21, a third one in Medgidia on the August
30. A meeting with leaders of opinion from the area of the implementation of
the project was also organised from August 16 to 27, 2001 in Cernavoda, as well
as a meeting with specialists from the environment protection field in Bucharest
on August 30, 2001. The public debates were organised and funded by SNN,
state-owned nuclear company and lead project sponsor, under the supervision of
the environment protection authorities, as required under the former and current
Romanian legislation. Thus, even if such a practice is allowed by European and
international standards, the FFM argues that such a provision leads inevitably
to a self-interested behaviour from the project developer. In this case, for
example, the FFM found out, by reading the list of participants, that the
hearings were loaded with pro-nuclear NGOs, some of them directly supported by
the industry and that no NGO critical about nuclear issues attended the debates.
The Environmental Assessment Study carried out by ICIM and published in January
2002 is made up of 3 volumes and 1 appendix for maps and looks most like a real
EIA study. Nevertheless, it has not been subject to any particular announcement
to the public. It also passed unnoticed that only the Summary in English was
published on the web site of SNN, the would-be licence holder. Moreover,
according to a Review carried out by the Austrian Institute for Applied Ecology
, the information provided in this Summary is completely insufficient to
understand EIA data and conclusions.
When asked why SNN commissioned a second study and why the ICIM EIA document was
not subject to the proper procedure, namely not resubmitted to public
consultation at its completion, the FFM received a surprising answer from the
Romanian authorities: Since the FFM has been allowed to meet environmental
experts in Bucharest only in presence of representatives of the nuclear company
who systematically influenced the meeting and even the translation of the
contributions by the environmental authorities, the Mission was not able to
address such issues with them separately. Following up on the unsatisfactory
conclusion of the meeting the FFM sent a written request for public information
to Mrs. Dumitru and Mrs. Dumitra Mereuta at the Ministry of Waters and
Environmental Protection on January 31, 2003, according to the procedures under
the Romanian Law on Access to Information. In reply to the FFM's question of why
a second study was commissioned (see in Annex 6 for the full letter), the
Romanian authorities admitted that the public consultation had been based on
"illegal" EIA documentation, that "a second study was asked because, according
to national legislation, the environmental impact study (EIS) has to be made
only by a natural or legal person certified according to Minister Order (MO)
278/1996 and the EIS has to be done according to the MO 125/1996 requirements."
Thus Romanian authorities recognised that the AECL was not certified to carry
out such a study and that the EIS made by them did not meet the national
requirement in this matter. Furthermore, the question of why a second public
consultation had not been organised after the publication of the ICIN study
remains vaguely answered by the Romanian authorities.
The state of disarray of the EIA reports, as well as the lack
of fundamental information in the Environmental assessment and the lack of
transparency in the public consultation process lead the FFM to question the
safety of the project. The mission is doubtful about the intention and the
capacity of the Romanian environmental Authorities to ensure an efficient and
transparent Environmental Impact Assessment. As a result, the information and
data available to the public and the competent authorities are insufficient to
properly assess the potential harm to the environment and the population, the
risk in the event of an accident, as well as the main alternatives to the
project. The content of the EIA documentation is evidently not in compliance
with the former Romanian environmental Law, in force at that time. Moreover, the
public consultation was based on "illegal" EIA documentation, as admitted by the
Romanian environmental authorities in their correspondence with the FFM.
In addition to that, the Environmental Assessment in the Cernavoda project is at
odds with the European requirements and standards on this matter . The
compliance with the European legislation is, however, a sine qua none condition
to the accession to the European Union in 2007. Moreover, as a direct result of
the inconclusive environmental assessment, the information disclosed to the
public is insufficient and inappropriate to allow the public to participate
effectively in the decision-making process. The public participation is
nevertheless, a basic requirement under the Aarhus Convention, ratified by
Romania in 2000, and under the new environmental law recently amended among
other things to comply with this Convention.
For all the above reasons and because it is unclear whether the Environmental
Agreement for the project has been already released, the FFM believes urgent to
request the missing studies and ask for the provision of all the relevant
information, as well as to conduct a proper public consultation. It would be a
good opportunity to promote the correct implementation of environmental law in
accession countries, in particular in Romania, whose record still remains
questionable as repeatedly admitted by EU authorities. It would also allow to
raise awareness among decision-makers and civil society in Romania regarding the
provisions under the new national environmental law recently enforced pursuant
to the new European and international environmental obligations and standards.
The Romanian's authorities failure to conduct an efficient
Environmental Impact Assessment Process is all the more problematical since this
project is likely to have a significant adverse transboundary impact on
neighbouring countries, starting with Bulgaria, whose border is located less
than 50 km from Cernavoda NPP. Romania is therefore obliged to cooperate with
neighbouring countries in assessing the Environmental impact under the
provisions of the UN/ECE Espoo Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context. In
fact, this Convention has been ratified and entered into force in all
neighbouring countries but Yugoslavia in the past years.
Box III : Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a
Transboundary Context
International Treaty negotiated by the member countries of the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). The ECE covers Europe, the US, Canada,
Israel and the five Central Asian which were formerly part of the USSR. This
Convention aims to enhance co-operation in assessing environmental impacts,
particularly in a trans-boundary context. It came into force on September 10
1997, and currently consists of 40 Parties. Romania ratified it in 2001; all its
neighbouring countries, but Serbia, both signed and ratified the Convention in
the past years.
The Convention applies to all activities which may have a significant impact on
the environment across boundaries, including government, private or semi-public
activities. These activities are subject to the permission of the national
authority of the country where the project is going to take place, and must be
submitted to an environmental impact assessment prior to the decision to
authorize or undertake them. A non-exhaustive list of activities which are
considered likely to cause such an impact is provided in the appendix I of the
Convention.
At the beginning of the EIA process in Romania in 2001, the
Romanian authorities failed to inform neighbouring countries of the Cernavoda
Project, although the completion of a nuclear power plant is listed in Appendix
1 of the Espoo Convention as "the activity that is likely to have significant
adverse trans-boundary impact" and must be notified to potential affected
parties. The environmental authorities questioned on this issue during the
meeting with FFM in Bucharest did not consider transboundary pollution to be
credible.
In November 2002, Bulgaria, which is also a contracting Party to this convention
, requested information from the Romanian authorities, considering that such a
project, less than 100 km from its own borders, could potentially have a
significant adverse trans-boundary impact on its territory. They received
Notification as well as the Summary in English of the ICIM EIA study completed
in July 2002. The Romanian authorities gave Bulgaria a very short deadline, over
the Christmas holiday period, to organise the Public consultation and send the
public comments back to them. Because Romania failed to notify in due course,
that is to say " as early as possible and no later than when informing its own
public about that proposed activity" ( article 3.1, Espoo Convention), the
public in Bulgaria was deprived of their right to participate in the EIA process
at the start of the proceedings. It is nevertheless essential under the Espoo
and the Aarhus Convention that the public participation begins at the earliest
stage of the project initiative, when all the options and solutions are still
open and the public can have a real determining effect.
Then, the Bulgarian Authorities hurried the process. An announcement was
published in the newspaper - namely close to erotic advertisements - on January
10 stating that the Summary produced by the government of Romania as well as the
Notification will be made available to the public in the ministry's building in
Sofia and the written comments will be received up until January 24, 2003.
During a meeting with the Bulgarian Environmental Deputy Minister in Sofia on 18
January 2003, representative of Campagna per la riforma della Banca mondiale
pointed out that two weeks was not a sufficient time to properly inform the
public, and particularly to allow the locally affected communities to get more
information, or to conduct an efficient public consultation. The Bulgarian
Environmental Protection Act ensures public access to the EIA documentation for
a period of thirty calendar days in respect of such a project in the Republic of
Bulgaria . Furthermore, international recognized standards, such as World Bank
standards, provide at least a 60 day-long period for public comments.
Four Non-governmental organisations , including three from Varna on the Black
sea and one from Sofia, sent a letter to Mrs Georgieva, Deputy Environment
Ministry, last January to show their interest in this project, and requesting
the copy of the Environmental assessment documentation. They also asked them to
postpone the deadline of the public consultation and to organise a public
hearing in north-eastern Bulgaria, the area likely to be affected. The ministry
responded favourably to the information request, by putting the EIA summary and
the notification received on their web site on January 27, 2003. The Bulgarian
authorities decided also to extend the deadline for collecting public comments
to March 10, 2003.
Finally, all NGO submissions and Bulgarian official comments have been submitted
to Romanian authorities in April 2003.
The Romanian authorities have failed to send adequate
information to Bulgarians. In fact, at the meeting with the Bulgarian
Environmental Deputy Minister in Sofia on January 18, 2003, NGO representatives
realised that the Romanian authorities provided Bulgaria with the English
summary of the ICIM Study, even not the full EIA study. In addition to the fact
that the information provided in this summary is fully inappropriate according
to the Review carried out by the Austrian Institute for Applied Ecology , this
information is also insufficient under the Espoo Convention, that requires the
Party of origin of the project to give to the potential affected party some
minimum information in the environmental impact assessment documentation. A
non-exhaustive list of information is provided for in Annex II of the
Convention. (see box IV below).
Box IV : Appendix II of the Espoo Convention
Information to be included in the environmental impact assessment
documentation shall, as a minimum, contain :
a. a description of the proposed activity and its purpose
b. a description, where appropriate, of reasonable alternatives to the proposed
activity and also the no-action alternative
c. a description of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the
proposed activity and its alternatives
d. a description of the potential environmental impact of the proposed activity
and its alternatives and an estimation of its significance
e. a description of mitigation measures to keep adverse environmental impact to
a minimum
f. an explicit indication of predictive methods and underlying assumptions as
well as the relevant environmental data used
g. an identification of gaps in knowledge and uncertainties encountered in
compiling the required information
h. where appropriate, an outline for monitoring and management programmes and
any plans for post-project analysis, and
i. a non-technical summary including a visual presentation as appropriate
Thus, in addition to the very poor quality of this summary, the Mission detected
several inadequacies:
- No reasonable alternatives are considered in this report. Only one sentence on
page 7 of the report, deals with a vague idea of alternatives : "The completion
of this project will offer Romania an important source of clean, low-costs,
reliable electricity and will avoid the production of over 4 million tons of CO2
per year which would be generated by a comparable coal fired plant ". The
comparison to a coal fired plant is however, completely inadequate, and could
hardly be considered as a genuine alternative. Moreover, hydro and highly
efficient gas-fired alternatives are not adequately explored, and no alternative
interventions for the improvement of the efficiency of the national electricity
grid and the no-action alternative are not considered at all.
- The potential environmental impacts are not described under severe accident
conditions as shortly reported on page 133 of the report. Only 6 severe
accidents are very briefly mentioned but not one word on environmental impacts
of such accidents, although these kinds of accidents may influence territory far
beyond the 30 km wide exclusion zone and reach neighbouring states. It should be
noted that the Bulgarian border is located less than 50 km away from the
Cernavoda NPP.
Moreover, the assessment of the impact on air quality, as mentioned in the
report on page 125, is partial and limited only to some aspects: "Unit 2 is
designed to have ventilation and discharge systems for the emission from the
reactor building and the services building. These systems recover the D2O
vapours and retain other pollutants by filtering before the air is exhausted
under continuous monitoring). There are no radiological emission released to the
air without control and filtration". This section is very misleading as tritium
and carbon 14 are routinely released and cannot be filtered. It is all the more
important that Candu's release 30 times more the amount of tritium than does a
typical BWR or PWR nuclear reactors.
In other respects, the potential impact does not cover the decommissioning stage
at all.
Finally, the authors of the EIA Study apply a very restrictive approach to the
definition of impacts. For example, they believe that driving species out of
their habitats is not an impact : "As a matter of fact, a survey of pertinent
literature shows that fish will move if they find the water temperature
intolerable, but they can remain in a zone with tolerable temperatures if they
are capable to acclimatizing to it. An adverse effect on fish is therefore not
expected" (page 119).
- Mitigation measures are only mentioned in the general description of impacts:
"Diminishing the quantity of the radioactive waste should be taken into
consideration" (page 29). Neither a clear Environmental Action Plan, nor a
division of responsibilities is provided for.
- There is no explicit mention of predictive methods, underlying assumptions as
well as relevant environmental data used. There is no clear indication of the
methods used. For example, concerning the assessment of the impacts on flora and
fauna, the only prediction given is the following "the estimated dose varied
between 0.6 and 1 mGy/year, much below the dose criteria accepted by the
International Community" (page 129). Neither the method, nor the assumption is
described, nor any information on relevant environmental data used for drawing
this conclusion.
- No outline of the outside environment monitoring system is included in this
report.
- No non-technical summary either as requested by international environmental
best practices.
The co-operation between Romania and Bulgaria is almost
non-existent because the Romanian authorities failed to notify in due course and
to send appropriate information to the Bulgarian government under the Espoo
Convention. In fact, the report sent by the Romanian authorities to Bulgaria
lacks fundamental information about the environmental assessment.
Moreover, although public participation is a fundamental requirement under the
Espoo Convention and reinforced under the Aarhus convention, Romanian
authorities failed to " provide an opportunity to the public in the areas likely
to be affected, to participate in relevant environmental impact assessment
procedures regarding proposed activities and ensure that the opportunity
provided to the public of the Affected Party is equivalent to that provided to
the public of the Party of origin" (Article 2.6, Espoo Convention ).
Romania did not respect its obligations towards its neighbouring countries in
accordance with the Espoo Convention, as well as under the European directive on
EIA which makes specific reference to the Espoo convention in this matter in
its recent amendaments.
There is therefore a crucial need that Bulgaria receive additional and
appropriate information about this project from the Romanian authorities, and
that a proper Public consultation, based on relevant information, takes place in
Bulgaria before the final decision is taken in Romania.