A better translation using the EIA terminology is now

1

Question 1. In your reply of 19 January 2021, you kindly provided an English translation of Ministerial Order no. 135/2010. Please clarify whether the version provided to the Committee is the same version that was in force at the time of the 2015 EIA procedures at issue in this case? If not, please provide an English translation of Ministerial Order no. 135/2010 as in force at that time.

The Ministerial Order no. 135/2010 on the approval of the Methodology for applying the environmental impact assessment for public and private projects was in force from April 27, 2010 to January 8, 2019, being repealed by the EIA Law 292/2018. The version provided to the CC was in force in 2015. A better translation using the EIA terminology is now annexed to this answer.

Question 2.

In your reply of 19 January 2021, you state that, for most of the quarries, notice of the public hearing was posted, inter alia, at the office of the relevant UMC. In this context, please clarify:

(a) What percentage of the population of the affected region work for Energy Complex Oltenia SA?

(b) Were the notices of the public hearing posted on a noticeboard inside or outside the offices of each UMC? Are the noticeboards accessible to the general public?

(c) Does each quarry employee have to go to the UMC office on a daily basis, or if not daily, at least on a weekly basis?

We provide below the answer received from the Energy Complex Oltenia:

(a) At the end of 2015, which is the year of starting the procedures for obtaining environmental agreements for the continuation of mining works in the license perimeters, a number of about 8537 employees worked, of which 7289 lived in the area of influence of the mining activity, representing about 85%.

(b) The noticeboards are usually located inside the buildings, sometimes maybe outside, and their main purpose is to inform the employees of the information that is of interest to the employees/workers. At these points are displayed information such as organization of internal competitions, public debates, cultural and educational events, organization of union events, etc. Their role is to support employees and keep them updated to information of interest. Usually, these noticeboards are accessible to the unit's employees and to a lesser extent to the general public. The general public was informed in other ways, according to the applicable legal provisions governing the procedure of public debates.

(c) Employees go daily or have their workplace at/near the UMC headquarters, in one way or

another they reach the UMC headquarters daily or weekly. Usually, in most cases, their

locker rooms, mechanical/electrical workshops, warehouses, etc. are grouped around UMC

headquarters.

Question 3.

What is the total population living within the radius of the quarry extensions? Is the Gorj Exclusiv a free newspaper delivered to every household in Gorj county? If not, approximately how many copies of the Gorj Exclusiv newspaper are delivered each day in the villages within the radius of the quarry extensions?

2

According to the answer received from the Gorj County Directorate of Statistics, the population

living in the villages around the quarry extensions is:

Locality Population Motru municipality 19079

Motru 15518 Rovinari town 11816

Rovinari 11147

Vart 669 Balteni 7126

Balteni 1853 Catunele 2551

Catunele 438 Ciuperceni 1596

Ciuperceni 407

Calnic 2145 Calnic 578

Pinoasa 253 Dragutesti 4996

Dragutesti 1057

Dragotesti 2505 Dragotesti 1164

Fracasesti 3289 Farcasesti 433

Matasari 5027

Matasari 3599 Croici 361

Negomir 3555 Negomir 580

Plopsoru 6234 Plopsoru 661

Telesti 2473

Telesti 1200 Slivilesti 3227

Slivilesti 544 Miculesti 535

The data are on the total administrative territorial unit (municipality, town, commune), out of

which for the component localities written underneath.

Source: Population and housing census on October 20, 2011.

The total population living in 2011 in Communes Balteni, Catunele, Ciuperceni, Calnic, Dragutesti,

Dragotesti, Farcasesti, Matasari, Negomir, Plopsoru, Telesti, Slivilesti is 44,724.

The newspaper Gorj Exclusiv was not a free newspaper. The newspaper could be bought at the

newsstand or at the town hall, at a modest price. It was also available on internet but nowadays

it is not available any more on internet.

We could not obtain any information regarding the number of copies delivered every day in the

villages.

3

Question 4

Approximately what percentage of the public living in the affected villages within the radius of

the quarry extensions have internet at home?

Taking into consideration that the EIA procedures under question were carried out in 2015 and 2016

we provide below information translated from the press releases given by the National Institute of

Statistics in 2015 and 2016 (see Annex for Q4)

The press releases reflect the situation at national and regional level.

Gorj county is one of the 5 counties of the region called “South West Oltenia”.

For a more specific answer on ”what percentage of the public living in the affected villages have

internet at home” we will send you a letter in the next few days.

The press release Nr. 295/27 November 2015 and Nr.305/5 December 2016

• Of the total households in Romania, more than half, respectively 61.9% had in the year 2015 a

computer at home, 66.2% of which were concentrated in urban areas.

• 61.0% of Romanian households had, in 2015, access to the Internet at home, 66.9% of them are

located in urban areas.

• 65.0% of Romanian households had, in 2016, access to the internet network at home, 65.4% of

them being located in urban areas.

Households that have computer at home in 2015: 33,8% in rural areas; 66,2% in urban areas.

Households that have internet at home in 2015: 33,1% in rural areas; 66,9% in urban areas.

Households that have internet at home in 2016: 34,6% in rural areas; 65,4% in urban areas.

• According to the results of the survey on the access of the population to information technology

and communications in households, in 2015, more than half of all households in Romania (61.9%)

owns a computer at home.

• Depending on the environment of residence, there were differences in terms of endowment

households with computer. Thus, if 72.2% of households in urban areas are equipped with a

computer at home, among rural households their proportion is only 48.4%.

• From the analysis in territorial profile of the endowment with computers of the households it is

not noticed too large differences between regions, their share being between 50% and 60% of the

total number of households in each region, with the exception of the regions: Bucu resesti -Ilfov

(78.1%), West (70.7%) and Northwest (67.0%). The lowest weights were recorded in the regions:

South-East (54.4%), South-Muntenia (54.8%) and North-East (55.0%).

• From the analysis in territorial profile of the endowment with computers of the households it is

not noticed too large differences between regions, their share being between 50% and 60% of the

total number of households in each region, with the exception of the regions: Bucu resesti-Ilfov

(78.1%),West (70.7%) and Northwest (67.0%). The lowest weights were recorded in the regions:

South-East (54.4%), South-Muntenia (54.8%) and North-East (55.0%).

Tables representing the The structure of people aged 16 to 74, using the computer, by age groups,

in 2015 and 2016 ( Press release nr 305/2016 and nr.295/2015).

4

The shares of people using the Internet have a downward trend in an analysis by age groups, in the

sense that most people in the age group 16-34 years (91.9%) use the Internet, and the percentage

decreases with age. The share of people aged between 55 and 74 reached only 38.4%.

………………………………

INTERNET ACCESS

• In 2015, 61.0% of households in Romania had access to the Internet at home, the majority (66.9%)

of them concentrating in the urban environment. Compared to 2014,the share of households with

Internet access increased by 6.6 percentage points.

• According to the results of the survey on the access of the population to information technology

and communications in households, in 2016, almost two out of three households in Romania (65.0%)

have access to the home internet network. Compared to 2015, the share of households with internet

access increased by 4 percentage points.

• In territorial profile, at the level of 2015, the Internet connection was more widespread in the

framework of households in the Bucharest ‐ Ilfov region (over 3 out of 4 households had In ternet

access followed by long-distance regions West, North-West, Center, South-West Oltenia and South

Muntenia. The smallest shares of households with an Internet connection are recorded by the North-

East (53.2%) and South-East (54.1%) regions.

• In territorial profile, at the level of 2016, the internet connection was more widespread within

households in the Bucharest-Ilfov region (over 4 out of 5 households had internet access at home),

followed at a great distance by the regions North-West, West, South-West Oltenia, Center and South

East. The smallest shares of households with internet connection are recorded by the regions of

South-Muntenia (58.0%) and North-East (57.1%).

• From the point of view of household size, there is a correlation between the number of people

from the household and the increased interest in connecting to the Internet.

• From the point of view of household size, there is a correlation between the number of people in

the household and the increased interest in connecting to the Internet.

Under the title “Proportion of households with Internet access at home, by household size, in 2015”

there is a graphic representation not provided in this translation but to be seen in the annex to this

question (Press release nr 295/2015).

Under the title “Proportion of households with Internet access at home, by household size, in 2015

and 2016” there is a graphic representation not provided in this translation but to be seen in the

annex to this question (Press release nr 305/2016) .

• The types of connection used to access the Internet at home are 89.1% fixed broadband

connections (fixed broadband connections), followed at a great distance by mobile broadband

connections (29.0%) and narrowband connections (11.6%).

•The types of connection used to access the Internet at home are 86.8% fixed broadband

connections (fixed broadband connections), followed at a distance by mobile broadband

connections (43.2%) and narrowband connections (10.3%).

• Most households that opted for fixed broadband Internet connections in the year 2015, come from

the regions Bucharest-Ilfov (15.4%), North-East (14.0%), South-Muntenia (13.9%) and respectively

Northwest (13.6%). They connected via mobile broadband connections more frequently households

in the Bucharest ‐ Ilfov regions (15.8%), South ‐ Muntenia and South ‐ West Oltenia (14.3% each).

5

•Most households that opted for fixed broadband internet connections in 2016 come from the

regions of Bucharest-Ilfov (16.2%), North-East and North-West (13.8% each) and South-Muntenia,

respectively. (13.4%). Through mobile broadband connections, households from South -Muntenia

(15.5%), Bucharest-Ilfov (14.9%) and South-East (14.2%) connected more frequently.

• Of the total number of people aged between 16 and 74, the proport ion of those who used

the Internet has ever been 68.5%, of which 81.7% in the last 3 months. Among current users

65.7% use this instrument on a daily or almost daily basis.

• 69.7% of people aged 16-74 used the internet in 2016.

• Compared to 2015, the share of internet users aged between 16 - 74 years increased by 1.2

percentage points, reaching 10.6 million people.

•Out of the total number of people aged between 16 and 74, the proportion of those who have ever

used the internet was 69.7%, of which 85.3% in the last 3 months. Of the current users, 71.3% use

the internet on a daily or almost daily basis.

•By development regions, the share of people who used the Internet was 83.3% in Bucharest - Ilfov

region and is the highest percentage in the country. They are followed by the West and Center

regions with 74.1% and 73.0%, respectively, and the other regions with proportions below 70%.

• By development regions, the share of people who used the Internet was 88.4% in the Bucharest -

Ilfov region and is the highest percentage in the country. At a considerable distance, the North -

West and Central regions follow with 71.9%, respectively 71.7%, and the other regions presenting

proportions of less than 70%.

• Among men aged 35 to 44, 57.7% used the Internet daily or almost daily, compared to 61.6% of

women in the same age group, the difference being of 3.9 percentage points.

• The proportion of men who use or have ever used the Internet is slightly higher than that of

women: 72.2% compared to 67.2%.

Nota Bene: the green lines above are for the information concerning the year 2016.

We also addressed this question to ANCOM which is the National Authority for Administration and

Regulation in Communications.

Q no.4 was addressed to ANCOM in connection with the communes Câlnic, Negomir, Fărcășești,

Bâlteni, Urdari, Plopșoru, Mătăsari, Slivilești, Ciuperceni, Cătunele, Drăgotești, Telești (and the

localities that belong to these communes) and in connection with Motru and Rovinari towns.

According to the information processed by ANCOM, based on the data reported by the providers of

electronic communications services, the situation on June 30, 2020 regarding the population's

access to the Internet for the localities specified in our request was as follows:

- A number of 14,551 active internet access connections at fixed points were provided to end users individuals, based on subscriptions; - The penetration rate per 100 households was 55%, representing the number of active internet access connections, related to end users - individuals compared to total number of households (based on INS data) * 100; -According to the estimates made by the providers, in the coverage area of the internet access networks at fixed points in the respective areas there were a number of 25,681 households; - 71,647 persons, representing 97% of the population in the cities and towns concerned, represented the population of households that were within the coverage of the providers' acces s networks and which, therefore, could be connected to internet services. -According to the INS (National Institute for Statistics), based on the 2011 Population Census, the total number of households in these localities is 26,443, and the population is 73,648 people. -We also send you in the Annex to Q 4 an Excel document containing the above-mentioned data broken down for each of the mentioned localities.

6

In Annex to Q4, the Excel Table can be understood taking into account the translations below: Column D – UAT - designates municipalities or communes; Column E – localities under each municipality or commune given in Column D; Column F – households; Column G – population; Column H – ACTIVE CONNECTIONS TO FIXED POINTS EFFECTIVELY CONTRACTED BY INDIVIDUALS (reported by suppliers on 30.06.2020); Column I - Penetration rate per 100 households (%) (actually how many households have ALREADY contracted the FIX internet access service); Column J - POTENTIAL COVERAGE households on 30.06.2020 (estimation of suppliers - households that are in the area of coverage of the access networks of the suppliers); Column K - Population with POTENTIAL internet access on 30.06.2020 (ANCOM estimate - population related to households that are in the coverage area of the access networks of the suppliers); Column L - % population with POTENTIAL internet access on 30.06.2020 (ANCOM estimate) Question 5.

Please comment on the communicant’s submission that, while the EIA scoping decisions were published after they were taken, the public did not have an opportunity to participate during the scoping itself? Art 14 (1) lit e) of the MO 135/2010 states that the environmental competent authority, during the scoping stage

e) Draws up and transmits to the developer the guide/scoping document concerning the environmental problems that need to be analyzed in the environmental impact report and in the appropriate assessment study, depending on the case, taking into account the justified suggestions of the public concerned regarding the content of the environmental impact report;

f) Makes available the guide/scoping document to the public by posting it on the internet page.

In connection with the above-mentioned provision there are the public notices provided by Annexes

7 and 8 of the MO 135/2010 by which the information about the project may be consulted at the

EPA’s headquarters and at the developer’s headquarters.

Within every Environmental Agreement there is also an information regarding a letter written by

EPA Gorj to every Commune Town Hall asking for proposals for the content of the EIA

documentation, but no answer was received.

For example, at Calnic Commune Town Hall the letter nr.2596/24.03.2015 was sent – no answer

received; The scoping guide was posted on EPA’s web site on 01.04.2015.

In all others environmental agreements, under chapter V there is mentioned the letter by which

there were asked contributions to the scoping document.

The public could have sent proposals for scoping as a result of the public announcements (Annex 7

and 8).

Moreover, right after posting the scoping document on EPA’s web site it would have been possible

for NGOs to participate with new proposals, and those would have been taken into account by EPA

and sent to the developer in order to be addressed in the EIA documentation, but this did not

happen.

We make this statement based on art.14 para (2) of the MO 135/2010 which says that “The

submission of the guidance/scoping document by the EPA does not preclude the possibility of

further request for additional information”. This provision means that the scoping document may

be improved further based on new requests/ideas which could have come after the scoping

document was transmitted.

7

Probably, for the local people even if they were aware of the effects of the mining works, would

have been very difficult to put in writing, at this very early stage of the procedure, concepts and

ideas to be undertaken in the EIA documentation.

NGOs are members of the public with means of information and knowledge of legislation, they are

people who have always shown that they know very well both the area and the mining issue s and,

evidently, could have participated in the scoping as a result of public announcements. They could

have put into practice the provisions of art. 14 para (2), in goodwill.

Question 6.

What commenting period, if any, was provided to members of the public to comment on the additional information made available for each quarry extension on the following dates: (a) Tismana I – 22.10.2015

(b) Tismana II – 22.10.2015

(c) Pinoasa – 18.11.2015

(d) Rosia – 13.11.2015

(e) Lupoaia – 14.01.2016 and 27.01.2016

(f) Roșiuța – 14.01.2016 and 27.01.2016

(g) Jilt Nord – 05.02.2016 (amended EIA report)

(h) Jilt Sud - 05.02.2016 (amended EIA report)

(i) Pesteana Nord – 17.03.2016

According to the MO 135/2010 the EIA documentation completed with additional information is published on EPA’s web page for the public concerned for 15 days. Thus, the public had at its disposal the above-mentioned deadline for comments / observations regarding the additional information, respectively the solutions to solve the reported problems, but no comments were submitted to EPA Gorj, neither until the date of posting the Decision to issue the environmental agreement, nor later than the date of its issuance, as follows:

The quarry Date of posting the additional info

Deadline for comments

Date of posting the decision to issue the env. agreement and of posting the draft agreement (Annex 7 of the MO 135/2020)

Date of issuing the env. agreement

1 Tismana I 22.10.2015 07.11.2015 09.12.2015 18.12.2015

2 Tismana II 22.10.2015 07.11.2015 09.12.2015 18.12.2015 3 Pinoasa 18.11.2015 03.11.2015 15.01.2016 27.01.2016

4. Roșia 13.11.2015 29.11.2015 14.01.2016 26.01.2016 5 Lupoaia 14.01.2016

27.01.2016 12.02.2016 04.04.2016 19.04,2016

6 Roșiuța 14.01.2016 27.01.2016

12.02.2016 04.04.2016 19.04.2016

7 Jilț Nord 05.02.2016 21.02.2016 13.04.2016 09.05.2016 8 Jilț Sud 05.02.2016 21.02.2016 13.04.2016

9 Peșteana Nord

17.03.2016 02.04.2016 19.04.2016 15.06.2016

8

Practically, the competent environmental protection authority has always shown flexibility when

speaking about comments received after the deadline has expired, the public could have sent

comments, e.g, for Tismana I within the period 22.10.2015 -09.12.2015, but they did not do it. The

same comment is valid for all others quarries.

Question 7. For each of the above quarry extensions, please specify whether, and if so how, the public was informed of the publication of this additional information and, if applicable, their opportunity and timeframe to provide comments on that information?

The additional information, resulting from the public debates, was made available to the public by publishing it on the website of EPA Gorj. Question 8. Given that at least some of this additional information was clearly available to decision -makers prior to the publication of the draft EIA reports (for example, the risk and health assessment for Rosia de Jiu is dated 22 December 2006), why was the additional information not made available to the public prior to the public hearings together with the draft EIA reports?

According to the provisions of the GD no.445/2009:

- For projects subject to environmental impact assessment, the developers have the obligation to provide in the EIA, at the request of the public authority for environmental protection, the information provided in Annex no. 4(of the GD 445/2009), with the corresponding application of the provisions of art. 12 para. (4). - The public authorities, especially those provided in art. 7 para. (1), which have relevant information for the assessment of the direct and indirect effects of the project, have the obligation to make this information available to the project owner. - The issues to be addressed in the EIA report were established in the guide/scoping document taking into account the provisions of Annex no. 4, the analysis of the presentation Memoire submitted by the developer, the observations/comments of the interested public, following the publication on the website of the authority, of the developer and in the local press, as well as of the views expressed in the technical analysis commission by the other public authorities involved. - The report on the impact on the environment is subject to comments from the interested public.

The EIA report completed with the answers formulated following the public debates contained all

the information provided in annex no. 4 of the EIA Directive (Annex 4 of the GD no.445/2009 which

represents the content of the EIA report compulsory requested to the developer to be provided

during the EIA procedure).

The additional information, e.g. the risk and health assessment for Rosia de Jiu was not made available to the public prior to the public hearings together with the draft EIA reports because it was considered that the EIA report contains all necessary information in accordance with the requirements of the EIA Directive and the national legislation in force (GD no.445/2009 and the MO 135/2010). The EIA report and the Form containing answers to the concerned public questions have approched public health issues like cumulative impact on human settlements, noise, drinking water, pollution caused by air particles PM10, PM5 and the conclusions of risk and health assessment done in 2006 for which an approval was issued by Gorj Public Health Department in 2006 (Approval no.613/2006). It is important to notice that after the Form containing the answers to the public questions was posted on EPA’s web site, no other questions or comments were received.

9

Question 9. Please provide the list of additional documents and the weblinks to where the additional documents were made available for the following three quarry extensions (these details are missing for these quarries from the annexes to your reply of 19 January 2021): (a) Lupoaia – 14.01.2016 and 27.01.2016

(b) Roșiuța – 14.01.2016 and 27.01.2016

(c) Pesteana Nord – 17.03.2016

EPA Gorj answered that the required documents can be found below ( print screen from the web page of EPA Gorj): For Lupoaia Pit – completions to EIA documentation and final EIA documentation

For Rosiuta Pit - completions to EIA documentation and final EIA documentation

10

For Pesteana - completions to EIA documentation

Looking for the links on EPA’s web site, taking into considerat ion that 5/6 years have passed since

the documentation was posted, we found the following situation:

For Lupoia Pit:

11

http://apmgj.anpm.ro/documents/20769/3637439/CEO-UMC+Lupoaia+-Completari+RIM-

Formularul+pentru+prezentarea+solu%C5%A3iilor+UMC+Lupoaia.pdf/2d53809a-64da-42e8-9ccf-

5394aa5e28da

For Rosiuta Pit: http://www.anpm.ro/web/apm-gorj/documente-procedura-eim-si-ea/-

/asset_publisher/Wzb2ztRkJWtj/content/ceo-umc-rosiuta-completari-rim-formularul-pentru-

prezentarea-solutiilor-umc-

rosiuta?_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anpm.ro%2Fweb%2Fapm-

gorj%2Fdocumente-procedura-eim-si-

ea%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p

_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-

2%26p_p_col_count%3D1%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_advancedSearch%3Dfalse%26_101_INS

TANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_keywords%3D%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_delta%3D100%26p_r_p_56

4233524_resetCur%3Dfalse%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_cur%3D3%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2zt

RkJWtj_andOperator%3Dtrue&redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anpm.ro%2Fweb%2Fapm-

gorj%2Fdocumente-procedura-eim-si-

ea%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p

_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-

2%26p_p_col_count%3D1%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_advancedSearch%3Dfalse%26_101_INS

TANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_keywords%3D%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_delta%3D100%26p_r_p_56

4233524_resetCur%3Dfalse%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_cur%3D3%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2zt

RkJWtj_andOperator%3Dtrue

In the same time, looking back to Romania’s answer transmitted to the ACCC in 2020 we can

indicate the document posted at link:

https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/C2016-

140_Romania/Correspondence_with_the_Party/frPartyC140_08.07.2020_reply3.pdf

where at pages 6-8 there is information on Pesteana Nord, like:

- The link for the scoping document(Indrumar)

- The link for the EIA study

- And the indication that on 17.03.2016, there was posted on LEPA Gorj web page: - The

table with solutions to the public comments and questions for Peșteana Nord, including

pages from EIA Study corelated with Anexa 15 and EIA Study correlated with Anexa 15

The same document from 2020 presents at pages 16-19 the following information for Lupoaia Pit:

- The link for the scoping document(Indrumar)

- The link for the EIA study

- On 14.01.2016, The table with solutions to the public comments and questions for Lupoaia

is posted at link:

http://www.anpm.ro/web/apm-gorj/documente-procedura-eim-si-ea/-

/asset_publisher/Wzb2ztRkJWtj/content/ceo-umc-lupoaia-completari-rim-

formularulpentru-prezentarea-solutiilor-umc-

lupoaia?_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anpm.ro%2Fweb%2F

apm-gorj%2Fdocumenteprocedura-eim-

siea%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnor

mal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn2%26p_p_col_count%3D1%26_101_INSTA

NCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_advancedSearch%3Dfalse%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_keywords

%3D%26_101_INSTANCE

_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_delta%3D100%26p_r_p_564233524_resetCur%3Dfalse%26_101_INSTANCE_W

zb2ztRkJWtj_cur%3D3%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_andO

http://apmgj.anpm.ro/documents/20769/3637439/CEO-UMC+Lupoaia+-Completari+RIM-Formularul+pentru+prezentarea+solu%C5%A3iilor+UMC+Lupoaia.pdf/2d53809a-64da-42e8-9ccf-5394aa5e28da



http://www.anpm.ro/web/apm-gorj/documente-procedura-eim-si-ea/-/asset_publisher/Wzb2ztRkJWtj/content/ceo-umc-rosiuta-completari-rim-formularul-pentru-prezentarea-solutiilor-umc-rosiuta?_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anpm.ro%2Fweb%2Fapm-gorj%2Fdocumente-procedura-eim-si-ea%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-2%26p_p_col_count%3D1%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_advancedSearch%3Dfalse%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_keywords%3D%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_delta%3D100%26p_r_p_564233524_resetCur%3Dfalse%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_cur%3D3%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_andOperator%3Dtrue&redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anpm.ro%2Fweb%2Fapm-gorj%2Fdocumente-procedura-eim-si-ea%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-2%26p_p_col_count%3D1%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_advancedSearch%3Dfalse%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_keywords%3D%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_delta%3D100%26p_r_p_564233524_resetCur%3Dfalse%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_cur%3D3%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_andOperator%3Dtrue


















https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/C2016-140_Romania/Correspondence_with_the_Party/frPartyC140_08.07.2020_reply3.pdf

https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/C2016-140_Romania/Correspondence_with_the_Party/frPartyC140_08.07.2020_reply3.pdf

12

perator%3Dtrue&redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anpm.ro%2Fweb%2Fapm-

gorj%2Fdocumente-procedura-eim-




%3D%26_101_INSTANCE


zb2ztRkJWtj_cur%3D3%26_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_andO perator%3Dtrue

- On 27.01.2016, the completed EIA study is posted at link:


/asset_publisher/Wzb2ztRkJWtj/content/emc-lupoaia-continuarea-lucrarilor-

miniereraport-eim-lupoaia-2015-

final?_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anpm.ro%2Fweb%2Fap

m-gorj%2Fdocumente-procedura-eim-




%3D%26_101_INSTANCE








%3D%26_101_INSTANCE



- On 25.02.2016, there are posted on the web page of LEPA Gorj the following :

- EIA Study Lupoaia 2016

- Scanned-image_22-02-2016-125359 – distribution of inhabitants by age groups

- Scanned-image_22-02-2016-125418 – tabel with civile constructions that will be

decommissioned


/asset_publisher/Wzb2ztRkJWtj/content/emc-lupoaia-competari-la-rim-si-rim-

finalcontinuarea-lucrarilor-miniere-in-perimetrul-de-

licenta?_101_INSTANCE_Wzb2ztRkJWtj_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anpm.ro%2Fweb%2Fa

pmgorj%2Fdocumente-procedura-eim-




%3D%26_101_INSTANCE








%3D%26_101_INSTANCE



13

Question 10. Please provide a copy of the reply, if any, sent by Gorj Environmental Protection Agency to the communicant regarding its request of 24 September 2015 for access to environmental information.3 The request of the Bankwatch Romania Association dated September 24, 2015 was sent to the developer, respectively to the person in charge with the elaboration of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report, who responded to the request in the Form for presenting the solutions to the problems reported by the public concerned, being displayed on the website of EPA Gorj for all lignite quarries.

Question 11. Article 25 (2) of Ministerial Order no. 135/2010 requires the competent authority to only take into consideration “justified” public comments, opinions and observations. Please clarify what this means in practice, providing examples of those comments that are considered not to be “justified”, and explaining how it is determined whether comments are “justified” or not.

All comments that are not connected to the project or to its effects are not justified.

All comments that are connected with the personal interest of a member of the public are not

justified.

Justified comments have to take into consideration the EIA documentation, the proposed project

and must not reflect a personal interest that cannot be resolved by the EIA documentation or by

the developer through the project itself.

Common sense must dictate the so called “justified comments”. Justified comments do not speak

about ideas, situations or wishes that are not connected with a project itself.

During the public debate sessions on the EIA reports regarding the continuation of the activity in mining quarries in Gorj County, several participants made the following requests: a. Employment of their family members as a condition to accept the occupation of the land by

continuing the lignite extraction activity;

b. To be given monetary rights for lands, goods or usufruct for their affectation; c. Granting coal quotas established by the collective labor contract; We provide below comments that are considered not to be justified, extracts from the minutes of

the public hearings:

➢ A local, Ciochei Ion, concluded an agreement with Energy Complex Oltenia SA on the

condition of employing his wife, but the established clauses were not observed.

➢ A local from Matasari Commune invokes the social impact on the area and states that

although they are affected by the activity(population displacement), the impact on the

environment does not bother them because the disappearance of this livelihood would be

more serious for the population.

➢ A representative of the developer says that for the displaced inhabitants in areas where new

villages will be located, compensations have been granted for dozens of households.

➢ Tuila Florinel - Mayor - the compensation of the citizens affected by the extension of the

Lupoaia quarry for the inhabitants of Lupoita will be done in the order of submitting the

requests.

➢ Two other inhabitants - Vacarascu Ionut and Tigaran Ion - request monetary compensation

for the privately owned land.

➢ A resident of Rosiuta - Tutunaru Ion - wants his coal quota.

14

Question 12. Article 18 of Ministerial Order no. 135/2010 provides that at the stage of “quality report analysis concerning the environmental impact assessment report”, the public concerned can submit “comments/opinions/observations to the environmental impact assessment report”. Please clarify at which stage the public can submit any other comments, information, analyses or opinions that it considers relevant to the proposed activity, but that do not relate directly to the environmental impact assessment report.

The public can send observations / proposals / comments at each procedural stage, according to Law 292/2018 on assessing the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment. The same situation was valid as well, for the MO 135/2010 in force at the time of the EIA 2015 procedures, the public could send observations / proposals / comments at each procedural stage prior of taking the decisions and even after taking the decision - during the period of time of posting the draft decision on the web site -.

Under this question EPA Gorj gave us the following answer: According to the Civil Sentence no. 3795/02.07.2013 of the Bucharest Tribunal, in File no. 1763/3/2013: „… in the case it is found that the defendant Agency for Environmental Protection Gorj issued the environmental agreement no. GJ-15 by virtue of its legal powers and after analyzing the documentation submitted by the defendant SC Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA - Rovinari Quarry Mining, the project being submitted to public debate, the file containing evidence of publication of ads on the Internet, in the written press and at its headquarters, so that no lack of transparency can be imputed to it, and the act issued contains, in detail, the description of the project, the documents underlying its issuance, the steps taken, the reasons for the agreement and the measures imposed for maintaining it. "

Question 13. Please explain the meaning of the “Date of the ascertainment of Ramnicu Valcea Forestry Guard”, included in the table provided on pages 11 and 12 of your response of 9 March 2020.

The meaning of the “Date of the ascertainment of Ramnicu Valcea Forestry Guard” included in our answer of 9 March 2020, pages 11-12 is: the date of the finding by the specialized personnel within the Râmnicu Vâlcea Forest Guard that the entire surface of 24,5500 ha related to the 27 decisions was deforested and excavated…. Question 14.

Please specify with regards to each of the ten mining quarry extensions at issue in the present case (Pinoasa, Tismana I, Tismana II, Rosia, Rosiuta, Pesteana Nord, Pesteana Sud, Lupoaia, Jilt Nord and Jilt Sud):

(a) On what date (day/month/year) did the deforestation authorized by the Forest and Hunting Inspectorate (ITRSV) between 2011 and 2013 start?

(b) On what date(s) did it stop and when were the deforestation activities resumed?

15

The exploitation of the wood mass/deforestation was carried out on the basis of the documents (deforestation authorizations) issued by the administrators or providers of forestry services of the respective areas.

The deforestation authorizations are based on ITRSV decisions for permanent removal or temporary occupation of land from the national forest fund.

The information required by question 14 has to be looked for within the administrators or providers of forestry services, which are public or private entities.

Given the elapsed time since 2011, the documents are archived now and as soon as we’ll have a

response to this question it will be forwarded to the ACCC.

Question 15. With regards to injunctive relief requests under articles 14 or 15(1) of Law 554/2004, please clarify whether, under Romania’s legal framework, the filing of an application for injunctive relief has automatic suspensive effect on the execution of the administrative act with respect to which the request is filed.

The application for injunctive relief has no automatic suspensive effect on the execution of the

administrative act with respect to which the request is filed.

Question 16. On page 31 of your response of 9 March 2020, you state that “according to statistics compiled by the Ministry of Justice of Romania, within the last nine years, the duration of injunctive relief court proceedings (including on environmental cases) has varied between 135 and 319 days, while the duration of annulment proceedings has varied between 88 and 255 days.” Please explain why injunctive relief proceedings in Romania on average take longer than annulment proceedings.

Injunctive relief proceedings in Romania do not on average take longer than annulment proceedings.

Due to a typing error, the references to the duration of court proceedings on page 31 of the response

of 9 March 2020 were reversed. We aplogize for this error and submit the original table containing

the statistics compiled by the Ministry of Justice (see Annex for Q16).

16

Documents

A better translation using the EIA terminology is now