files.gamta.ltfiles.gamta.lt/aaa/Tipk/Capasity_ECDG/1SummaryCRR/hu... · Web viewMost of the...

European Commission DG Environment

Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis at the Local and Regional Level

Capacity Review Report

Hungary

Date: 8.10.04

Prepared by: Dr. Iván Gyulai

Checked by: Norman Sheridan

Client Ref. No.: EuropeAid/116215/CSV/PHA

CMDCJoint Venture:

Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review - Hungary

Foreword

Background of the ProjectIn 2003 the European Commission, Directorate General for Environment, decided to launch a project in the 10 Phare countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania) aimed at improving the implementation of the following directives:

- Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (Directive 96/61/EC) - Environmental Impact Assessment (Directive 97/11/EC)

on regional and local level.

Each country has selected 4 to 8 pilot areas in which the training takes place. The training comprises regional workshops in each pilot area plus national workshops. Two Multi-country workshops, where the 10 participating countries can exchange experience and views, are included in the project.

The project was initiated in December 2003 and is expected to end in June 2005.

The project is implemented and managed by a Consortium comprising 4 international consulting companies (Carl Bro, COWI, DHV and Milieu) assisted by national companies in the 10 Phare-countries - including subsidiaries of the consortium companies.

The objectives of the project

Overall objectivesThe overall objective is as follows:

To develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of EIA and IPPC. This will be done through an approach that is tailored to the needs and conditions of each particular country, but also ensuring the possibility for countries to learn from the experiences of their neighbours.

Specific objectivesThe specific objectives of this contract are as follows:

Better understanding in the PHARE countries of the steps needed to improve implementation of EIA and IPPC directives at local and regional level.

Better trained local and regional authorities in each country able to effectively implement environmental acquis, particularly the EIA and IPPC directives.

Preparation of models of good environmental administration at the local and regional level in the PHARE countries

Preparation of strategies for broader application of the experiences of the pilot areas within each PHARE country.

Objective of This ReportThe objective of this report is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the present administrative practice and capacities in the countries. It focuses on EIA and IPPC implementation, and is based on the Institutional Review which focuses on the administrative structures in place for implementation, including an assessment of the transposition of the EIA and IPPC Directives, and the Training Needs Assessment which assesses the needs of the regional staff selected for training under this project. This Report forms an essential background

Final Version 08-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture i


review of the current state of play in the country, and will serve as a basis for any recommendations for improvements to legal arrangements and/or administrative practices to ensure full effective implementation of the EIA and the IPPC Directive.

Preparation of ReportThis report is prepared by Country Manager Erzsebet Schmuck. Further information may be obtained from Erzsebet Schmuck ([email protected]) or from Assistant Team Leader Grith Lindgreen Petersen ([email protected])

Final Version 08-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture ii

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Contents

Foreword................................................................................................................................... i

Contents.................................................................................................................................. iii

Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................... iv

A. Capacity Review Environmental Impact Assessment......................................................1

A.1. Summary...................................................................................................................... 1

A.2. Introduction................................................................................................................... 2

A.3. The Current Legal Framework......................................................................................2

A.4. Institutional Arrangements............................................................................................5

A.5. Trainees Review...........................................................................................................6

A.6. Assessment of Current Administrative Practices........................................................12

B. Capacity Review Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control.....................................14

B.1. Summary....................................................................................................................14

B.2. Introduction................................................................................................................. 14

B.3. The Current Legal Framework....................................................................................15

B.4. Institutional Arrangements..........................................................................................16

B.5. Trainees Review.........................................................................................................19

B.6. Assessment of Current Administrative Practices........................................................26

C. Annex I: Institutional Review - EIA...................................................................................29

C.1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 29

C.2. Legal Assessment.......................................................................................................29

C.3. Publicly Available Guidance Documents.....................................................................50

C.4. Institutional Arrangements..........................................................................................51

C.5. Procedural Issues.......................................................................................................55

D. Annex I: Institutional Review - IPPC................................................................................65

D.1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 65

D.2. Legal Assessment.......................................................................................................65

D.3. Publicly Available Guidance Documents.....................................................................69

D.4. Institutional Arrangements..........................................................................................70

D.5. Number of Installations in Hungary by Region............................................................78

D.6. Procedural Issues.......................................................................................................79

E. Annex II: Conclusions on the Training Needs Assessment - EIA.................................92

E.1. Overall Staff Capacities, i.e. Characteristics of Staff Involved in EIA Determination in Hungary......................................................................................................................92

E.2. Subject Matter Knowledge Capacities and Experiences.............................................92

E.3. Conclusion on Knowledge and Experience of Staff Dealing with EIA Determination. .95

Final Version 08-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture iii


F. Annex II: Conclusions on the Training Needs Assessment - IPPC...............................96

F.1. Overall Staff Capacities, i.e. Characteristics of Staff Involved in IPPC Permits in Hungary......................................................................................................................96

F.2. Subject Matter Knowledge Capacities and Experiences.............................................97

F.3. Conclusion on Knowledge and Experience of Staff Dealing with IPPC Determination.................................................................................................................................. 100

Abbreviations

ADU-KÖFE Baja, Environmental Inspectorate of the Lower-Danube RegionAEP Act on Environmental ProtectionBAT Best Available TechniquesBREF BAT Reference DocumentDetEIA Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment DIPP & EA Department for Integrated Pollution Prevention and Environment

Assessment (within NDfENW)DIPPH Department of Integrated Pollution Prevention and Health (within MfEW)EDU-KÖFE Gyor, Environmental Inspectorate of the Northern-Transdanube RegionEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentELV Emission Limit Value EPER European Pollutants Emission Register EüM Ministry for Public HealthFVM Ministry for Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentGD Government DecreeGHG Greenhouse GasesIPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control KDT-KÖFE Szekesfehervar, Environmental Inspectorate of the Middle-Transdanube

RegionKHVM Formerly: Ministry for Transport, Media and WaterKöM or KvVM or KTM

Former names used in Hungarian legislation documents for the Ministry for Environment and Water

KÖR-KÖFE Gyula, Environmental Inspectorate of the Koros RegionKTV-KÖFE Szolnok, Environmental Inspectorate of the Middle-Tisza RegionKvvM Current name used in legislation for the Ministry for Environment and WaterMfEW Ministry for Environment and WaterMR Formerly used: Ministerial Council Decree (before 1989)NDfENW National Directorate for Environment, Nature and WaterNYuDu-KÖFE Szombathely, Environmental Inspectorate of the Western-Transdanube

RegionPreES Preliminary Environmental Study REI Regional Environmental Inspectorate

Final Version 08-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture iv

Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental AcquisCapacity Review EIA - Hungary

A. Capacity Review Environmental Impact Assessment

A.1. Summary

The overall objective of the project “Capacity building in implementation of the environmental acquis” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC).

This Capacity Review Report focuses on EIA implementation in Hungary, and is based on the Institutional Review which focuses on the administrative structures in place for implementation, including an assessment of the transposition of the EIA Directive, and the Training Needs Assessment which assesses the needs of the regional staff selected for training under this project. This Report forms an essential background review of the current state of play in Hungary and will serve as a basis for any recommendations for improvements to legal arrangements and/or administrative practices to ensure full effective implementation of the EIA Directive.

Both the EIA Directive and the relevant parts of Directive 2003/35/EC on public participation and access to justice have been fully transposed into Hungarian legislation.

A number of Guidance Documents are available on the web site of the Ministry of Environment; however these date from 1996 and would benefit from updating in light of the Decree of 2001 which implements EIA and the guidance documents prepared by the EU in 2001.

The Regional Environmental Inspectorate (REI) is responsible for all aspects of EIA implementation, except that the Ministry is involved when there is a trans-boundary context. The REIs do not have a specific EIA department, and thus tasks are fragmented between the various (media specific) departments. There is therefore a problem in taking an ‘integrated’ approach to each EIA application. Statutory consultation authorities are clearly defined but often do not participate actively in the EIA process.

Of more pressing concern is the anecdotal evidence to suggest that the REI usually determines that a detailed EIA is not required for projects falling within Annex II of the Directive—determined more on the basis of work loads and to avoid the lengthy procedure rather than based on environmental and Annex III criteria.

The Ministry would benefit from additional staff, or outside consultants, to assist in the preparation of guidance documents and internal procedures manuals. The REI are said to have sufficient staff to carry out their duties under the EIA legislation – but this may not be the case if more projects were determined to require detailed EIAs.

Staff at both the Ministry and the REIs have good access to computers although the REIs would benefit from better access to the internet.

Because relatively few projects are determined to require a full EIA, The training under this project should particularly focus on screening, scoping, alternatives and mitigation measures. There is also limited experience of public participation processes.

Final Version 8-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture 1


A.2. Introduction

The overall objective of the project “Capacity building in implementation of the environmental acquis” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). This will be done through an approach that is tailored to the needs and conditions of each particular country, but also ensuring the possibility for countries to learn from the experiences of their neighbours.

This Capacity Review Report focuses on EIA; a separate Report focuses on IPPC.

The time for transposition of the EU Directives into the national legislation, and the effective implementation of this national legislation into the public administrative practise at local and regional level is now very short – for Hungary the deadline for having administrative structures in place is May 2004. Therefore it is essential that the training provided by this project to the local/regional authorities with responsibilities for EIA are focused and specifically directed at their needs and at identified weaknesses or areas of concern.

In addition to the focused training directed to the needs of the trainees in the competent authorities at local/regional level, the project is also required to make proposals for any recommended revision of existing administrative regulations to enhance the implementation of the EIA Directive. The scope of these recommended revisions means that it is necessary to consider not just the legal and regulatory framework for implementation of EIA but also any administrative and technical guidance documents. It will also consider the actual implementation and enforcement – that is to say the administrative practices – currently in place.

Thus it is essential that appropriate background material is collected, reviewed and assessed. This Capacity Review Report summarises this material and assessment. The information itself has been collated in two reports: the Institutional Review - focused on the strength and weaknesses of the administrative structures - and the Training Needs Assessment - focused at the needs of the employees selected for training. The two reports appear as annexes to this report.

A.3. The Current Legal Framework

There are two important pieces of legislation relevant to the EIA Directive.Based upon the authorization of Act No. 53 of 1995 on the General Rules of Protection of the Environment (AEP), a Government Decree No. 20 of 2001 (14th of February) is devoted to implement the general rules of the Act.

According to the Decree an Environmental Impact Assessment shall cover the examination of

a) the activity’s impacts on environmental elements b) the activity’s impacts on systems, processes, structure of environmental elements c) expectable changes as consequences of the aforementioned impacts in the health and

socioeconomic situation –especially in the quality of life and conditions of land use– of the affected people.

The Competent Authority for determining EIA applications is the Regional Environmental Inspectorate (REI).

An EIA is obligatory for all projects falling within Chapter A of Annex 1 of the Decree on EIA. All activities included in Annex I of the EIA Directive are included in this Chapter, although the Hungarian legislation sets some stricter thresholds for certain types of projects. In addition Chapter A of Annex 1 of the Decree includes some additional types of projects, such as utilisation of forest areas over 50 Ha, and large uranium mining.



Chapter B of Annex 1 of the Decree lists those types of projects for which an EIA may be required. This Chapter B includes all the types of projects listed in Annex II of the EIA Directive. Threshold values are set for many of the types of projects listed in Chapter B of Annex 1 of the Decree.

Annex III of the EIA Directive is transposed by Annex 4 of the Decree. Thus screening is carried out using both the thresholds and a case-by-case basis.

All projects, whether Chapter A or B or otherwise, including expansion of existing projects, require a Preliminary Environmental Study (PreES). A decision is made by the REI whether the non-Chapter A projects will require a full EIA, based on the PreES and the Annex 4 criteria, and after comments are received from the statutory authorities. This procedure also helps ensure that developers do not try and split projects to avoid the EIA. The PreES is made available to the public, as is the decision of the REI whether a detailed EIA is required or not.

If an EIA is required, the REI uses the PreES to determine the scope of the detailed EIA that the developer will be required to undertake.

The detailed EIA is also made available to the public for comment and is forwarded by the REI to other authorities with responsibilities for the environment for their comments.

The REI makes its decision on whether to grant the environmental permit after considering the detailed EIA and any comments received. Its decision is made available to the public.



The EIA procedure as it follows:


yes

yes

yes

no

no

No, refuse request for permission

No, it goes for a DetEIA

yes

no

yes

O

Decision on an investment

Is EIA required?

Investment can start, relevant environmental legislation need to be addressed

Commission of consultants to prepare PreES, information made available

Preparing PreESfocusing on exclusion criteria, alternatives

A request for environmental permission is sent to the first level environmental authority facilitated with the PreES

Is PreES acceptable?

Screening

Scooping

Consultant to be commissioned, provide information

DetEIA

DetEIA Study and its summary

Evaluation by competent authorities and public hearing

DetEIA acceptable ?

Is development consent?

The EIA procedure

Permission can be obtained, investment starts, monitoring of conditions


The EIA Directive has been transposed fully. In the light of the Aarhus Convention Hungary has integrated the Convention’s requirements into the Government Decree 20/2001.

There are a number of publications about EIA available on the web page of the Ministry and in the library of the Environmental and Water Directorate General. All of them are available on micro films. Micro-films are distributed to local environmental directorates as well, where the appropriate devices are available for reading. While these publications cover all aspects of EIA, it should be noted that most of these documents date from 1996 and have not been updated recently.

In addition, there is a university course at the Debrecen University, for postgraduate students, which gives diplomas for EIA managers.

A.4. Institutional Arrangements

Table A.4.1 below shows the division of responsibilities between the different layers of government (national, regional and local) for specific obligations relating to EIA.

Table A.4.1 Competent authorities for EIAResponsibilities Central

(Government)Regional

Environmental Inspectorate

Local government

Other

Deciding whether a project requires an EIA

X

Making the EIA decision XIssuing guidance on EIA XTrans-boundary issues X XIssues of commercial confidentiality

X

Consultation with other authorities

X

Ensuring public consultations

X X

Inspection XEnforcement XMaintaining an EIA register

X X

Making information available to the public

X X

Appeal X This is the competency

of the second level

authority

There are three important elements of the Hungarian EIA institution system. The central level is the Ministry for Environment and Water Management, where a department deals with EIA issues. The regional level has the most tasks and has competency in making decisions on environmental permissions. The Regional Environmental Inspectorate is the first level authority in the procedure. In case of appeals the second level authority, which is attached to the Ministry, is the competent authority. Competencies in case of all levels are very clear, tasks, and procedures are very well regulated by the Government Decree.

There are 14 REIs in Hungary, based on river catchment areas. The REI do not have a specific department responsible for EIA; rather, the tasks are divided between the experts in different departments such as environmental media and legal.



The EIA Decree Annex 3 lists a number of environmental authorities that are also involved in the EIA process, especially giving comments on the detailed EIA. The National Parks Directorates and the County Institutes of the National Health and Sanitary Services are always involved in the EIA process. Other authorities may be involved if their competencies are affected.

Institutional Capacity at Central LevelInstitutional capacity at the central level looks insufficient for preparing general guidance and internal procedural manuals, while numbers are satisfactory concerning preparing legislation and maintaining the register. This is a very busy period for them, e.g. accession was such a rush time, when they have to involve consultants, or legal advisers. External consultants are/will be engaged to assist in development of Guidance Documents and internal procedure manuals. They do not have their own legal advisor at the EIA department; the legal department provides this expertise. There is not sufficient supporting staff, and no sufficient capacity to advice and consult local level regularly. The three persons, who are dealing with EIA at the central level have other tasks as well. Approximately 80% of their time is devoted to EIA.

At the second level authority (appeals etc) there is no fix staff dealing with EIA. Number of people and kind of experts depend on the number and type of cases.

Institutional Capacity at Regional/Local LevelBecause there is no EIA department at the REI level, many people are concerned in EIA. Tasks are fragmented among the different departments, legal, environmental media, etc. Experts are specialised in different environmental media, and probably no one has an integrated mind to see the whole sense of EIA. It is hard to say how much time is devoted to EIA per person, because different tasks are given to them. The same is true for the supporting staff.

According to the Governmental Decree there are many authorities that can be concerned in EIA. There are no fixed numbers of staff dealing with EIA issues. Personal contacts are seldom, mostly corresponding is the way of communication.

Every person has computer and work with it, there is no administrative support for this. But of course many other tasks are being carried out by the help of a computer. The Register is not an analytic register, which would show all kind of information about the impact study.

Comparing to the number of applications for environmental permissions, staff number looks sufficient. We have to note that it would not be so, if more preES would be followed by a detEIA.

Staff are very well equipped with PCs, and everybody can use the office package. Generally there is access to Internet, but the poor English knowledge prevents the use of EU documents. Most of the Inspectorates have home page, or they are on the way to be developed. In general insufficient information can be found concerning the concrete cases.

A.5. Trainees Review

Five pilot regions were selected for inclusion in this project. From these five regions, some 17 staff from the REIs were selected for participation in the training programmes. In general these trainees were selected as being the ones less experienced in the EIA process in Hungary.



Table A.5.2 Trainees review and capacity overview, by pilot regionsRegion 1 SzékesfehérvárNumber of staff involved in EIAs 8Educational background of staff involved in EIA determinations

Scientists Planners Engineers Lawyers Others

3

Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 2

Average duration of present employment 1.5

Position of staff involved in EIA Junior Medium High

2 1

Media specialisation of staff Water Waste Air Other

2 1

Average number of training days of EIA staff has been exposed to 0Number of EIA determinations staff has been involved in as lead 1Number of EIA determinations to which staff have contributed 6Familiarity with the English language, summaries

Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at allSpeaking 3Reading 1 2Writing 3Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities

No. of experienced users, using some of the office package programmes and e-mail and internet facilities

No. of inexperienced and occasional users, not conversant with e-mail and internet

No. of non-users

3Status of IT No. of staff fully equipped with PCs, peripherals and office package

No. of staff using Windows later than win95

No. of staff with e-mail facilities

No. of staff with internet connections

No. of staff which has no - or only rarely - access to IT facilities

3 3 3 3



Region 2 GyőrNumber of staff involved in EIAs 10Educational background of staff involved in EIA determinations


2 1

Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 4.5



1 2


1 1 1

Average number of training days of EIA staff has been exposed to 0Number of EIA determinations staff has been involved in as lead 13Number of EIA determinations to which staff have contributed 60Familiarity with the English language, summaries

Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at allSpeaking 1 2Reading 1 2Writing 1 2Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities



No. of non-users


No. Of staff using Windows later than win95




3 3 3 3



Region 3 GyulaNumber of staff involved in EIAs 15Educational background of staff involved in EIA determinations


2 1




1 2


1 2 2

Average number of training days of EIA staff has been exposed to 2Number of EIA determinations staff has been involved in as lead 7Number of EIA determinations to which staff have contributed Numerous

Familiarity with the English language, summariesGood/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at all

Speaking 1 2Reading 1 2Writing 1 2Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities



No. of non-users

2 1Status of IT No. of staff fully equipped with PCs, peripherals and office package

No. Of staff using Windows later than win95




3 3 3 3



Region 4 SZOMBATHELYNumber of staff involved in EIAs 15Educational background of staff involved in EIA determinations


1 0 2 1 0

Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 11,6

Average duration of present employment 5,1

Position of staff involved in EIARemark: 1 not answered

Junior Medium High

3


1 1 1 1

Average number of training days of EIA staff has been exposed to 0,0Number of EIA determinations staff has been involved in as lead >55Number of EIA determinations to which staff have contributed >45Familiarity with the English language, summaries

Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at allSpeaking 1 1 2 Reading 1 1 2Writing 1 1 2Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities



No. of non-users






4 4 4 4



Region 5 BAJANumber of staff involved in EIAs 10Educational background of staff involved in EIA determinationsRemark: 1 not answered


0 0 2 0 1




1 2 1


2 2 2 0

Average number of training days of EIA staff has been exposed to 1,5Number of EIA determinations staff has been involved in as lead 9Number of EIA determinations to which staff have contributed 20Familiarity with the English language, summaries

Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at allSpeaking 1 1 2 Reading 1 1 2Writing 1 1 2Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities



No. of non-users

2 2Status of IT No. of staff fully equipped with PCs, peripherals and office package





3 1 3 4

The most experienced staff, concerning trainees, works for Szombathely. They all classified as having high position on EIA. In Baja they are classified in all categories, while trainees at others places are classified as medium and junior. We mostly have engineers, and just one lawyer, others are dealing with co-ordination tasks, or not specified. Experience on EIA is in line with average years spent at working place, and also with number of cases. Environmental media, such as water, air, and waste are represented in equal numbers, showing the establishment of the inspectorate’s departments. English language skill is modest at most cases. Just one person is good at reading, 5 are sufficient, 4 are not good enough, 8 do not have English language skill at all.

Advanced and experienced users of office package and e-mail facility can be found at most places, only four who are not very advanced. People are equipped with PCs and office packages, e-mail facilities. People in Győr, do not have regular access to internet, others do have.



One region (Szolnok) is not interested in EIA training.

Although some trainees are well trained in the field of their environmental media, they are still expecting more detailed information on their specific (sectoral) area. Moreover they lack sufficient understanding of the comprehensive EIA procedure.

Major issues: little experience in using alternatives. Alternatives are only asked for in the preliminary

EIA. Not in the full scale EIA. little experience in mitigation measures. Mitigation hasn’t been an important issue so

far in Hungary. Little experience in scoping, as detailed EIA is made in very few cases.

A.6. Assessment of Current Administrative Practices

The assessment of the current administrative practices for the effective implementation of the EIA Directive is divided into three categories:

1. Procedures2. Training related issues3. Non-training related issues.

The strengths and weaknesses of the current administrative practices for the effective implementation of EIA are summarised in the three tables below.

Table A.6.3 Capacity assessment of current procedural issues

Strengths WeaknessesThe Directive is fully transposed into national legislation

Because of the detailed guidance provided by the decree, EIA is applied in a strict and formalistic way.

A very well established Government Decree facilitates the implementation of the Act.

The other pieces of the environmental legislation do not interact very well with EIA, in terms of providing appropriate standards for different human activities and resource use. The very detailed government decree is a comfortable way to use it automatically for scoping, instead finding the proper scope of each particular activity.

Competent authorities clearly defined In practice competent authorities, other than environmental and nature conservation ones, acting quite passively.

Clear procedure how the different authorities work together

Communication between authorities takes place mainly formally (by letter). Personal contact hardly ever takes place.

Guidance document are available Not very well updated, not used frequently due to lack of translation into Hungarian.

Procedural document are available at competent authorities

They use the Government Decree, rather than procedural documents.Less practice in detailed EIA, because most of the cases end after the preES is done, and annex I. activities are not common. Everybody is interested to finish the process after the preliminary stage to save time.



Table A.6.4 Capacity assessment – training issues

Strengths WeaknessesKnowledgeable and have some experience of relevance of EU membership to EIA

Some knowledge and little experience on Importance within EU

Knowledgeable and have some experience of Key principles of EIA

Some knowledge and little experience on other important EU directives (many new directives in a very short period of time) and little on links to Habitat Directive.

Knowledgeable and have some experience Legal actsKnowledgeable and have some experience EIA proceduresKnowledgeable and have some experience Screening

Some knowledge and little experience on splitting projects (making projects smaller to get them out of Annex I or II)

Knowledgeable and have some experience Scoping

Some knowledge and little experience on Comparison of alternatives Little experience on working according to the philosophy behind EIA (working with alternatives, the most environmental friendly alternative, compensation and mitigation).

Knowledgeable and have some experience Reporting

Some knowledge and little experience on Matrix presentations

Knowledgeable and have some experience Mitigation measures

Some knowledge and little experience on effective management

Knowledgeable and have some experience EIA reviews

Some knowledge and little experience on selection criteria for mitigation measures

Knowledgeable and have some experience Decision making

Some knowledge and little experience on Checklists and EU guidance documentsSome knowledge and little experience on MonitoringSome knowledge and little experience on Public participationSome knowledge and little experience on Preparation of plans for Public ParticipationSome knowledge and little experience on Procedures errorVery few training occasions had been completed.

Table A.6.5 Capacity assessment – non-training issues Strengths WeaknessesSufficient number of experts People are given too many different tasks beside

EIA Specialised experts at the different environmental media

Specialisation prevents to see the holistic picture

There is one coordinator for every case

Well equipped, accredited laboratories at inspectoratesHardware and software are available for everybody

There is no Internet connection for everybody, poor language skill prevents the wide use of the Internet.

Clear competencies among authorities Lack of personal consultations among EIA experts at authorities

There is an electronic contact to the central level

Poor information can be found on the web sites


Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental AcquisCapacity Review IPPC - Hungary

B. Capacity Review Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control

B.1. Summary

The overall objective of the project “Capacity building in implementation of the environmental acquis” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC).

This Capacity Review Report focuses on IPPC implementation in Hungary, and is based on the Institutional Review which focuses on the administrative structures in place for implementation, including an assessment of the transposition of the IPPC Directive, and the Training Needs Assessment which assesses the needs of the regional staff selected for training under this project. This Report forms an essential background review of the current state of play in Hungary and will serve as a basis for any recommendations for improvements to legal arrangements and/or administrative practices to ensure full effective implementation of the IPPC Directive.

The IPPC Directive has been fully transposed into Hungarian legislation; however the relevant requirements of Directive 2003/35/EC on public participation and access to justice have only been partially transposed. Draft legislation is being prepared to transpose Directive 2003/87/EC on GHG emission trading.

A number of Guidance Documents have been prepared to assist stakeholders in implementation of the IPPC legislation. Some 20 national BREFs have been prepared so far, and national BAT guidance notes are being finalised. Despite this, many stakeholders are not aware of these documents or where to find them, so the MfEW intends to improve its website to make these documents more widely available.

The Regional Environmental Inspectorates (REIs), of which there are 12 in Hungary) are responsible for issuing IPPC permits, and for monitoring and inspection. However, the MfEW takes responsibility for permits when there are transboundary issues to be considered. A number of other authorities are required to participate in the permit process (depending on their respective competencies), however their inputs are said to be rather passive often due to lack of knowledge of the issues being discussed. The local municipalities are involved in ensuring public participation and making information available to the public.

The overall time period allowed by the legislation to enable the REIs to consider and issue the IPPC permit appears to be rather short: anecdotal evidence suggests that the REI sometimes seeks further information from the operator simply to extend the deadlines.

Increased capacity is required at both the central level and at the REI to effectively carry out their respective tasks for IPPC.

B.2. Introduction

The overall objective of the project “Capacity building in implementation of the environmental acquis” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). This will be done through an approach that is tailored to the needs and conditions of each particular country, but also ensuring the possibility for countries to learn from the experiences of their neighbours.

This Capacity Review Report focuses on IPPC; a separate Report focuses on EIA.

The time for transposition of the EU Directives into the national legislation, and the effective implementation of this national legislation into the public administrative practise at local and



regional level is now very short – for Hungary the deadline for having administrative structures in place is May 2004. Therefore it is essential that the training provided by this project to the local/regional authorities with responsibilities for IPPC are focused and specifically directed at their needs and at identified weaknesses or areas of concern.

In addition to the focused training directed to the needs of the trainees in the competent authorities at local/regional level, the project is also required to make proposals for any recommended revision of existing administrative regulations to enhance the implementation of the IPPC Directive. The scope of these recommended revisions means that it is necessary to consider not just the legal and regulatory framework for implementation of IPPC but also any administrative and technical guidance documents. It will also consider the actual implementation and enforcement – that is to say the administrative practices – currently in place.

Thus it is essential that appropriate background material is collected, reviewed and assessed. This Capacity Review Report summarises this material and assessment. The information itself has been collated in two reports: the Institutional Review - focused on the strength and weaknesses of the administrative structures - and the Training Needs Assessment - focused at the needs of the employees selected for training. The two reports appear as annexes to this report.

B.3. The Current Legal Framework

Legal transposition of the IPPC Directive into Hungarian law is completed. The Hungarian IPPC legislation is: Government Decree 193/2001. (X.19.) on the Detailed Regulations on the Integrated Environmental Use Permitting. It came into force on 31. October 2001. Regional Environmental Inspectorates (REIs) are responsible for issuing the IPPC Permit for the operators of the affected installations. Important and related legislation are:

Act LIII of 1995 on the general rules on the protection of the environment; which includes – among others - the definition of BAT (best available techniques), introduces the Integrated Environmental Permit (IPPC permit), and describes the principle of integrated protection of environment, and general possibilities of public participation.

Government Decree 20/2001 (II.14.) on the Environmental Impact Assessment. In case of a new installation the EIA antedates the IPPC permitting very often. In these cases the EIA documentation forms a part of the IPPC permitting documentation.

KTM Decree 12/1996 (VII.4.) on the content requirement of environmental audit. In case of existing installation the environmental authority obliges the environment user to complete a comprehensive environmental audit, in order to obtain the integrated permit.

Government Decree 47/2004. (III.18.) about modification of particular environmental legislations. It modified also the Hungarian IPPC Legislation, which essence is described in the legal chapter of the Institutional Review.

Related professional (media-specific) regulations:

Beyond the above-mentioned principal regulations there exists numerous professional legislation relating to different environmental media. These include the emission limit values, environmental quality standards, detailed technical requirements, monitoring requirements, etc. The 193/2001. Government Decree does not undermine this legislation; these can be seen as minimum levels to be taken into account in the IPPC permit. The fields are: air-cleanness protection, noise and vibration, water and soil protection, waste management.

The categories of industry covered by the Hungarian national legislation include all categories listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive, (including the relevant threshold values); but also includes additional categories. Additional category in the Hungarian national legislation is mining, including 4 subcategories and their threshold values, which are listed in Annex I. of the Institutional Review.



The Hungarian IPPC Permit is just “partly” integrated permit at this moment. It means that all the permits, which can be issued by the Regional Environmental Authority are involved into the IPPC permit (e.g. point source permit, waste management permit, etc.), but there is a separate permit for water use and emissions (issued by the water management directorates). In the frame of institutional changes REIs and water management authorities will unite (it is already in process), thus in the near future the permit relating to water management will also be included in the IPPC permit.

The IPPC permit is valid for a determined time period, but at least for 5 years, but it can be reviewed by the REIs under legally determined conditions (e.g.: if BAT is changing, or the pollution caused by the installation is too significant, etc).

According to national IPPC legislation REIs have 90 days for make a decision on the application for the IPPC Permit, which can be extended once with 30 days.

Although Hungary has ratified the Aarhus Convention, it has not yet transposed the relevant provisions of Directive 2003/35/EC on public participation and access to justice. Draft legislation is being prepared to transpose Directive 2003/87/EC on GHG emission trading.

There are quite a lot publicly available guidance documents in different fields:

overview of the national legislation, overview of national procedures, information brochures for NGOs and for the public, national BAT Guidance notes, other documents (studies about IPPC made by education or research institutions).

National BAT Guidance notes can be thought of as the most important among these, around~ 16 are available (in the form of: draft, or final draft, or BREF-compression, or finalized version waiting just for publication), mostly for those industries, for which European BREF already exist (officially approved) or at least a second draft available. There are a further four industries for which elaboration of national BAT Guidance Notes are intended to start in 2004. BREFs are regarded as the basis for national BAT guidance. There is additional information in the national BAT guidance notes, which are relevant and important in Hungary, and the inspectors can use them in the practice.

Beside the industries having BREF about them, there are further national BAT guidance notes, which are under elaboration or just waiting for approval.

There are some “other” guidance documents, like the Hungarian translation of the EPER Guidance; Guidance for reporting about environmental data under IPPC. In the category of “other” documents guidance is under elaboration for completion of IPPC permit application, which will be available in summer 2004.

Despite the fact that there are numerous publicly available documents - mentioned above – sometimes representatives of different target-groups do not know about their existence, or do not know where they can be procured. Relating to this issue the NDfENW intends until summer 2004 to renew and extend the existing IPPC website (hosted by the MfEW, and available from the website of MfEW) so all the above mentioned guidance and documents will be put on this website, so these will be available for the general public.

In the following fields there are no documents or guidance at service: explanation and guidance on “substantial change”; explanation and guidance on commercial confidentiality issues. Presumably explanation or guidance note were also useful on the field, how to consider cross media issues.

B.4. Institutional Arrangements

Table B.4.6 below shows the division of responsibilities between the different layers of government (national, regional and local) for specific obligations relating to IPPC.



Table B.4.6 Division of institutional responsibilities

Responsibilities Central Level Regional Level

Local Level Other

Ministry for Env. and

Water

NDfENWDIPP&EA

(Formal: IEM)

Regional Env. Authority

Local Governm.

Chief Env.

InspectorateDeciding whether an installation requires an integrated permit

X

Issuing integrated permits X

Issuing guidance on BAT X X

Trans-boundary issues X X

Issues of commercial confidentiality

X

Co-ordination with other authorities X

Ensuring public consultations X X

Monitoring XInspection XEnforcement XMaintaining a register of emissions X X


X X X

Second Instance Authority X

The MfEW and NDfENW together can be considered to be the “central” level. Generally: MfEW deals with environmental policy, strategy and legislation development, and makes decisions. NDfENW serves as a professional background institution and deals with decision preparation and execution.

Within the MfEW the department for Integrated Pollution Prevention and Environmental Health is responsible for IPPC issues. It controls the process of issuing guidance on BAT, determine the industries for which BAT Guidance will be prepared, and approves the national BAT guidance notes. Relating to trans-boundary issues the prescriptions of the EIA Decree must be followed. International reporting under IPPC (namely: EPER) is the responsibility of the Minister of MfEW.

Another part of the “central level” is the NDfENW as a professional background institution, which has a Department for Integrated Pollution Prevention and Environmental Impact Assessment (DIPP&EA). This department is responsible for the effective professional work for in issuing guidance on BAT, and making these available to the target groups. NDfENW compiles the country level registers (which are sent by the REIs), and doing necessary queries, which can be a basis for strategic decisions made by the MfEW.



The following responsibilities are belonging indivisibly to the Regional Environmental Inspectorates:

Deciding whether an installation requires an integrated permit Issuing integrated permits Issues of commercial confidentiality Co-ordination with other authorities Monitoring Inspection Enforcement

The task of maintaining registers means at the REI’s level, that they check and input the data reported by installations to their regional database. A given REI can see and can have access to data only in its region. (Compilation of regional data into the country level database is the task of NDfENW.)

In the frame of the task making information available to the public the REI sends the application and the decision draft during the procedure to the notary of the municipality being competent for the site of the installation. REI also notifies the notary of the neighbouring municipalities, and also of any affected by the emissions and on the impact area, enclosing the non-technical summary. The public can have examination of the whole IPPC documentation at the REI’s office. The REI examines all the comments - made by the public - with the involvement of professional authorities prior to decision-making. The assessment of the comments is included in the reasoning of the decision made by the environmental authority.

There is no legal binding rule how to ensure the integrated approach, but basically two methods developed in the practice: according to first method there is established an “IPPC core team” with 6-8 inspectors, and they supervise every IPPC permitting procedure in that region. According to second method for a given IPPC permitting procedure one person is assigned at the Environmental Authority (usually from the legal department), who will be the main coordinator during that permitting procedure. (These methods come partly from the EIA processes, which exist since 1995 in Hungary.) According to the Hungarian IPPC legislation 2 partner authorities (consultation authorities) must be involved in every case in issuing the IPPC permit, and another 15, only in that cases when they are concerned. Ensuring coordination is the responsibility of REIs. The competences are legally regulated, thus this is clear, but the cooperation is not always perfect in the practice.

Local authorities (local governments) dispose of very limited powers in the implementation of environmental legislation. These powers, exercised by the notary of the municipality, mainly relate to the environmental aspects of land use, construction and waste management. In the frame of the IPPC permitting procedure the only task of local government is to ensure public participation and making information available. The notaries of the concerned settlement governments display a notice for 15 days on public grounds or publicise it. The notice shall contain a call for optional written remarks regarding the contents of the IPPC application, either at the notary of the municipality or at the environmental authority. Information can be consulted at the municipality or at the environmental authority, but all the comments made by the public have to be forwarded to the REI. The notaries of the municipalities that took part in the procedure shall display for the public also the resolution on the integrated permit.

The Chief Environmental Inspectorate is the second instance authority, where the operators of installations can turn to with appeals, if they do not agree with the regional authorities.

The NDfENW is lacking capacity to develop BREFs, while both this authority and the MfEW lack support staff. However, both the central authorities and the REIs are relatively well equipped with IT and internet.



B.5. Trainees Review

General comment: first of all it is very important and must be noted, that the constitutional structure of REIs differs from each other. This is why, at some REIs the staff involved in IPPC is between 7-12 persons, which means that there is a core team for IPPC, sometimes belonging to “Department for Evaluation of State of Environment”. At other REIs the number of staff involved in IPPC can be 20-30, which means that there is no core-team (or department) for IPPC, and in this cases the REIs indicated that many from the 30 persons has only a little contribution to IPPC. It means that the question “Number of staff involved in IPPC” is not appropriate for comparisons between REIs; just in itself it can be misleading!

Among the participant pilot regions there are 2 (Gyor, Szekesfehervar) Inspectorates where the number of IPPC installations is prominently high, approx. 2-2,5 times higher than in the other regions, but the half of these are „Installations for the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs” (6.6). In 2004 the regions Szekesfehervar and Baja are planning to issue the most IPPC permits while for the 2005 year Gyor is the region where a great number of permitting procedures are prospective. As it was mentioned, due to the differences in constitutional structures and probably in the working methods at the Inspectorates, the number of IPPC installations devoted by the number of staff dealing with IPPC, can be misleading. At the same time, taking into consideration the total case number per year of the Inspectorates, it can be established that every region is understaffed. Regarding the IPPC-related tasks the Inspectorates in Gyor and Szekesfehervar have to deal with the biggest pressure.

A bit more than half of the trainees (most of whom are junior staff) assigned to this project have participated previously IPPC-related training. At the same time it must be noted, that these previous training usually dealt only with narrower sub-topics of IPPC, they were not comprehensive, and took on average just 1-2 days long. In addition the level of knowledge on IPPC issues varied greatly between the trainees.

The knowledge of English by the trainees is most probably not sufficient enough to read the BREFs yet, resulting in the major conclusion that the majority of inspectoral experts likely cannot use BREFs as a direct source.

Regarding computer knowledge and familiarity, the situation is significantly favourable. Each trainee has a PC with the necessary peripherals and appropriate office package installed. None of the trainees use a windows version later than win95. Approximately half of the people regards himself as an experienced computer user using the full office package including e-mail and Internet facilities. No one has marked the lack of computer usage. In more than 2/3 of the answers there is access to the e-mail and the Internet facilities and the trainees use them. In conclusion, the hardware and software background is appropriate at every Inspectorates and the Internet is widely accessible.



Table B.5.7 Trainee review and capacity overview, by pilot regionsRegion 1 : Baja – ADU- KöFeNumber of staff involved in IPPC 7Educational background of staff involved in IPPC permitting

Chemists Biologist Engineers Lawyers Others

2 0 4 0 1



Position of staff involved in IPPC Junior Medium High

3 3 0


4 3 3

Average number of training days of IPPC staff has been exposed to 6,5Number of IPPC permits staff has been involved in as lead 23Number of IPPC permits to which staff have contributed 31Familiarity with the English language, summaries

Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at allSpeaking 1 3 3Reading 2 2 3Writing 2 2 3Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities



No. of non-users

3 4 0 0Status of IT No. of staff fully equipped with PCs, peripherals and office package





7 0 5 5 0



Region 2 : Győr Number of staff involved in IPPC 30Educational background of staff involved in IPPC permitting


0 0 3 0 0




3 0 0


2 0 1 0

Average number of training days of IPPC staff has been exposed to 1Number of IPPC permits staff has been involved in as lead 17Number of IPPC permits to which staff have contributed 22Familiarity with the English language, summaries

Good/very good Sufficient Not Enough Not At AllSpeaking 1 2Reading 1 2Writing 1 2Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities



No. of non-users






3 0 1 1 0



Region 3: Gyula – KöR-KöFeNumber of staff involved in IPPC 12Educational background of staff involved in IPPC permitting


0 0 3 0 1hidro-geologist




3


1 1 1 1





No. of non-users






4 0 2 3 0



Region 4: Székesfehérvár – KDT- KöFeNumber of staff involved in IPPC 8Educational background of staff involved in IPPC permitting


0 0 2 1 0


Average duration of present employment 1


3 0 0


0 2 1 0


Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at allSpeaking 2 1Reading 3Writing 3Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities



No. of non-users






3 0 3 3 0



Region 5: Szolnok Number of staff involved in IPPC 33Educational background of staff involved in IPPC permitting


2 1 1 0 0




4 0 0


1 2 1 0





No. of non-users






4 0 3 3 0



Region 6: Szombathely – NyuDu-KöFeNumber of staff involved in IPPC 20Educational background of staff involved in IPPC permitting


0 0 3 1 0




4 0 0


2 2 2 0


Good/very good Sufficient Not enough Not at allSpeaking 0 1 1 2Reading 0 2 0 2Writing 0 1 1 2Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities



No. of non-users






4 0 4 3 0



B.6. Assessment of Current Administrative Practices

The assessment of the current administrative practices for the effective implementation of the IPPC Directive can be divided into three categories:

4. Procedures5. Training related issues6. Non-training related issues.

The strengths and weaknesses of the current administrative practices for the effective implementation of IPPC are summarised in the three tables below.

Table B.6.8 Capacity assessment of current procedural issues

Strengths WeaknessesThe IPPC directive is fully transposed into the Hungarian law.

At some REIs the cooperation and correspondence between the inspectors, between the different environmental medias is not perfect.

The affected Hungarian installations are identical with those mentioned in the Directive, including the capacity threshold values; moreover the Hungarian legislation is larger with the category of mining.

Partner authorities involved in the IPPC process have usually a few knowledge about IPPC and BAT. They are often inactive.

The competent authorities are assigned legally in every field.

There are several guidance notes for BAT and for other related fields, but despite this fact the target-groups does not always know about them, or do not know where to find them.

There are relatively numerous guidance documents in different fields relating IPPC.

Different REIs interpret sometimes in different ways the scope of “public”.

EIA has been existing since 1995 in Hungary, so some procedural elements can also be applied in the IPPC regime.

No experiences or guidelines about professional consultation with the applicants on determination of BAT and on determination of BAT compliance schedule.

Hungary has already done its first EPER reporting to the European Commission on voluntary bases. Hungarian data can be found also on the WebPages of European Environmental Agency.

The REIs often bind the applicant to defect supplementation relating the application document, in order to win more time, because in these cases the 90+30 days time limit is not valid; it can be much longer.

Numerous BAT Guidance are under elaboration process or their preparation is planned to start in 2004.

The IPPC permitting procedure is significantly complex, thus the Inspectorates can hardly evaluate the permit applications within the 60+30 days deadline allowed by the legislation. The required time period is often multiple.



Table B.6.9 Capacity assessment – training issues

Strengths WeaknessesOnly very few issues received – average - 0 point, which means that notable majority of the inspectors heard or have some knowledge about almost every issues.

The inspectors have considerable knowledge and experiences in their field (environmental media), but have a little insight into other fields, which would be necessary in the frame of IPPC. (This derives from the strong media-specific approach.)

The basic conception BAT is relatively well known in theoretical field. (The problems occur with its practical dimensions.)

Relating to the previous notice, one of the least known issue was: “what to do, when there are no ELVs in the national legislation” (IPPC questioner: 4.5.6); and the “when can ‘equivalent parameters’ be used instead of ELVs” (IPPC questioner: 4.5.3) received even 0 point in some cases.

More than half of the trainees have already participated in IPPC oriented trainings, in very different fields.

In many areas among 4.5 – 4.22 chapters of the Questioner the average points for “experience” are lower then for “knowledge”. And in some cases “experience” are very low.

The chapters 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 on the IPPC Questioner (issues: Legal Acts, Competent Authorities, Applications, Permit in general) received high scores (with few exceptions mentioned among the weaknesses), and the spread of answers is small in these fields.

Except chapters 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 on the IPPC Questioner, the spreading of answers for a given question is usually significant. It occurred that for a given question the four trainees from the same pilot region gave 4 different values, which means huge differences between the knowledge of trainees.

There are some useful initiatives in process, e.g.: elaborate guidance for IPPC applications, because good quality applications submitted can help the REIs the most efficient way.

Participation in previous training related to IPPC is not balanced among the pilot regions. At one third of the regions the average number of previous training is adequate, but in the remaining two-third it is very low.

Table B.6.10 Capacity assessment – non-training issues Strengths WeaknessesEverybody in the staff dealing with IPPC (and also in other areas) has own computer, with the necessary peripheries.

There is an over-loading on REIs, partly because of the extreme huge number of new legislations (40-50), most of them arising since 2000, and partly because of their complexity (e.g. concept of BAT).

Most of the inspectors are experienced computer user, and also the others are conversant with word and with some other software of office package. (nobody answered “not to use computers at all”.)

Number of staff is not sufficient, compared to the yearly aggregate number of affairs. Please, let see here the “general comment” at the beginning of chapter 4 of this document, or the TNA

The software used by inspectors are up-to-date and adequate: nobody using a windows version later than win95.

Only one pilot region answered, that there are sufficient laboratories for carrying out the analyses required for self-monitoring; the others answered “no” or “partly”.

Around 80% of the inspectors have e-mail facilities, and are connected to the Internet.

English language familiarity is little in all the pilot regions, with few exceptions. It means that inspectors can not use, or just a few of them can the EU BREFs, as a direct source for BAT information.

The registers are electronic in every pilot region. In Hungary almost the half of the ~ 1000 IPPC affected installations belonging to the category of “installations for the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs” (Annex I: 6.6), which sector is significantly poor in capital. Determination an achieving BAT is very hard for these, almost 500 installations.

There is an electronic connection with the central authority in every pilot region.

There is not sufficient staff at DIPP&EA for issuing national BAT Guidance notes; and the formal approval process of national BAT



Strengths WeaknessesGuidance notes by the MFEW is slow.

In four (of the 6) pilot regions there are sufficient laboratories for carrying out the analyses required for monitoring (in one region: partly, in one another not sufficient); and these are mostly internal laboratories of the REIs, and most of them are accredited. MFEW and DIPP&EA intends to renew and extend this year the existing IPPC website and put all the publicly available documents, training materials on it.


Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental AcquisCapacity Review Annex I – IR - EIA - Hungary

C. Annex I: Institutional Review - EIA

C.1. Introduction

The overall objective of the project “Capacity building in implementation of the environmental acquis” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of EIA and IPPC. This will be done through an approach that is tailored to the needs and conditions of each particular country, but also ensuring the possibility for countries to learn from the experiences of their neighbours.

One of the specific activities to be carried out by the project is an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the present administrative practices and capacities in the application of the relevant environmental acquis in the pilot areas selected in the country, with reference to the regulatory acts in each country which define the role of the local and regional authorities in implementation of environmental acquis.

This Capacity Assessment will form an essential background review of the current state of implementation and highlight any weaknesses, either in the administrative practices or in the capacity of the local/regional authorities, which may hinder the effective implementation of the national legislation transposing the EU acquis.

The Capacity Assessment is in two parts: this part, the Institutional Review, and a Training Needs Assessment. Together they form an important baseline for the preparation of training materials and programmes, which will thus be directed at the specific needs in the pilot regions.

This Institutional Review, on the implementation of the EIA Directive in Hungary has been completed by the Country Manager, assisted by the national EIA experts and the national lawyers on the project team, based on information available and on interviews with the relevant authorities at both national and at local/regional level.

Section 2 of the Institutional Review provides an overview of the national legislation in place for EIA, and Section 3 looks at any Guidance Documents that have been prepared to provide information on implementation.

Section 4 examines the institutional arrangements for the implementation of the EIA procedures and the capacities of the competent authorities at local/regional level. Specific procedural issues for the effective implementation of the EIA legislation are examined in some detail in Section 5.

C.2. Legal Assessment

C.2.1. Legislation

The legislation in Hungary relevant to the EIA Directive includes: Act No. 53 of 1995 on the General Rules of Protection of the Environment (hereafter: AEP) Gov. Decree No. 20 of 2001 (14th of February) of the Government on Environmental Impact

Assessment

A brief overview of the legislation and how the different pieces of legislation interact is provided below:

Based upon the authorization of Act No. 53 of 1995 on the General Rules of Protection of the Environment a Government Decree No. 20 of 2001 (14th of February) is devoted to implement the general rules of the act.



According to the 67 and 68 § of the AEP an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required when a planned activity might cause significant impact on the environment. The EIA procedure consists of two stages, a preliminary environmental study, and a detailed environmental impact assessment. GD 1,2,3 § reflects on that.

69§ of AEP calls for the preliminary environmental study, 70§ regulates the competency of the authorities in the procedure. Relevant paragraphs of the GD are 5-7, and 8-13.

71§ of the AEP calls for a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment. 14-18§ of the GD are related.

72§ of the AEP regulates the content of the environmental permit. GD 19-23§ are relevant.

92§ of the AEP sets the rules for the first level authority. GD 29§ is relevant.

93§ of the AEP regulates public hearing. 30§ of GD is relevant.

Based upon the authorization of Act No. 53 of 1995 on the General Rules of Protection of the Environment a Government Decree No. 20 of 2001 (14th of February) is devoted to implement the general rules of the act.

According to the Decree, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) shall cover the examination of;

(a) the activity’s impacts on environmental elements (Article 4 point a) of the AEP) (land, air, water, flora and fauna, built environment including architectural and archaeological heritage);

(b) the activity’s impacts on systems, processes, structure of environmental elements (Article 4 point b) of the AEP), especially on landscape, human settlements, climate, natural (eco)systems; and

(c) expectable changes as consequences of the aforementioned impacts in the health and socioeconomic situation –especially in the quality of life and conditions of land use– of the affected people.

(2) Activities having significant impact on the environment (Article 67 paragraph 2 point a) of the AEP) are listed in Annex 1 of the Decree according to the following:

a) Chapter “A” of Annex 1 enlists activities and buildings, facilities necessary for their realization (hereafter together: facilities) that require a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (Article 68 paragraph 1 of the AEP) prior to issuing the environmental permit, with the exceptions defined under point c) below;

b) Chapter “B” of Annex 1 enlists activities and facilities necessary for their realization, and the major modifications of activities and facilities of Chapters “A” and “B”, where the need for the completion of a detailed EIA (Article 70 paragraph 2 of the AEP) depends on the decision of the regionally competent first level environmental authority (hereafter: inspectorate);

c) those activities and facilities necessary for their realization of Chapter “A” of Annex 1 fall under point b) above that are undertaken or created for a maximum two years’ time, exclusively or mainly for developing or testing new methods or products.

(3) In case an activity not reaching the quantitative threshold defined by Chapter “B” of Annex 1 reaches or exceeds the latter threshold by expansion of the activity, the expansion is considered to fall under paragraph 2 of this Article in case this latter expansion means at least a 25% increase, compared to the size defined by the permit for the realization of the activity.

Art. 2 clarifies the meaning of major modifications

Art. 3 Sets periods of an activity (Article 67 paragraph 2 point a) of the AEP) are

a) siting: creation of conditions necessary for the exercise of activity, especially area occupation, preparation of the building area, building, installing of equipment;

b) realization: actual exercise of the activity, especially operation, functioning, use of the facility;

c) abandonment: termination of the activity.



Art. 4 is about providing data to the applicant

Art. 5 Details the way how to prepare a preliminary environmental study for screening

Art. 6 Details the content of a preliminary study

Art. 7 Details the procedure how to make decision on a preliminary study, including the involvement of consultative authorities and public

Art. 8 Regulates the involvement of competent authorities

Art. 9 Defines the content of the resolution, including scoping

Art. 10 Sets cases when no environmental permit can be issued in the preliminary process

Art. 11 It states that in case the content of the preliminary study submitted does not fulfil the prescribed substantive requirements or contains incorrect information and it can not be corrected by providing subsequent additional information, the inspectorate shall refuse the application.

Art. 12 Is about how public has to be informed on the resolution

Art. 13 Time scale for the detailed EIA (detEIA)

Art. 14 Procedure for the detEIA

Art. 15 How the expansion of impact area has to be defined (taking Annex 2 of this Decree into account.)

Art. 16 applies to the replacing of data of the detailed study constituting state secret, service secret or business secret

Art. 17 The content of non-technical summary of the detailed study

Art. 18 Is about if the detEIA is not satisfactory

Art. 19 Sets conditions of permit

Art. 20 Defines competency if the project area concerns more than one environmental authority.

Art. 21 Makes consistency with National Environmental Program

Art. 22 Case to modify the environmental permit

Art. 23 The validity period of the environmental permit

Art. 24 Provisions relating to the assessment of trans-boundary environmental impacts

Art. 26 Procedure in cases of trans-boundary impacts

Art. 27. Acting as Affected Party in cases of trans-boundary impacts

Art. 28 Provisions of the Espoo Convention and of Articles 25―27 shall be applied for every activity listed in Annex 1 of this Decree in case a significant trans-boundary environmental impact is likely and the affected party or the party of origin is a Member State of the European Union.

Art. 29 The inspectorate acting as a special authority oversees –inter alia– whether the applicant presented an environmental impact assessment for activities requiring so, and whether the conditions of the environmental permit are met.

Art. 30 Regulate public participation and how to make the resolution available publicly

The EIA is integrated into permitting land use, constructions or facilities, etc.

Those activities which require an IPPC permit apply for the permit after the EIA procedure ends, and the environmental permission is issued. A slight change is currently planned. Under the planned changes, the IPPC procedure can start after the Preliminary Environmental Study (preES), to save time.



C.2.2. Screening

Government Decree No. 20 of 2001 (14th of February) on Environmental Impact Assessment has an annex No.1, in which Chapter A lists activities requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment. Chapter A includes all the projects listed in Annex I of Directive 97/11/EC (which amends Directive 85/337/EEC). However it also includes some extra projects, and in some cases the threshold values are set at a stricter level in the Hungarian legislation. The differences between the Directive and the Chapter A are highlighted in red in the Table below.

Chapter “A”

Activities and/or Facilities Necessary for Their Realization That Can Be Granted an Environmental Permit Only After Having Performed a Detailed Environmental Impact

AssessmentAgriculture, Forestry

1. Installations for the rearing of poultry with more than 85 000 places for broilers or 60 000 places for hens

2. Installations for the rearing of pigs with more than 3 000 places for production pigs (over 30 kg) or 900 places for sows

3. Utilization of forest areas1 in case it entails the exploitation of growing stock of the forest on at least 50 haMining

4. Coal mining from 100 000 t/year, also in case of open-cast mining where the surface of the site is at least 25 ha

5. Peat extraction where the surface of the site is at least 25 ha (150 in Dir)6. Extraction of petroleum and natural gas where the amount extracted is at least 500 t/day in the

case of petroleum and 500 000 m3/day in the case of gas7. Uranium ore mining where the amount extracted is at least 100 000 t/year8. Metal ore mining: in case of iron ore from 1 million t/year, in case of non-ferrous metals 100 000

t/year extracted, also in case of open-cast mining where the surface of the site is at least 25 ha9. Other open-cast mining where the surface of the site is at least 25 ha

Processing industry10.Production of paper and board from 200 t/day finished product11.Production of pulp from timber or similar fibrous materials12.Distillation (gasification and liquefaction) of coal or bituminous shale from 500 t/day coal or

bituminous shale use13.Crude oil refineries, excluding undertakings manufacturing only lubricants from crude oil14.Installations designed for the production or enrichment of nuclear fuel15.Installations for the reprocessing of irradiated nuclear fuel16.Installations for the temporary or final disposal of irradiated nuclear fuel17.Installations designed for the processing of radioactive waste18.Installations designed for the temporary or final disposal of radioactive waste19.Integrated chemical installations, i.e. those installations for the manufacture on an industrial

scale of substances using chemical conversion processes, in which several units are juxtaposed and are functionally linked to one another and which are

a) for the production of basic organic chemicals, or b) for the production of basic inorganic chemicals, or c) for the production of phosphorous-, nitrogen- or potassium-based fertilizers, ord) for the production of basic plant health products and of biocides, ore) for the production of basic pharmaceutical products using a chemical or biological process, orf) for the production of explosives.

20.Production of asbestos cement products containing asbestos from 20 000 t/year finished product

21.Production of asbestos friction materials from 50 t/year finished product22.Production of products containing asbestos from utilization of more than 200 t/year asbestos23.Smelters (iron, steel)24.Production of non-ferrous crude metals from ore, concentrates or secondary raw materials by

metallurgical, chemical or electrolytic processes1 According to the construction of Article 8 paragraph 1 points a) and b) of Act No. 54 of 1996 on Forests and on the Protection of Forests.



Activities and/or Facilities Necessary for Their Realization That Can Be Granted an Environmental Permit Only After Having Performed a Detailed Environmental Impact

AssessmentElectric energy, steam and water supply

25.Thermal power stations from 20 MW electric output; other combustion installations with a heat output of 300 MW or more

26.Nuclear power stations and other nuclear reactors and the dismantling or decommissioning of such power stations or reactors, including the final removal of all nuclear fuel and other radioactively contaminated elements from the installation site

27.Overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or more and a length of 15 km or more28.Nuclear heating stations and the dismantling or decommissioning of such heating stations,

including the final removal of all nuclear fuel and other radioactively contaminated elements from the installation site

29.Groundwater use from one extraction object or object group from 5 million m3/year30.Works for the transfer of surface water resources from 100 million m3/year transfer capacity

(excluding transfers of piped drinking water)

Transportation, Storage31.National public railway lines32.Roads designed for high speed traffic (motorways, express roads)33.Roads of four or more lanes where such new roads would be 10 km or more in a continuous

length34.Widening of an existing road on the existing or modified route so as to provide four or more

lanes, where such widened section or lane of road would be 10 km or more in a continuous length

35.Pipelines for the transport of gas, oil or chemicals with a diameter of 800 mm or more and a length of 40 km or more

36.Inland waterways2 which permit the passage of vessels of over 1 350 t37.Ports which can take vessels of over 1 350 t, excluding pontoons38.Piers for loading and unloading connected to land and outside ports (excluding ferry piers)

which can take vessels of over 1 350 t39.Airports with a basic runway length of 2 100 m or more40.Storage of petroleum and petrochemical products with a total storing capacity of 200 000 t or

more41.Storage of natural gas with a total storing capacity of 200 000 m3 or more42.Storage of chemical products with a total storing capacity of 200 000 t or more

Other public services43.Waste water treatment plants with a capacity of 50 000 or more population equivalent44.Waste disposal installations for the incineration or chemical treatment of non-hazardous waste

with a capacity of 100 t/day or more45.Landfills of non-hazardous waste with a capacity of 200 t/day or more46.Hazardous waste disposal installations (landfill, incineration, chemical and biological treatment)

Activities and facilities not listed in the nomenclature47.Nuclear reactors for research or education and the dismantling or decommissioning of such

reactors, including the final removal of all nuclear fuel and other radioactively contaminated elements from the installation site (1 Kw limit is not applied)

48.Dams and other installations designed for the holding back or permanent storage of water, where the amount of water held back or stored is at least 10 million m3

49.Artificial groundwater recharge schemes where the annual volume of water recharged is equivalent to or exceeds 3 million m3

However, Government Decree 20/2001 states that those activities and facilities necessary for their realization of Chapter “A” of Annex 1 fall under the decision of the Regional Environmental Inspectorate (REI) if they are undertaken or created for a maximum two years’ time, exclusively or mainly for developing or testing new methods or products. In such cases the proposed project would require a Preliminary Environmental Study (PreES) and the REI would make a decision whether an EIA is required. This is in fact similar to the requirements of Annex II, point 13 of the Directive.

2 According to the construction of Article 87 point 44 of Act No. 42 of 2000 on Waterway Traffic.



There are no other exemptions to the requirement that Chapter A proposed projects require an EIA.

Annex II Projects

All proposed projects, including Chapter B projects, require a Preliminary Environmental Study (PreES). Based on the PreES and criteria defined in Annex IV of Government Decree 20/2001, the Regional Environmental Inspectorate makes a decision whether a detailed EIA is required. Chapter B lists the projects and thresholds where a detailed EIA may be required. Thus the decision whether a detailed EIA is required combines the case by case method with thresholds and criteria.

The criteria list as it follows:

1. Characteristics of the project, in particular,a) the size of area use, including the area demand of connected activities and

facilities;b) extent of the use of other natural resources and of the limitation on their use;c) extent of its capacity or of its other size characteristics;d) amount, hazardous nature and mode of disposing of waste produced during its

placement, realization and abandonment;e) size and significance of its loading of the environment;f) extent of risk of an accident or of a break-down, having regard in particular to

substances or technologies used;

g) its attractive force for the realization, in the neighbour hood of siting, of other activities and facilities having significant environmental impact.

2. The environmental sensitivity of the area of siting and of the impact areas (point III. 1. of Annex 2) likely to be affected by the project, in particular:a) sensitivity of the landscape, having regard to the existing land use, landscape use

and landscape image;b) the relative scarcity, quality and regenerative capacity of the affected natural

resources;c) its absorption capacity (including the capacity to be burdened, to regenerate, to

adsorb pollution and to buffer of the affected environmental elements and systems), in particular in the following areas:ca) wetlands, mountain and forest areas; cb) protected nature reserves, natural areas, sensitive nature areas, elements of

the ecological network;cc) areas in which an environmental quality standard has already been exceeded;cd) densely populated areas; ce) landscape of historical significance, areas of architectural and archaeological

heritage, settlements or settlement districts with characteristics to be preserved.

3. Characteristics of the potential environmental impacts, in particular,a) the extent of their geographical area and the size of the population living on the

area, expected to be affected;b) possibility of their trans-boundary nature;c) their complexity and complication (having regard, in particular, to the possibility of

inducing impact processes covering more environmental elements, and to the synergies of the impacts);

d) possibility of accumulation of the impacts of other activities exercised or planned elsewhere in the region;

e) their magnitude and intensity;f) probability of their occurrence;g) their duration, frequency and reversibility (taking into account the possible

preventive and mitigation measures);h) extent of damaging or disturbing impacts on the final receivers of impacts (human

beings, natural systems).



Case-by-Case Examination

Applications for environmental permission have to be submitted with a PreES. The REI, who is the first level authority for permissions, makes his decision on examining the PreES. All Chapter A activities require a detailed EIA, while the decision whether to require a detailed EIA for Chapter B activities depends on the result of examination.

Thresholds or CriteriaChapter “B”

Activities and/or Facilities Necessary for Their Realization and Major Modifications Where the Necessity of Performing a Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment Depends on the Decision

of the Inspectorate

Agriculture, Game management and Forestry1. Restructuring of rural land holdings- from 300 ha, or- in a protected nature reserve or in its protective zone, on a nature area, on a sensitive

nature area from 10 ha, or- in an ecological (green) corridor from 10 ha,

in case it does not only entail a change in ownership circumstances and in the Restructuring Plan at least 3 of the following points of Chapter “B” are involved, without using the numeric thresholds: 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 131, 133, 134, 135 and 137

2. Shift to intensive agricultural land use- on areas classified as “cultivation ceased” from 50 ha, or- in the protective zone of a groundwater extraction site, in a protected nature reserve or in its

protective zone from 1 ha, or- on a nature area, on a sensitive nature area from 10 ha, or- in an ecological (green) corridor from 5 ha.Intensive farming means- use of any of the following substances: synthetic substances with a long term effect, easily

soluble fertilizers, sewage sludge, compost of household waste, antibiotics, hormones, or- application of gene technology, or- establishment of a monoculture, or- the livestock density exceeds 2 standard animals/ha

3. Improvement of flat land from 500 ha or of hilly land from 300 ha, or in case the area to be improved covers a protected nature reserve or its protective zone, or the protective zone of a groundwater extraction site on at least 5 ha

4. Irrigation sites from 300 ha to be watered or from 0,45 m3/s water use; in a protected nature reserve or in its protective zone with no size limitation

5. Open irrigation canals from 2 m3/s water carrying capacity, in a protected nature reserve with no size limitation

6. Livestock installations from 100 standard animals/ha (projects not included in Chapter “A”); in the protective zone of a groundwater extraction site, in a protected nature reserve or in its protective zone, on a nature area, on a sensitive nature area in case of poultry from 5 standard animals, in other cases from 24 standard animals

7. Game preserves in a protected nature reserve8. Utilization of forest areas3 in case it entails the exploitation of growing stock of the forest on at

least 25 ha (projects not included in Chapter “A”); in a protected nature reserve or in its protective zone, on a nature area with no size limitation

9. Initial afforestation in case the plantation covers a nature area, a sensitive nature area or an ecological (green) corridor on at least 5 ha

Fishery10.Fish breeding in an intensive pen or pool fish breeding site

Mining11.Coal mining (projects not included in Chapter “A”) and its abandonment12.Self-supporting coal separation, preparation, briquette producing and spoil-bank recycling sites13.Peat extraction (projects not included in Chapter “A”)

3 According to the construction of Article 8 paragraph 1 points a) and b) of Act No. 54 of 1996 on Forests and on the Protection of Forests.




of the Inspectorate

14.Mineral oil and natural gas extraction (projects not included in Chapter “A”); test drillings only in a protected nature reserve or in the hydrogeological protective zone of a groundwater extraction site

15.Self-supporting mineral oil and natural gas preparation sites (in particular cleansing, dehydration, desulphurization)

16.Uranium ore mining (projects not included in Chapter “A”) and its abandonment17.Self-supporting uranium ore preparation, ore enrichment and spoil-bank recycling sites18.Metallic ore mining (projects not included in Chapter “A”) and its abandonment19.Self-supporting metallic ore preparation, enrichment, roasting, sintering and spoil-bank recycling

sites20.Other mining (projects not included in Chapter “A”) except for self-supporting mineral

processing plantsProcessing industry

21.Meat processing from 10 000 t/year finished product22.Self-supporting abattoirs from a capacity of 25 t/day (slaughtered animal weight)23.Fish processing from 10 000 t/year finished product24.Fruit and vegetable processing from 40 000 t/year finished product25.Vegetable and animal oil production from 40 000 t/year finished product26.Production of dairy products from 200 t/day milk received27.Starch production from 100 t/day finished product28.Sugar production from 5 000 t/day sugar beet processing capacity29.Confectionery production from 10 000 t/year finished product30.Brewery from 30 million l/year capacity 31.Malt production from 25 000 t/year finished product32.Finishing of textiles (pre-treatment, dyeing, printing and chemical treatment) from 10 t/day textile

finished33.Hide tanning from 12 t/day hide tanned34.Paper and board production from 20 t/day finished product (projects not included in Chapter “A”)35.Coking plants (dry coal distillation)36.Production of lubricants from crude oil from 15 000 t/year finished product37.Production of chemicals (except peroxides) from 20 000 t/year finished product (projects not

included in Chapter “A”)38.Production of peroxides from 1 000 t/year finished product (projects not included in Chapter “A”)39.Fertilizer production from 20 000 t/year finished product (projects not included in Chapter “A”)40.Cellulose production41.Production, formulation and packaging of pesticides from 20 000 t/year finished product

(projects not included in Chapter “A”)42.Varnish and paint production from 20 000 t/year finished product (projects not included in

Chapter “A”)43.Production of pharmaceutical products from 20 000 t/year finished product (projects not

included in Chapter “A”)44.Detergent production from 20 000 t/year finished product (projects not included in Chapter “A”)45.Explosives production (projects not included in Chapter “A”)46.Installations for regeneration, renewal and destruction of explosives and ammunition47.Carbon fiber production from 20 t/day finished product 48.Production and use of rubber solution containing more than 10% solvents from 5 000 t/year

rubber solution (projects not included in Chapter “A”)49.Rubber mix production from 20 000 t/year rubber mix50.Rubber mix processing from 20 000 t/year rubber mix51.Glass and glass fiber production from 20 t/day finished product52.Production of ceramic products, ceramic tiles and terracotta building materials from 75 t/day

production capacity, or where the volume of the kiln exceeds 4 m3 and the density of products therein exceeds 300 kg/m3

53.Cement production54.Manufacture of asbestos-cement products from 10 000 t/year finished product (projects not

included in Chapter “A”)55.Manufacture of asbestos friction materials from 25 t/year finished product (projects not included




of the Inspectorate

in Chapter “A”)56.Manufacture of asbestos products from 100 t/year finished product (projects not included in

Chapter “A”)57.Smelting of mineral substances including the production of mineral fibers from 20 t/day

processing capacity58.Initial or secondary smelting of cast-iron and steel, including continuous casting from 2,5 t/hour

capacity59.Hot-rolling mills from 20 t/hour processing of rough steel60.Smitheries with hammers from 50 kJ/hammer energy consumption or from 20 MW thermal

output intake61.Smelting, alloyage, recovery and refining of non-ferrous metals from 2 t/day capacity62.Iron and steel foundry from 20 t/day capacity63.Production of coated products from 2 t/hour rough steel processing capacity64.Swaging by explosives65.Surface treatment of metals and plastic materials using an electrolytic or chemical process from

20 000 m2/year surface treated66.Storage battery manufacture67.Manufacture of printed circuits on an automated production line68.Manufacture of road vehicles (manufacture, assembly, engine manufacture) from 10 000

pcs/year finished product 69.Manufacture of ships (excluding manufacture of yachts and sport boats)70.Manufacture of railway vehicles71.Construction and basic repair of aircraft over 5 700 kg take-off weight

Electric energy, gas, steam and water supply72.Hydroelectric power stations from 20 MW electric output; in the protective zone of a

groundwater extraction site and in a protected nature reserve with no size limitation73.Geothermal power stations from 20 MW electric output; in the protective zone of a mineral

water, medicinal water and drinking water extraction site and in a protected nature reserve with no size limitation

74.Installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farms) from 2 MW total electric output; in a protected nature reserve from 200 kW total electric output

75.Overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 120 kV or more (projects not included in Chapter “A”)

76.Underground electrical power lines or natural gas dissemination pipelines in a protected nature reserve outside inhabited areas with a length of 1 km or more

77.Natural gas dissemination pipelines from 40 bar planned functional pressure

78.Installations generating thermal energy (production of steam and hot water) from 50 MW output (projects not included in Chapter “A”)

79.Above-ground steam and hot water dissemination pipelines outside inhabited areas with a length of 10 km or more; in a protected nature reserve outside inhabited areas with a length of 1 km or more (excluding on-the-site pipelines)

80.Underground water use (projects not included in Chapter “A”) if the daily extraction from one object or object group exceeds

1 000 m3 from ground water1 000 m3 from thermal karst water5 000 m3 from stratum and karst water10 000 m3 from river shore ground-filtrated water2 000 m3 from thermal stratum water100 m3 and 33% of the current spring output from spring water

81. Long-distance aqueducts in a protected nature reserve, on a nature area or on a sensitive nature area

82. Transfer of surface water resources (projects not included in Chapter “A”) if the water transferred exceeds- 20% of the water’s mass of the water supplying lake’s medium level or of the (minimum) functional water level of the supplying reservoir during 1 year, or- 20% of the water supporting stream’s4 80% water output in August (Qaug80%), or if it exceeds- 5% of the water’s mass of the recipient lake’s medium level or of the (minimum) functional




of the Inspectorate

water level of the recipient reservoir during one year, or 10% of the Qaug80% water output of streams feeding the above ones- 10% of the recipient stream’s Qaug80% water output

Commerce, Maintenance of road vehicles83.Workshops for maintenance and repair of road vehicles from 50 vehicles repairable at one time84.Shopping centers (shopping malls including numerous diverse types of commercial units and

other service places) from 10 000 m2 net total area without the area of the parking lotAccommodation, Catering

85.Building or group of buildings for providing accommodation, together with the connected facilities5

- that can sleep 1 000 or more people or from 5 ha area occupation on an area used for agricultural, forestry or water management purposes - that can sleep 100 people or from 1 ha area occupation in a protected nature reserve

86.Camping sites from 50 places for tents or caravans in a protected nature reserve or on nature area, and from 200 places for tents and caravans on a sensitive nature area outside inhabited areas

Transportation, Storage87.Class I. main roads (projects not included in Chapter “A”)

88.National roads6 (projects not included in Chapter “A” or under point 87 of this Chapter)- cutting across a woodland of over 50 ha, or- leading through a protected nature reserve, or- covering a nature area or a sensitive nature area on at least 1 km length, or- leading through an ecological (green) corridor, or- the planned average daily traffic is 1 800 or more standards vehicles on a health resort

89.Forestry or agricultural roads in a protected nature reserve90.Bus stations from 24 bus stands91.Ports which can take vessels of 400 t or more (projects not included in Chapter “A”), excluding

pontoons92.Marinas that can take at least 100 boats, or from 50 crafts in a protected nature reserve93.Inland waterways7 which permit the passage of vessels of 400 t or more (projects not included

in Chapter “A”)94.Natural gas, mineral oil and petroleum product pipelines (projects not included in Chapter “A”)95.

Storage of natural gas from 20 000 m3

total storage capacity (projects not included in Chapter “A”); underground storage of other combustible gases from 10 000 m3; in a protected nature reserve in both cases from 5 000 m3

96.Independent above-ground storage of coal and lignite from 100 000 t storage capacity97.Storage of mineral oil and petroleum products from 100 000 t storage capacity (projects not

included in Chapter “A”)98.Independent storage of chemical products from 30 000 m3 storage capacity (projects not

included in Chapter “A”)99.a) Local public railway- elevated and underground railways, metro, suburban railways, or- tramways from 1 km track length;b) railways with lines of a particular type (cog-wheel railway, funicular, suspended lines),

except ski-lifts100.

Agricultural or forestry railways in a protected nature reserve, on a nature area or on a sensitive nature area, or leading through an ecological (green) corridor

4 For the purposes of this point streams are landscape forms of natural origin that have definite amount of flowing water therein at any given period of the year.5 Connected facility: a building at the location of siting, promoting, complementing and serving the activity.6 According to the construction of Annex I. of KHVM Decree No. 19 of 1994 (31 of May) on the management of the public roads7 According to the construction of Article 87 point 44 of Act No. 42 of 2000 on Waterway Traffic.




of the Inspectorate

101.

Railway stationsa) passenger-stations in county towns and in the Capitol except for the stops, or above 120

trains/day planned traffic

b) goods-stations above 400 carriages/day planned to be processed

c) stops- above 50 carriages/day wagon traffic planned to be locally processed- with equipment suitable for the loading of hazardous substances- with carriage washing equipmentd) border station

102.

Independent above-ground or underground car parking lots –including parking houses– from 500 stalls; from 100 stalls in a protected nature reserve or in its protective zone

103.

Independent intermodal transhipment facilities from 5 ha area occupation; from 1 ha on a nature area

104.

Public and civilian non-public airports with a basic runway length of 800 m or more (projects not included in Chapter “A”); in a protected nature reserve with a solid pavement runway with no length limitation

Administration, Defence105.

Permanent accommodation of military forces in barracks in case of independent battalions or larger military detachments, or from 5 ha area occupation; in a protected nature reserve with no size limitation

106.

Shooting and practice grounds of military forces in case of independent battalions or larger military detachments, or from 50 ha area occupation; in a protected nature reserve with no size limitation

107.

Airports for state flights with a basic runway length of 800 m or more (projects not included in Chapter “A”); in a protected nature reserve with a solid pavement runway with no length limitation

108.

Establishing of a new permanent flood-relief work in the protective zone of a groundwater extraction site or in a protected nature reserve

Wastewater treatment, Waste disposal, Public sanitary services109.

Waste water treatment plants with a capacity from 20 000 population equivalent (projects not included in Chapter “A”); in the protective zone of a groundwater extraction site, in a protected nature reserve or in its protective zone with no size limitation

110.

Biological treatment of sewage sludge from 4 000 t/year capacity

111.

Independent sewage sludge deposition sites from 100 t/year dry matter; in a protected nature reserve or in its protective zone, or in the hydrogeological protective zone of a groundwater extraction site with no size limitation

112.

Sites depositing sewage by irrigation from 50 ha; in a protected nature reserve or in its protective zone, on a nature area, or in the “B” hydrogeological protective zone of a groundwater extraction site with no size limitation

113.

Filtration-field drying systems from 15 ha; in a protected nature reserve or in its protective zone, on a nature area, or in the hydrogeological protective zone of a groundwater extraction site with no size limitation

114.

Sewage discharging and discharging/treating sites from 100 m3/day capacity; in a protected nature reserve or in its protective zone, on a nature area with no size limitation

115.

Waste disposal installations for the incineration, landfill or chemical treatment of non-hazardous waste with a capacity of 50 t/day or more (projects not included in Chapter “A”)

116.

Biological treatment of non-hazardous waste with a capacity of 10 000 t/year or more

117.

Storage of scrap iron (including scrap vehicles) with preparation for metal reprocessing or recycling from 5 vehicles/day or from 5 t/day capacity

118.

Hazardous waste storage sites from 2 000 t/year capacity

119.

Hazardous waste recycling sites from 2 000 t/year capacity

120Knackers' yards8




of the Inspectorate

.Leisure, Culture, Sport

121.

Stadiums and sport halls from 10 000 persons seating capacity

122.

Permanent amusement parks, aquaparks, safari parks (with the connected facilities9) in case the planned capacity exceeds 10 000 visitors at one time or the area occupied exceeds 5 ha; in a protected nature reserve or on a nature area in case of a permanent theme park or an aquapark from a capacity of 1 000 visitors, in case of a safari park with no size limitation

123.

Ski-runs (with the connected facilities10) in a protected nature reserve or on a nature area

124.

Golf courses with 18 or more holes (with the connected facilities11) in a protected nature reserve, on a nature area or on a sensitive nature area outside inhabited areas (excluding minigolf)

Activities and facilities not listed in the nomenclature125.

A-type isotope laboratories

126.

Deep drillings with an established drilling facility from 650 m drilling depth (unless being part of another activity under Chapters “A” and “B”) in the protective zone of a groundwater extraction site or in a protected nature reserve

127.

Outdoor facilities for testing engines, turbines or reactors on test benches from 500 kN thrust or in case the capacity is at least 10 MW at one time

128.

Permanent outdoor test tracks for motorized vehicles from 5 ha area occupation, in a protected nature reserve with no size limitation

129.

Industrial and storage estate development projects (establishment of technical infrastructure) on an area used for different purposes from 5 ha; on a nature area from 1 ha, in an ecological (green) corridor with no size limitation

130.

Telecommunication transmitters (antenna towers) in a protected nature reserve or on a nature area

131.

Dams and other installations designed for the holding back or permanent storage of water, where the amount of water held back or stored is at least 2 million m3 (projects not included in Chapter “A”); in the protective zone of a groundwater extraction, in a protected nature reserve or on a nature area with no size limitation

132.

Artificial groundwater recharge schemes (not included in Chapter “A”)

133.

Local water regulation on a land not planned to be built-in- from 500 ha plain land,- from 300 ha hilly land,- in the protective zone of a groundwater extraction, in a protected nature reserve, on a

nature area, on a sensitive nature area, in an ecological (green) corridor outside inhabited areas with no size limitation

134.

Fish pond or a system of fish ponds from 30 ha; in the protective zone of a groundwater extraction, in a protected nature reserve or in its protective zone, on a nature area or on a sensitive nature area with no size limitation

135.

Standing water and backwater regulation from 5 ha surface size to be regulated or from 1 km shore length; in the protective zone of a groundwater extraction, in a protected nature reserve, on a nature area, on a sensitive nature area or in an ecological (green) corridor with no size limitation

136.

River regulation or canalization from 3 km river length; in case of curve cutting or in the protective zone of a groundwater extraction, in a protected nature reserve, on a nature area, on

8 According to the construction of Appendix 5 point 2.1 of the FM Decree No. 41 of 1997 (28 th of May) on the Publication of the Animal Health Regulations.9 Connected facility: a building at the location of siting, promoting, complementing and serving the activity.10 Connected facility: a building at the location of siting, promoting, complementing and serving the activity.11 Connected facility: a building at the location of siting, promoting, complementing and serving the activity.




of the Inspectorate

a sensitive nature area or in an ecological (green) corridor with no length limitation137.

Current regulation (except for removal of silt and management of the bank for maintenance and for restoring the original draining capacity) from 1 km current length; in the protective zone of a groundwater extraction, on a nature area, on a sensitive nature area, in an ecological (green) corridor from 200 m current length, in a protected nature reserve with no size limitation

138.

Any other installation not included in Chapter “A” or under points 1-137 of Chapter “B” on an area already being or planned to be built in over 5 ha area occupation, or in case the number of planned parking places exceeds 500

139.

Every activity and facility listed in Chapter “A” that are undertaken or created exclusively or mainly for developing or testing new methods or products and not used for more than 2 years

140.

Major modification according to Article 2 paragraph 1 point b) of the activities and facilities under points 1, 2, 4-26, 28-30 and 37-49 of Chapter “A” and under points 3-7, 10-74, 78, 80, 82-86, 90-92, 95-98, 101-107, 109-134, 138 and 139 of Chapter “B” except the modification constitutes the realization of an activity or facility under Chapter “A”

141.

Major modification according to Article 2 paragraph 1 point b) of the activities and facilities under points 27, 31-33, 35 and 36 of Chapter “A” and under points 75-77, 79, 81, 87-89, 93-94, 99-100 and 108 of Chapter “B” except the modification constitutes the realization of an activity or facility under Chapter “A”

The consideration of Annex III. criteria list, which is Annex IV in the Hungarian Decree, is ensured by the part of the governmental decree 20/2001 which deals with the preliminary environmental study.

The procedure is detailed in the Government Decree and is as follows:

Preliminary Environmental Study(with regard to Article 69 of the Act Environmental Protection – AEP, which regulates PreES)

Art. 5. (1) A preliminary environmental study (hereafter: preliminary study) is to be attached in 8

printed copies to the application. (2) At the time of receiving the application, the inspectorate checks whether

a) the preliminary study is enclosed, and in case it is not attached, the applicant is required to fill the gap;

b) the application is really for an activity listed in Annex I/A or I/B. In case the activity does not require an Environmental Impact Assessment, the inspectorate immediately informs the applicant thereabout, and it terminates the process.

Art. 6(1) The preliminary study shall detail, in justifying the need for the facility

(Article 69 paragraph 2 point a) of the AEP)a) why the applicant considers the planned solution or versions of solution to be suitable

for reaching the activity’s goal;b) whether environmental factors played a role in making the decision, and if yes, what

were they.(2) Describing the siting and technology options of the activity (Article 69 paragraph 2 point

a) of the AEP), the preliminary study shall contain especially the following:

a) from the antecedents:aa) a short description of previously examined options not taken into account later,ab) connections of options described in the preliminary study to earlier plans, policies and

programs (especially regional or local development or land use plans, infrastructure development decisions and natural resource utilization concepts) that have influenced the selection of the location and of the technology of siting,

ac) in case of a linear facility, the presentation of the further route planned and the summation of the environmental aspects and revealed environmental impacts taken into consideration in the planning;

b) from the basic data:ba) volume of the activity,



bb) expectable date and length of time of the start of siting and operation (use), planned distribution in time of utilization of capacity,

bc) location and area demand of the activity, mode of use presently exercised or defined in the land use plan of the area to be occupied,

bd) list of facilities necessary for the realization of activity, and their location, including connected facilities to be established on the area of siting,

be) delineation of the area of siting on a map,bf) description of the planned technology, or –wherever it can not be interpreted– of the

realization of activity, including the presentation of the following:– the summarizing flowchart, and the main indicators of substance use,– whether a hazardous substance is used, prepared or marketed, which may cause an

impact defined by Article 28 paragraph 1 of the AEP because of its quality or quantity, and whether the technology and the activity is classified as environmentally hazardous, according to other laws,

bg) foreign references in case of introduction of a technology being new in Hungary but having been applied abroad,

bh) data of infrastructure to be used outside the location of siting,bi) volume of freight and passenger transport necessary for the realization of the activity

(transport demand), in case of service industries the volume of vehicle and individual traffic generated by the users of services,

bj) environmental facilities and measures already planned,bk) other connected processes;c) presentation on the map under point be) above of activities or facilities planned in the

neighbourhood of the siting, included in the land use plans or existing and having the same kind of land use mode;

d) the uncertainty (availability) of the basic data of point b) and of spatial data of point c), indicating how they can be made accurate, being aware of what kind of information and in which later phase of planning.

(3) Environmental consequences originating from not realizing the activity (Article 69 paragraph 2 point a) of the AEP)

a) have to be described in case of technical infrastructure or environmental activities byaa) the estimation of changes in the state of environment occurring without the realization

of activity, or the description of the remaining unfavourable state of environment, orab) the estimation of environmental consequences of the expectable substitution, in case

the applicant will substitute the omitted activity with a different one;b) in case of other activities it shall be detailed if appropriate (if such consequences can

be interpreted).

(4) The estimation of expectable extent (Article 69 paragraph 2 point b) of the AEP) of the loading and utilization of environment (hereafter: impact generating factors) have to be accomplished by taking the uncertainty (availability) of data according to paragraph 2 point b) into consideration.

(5) Preliminary estimation of impacts (Article 69 paragraph 2 point c) of the AEP) shall separately include, according to the periods of activity (Article 3) and taking the possibility of incidence of accidents or failures possibly causing the loading of environment, into account:

a) what kind of impact generating processes may be started by the impact generating factors;

b) to what areas the impact generating processes –taking the aspects for defining the area to be examined given by Annex 2 (Rules of Defining the Impacts Area) into account– can expand, including the delimitation of such areas on map;

c) what kind of impacts may reveal, with what magnitude and how large significance to the change in the state of environment, human health and human socioeconomic conditions, being aware of the state of environment data, land use and demographic data of the examined territories, and of the characters of impact generating processes.

(6) The study shall indicate if transboundary environmental impacts are expectable from the activity. For the preliminary estimation of such impacts provisions of paragraph 5 shall be applied respectively.



(7) Detailed description of changes expectable in the landscape and ecological conditions (Article 69 paragraph 2 point c) of the AEP) includes

a) description of the present status of area chosen as location of the new siting, especially a description of the values of the natural and built environment, of landscape and landscape use;

b) analysis of the environmental, nature conservation and landscape protection functions of the area;

c) estimation of how the status and functions of the area may change as a consequence of siting; and furthermore

d) what kind of impact generating processes having impacts outside the location of siting the changes under point c) may start.

(8) Sections under the protection of intellectual property rights may be indicated in the preliminary study.

(9) A non-technical summary shall be attached to the preliminary study. This shall include especially a summary of the activity’s basic data (paragraph 2 point b)), environmental consequences of not realizing the activity (paragraph 3 point a)), presentation of the main impact generating factors (paragraph 4), preliminary estimation of the change in the state of environment (paragraphs 5―7) and the main environmental issues to be examined later in detail.



Art. 7(1) In case the inspectorate does not reject the application after its filing, based on the

examination of the preliminary study and on the statements of the special authorities, and the activity does not fall under the protection of military secret, the inspectorate:

a) sends the application, the preliminary study, and a partial text of public notice to the clerks of the municipalities (in the Capitol to the district clerks) of the location of siting; the partial text of public notice shall be composed according to paragraph 3 point a) of this Article;

b) notifies the clerks of the neighbouring municipalities to the location of siting municipalities (in the Capitol the district clerks) about the application, attaching the non-technical summary thereto. The clerk signals the inspectorate the possible affectedness of the municipality within 10 days. The inspectorate sends the documentation defined under point a) to the clerk immediately after the signal of affectedness.

(2) Clerks of affected municipalities (in the Capitol the district clerks) ensure that the notice of paragraph 3 is made public within 5 days from the arrival of documents for 30 days by means of exposing it, and is made publicly accessible by means of announcing it in public places and in the other locally customary ways.

(3) The public notice shall include

a) location of site and a short description of the activity, according to the application;b) information about where and when the application and the preliminary study can be

seen;c) a warning that written comments can be made until a deadline defined in paragraph 4

of this Article at the municipality clerk or the inspectorate. Comments can be made to the contents of preliminary study, against the location of site, to the necessity and aspects of a detailed Environmental impact assessment.

(4) The application and the preliminary study have to be made accessible to the public by the municipality clerks (in the Capitol the district clerks) defined by paragraph 1 of this Article, for 30 days from the exposing or announcing of the notice. Comments can be made during this time at the inspectorate, or at the clerk.

(5) The municipality clerk (in the Capitol the district clerk) sends comments of the municipality, and the ones made at him to the inspectorate within 5 days the latest after the removal of the public notice. The inspectorate sends these, and the ones made directly to him to the applicant.

(6) The time of publication does not prolong the time of administration (Article 91 of the AEP).

(with regard to Article 70 of the AEP, which regulates the involvement of concerned authorities)

Art. 8(1) The inspectorate decides upon the application (Article 5 paragraph 1) with the

involvement of authorities having competencies – being relevant for the protection of environmental elements and systems or for the protection against impacts endangering the environment – relating to the protection of environment and nature. The following special authorities are involved in the procedure regarding the special issues listed in Annex 3 (see these issues in annex no.3 of the GD) authorities under point 1 are to be involved in every procedure;

a) special authorities under point 2 are involved in case environmental elements or systems under their protective competence may be affected by the activity of application or an endangering of environment under their protective competence may occur.

(2) If the statements of the special authorities are unclear or contradict each other, the inspectorate convenes a negotiation meeting if needed.

(3) The inspectorate takes the comments substantial from the point of view of consideration of impacts on environment, of the detailed environmental impact assessment’s contents –and received according to Articles 7 and 24―26– into account on its merits with the involvement of special authorities before making a decision. Evaluation of comments is included in the reasoning to the inspectorate’s resolution.



The evaluation includes the factual judging and professional analysis of comments, and the legal conclusions.

Art. 9 The inspectorate in its resolutiona) defines that version or those versions from the preliminary study, the realization of

which it considers to be feasible in proper conditions;b) takes into consideration parts that conform to the given stage of planning and

permitting, to the characteristics of the activity and of the environmental elements and systems expected to be affected, and what can be required based on current knowledge and analytical methods, in defining aspects and requirements to be examined in preparing the detailed environmental impact statement in connection with the versions considered to be feasible (Article 70 paragraph 2 point a) of the AEP).

Art. 10 (1) No environmental permit can be issued in the preliminary process in case the activitya) is included in Chapter “A” of Annex 1;b) the activity would cause a major environmental risk;c) it can elicit significant trans-boundary environmental impact; or the expectable

environmental impactsd) have significance, which can not be clarified in possession of the available data;e) its definition necessitates a detailed analysis of a certain environmental system.(2) The inspectorate and the concerned special authorities decide upon the necessity of

having a detailed environmental impact statement prepared for issuing the environmental permit, taking into consideration further aspects, especially those listed in Annex 4 (Annex III in EC Directive) and the special characteristics of the case. The reasoning to the resolution ending the preliminary process shall cover the actual aspects applied in the decision making.

Art. 11 In case the content of the preliminary study submitted does not fulfil the prescribed substantive requirements or contains incorrect information and it can not be corrected by providing subsequent additional information, the inspectorate shall refuse the application.

Art. 12 (1) The resolution made in the merits of the case (Article 70 paragraph 2 of the AEP) shall

be exposed to the public in their offices for 15 days- by the inspectorate after making the resolution, and- by the municipality clerk (in the Capitol the district clerk) having participated in the

process after receiving the resolution.(2) The decision of the inspectorate upon the necessity of preparing a detailed

environmental impact statement, on issuing of or refusing the application for an environmental permit and the mode how the full text of the resolution can be accessed, shall be announced to the public by the municipality clerk (in the Capitol the district clerk) having participated in the process within 5 days after receiving the resolution of paragraph 1 of this Article.

The Hungarian regulation aims to investigate the impact of an activity. If an activity will have significant impact on a protected area, regardless its size, an EIA must be carried out upon the result of the preliminary environmental study. In the annex 1/B no size limitation is given in cases of protected nature reserves in relation with most of the activities.

Projects Exempt from the EIA Procedure

The Hungarian regulation aims to investigate the impact of an activity regardless, who is going to carry it out and for what purpose. Therefore there are no exceptions.

C.2.3. Status of TranspositionThe EIA Directive has been transposed fully.



C.2.4. Directive 2003/35/ECIn the light of Aarhus Convention, Hungary has integrated the Convention’s requirements into the Government Decree 20/2001. There is a minor issue, which is not explicitly mentioned in the GD, and probably calls for modification. This issue is that the nature of possible decisions or the draft decision is needed to be included into the public notice.

C.3. Publicly Available Guidance Documents

There are a number of publications about EIA available on the web page of the Ministry and in the library of environmental and water directorate general. All of them are available on micro films. Micro-films are distributed to local environmental directorates as well, where the appropriate devices are available for reading. Although these documents are publicly available, it is mostly people from the environmental inspectorate and external consultants who are the readers. All kind of the above mentioned themes are being addressed. It should be noted that most of these documents date from 1996 and have not been updated recently.

The most important thing probably is that there is a university course at the Debrecen University, for postgraduate students, which gives diplomas for EIA managers. There is a handbook written by Emőke Magyar, Endre Tombácz, which was updated last year, and it reflects all previous documents and guiding materials. The authors are very well practiced consultants, have been carrying out several EIA, working with both authorities and developers.

The most important guidance documents are:

Guidance to Environmental Impact Assessment Studies, ÖKO RTEIA-methodology in the Netherlands – Information for working groupsPublic Participation in environmental decision making – E.Hajba – A. Vári, Öko-ChanceEIA Methodology – guidance to 10 casesEnvironmental Impact Assessment Training Resource Manual, UNEP, 1996.A Study to Develop and Implement an Overall Strategy for EIA/SEA Research in the EU, 1997.Introduction to EIA, E. Tombácz, E. Magyar, handbook for post-graduating students, 2003.

The guidance documents listed below were not specifically taken into account when the Hungarian documents were prepared:

- Guidance on EIA Scoping, June 2001, prepared for the European Commission by ERM- Guidance on EIA Screening, June 2001, prepared for the European Commission by

ERM- Guidance on EIA EIS Review, June 2001, prepared for the European Commission by

ERM- Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice, 1999, prepared by the

International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA)



C.4. Institutional Arrangements

C.4.1. Competent Authorities – Overview

Table C.4.11 shows the division of responsibilities between different layers of government (national, regional, local) for specific obligations relating to EIA.

Table C.4.11 Competent Authorities for EIAResponsibilities Central

(Government)Regional

Environmental Inspectorate

Local government

Other(please specify)

Deciding whether a project requires an EIA

X

Making the EIA decision

X

Issuing guidance on EIA

X

Trans-boundary issues

X X


X

Consultation with other authorities

X

Ensuring public consultations

X X

Inspection XEnforcement XMaintaining an EIA register

X X


X X

Appeal X This is the competency of the

second level authority

C.4.2. Competent Authority for EIA

The Regional Environmental Inspectorate is the first level authority, who makes decisions on EIA.

“Regional” does not apply here for statistic regions, which are seven in Hungary. For the 14 Regional Environmental Inspectorates specific geographical regions are identified based on the main rivers catchment’s areas. The second level authority is “Chief Authority for Environment and Water Management”. It has a role in appeals, but also a special case, “the high speed road construction” goes under EIA by the second level authority.

The Regional Environmental Inspectorate, who is the first level environmental authority makes all the decisions on EIA, with the involvement of relevant authorities. There is no input from national level.



C.4.3. Statutory Consultation AuthoritiesThe role of authorities other than environmental ones, is regulated by the 20/2001 annex no.3, government decree. The lead authority is the first level environmental authority. For all cases two other authorities, National Park Directorates and County Institutes of the National Health and Sanitary Service have to take part in the procedure. All of the other authorities named in the list take part occasionally in the process depending if their competency is affected.

Participation in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process

1. Special authorities always to be involved in the processa) regarding nature and landscape conservation :

on first level: competent National Park Directorate,on second level: Environmental Protection and Nature Conservation

Inspectorate General;b) regarding environmental health and human settlement sanitary :

on first level: competent County (Capitol) Institute of the National Public Health and Sanitary Service,

on second level: National Sanitary Head Office.

2. Special authorities to be involved in the process in case their competence is affecteda) regarding local environmental protection and nature conservation :

on first level: clerk of the affected municipality,on second level: competent County Administrative Office;

b) regarding forest protection :on first level: competent regional directorate of the State Forestry Service,on second level: Forestry Office of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural

Development;c) regarding soil protection :

on first level: competent county (Capitol) Plant Health and Soil Protection Station,

on second level: Plant Health and Soil Protection Station of the Capitol Budapest, on the territory of the Capitol the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development;

d) regarding quantitative protection of soil :on first level: competent Regional Land Office (in the Capitol the Land Office

of the Capitol Districts), in cases affecting the territory of more than one regional land office the County Land Office (in the Capitol the Capitol Land Office),

on second level: County Land Office (in the Capitol the Capitol Land Office), the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in case the first level organ was the County Land Office;

e) regarding geological and mineral resources protection :on first level: competent regional office of the Hungarian Geological Service,on second level: Central Office of the Hungarian Geological Service;

f) regarding quantitative protection of waters :on first level: competent Water Management Directorate,on second level: National Water Management Directorate General;

g) regarding the protection of natural characteristics of natural curative factors and health resorts:on first level: National Sanitary Head Office National Health Resort and

Medicinal Bath Directorate General,on second level: National Sanitary Chief Officer;

h) regarding protection of archaeological values :on first level: competent county museum, in the Capitol the Budapest

History Museum,on second level: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage;

i) regarding protection of historical monuments :



on first level: National Historical Monument Protection Office Directorate of Historical Monument Inspection,

on second level: president of the National Historical Monument Protection Office;

j) regarding protection of life and living conditions of the population, in case of activities storing, producing or using hazardous substances over the threshold:on first level: competent county Emergency Protection Directorate,on second level: Ministry of Interior National Emergency Protection Directorate

General;k) regarding nuclear safety :

on first level: National Atomic Energy Office Directorate of Nuclear Safety,on second level: Director General of the National Atomic Energy Office.

C.4.4. Institutional Capacity at Central Level

Table C.4.12 Institutional capacity at central levelActivity No. Of staff* Are there

sufficient staff for the task (Y/N)

Comments

Preparing Legislation 3 Yes Sometimes, when there is rush time, no.

Preparing general Guidance Documents

3 No But they involve consultants

Preparing Internal Procedural Manuals

3 No With external consultants

Maintaining national registers (on projects, decisions etc )

1 yes Regional inspectorates provide data to central level

Legal Advisers Not fix Yes Legal department and external team (EMLA)

Providing advice to the regional/local authorities

3 No External team, EMLA is involved

Support staff 1 (3/16) No One administrator for the whole department, 16 people

Appeals Not fix Yes This is the second level authority who is competent here, number of people involved depends on needs for expertise

* Other than support staff, please include only staff directly involved in the activity. If staff carry out more than one function, assess how much time is spent on this particular activity (e.g. if someone spends half their time on maintaining registers, then count this as 0.5 person)

Note: the three persons, who is a department, actually deal with other tasks as well. Approximately 80% of their time is devoted to EIA.



C.4.5. Institutional Capacity at Regional/Local Level

Table C.4.13 Institutional capacity at local level Activity Region Baja Region

GyulaRegion Győr

Region Székesfehérvár

Region Szombathely

No. EIA applications 2004

15-20 Appr.10 170+15% 150+10% 20-30

No. EIA applications 2005

15-20

No. Staff for EIA determinations

10 15 10 8 15

No. Support staff

3 5 10 3 4

No. Staff for maintaining registers

4 4 4 4 1

No. Staff at other statutory authorities

1-3/each 1-3/each 1-3/each 12

No. Support staff

20

No. Legal advisers

2 10+1 8 6

No. Computers in EIA Dept.

Everybody Everybody Everybody Everybody Everybody

Is register electronic (Y/N)

Y Y Y Y Y

Is there an electronic connection with the central authority (Y/N)

Y Y Y Y Y

Is public information available on-line (Y/N)

N N N N N

Notes: Because there is no EIA department many people are concerned in EIA. Tasks are fragmented among the different departments, legal, environmental media, etc. Experts deal with different tasks, not exclusively with EIA. It is hard to say how much time is devoted to EIA per person, because different tasks are given to them. The same correspond to the support staff.

We have introduced how many authorities can be concerned. There are no fixed staff of them, who are dealing with EIA issues.

Every person has computer and work with it, there is no administrative support for this. But of course many other tasks are being carried out by the help of a computer.

Register is not an analytic one, showing all kind of information about the impact study.



C.5. Procedural Issues


yes

yes

yes

no

no

No, refuse request for permission

No, it goes for a DetEIA

yes

no

yes

no

Decision on an investment

Is EIA required?

Investment can start, relevant environmental legislation need to be addressed

Commission of consultants to prepare PreES, information made available

Preparing PreESfocusing on exclusion criteria, alternatives

A request for environmental permission is sent to the first level environmental authority facilitated with the PreES

Is PreES acceptable?

Screening

Scooping

Consultant to be commissioned, provide information

DetEIA

DetEIA Study and its summary

Evaluation by competent authorities and public hearing

DetEIA acceptable ?

Is development consent?

The EIA procedure

Permission can be obtained, investment starts, monitoring of conditions


C.5.1. The EIA Screening

All Annex I/A projects require a detailed EIA. For other projects, including Annex I/B projects, screening is carried out by the REI by use of the PreEIA.

Developers usually engage planners, who know the EIA procedures. The developer can visit the REI to consult about the need for an EIA. The statutory consultation authorities also give an opinion on the PreEIA which must be taken into consideration. Thus, for example, the nature conservation authority would give their opinion on the PreEIA in cases where a proposed project may affect a nature protection area.

Any expansion of a proposed project would require a PreEIA, and thus procedures are in place to ensure that a developer does not split projects so as to try and avoid the requirements for an EIA.

As mentioned, a preliminary EIA is required to be submitted with the request for environmental permission. The developer usually charges external consultants to put together the preliminary assessment. External consultant does not need accreditation, because always the quality of the assessment is investigated by the authority.

The provision of relevant information held by authorities to the developer is regulated by the Gov. Decree, as it follows:

Art. 4 (1) Any authority that –stemming from its duties as data manager– possesses data of public interest being necessary for an Environmental impact assessment, and the publication of which is not restricted by law, shall provide this data to the applicant upon his request. A fee may be defined for providing the data according to the provisions of Article 20 paragraph 3 of Act No. 63 of 1992 on the Protection of Private Data and on the Publicity of Data of Public Interest.

To get data from the competent authorities is based upon the request of developer. Then the authority will define what kind of information is available from its own data-bank. Of course there are cases when the competent authority pays attention on the data need and offers data or information for the developer. A fee, which is regularly modest, needs to be paid. A fee can include just the immediate costs of the data, such as printing, copying, and mailing.

Scoping

In the Hungarian legislation a “prior request for scoping” is replaced by the preliminary environmental assessment procedure, in which environmental authority has to determine the content of scoping. The applicant submits the request for environmental permission attaching the preliminary environmental study. By the end of the above describe procedure there is a final decision by the first level environmental authority, whether the activity requires a detailed EIA. If the decision is yes, the resolution will describe what the content of a detailed EIA will be. In that way, scoping is the result of the first stage of an EIA procedure.

Once the developer has submitted the EIA to the environmental authority, the authority checks the content of the statement to ensure that it complies to the provisions of the Governmental decree. Experts, dealing with the different environmental media, investigate the statement on the bases of the decree, and give their opinion.



The whole procedure is as follows:

Detailed Study

The detailed study has to be filed in 8 printed copies –in case the inspectorate does not order otherwise.

Introduction of the detailed study shall summarize the antecedents, especially

a) statements given in the preliminary phase by the inspectorate and by the special authorities;

b) comments sent to the applicant; and c) the course of the detailed assessment.

Version(s) selected according to the outcome of the preliminary process shall be described in detail in the detailed study.

Detailed description of the activity and of the impact generating factors shall contain:

a) detailed list of basic data b) presentation of the character, size, change in time, spatial expansion of the impact

generating factors.

It has to be ascertainable from the detailed description

a) in which period of the activity certain impact generating factors appear, and to which part of the activity they belong within the given period;

b) which environmental elements are affected by the impact generating factors, in connection with the definition of the area of direct impacts.

In case technology, substances to be used and products to be produced during the activity already have their environmental qualifications the respective qualification certificates shall be appended to the detailed study.

Sections under the protection of intellectual property rights may be indicated in the detailed study.

The expansion of impact area has to be defined taking Annex 2 of the DG into account.

Any legal rule applicable to the protection of an environmental element or system can define detailed provisions for the definition of impact area, applying to this environmental element or system, taking Annex 2 into consideration.

Description of the state of environment of the impact area without the realization of activity has to be

a) restricted to those aspects, the knowledge of which is necessary for the comparison with changes expectable from the activity;

b) complemented with the designation of changes independent from the activity of this latter state, in case available data make it possible.

Impact generating processes shall be analyzed separately by environmental elements and also as a whole. Also indirectly prevailing impact generating processes have to be revealed.

In evaluating environmental impacts:

a) description of changes of the state of environment occurring has to be given by affected environmental elements and systems, especially taking the following aspects into consideration:

aa) strength, lastingness, irreversibility, spatial expansion and distribution in time of the impact, its favourable or unfavourable nature,

ab) can the impact cumulate with the impacts of activities



ac) protection level of the affected environmental element or system, change in its environmental, nature conservation or landscape protection functions,

ad) change in the character of the human settlement (settlement image, settlement structure),

ae) rarity, replaceability of values of natural and built environment being endangered, or expectedly suffering a damage or destruction,

af) replaceability of natural resources being endangered, or expectedly suffering a damage or destruction,

ag) possibilities of avoiding and reducing environmental damage;

b) in case the change in the state of environment may result in an unfavourable change of health conditions of the population, especially the following must be provided:

ba) number, age distribution, evaluation of the mortality and morbidity data and groups being sensitive to the impact, of the population living in the impact area,

bb) presentation of the short and long term impacts on the health conditions of the affected population, based on an estimation of the loading of environment affecting the population,

bc) extent of health hazard as far as it can be quantified,bd) possibilities of avoiding and reducing of health damage and of reducing the health

hazards to an acceptable level.

Amongst social and economic consequences of the activity, as far as possible, the following have to be estimated in connection with environmental impacts of the activity:

a) occurring damages and emerging costs;b) change of use and usability of the impact areas, changes in living standards and in the

way of living possibly entailed by the latter consequences.

Any difficulties encountered in compiling the information necessary for the detailed study shall be presented.

In case the process has begun, the examination of trans-boundary environmental impacts shall be outlined coherently in a separate chapter of the detailed study, especially

a) the way comments of the affected party and its public are taken into account;b) impact generating factors and events eliciting trans-boundary impacts;c) trans-boundary impact generating processes;d) receivers of impacts being sensitive to such impact generating processes, based on

data as well given by the affected party, and the expectable change of conditions thereof;

e) delineation of impact areas beyond the frontier;f) measures preventing trans-boundary impacts or reducing them to an acceptable level,

subsequent measuring and observations necessary for their tracing and checking;g) source of data used and the examination methods.

The non-technical summary of the detailed study contains:

a) description of the activity’s essence;b) expectable change in the state of environment;c) presentation of the impact area;d) evaluation of the environmental impacts;e) expectable changes in health conditions, in living standards and in the way of living of

the affected people;f) measures to be undertaken for the protection of the environment and human health.

In case the content of the detailed study submitted is not satisfactory the inspectorate refuses the application.

If application is accepted the detailed study shall be exposed to the public for 15 days.



The decision of the inspectorate on issuing or refusing the application for an environmental permit shall be announced to the public by the municipality clerk within five days after receiving the resolution.

The resolution issuing the environmental permit can contain provisions amongst the conditions of permit, such as:

a) regular environmental control, including the elaboration of measuring, observing and monitoring network;

b) certain thresholds in case legal conditions are present;c) conditions to be fulfilled and defined upon the Environmental impact assessment for

receiving further permits after the issuing of the environmental permit, necessary for the start of the use of environment;

d) conditions of stoppages and abandonment of the activity, including the obligation for examinations to be done before the start of stoppages or abandonment, in case the stoppages or the abandonment may have significant environmental impacts, but this can not be satisfactorily precisely foreseen at a given stage of the activity’s planning.

Requests for Further InformationThe environmental authority has 90 days for the whole procedure. The authority has 30 days to decide if additional information is required. The time for giving the answer is not included into the 90 days. Basically it is the interest of the developer to provide information as soon as possible.

In case of inappropriate information, or failing to provide additional information the authority refuses the request for environmental permission.

Usually the REI has one opportunity to request additional information – however this process is usually flexible as the developer and REI enter into consultations if insufficient is provided in the application.

The environmental authority has 90 days for the whole procedure. If additional information is requested, the time for giving the answer is not included into the 90 days. A procedure usually takes 120-150 days.

If the environmental authority fails to make a determination within the relevant period, the developer may commence legal proceedings in court and may seek compensation.

C.5.2. Statutory Consultation AuthoritiesThe environmental authority sends the documents relevant to the PreEIA and the detailed EIA to the relevant authorities. They have 30 days to make their decision known to the environmental authority. If a competent authority does not agree with the relevant part of the statement, they can ask for additional information. If it was not sufficient, the environmental authority terminates the procedure.

At the moment the EIA procedure starts before the IPPC procedure, and IPPC starts after the environmental permission is issued. As we have mentioned, this will be changed. In fact the same experts of the inspectorate deal with both EIA and IPPC.



C.5.3. Trans-boundary Considerations

Projects Likely to Have Significant Effects on Another Member StateProvisions Relating to the Assessment of Trans-boundary Environmental ImpactsActing as Party of Origin

The inspectorate, after the announcement of an intention to start an activity defined in Appendix I of the Espoo Convention, in case the occurrence of a significant trans-boundary environmental impact –especially according to the criteria set forth in Appendix III of the Convention– is presumable, sends to the Ministry:

a) two copies of the application and of the preliminary environmental study;b) statements of the inspectorate and of the special authorities aboutba) upon what grounds can the significant trans-boundary impact be presumed,bb) what data and environmental information have to be requested from the impact area of

the affected party in order to complete the detailed impact statement.

Documents shall be sent out before the public notice, and the applicant shall be informed thereabout as well.

No documents shall be sent out in case the inspectorate rejects the application after its filing upon the examination of the preliminary study and the statement of a special authority.

Upon the documents the Ministry –defining a deadline for response conforming to the time frame of the environmental permitting process– prepare the notification defined by the Convention. The Ministry send the notification to the affected party and to the inspectorate that shall forward it to the applicant.

The Ministry forwards the response and comments given for the notification by the affected party, as well as data and environmental information sent of the impact area on the territory of the affected party, to the inspectorate. The inspectorate delivers them to the applicant.

In case the affected party in its response for the notification announces its desire to participate in the Environmental impact assessment process:

The applicant shall have the translation of the detailed study’s international chapter and non-technical summary prepared, by a deadline defined by the inspectorate, in a language requested by the affected party, and it shall be filed to the inspectorate. The translation has to be prepared if the inspectorate does not reject the application directly after filing the detailed study or its possibly required supplements.

The inspectorate immediately sends two copies of the detailed study and of the translation to the Ministry. The Ministry then forwards them to the affected party and initiates consultation based thereupon. The Ministry involve the inspectorate and if necessary the special authorities in the consultation.

The inspectorate, with the involvement of special authorities concerned, can order the supplementing of the detailed study upon the consideration of comments received at the consultation with and given by the public of the affected party.

The inspectorate sends its substantive resolution upon the environmental permit to the Ministry. The Ministry forwards it to the affected party. In case further decisions are being made in the case due to legal remedies, they shall be forwarded likewise.

In case the inspectorate did not presume the occurrence of a significant trans-boundary environmental impact in the environmental permitting process of an activity, and the environmental permit has not yet been issued, and the country requests the implementation of



the Convention, the Ministry immediately inform the acting inspectorate, which informs the applicant thereabout.

After the information defined has been received, the Ministry –with the involvement of the inspectorate and the special authorities concerned– organize an exchange of information among the concerned parties of the Convention and a discussion about the possibility of occurring a significant trans-boundary environmental impact;

The inspectorate can suspend the Environmental impact assessment process or the start of a process period until the conclusion of discussion but for 90 days at most.

In case the inspectorate with the involvement of special authorities decides upon the consideration of information received at the discussion that significant trans-boundary environmental impact may occur, the process shall proceed properly applying the provisions of the Convention.

The Espoo Convention was ratified by Hungary in 1997, proclaimed by Gov. Decree No. 148 of 1999 (13th of October).

The above consultation procedure is followed for other (non EU) states that are likely to be affected by the project.

Projects in Another Member State Likely to Have Significant Effects on National TerritoryActing as Affected Party

The Ministry for Environment and Water Management, upon the notification sent by the party of origin, after preparing the necessary translations:- request the statements of the inspectorate and of the organs participating in the domestic Environmental Impact Assessment process as special authorities upon the planned activity, its presumable environmental impacts, the significance thereof, and the necessity of participating in the Environmental Impact Assessment process of the party of origin. The Ministry request either the regional organs or the superior organs thereof, depending upon the extension of the presumed impact area;

- organize information for and request comments from the public of the presumed impact area, with the involvement of municipalities if necessary.

The Ministry indicate in its response for the notification whether –upon the significance of presumed environmental impacts– Hungary intends to participate in the Environmental Impact Assessment process of the party of origin.

In case no notification has taken place by the party of origin but the necessity of applying the Convention occurs, the Ministry request statements in possession of the available information from organs upon the planned activity. If occurrence of a significant environmental impact can be presumed on the territory of Hungary, the Ministry signal it to the party of origin and request to apply the Convention.

Upon the request of the party of origin or for establishing the Hungarian standpoint the Ministry compose and deliver environmental information available of the presumable Hungarian impact area and necessary for examining the impacts, with the involvement of organs.

The Ministry, after having prepared the necessary translations,

a) request statements from organs;b) organize information for and request comments from the public of the presumed impact

area, with the involvement of municipalities if necessary;c) organize a public forum and invite the representative of the party of origin thereto.



This procedure shall be applied for every activity listed in Annex 1 of the GD, in case a significant trans-boundary environmental impact is presumable and the affected party or the party of origin is a Member State of the European Union.

We notice that not so many cases have occurred to learn how to implement the Convention or the decree. One of the ongoing case is about the Novo Virje hydro power station in Croatia, where Hungary acts as affected party.

The procedure for consultation with other (non EU) states that have projects likely to affect the environment of the national territory is the same as described above.

C.5.4. Issues of Confidentiality In case any data constituting compulsory contents of the study fall under state secret or service secret, the provisions of Act on State and Service Secrets shall apply to the access of the inspectorate thereto. Secrets qualified as such and secrets qualified as business secret by the applicant shall be attached separately, designated as such, and the study made public has to contain substituted information that make the judgement of the activity’s expectable environmental impacts possible. Thus any confidential information is kept off the public register.

It is the developer who defines the scope of the confidential information, which information can’t be made public, but shall be replaced with relevant information for the public. The Authorities have to accept the request for confidentiality, and do not make any actual determination whether the request is justified or not.

C.5.5. Public Information and ConsultationFor both stages, preliminary and detailed phases, informing and consulting with the public, the same procedure has to be applied, as it follows:

In case the inspectorate does not reject the application after its filing, based on the examination of the preliminary study and on the statements of the special authorities, and the activity does not fall under the protection of military secret, the inspectorate sends the application, the preliminary study, and a partial text of public notice to the clerks of the municipalities of the location of siting, and notify the clerks of the neighbouring municipalities about the application, attaching the non-technical summary thereto.

The clerk signals the inspectorate the possible affectedness of the municipality within 10 days. The inspectorate then sends the whole documentation to the clerk immediately after the signal of affectedness.

Clerks of affected municipalities ensure that the notice is made public within 5 days from the arrival of documents for 30 days by means of exposing it, and is made publicly accessible by means of announcing it in public places and in the other locally customary way.

The public notice includes:

- location of site and a short description of the activity, according to the application;- information about where and when the application and the preliminary study can be seen;- a warning that written comments can be made until the given deadline, comments can be made to the contents of preliminary study, against the location of site, to the necessity and aspects of a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment.

The application and the preliminary study have to be made accessible for public by the municipality clerks for 30 days from the exposing or announcing of the notice. Comments can be made during this time at the inspectorate, or at the clerk.

The municipality clerk sends comments of the municipality, and the ones made at him to the inspectorate within 5 days the latest after the removal of the public notice. The inspectorate sends these, and the ones made directly at him to the applicant.



We notice that public participation is required in both stages, the preliminary and the detailed phases. It means that public is involved into screening and if the investment will undergo a detailed EIA the public can effect the scoping as well. It also means that public participation is ensured for any cases, not only for those cases when a project must undergo EIA.

C.5.6. Taking Account of Information and Consultation OpinionsIf a competent authority finds insufficient information after consultation, or assess negative impact on the concerned area, it will refuse the permission. If any of the competent authorities refused the permission, the first level environmental authority has to refuse the permission as well.

Public opinion has to be considered during making the final decision by the first level environmental authority. Any opinions received from affected states, concerning trans-boundary consideration, must also be taken into account by the environmental authority in making its final decision.

C.5.7. Information on DecisionsThe final decision made shall be exposed to the public by the inspectorate after making the decision and by the municipality after receiving the resolution in their offices for 15 days.

The decision of the inspectorate upon the necessity of preparing a detailed environmental impact statement, on issuing of or refusing the application for an environmental permit and the mode how the full text of the resolution can be accessed, shall be announced to the public by the municipality clerk within 5 days after receiving the resolution.

We need to mention than in spite of the positive arrangement of public participation, public shows modest interest for the process. It is partly, because of the technical nature of the procedure, and because civil environmentalists do not think EIA a preventive tool. Once people have emotions against a development proposal they use the local consensus to prevent the proposal.

When an affected state has been involved in the EIA process, the first level environmental authority sends its final decision to the Ministry, who sends this to the concerned party.

C.5.8. Appeals The developer may appeal to the second level environmental authority when he does not agree with:

The decision that an EIA is required for the project The decision not to grant development consent The conditions attached to the decision to grant development consent.

If a statutory consultation authority was not consulted, he has no right to appeal, as he is not a client. He makes notification to its own second level authority and to the second level environmental authority. The situation cannot occur where a statutory consultation authority disagrees with the decision to grant development consent – this is because if this authority does not give its approval, the environmental authority cannot grant development consent.

The public have a right of appeal to the second level environmental authority in case the public does not agree with:

the decision that an EIA is not required for the project a decision that the project is exempt from the EIA procedure the public consultation process the decision to grant development consent the conditions attached to the decision to grant development consent.

The public means any citizen who is potentially concerned by the impact directly or indirectly. NGOs can be party in the legal procedure if there activity relates to a specific or a general environmental issue. A private person need to pay fee, an NGO is exempt from the fee.




Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental AcquisCapacity Review Annex I – IR – IPPC - Hungary

D. Annex I: Institutional Review - IPPC

D.1. Introduction

The overall objective of the project “Capacity building in implementation of the environmental acquis” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of EIA and IPPC. This will be done through an approach that is tailored to the needs and conditions of each particular country, but also ensuring the possibility for countries to learn from the experiences of their neighbours.

One of the specific activities to be carried out by the project is an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the present administrative practices and capacities in the application of the relevant environmental acquis in the pilot areas selected in the country, with reference to the regulatory acts in each country which define the role of the local and regional authorities in implementation of environmental acquis.

This Capacity Assessment will form an essential background review of the current state of implementation and highlight any weaknesses, either in the administrative practices or in the capacity of the local/regional authorities, which may hinder the effective implementation of the national legislation transposing the EU acquis.

The Capacity Assessment is in two parts: this part, the Institutional Review, and a Training Needs Assessment. Together they form an important baseline for the preparation of training materials and programmes, which will thus be directed at the specific needs in the pilot regions.

This Institutional Review, on the implementation of the IPPC Directive in Hungary has been completed by the Country Manager, assisted by the national IPPC experts and the national lawyers on the project team, based on information available and on interviews with the relevant authorities at both national and at local/regional level.

Section 2 of the Institutional Review provides an overview of the national legislation in place for IPPC, and Section 3 looks at any Guidance Documents that have been prepared to provide information on implementation.

Section 4 examines the institutional arrangements for the implementation of the IPPC procedures and the capacities of the competent authorities at local/regional level. Section 6 provides information on the numbers of installations covered by the IPPC legislation in the pilot regions. Finally, specific procedural issues for the effective implementation of the IPPC legislation are examined in some detail in Section 6. The Annex provides details of all IPPC installations in the country, by industrial sector.

D.2. Legal Assessment

D.2.1. LegislationThe most important two pieces of legislation relevant to the IPPC Directive are the following:

Act LIII of 1995 on the general rules on the protection of the environment

This Act describes the general rules, principles of environmental protection, basic conditions of use of environment, rules of the different stakeholders, the environmental policy and economic instruments, etc. Relating directly to IPPC this Act includes the definition of BAT (best available techniques), introduces the Integrated Environmental Permit, and describes the principle of integrated protection of environment. (Act LV/2001. modified the Act LIII/1995 and introduced the above mentioned issues relating to IPPC.)



193/2001 (X.19.) Gov. Decree on the Detailed Regulations on the Integrated Environmental Use Permitting

This Government Decree can be deemed to be the Hungarian IPPC legislation. It includes the definition of installation (new, existing), its 1st Annex lists the affected industries with their threshold values, describes the permitting procedures, and determines the deadlines. It describes the rules of public participation and reporting obligations about environmental data. The Government Decree has 6 Annexes: affected industries, aspects for determination of BAT, content requirements of permit application, cooperation with other authorities, indicative list of the main polluting substances, and content requirements of permit.

Government Decree 47/2004. (III.18.) about the modification of environmental legislation has also modified the Gov. Decree 193/2001. In the frame of this modification the definition of installation was made more precise, introduced a new deadline for compliance for the special type of installations (30. April 2004.), made more precise the determination of affected chemical industrial branches, added 3 another authorities to the group of partner authorities (and made some more modifications).

Related legislation, which accompany the integrated permitting process:

20/2001 (II.14.) Gov. Decree on the Environmental Impact Assessment

In case of new installation the EIA antedates the IPPC permitting very often. The EIA documentation forms a part of the IPPC permitting documentation.

12/1996 (VII.4.) KTM Decree on the professional conditions and the method of authorisation necessary for carrying out environmental audit and on the content requirements of the audit documents

In case of existing installation the environmental authority obliges the environment user to complete a comprehensive environmental audit, in order to obtain the integrated permit.

Beyond the above-mentioned principal regulations there exists numerous sector-specific legislation relating to different environmental media. These include the emission limit values, environmental quality standards, detailed technical requirements, etc. The 193/2001. Government Decree does not undermine these legislation; these can be seen as the minimum level to consider for the IPPC permit.

Air Protection 21/2001 (II.14.) Gov. Decree on certain Regulations related to Air Protection 14/2001 (V.9.) KÖM-EÜM-FVM Joint Decree on the Air Pollution Limit Values and on the

Emission Limit Values of the Fixed Air Polluting Point Sources 17/2001 (VIII.3.) KÖM Decree on the Regulations related to the Checking, Control and

Evaluation of the Emissions of Air Pollution and Fixed Air Polluting Sources 23/2001 (XI.13.) KÖM Decree on the Technological Emission Limit Values of Air Pollutant

Substances of Combustion Equipment with or above the Output of 140 KWth, but with Heat Input under 50 MWth

10/2003. (VII.11.) KvVM Decree on conditions of operation and the Emission Limit Values of the Polluting Substances of Combustion Equipment with or above 50 MWth Heat Output

9/1995 (VIII.31) KTM Decree on the CxHy Emission Reduction during the Storage, Filling, Transporting and Refilling of Petrol

10/2001 (IV.19.) KÖM Decree on the Volatile Organic Chemical Emission Limits of certain Activities and Equipment

32/1993 (XII.23.) KTM Decree Determining the Technological Limit Values of Fixed Natural Gas operated Engines and the Regulations on their Application



Noise and Vibration Protection

12/1983 (V.12.) MR Decree on Noise and Vibration Protection 8/2002 (III.22.) KÖM-EÜM Joint Decree on the Determining of Noise and Vibration Limit

Values Official National Standards, e.g.: MSZ 18150-1: 1998

Water and Soil Protection Act LVII of 1995 on Water Management Act LV of 1994 on the Soil 33/2000 (III.17.) Gov. Decree on Certain Tasks related to the Activities on the Quality of

Underground Waters 10/2000 (VI.2.) Joint Decree of KÖM-EÜM-FVM-KHVM on the Limit Values necessary for

the Quality Protection of Underground Water and Geographical Sphere 49/2001 (IV.3.) Gov. Decree on the Protection of Waters against Nitrate Pollution of

Agricultural Origin 203/2001 (X.26.) Gov. Decree on certain Regulations of the Protection of Surface Waters 204/2001 (X.26.) Gov. Decree on Sewer Fine 9/2002 (III.22.) Joint Decree of KÖM-KÖVIM on the Emission Limit Values of Used and

Sewage Water and on the Regulation of their Application

Waste Management Act XLIII of 2000 on Waste Management 98/2001 (VI.15.) Gov. Decree on the Conditions of Carrying out Activities related to

Hazardous Waste 22/2001 (X.10.) KÖM Decree on the Regulations and certain Conditions of Waste Disposal,

and on the Closing and After-treatment of the Disposal Sites 3/2002 (II.22.) KÖM Decree on the Technical Requirements of Waste Incineration,

Operational Conditions and on the Technological Limit Values of Waste Incinerations

D.2.2. Categories of Industrial ActivitiesCategories of industry covered by the Hungarian national legislation on IPPC are identical with Annex I. of the IPPC Directive, including the threshold values; but also includes additional categories described below.

The additional category in the Hungarian national legislation on integrated permitting is mining, including 4 subcategories and their threshold values, which are listed in Annex I. of this Institutional Review.

D.2.3. One Integrated Permit or Several PermitsThere is a “partly” integrated permit in Hungary at this moment. It means that all the permits, which can be issued by the Regional Environmental Authority are included into the IPPC permit (e.g. point source permit, waste management permit, etc.), but there is a separate permit for water use and emissions (issued by the water management directorate) and another separate permit for issues concerning human health issued by the State Public Health and Medical Officer Service.

In 2002 the Ministry for Environment and the Ministry for Water Management united. Currently, in 2004 it is in the process of uniting the regional environmental and water management authorities, thus in the near future the permit relating to water management will also be included in the IPPC permit.

In case when several authorities are necessary to participate in the permitting procedure, all the involved partner authorities also receive the full documentation (IPPC application). If it is necessary, the representatives of partner authorities can agree with the representatives of



Environmental Authority. Within the regional Environmental Authorities there are basically two methods, which are used to ensure the integrated approach. According to the first method, an “IPPC core team” is established there with 5-6 inspectors, and they supervise every IPPC permitting procedure in that region. According to second method for a given IPPC permitting procedure, one person is assigned at the Environmental Authority (usually from the legal department), who will be the main coordinator during that permitting procedure. (These methods come partly from the EIA processes.)

D.2.4. General Binding Rules

The approach of general binding rules does not exist in Hungary.

D.2.5. Status of Transposition

The IPPC Directive is fully transposed into Hungarian legislation. The peer review carried out by the European Commission in spring 2002 found everything in order in this field.

D.2.6. Directives 2003/35/EC and 2003/87/ECCurrently a survey is in progress, in order to examine that the requirements deriving from Aarhus Convention to what extent are present in the Hungarian legislation. The preliminary results show that approximately ~ 80% of the requirements are present in the existing Hungarian legislation, thus only a little modification can be expected. (Hungary signed, ratified and announced the Aarhus convention in Act 81 of 2001. Most probably, Hungary can meet the deadline for the transposition).

In order to transpose the relevant parts of the 2003/87/EC Directive (gas emission trading) into national legislation, serious steps have been taken: workshops have been organised for different stakeholders and the elaboration of the draft of the legislation is in progress. The draft of the legislation already exists at an advanced stage, but it can not be regarded as being ready. After finalisation, the approval of the Government is needed which date can not be specified yet. During the drafting procedure it is intended to organise further professional consultations with the affected technical alliances.

D.2.7. Permit Validity PeriodAccording to the national legislation, the integrated permit is valid for a determined time period, but at least for 5 years.

The environmental authority revises the contents of the integrated permit for the use of the environment and the permit conditions are re-considered, if:

a) new emission limit values need to be specified for quantitative or qualitative changes in emissions;

b) specification of new emission thresholds is necessary due to major changes in the best available technique;

c) the operational safety of the activity requires new techniques to be used;d) the pollution caused by the installation is so significant that the existing limit values of the

permit need to be revised.

There is information about only one case, where the permit was issued because of a substantial change. In that case the permit was issued for the whole installation. The REIs can decide how to issue the permit in these cases, but it is likely that always a new permit is given to the whole installation and not just for its –relevant - parts.

D.2.8. Time Limit for the Decision Making ProcessThe time period in which the CA must make a decision on the application for an integrated permit is 90 days.



This time period can be extended, but only once, with 30 days.

The Government Decree (193/2001.) does not specify any circumstances or procedures, just gives the possibility to extend the time period with the above mentioned 30 days. Regional environmental authorities usually use this option, when the installation or the activity is complicated.

Legal possibilities are included in Act IV of 1957 on General Procedures of Public Administration. According to this, if the CA does not make the decision within the relevant time period, the operator can go to court and take legal action.

Another possibility for the operator is to submit a complaint to the Second Instance Authority, which is obliged to review the complaint.

D.3. Publicly Available Guidance Documents

There are publicly available Guidance Documents providing an overview of the national legislation and of the national procedures. However, no Documents have been prepared yet in order to serve as an explanation and guide on ‘substantial change’.

The Guidance Documents providing explanation and guidance on BAT are the following: cement and lime (ready, waiting for publication) pig farming (ready, waiting for publication) tanning of hides and skins (compression of BREF, in Hungarian) industrial cooling systems (compression of BREF, in Hungarian) chlorine-alkali manufacture (compression of BREF, in Hungarian) refineries (compression of BREF, in Hungarian) pulp and paper manufacturing (compression of BREF, in Hungarian) large volume organic chemicals (compression of BREF, in Hungarian) non-ferrous metal processing (compression of BREF, in Hungarian) glass manufacture (compression of BREF, in Hungarian) ferrous metal processing (compression of BREF, in Hungarian) iron and steel production (compression of BREF, in Hungarian) waste water and gas treatment in the chemical sector (compression of BREF, in

Hungarian) production of hydrocarbons (final draft) production of basic pharmaceuticals (final draft) production of paints, pigments (final draft) production of plastics (ready, waiting for publication) surface treatments of metals (final draft) dairies (final draft) monitoring (full translation of BREF) brick manufacture (draft) large combustion plants (planned starting in 2004) slaughterhouses (planned starting in 2004) poultry farming (planned starting in 2004) sugar manufacturing (planned starting in 2004)

No Documents have been prepared dealing with explanation and guidance on commercial confidentiality issues.

Other guidance documents are the following: Guidance for reporting about environmental data under IPPC. The EPER Guidance is translated into Hungarian. Guidance for completion of IPPC permit application (planned publication: summer 2004). Studies and information brochures about IPPC made by Hungarian Cleaner Production

Centre (Cleaner Production Handbook Series - 2002) and National Society of Conservationists Hungary (www.mtvsz.hu)



Primarily all the above guidance and documents are directed to authorities and operators (except the last one, made by a green NGO), but according to the intention of the MFEW the existing IPPC homepage (http://www.kvvm.hu/korny/IPPC/IPPC.htm) will be renewed and extended, and in the frame of this, all the above mentioned guidance and documents will be put on this website, so these will be available also for the general public. (According to the plans the new IPPC homepage will be available in the summer of 2004.)

Thus national BREFs have been prepared and made available to operators and the public. (Industries are listed; but it is important to note, that these are not BREFs, their exact name is “national BAT Guidance Notes”, which rely on BREFs. BREFS are made in Sevilla, and these are “EU level” documents.)

The EU BREFs are regarded and used as the basis for the national BAT Guidance Notes. There is additional information in the national BAT guidance notes, which are relevant and important in Hungary, and the inspectors can use them in the practice. E.g.: instead of the description of the EU-level state of the given industrial sector, the Hungarian situation is described more particularly; techniques that does not operate in Hungary (and likely will not operate) are not included in the national BAT guidance notes (e.g.: in the cement industry the wet process is not described, just the others).

According to the concept of the MfEW, at the beginning only those areas were chosen for the national BAT notes to be prepared, where there were EU BREFs already existing and available international documents were used. With the help of professional associations national guidance were produced adjusted to national circumstances. In the future the MfEW does not intend to elaborate national BAT guidance note for such industries for which at least the second draft of EU BREF is not ready.

The Department for IPP&EIA has already tried to elaborate such national BAT Guidance note, for which no (EU) BREFs exist. This is the case with the brick and tile industry (which is within the ceramic industry). Work has been done with the involvement of technical alliances of the given industry. The Hungarian Brick Association established a working group (with 6-7 experts) and - according to the proposals and directions of the Dep. IPP&EIA - elaborated the (draft) national BAT guidance note in the frame of a consultative and iterative process. When the BREFs of these industries are prepared, the national BAT guidance notes will be supervised.

D.4. Institutional Arrangements

D.4.1. Competent Authorities – Overview Table D.4.14 shows the division of responsibilities between different layers of government (national, regional, local) for specific obligations relating to IPPC.


http://www.kvvm.hu/korny/IPPC/IPPC.htm


Table D.4.14 Division of responsibilitiesResponsibilities Ministry for

Env. and Water

NDFENWDIPP&EA

(Formal: IEM)

Regional Env.

Authority

Chief Env.

InspectorateLocal

Governm.

Deciding whether an installation requires an integrated permit

X

Issuing integrated permits X

Issuing guidance on BAT X [1] X [1]

Trans-boundary issues X [2] X [2]


X

Co-ordination with other authorities X

Ensuring public consultations X [3] X [3]

Monitoring XInspection XEnforcement XMaintaining a register of emissions

X [4] X [4]


X [5] X [5] X [5]

Second Instance Authority X

* Where responsibilities lie at different levels, please specify the competencies at each level.

[1] MFEW controls the process, determine the industries, which BAT Guidance will be prepared, approve the national BAT guidance notes. DIPP&EA is responsible for the effective professional work.

[2] MFEW takes the connection with the neighbouring country, and environmental authorities carry out the consultation in professional issues.

[3] Local governments have to display a notice about IPPC application in public place or to publish it in another way generally applied in the locality and collect the comments of the public, then pass them to the environmental authority. The environmental authority inspects comments in depth involving professional authorities prior to decision-making. The assessment of the comments is included in the reasoning of the decision made by the environmental authority. (Further details about this issue can be found in chapter 6.5.)

[4] REIs feed in the data into the database and do the first checking and send the regional data to the NDFENW. Development of water-related database is in progress. DIPP&EA will perform the tasks of reporting in the frame of IPPC.

[5] DIPP&EA provide information about BAT, national BAT Guidance notes and BREFs, organize Hungarian participation in Technical Working Groups. Environmental Authorities send the non-technical summary of IPPC applications to the affected settlements, and ensure the opportunity for the public to have insight into the whole IPPC documentation. Local governments display a notice in public place or publish it in another way that is generally applied locally.



D.4.2. Competent Authority for IPPC PermitsThe regional environmental authority (in Hungary there are 12) has the responsibility for issuing the IPPC permit, but there is no legal binding rule regarding which department - within the authority - has to issue the permit. Usually the legal department formulates and the director signs the permits.

There is no legal binding rule how to ensure the integrated approach, but basically two methods developed in the practice: according to first method there is an “IPPC core team” established with 5-6 inspectors, and they supervise every IPPC permitting procedure in that region. According to second method for a given IPPC permitting procedure, one person is assigned at the Environmental Authority (usually from the legal department), who will be the main coordinator during that permitting procedure. (These methods come partly from the EIA processes, which exist since 1995 in Hungary.)

In “normal” cases the Regional Environmental Authorities (which are the “first instance authorities”) issue the IPPC permit, and if the operator does not agree with its conditions, it can appeal to the second instance authority (Chief Environmental Inspectorate), which supervise the decision and can approve the decision of the first instance authority or can take new decision.

Annex IV. of the Hungarian IPPC legislation (193/2001. Gov. Decree) lists the different authorities (and their fields), which can be involved in the IPPC permitting process. This Annex includes two categories: in the first one there are 2 authorities, which must be involved in every case in issuing the IPPC permit; in the second category there are 15 authorities, which involvement is necessary only in that cases when they are concerned.

1. Expert authorities to be involved in every case of the integrated permitting procedure for the use of the environment:

a) nature and landscape protection issues:at first instance: the competent national park directorateat second instance: Chief Inspectorate of Environment and Nature Protection

b) environmental health issues:at first instance: the competent county (Budapest) institute of the State Public Health and Medical Officer Serviceat second instance: State Public Health and Medical Officer Service, National Chief Medical Officer Agency

2. Expert authorities to be involved in the integrated permitting procedure for the use of the environment in the case of certain activities

a) professional issues in local environment and nature protection:at first instance: notary of the concerned municipalityat second instance: competent county state administration office

b) forest protection issues:at first instance: competent regional directorate of the State Forestry Serviceat second instance: Forestry Office of the Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development

c) soil protection:at first instance: the county (Budapest) plant and soil protection serviceat second instance: Central Plant and Soil Protection Service of the Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development

d) the quantitative protection of arable land:at first instance: competent regional land office (Office for Land Registration of Municipal Districts in Budapest), while in cases concerning the competence of several



regional land offices, the county land office (the Municipal Land Office in Budapest) is to be involvedat second instance: the county land office (in Budapest the Municipal Land Office), or the Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development if the county land office proceeds at first instance

e) professional geological and mineral assets protection issues:at first instance: competent regional office of the Hungarian Geological Serviceat second instance: the Central Office of the Hungarian Geological Service

f) the quantitative protection of waters:at first instance: the competent water management directorateat second instance: the National Water Management Supreme Directorate

g) the protection of the natural features of natural medicinal factors and medicinal sites:at first instance: the National Medicinal Site and Medicinal Spa Supreme Directorate of the National Medical Officer Agencyat second instance: the national medical chief officer

h) the protection of archaeological values:at first instance: the competent county museum or the Budapest Museum of History in Budapestat second instance: the Ministry for National Cultural Heritage

i) monument protection:at first instance: the monument supervision directorate of the National Monument Protection Officeat second instance: the president of the National Monument Protection Office

j) the protection of the population’s life and living conditions, in the event of activities that involve storing, producing or using hazardous materials:at first instance: the competent county’s catastrophe prevention directorateat second instance: the National Catastrophe Prevention Supreme Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior

k) mining activities:at first instance: the competent Mine Captaincyat second instance: Hungarian Mining Office

l) enforcing settlement design and building requirements:at first instance: highlighted building authorityat second instance: competent county state administration office

m) in case of the installation for the disposal or recycling of animal carcases and animal waste, and intensive rearing of pig and poultry at first instance: the competent county’s Animal Health and Food-controlling Officeat second instance: Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development

n) in case of establishing and operating tanks of combustible liquids and melts:at first instance: the competent regional Technical Safety Inspectorateat second instance: Hungarian Technical Safety Office

o) in the field of transport connected to installations:at first instance: the Central Transport Inspectorateat second instance: Chief Transport Inspectorate

The national legislation prescribes only a range of special authorities, which have to be involved into the IPPC permitting procedure, but there are no legal binding rules regarding the process how to ensure an effective integrated approach by co-ordination. The practical methods - described in the second paragraph of this chapter - can be used here also.



D.4.3. Inspection and EnforcementAccording to the national legislation, the Regional Environmental Authority is the competent authority for inspection as well as for enforcement.

In the event of pursuing activities against the specifications of the permit, the environmental authority obliges the operator in a decision to pay a fine, and to comply with the conditions of the permit and prepare an action plan by setting a maximum of six months deadline. If the operator fails to comply with the decision, the environmental authority may restrict the activity or may withdraw the integrated permit for the use of the environment and obliges the operator to pay a fine.

D.4.4. Institutional Capacity at Central LevelIn Hungary the Department of Integrated Pollution Prevention and Environmental Monitoring of Ministry for Environment and Water (MFEW DIPPH) and Department for Integrated Pollution Prevention and Environment Impact Assessment of Directorate General for Environment, Nature Protection and Water Management (NDFENW DIPP&EA) can be considered to form the “central” level together.

Table D.4.15 Institutional capacity at central levelMinistry for Env. And Water

DIPPHNDfENWDIPP&EA

Activity No. of staff*

Are there sufficient staff for the task

(Y/N)

Com-ments

No. of staff*

Are there sufficient staff for the task

(Y/N)

Com-ments

Preparing Legislation 0,5 Suff. 0,25 Suff.Preparing general Guidance Documents

- - task of DIPP&EA

0,5 Suff.

Preparing Internal Procedural Manuals

0,25 Suff. 0,25 Suff.

Developing BAT reference documents

- - task of DIPP&EA

1,5 Not suff.

Maintaining national registers (on installations, emissions, EPER etc)

1 Suff. 1, 5 Suff.

Legal Advisers 0,5 Suff. 0 Not suff.Providing advice to the regional/local authorities

- - task of DIPP&EA

0,75 Suff.

Support staff 0 Not suff. 0 Not suff.International cooperation and organisation of Hungarian participation in BREF elaboration

0,25 Suff. 0,25 Suff.

* Other than support staff, please include only staff directly involved in the activity. If staff carry out more than one function, assess how much time is spent on this particular activity (e.g. if someone spends half their time on maintaining registers, then count this as 0.5 person)

Comments: At DIPP&EA the activities “Preparing Legislation” and “Providing advice to the regional/local

authorities” occur occasionally, thus it is hard to estimate its human resource needs. Data indicated above are long-time averages.

At DIPP&EA in the frame of the task “Maintaining national registers” the issued IPPC permits are also collected.

At DIPPH there is no respective lawyer working only for this department. In the MFEW there is a legal department and its lawyers work for different departments, so “Legal Advisers” do not belong to DIPPH.



D.4.5. Institutional Capacity at Regional/Local Level

Table D.4.16 Institutional capacity at regional level

ActivityRegion 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6

Baja Győr Gyula Székes-fehérvár

Szolnok Szombat-hely

No. IPPC installations 66 151 55 127 56 59

No. permits 2004 25 15 10 40 8 8

No. permit 2005 37 120 15 30 12 20

No. Staff for issuing IPPC permits

7*30*

but only partly

12* 8*33*

but only partly

20*

No. Support staff 3 3 5 8 60 5

No. Staff for maintaining registers

1 7 7 5 9 20

No. Inspectors

4 60 10 12 35 28

No. Support staff

2 4 2 8 60 8

No. Legal advisers

8 12 2 9 5 4

No. Computers in IPPC Dept.

Yes ** Yes ** Yes ** Yes ** Yes ** Yes **

Is register electronic (Y/N)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Is there an electronic connection with the central authority (Y/N)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Is public information available on-line (Y/N)

Partly + No + No + No + No + No +

* The structural composition (and working method) can differ among the REIs, this is why in some pilot regions there are core-groups including 6-10 experts (from every professional field) and they are dealing with IPPC permitting. At other REIs there is no core-group, and in these cases even 20-30 inspectors can deal with an IPPC permit (as the answers show), but the contribution of one person is slight. Because of these differences in the structural composition, it is hard to estimate whether the IPPC staff is sufficient or not (the number of IPPC installations divided by the number of staff dealing with IPPC can be misleading.)

** In Hungary there is no separate “IPPC Department” at the Environmental Authorities, this is why the number of its computers can not be given; but every inspector dealing with IPPC has an own computer: this means “yes” + Hungary has already sent the EPER report – on voluntary bases – to the European Commission, so the installations and their emissions can be seen on the EPER web-page hosted by the European Environmental Agency (EEA).



D.4.6. Capacity for Monitoring

Self-monitoring (for each pilot region)

- The sufficiency of laboratories for carrying out the analyses required for self-monitoring

1. Baja Partly2. Győr Partly3. Gyula Partly4. Székesfehérvár Yes5. Szolnok No6. Szombathely No

- The sufficiency of staff and equipment in such laboratories

1. Baja Yes2. Győr -3. Gyula Yes4. Székesfehérvár -5. Szolnok -6 Szombathely No

- Are such laboratories accredited

1. Baja Yes, for water2. Győr Partly3. Gyula There is an accredited laboratory for every media4. Székesfehérvár There is an accredited laboratory for every media5. Szolnok -6. Szombathely Partly

Monitoring by Inspectors

- The sufficiency of laboratories for carrying out the analyses required for monitoring

1. Baja Yes2. Győr Yes3. Gyula Partly4. Székesfehérvár Yes5. Szolnok Yes6. Szombathely No

- The sufficiency of staff and equipment in such laboratories

1. Baja Yes2. Győr Yes3. Gyula Yes4. Székesfehérvár Yes5. Szolnok Partly6. Szombathely Partly



- Are such laboratories internal or external to the inspection authorities

1. Baja Internal2. Győr Internal3. Gyula Internal4. Székesfehérvár Internal5. Szolnok Partly6. Szombathely Partly

- Are such laboratories accredited

1. Baja Yes, for every media2. Győr Yes, for every media3. Gyula Yes, for every media4. Székesfehérvár Yes, for every media5. Szolnok Yes, for every media6. Szombathely Partly



D.5. Number of Installations in Hungary by Region

D.5.1. Number of Installations and Permits per Pilot Region

Table D.5.17 Numbers of Installations and IPPC Permits per Pilot Region

Pilot region1

Baja2

Győr3

Gyula4

Székesfehérvár

5 Szolnok

6Szombathely

Total No. Installations 66 151 55 127 56 59No. Existing installations 63 150 53 121 55 54No. New installations 0 1 2 3 1 5No. IPPC permits already issued 4 15 3 7 3 14Expected No. permits to be issued in 2004 25 15 10 40 8 8Expected No. permits to be issued in 2005 37 120 15 30 12 20Comments* on 2004 permits -- 6.6

6.75.

Existing

6.63.5

Existing

4.6.65.

Existing

2.64.26.6

existing

3.35

6.46.56.6--

Comments* on 2005 permits -- -- -- 4.6.65.

existing

4.22.5 b3.52.66.1b

existing

2.65

6.6existing

* Please indicate the industrial sector (using Annex I sector codes) and whether for a new or existing installation, for the permits expected to be issued in 2004 and 2005.



D.5.2. Deadlines for Integrated Permits

New installation Existing installationHave IPPC

permitApplied for IPPC permit

Have IPPC permit

Applied for IPPC permit

Deadline National legislation do not include deadline, because establishing of new installations can not be started without IPPC permit

According to national legislation it is prescribed, that until 31. Oct. 2007. all installation has to comply with the requirements of IPPC permit (or in other words: comply with BAT).

The national legislation does not prescribe deadline for application, but obligates the Regional Env. Authorities to send their decision - until 1st of Jan. 2004 - to the operators of IPPC installations on start to elaborate and submit the IPPC permit application. The deadline for submission depends on individual authority decision.

Exception There is no exception for any categories of industry

There is no exception for any categories of industry

D.6. Procedural Issues

D.6.1. The Integrated PermitAnnex 3 of Government Decree 193/2001. fully prescribes the Content requirements of the application for the integrated permit:

Content requirements of the application for the integrated permit

A.The application for the permit shall, under all circumstances, contain detailed description of the following:

a) identification data of the applicant for the permit.b) parameters of the future site of the installation and activity,c) site layout of the area used by the installation, indicating the integrated national projection

system (EOV) coordinates,d) the installation, the activity pursued at the installation and its typical production capacity,

including technically connected installations at the site,e) providing information on the best available techniques applied,f) parameters and quantity data of materials and energy used or produced in the installation

and technology,g) the pollutant sources of the installation,h) quality and quantity parameters of emissions originating from the installation, and their

expected environmental effects concerning the whole of the environmental media,i) determination of the impact area of activities pursued at the installation according to legal

regulations that apply to the professional field, pointing out any possible trans-boundary effects,



j) technological procedures and other technical solutions aimed at the prevention of emissions from the installation or, if prevention is not possible, reduction of emissions, and making these comply with the latest best technique available,

k) if necessary, solutions for preventing the production of waste, utilisation of waste produced, and disposal of waste not suitable for recycling by methods that exclude environ-mental pollution or damage,

l) any measure serving the purpose of energy efficiency, safety, prevention or reduction of pollutions with special regard to the fulfilment of requirements specified in Article 3,

m) methods and measures serving the measurement (monitoring) and continuous control of emissions from the installation.

B.In case of new installations, where environmental impact studies have been carried out, the supplementary data supply is required to contain only data and facts, which had not been specified in the preliminary environmental study or the documentation of the detailed environmental impact study. The documentation of the environmental impact study are to be attached to the application.

C.In case of installations not subject to Act LXXIV of 1999, the description of measures concerning operation safety and those that are to be taken in case of an accident are to be attached.

D.A non-technical summary is to be attached to the application for the permit and the supplementary data supply, as defined in Paragraph (2) Article 5, suitable for public disclosure of its contents.

On determining permit conditions, the Annex 6 of Government Decree 193/2001. fully prescribes the content requirements for the integrated permit:

Content requirements for the integrated permit for the use of the environment

The permit shall contain especially the following:1. The authoritya) specifies a threshold in the permit, especially for pollutants listed in Annex 5 and for

pollutants that require mandatory specification of threshold by law,b) may only specify thresholds stipulated in the law or ones stricter than that, if an

emission threshold is specified for any pollutant in a law,c) takes into account in specifying the emission threshold the nature of the pollutants and

their capability of transferring pollution from one environmental element to another,d) specifies emission thresholds and, if necessary, equivalent environmental and technical

requirements on the basis of the best available technique, taking into account the installation’s technical parameters, its geographical position and the environment’s current and target condition.

2. The permit shall contain conditionsa) for the protection of the air, surface and underground waters, the soil, and for

moderating noise emission;b) on recycling or disposal of waste produced during the operation of the installation, if

necessary;c) on the prevention of pollutions reaching far distances or having a trans-boundary effect

or to reduce these effects to the lowest possible rate, if necessary;d) that ensure the fulfilment of requirements specified in Article 3.

3. In addition to the contents of Paragraph (1) Article 43 of the Act of Public Administration, the permit shall containa) appropriate measuring-controlling (monitoring) conditions necessary for monitoring the

impact of the activity on the environment, specifying the method and frequency of the measurement, the assessment procedure, the way, content and frequency of



mandatory supply of data to the authorities. The license-holder is obliged to supply data at least once every year unless stipulated otherwise by the authorities;

b) conditions on requirements to be complied with in the event of operation states other than ordinary operation (e.g. start-up, immediate stoppage, operation malfunction and termination of the activity);

c) measures that are necessary for the prevention of extraordinary, sudden pollutions, or for the purpose of remedy, should such a pollution occur;

d) the duration of trial operation, if necessary.

4. Provisions on the application of the best available techniquea) the permit may not prescribe the application of a case-specific technique or technology;b) a supplementary condition has to be specified in the permit that ensures compliance

with the threshold, if the use of the best available technique does not ensure compliance with any use or pollution threshold required by the environment’s target condition.

ELVs are determined by sector-specific legislation (e.g.: listed in chapter 2.1) and national BAT Guidance notes (and BREFs if necessary)

Government Decree 193/2001. requires from the operators that in the permit application they describe the technology and its compliance with BAT; and also obliges the Regional Environment Authority to decide about prescription of emission limit values with regard to BAT in the IPPC permit.

On determining compliance schedule, the Article 8 of Government Decree 193/2001. says:

In the decision on the integrated permit for the use of the environment, the environmental authority defines measures for the following: prevention of the pollution of the soil, air and water, moderation of noise emission, environment-friendly treatment and disposal of wastes, especially concerning the pollutants listed in Annex 5 to this Decree, further environmental requirements, emission limit values and deadlines for compliance taking into account the contents of separate legislation

Annex 6 of Government Decree 193/2001 includes reference to self-monitoring and the professional (media-specific) legislation (listed in chapter 2.1) also include full details about it:

The permit shall contain appropriate measuring-controlling (monitoring) conditions necessary for monitoring the impact of the activity on the environment, specifying the method and frequency of the measurement, the assessment procedure, the way, content and frequency of mandatory supply of data to the authorities. The license-holder is obliged to supply data at least once every year unless stipulated otherwise by the authorities

Government Decree 193/2001 gives a general definition of “substantial change”: it shall mean a modification having occurred or administered in the installation’s operation, its circumstances, function, its extension or production capacity which influences the activity’s impact on the environment or on human health. It is not very practicable for the environmental authorities. (But the EIA legislation also includes instructions for substantial change; and the necessary modification owing to implementation of the Aarhus Convention will also include instructions for substantial change.)

Article 9 of Government Decree 193/2001 includes the conditions of reviewing IPPC permits:The requirements and specifications contained in the permit are to be revised at least every 5 years by the rules of comprehensive environmental audit.The environmental authority revises the contents of the integrated permit for the use of the environment, ifa) new emission limit values need to be specified for quantitative or qualitative changes in emissions;b) specification of new emission thresholds is necessary due to major changes in the best available technique;c) the operational safety of the activity requires new techniques to be used;



d) the pollution caused by the installation is so significant that the existing limit values of the permit need to be revised.

Regarding the existence and content of ‘internal’ procedures manual prepared to help the authorities, the following can be established:

there are no checking whether the installation required an integrated permit (threshold levels, boundaries of installations, etc)

no dealing with the situation when an enterprise has more than one installation on the premises, but an earlier workshop covered this issue (in April 2003.)

no dealing with the situation when there are no national BREFs that apply to the installation no dialogue with operators no determination of compliance schedule no determination of conditions for self-monitoring, but the sector-specific legislation include

detailed requirements no determination whether a ‘substantial change’ applies, but earlier training and workshops

affected this issue at least partly no reviewing of the permit conditions

Regarding the emission modelling tools for determining ELVs for a specific installation, see the point 6.4.

In the frame of professional consultations - prescribed by the Government Decree 193/2001 - it can be ensured that permit conditions are written in clear, precise, unambiguous terms, capable of enforcement. (Good application documents can help also this.)

The inspectors have inputs for writing permit conditions: national BAT Guidance notes (and/or BREFs if necessary) and professional (media-specific) legislation.

There are some procedural defects applicable nationally. In case of new installation EIA often precede IPPC permitting and the duration is summarized, despite that many information needed for IPPC are included already in the EIA. The two procedures together are complicated and can be too long.

Permits relating to water are still separate from IPPC, but - as it was mentioned in chapter 2.3 – it will be also incorporated into IPPC permit, when the institutional changes passed.

Because of the previous approach, the IPPC permit is assembled from the media-specific pieces, but not always ensured the integrated approach and the cross-media effects.

The approach and the procedure are not uniform at the different environmental authorities.

In case of waste disposal sites, if it affects the territory of several REIs, the Chief Environmental Inspectorate issues the waste transportation and collection permit, this is why the competent REI can not incorporate the requirements into the IPPC permit.

Submitted applications are often imperfect, which makes the duration of the process longer, and the task of REIs more difficult. Partner authorities involved are often not familiar with the procedure.

Regarding the procedural defects applicable to one or more pilot regions, the following can be established:

Gyula (KÖR-KöFe): The partner authorities and the local governments are quite passive in the permitting procedure, which means that sometimes they do not formulate requirements, just contribute to the decision.

Győr (ÉDU-KöFe):



The applicants often consider almost every technique they use to be BAT, and it is hard for the authorities to prove and make them admit that that technique is not BAT. (This can be supposed that this is a country level problem, despite that other REIs did not mention it.)

Szombathely (NyuDu-KöFe)Information on BAT is hard to find.

Baja (ADU-KöFe)Information on BAT is hard to find. Duration of the procedure is too short.

D.6.2. Trans-boundary ConsiderationsArticle 17 deals with the consultation procedures when the operation of an installation is likely to have significant negative effects on the environment in another Member State, and when the operation of an installation in another Member State is likely to have significant negative effects on the environment in the national territory.

The Hungarian IPPC legislation (Gov. Decree 193/2001.) related to the trans-boundary impacts only declares that the procedure has to follow the provisions determined in Government Decree about Environmental Impact Assessment. (20/2001.)

Art 14. (6): With respect to issues subject to the scope of the Convention on the inspection of trans-boundary effects signed in Espoo (Finland) on 26 February 1991 and promulgated with Government Decree 148/1999. (X.13.) (hereunder referred to as: the Convention), the provisions of the Convention shall be applied for both parties to the Convention and – in the event of reciprocity – other countries as well, by taking into account the provisions in Articles 24-27 of Government Decree 20/2001. (II.14.) on the environmental impact study, unless stipulated otherwise in another international contract.

Art 14. (7): if the assessment of trans-boundary effects has been performed in the frame of EIA process according to the Gov. Decree 20/2001. (II.14) and the Convention, than assessment of trans-boundary effects do not has to be reproduced in the IPPC permitting process.

Because of the identity mentioned above, the following are the reproductions of corresponding chapters of Institutional Review of EIA.:

Installation likely to have significant negative effects on another Member State

Provisions Relating to the Assessment of Transboundary Environmental Impacts

Acting as Party of Origin

Art. 25 of Go. Decree (1) The inspectorate, after the announcement of an intention to start an activity defined in Appendix I of the Convention (Article 96 paragraph 1 of the AEP), in case the occurrence of a significant trans-boundary environmental impact –especially according to the criteria set forth in Appendix III of the Convention– is presumable, is sending to the Ministry

a) two copies of the application and of the preliminary study;b) statements of the inspectorate and of the special authorities aboutba) upon what grounds can the significant trans-boundary impact be presumed,bb) what data and environmental information have to be requested from the impact area of the

affected party (Article 1 point (iii) of the Convention) in order to complete the detailed impact statement.

(2) Documents referred to in paragraph 1 shall be sent out before the public notice defined by Article 7 paragraph 2, and the applicant shall be informed thereabout as well.

(3) No documents referred to in paragraph 1 shall be sent out in case the inspectorate rejects the application after its filing upon the examination of the preliminary study and the statement of a special authority.



(4) Upon the documents referred to in paragraph 1 the Ministry –defining a deadline for response conforming to the time frame of the environmental permitting process– prepare the notification defined by the Convention. The Ministry are sending the notification to the affected party and to the inspectorate that shall forward it to the applicant.

(5)The Ministry are forwarding the response and comments given for the notification by the affected party, as well as data and environmental information sent of the impact area on the territory of the affected party, to the inspectorate. The inspectorate is delivering them to the applicant.

(6) In case the affected party in its response for the notification announces its desire to participate in the Environmental impact assessment process, it shall proceed taking the provisions of the Convention and of Articles 24―26 into account.

Art. 26 (1) The applicant shall have the translation of the detailed study’s international chapter (Article 15 paragraph 8) and non-technical summary (Article 17) prepared, by a deadline defined by the inspectorate, in a language requested by the affected party, and it shall be filed to the inspectorate. The translation has to be prepared if the inspectorate does not reject the application directly after filing the detailed study or its possibly required supplements.

(2) The inspectorate is immediately sending two copies of the detailed study and of the translation defined in paragraph 1 to the Ministry. The Ministry are forwarding them to the affected party and initiate consultation based thereupon. The Ministry involve the inspectorate and if necessary the special authorities in the consultation.

(3) The inspectorate, with the involvement of special authorities concerned, can order the supplementing of the detailed study upon the consideration of comments received at the consultation with and given by the public of the affected party.

(4) The inspectorate is sending its substantive resolution upon the environmental permit to the Ministry. The Ministry are forwarding it to the affected party. In case further decisions are being made in the case due to legal remedies, they shall be forwarded likewise.

(5) In case the inspectorate did not presume the occurrence of a significant trans-boundary environmental impact in the environmental permitting process of an activity, and the environmental permit has not yet been issued, and the country mentioned in Article 24 paragraph 1 requests the implementation of the Convention, the Ministry immediately inform the acting inspectorate, which is informing the applicant thereabout.

(6) After the information defined by paragraph 5

a) the Ministry –with the involvement of the inspectorate and the special authorities concerned– organize an exchange of information among the concerned parties of the Convention and a discussion about the possibility of occurring a significant trans-boundary environmental impact;b) the inspectorate can suspend the Environmental impact assessment process or the start of a process period until the conclusion of discussion but for 90 days at most.

(7) In case the inspectorate with the involvement of special authorities decides upon the consideration of information received at the discussion that significant trans-boundary environmental impact may occur, the process shall proceed properly applying the provisions of the Convention and of Articles 24―26.

The Espoo Convention has been ratified in 1997., proclaimed by Gov. Decree No. 148 of 1999 (13th of October).

The procedure is the same for consultation with other (non EU) states that are likely to be affected by the project.



Installations in another Member State likely to have significant negative effects on national territory

Acting as Affected Party

Art. 27 (1) The Ministry, upon the notification sent by the party of origin (Article 1 point (ii) of the Convention), after preparing the necessary translationsa) request the statements of the inspectorate and of the organs participating in the domestic Environmental impact assessment process as special authorities upon the planned activity, its presumable environmental impacts, the significance thereof, and the necessity of participating in the Environmental impact assessment process of the party of origin. The Ministry request either the regional organs or the superior organs thereof, depending upon the extension of the presumed impact area; b) organise information for and request comments from the public of the presumed impact area, with the involvement of municipalities (in the Capitol the district municipalities) if necessary.

(2) The Ministry indicate in its response for the notification whether –upon the significance of presumed environmental impacts– Hungary intends to participate in the Environmental impact assessment process of the party of origin.

(3) In case no notification has taken place by the party of origin but the necessity of applying the Convention occurs, the Ministry request statements in possession of the available information from organs of paragraph 1 point a) upon the planned activity. If occurrence of a significant environmental impact can be presumed on the territory of Hungary, the Ministry signal it to the party of origin and request to apply the Convention.

(4) Upon the request of the party of origin or for establishing the Hungarian standpoint the Ministry compose and deliver environmental information available of the presumable Hungarian impact area and necessary for examining the impacts, with the involvement of organs of paragraph 1 point a).

(5)The Ministry, after having prepared the necessary translations,a) request statements from organs of paragraph 1 point a);b) organize information for and request comments from the public of the presumed impact area, with the involvement of municipalities (in the Capitol the district municipalities) if necessary;c) organize a public forum and invite the representative of the party of origin thereto.

Art. 28 Provisions of the Convention and of Articles 25―27 shall be applied for every activity listed in Annex 1 of this Decree in case a significant trans-boundary environmental impact is presumable and the affected party or the party of origin is a Member State of the European Union.

The same procedure applies for consultation with other (non EU) states that have projects likely to affect the environment of the national territory.

D.6.3. Issues of Confidentiality Concerning determination of what information can be excluded from the public register for reasons of commercial confidentiality, Government Decree 193/2001. says only that “if the application contains data classified as state secret, commercial or service secret, such data shall be attached to the application in a separate document”. Practically it is trusted to the operator what it considers to be commercial secret.

There is no written procedure for determining an application for commercial confidentiality.

To ensure that confidential information is kept off the public register, there is a procedural arrangement that confidential information shall be attached to the application in a separate document.



D.6.4. Emission ModellingTo determine whether the proposed ELVs will result in an exceedance of the environmental quality standards for air, every environmental authority received software from the MfEW for modelling the spreading of emissions into air (“Transzmisszió 1.0”, using Gauss distribution), but only 1-2 specialist can use it at every authority.

Modelling spreading in water is not used; measuring is preferred in this field.

The modelling technique for air is adequate, but requires many meteorological data, which are not always available. (In this cases estimation is used.) There is no information for modelling techniques for water.

The situation when ‘better that BAT’ is required to comply with the environmental quality standards has not occurred yet. (but the Hungarian IPPC legislation allows this possibility: Article 8, chapter 4.)

D.6.5. Access to Information and Public Participation

Applications for Integrated PermitsThe procedural arrangements are listed below.

1. The environmental authority is responsible for ensuring that all applications for new installations and for substantial change are made available to the public. It sends the application during the procedure and the decision draft during the procedure to the notary of the municipality being competent for the site of the installation. Environmental authority notifies of the procedure under way the notary of the settlement (in Budapest, of the district) government neighbouring the site of the installation, and also of the one affected by the emission and on the impact area, enclosing the non-technical summary.

2. A non-technical summary is to be available to the public, which have to be attached to every IPPC application and shall include:

a) the description of the activity, especially regarding the application of the best available technique;b) an introduction of the impact area;c) the expected emissions of the activity and their impact on the environment and human health;d) appropriate measures planned/taken for the prevention of the pollution and reduction of impact;e) methods of control for emissions;f) measures aimed at the prevention of accidents and their environmental impacts;g) measures planned or taken for the purpose of supplying information to the public.

Moreover public can have examination in the whole IPPC documentation at the regional environmental authorities.

3. Legislation does not provide details that any member of public, or just NGOs, or only the public directly affected by the installation can comment. Practically the citizens of the settlement affected by the installation and of the neighbouring settlements can comment; and NGOs also can comment if they ask for client-right previously.

4. Information can be consulted at the municipality or at the environmental authority.

5. The public may be informed through notaries of the concerned settlement (in Budapest, the district) governments who display a notice in public place or publish it in another way which is generally applied in the locality.

6. The bulletin shall contain a call for optional written remarks regarding the contents of the application, either at the notary of the municipality or at the environmental authority, until the deadline set.



7. The time period for public consultation is 15 days.

8. To ensure that public comments are taken into account in the decision making process, the environmental authority examines comments in depth with the involvement of professional authorities prior to decision-making. The assessment of the comments is included in the reasoning of the decision made by the environmental authority. This assessment comprises the factual judgement of comments, their professional field analysis and legal consequences.

9. Applications for existing installations are not made available to the public nor are there any public consultation processes.

Permit DecisionsThe procedural arrangements are listed below.

1. All the decisions (IPPC permits) are available to the public. 2. Reasoning of the decisions is also included in the IPPC permit; the permits can be seen

at the REIs or at the municipalities. 3. The environmental authority and the notaries of the municipalities that took part in the

procedure shall display for the public the resolution on the integrated permit in their office through fifteen days from the date of decision-making or from receiving the resolution

National Emission Pollutant RegisterNational emission pollutant register exists for air, water and waste, for which the Ministry for Environment and Water and its background institutions (e.g. NDFENW) is responsible.

The air-register covers all the pollutants listed in EPER. The water-register includes only the larger installations and does not cover all the pollutants listed in EPER (Decision 2000/479/EC).

The existing registers are not available online, but Hungary sent its emission data to the firs reporting of EPER on voluntary bases, which is available through the website of European Environmental Agency.

The installations have to supply emission data to the regional environmental authorities, who check if all data is supplied and correct (first validation.) If everything is correct environmental authority sends data to the professional background institution of MFEW, to NDFENW. (In other cases regional environmental authority asks the operator of installation to complete or correct emission data.) NDFENW checks if data are correct (second validation); if not, then asks the regional environmental authority to correct the data. If the data are correct DG EPNWM sends data to the Ministry for Environment and Water, who approve the data and sends it to the European Commission.

The fulfilment of international data supply and reporting obligation relating to IPPC is the task of the Minister for the Environment. The MFEW sends the necessary and validated data to the European Commission and at the same time to the European Environmental Agency.

D.6.6. AppealsThere has not been precedence for many of the examples below in the practice (but e.g. appeal of IPPC permit already occurred).

According to the appeal process, if the operator does not agree with the decision that an IPPC permit is required for the project, it can appeal within 15 days to the Second Instance Authority (Chief Environmental Inspectorate)

If the public disagrees with the decision, it can appeal within 15 days also to the Second Instance Authority, if it asked and received previously client-right in the permitting process.



Whether the operator does not agree with a decision made on commercial confidentiality, this does not form basis of appeal. The operator can turn to civil court, or with complaint to the environmental authority. The same appeals procedure applies where the public disagrees with the decision on commercial confidentiality.

If the public finds the public consultation improper, it can appeal within 15 days also to the Second Instance Authority, if it asked and received previously client-right in the permitting process.

If the operator does not agree with the decision not to grant an integrated permit, or with the conditions attached to the permit or with an enforcement decision; or if the public* does not agree with the decision to grant a permit or with the conditions attached to the permit, the following applies for all the options: the decision of environmental authority on integrated permit always includes the description of appeal process. Usually within 15 days it is possible to appeal to the second instance authority, with paying the necessary duty .

A few REIs understand under public “any member of the public”.

Some REIs understand under public “the public concerned” and “NGOs- if the applied for and got the client-right”.



ANNEX 1

Total Number of Installations in Hungary by Category

Categories of industrial activities and comparison with the Hungarian legislation of IPPC (193/2001. (X.19.) Government Decree, Annex I)

Annex I code of the sector

Definition Total number of installationsState: 31. Jan. 2004

Hungarian legislation on IPPC(193/2001. Gov. Decree)

1.1. Combustion installations with a rated thermal input exceeding 50 MW

35 identical

1.2. Mineral oil and gas refineries 5 identical1.3. Coke ovens 1 identical1.4. Coal gasification and liquefaction plants 0 identical2.1. Metal ore (including sulphide ore) roasting or sintering

installations.0 identical

2.2. Installations for the production of pig iron or steel (primary or secondary fusion) including continuous casting, with a capacity exceeding 2,5 tonnes per hour

4 identical

2.3.(a). Installations for the processing of ferrous metals. Hot-rolling mills with a capacity exceeding 20 tonnes of crude steel per hour

3 identical

2.3.(b). Installations for the processing of ferrous metals. Smitheries with hammers the energy of which exceeds 50 kilojoule per hammer, where the calorific power used exceeds 20 MW

0 identical

2.3.(c). Installations for the processing of ferrous metals. Application of protective fused metal coats with an input exceeding 2 tonnes of crude steel per hour

2 identical

2.4. Ferrous metal foundries with a production capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day

4 identical

2.5.(a). Installations for the production of non-ferrous crude metals from ore, concentrates or secondary raw materials by metallurgical, chemical or electrolytic processes

3 identical

2.5.(b). Installations for the smelting, including the alloy age, of non-ferrous metals, including recovered products, (refining, foundry casting, etc.) with a melting capacity exceeding 4 tonnes per day for lead and cadmium or 20 tonnes per day for all other metals

7 identical

2.6. Installations for surface treatment of metals and plastic materials using an electrolytic or chemical process where the volume of the treatment vats exceeds 30 m3

46 identical

3.1. Installations for the production of cement clinker in rotary kilns with a production capacity exceeding 500 tonnes per day or lime in rotary kilns with a production capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day or in other furnaces with a production capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day

5 identical

3.2. Installations for the production of asbestos and the manufacture of asbestos-based products

0 identical

3.3. Installations for the manufacture of glass including glass fibre with a melting capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day

10 identical

3.4. Installations for melting mineral substances including the production of mineral fibres with a melting capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day

3 identical

3.5. Installations for the manufacture of ceramic products by firing, in particular roofing tiles, bricks, refractory bricks, tiles, stoneware or porcelain, with a production capacity exceeding 75 tonnes per day, and/or with a kiln capacity exceeding 4 m3 and with a setting density per kiln exceeding 300 kg/mł

37 identical






4.1. Chemical installations for the production of basic organic chemicals

43 identical

4.2. Chemical installations for the production of basic inorganic chemicals

26 identical

4.3. Chemical installations for the production of phosphorous-, nitrogen- or potassium-based fertilizers (simple or compound fertilizers)

2 identical

4.4. Chemical installations for the production of basic plant health products and of biocides

2 identical

4.5. Installations using a chemical or biological process for the production of basic pharmaceutical products

14 identical

4.6. Chemical installations for the production of explosives 0 identical5.1. Installations for the disposal or recovery of hazardous waste

as defined in the list referred to in Article 1 (4) of Directive 91/689/EEC, as defined in Annexes II A and II B (operations R1, R5, R6, R8 and R9) to Directive 75/442/EEC and in Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, with a capacity exceeding 10 tonnes per day

38 identical

5.2. Installations for the incineration of municipal waste, with a capacity exceeding 3 tonnes per hour

0 identical

5.3. Installations for the disposal of non-hazardous waste as defined in Annex II A to Directive 75/442/EEC under headings D8 and D9, with a capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day

2 identical

5.4. Landfills receiving more than 10 tonnes per day or with a total capacity exceeding 25 000 tonnes, excluding landfills of inert waste

142 identical

6.1.(a). Industrial plants for the production of pulp from timber or other fibrous materials

1 identical

6.1.(b) Industrial plants for the production of paper and board with a production capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day

9 identical

6.2. Plants for the pre-treatment (operations such as washing, bleaching, mercerization) or dyeing of fibres or textiles where the treatment capacity exceeds 10 tonnes per day

3 identical

6.3. Plants for the tanning of hides and skins where the treatment capacity exceeds 12 tonnes of finished products per day

0 identical

6.4.(a). Slaughterhouses with a carcase production capacity greater than 50 tonnes per day

17 identical

6.4.(b). Treatment and processing intended for the production of food products from:animal raw materials (other than milk) with a finished product production capacity greater than 75 tonnes per dayvegetable raw materials with a finished product production capacity greater than 300 tonnes per day (average value on a quarterly basis)

19 identical

6.4.(c). Treatment and processing of milk, the quantity of milk received being greater than 200 tonnes per day (average value on an annual basis)

7 identical

6.5. Installations for the disposal or recycling of animal carcasses and animal waste with a treatment capacity exceeding 10 tonnes per day

15 identical

6.6. Installations for the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs with more than:40 000 places for poultry2 000 places for production pigs (over 30 kg), or750 places for sows

552 identical

6.7. Installations for the surface treatment of substances, objects 4 identical






or products using organic solvents, in particular for dressing, printing, coating, degreasing, waterproofing, sizing, painting, cleaning or impregnating, with a consumption capacity of more than 150 kg per hour or more than 200 tonnes per year

6.8. Installations for the production of carbon (hard-burnt coal) or electrographite by means of incineration or graphitization

0 identical

Others Any other categories of installations subject to national integrated permits, not covered by the IPPC Directive:

Others Coal mining with a capacity exceeding 100 000 tonnes per year, and in case of opencast mining on a territory exceeding 25 hectare as well

24 surplus

Others Exploitation of crude oil with a production capacity exceeding 500 tonnes per day (average value on an annual basis), exploitation of natural gas with a production capacity exceeding 500 000 m3 per day (average value on an annual basis),

surplus

Others Mining of uranium ore with a capacity exceeding 100 000 tonnes per year

surplus

Others Mining of metallic ores: in case of iron ore with a capacity exceeding 1 million tonnes per year; in case of non ferrous metals with a capacity exceeding 100 000 tonnes per year

surplus

TOTAL NUMBER OF INSTALLATIONS 1085


Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental AcquisCapacity Review Annex II – TNA – EIA - Hungary

E. Annex II: Conclusions on the Training Needs Assessment - EIA

E.1. Overall Staff Capacities, i.e. Characteristics of Staff Involved in EIA Determination in Hungary

The total number of staff involved in training in this project in EIAs in the 5 pilot regions in Hungary was found to be 17, of these 2 are scientists, 8 are engineers, 1 is a lawyer and 6 are representing other professions. Their media specialisation is 5 in water, 8 in waste, 6 in air and 1 in other areas. (some people are specialists in different environmental media).

The five pilot regions are:Region 1 SzékesfehérvárRegion 2 GyőrRegion 3 GyulaRegion 4 SzombathelyRegion 5 Baja

The average professional experience of the Trainees involved in EIA determinations are 5 years, the majority of the staff is medium (7), junior (5) and 4 high ranking. One is not specified. They have been involved in a total of 80 EIA determinations as lead staff, and they have contributed to numerous (more than 200) EIA determinations.

The trainees have been exposed to very little previous training. In three regions they were exposed not at all, and just 2 days in the other regions. In that regard we can’t say if there were deviations among the regions.

Based on the above the conclusion can be drawn that overall, staff numbers are sufficient in the regions for EIA, in spite of the survey shows it is insufficient, because inexperienced staff applied for the training, and the survey shows the qualification of this group of people out of the total staff dealing with EIA. They present a media mix, which is quite balanced at the field of different environmental media, but unbalanced concerning the one lawyer, who is taking part in the training. The composition of positions of staff involved in training is found to be also imbalanced in relation to the overall status of staff involved in EIA. Based on the figures on frequency of participation in EIA, either as lead or as contributors, the conclusion can be drawn that in their majority they are novices. So far, they have been not trained enough.

There are significant regional deviations and deviations inside the regions. At Szombathely participants are qualified as high, and they have had a lot of EIA cases. The other end is Székesfehérvár, where the trainees are very young, and they were lead just for one EIA, and also participated in few other cases. In Gyula trainees are experienced over a number of years, but they had very few cases, both for lead and assistance. In Baja trainees represent both junior, medium and high level, but they do not have too many EIA cases all together. Győr is also interesting, because trainees are young, but they have had a lot of cases.

E.2. Subject Matter Knowledge Capacities and Experiences

The following paragraphs present the details of the TNA. Reference is made to the TNA tick-off tables. In order to do justice to the particularities of the pilot regions, the tables are arranged region-wise.



Legend

K = KnowledgeE = Experience(A) = very knowledgeable/very experienced (average score 3.0 –2,8)(B) = knowledgeable/some experience (average score 2,7-1,8)(C) = novice/very little experience (average score 1,7- 0,8)(D) = no knowledge/no experience (average score lower than 0,8)

K ERelevance of EU membership to EIA pilot region 1 B B

pilot region 2 C Cpilot region 3 B Bpilot region 4 C CPilot region 5 C C

K EKey principles of EIA pilot region 1 B B

pilot region 2 C Cpilot region 3 B Cpilot region 4 C CPilot region 5 B B

K ELegal acts - knowledge pilot region 1 C C

pilot region 2 B Cpilot region 3 B Bpilot region 4 C CPilot region 5 B B

K EEIA procedures pilot region 1 B B

pilot region 2 C Cpilot region 3 B Cpilot region 4 C CPilot region 5 B B

K EEU directives pilot region 1 D D

pilot region 2 D Dpilot region 3 C Cpilot region 4 D DPilot region 5 D D

K EScreening pilot region 1 C C

pilot region 2 D Cpilot region 3 D Dpilot region 4 C CPilot region 5 B B



K EScoping pilot region 1 C C

pilot region 2 C Cpilot region 3 C Cpilot region 4 C CPilot region 5 B B

K EReporting pilot region 1 C C

pilot region 2 C Cpilot region 3 C Dpilot region 4 C Cpilot region 5 B B

K EMitigation measures pilot region 1 C C

pilot region 2 D Dpilot region 3 C Cpilot region 4 C Cpilot region 5 B B

K EEIA reviews pilot region 1 B B


K EDecision making pilot region 1 B B

pilot region 2 C Cpilot region 3 C Cpilot region 4 C Cpilot region 5 A B

K EMonitoring pilot region 1 B B


K EPublic Participation pilot region 1 C C

pilot region 2 D Dpilot region 3 C Cpilot region 4 C Cpilot region 5 B B



K EPreparation of plans for Public Participation pilot region 1 D D

pilot region 2 D Dpilot region 3 C Dpilot region 4 C Cpilot region 5 B B

K ESubstantial changes12 pilot region 1

pilot region 2pilot region 3pilot region 4pilot region 5

K EProcedures error pilot region 1 D D

pilot region 2 D Dpilot region 3 D Dpilot region 4 C Cpilot region 5 B B

E.3. Conclusion on Knowledge and Experience of Staff Dealing with EIA Determination

Trainees in pilot region Szombathely accumulated the greatest amount of experience in EIA determinations. In terms of knowledge the same region takes the lead. The greatest deficiencies pertain to trainees in Győr, regarding experiences and knowledge. Trainees in Gyula reached medium-ranks with a view to experience and knowledge. Trainees in pilot regions Székesfehérvár and Baja had novice level knowledge, trainees in pilot region Székesfehérvár and Baja had only very little experience.

In the regions of Baja and Gyula there occurred considerable deviations, with few trainees being at the 2 medium knowledge level, however one being at the lowest level. Here, the average picture is misleading.

The same applies to experience. In the regions of Baja and Gyula there occurred considerable deviations, with few trainees being at the 2 medium knowledge level, however one at the lowest level. Also here, the average picture is misleading.

We have to note that this qualification is based on the knowledge and experience of the trainees and not the whole staff of a directorate dealing with EIA. It seems that less experienced people want to use the training opportunity out of the total staff.

12 This item was not among the questions presented to the Trainees


Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental AcquisCapacity Review Annex II – TNA – IPPC - Hungary

F. Annex II: Conclusions on the Training Needs Assessment - IPPC

F.1. Overall Staff Capacities, i.e. Characteristics of Staff Involved in IPPC Permits in Hungary

The total number of staff involved in IPPC permitting in the 6 pilot regions in Hungary, who are involved as trainees on this project, was found to be 25, of these 5 are chemists, 1 biologist, 15 engineers, 2 are lawyers and 2 represent other professions. Their media specialisation is 11 in water, 10 in waste, 9 in air and none in other media. (It is noted that some experts at the Inspectorates are specialised in more than one media).

The average professional experience of these trainees involved in IPPC permitting is ~ 13 years, the majority of the staff is junior ranking, and a few are medium. They have been involved in a total of 65 IPPC permits as lead, and they have contributed to another 101 IPPC permits.

It is to be noted that the results above reflect only the data of those trainees participating in the current training project, who filled in and submitted the questionnaire, and not the data of the whole given region. Thus, for instance, 10 experts deal with IPPC permitting in a given region, but only 4 of them have applied for the training and so submitted the questionnaire. Answers in the questionnaires thus represent only those 4 people from the region. Again, for example, there is one region where the average professional experience of the participants (4 people) is only 2 years, but the total average for the mentioned region involving all the 10 experts in IPPC permitting most likely is much higher that that. Most probably the Director of the REI decided to select the junior ranking staff to participate in the training.

Slightly more than half of the trainees assigned to this project have participated previously in IPPC-related training, which is a relatively high ratio. At the same time, according the answers given this question, it must be noted that these training sessions dealt only with narrower sub-topics of IPPC, they were not comprehensive and took on average just 1-2 days long; only a few indicated 5-6 days spending on previous IPPC training. One person listed usually one training (or field-trip, work-shop), in which she or he participated; a few people participated in two or three training related to IPPC. This training ratio shows an even distribution amongst the 6 regions, only the trainees from the Gyor region have taken part in less training than the average and the Baja and Gyula region results are above the average.

Taking into consideration the number of cases per year at the Inspectorates, it can be established that the majority of them have insufficient staff numbers. (Unfortunately it is not possible to draw a conclusion from the numbers of the IPPC installations in the given regions or from the numbers of IPPC permitting inspectors due to the differences in constitutional structures and probably in the working methods at the Inspectorates. According to the Institutional Review the number of the IPPC permitting experts varies significantly: some Inspectorates have 8-12, others up to 30, but in the latter case the contribution of the majority of staff is limited to smaller tasks. Thus it is not possible to make number-based comparisons about the appropriateness of the staff numbers. That is why the case number per year of the Inspectorates is mentioned as a potential indicator.

Representatives of different fields (air, water, waste) will be present on the training approximately in same proportion, so the media-mix is more-or-less balanced. (Experts from the field noise-protection will not be present.)

The trainees’ current position is predominantly junior, and there are just some medium level inspectors, which ratio can be considered as “balanced”.

The number of trainees involved in IPPC permitting also shows considerable diversity among the pilot regions, there is an occurrence of 5 (leading role) and 4 (contributing role) permitting procedures for the whole team (Székesfehérvár), and another of 23 (leading role) plus 31

Final version 02-06-04 CMDC Joint Venture 92


(contributing role) in Gyula. It is important to note again that these numbers are not characteristic to the whole region, but just for the inspectors who filled in the questionnaire (the trainees). Based on the frequency of participation in IPPC permitting, half of the regions (Baja, Gyor, Szombathely) is expert ranking, the other half (Gyula, Szekesfehervar, Szolnok) is on novice level.

Years since graduation (and the number of years employed in present position) and thus trainees’ years of professional experience and practice vary quite a lot among the different pilot regions. There is a region where the average time length is rather high (e.g. 20 years in Gyula), so a rather experienced team will participate here in the training; and at the opposite end of the scale, there are regions, where the years since graduation is quite low (e.g. ~2 years in Székesfehérvár, or ~ 4 years in Szombathely), where beginners will take part in the training. These are the two extremes, the values of other regions – in these respect – are between them. The longer practical, professional experience is indisputably advantageous, but there are advantages also among the recently graduated young inspectors, because they have more knowledge about – relatively – new issues, like EMS, EMAS.

F.2. Subject Matter Knowledge Capacities and Experiences

The following paragraphs present the details of the TNA. Reference is made to the TNA tick-off tables. In order to do justice to the particularities of the pilot regions, the tables are arranged region-wise.

LegendK = knowledgeE = experience= “very knowledgeable/very experienced”, (3.0-2,8)= “knowledgeable/some experience”, (2,7-1,8)= “novice”/very little experience”, (1,7-0,8)= “unknowledgeable/no experience” .(lower than 0,8)

K ELegal acts 1 Baja B B

2 Gyor B C3 Gyula B C4 Szekesfehervar C C5 Szolnok B B6 Szombathely C C

K ECompetent authorities and contacts details 1 Baja B B

2 Gyor B C3 Gyula B C4 Szekesfehervar B B5 Szolnok B B6 Szombathely C C

K EApplications 1 Baja B B

2 Gyor B B3 Gyula C C4 Szekesfehervar C C5 Szolnok B B6 Szombathely B C



K EPermit in general 1 Baja B B

2 Gyor B C3 Gyula C B4 Szekesfehervar C C5 Szolnok B B6 Szombathely B C

K EEmission limit values (ELVs) 1 Baja C C

2 Gyor C C3 Gyula C C4 Szekesfehervar C C5 Szolnok B B6 Szombathely C C

K EBAT and BREFs 1 Baja B C

2 Gyor C C3 Gyula C C4 Szekesfehervar C C5 Szolnok B C6 Szombathely C D

K ESelf-monitoring programmes and EMS 1 Baja C C

2 Gyor C D3 Gyula D D4 Szekesfehervar D D5 Szolnok C C6 Szombathely C C

K ETrans-boundary pollution 1 Baja B C

2 Gyor C D3 Gyula C D4 Szekesfehervar C D5 Szolnok C D6 Szombathely D D

K EConfidentiality 1 Baja B C

2 Gyor C C3 Gyula C D4 Szekesfehervar C D5 Szolnok C C6 Szombathely C C

K EPrevention of accidents 1 Baja C C

2 Gyor C C3 Gyula C D4 Szekesfehervar C C5 Szolnok C C6 Szombathely C C



K EPublic participation procedures 1 Baja B C

2 Gyor C C3 Gyula C D4 Szekesfehervar C D5 Szolnok B C6 Szombathely C C

K EEPER 1 Baja B C

2 Gyor D D3 Gyula C D4 Szekesfehervar B C5 Szolnok C C6 Szombathely C D

K ERelations to other permits 1 Baja B B

2 Gyor B B3 Gyula B C4 Szekesfehervar C C5 Szolnok B B6 Szombathely C C

K EReview of permits 1 Baja B C

2 Gyor C C3 Gyula C D4 Szekesfehervar C C5 Szolnok B C6 Szombathely C D

K ESubstantial changes 1 Baja B C

2 Gyor C C3 Gyula C D4 Szekesfehervar C C5 Szolnok B C6 Szombathely C D

K ECessation of operation and financial security 1 Baja B C

2 Gyor C C3 Gyula C D4 Szekesfehervar C C5 Szolnok C C6 Szombathely C D

K EOdour – knowledge and experience 1 Baja C C

2 Gyor C D3 Gyula D D4 Szekesfehervar C C5 Szolnok C C6 Szombathely C D



K ELinks to other directives 1 Baja C C

2 Gyor D D3 Gyula C D4 Szekesfehervar C C5 Szolnok C C6 Szombathely D D

K EAir and water spreading models 1 Baja C D

2 Gyor C D3 Gyula D D4 Szekesfehervar D D5 Szolnok C C6 Szombathely C D

K ENoise 1 Baja C C

2 Gyor C D3 Gyula D D4 Szekesfehervar C C5 Szolnok C C6 Szombathely C C

K E EU priority list of dangerous substances 1 Baja C C

2 Gyor C D3 Gyula D D4 Szekesfehervar C C5 Szolnok C D6 Szombathely D D

K EVoluntary schemes – EMS and EMAS 1 Baja C D

2 Gyor C D3 Gyula D D4 Szekesfehervar C D5 Szolnok C D6 Szombathely D D

F.3. Conclusion on Knowledge and Experience of Staff Dealing with IPPC Determination

Trainees in pilot region Szolnok accumulated the greatest amount of experience in IPCC permits. In terms of knowledge the same applies to Baja (followed closely by Szolnok). The greatest deficiencies pertain to trainees in Gyula (experiences) and in (Szombathely) (knowledge). Noting again: This order is again based on the answers of the submitted questionnaires. It may not be characteristic for the whole region. An interesting contradiction against the previously mentioned facts that inspectors in Szolnok took part in relatively few IPPC permitting (1+11) but achieved the top score position regarding the experience level. At the same time trainees in Gyula participated in more permitting (7+14, meaning almost double amount), still according to the scores they gained the last position in the experience level.

Trainees in Baja and Győr reached medium-ranks with a view to experience, and in Győr, Székesfehérvár, Szolnok with a view to knowledge.



Trainees in pilot region Gyula had novice level knowledge, trainees in pilot region Székesfehérvár and Szombathely have only little experience.


Date post:	09-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dinhmien
View:	213 times
Download:	1 times