I categorically stand by the residents of the "Nadezhda" and "Vrabnitsa" districts in their just dissatisfaction against the establishment of a site for storing "fly ash" near residential areas.
I attended their joint protest against the investment intention and supported their concern about the potential risks to health and air quality.
This was written on "Facebook" by the mayor of the Sofia's "Nadezhda" district Eng. Dimitar Dimov.
Within the statutory deadline, I submitted a reasoned objection to the Regional Inspectorate for Environmental Protection and Waters - Sofia, with a copy to the Ministry of Environment and Water, the Regional Institute of Health - Sofia, Vasil Terziev, Mayor of Sofia Municipality, Arch. Tatyana Gerganova, Acting Chief Architect of Sofia Municipality and Rumen Kostadinov, Mayor of the “Vrabnitsa“ district.
To the objection, I also attached a signature in support of the position of the “Nadezhda” district, signed by 619 residents.
They are a clear sign of the commitment of citizens and their expectation that the institutions will take the necessary actions to protect the public interest.
Over 30 individual objections from citizens were received by the registry office of the “Nadezhda” district. They are directed by competence to the Regional Inspectorate for Environmental Protection and Water - Sofia.
I hereby acquaint you with the full content of my opinion:
I. LEGAL INTEREST AND ADMISSIBILITY OF THE OBJECTION
The investment proposal notification is addressed explicitly to the Mayor of the “Vrabnitsa“ district. In the announcement of the Regional Inspectorate for Environmental Protection and Water - Sofia dated 14.08.2026, the location of the site is indicated as “land property with identifier 68134.28.14.3“, while in the notification of the contracting authority itself (item II.4) is indicated “land property with identifier 68134.2814.3“. The latter property is located on the border with the “Nadezhda” district, which also justifies the legal interest of the “Nadezhda” district municipal administration to express its opinion on the submitted investment proposal. The regional administration has an independent and direct legal interest to express an opinion on the impact of the proposal on the population it serves.
The Sofia Municipality is competent under Art. 19 of the Waste Management Act (WMA) for the organization of waste management on its territory, and under Art. 27 et seq. of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the implementation of the Air Quality Improvement Program (AQI). The implementation of a new source of dust emissions in an area with persistent exceedances of the fine particulate matter (PM) standards directly affects the implementation of these obligations.
On the basis of Art. 3 and Art. 46 of the LMSMA and Art. 2, para. 1, item 1 of the Environmental Protection Act, the regional administration is obliged to protect the health, property and living environment of the population of the region.
II. SUBSTANTIAL PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS AND IRREGULARITIES OF THE NOTIFICATION
1. Discrepancy in the identifier of the land property
The above-mentioned discrepancy in the identifiers of the property is of significant importance, since the announcement under Art. 95, para. 1 of the Environmental Protection Act and Art. 4, para. 2 of the EIA Regulation aims to provide the affected population with the opportunity to identify the specific property and assess whether and how it is affected. Disclosure with an incorrect identifier does not achieve this goal and constitutes a substantial violation of the administrative procedural rules, which vitiates the entire subsequent course of the procedure.
2. „CEM TRADE“ EOOD does not have the status of a contracting authority within the meaning of the ZOOD
A check in the Property Register shows that „CEM TRADE“ EOOD, UIC 201903050 does not have a right of ownership or an established real right over the above-mentioned property. According to §1, item 20 of the DR of the ZOO „a contracting authority of an investment proposal" is a public body, a natural or legal person, which, under the procedure of a special law, regulatory or administrative act, has the rights to initiate or apply for approval of an investment proposal.
The special law that gives rights to a given entity to initiate or apply for approval of an investment proposal is the Spatial Planning Act. In Art. 161 of the ZTA stipulates that the assignor is the owner of the property, the person who has been granted the right to build on another person's property, and the person who has the right to build on another person's property by virtue of a special law.
A lease agreement for the property does not justify the status of assignor of an investment proposal, since the tenant cannot initiate a development procedure or construction necessary for the implementation of the investment proposal.
The above justifies the conclusion that the investment proposal is inadmissible, since an obliged entity under the Environmental Protection Act and the regulatory acts for its implementation is precisely a person from the category under §1, item 20 of the Environmental Protection Act, which „CEM TRADE“ EOOD is not.
3. Inadmissibility of the investment proposal in relation to current regulatory acts
3.1. The location of the site is important, since on the basis of Art. 2a, para. 2 of NUROVOS the investment intention should comply with the provisions of the current urban development plans and zones. Land with identifier 68134.2814.3 falls into a Mixed Production Zone (Ps) under the General Development Plan (GDP) of Sofia Municipality, adopted by decision of the Council of Ministers No. 960/16.12.2009 /Official Gazette No. 102 of 22.12.2009/, in which development with production, warehouse, administrative, commercial and service buildings and facilities without production with harmful emissions, such as enterprises of the chemical and rubber industries with waste technological products; lime-concrete centers, asphalt bases and other similar sites; all types of foundries for ferrous and non-ferrous metals is permissible. The construction of residential buildings and dormitories for personnel in enterprises, shops and public catering establishments, hotels, health facilities, vocational and technical schools, professional bases and buildings of scientific and experimental bases at enterprises is allowed, subject to compliance with hygiene requirements.
The characteristics of the investment intention described in the notifications lead to the conclusion that the above-mentioned site will carry out activities for the treatment – storage (operation code R13/D15) of waste “fly ash“ with code 10 01 02. Therefore, the envisaged activity contradicts the purpose of the property in the development zone.
3.2. Next, the property does not meet the requirements of Ordinance No. H-4 of 02.06.2023 on the conditions and requirements that must be met by sites for storing or treating waste, for locating waste treatment facilities and for transporting industrial and hazardous waste. According to Art. 4 of Ordinance No. H-4 of 02.06.2023, sites for storing or treating waste and for locating waste treatment facilities, with the exception of sites under Art. 38, para. 1 of the Environmental Protection Act, are designated with a detailed development plan that has entered into force, prepared and passed procedures in accordance with Chapter Six of the Environmental Protection Act.
There is no approved detailed development plan for the property
According to Art. 12, item 1 of Regulation No. H-4 of 02.06.2023, the site for storing or treating waste and for locating waste treatment facilities shall comply with the functional zoning of the territory, including the features of the waste treatment technology as determining the design of the development, the linking of technological connections to the turnover of incoming and/or generated waste, fire protection requirements and environmental protection requirements.
It is clear from the notification that the investment proposal does not meet any of the above requirements.
3.3. The notification does not contain the information required under Art. 10 of the Regulation on the conditions and procedure for assessing the compatibility of plans, programs, projects and investment proposals with the subject and objectives of protecting protected areas. No admissibility check has been carried out under Art. 12 of the same regulation.
4. The notification does not contain the mandatory content under Annex No. 5 to Art. 4, para. 1 of the Regulation on the conditions and procedure for conducting an EIA
The submitted notification is reduced to two pages of general statements. It does not contain the information under Art. 4, para. 3 of the Regulation on the conditions and procedure for conducting an EIA. Among other things, the following are missing:
– Section I “Data on the contracting authority“ is practically empty – no UIC, seat and address of management, contact person, full postal address, telephone and e-mail are indicated. This is the literal content required by Annex No. 5, and without it even the proper identification of the contracting authority cannot be established.
– The quantities of waste – annual quantity, maximum one-time stored quantity, maximum storage period, number and volume of silos separately. Only “about 500 sq.m“ and “capacity 5000 tons“ are indicated, without it being clear whether 5,000 tons is a one-time or annual capacity.
– The origin of the waste – from which combustion plant/plants the fly ash will come, what fuel is burned in them and whether there is co-incineration. Without this information, the classification of the waste cannot be verified (see section IV.3 below).
– Description of the site and neighboring properties – sketch, situational diagram, distances to the nearest residential buildings, childcare and educational institutions, health facilities and food industry facilities.
– Transport scheme – method of delivery and removal, type and number of transport vehicles, routes, load on the street network.
– Data on protected areas under the Protected Areas Act and protected zones under Art. 31 of the Biodiversity Act (BDA), as well as the information required under Art. 10 of the OS Regulation.
– Information on existing and approved investment proposals in the area with a view to assessing the cumulative impact.
– Data on the transboundary nature of the impact, on the risk of major accidents and on expected impacts due to climate change.
– Appendices – document of ownership or other real right over the property, a sketch of the property, an extract from the current General Development Plan (GDP) and Detailed Development Plan (DDP), a document for a paid fee.
In the presence of such irregularities, including data on inadmissibility, the competent authority should not have published the notification, but on the basis of Art. 5 of the EIA Regulation, should have instructed the contracting authority to submit additional information, respectively - to terminate the procedure.
5. Lack of data on notification of the affected population by the contracting authority
The file does not establish that the contracting authority has fulfilled its obligation to notify the affected population in an appropriate manner within the meaning of Art. 4, para. 2 of the EIA Regulation. Publishing a notice only on the inspectorate's website does not replace this obligation and is not sufficient for an area with a predominantly elderly population in the Voluyak district, the Mramor district and the adjacent residential areas. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that nearby are kindergartens and schools such as 140 SU “Ivan Bogorov“, DG 82 “Dzhani Rodari“, 98 Primary School “St. St. Cyril and Methodius“, Northern Park, where various sports and social events are organized. A “Green Corridor of Health“ has been built on the territory of the “Nadezhda“ district, as an effort to improve air quality in the area.
The purpose of the notification requirement is for information about the new investment intention to reach the affected public, who can express their opinion in relation to it. What the investor did in practice was a lack of notification, which contradicts the regulatory requirements.
6. Internal inconsistency of the document itself
The notification contains obvious technical defects that cast doubt on its reliability: the numbering of the points in section II is violated (point 6 is repeated twice, followed by point 9), and under point 5 "Natural resources" a point 6 without content is placed. The document does not allow to unambiguously establish which paragraph refers to which item required under Appendix No. 5.
III. OBJECTIONS REGARDING THE LEGAL QUALIFICATION OF THE ACTIVITY
1. Contradictory indication of the operation code – „R13/D15“
The contracting authority simultaneously declares a recovery operation R13 („storage of waste until any of the activities with codes R1 – R12“) and a disposal operation D15 („storage until any of the activities with codes D1 – D14“). The same batch of waste cannot be simultaneously intended for recovery and disposal - these are mutually exclusive regimes within the meaning of Annex No. 1 („Disposal activities“) and Annex No. 2 („Recovery activities“) to the Additional Provisions of the WMA.
The distinction is not formal. The following depend on it: the applicable permit regime under Art. 35 of the WMA; the requirements for basic characterization, if the waste is intended for landfilling; the application of the hierarchy in waste management under Art. 6 of the WMA; as well as the legal qualification of the proposal under the annexes to the WMA. Applying both codes simultaneously creates a real risk that the site will actually function as a buffer landfill with unlimited waste residence.
In this regard, on the basis of Art. 35, para. 1, item 1 of the WMA, a permit issued in accordance with the procedure of Chapter Five, Section I is required for carrying out the activity
2. The proposal is subject to at least an assessment of the need for an EIA, and in our opinion - a full EIA
To the extent that a disposal operation (D15) is also applied for, the proposal falls within the scope of Appendix No. 2, item 11, letter „b“ to Art. 93, para. 1, items 1 and 2 of the Environmental Protection Act (“waste disposal facilities“) and is subject to a procedure for assessing the need to conduct an EIA.
In view of the factual considerations set out below, however, we believe that there are grounds for the competent authority to issue a decision to conduct an EIA, namely: significant risk to human health; location in an area where ambient air quality standards are already systematically exceeded; and impossibility of assessing the impact based on the available information.
IV. SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS
1. Air quality and fine dust particles
Fly ash from coal combustion is a powder material with a predominant particle size in the PM10 range and a significant fraction below 2.5 μm. It is among the most difficult powder materials to contain during loading, unloading and reloading.
The site is planned in the agglomeration “Sofia“ - an area for assessment and management of ambient air quality with a permanent and systematic exceedance of the PM10 standards. By its judgment of 05.04.2017 in case C-488/15, Commission/Bulgaria, the Court of Justice of the European Union established a systematic and continuing failure by the Republic of Bulgaria to fulfil its obligations under Art. 13, § 1 in connection with Annex XI of Directive 2008/50/EC, namely with regard to the daily and annual limit value for PM10, including for the agglomeration “Sofia“.
In these circumstances, the authorisation of a new source of dust emissions is inadmissible without a full quantitative assessment. The notification does not contain a single quantitative indicator – there are no emission factors, dispersion modelling of ground concentrations, assessment of the contribution to background levels and assessment of compliance with the standards under Regulation No. 12 of 15.07.2010 on standards for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, fine dust particles, lead, benzene, carbon monoxide and ozone in ambient air.
2. Internal contradiction regarding organized emissions
In item II.6 of the notification it is stated simultaneously that “there will be no sources of organized emissions of harmful substances into the atmospheric air“ and that “the silos are equipped with filters for capturing fine dust particles“. The aspiration system with a bag or other filter, serving a silo, is precisely an organized source of emissions within the meaning of Regulation No. 1 of 27.06.2005 on standards for permissible emissions of harmful substances emitted into the atmosphere from facilities and activities with stationary sources of emissions, and is subject to emission control.
There is no data on: number and height of the discharge devices, flow rate, type and class of the filters, design efficiency, operating mode, method of emptying the filters and treatment of the captured dust, as well as planned own monitoring.
3. Unorganized emissions
The statement that the waste will be stored in “fully enclosed facilities“ refers only to the phase of residence in the silo. The real sources of fugitive emissions in such activities are entirely outside the silo and are not addressed in the notification:
– receiving and unloading the ash from the transport vehicles and feeding it into the silos;
– loading the ash during shipment to the “end user“;
– scattering on the maneuvering area and secondary blowing by the wind;
– contamination of the road surface and secondary dusting from passing heavy goods vehicles, including outside the boundaries of the site;
– opening of hatches, emergency release and overloading of silos.
Neither closed pneumatic transport systems, nor aspiration at the overloading points, nor wet spraying, nor a car wash/tire washing device at the exit of the site, nor mechanized cleaning of the pavements are provided for and described.
4. Waste classification – mirror codes and unproven origin
Code 10 01 02 (“entrained/fly ash from coal combustion“) according to Annex No. 1 to Regulation No. 2 of 23.07.2014 on waste classification is non-hazardous, but is part of a group with mirror codes – in particular 10 01 16* (“fly ash from co-incineration processes containing hazardous substances“) and 10 01 18* (“gas treatment waste containing hazardous substances“).
According to Art. 5, para. 2 of the same regulation, in the presence of mirror codes, the waste is classified as hazardous, unless it is proven that it does not have hazardous properties. The notification does not indicate the origin of the ash, the type of fuel burned, nor whether the source installation co-incinerates waste or biomass. An approved worksheet under Art. 7 and Art. 9 of Regulation No. 2/2014, nor test reports on the composition.
Fly ash from coal combustion typically contains arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel, lead, mercury and selenium, soluble sulfates and chlorides, as well as natural radionuclides (materials containing naturally occurring radionuclides – NORM). Acceptance of ash of unknown origin on a site in an urban area without prior characterization is unacceptable.
5. Health risk
The notification does not contain an assessment of the health risk to the population and the distances to the nearest residential properties, kindergartens and educational institutions are not indicated. The “Vrabnitsa“ area is characterized by the immediate proximity of production and warehouse areas and residential areas. We insist that the competent authority request an opinion from the RHI – Sofia-city and an assessment of the health risk to the population.
6. Wastewater and soil
The planned discharge of domestic and fecal waters into a “watertight cesspool“ in an urbanized area of the city of Sofia is an unacceptable solution – the presence or absence of a built sewage system and the possibility of connection under the Water Act and the Water and Sewerage Services Regulation Act should be proven.
With regard to rainwater, the notification only considers water from the roof of the warehouse. The rainwater from the open areas of the site has not been considered - it is they who are potentially contaminated with deposited dust from loading and unloading operations and, given the high content of soluble salts and metals in the fly ash, cannot be discharged without treatment. There is a lack of data on: drainage scheme, sludge and oil trap or sedimentation tank, discharge receiver, permit under the Water Act, as well as for groundwater bodies and sanitary protection zones in the area.
7. Transport, noise and load on the street network
The declared capacity of 5,000 tons implies hundreds of heavy goods vehicle trips. The notification does not contain any assessment of the transport impact - neither the number of courses, nor routes, nor the condition and carrying capacity of the serving street network, nor the noise assessment under Regulation No. 6 of 26.06.2006 on environmental noise indicators. The street network in the Voluyak district and adjacent territories is not designed for such a traffic regime.
8. Cumulative impact
Among the criteria for assessing the need for an EIA under Art. 93 of the Environmental Protection Act is cumulation with other existing and/or approved investment proposals. On the territory of the “Vrbnitsa“ region, numerous waste treatment sites, production and logistics facilities generating dust emissions and heavy goods traffic are already operating. The notification does not consider the cumulative effect at all – an independent basis for returning the file for supplementation.
9. Legality of existing facilities
In item II.5 it is stated that “no large-scale construction is envisaged, as existing storage infrastructure, covered silos will be used“. No construction permit and use permit (or certificate under Art. 177 of the ZTA) have been submitted for these silos, nor technical documentation proving that they were designed and constructed for the storage of powdery waste with the specified characteristics.
10. Lack of emergency planning and own monitoring
No measures have been envisaged in the event of an emergency ash spill, a filter system failure, a silo overflow or extreme wind conditions. No program for own monitoring of dust emissions and ground concentrations at the site boundary has been proposed.
V. Requests
Based on the above and on the basis of Art. 95, para. 1 of the EPA and Art. 4, para. 2 of the EIA Regulation, please:
1. To terminate the procedure on the basis of Art. 2a, para. 2 of the Regulation on the conditions and procedure for conducting an EIA, given the lack of the status of contracting authority under §1, item 20 of the DR of the EPA, inadmissibility of the intention under the current GMP - Sofia, and non-compliance with the requirements of Regulation H.4 of 02.06.2022 on the conditions and requirements that must be met by sites for storing or treating waste, for locating waste treatment facilities and for transporting industrial and hazardous waste.
2. To attach this objection to the file and discuss it with justification in the act that concludes the proceedings, in accordance with the requirements of Art. 59, para. 2, item 4 of the Administrative Procedure Code for the motivation of administrative acts.
3. To notify us of all subsequent actions on the file and to deliver to us the decision, with a view to exercising the right to appeal.