Cazul Calarasi ascunde mari deficiente in sectorul de alimentare cu gaze naturaleBehind the Incident of Calarasi There Are Big Flaws of the Natural Gas Utility

Explozia produsa intr-un bloc de locuinte din orasul Calarasi, tocmai in ziua de Craciun, trebuie sa readuca in atentia autoritatilor siguranta functionarii instalatiilor de gaze si intreg procesul de autorizare pentru serviciile conexe (in primul rand cele care tin de verificarea instalatiilor). Chiar daca in cazul Calarasi se pare ca ar fi fost vorba de o actiune premeditata, numarul mare al accidentelor de acest gen trebuie sa ne dea serios de gandit. Pana sa va prezentam cateva aspecte in exclusivitate, legate de explozia de la Calarasi, incercam o radiografie a functionarii sistemului de alimentare cu gaze in Romania, dupa schimbarile aparute in ultimii ani, odata cu liberalizarea si privatizarea unor retele de distributie.

Formele fara fond

La inceputul anilor 2000 in sectorul gazelor naturale s-a demarat ideea unei masive restructurari conceptuale. Noua abordare avea la baza principii „importate din alte tari” (chiar daca majoritatea dintre aceste principii au fost folosite in perioada interbelica in sectorul gazelor naturale): concurenta,       echitatea, transparenta etc. Scopul declarat al acestei restructurari era acela de a reduce costurile directe si indirecte de utilizare a gazelor naturale. De asemenea, se urmarea separarea costurilor pe tipuri de activitati si fortarea diminuarii acelora care sunt foarte mari, cresterea calitatii serviciilor necesare utilizarii gazelor naturale si libertatea clientului de a si alege, negocia si contracta diveresele servicii in sectorul gazelor naturale. In teorie suna bine, numai ca in practica s-a intamplat altceva.
Liberalizarea pietei de gaze naturale a creionat si ideea unei piete a servicilor care insotesc activitatea de utilizare a gazelor naturale: proiectare, verificare si avizare proiecte, constructie conducte si instalatii, receptie, exploatare instalatii de utilizare, verificare instalatii de utilizare, expertize.
Aceasta situatie a determinat eliminarea unor activitati care erau anterior integrate, dar netarifate (costul regasindu-se in costul tarifelor de distributie) si aparitia firmelor private care efectueaza aceste lucrari contra cost.
Cererea mare de servicii conexe activitatii de utilizare, efortul redus – intelectual si fizic – de a realiza aceste lucrari, preturile ridicate ale servicilor au determinat cresterea rapida a numarului firmelor care sunt autorizate sa efectueze lucrari in sectorul gazelor naturale, dar si antrenarea de persoane din diverse alte domenii care si -au incetat sau restrans activitatea in ultimii ani, fara pregatire teoretica si experienta in domeniul gazelor naturale. Astfel, s-a ajuns ca  peste 1.500 de firme sa fie autorizate in efectuarea de lucrari in sectorul gazelor naturale, reunind peste 15.000 de persoane angrenate in aceasta activitate.
Lipsa culturii tehnice minime in domeniul gazelor naturale la nivelul consumatorilor (bazata pe deviza merge si asa, chiar daca in joc este siguranta lor si a celor care locuiesc in apropierea lor), impactul unor costuri suplimentare asupra consumatorului de gaze introduse odata cu aceste servicii (costuri care nu erau evidentiate/percepute de acesta, ele pana in urma cu cativa ani regasindu-se in tarifele-preturile gazelor), volumul mare de lucrari angajate de o firma etc., au determinat abordarea unor lucrari in afara conditiilor prevazute de normativele in vigoare. In fapt cererea pentru astfel de servicii, s-a intalnit „perfect” cu oferta.
Pentru o suma mai mica, consumatorul, putea beneficia de proiectarea si realizarea unor instalatii de utilizare de la persoane care cautau piata, chiar daca nu aveau nici un fel de experienta; pentru o suma mai mare, consumatorul putea beneficia de o instalatie care  nu indeplinea cerintele din normativele in vigoare, fara a mai fi nevoit sa-si „sparga” casa si sa si monteze un geam mai mare. Fiecare iesea multumit din aceasta tranzactie, consumatorul obtinea costuri mai mici, iar firmele castigau sume frumusele de bani (nefiind puse in situatia de a refuza realizarea nici unei lucrari).
Astfel, unul din scopurile acestei liberalizari a pietei servicilor adiacente utilizarii gazelor, acela de crestere a calitatii acestora, a avut efect invers (nerspectarea normativelor in vigoare), chiar si dezideratul obtinerii unor costuri minime la consumator este unul aparent, deoarece la prima verificare a instalatiei de utilizare (pana cand aceasta era realizata de catre operatorul de distributie) i se punea in vedere consumatorului ca este necesar sa se refaca instalatia de utilizare, conform normativului, pentru a se evita sistarea furnizarii gazelor.
In anul 2011 a fost eliminata obligatia ca verificarea periodica (o data la 2 ani) sa fie realizata de operatorul de distributie care activeaza in zona, aceasta putand sa fie realizata de catre orice firma autorizata, care este aleasa de consumator, si astfel in baza unui pret corespunzator se poate obtine avizul favorabil al verificarii instalatiei („uneori” chiar daca, mai sunt unele abateri de la normativ).
Incepand cu anul 2012 s-a eliminat si ultima veriga a interventiei operatorului de distributie in certificarea asigurarii sigurantei instalatiei de utilizare. Astfel incat, orice societate autorizata poate verifica si aviza favorabil ca proiectul a fost intocmit conform normativului si ca instalatia a fost realizata conform proiectului.
La momentul in care aceste activitati erau realizate de operatorul de distributie, fiind o abordare unitara: proiectare, avizare, executie, receptie, punere in functiune, verificarea periodica a instalatiei si efectuarea efectiva a distributiei de gaze responsabilitatea era superioara atat la nivelul conducerii, cat si la nivelul personalului operativ, deoarece la un accident nerealizarea corespunzatoare a oricarei dintre aceste activitati aduceau raspunderea aceluiasi operator.
In urma cu cativa ani, s-a realizat externalizarea servicilor auxiliare utilizarii gazelor naturale in mai mule tari din Europa, dar un studiu recent a aratat ca dupa externalizarea tuturor servicilor auxiliare (inclusiv avizarea, verificarea si receptia), au exista tari precum Anglia, unde numarul accidentelor dupa aplicarea acestei metode a scazut si in alte tari precum Italia unde numarul accidentelor a crescut semnificativ!
Sustinator al principilor liberalizarii activitatilor, al activitatilor transparente si al echitatii, consider ca numai modul in care au fost ele transpuse in Romania, complicitatea si duplicitatea autoritatilor a determinat sa se ajunga la aceasta situatie, si care in viitor poate determina cresterea numarului si a gravitatii evenimentelor.
Mimarea proiectarii, avizarii si verificarii instalatilor de gaze, „matrasirea hartiilor”, astfel incat la un eveniment singurul vinovat sa fie victima insasi, care sub imboldul unui discount nesemnificativ isi asuma : „mie nu mi se poate intampla”, va determina tot mai des aparitia evenimentelor de tipul celor din ultima saptamana de la Resita sau Fieni.

Prevenirea acestei starii de fapt poate sa fie facuta prin:

– modificarea legislatiei secundare si impunerea de restrictii dure in acordarea licentelor si autorizatilor si/sau sanctionarea dura a firmelor, persoanelor fizice, institutilor care nu își îndeplinesc obligațile/atribuțile legale; iar daca prin aceasta practica nu reuseste schimbarea fenomenului, chiar

– reconstruirea unor activitati de distributie integrate pe verticala si care sa reuneasca activitatea de distributie si activitatile auxiliare specifice constructiei si verificarii instalatilor de utilizare, cu reglementarea tarifelor aferente.
In alta ordine de idei in urma cu 15 ani consumatorul final platea un tarif de distributie „reglementat” care era de cateva ori mai mic decat cel actual si care cuprindea si costurile aferente servicilor auxiliare realizarii si intretinerii instalatiei de utilizare si bransamentului (care astazi se ridica la cca. 1600 lei/instalatie casnica) si se intamplau mult mai putine accidente!The explosion that occurred right on Christmas Day in an apartment building in Calarasi (southern Romania) must be for the authorities a reminder of the failsafe operation of the gas networks, and of the authorization process for the related services (first of all, the ones concerning the checking of the facilities). Even if the Calarasi incident raises suspicions of premeditation, the large number of similar incidents must make us consider the matter very seriously. Before an exclusive presentation of certain issues related to the explosion in Calarasi, let us try a scan of the operation of the gas utility in Romania, after the recent changes brought by the liberalization and the privatization of some distribution networks.

Hollow formalities

At the beginning of the 2000 decade, the idea of fundamental restructuring pervaded the gas industry. The new approach was based on ‘imported’ principles (though most of them were already implemented by the natural gas industry in the interwar period): competition, fairness, transparency, etc. This restructuring openly aimed at cutting down the direct and indirect costs of using natural gas. Also, the costs would have been resolved by types of activities, and the major ones would be forced down; the quality of the necessary services for using natural gas would be increased, and the clients would be free to choose their service providers, to negotiate and sign contracts with them. The theory sounds fine, but the practice proved to be different.
The liberalization of the natural gas market also suggested a market of the related services: design, checking and authorizing the design, building pipe networks and facilities, commissioning, facilities operation and checking, expert evaluations.
This led to outsourcing previously integrated activities, without tariffs (their costs being included in the distribution tariffs) and to establishing private companies providing these services on a commercial basis.
The high demand for services related to the use, the easiness of such works, and the high prices gave birth to lots of companies authorized to provide works in the natural gas industry, while also bringing in untrained and inexperienced personnel from areas in decline. Thus, more than 1,500 companies became authorized for works in the natural gas sector, with more than 15,000 employees.
The lack of a minimal technical culture about natural gas among the consumers (even if personal safety is involved), the impact of additional costs resulting from these new services on the gas consumers, and the large volume of works for each company, resulted in working without complying to the regulations in force. Actually, there was a perfect ‘match’ between the demand and the supply of such services.
For smaller fees, the consumers could get the design and execution of facilities by enterprising, yet inexperienced individuals; for larger fees, the available facilities could disregard the regulations. Everyone was happy – the consumers sparing, and the companies cashing in on it (never having to turn down a demand).
Thus, one of the purposes of this liberalization of the market of gas-related services, i.e. higher quality, had the opposite effect of disregarding the regulations in force; even the goal of minimal costs for the consumers was missed, as the first check of the facility (before its overhauling by the distributor) resulted in warning the consumer about the mandatory rebuilding according to the regulations, under threat of cutting off the supply of gas.
In 2011, the mandatory check of the facility by the local distributor, every 2 years, was given up; now any authorized company chosen by the consumer could check and approve the facilities; for the right price, even nonconforming works often passed.
From 2012, the last barrier of the distribution operator’s intervention was removed, the certification of the failsafe operation. So now, any authorized company could check and approve a design as conforming to the regulation, and the execution as conforming to the design.
When all these were performed by the distribution operator, the integrated approach from the design, authorization, execution, commissioning, to routine maintenance and actual gas distribution had a higher quality, from the management down to the workforce, because any possible incident involved the responsibility of that single operator.
A couple of years ago, the auxiliary gas services were outsourced in several European countries; but a recent study showed that after outsourcing all those services, including the approval, checking and commissioning, in some countries, such as the UK, the number of accidents dropped, while in other countries, like Italy, for instance, it surged!
As a promoter of the principles of liberalization, of transparency and of fairness, I think that the present situation in Romania is only the result of the way these principles were implemented, of the complicity and duplicity of the authorities; and in the future, this can result in even more accidents, with more serious consequences.
Mimicking the design, approval and checking of the gas facilities, making a mumbo jumbo paperwork just to find the victim itself the only responsible when eventually disaster strikes (as the victim itself assumes, in exchange of getting a small discount, that ‘it can’t happen to me’), will only multiply incidents like those of Resita or Fieni during the last week.

All these can be prevented by:

– modifying the secondary legislation, drastically restricting the licensing and authorization and/or imposing severe penalties to the companies, individuals and organizations defaulting from their legal obligations; and if it doesn’t work this way, even by

– restoring integrated distribution along the chain, reuniting the distribution and the specific auxiliary services of building and checking the facilities, while regulating the respective tariffs.
On the other hand, 15 years ago the end users were paying a ‘regulated’ distribution tariff amounting to a fraction of the current one, and including the costs of the auxiliary services for the building and maintenance; these services now cost approximately 1600 lei per household, while there are much more accidents!