Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
TABLE 8.2
Example Projects Subject to Environmental Assessment under European Union
Directive 2011/92/EU (Annex I)
Annex I
Designation
Project Type
1
Crude-oil refineries and gasification installations
2.a
Thermal power stations
4.a
Facilities for initial smelting of iron and steel
5
Large size installations for extraction of asbestos or the processing and
transformation of asbestos and products containing asbestos
6 (a through f)
Integrated chemical installations (listing specific products)
7 (a through c)
Construction of rail, airports, and motor highways of certain sizes
and lengths
9
Waste disposal installations
11
Groundwater abstraction or recharge systems with a capacity of 10
million cubic meters or greater
13
Wastewater treatment plants with a capacity exceeding 150,000
population served
15
Dams designed for a storage capacity of 10 million cubic meters or more
17 (a through c)
Installations for rearing poultry or pigs (of varying capacity based on the
type of animals)
19
Quarries and mines of over 150 hectares
21
Petroleum, petrochemical, or chemical storage facilities with a capacity of
200,000 tons or more
of the Directive to both public and private actions as opposed to NEPA,
which only applies to federal agencies. This greatly expands the scope of the
European program and has the potential to have far-reaching environmental
implications.
However, the second major difference between the EU environmental
program and NEPA lies with compliance and enforcement, which limits
the Directive's potential for addressing environmental issues and degrada-
tion. Adherence with the EU Directive is relegated to the member states that
have a history of compliance inconsistency and variation among countries
(Scheuer 2006; Hey 2006). Also, history has demonstrated quality of analysis
inconsistencies among members. As compliance tends to degrade to the low-
est common denominator, the program has decreased in effectiveness since
its original inception. Enforcement differs greatly between the two programs
because meaningful litigation is lacking in the EU Directive compared with
NEPA (Ekmetzoglou-Newson 2006). This has resulted in a more streamlined
and expedited program in Europe, but also one that frequently fails to take a
“hard look” at the impacts as the courts have mandated under NEPA.
There has been concern within the EU and among stakeholders over the
shortcomings of the Directive and the attempts made to strengthen the over-
all environmental program in Europe. As summarized by Scheuer (2006),
Search WWH ::
Custom Search