CHEST FREEZER CONGLATEUR WCFH 153 BW WCFH 183 BW
OPERATING AND INSTALLATION MANUAL NOTICE DUTILISATION

CONTENTS

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.....2 page SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS.....3 page Warnings and Guidelines INSTALLATION.....4-5 page Position Appliance Description Control Panel Starting up Temperature regulation Freezing Tips HOW TO USE......6 page Temperature Control Opening/Closing the Lid Control Panel Freezing Packaging and Positioning Capacity HELPFUL HINTS.....7 page Storage Freezing Defrosting Accessories MAINTENANCE......8 page Defrosting How to Clean Your Freezer When Not in Use IF SOMETHING DOES NOT WORK....9 page ELECTRICAL CONNECTION.....10 page GUARANTEE CONDITIONS & SERVICE....12 page

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Volume (gross) Volume (net) Height without/with roller Width Depth Weight Energy consumpt./24h Freezing capacity Hold-over time Rated power litres litres cm cm cm kg kWh kg/24h hours W WCFH 153 BW WCFH 183 BW 87,6/88,3 132,5 66,3,87,6/88,66,5,22 270
this appliance complies with the following EC Directives: - 73/23/EEC of 19. 02. 1973 - Low-Voltage Directive - 89/336/EEC of 03. 05. 1989 (including Amendment Directive 92/31/EEC - EMC Directive. Some of the models are not available in all countries. Testing has been carried out in accordance with ISO 5155 regarding the determination of freezer capacity, energy consumption and hold-overtime. Information for test institute: A plan of the positioning of test packages may be obtained directly from the manufacturer.

SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS

WARNINGS AND GUIDELINES
These warnings are provided to improve safety, and should be read carefully before installing or using your freezer. IMPORTANT It is vital that these instructions are kept with the freezer for future use. If the freezer is sold or given to another user, or if you move and leave the freezer behind, you must ensure that the instructions accompany the freezer to enable the next user to use the freezer correctly and read the relevant warnings. This freezer is only intended for the freezing and storage of food. This freezer should only be operated by adults. Children must not be allowed to tamper with the control buttons or play with the freezer. Changes in the electrical mains system in connection with the installation of this freezer should always be carried out by an authorised electrician or competent person. Do not under any circumstances attempt to repair the freezer yourself. Repairs carried out by untrained people may result in personal injury or serious malfunction of the freezer. Service of the freezer should be carried out by an authorised service company, and only original spare parts should be used. See under Guarantee Conditions and Service. It is dangerous to alter the freezer specifications, or to change the freezer in any other way. Make sure that the freezer is not placed on top of the mains cable. Do not re-freeze food once it has been defrosted. Observe the recommendations for storage carefully. See under Helpful Hints. This freezer includes components that are heated during operation. Consequently, adequate ventilation must always be provided. If ventilation is insufficient defects may occur, resulting in the loss of food. See under Installation. The inside of the freezer contains pipes through which coolant flows. If these pipes are punctured the freezer may be damaged beyond repair, and food may be lost. Do not use sharp implements to remove frost or ice. Frost can be removed using the enclosed scraper. Do not knock ice off the sides of the freezer, but remove it by defrosting the freezer. See under Maintenance. Do not place drinks in the freezer. Bottles and cans containing carbonic acid or sparkling drinks are particularly prone to explosion, which may damage the freezer. This freezer is heavy. Take care when moving it. If the freezer is fitted with a lock to prevent tampering by children, the key must always be kept safely out of the reach of children, and far away from the freezer. Before disposing of an old freezer, make sure that the lock (if present) no longer works. This is to prevent accidents and avoid the danger of children getting locked inside. Ice lollies can cause frostbite if eaten direct from the freezer. Your appliance contains an environmental friendly natural gas, isobutane (R600a) as refrigerant, which is nevertheless flammable. During transportation and installation of the appliance, be sure that none of the components of the cooling circuit become damaged. If any part of the cooling circuit damaged: avoid naked flames and sources of ignition; thoroughly ventilate the room in which the appliance is installed.

IN THE INTERESTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT:
When disposing of your old fridge, freezer or fridge/freezer: Check with your local Council or Environmental Health Officer to see if there are facilities in your area for collecting the gas from the appliance for recycling. This will help reduce the amount of CFC gas released into the atmosphere. Help to keep your country tidy - when disposing of an old appliance or a CFC free appliance use an authorised disposal site.

INSTALLATION

POSITION
Place the freezer horizontally on a firm surface, resting on all four plastic feet. Use a wooden block or similar object to compensate for any bumps/holes in the surface. The room should be dry and adequately ventilated. If the room temperature exceeds 32C, or falls below freezing point, the freezer will not function as it should. Do not place the freezer close to sources of heat, radiators, chimneys, etc., and do not place the freezer in direct sunlight. If the freezer has been handled standing on end it should be allowed to stand in normal position for about 12 hours before switching it on. Please ensure that when the appliance is installed it is easily accessible for the engineer in the event of a breakdown.

Appliance Description

Control Panel
temperature regulator green mains operating light fast freeze switch with amber light red temperature warning light

Starting up

Please clean the appliance interior and all accessories prior to initial start-up (see section: Cleaning and Care). Insert the mains plug of your chest freezer into the mains supply. Your appliance is then operational. The green mains operating light (2) and red temperature warning light (4) show, and the acoustic temperature warning sounds. The green mains operating light indicates operation and must continuously show. The red temperature warning light tells you that the storage temperature has not yet been attained. If you additionally operate the fast freeze switch (3), the amber pilot light in the switch (3) illuminates, and the refrigerating unit operates in continuous mode. When the fast freeze switch is pressed, the acoustic temperature warnin immediately stops. If you switch off the fast freeze switch (3) when the red temperature warning light (4) has gone out, the amber light goes out. The red temperature warning light (4) and acoustic temperature warning give an alarm if: the storage temperature has not yet been reached (starting up). the minimum storage temperature is no longer being maintained (fault).

large quantities of fresh food have been placed inside. the chest lid has been open for too long. The red temperature warning light (4) and acoustic temperature warning give no warning: if the power supply is interrupted; if the thermostat is defective. Important: Check regularly on the red temperature warning light and on a thermometer placed inside whether the storage temperature is being maintained. Attention! Before freezing food the temperature in the freezer must be -18 C or colder. Please observe the indicated freezing capacity on the rating plate. The freezing capacity represents the maximum amount of fresh goods that can be frozen within 24 hours. If you freeze goods on several days, one after the other, freeze amounts equal to 2/3 to 3/4 of the capacity indicated on the rating plate. Thawed foods which have not been processed further (cooked into meals) may not under any circumstances be frozen a second time. To freeze the maximum qantity of fresh food quoted on the rating plate press the QUICK FREEZE button 24 hours prior to freezing, or 4 to 6 hours for smaller quantities. The amber fast freeze light illuminates. The QUICK FREEZE button need not be pressed for freezing small quantities of up to 3 kg. All foods must be packed air tight prior to freezing, so that they do not dry out or lose their flavour, and so that no transfer of flavour to other frozen goods occurs. Caution! Do not touch the frozen foods with wet hands. Hands can freeze to the goods. Place the packed food products into the freezer. Ensure they come into contact with the side walls. Unfrozen goods may not come into contact with already frozen goods, otherwise the frozen goods may start to thaw. If more products have to be frozen, keep on the fast freeze switch - otherwise switch the fast freeze function off about 24 hours after inserting the food products, for smaller quantities earlier. Tips: The following are suited for the packaging of frozen goods: freezer bags and polyethylene wraps; special cans for frozen goods; extra-thick aluminium foil The following are suitable for closing bags and foil: plastic clips, rubber bands or adhesive tape. Before closing press out the air from the bags and foil, as air makes the frozen products dry out more easily and wastes space. Make flat packages, because these freeze more quickly. Do not fill cans for frozen goods to the brim with liquid or paste-like goods, because liquids expand during freezing.

Temperature regulation

The temperature inside the freezer is controlled by the thermostat control knob situated on the control panel. To operate the freezer, proceed as follows: When you first start the freezer it is recommended that the thermostat control knob is turned to a medium setting (3-4). The correct setting can be found by measuring the temperature of the top middle package in the freezer. The temperature must be 18C or colder. 1 = Lowest setting, minimum cold 7 = Highest setting, maximum cold.
Allow the freezer to run for several hours before placing food inside. Do not fill the freezer to higher than 5mm below the lower edge of the plastic frame. A coin has to be used to turn the temperature control knob. This makes it more difficult to inadvertently adjust the temperature (child protection). Since the ambient temperature, type and quantity of stored frozen food, and frequency and duration of lid opening affect the storage temperature of -18 C or colder, you should check the internal temperature on a thermometer. Set the temperature control knob so that the indicated temperature is-18 C or colder. Important: If you operate the fast freeze switch or adjust the temperature control knob, it may happen that the refrigerating unit of your chest freezer does not start immediately. This is normal and not a fault with the appliance.

Freezing

To freeze fresh foods use the small freezing compartment on the right of the dividing partition. This enables you to separate already frozen foods from fresh foods. Always make sure already frozen goods cannot defrost by coming into contact with fresh products. If the freezing compartment is too small you can freeze part of the products in the large storage section on the left of the dividing partition.

HOW TO USE

PACKAGING AND POSITIONING
Food must be cold before freezing (no more than room temperature). Food must be packed in airtight and moisture-proof packaging to prevent it from drying out. Place fresh food for freezing close to the cold sides of the freezer, making sure that it is not in contact with the frozen food already in the freezer. Never fill the freezer to more than 5 mm below the top edge. See under Helpful hints.

CAPACITY

The freezing capacity of the freezer is stated in the data plate (kg/24 hours). Do not exceed the amount stated - if you do, the freezing time will be extended. The data plate is located inside the lid.
(Not a standard accessory for all models.) The lock works as shown in the drawings. Remember to keep the key out of the reach of children.

BASKETS

The baskets are designed for the storage of food which has already been frozen. The handles can be placed in two positions, as shown in the drawings.The baskets can either be placed inside the freezer or hung on the edge of the casing.

Interview guide and protocols In order to prepare the interviews, an interview-guide has been developed by the (IMP)3 consortium and discussed with representatives of DG Environment. All in all, 50 interviews with 64 interviewees have been conducted (33 interviews in European countries and an additional 17 in USA and Canada). Each of the interviews was minuted in order to gain a well-structured basis for the analysis.
Interviews with EIA Stakeholders in Europe
Number of interviewees Czech Republic Germany Sweden Ireland Poland France Latvia Slovakia Portugal United Kingdom Austria 5
Figure 13 Number of EIA stakeholders interviewed EIA-stakeholders interviewed Country national government Austria Czech Republic Germany France Latvia Poland Portugal Sweden Slovakia United Kingdom Canada USA total 2 regional government 4 Stakeholder type NGO consultant others (scientist etc.) 1 total
Figure 14 Number of interviewees per country and stakeholder type
Policy options and SWOT-Analysis
Based on the findings of the literature review, the analysis of the questionnaire and the interview results several policy options were elaborated within each of the three main themes of (IMP)3 (human health, risk assessment and projects subject to EIA).
Literature Review Theoretical background Findings
Questionnaires / Interviews Empirical results

Definition of Priorities

Policy Options
Figure 15 Deduction of policy options from the results of the analysis conducted
The policy options aim at tackling the identified weaknesses of the current European EIA practice overcoming the most important barriers on the way forward. They also attempt to build on and advance the strengths that partly exist. The policy options represent a range of different courses of actions that the European Commission could take to better exploit the full potential of EIA to act as an effective instrument of preventive and precautionary environmental protection. The variety of the options comprises the whole range of potential measures that could be taken into account at the European level. This includes both soft and legislative courses of action. They are designed to operate mainly along three major axes: guidance; supportive measures; regulatory or legislative measures. The development of such a range of policy options, as opposed to a simple list of recommendations, is a more robust approach as it recognizes that different levels of action are possible and that each has advantages and disadvantages. The policy options presented in the report are addressed to the European Commission. Yet, eventually they are targeted at Member States and EIA stakeholders and are intended to influence actual implementation and application of EIA on national and regional level. Their main functions are to provide decision support to the policy making process on Community level, to assist informed decision-making on possible future amendments to European legislation, and to contribute to improvement of guidance such as supportive measures for EIA application, but also to stimulate discussions within the European EIA community.

(BATs). Permits must include all measures necessary to ensure that the installation is operated so that the following requirements are complied with: All appropriate preventive measures are taken against pollution, in particular through the application of BAT (but the authorities cannot prescribe the use of a particular technique or technology). No significant pollution is caused Waste production is avoided; where waste is produced it should be recovered or, where that is technically and economically impossible, disposed of while avoiding or reducing any impact on the environment. Energy is used efficiently. Necessary measures are taken to prevent accidents and limit their impacts. When activity stops or industry closes, necessary measures are taken to avoid pollution risk and the site of operation returns to a satisfactory sate. If an environmental quality standard requires stricter conditions than those, which can be achieved using BAT, permits must also include additional measures. Other specified conditions are also laid down in permits. The list of project types from Annex I and II of the EIA Directive7 shows all project types listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive (96/61/EC). The following table shall give an overview of the interrelation between Annex II project types of the EIA Directive with relevant BAT documents and reference to the IPPC Directive.
Project subject to article a (2) ANNEX II EIA Directive Associated BREF document IPPC Directive ANNEX I
b) Installations for the manufacture of cement;
3 Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement and lime Manufacturing Industry 8. Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in The Glass Manufacturing Industry 24. Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Ceramic manufacturing Industry 9. Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for the Tanning of Hides and Skins 10. Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for the Textiles Industries 23. Draft Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Food, Drink and Milk Industries

Figure 21 Interrelation of project categories listed in Annex I of the EIA Directive and the ESPOO Convention
ANNEX II Directive 97/11/EC ESPOO Convention
Agriculture, silviculture and aquacultured: Initial afforestation and deforestation for the purposes of conversion to another type of land use; Energy industry: Installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farms)
17. Deforestation of large areas.
22. Major installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farms).
Figure 22 Interrelation of project categories listed in Annex II of the EIA Directive and the ESPOO Convention
AARHUS Convention Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (rhus, 1998) The rhus Convention establishes a number of rights of the public (citizens and their associations) with regard to the environment. Public authorities (at national, regional or local level) are to contribute to allowing these rights to become effective. The Convention provides for: the right of everyone to receive environmental information that is held by public authorities ("access to environmental information"). This can include information on the state of the environment, but also on policies or measures taken, or on the state of human health and safety where this can be affected by the state of the environment. Citizens are entitled to obtain this information within one month of the request and without having to say why they
require it. In addition, public authorities are obliged, under the Convention, to actively disseminate environmental information in their possession; the right to participate from an early stage in environmental decision-making. Arrangements are to be made by public authorities to enable citizens and environmental organisations to comment on, for example, proposals for projects affecting the environment, or plans and programmes relating to the environment, these comments to be taken into due account in decision-making, and information to be provided on the final decisions and the reasons for it ("public participation in environmental decision-making"); the right to challenge, in a court of law, public decisions that have been made without respecting the two aforementioned rights or environmental law in general ("access to justice").9 Regarding project types in relation to EIA the Aarhus Convention identifies the following to be addressed: Any activity not covered by paragraphs 1-19 above where public participation is provided for under an environmental impact assessment procedure in accordance with national legislation; The provision of article 6, paragraph 1 (a) of this Convention, does not apply to any of the above projects undertaken exclusively or mainly for research, development and testing of new methods or products for less than two years unless they would be likely to cause a significant adverse effect on environment or health; and Any change to or extension of activities, where such a change or extension in itself meets the criteria/thresholds set out in this Annex, shall be subject to article 6, paragraph 1 (a) of this Convention. Any other change or extension of activities shall be subject to article 6, paragraph 1 (b) of this Convention. Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) The Convention on Biological Diversity was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It was opened for signature at the June 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) and entered into force on 29 December 1993, ninety days after the 30th ratification. As of October 1998, more than 170 countries had become Parties. The three goals of the CBD are to promote the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. 2.1.1.3 Case law of the European Court and Court of First Instance

EIA procedure (mandatory EIA project types) Preliminary screening procedure 1 type

Mandatory List

2 List

Netherlands

National level EIA legislation enacted under Environmental Laws (Env. Management Act) National Level
National Authorities, provinces Municipalities and WaterBoards (Waterschappen) Ministry or Provincial authorities
Independent from the licensing procedure but carried out in parallel way Part of licensing procedures within land-use planning policies and plans Part of the licensing procedure but as an independent process
Environmental Impact 2 lists Statement for Category I projects Environmental Planning Statement (or limited EIS) for 10 Category II projects Different EIA procedures for 2 lists mandatory (list 1) and screening (list 2) projects 2 types of EIA procedures for 2 Lists Group I and Group II projects 2 type of EIA 2 lists

Both Lists

Possible but seldom applied
Inclusion and exclusion thresholds List 1 projects

Poland

Portugal

National Level

Environment Institute

both positive lists

Nevertheless, the Planning authoritys Director may decide upon an Environmental Impact Statement (full procedure) for other projects not listed in Category I (even if listed in Category II) whenever expected to cause significant environmental effects.

Country Slovakia

Ministry of Environment
EIA procedures under land-use planning procedures.

Slovenia

Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning Environmental Agency of the Republic of Slovenia 2 competent regional authorities at National and regional level: the licensing authority and the environmental authority, to the exception of projects overrun by the latter Different EIA authorities according to the sectoral development permit Case-by-case screening decision by County Administrative Boards
Under Land-use planning procedures
2-level procedures for Annex 1 List (2columns table) I part A compulsory and Annex I part B screening Need for the full (detailed) EIA for Annex I part B projects is determined by the initial (preliminary) EIAs results. Full EIA procedure for both 2 lists types of projects (lists 1 and 2) Specific EIA Procedures for certain project Types (e.g. urban planning developments) 2 lists

Both publications are due to be replaced early in 2006.
would be a need to check whether the definitions of Annex I projects types are clear and the thresholds are set at the right level regarding technical criteria. In the scope of this review, the different economic strengths and sizes of the Member States should also be taken into consideration. This is of particular importance for setting proper thresholds in small countries. A better understanding of the practical applications could also lead to suggestions for further adjustment of the two Annexes.

Other relevant sources

IMPEL-report on Interrelation between IPPC, EIA, SEVESO Directives and EMAS Regulation 1998 The IMPEL report presents the results of the discussion amongst the participants of the IMPEL project: "Interrelationship between EIA, IPPC, Seveso Directives and EMAS Regulation" with regard to the following issues/questions: how do the four instruments fit together? Are their provisions consistent? What kind of information is requested from the developer or the operator when the installation falls into the scope of two or three Directives? How should the obligation to inform and to involve the public be dealt with? Is it possible to have a single permitting procedure which is consistent with the requirements of all three Directives? Finally, what role can EMAS play in this context? The answers to these questions given in the report may be of help for experts involved in an EIA process, especially with regard to the evaluation of expected environmental impacts. The report has been compiled in a series of four workshops organised by Italy as lead country in the years 1997/98. Evaluation of the performance of the EIA process 1996 This report presents the results of an evaluation of certain aspects of the performance of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process within eight Member States of the European Union. It deals with the quality of EIA reports, with modifications of projects as a result of EIA, and with the influence of changes to EIA procedures.

Conclusion

The field of application of the EIA Directive is very broad and essentially covers all the categories of projects likely to have significant effects on the environment. Other Directives related to the EIA Directive foresee approval procedures for certain types of activities or apply when certain criteria is met. The overall purpose of environmental related Directives is generally meant to guarantee a high level of environmental protection across the EU Member States. Comparing the listed project types in environmental related Directives, revealed that the categories which are determined to have likely significant impacts overlap to a large degree with only a few exceptions. The differences lie more in the set of thresholds and criteria, but also in project type descriptions, which makes a direct comparison of the Directives Annexes difficult in some cases.

Number of Stakeholders ticked
Figure 43 Totals obtained for Question No. 15
Interpretation of key results 3.2.2.1 Results per type of categories of additional project types
According to the results of the evaluation of the questionnaire the most frequently ticked category was Golf courses, indicated by 100 respondents from 183 returned questionnaires. More than 50 respondents indicated: Installations working with GMOs or pathogenic micro organisms (96), Military practice grounds (96), Business parks (92), Redevelopment of contaminated land (91) Masts for mobile phones and radio or telecommunication stations (85) Removal and disposal of asbestos (83) Mine rehabilitation (82) Meat processing plants (75) Installations for flood and/or avalanche protection (68) Shooting ranges (68) Manufacture of lime (59) Installation for the manufacture of particle or fibre board (56) Re-gasification projects (52) Particle accelerators (of 50 MeV and over) (52) 49 respondents ticked transhipment depots and 13 indicated other categories. They suggested e.g. the following additional types of projects: airports, extremely high buildings, artificial turf grass fields and gas compressor stations, major wind farms, production of plastics or plastic products.
3.2.2.2 Results per suggested mode of application of additional project types (ticket by more than 50 respondents from 183)
RESULTS PER SUGGESTED MODE OF APPLICATION
Allocation of responses per number of stakeholders ticked
Particle accelerators Re-gasification projects Installations for the manufacture of particle or fibre Manufacture of lime Shooting ranges Installations for flood and/or avalanche Masts for mobile phones and radio or Redevelopment of contaminated land Business parks Military practice grounds Installations working with GMOs or pathogenic Golf courses Meat processing plants Mine rehabilitation Removal and disposal of asbestos
Proposed project types Mandatory in all cases Subject to a specified criteria/threshold Further declaration
Figure 44 Allocation of answers regarding mode of application of the proposed project types
From the categories which have been chosen by more than 50 respondents the following modes of application were suggested: 50 and more of the respondents required clearly mandatory assessment for the following proposed additional project types: installations working with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) or pathogenic microorganism such as laboratories, test facilities, trial areas; and military practice grounds. Over 40 stakeholders indicated a requirement for mandatory assessment for: redevelopment of contaminated land; and golf courses. 40 and more of the respondents suggested that the following project types should be subject to a specified criteria/threshold: business parks; golf courses; meat processing plants; and masts for mobile phones and radio or telecommunication stations. The response rate demanding further declaration ranges between 1 and 17 for all proposed categories.

dependant on materials handled and volumes handled determined on what licensed to handle Dimension goods, chemicals in transit Quantity of material to be transported size of the concerned area threshold traffic generation
Figure 45 Summary of suggested criteria/thresholds, sorted by respond rate 92
Question no. 15 also provided the opportunity to suggest other project types that should be made subject to EIA. The proposed categories such as further comments are listed in Figure 46.
Further additional project types suggested
Airports Extremely high buildings Artificial turfgrass fields Gas compressor stations Major wind farms Production of plastics or plastic products
Further general suggestions
Project types should not have to be specified in a list. EIA should be made for all kinds of projects that might significantly impact the environment. Authorities should decide which ones. The devoloper is fully responsible and has got to have the necessary environmental knowledge to inform the authorities. Cumulative regional Impact Assessment prior to new approvals Small facilities covered by the directive on control of risks Figure 46 Summary of further additional project categories
Interpretation of key results The responses to the Questionnaire reflect that generally all proposed additional project categories seem to be relevant in the view of the respondents in terms of expanding the Directives Annexes, as each category has been ticked from golf courses as the most often chosen category to transhipment depots as the least ticked. From evaluating the results, a tendency can be shown towards project types which are proposed to be listed in Annex I and should be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10, which are: Installations working with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) or pathogenic microorganisms such as laboratories, test facilities, trial areas; Military practice grounds; redevelopment of contaminated land; and golf courses. Approximately the same amount of responses indicated that the following four project types should be subject to a specified criteria/threshold: business parks; golf courses; meat processing plants; and masts for mobile phones and radio or telecommunication stations. The suggested thresholds and further comments as shown in Figure 45 are to a large extent too shallow to allow for appropriate interpretation and analysis. Further research would be needed to provide for a practical basis to set specified criteria/thresholds for the suggested categories.
Wording of the question In the EU Directive the list of project categories is divided into Annex I and Annex II (categories listed in Annex I demand mandatory EIA, whereas for projects listed in Annex II, the Member States (MSs) determine whether they are likely to have significant effects on the environment). The Commissions last review of the EIA Directive34 stated that some MSs see the possibility of a more harmonised application of the Directive across the MSs by merging the two Annexes into one single list with mandatory EIA thresholds for each project category. Do you think this would be a recommendable approach? Yes No I dont know

Please explain your judgement:
Underlying Intention of the Question Question No. 16 has a twofold objective: it aims both at re-evaluating the MSs position regarding the issue of merging the two Annexes as well as acquiring new information concerning the advantages and disadvantages of such a modification. In fact, detailed and comparative information concerning technical constraints and obstacles, on the one hand, and overall advantages of merging the two Annexes, on the other, are needed if new recommendations are to be made on this respect.35
MERGING THE TWO ANNEXES OF EIA-DIRECTIVE
Question asked: Do you think, merging of the two Annexes would be a recommendable approach?
Figure 47 Totals obtained for Question No.16
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the Application and Effectiveness of the EIA Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC): How successful are the Member States in implementing the EIA Directive. Note: One should recognize that the merging of the two Annexes is not the only way to guarantee an adequate level of harmonization. In principle, a tighter approach to the formulation of the Annex II could be another possibility to promote harmonization.
Regarding the total results opinions for and against merging the EIA Directive Annexes are quite balanced, with nearly the same number of answers yes and no. In addition, the I dont know responses were relatively high given the number of total questionnaires returned. In order to better understand what these results might stand for, responses to Question No.16 were examined according to country and type of stakeholder. 3.2.3.1 Results per type of stakeholder Figure 48 presents the results of Question No. 16 per type of stakeholder.
MERGING THE TWO ANNEXES OF THE EIA DIRECTIVE
0 National Government Regional Government NGO Business / Private Sector Type of stakeholder Academic Institution Others

I don't know

Figure 48 Question No.16 results per type of stakeholder
As it can be seen in Figure 48, the No has clearly higher results than the yes for National Government, Regional Government categories, while for NGO and Academic Institution the yes response is prevalent. Business/Private Sector presents a balanced response between yes and no. The I dont know response varies accordingly, being higher than the yes response only for these latter categories NGOs and Academic Institutions.

Thresholds are already in place for Annex IIs projects, so such a change would be meaningless Too restrictive The great diversity of social and ecological local contexts makes the distinctions based on the size of the project and the magnitude of the environmental impact more important than distinctions in terms of project types Screening procedures for smaller impacts are needed for the case of more sensitive or vulnerable sites Figure 50 Summary of main ideas given to explain answer to Question No.16
Brief abstract of key findings The harmonization of screening procedures is regarded as a positive measure by the great majority of respondents, but seen as achievable by other means than the proposed modification in the case of those respondents against merging the two Annexes. In the case of respondents favourable to this approach, in their opinion the merging of the two Annexes would lead to a deeper harmonization of the screening practice among MSs which they feel as essential for the achievement of minimum equal standards of environmental protection. Besides, some argue that applying the same screening procedures would also contribute to less divergent interpretations of the EIA Directive throughout European Union and so, to more objective screening decisions. As for the respondents opposing to this approach, setting screening criteria on the basis of expected impacts should be more effective than listing projects by type, as far as the harmonization of the EIA procedures is concerned. Moreover, it has been stated that the proposal of merging the two Annexes lacks the necessary flexibility for the consideration of contextual factors. On the other hand, merging the two Annexes is seen by some of these respondents as difficult to achieve or even quite disruptive of EIA legal systems given the great diversity of licensing and planning administrative procedures among MSs.

Results Interviews

Issue: Project categories
(With respect to the project categories covered by your national/regional EIA regulations: Are there any categories of important projects that are missing which should be subject to an EIA? if yes, please state the reason. Should other categories be dropped from your national/regional list/s? if yes, please state the reason.)

MENTIONED PROJECT CATEGORIES
Urban development Industrial zones Theme parks Waste transfer stations Water management and abstraction Motorways/express roads and for the case of district roads with 4 lanes or more and a central divider Coastal work to combat erosion and maritime works capable of altering the coast through the construction, for example, of dykes, moles, jetties and other sea defence works Installations for the disposal of non-hazardous wastes Holiday villages and hotel complexes and associated developments when located outside urban or expansion urban areas Cement kiln chains of stores Tracks for long-distance trains Pipelines Figure 53 Mentioned project categories for specifying certain descriptions
(Would you say the set of thresholds/criteria for all project types obligatory to EIA in your country is adequate? If no: Is there any particular threshold/criteria in your list/s of projects which you would consider as not appropriate? Could you tell the main reasons?)
Main Ideas Set of thresholds/criteria is generally seen as adequate Mentioned by Stakeholders from
I think yes. Although a local correction can be used for the noise issue, for example. Sometimes it is done in order to meet the investors demands. It works (but it is always relative big projects can have small impacts and small projects can have big impacts). Yes. We may have even lower thresholds in order to meet other legislation. In general yes, with a few exceptions. Yes they are adequate, however there is confusion between mandatory/selection criteria and the indicative criteria which are our pointers to help developers think through the issues considered in an EIA. Its more a problem of how they are named than in principle. Yes. I have no evidence to the contrary, but others that are dealing with planning applications on a daily basis might take a different view. Yes, because the list of actions is frequently adapted to the actual needs.
Czech Republic France Sweden United Kingdom
At the moment in Austria, each treatment of hazardous waste has to be subject to an EIA, Austria even if it is very small and has almost no impact on the environment. A threshold would help to avoid EIAs for such minor projects with almost negligible effects on the environment. The threshold for golf courses with 10 ha is too low, because almost every golf course is larger and its questionable , if each golf course should be subject to an EIA. The threshold for commercial areas with 50 ha too high. Each burning of waste oil is subject to an EIA. A threshold is required in order to avoid that even very small projects have to be assessed by an EIA. For poles for mobile phones, the basic questions of risks needs to be clarified before EIA can be made mandatory. e.g. holiday villages, hotels (threshold is number of beds) if one has a closer look, these are in fact huge establishments here thresholds should be lowered Germany Tram lines now only have to undergo an EIA after case-by-case examination Livestock installations step backwards with new amendment; problem in general, EIA should be obligatory at lower thresholds. Most urban and/or tourism development projects are not subject to an environmental impact assessment for having been already approved along with the regional physical Portugal land use plan in which they are included. For these cases, I think the plans themselves, particularly Detailed Layout Plans , should be subject to environmental impact assessment. Besides, I cannot understand the reason for these exceptions when there are other types of projects, besides urban/tourism ones I mean, that despite the fact of being included in sectoral plans still have to be subject to an EIA procedure. Anyhow, I think the Annex structure should be changed towards case-by-case analysis in every or almost every case. Nevertheless, if Annex II should be kept, I would like to propose the following modifications:

At present, the SEA- and EIA-Directives are only directly linked in one way (article 3(2) of Directive 2001/42/EC requires SEA for those plans and programs, which set the framework for future development consent of EIA projects). Having the concept of tiering in mind, a linkage of SEA- and EIA-Directives regarding the assessment of activities with likely adverse effects on the environment could e.g. consider the following issues:
Raising the assessment of cumulative impacts, indirect effects and large-scale effects to the strategic level and unburden EIA procedures removal of categories, where such impacts are likely inherent (e.g. urban development, major windfarms); Special provisions for the transport sector.
As for an improved co-ordination with the SEA Directive, the results of the recently published study on The Relationship between the EIA and SEA Directives (2005)42 in particular should be taken into account. A consideration of adding new categories to the Directives Annexes could follow the suggested project types listed under Policy Option 3. Within these categories Figure 65 shows suggestions made by IMP Stakeholders for which project types an assessment should be mandatory and/or should be subject to a specified criteria/threshold.
Imperial College London Consultants (2005): The Relationship between the EIA and SEA Directives. London.

Project category

Mandatory assessment
Subject to a specified criteria/threshold
Suggested by the majority of Stakeholders addressed within IMP and MSs in the 5 years report Golf courses Installations working with certain Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) or pathogenic micro-organism such as laboratories, test facilities, trial areas Military practice grounds Masts for mobile phones and radio or telecommunication stations Business parks Redevelopment of contaminated land Transshipment depots Suggested by MSs mentioned in the 5 years report Installations for the manufacture of particle and fibreboard

Wende W. (2002): Evaluation of the effectiveness and quality of environmental impact assessment in the Federal Republic of Germany Assessment and Project Appraisal, 20(2), 93-99(7). Weston, J. (2000): EIA, Decision-making Theory and Screening and Scoping in UK Practice Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(2), 185203. Weston, J., Piper, J. & Glasson, J. (2002): Defining Screening Criteria for Changes or Extensions to Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors, Research Report Impacts Assessment Unit (IAU), Oxford Brookes University, Oxford. Wiszniewska, B., Farr, J. & Jendrska, J. (2002): Handbook on Environmental Impact assessment procedures in Poland Ministry of Environment, Poland. Wolf, P.G. (1982): User's Guide to Defining Significant Impacts under the Federal EARP. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. Hull, Quebec. Wood, C. & Lee, N. (1998): The European Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment: Implementation at Last? The Environmentalist, 8(3), 177-186. Wood, C. (1995): Environmental Impact Assessment A comparative review Longman, Scientific & Technical, Essex. Wood, C. (1999): Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessment Systems, in Petts, J. (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact assessment Volume 2 Environmental Impact assessment in Practice: Impact and Limitations, Blackwell Science Ltd, 10-34, Oxford. Wood, G. & Becker, J. (2005): Discretionary Judgement in Local Planning Authority Decision Making: Screening Development Proposals for Environmental Impact Assessment Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 48, No. 3, 349 371.

Further reading

Ahmad B., Wood C. (2002): A comparative evaluation of the EIA systems in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(3), 213-234(22). EC (2001): Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites, Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (1994): A reference guide for the Canadian Environmental Assessment act Adressing cumulative environmental effects. Quebec, Canada. Hegmann, G., C. Cocklin, R. Creasey, S. Dupuis, A. Kennedy, L. Kingsley, W. Ross, H. Spaling and D. Stalker. (1999): Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. and the CEA Working Group for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec, Canada. Memon P A. (2000): Devolution of environmental regulation: environmental impact assessment in Malaysia Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(4), 283-293(11). Munro D.A., Bryant T.J. and A. Matte-Baker Naivasha Consultants (1986): A State-of-the-art review and evaluation of environmental impact assessment audits. A background paper prepared for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council. Sidney, British Columbia.

capacity is created to hold more than 50,000 tonnes per year, or to hold waste on a site of 10 hectares or more.

incineration

Impacts likely to be significant are those on hydrology and ecology. Developments of this sort can have significant effects on environments some kilometers distant. This is particularly important for wetland and other sites where the habitat and species are particularly
extremely high (equivalent to 3m/sec annualized)
10 (l) Groundwater abstraction and artificial groundwater recharge schemes
12. (a) Works for the transfer of water resources between river basins where this transfer aims at preventing possible shortages of water and where the amount of water transferred exceeds 100 million cubic metres/year;
dependent on an aquatic environment. EIA is likely to be required for developments where the area of the works exceeds one hectare. Water Framework 100 million cubic Directive should be meters/year it taken into account deals with real transfer of water or it deals with the capacity of installation for water transfer. Sometimes the capacity can be 100 million cubic meters/year, but every year transfer only 80 million cubic meters. "multiannual" should be specified; why is transfer of piped water excluded?
10 (m) Works for the transfer of water resources between river basins
(b) In all other cases, works for the transfer of water resources between river basins where the multiannual average flow of the basin of abstraction exceeds million cubic metres/year and where the amount of water transferred exceeds 5% of this flow. In both cases transfers of piped drinking water are excluded. 13. Waste water treatment plants with a capacity exceeding population equivalent as defined in Article 2 point (6) of Directive 91/271/EEC6.
Directive 2000/60/EC defines river basin as the area of land from which all surface run-off flows through a sequence of streams, rivers and, possibly, lakes into the sea at a single river mouth, estuary or delta.
According to Directive 91/271/EEC Population equivalent means the organic biodegradable load having a five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) of 60 g of oxygen per day.
Particular consideration should be given to the size, treatment process, pollution and nuisance potential, topography, proximity of dwellings and the potential impact of traffic movements. EIA is more likely to be required if the development would be on a substantial scale (e.g. site area of more than 10 hectares) or if it would lead to significant discharges (e.g. capacity exceeding 100,000 population equivalent).