An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an assessment of the likely influence a project may have on the environment. “Environmental Impact Assessment can be defined as: The process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made.” (IAIA 1999). The purpose of the assessment is to ensure that decision-makers consider environmental impacts before deciding whether to proceed with new projects.
Overview
The US Environmental Protection Agency pioneered the use of pathway analysis to determine the likely human health impact of environmental factors. The technology for performing such analysis is properly labelled environmental science. The principal phenomena or pathways of impact are: soil contamination impacts, air pollution impacts, noise health effects, ecology impacts including endangered species assessment, geological hazards assessment and water pollution impacts. Pathway analysis and The Natural Step definitions subsequently became the basis of the global ISO 14000 series of environmental management standards and the more recent ISO 19011 auditing standard; however, these ISO standards are not in common use in the U.S. and most other countries.
After an EIA analysis, the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays may be applied to prevent, limit, or require strict liability or insurance coverages to a project, based on its likely harms.
Environmental impact analysis is sometimes controversial and contested. Related analysis of social impacts is achieved by Social impact assessment. Analysis of business impacts is achieved by Context analysis. Design impacts are assessed in relation to Context theory.
EIS predicts what a specific action can do to the environment.
EIA around the world
China
The Environmental Impact Assessment Law (EIA Law)requires an environmental impact assessment to be completed prior to project construction. However, if a developer completely ignores this requirement and builds a project without submitting an environmental impact statement, the only penalty is that the environmental protection bureau (EPB) may require the developer to do a make-up environmental assessment. If the developer does not complete this make-up assessment within the designated time, only then is the EPB authorized to fine the developer. Even so, the possible fine is capped at a maximum of about US$25,000, a fraction of the overall cost of most major projects. The lack of more stringent enforcement mechanisms has resulted in a significant percentage of projects not completing legally required environmental impact assessments prior to construction. [1]
China's State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) used the legislation to halt 30 projects in 2004, including three hydro-power plants under the Three Gorges Project Company. Although one month later (Note as a point of reference, that the typical EIA for a major project in the USA takes one to two years.), most of the 30 halted projects resumed their construction, reportedly having passed the environmental assessment, the fact that these key projects' construction was ever suspended was notable.
A joint investigation by SEPA and the Ministry of Land and Resources in 2004 showed that 30 to 40 per cent of the mining construction projects went through the procedure of environment impact assessment as required, while in some areas only 6 to 7 per cent did so. This partly explains why China has witnessed so many mining accidents in recent years.
SEPA alone cannot guarantee the full enforcement of environmental laws and regulations, observed Professor Wang Canfa, director of the centre to help environmental victims at China University of Political Sciences and Law. In fact, according to Wang, the rate of China's environmental laws and regulations that are actually enforced is estimated to be barely 10 per cent.[2]
EU
The EIA Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment was first introduced in 1985 and was amended in 1997. The directive was amended again in 2003 following the 1998 signature by the EU of the Aarhus Convention on public participation in environmental matters. The issue was enlarged to the assessment of plans and programmes by the so called SEA-Directive in 2001 which is now in force and establishes a mix of mandatory and discretionary procedures for assessing environmental impacts. [1]
Under the EU directive, an EIA must provide certain information to comply. There are seven key areas that are required:
1. Description of the project
Description of actual project and site description
Break the project down into its key components, ie construction, operations, decommissioning
For each component list all of the sources of environmental disturbance
For each component all the inputs and outputs must be listed, eg, air pollution, noise, hydrology
2. Alternatives that have been considered
Examine alternatives that have been considered
Eg - In a biomass power station, will the fuel be sourced locally or nationally?
3. Description of the environment
List of all aspects of the environment that may be effected by the development
eg populations, fauna, flora, air, soil, water, humans, landscape, cultural heritage
This section is best carried out with the help of local experts, eg the RSPB in the UK
4. Description of the significant effects on the environment
The word significant is crucial here as the definition can vary
'Significant' needs to be defined
The most frequent method used here is use of the Leopold matrix
The maxtrix is a tool used in the systematic examination of potential interactions
Eg In a windfarm development a significant impact may be collisions with birds
5. Mitigation
This is where EIA is most useful
Once section 4 has been completed it will be obvious where the impacts will be greatest
Using this information ways to avoid negative impacts should be developed
Best working with the developer with this section as they know the project best
Using the windfarm example again construction could be out of bird nesting seasons
6. Non-technical summary
The EIA will be in the public domain and be used in the decision making process
It is important that the information is available to the public
This section is a summary that does not include jargon or complicated diagrams
It should be understood by the informed lay-person
7. Lack of know-how/technical difficulties
This section is to advise any areas of weakness in knowledge
It can be used to focus areas of future research
Some developers see the EIA as a starting block for good environmental management
New Zealand
In New Zealand, EIA is usually referred to as Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE). The first use of EIA's dates back to a Cabinet minute passed in 1974 called Environmental Protection and Enhancement Procedures. This had no legal force and only related to the activities of government departments. When the Resource Management Act was passed in 1991, an EIA was required as part of a resource consent application. Section 88 of the Act spells this out.
United States
Under United States environmental law an EIA is referred to as the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and originated in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), enacted in the United States in 1969. Certain actions of federal agencies must be preceded by an EIS. Contrary to a widespread misconception, NEPA does not prohibit the federal government or its licensees/permittees from harming the environment, nor does it specify any penalty if the EIS turns out to be inaccurate, intentionally or otherwise. NEPA requires that plausible statements as to the prospective impacts be disclosed in advance. The purpose of NEPA process is to ensure that the decision maker is fully informed of the environmental aspects and consequences prior to making the final decision.
Usually, an agency will release a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for comment. Interested parties and the general public have the opportunity to comment on the draft, after which the agency will approve the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Occasionally, the agency will later release a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).
The adequacy of an EIS can be challenged in court. Major proposed projects have been blocked because of an agency's failure to prepare an acceptable EIS. One prominent example was the Westway landfill and highway development in and along the Hudson River in New York City [2]. Another prominent case involved the Sierra Club suing the Nevada Department of Transportation over its denial of Sierra Club's request to issue a supplemental EIS addressing air emissions of particulate matter and hazardous air pollutants in the case of widening US Highway 95 through Las Vegas.[3] The case reached the 9th Circuit Court of the United States, which led to construction on the highway being halted until the court's final decision. The case was settled prior to the court's final decision.
Several US state governments that have adopted "little NEPA's," i.e., state laws imposing EIS requirements for particular state actions and some of those state laws refer to the required environmental impact studies as Environmental Impact Reports or Environmental Impact Assessments. [4] For example, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
These various state requirements are yielding voluminous data not just upon impacts of individual projects, but also to elucidate scientific areas that had not been sufficiently researched. For example, in a seemingly routine Environmental Impact Report for the city of Monterey, California, information came to light that led to the official federal endangered species listing of Hickman's potentilla, a rare coastal wildflower.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is a report prepared for a real estate holding which identifies potential or existing environmental contamination liabilities. The analysis, often called a Phase I ESA, typically addresses both the underlying land as well as physical improvements to the property; however, techniques applied in a Phase I ESA never include actual collection of physical samples or chemical analyses of any kind. Scrutiny of the land includes examination of potential soil contamination, groundwater quality, surface water quality and sometimes issues related to hazardous substance uptake by biota. The examination of a site may include: definition of any chemical residues within structures; identification of possible asbestos containing building materials; inventory of hazardous substances stored or used on site; assessment of mold and mildew; and evaluation of other indoor air quality parameters[1].
Actual sampling of soil, air, groundwater and/or building materials is typically not conducted during a Phase I ESA. The Phase I ESA is generally considered the first step in the process of environmental Due Diligence. This type of study is alternatively called a Level I Environmental Site Assessment. Standards for performing a Phase I site assessment have been promulgated by ASTM in Standard E1527-05.[2] If a site is considered contaminated, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment may be conducted, ASTM test E1903, a more detailed investigation involving chemical analysis for hazardous substances and/or petroleum hydrocarbons.
As early as the 1970s specific property purchasers in the USA undertook studies resembling current Phase I ESAs, to assess risks of ownership of commercial properties which had a high degree of risk from prior toxic chemical use or disposal. Many times these studies were preparatory to understanding the nature of cleanup costs if the property was being considered for redevelopment or change of land use.
Leaking underground storage tanks are one source of hazardous substance liabilityIn the United States of America demand increased dramatically for this type of study in the 1980s following judicial decisions related to liability of property owners to effect site cleanup. Interpreting the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), the U.S. courts have held that a buyer, lessor, or lender may be held responsible for remediation of hazardous substance residues, even if a prior owner caused the contamination; performance of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, according to the courts’ reasoning, creates a safe harbor, known as the 'Innocent Landowner Defense' for such a new purchaser or his lenders.
In 1998 the necessity of performing a Phase I ESA was underscored by congressional action in passing the Superfund Cleanup Acceleration Act of 1998[3]. This act requires purchasors of commercial property to perform a Phase I study meeting the specific standard of ASTM E1527: Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.
The most recent standard is ASTM E1527-05 which has become known as 'All Appropriate Inquiry' (AAI). Previous guidances regarding the ASTM E1527 standard were ASTM E1527-97 and ASTM E1527-00.
Residential property purchasers need only conduct a site inspection and chain of title survey.
Actions triggering the Phase I ESA
A variety of actions[4] can cause a Phase I study to be performed for a commercial property, the most common being:
Purchase of real property by a person or entity not previously on title.
Contemplation by a new lender to provide a loan on the subject real estate.
Partnership buyout or principal redistribution of ownership.
Application to a public agency for change of use or other discretionary land use permit.
Existing property owner’s desire to understand toxic history of the property.
Compulsion by a regulatory agency who suspects toxic conditions on the site.
Divestiture of properties
Scope of the Phase I ESA
Asbestos-containing materials are not typically surveyed or sampled in a Phase I site inspection, but suspect building materials may be notedDepending upon precise protocols utilized, there are a number of variations in the scope of a Phase I study. The tasks listed here are extremely common to almost all Phase I ESAs:
Performance of an on-site visit to view present conditions (chemical spill residue, die-back of vegetation, etc) ; hazardous substances or petroleum products usage (presence of above ground or underground storage tanks, storage of acids, etc.); and evaluate any likely environmentally hazardous site history.
Evaluation of risks of neighbouring properties upon the subject property
Interview of persons knowledgeable regarding the property history (past owners, present owner, key site manager, present tenants, neighbours).
Examine municipal or county planning files to check prior land usage and permits granted
Conduct file searches with public agencies (State water board, fire department, county health department, etc) having oversight relative to water quality and soil contamination issues.
Examine historic aerial photography of the vicinity.
Examine current USGS maps to scrutinize drainage patterns and topography.
Examine chain-of-title for Environmental Liens and/or Acivity and Land Use Limitations (AULs).
Non-Scope Items in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessments can include visual inspections or records review searches for:
Asbestos Containing Building Materials (ACBM)
Lead-Based Paint
Lead in Drinking Water
Mold
Radon
Wetlands
Threatened and Endangered Species
Earthquake Hazard
Preparers
Often a multi-disciplinary approach is taken in compiling all the components of a Phase I study, since skills in chemistry, atmospheric physics, geology, microbiology and even botany are frequently required. Many of the preparers are environmental scientists who have been trained to integrate these diverse disciplines. Many states have professional registrations which are applicable to the preparers of Phase I ESAs; for example, the state of California has a registration entitled Registered Environmental Assessor.
Under ASTM E 1527-05 parameters were set forth as to who is qualified to perform Phase I ESAs. The new parameter defined an Environmental Professional as someone with 1) a current Professional Engineer's or Professional Geologist's license or registration from a state or U.S. territory with 3 years equivalent full-time experience; 2) have a Baccalaureate or higher degree from an accredited institution of higher education in a discipline of engineering or science and 5 years equivalent full-time experience; or 3) have the equivalent of 10 years full-time experience.
A person not meeting one or more of those qualifications may assist in the conduct of a Phase I ESA if the individual is under the supervision or responsible charge of a person meeting the definition of an Environmental Professional when concluding such activities.
Most site assessments are conducted by private companies independent of the owner or potential purchaser of the land.
Examples
While there are a myriad of sites that have been analyzed to date within the United States, the following list will serve as examples of the subject matter:
Auke Bay U.S. Postal Facility, Juneau, Alaska
Esso Canada Ltd. Former Bulk Fuels Facility, Owen Sound, Ontario, Canada
Dakin Building, Brisbane, California
East Elk Grove Specific Plan, Elk Grove, California
Mariners Marsh Park, Staten Island, New York
Richmond State Hospital Farm Industrial Park, Wayne County, Indiana
Sydney Steel Plant Lands, Sydney, Nova Scotia
Weyerhauser Technology Center, Federal Way, Washington
International context
In Japan, with the passage of the 2002 Soil Contamination Countermeasures Law, there is a strong movement to conduct Phase I studies more routinely. At least one jurisdiction in Canada (Ontario) now requires the completion of a Phase I prior to the transfer of some types of industrial properties. Some parts of Europe began to conduct Phase I studies on selected properties in the 1990s, but still lack the comprehensive attention given to virtually all major real estate transactions in the USA.
Other types of ESA
Storage and handling of toxics is assessed for each site within a Phase I study.There are several other report types that have some resemblance in name or degree of detail to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment:
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment is an investigation which collects original samples of soil, groundwater or building materials to analyze for quantitative values of various contaminants[5]. This investigation is normally undertaken when a Phase I ESA determines a likelihood of site contamination. The most frequent substances tested are petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, pesticides, solvents, asbestos and mold.
Phase III Environmental Site Assessment is an investigation involving remediation of a site. This study normally involves assessment of alternative cleanup methods, costs and logistics. The associated reportage details the steps taken to perform site cleanup and the follow-up monitoring for residual contaminants.
Limited Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is a truncated Phase I ESA, normally omitting one or more work segments such as the site visit or certain of the file searches. When the field visit component is deleted the study is sometimes called a Transaction Screen.
Environmental Assessment has little to do with the subject of hazardous substance liability, but rather is a study preliminary to an Environmental Impact Statement, which identifies environmental impacts of a land development action and analyzes a broad set of parameters including biodiversity, environmental noise, water pollution, air pollution, traffic, geotechnical risks, visual impacts, public safety issues and also hazardous substance issues.
This page is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Site_Assessment All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights).
