Environmental Impact Assessment

The various tools that manage the environmental aspects of any project or human activity is basically done with the help of environmental tools as Environmental Impact Assessment or EIA and Environmental Management System or EMS. The implementation of these tools ensures the effective management of the environment when major projects are being constructed. It has been observed that these frameworks of environmental management have been implemented over the years by various organisations and industries individually in a manner that was not coincided together. However, there have been instances of partial integration of both the EIA and the EMS. The further researches on EIA and its processes have seen developments to make it more approachable and to build integration with EMS. The necessary alteration of both the frameworks needs to be revised to create a more integrated framework of the same. While there have been several implications of these frameworks, it has been observed that companies do not actively implement these tasks in sync, owing to their minute differences. The EIA involves processes as monitoring, auditing, evaluation and post evaluation; on the other hand EMS is actually an adoption of strategies over a given a time frame to achieve the desired outcome. The environmental impact assessment analyses the probable impacts that can occur due to the construction and operational functioning of a project.  Generally, an EIA is attempted prior to the commencement of the task whereas EMSs are generally put to effect once the project has been completed and started functioning.The report will be divided into two parts which will subsequently look into the comparisons between EIA and EMS. The second part or part B will implement the integrated model of EIA and EMS into a project and evaluate the success of the dual frame work in accordance with the project.

To understand the integration of EIA and EMS it is necessary to have clarity about the concepts of Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management system individually.The comparison, between the EIA EMS will be done after evaluating the concepts individually [1].

The concept of environmental impact assessment revolves around four stages of evaluation and implementation mentioned as planning and design, construction, operation and decommissioning of the project [6]. Environmental Impact Assessment is actually a process of collecting and presenting information in a form that provides a direction to a project enabling the processors to decide and formulate strategies in accordance with environmental perspective and ensures smooth functioning of a project [7]. The assessment nullifies the scope of any environmental risk and provides probable mitigations through its hierarchical structure of evaluation. The EIA framework assists managers to understand the various risks that might be associated with the project and prepare adequate measures to mitigate them. The Environmental Impact assessment Framework can be summarized in brief as follows.

• Identification and defining of the project
• Screening
• Scoping
• Preparation of  terms of reference
• Preparation of draft
• Public participation
• Preparation of Final draft
• Decision
• Review by the judiciary
• Project implementation
• Monitoring

Environmental Management System

Through the above methods a systematic approach is attempted to assess the impact of the EIA. Given its nature although EIA can predict the environmental impact there is no evidence that the impact predicted is actually relevant when the project is completed. There is no provision of management of the impact while the project is functioning and the life cycle of the product manufactured or developed at the facility. There are no chances of revision if the impact assessment is inaccurate or the management is inadequate. In order to cater to this issue the EMS comes into play with an effective framework thataddresses adequately the issue of management over time.

The development of international standards in quality assessment and quality retention, has led to the formulation of a framework that effectively manages and reviews the global environmental standards and has been categorized under the guidelines of the International Standard Organisation or the ISO standards. With the initiation of the ISO 14001 standards that illustrate the environmental management systems, the requirement to modify EIA beyond its framework has ceased to be, rather it could be argued that the integration of EIA and the EMS would be more effective from a perspective. The Environmental Management System is an environmental tools that has evolved from the roots of EIA to attend to the ground realities of operational management. The EMS provides a framework, which evaluates the current performance, predicts the future trends and suggests accordingly the probable solutions to mitigate them to ensure unaltered functioning of the project and continuously review the processes to be competent with the changing scenario [8].

The Environmental Management System can be defined as a comprehensive systematic management which is planned and documented in a manner, it consists of the organisational structure, planning and resources for mitigation of risks and hazard. The EMS is a more effective tool and scalable in nature for multiple industries, globally applicable and cost effective. It follows the PLAN-DO-CHECK-ACT cycle in an iterative way and assures complete management over a longer period of time [2].It can be more formally defined as a database management system which integrates several processes and procedures and involves training, monitoring, summarizing and reporting of environmental assessment which creates efficiency of implementation. The EMS is applied with the help of information technology in the form of EDMS or Environmental Data Management system [9]. The processes of EMS can be summarized as follows:

• Plan
• Do
• Check
• Act

Comparison between EIA and EMS

The whole frame work is based on these four stages which repeat to provide a considerate solution and management of the environmental impacts. The competence of the EMS is far more as compared to EIA. The following section will analyse the strengths and weakness of EIA and EMS over each other [12].

EMS is cost effective and easy to implement and manage, being globally applicable. Whereas EIA involves with project development, development control, plan development and policy formulation, it has seen reduced implementation due to its failure to implement the process at the initial stages, due to the improper consideration of alternatives, due to the lack of meaningful public participation and finally failure to execute the monitoring, mitigation processes after the initiation of the project. Contrary to these the EMS can be effectively implemented across various industries being more competent in terms of actual management and operation [3].

Though the EIA is compared less effective, the necessity of EIA in pre stages of a project cannot be ignored. EIA provides a concrete foundation which identifies the potential environmental impacts and provides a reference based on which the EMS can be developed. EMS provides substantial actions leading to the continual modification according to the requirements [13].

EIA involves public participation in delivering its Environmental Statement and framing of the EIA, while the ESM requires procedures to respond to the external parries and external stake holders [4].

Mitigation measures in EIA are generally identified and analysed wherein in an EMS it is ensured that the mitigation is properly implemented and follow up process is adequately done.

The integration of the EIA and the EMS has been attempted by several authors in their respective capacities. Prior to the integration of the EIA and the EIS it is necessary to know the similarities and the where these two tools can be implemented. To integrate the two tools it is also important to identify the factors that influence the EIA and the EMS. Prior to the integration of the EIA and the EMS a tally of the common attributes are to be done. The actual process of proper implementation should actually involve the EIA methodology to create the platform for the subsequent implementation of the EMS. The EIA when appliedin a user friendly manner in accordance with the EMS [19]. The integration of the EIS and the EIA needs to be done on the framework of ISO14001 to make it applicable across all industries [1]. The following approach might give an insight of the integration process. The stages are:

• Description of the project activities
• Consultation with public.
• Defining the baseline environment
• Identification, assessment and prediction of the impact.
• Legal and administrative requirements, and
• Management plans

Integration of EIA and EMS

The following flow chart will describe the integrated model in a summarized manner.

The successful implementation of any model or theory depends on the successful identification of the factors that influence the model. The driving factors that would influence the successful implementation of the model. The implementation of the plan will depend on the following factors:

• The inputs and out puts in the system
• The public comments.
• Potential impacts
• The legal framework
• The nature of industry
• The scope of implementation in a way that fits the site.

The several factors that would influence the proper implementation of the project and would depend on the above mentioned divers [11]. The changes in design during the pre-decision stage of EIA would foster better development and growth of the model. The Environmental Impact statements should adhere with the commitments of the environmental management procedures. The management conditions should be met and initiated with the approval of the project. It should be monitored that the management policies and suggestions must be enforced with effect [15].

Based on the approach suggested in the above section an integrated EIA-EMS framework will be implemented to understand the feasibility and competence of the project. The assessment will be done for oil and gas project based on the basic framework of the ISO 14001 and will be developed on the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA). The section will assess the whole frame work into the sections. For the application of the integrated model in an infrastructure project this paper will review the Wheatstone project which started in 2011 and has just delivered its first cargo in 2017. The lifespan of the project is expected at 30 years from time of commissioning.

The Wheatstone LNG project will produce petroleum from off shore location from different petroleum titles, WA-253-P and from WA-17-R. The project is a tactical development to harness the resources and supply gas to domestic and international markets. The project will aim to process the West Carnarvon Basin for harnessing gas for Chevron and other stake holders. It is expected that during the lifespan of the Wheatstone Project will create more than 1000 direct and indirect jobs per year.

The Screening process reviews the details of the necessity of the project to have an impact assessment. It also reviews the technical feasibilities, that is to be constructed, this is the planning part according ISO 14001 standards.  The financial, social and physical constraints are to be analysed during the screening of the project [24]. In brief the screening will look into the environmental aspects, the legal and administrative requirements, the objectives and initiation of the nest stages of the plan. The main aim of screening is to realize whether the infrastructure will require an EIA-EMS management [25]. The given nature of the OIL and Gas industry being extremely volatile for the environment needs proper and adequate environmental planning.

Proposed Integrated Model of EIA and EMS

The screening for the Wheatstone project will include the following steps:

• Internal and external site screening:  The major objective is to identify the suitable location for the project. Extensive research with the help of database, existing literature, and environmental mapping will be done to identify the best location of the project long the proposed Pilbara coast.
• The economic and physical prospects will be studied for the project.
• Community engagement and stake holder involvement in the screening of the site will be introduced to identify concerns that might affect the environment and the community as a whole.

Scoping relates to the involvement of public and other stake holders, it also identifies the key environmental issues associated with the project and proposes them in the Assessment. This is a part of the planning stage according to the ISO14001 standard and relates to the identification of the all the aspects of the project. The Scoping of the project will be done to assess the environmental impact that could occur due to the commissioning of the Wheatstone Project. [3]. The following processes will e followed in the scoping of the plan.

The Planning will be done in

• Accordance with WA(West Australia) EPA administrative procedures (2002)
• Accordance with the WA EPA guide in developing the scoping document.
• Will follow the Commonwealth guidelines for developing the draft EIS.

Moreover a risk based approach will be adopted by the West Australian government and the Chevron for developing the scoping document.

Impact analysis of the Wheatstone project will be done to create a framework for implementation and operation. Though this is integrated in the framework in a single stage, the analysis will be initially done to understand the outcome of the project and develop plans accordingly. The impact analysis of the Wheatstone will look into the following concerns

• The effect of the dredging programme, waste generation and spoil disposal.
• Impact on the marine ecosystem including effect on marine water quality, sensitive benthic community and marine wildlife.
• Impact on onshore facilities which include port construction, loading and offloading of cargos and petroleum products.
• The risk of spillage and contamination on the mangrove vegetation and the marine life.
• Emission of Green House Gases over the span of the project. it is expected that the project might produce excessive amount of green house gases over the year.

The implementation and operation is the next stage and can be compared to the stage of impact analysis in EIA. This is the basic difference and in an integrated framework this stage represents the onset of the integration of the EMS. This stage involves the implementation of procedures for managing the risks described below:

• Maintenance of the dredging programme.
• Create programmes for navigation channels of wastes and by products.
• Preparation and construction of the onshore and offshore facilities.
• Processing facilities for reducing emission of Green house gases.
• Developing environment friendly facilities to reduce impact on the marine and benthic communities.

The stage of checking and corrective action is the stage prior to the mitigation of the problems assessed. This stage of CHECK according to the ISO 14001 standards and therefore involves in the checking and regulation of the site while in operation. This is the post implementation phase of the environmental management system and this stage when integrated with the EIA gives a level of competence to the structure of the assessment tool.

• This stage implements necessary rectification and adoption of newer strategies to address the short coming of the assessment. These can be referred to implementing newer environmental friendly techniques. Upgrading equipments and treatment facilities.
• Tracking the waste generation and their proper management. This might also include onsite disposal of the wastes.  
• Validating the risk levels and re assessing them.

This stage will be initiated once the facility starts production. Through several assessment and tracking parameters, the environmental impact will be monitored. The monitoring of the impacts will be done on a regular by basis by the Wheatstone facility and compared to the assessed levels. Any deviation from the assessment will initiate reassessment and checking of the threats.  Corrective measures will be initiated for the same. This is an iterative stage which continuously evaluates and eliminates the risks or threats that are being constantly created by the functioning of the project [17].

Application of the Integrated Model to an Infrastructure Project

The mitigation is the final step of the EIA-EMS integrated framework which is the desired output of the assessment. Mitigation involves the outlining of measures in order to reduce or minimize the adverse impacts derived due to the project. This is also an iterative stage wherein the mitigations are revised and looked [19].  The Wheatstone project will identify the wastes types and segregate them accordingly to mitigate impact on the environment. the mitigation facilities will be initiated through the following steps:

• Chemical and hazardous wastes will be mitigated through special facilities.
• Bio-solids and recyclable wastes will be treated with the help of third party involvements.
• Wastes as sludge, liquid wastes such as contaminated water, used water and other offshore wastes will be brought onshore to treat them at facilities.
• All mitigation plans will be adopted based on the EPA guidelines and adequate policies will be adopted.

The activity impact model includes the several processes that are responsible for creating hazards or environmental impacts the activity impact model of the oil industry can be summarized thus,

The activity impact model gives us a brief overview of the impact created by the petroleum industry [18]. The petroleum industry is one of the polluting industries in the world. The activity impact model gives a brief insight in to the impact assessment of the project and helps to identify the major impacts that are created through the operational procedures of the petroleum industry [21]. The activity impact model also analyses the steps to mitigate the impact. The formulation of the activity impact model can be regarded as a brief summary of the environmental management system.

Conclusion

The necessity of managing the environment along with the ‘sustainable functioning of the industries and human activities is extremely important to minimise the impact of environmental degradation. The EIA and the EMS are both effective tools to analyse and assess the environmental impacts but both have their limitation. The integrated framework provides a competent assessment and management of the environmental issues and is universally acceptable and applicable across industries. The conformity of the ISO14001 standards is basically an integration of the environmental impact assessment and the environmental management system. The integrated format allows for broader applications and help to complete the environmental requirements in a way that is more complete and inclusive of the assessment and the management aspects required to mitigate the environmental problems arising out of a facility. With the changing scenario of the functioning of the industries, the impact assessment is not just enough rather the implementation of the techniques, the continuous observation of the processes and the necessary up gradations as and when required are effectively executed with the integrated framework. Finally, the close relationship between the two tools makes it easier to identify, predict, evaluate and manage the environmental impacts in a competent way making it effective over other environmental management tools.

References

1. Sánchez LE, Hacking T. An approach to linking environmental impact assessment and environmental management systems. Impact assessment and project appraisal. 2002 Mar 1;20(1):25-38.
2. org. (2018). ISO 14000 Environmental management. [online] Available at: https://www.iso.org/iso-14001-environmental-management.html [Accessed 22 Sep. 2018].
3. Hollands R, Palframan L. EIA and EMS integration: not wasting the opportunity. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 2014 Jan 2;32(1):43-54.
4. Barker A, Jones C. A critique of the performance of EIA within the offshore oil and gas sector. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2013 Nov 1;43:31-9.
5. Palframan L, Perdicoúlis A. EIA–EMS link efficiency through Viridor’s ODMP.
6. Ambituuni A, Amezaga J, Emeseh E. Analysis of safety and environmental regulations for downstream petroleum industry operations in Nigeria: Problems and prospects. Environmental Development. 2014 Jan 1;9:43-60.
7. Deng X, Hu Y, Deng Y, Mahadevan S. Environmental impact assessment based on D numbers. Expert Systems with Applications. 2014 Feb 1;41(2):635-43.
8. Fischer TB, Noble B. IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESEARCH: ACHIEVEMENTS, GAPS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS: Introduction to the March 2015 Special Issue of the Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management.
9. Therivel R. Strategic Environmental Assessment: An Overview. In Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action 2013 Jun 17 (pp. 19-31). Routledge.
10. Baker J, Sheate WR, Phillips P, Eales R. Ecosystem services in environmental assessment—help or hindrance?. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2013 Apr 1;40:3-13.
11. Mitchell B. Resource and environmental management. Routledge; 2013 Dec 16.
12. To WM, Lee PK. Diffusion of ISO 14001 environmental management system: global, regional and country-level analyses. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2014 Mar 1;66:489-98.
13. Heras?Saizarbitoria I, Boiral O. ISO 9001 and ISO 14001: towards a research agenda on management system standards. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2013 Jan;15(1):47-65.
14. Tajima R, Fischer TB. Should different impact assessment instruments be integrated? Evidence from English spatial planning. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2013 Jul 1;41:29-37.
15. Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J, Bond A, Retief F. Towards sustainability assessment follow-up. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2014 Feb 1;45:38-45.
16. Wathern P, editor. Environmental impact assessment: theory and practice. Routledge; 2013 Feb 1.
17. Covello VT, Merkhoher MW. Risk assessment methods: approaches for assessing health and environmental risks. Springer Science & Business Media; 2013 Jun 29.
18. Lee N, George C, editors. Environmental assessment in developing and transitional countries: principles, methods and practice. John Wiley & Sons; 2013 Jun 10.
19. Hume AC. Environmental Impact Statement.
20. Talluri S, Kull TJ, Yildiz H, Yoon J. Assessing the efficiency of risk mitigation strategies in supply chains. Journal of Business Logistics. 2013 Dec;34(4):253-69.
21. Wathern P, editor. Environmental impact assessment: theory and practice. Routledge; 2013 Feb 1.
22. Kørnøv L, Zhang J, Christensen P. The influence of street level bureaucracy on the implementation of Strategic Environmental Assessment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 2015 Apr 3;58(4):598-615.
23. Smith LG. Impact assessment and sustainable resource management. Routledge; 2014 Sep 11.
24. Abaza H, Bisset R, Sadler B. [Internet]. Unep.ch. 2018 [cited 22 September 2018]. Available from: https://unep.ch/etu/publications/textONUBr.pdf
25. Weston J. Planning and environmental impact assessment in practice. Routledge; 2014 Jun 11.