Risk assessment and environmental impact assessment

take chances appraisal and environmental impact estimationSECTION 11.1 INTRODUCTIONThis continue is on the economic consumption of pretend assessment (RA) in environmental impact assessment (EIA). Over the last three decades, in that location has been a remarkable growth of environmental issues in sustainability and the better management of development in consent with the environment (Glasson at al 2004). The most popular and widely uptake environmental management techniques be EIA and RA.EIA is a process to identify and predict the impact on the environment and on mans health and advantageously being of legislative proposals, policies programmes, projects and operational procedures, and to interpret and communicate in manakination ab extinct the impacts (Munn 1979). The EIA process includes screening, scoping, impact foresight and evaluation, impact mitigation, decision devising (EIA fol get-go up) with public participation and consideration of alternatives possiblely i ncorporated in all the stages of the process (Woods 1995, ride horseback 1996, Lee and George 2000).The US National Research council (NRC) defines RA as the picture of the potential adverse effect of mankind exposure on environmental hazards. A special assessment procedure that comes at tackling certain consequences of human activities is called insecurity legal opinion (Demidova and Cherp). The stages in risk assessment argon as follows hazard identification, exposure assessment, risk estimation, risk evaluation and risk management (Eduljee 1999).environmental risk assessment is a generic term for the series of tools and environmental risks and the formation of judgement ab come out of the closet them. (DOE 1995, DETR2000) Risk assessment emerged in the mid to late 1970s as an administrative requirement in the form of twain statues and executive orders requiring not single more extensive documentation to justify proposed risk regulation, alone also the balancing of risk ag ainst economic costs and benefits. (Atkisson et al 1985).environmental Health risk assessment has been defined as the systematic scientific characterization of potential adverse health effect resulting from human exposure to hazardous agents or situations (Faustman and Omenn 2001).In concept, EIA and RA bedevil evolved as parallel and sometimes overlapping procedures for rational reform to policy making (Andrews 1995). The purpose of both concepts is to provide an acceptable basis for making public decisions, not necessarily to generate new scientific knowledge (Andrews 1995).Table 1 downst appearances summarizes the similarities and differences of EIA and RA.1.2 SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN RA AND EIAThe most important similarity is comparing the stages of RA with those of the EIA process. Thus, hazard identification in RA is equivalent to screening and scoping in EIA, risk estimation is equivalent to impact prediction in EIA, risk evaluation is equivalent to impact prediction in EIA (determining the signifi tail endce of the impact) while mitigation in EIA can be equated to risk management (specifically risk reduction and control). (Eduljee 1999).SECTION 22.1 BRIEF comment OF THE TWO CASE STUDIESTwo EIA movement studies will be comp bed from two different industrial sectors and they are the Berkeley nuclear power station where a new building for hot waste is to be constructed and the A350 Westbury bypass. The aim of this report is to examine how environmental/health risk has been use in each of these EIAs and the advantage or potential for improving the use of environmental /health risk assessment in these EIAs.2.11 A350 WESTBURY BYPASS- CASE AThe construction scheme will comprise approximately 5.8 kilometres of new single carriage way slightly the eastern and northern sides of Westbury and it aims to provide traffic relief for Westbury, allowing bridle-path space in the town to be reallocated to opposite modes, improve journey time reliability of the A350 route and improve access to employment areas, in particular the West Wilts Trading Estate, and between the west Wiltshire towns.The construction phase will last between 18 months to 2 years and would involve site preparation, earthworks main road construction and construction of final surfaces. contacts determine resulting from construction is as followsGeneration of noise and dust with earthworks and vehicular movementPollution risk associated with running(a) in close proximity to surface and groundwater resources.Possible disturbance of ecological and heritage resourcesGeneration and government of wasteChange of land use patternPost construction impacts were identified as road traffic and emissions from traffic. (Wiltshire county council, 2007)2.12 BERKELEY NUCLEAR POWER STATION-CASE BMagnox electrical Limited has proposed to construct an intermediate level radioactive waste (ILW) entrepot building on Berkeley nuclear licensed site. This building will store causal agent ILW wastes that expect arisen over time and will store these wastes until an offsite disposal facility is available.The ILW waste will phratry packaged radioactive waste in one above ground location, or else than storing waste on a lower floor ground as it currently occurs at the Berkeley nuclear power station.The project will be carried out in three stages,Construction of the buildingOperation/filling of the building with packages of ILW.Long term storage of ILW during care and maintenance period until a disposal route becomes available.The technical assessment areas covered by the environmental impact statement are as follows-Air quality and dustArchaeology and heathen heritageEcologyGeology, hydrology and soilsNoise and vibrationSurface watersTraffic and transport. (Gloucestershire country 2007)SECTION 33.1 THE USE OF RISK ASSESSMENT IN EACH EIA3.2 METHODOLOGY USED FOR ASSESSMENT IN EISThe methodology of depth psychology of impact should be taken into consideration wh en comparing the two EIS used for this study mien in mind that the case studies are from different industrial sectors. Berkeley nuclear power plant is a high-pitched risk and high profile project and it deals with radioactive waste (although the radioactive waste is truehearted and there is no emission to air). Westbury bypass on the other hand is low risk low profile project with significant impact on air quality (rise in dust particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen) during the construction phase and emissions from vehicles after construction.Method of analysis of impacts- Case AThe following methods were used in the analysis of local effectsQualitative and quantitative assessment used to analyze air quality.Dispersion model selection(air quality strategy)MeteorologySensitive receptorsShort term mean concentrationsMethod of analysis for case-BSimple qualitative to complex quantitative method was used to analyze air qualityThe use of scientific criteriaComparison of predicted changes with established national and international air quality standards, objectives and thresholds.Interpretation of planning and other environmental policies for example, the assessment of whether the predicted change will conflict the objectives of an air quality management area.Review of comparable to(predicate) proposals on environment.The NSCA flow chart -Event tree analysisGeneric assessment methodology.Though the methodology used for risk assessment is similar, the event tree analysis which was used in case study B was absent in case study A.SECTION 44.1 POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVING OR EXTENDING EIAEIA have emphasized possible impact on natural ecosystems and, to some extent, human communities just have salaried no attention to health effect of other risks (Beanlands 1984a, Clark 1984a and Giroult 1984a). More precisely, even for impacts whose ultimate significance capability involve health, such as air pollution, EIA studies typically predict only the environmental fate of contaminants, rather than the effect on health itself and RA have emphasized human health effects, especially potential mortality due to cancer or technological catastrophes. (Andrews 1995)The stages of RA were incorporated into both case studies, but RA was not carried out extensively especially in the Berkeley nuclear power station case. It is recommended that a separate section concerned with health risk assessment be prepared within the EIS for high risk and high profile projects but it was absent in this case.There was failure to conduct luck assessment (uncertainty analysis) in case of the unforeseen accidents like explosions or unplanned discharge of radioactive solid waste into the environment. Risk =probability (likelihood or chance that harm will occur) - consequence (nature of the harm that can occur).There was also no mitigation plans in case of an accident, if there was, then it was not include in the EIS. Risk communication was also absent in both case studies.Also th e battery-acid response or exposure assessment which measures the intensity, frequency and duration of human exposure to an agent was infix for case A, (Extrapolation dose response methodology) but the effects of the dose for air quality pollutants in case B was not analyzed properly. Hazard index calculation for non carcinogens was absent.HAZOP analysis carried out in case A but absent in case B.Source-pathway-receptor identified in case A, but only source and receptor identified in case B.Risk-benefit analysis also absent.Including the omitted RA analyses above would have improved the use of RA in these EIAsSECTION 55.1 CONCLUSION/ RECOMMENDATIONSMany actions need both EIA and RA assessment. In these instances, a more useful analysis would be obtained from combining the two. (Andrews 1995)The aim of this report has been to evaluate how environmental/health RA were used in different stages of the two reviewed EISs, and point out how possible ways that RA might have played a greate r role. Systematic practise of RA in accordance to best practice was not observed. For a better Incorporation of RA into EIA, there should be emphasis on emergency response measures in the event of accidents and associated environmental perturbations. Canter (1993).REFERENCESWiltshire County Council, (2007) A350 Westbury bypass Environmental Impact Statement 2007. Trowbridge, Wiltshire County Council.Gloucestershire County council (2007) Berkeley ILW Store. Environmental Impact Statement Issue 1 Gloucester. Gloucestershire County Council.Andrews,R.N.C (1995) Environmental Impact Assessment and Risk Assessment Learning from each other, In P Wathern (Ed)Environmental impact Assessment Theory and Practice (Routledge/London)Brookes, A. (2001) Environmental Risk Assessment and Risk management, in P. Morris and R Therivel (Eds) Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment, 2nd Edition(Spon Press/London)Eduljee, G (1999), Risk Assessment in Petts, J. (Ed), Handbook of Environmental Impact A ssessment, intensity 1, Process, Methods and Potential, Blackwell Science, LondonDemidova, O and A Cherp (2005), Risk assessment for improved treatment of health considerations in EIA Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2(4), page 411-429.Canter, L. W (1993) Pragmatic Suggestions of Incorporating Risk Assessment Principles in EIA studies. Environmental Professional, 15(1), Page 125-138.