ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ASSESSMENT (EIA)
STRUCTURE :
Origin
Definitions
Process
Methodologies
Case Study
Exercises
 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TOOLS
Life Cycle Analysis
Environmental Impact
Assessment Environmental Management
Environmental Auditing System (EMS) (ISO 4001)
Environmental Economics or Environment Management
Cost Accounting
Information System (EMIS)
Eco Design and product Service
Green Supply Chain Management
System (PSS)
Green Consumption
Environmental Bench Marking
Sustainability Management
Green Marketing
Cleaner Technologies and
Green Productivity
Pollution Prevention
Corporate Environmental
Environmental Performance
Reporting (CER)
Indicators
Beyond Legal Compliance
Recovery, Reuse and Recycling
Good Housekeeping
(3 Rs)
Zero Waste Process
 EIA ORIGIN: LATE 1960S

DEVELOPMENTAL (BENEFITS)

EIA TRADE-OFF

ENVIRONMENTAL (DAMAGES)

PLANNING/ DECISION MAKING TOOL

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
3
EIA was introduced as a legislative tool with
National Envtl Policy Act, 1969, USA
Envtl Protection Act, 1986, India
MoE and F Notification, May, 1994

AIM: The environmental impacts of a developmental activity

should be analyzed before it is implemented

Special features
Umbrella act
Anticipatory act: (Envtl impacts of proposed action)
Project clearance act
3E for project feasibility :
4
Environment + Economics + Engineering
 EIA Acronym

E EARLY

I INTEGRATED
INTERNALIZED

A ALWAYS
ALTERNATE ACTIONS

5
 DEFINITION
EIA : STUDY OF CHANGES IN ENVIRONMENT DUE TO PROPOSED
ACTION

WITH ACTION
INITIAL FUTURE
STATE STATE IMPACT

WITHOUT ACTION

X
P R+
PX + R
IMPACT
PROJECT
REGION R-

STEPS :

1. IDENTIFICATION 2. PREDICTION 3. EVALUATION

7
(BASELINE STATUS) (EXTENT OF CHANGE) (SIGNIFICANCE OF
CHANGE)
 DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENT
PHYSICAL (AIR, WATER, LAND)

THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT ECOLOGICAL (AQUATIC,

TERRESTRIAL)

HUMAN INTEREST
QUALITY OF LIFE VALUES
(SOCIOECONOMIC, HEALTH)

HUMAN USE VALUES (POWER

TRANSPORTATION)

ENVTL ENHANCEMENT TOOL

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION TOOL
8
(NOT COMMAND AND CONTROL)
 DEFINITION OF ACTION
Project level EIA
Strategic level EIA
Policy, plans and program at national, state, regional
levels
Regional level EIA
Carrying capacity framework
CEA (Cumulative Envtl Assessment)
Sectoral level EIA
energy/ agriculture/ transport sector
9
 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
Definition
EIA is a process of establishing the changes

In the physical, biological, ecological and socio-

economic components of the environment

Before, during and after an impending action

(project, plan and policy)

So that undesirable effects, if any, can be mitigated

6
SALIENT FEATURES OF EIA TOOL
1. Management
2. Sustainable Development
3. Regulatory
4. Precautionary
5. Integrating
6. Internalization
7. Decision making on alternatives
8. Environmental Enhancement
9. Public Participatory
10. Cost Benefit Analysis
 EIA ROLE PLAYERS
DEVELOPMENT
EIA
ENVIRONMENT

RESPONSIBILITY

DEVELOPERS PROPONENTS, PLANNERS, POLICY MAKERS

PRACTIONERS CONSULTANTS, ACADEMIC, R & D INSTS.

LEGAL ADVISORS

REVIEWERS EAC/IAA. DOEn, PCBS

RELATED MINISTRIES, FINANCIAL INSTS.

RECEPTORS
GENERAL PUBLIC, NGOS
 EIA PROCESS

SCREENING / RAPID/ SCOPING = IEE

COMPREHENSIVE EIA

IDENTIFICATION
PREDICTION
EVALUATION

MITIGATION /ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS

COMPILATION OF EIS

EAC/ PUBLIC HEARINGS

COMMUNICATION

REVIEW

DECISION

ENVTL. MANAGEMENT POST PROJECT MONITORING (PPM)

PLAN (EMP)
FONSI (Finding of No Significant
Impact)
A FONSI is issued when environmental
analysis and interagency review during the EA
process find a project to have no significant
impacts on the quality of the environment.

The FONSI document is the EA modified to

reflect all applicable comments and
responses.
 If it was not done in the EA, the FONSI must
include the project sponsor's recommendation
or selected alternative.

No formal public circulation of the FONSI is

required, but the state clearinghouse must be
notified of the availability of the FONSI.

In addition, FHWA recommends that the

public be notified through notices in local
newspapers.
 EIA METHODOLOGIES
TYPE FEATURES
AD HOC : * NO FORMAL GUIDANCE
* EXPERT TEAM/TASK FORCE CONSTITUTED
CHECKLIST : * LIST OF ENV. PARAMETERS (EP)
* DOEn. GOI QUESTIONNAIRE CHECKLIST
MATRIX : * 2D- CHECKLIST PROJECT ACTIONS V/S EP
* ACTIONS (TRANSPORT, WASTE DISPOSAL)
* M MAGNITUDE (-5 TO +5); I IMPORTANCE
(0-10)
ACTIONS

EP I/M

ENVTL. IMPACT UNIT

N,Q
EIU Mi j Iij
i, j
 I11
I1
I12

I13
ACTION
I21
I2

I22

NETWORK : * CHAIN OF IMPACTS LINKAGES

* PRIMARY, SECONDARY, TERTIARY IMPACTS
OVERLAYS : * USE PHYSICAL/ELECTRONIC MAPS OF EP
* OVERLAID FOR COMPOSITE/SPATIALCHARAC.
* GEOGRAPICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM
GIS LOGICAL INTS. BET. SPATIAL DATA
RAPID ASSESSMENT
POLLUTION/WASTE LOAD ESTIMATION
WHO (1981) REPORT ON COMPILATION OF EMISSION INVENTORY
EMISSION FACTORS FOR AIR, WATER AND SOLID WASTE
EMISSION RATE(AMOUNT/TIME) = EMISSION FACTOR x USAGE RATE
=
AMOUNT / USAGE (EF) x USAGE/TIME
KG/DAY = KG/TON OF FUEL BURNT x TON OF FUEL BURNT/DAY

MODELLING
QUANTITATIVE PREDICTION OF CAUSE EFFECT RELN FOR PARAMETERS
SIMULATION OF THE TRANSPORT AND FATE OF POLLUTANTS IN THE MEDIUM
SOFTWARE FOR AIR/WATER QUALITY ETC.

INPUT WASTE EMISSION OUTPUT

MODEL CONC. QUALITY

MEDIUM CHARAC.

FEEDBACK CONTROL LOOP

ENVTL. EVALUATION SYSTEM (BEES)
SCALING WEIGHTING CHECKLIST OF EP (78)
PARAMETER IMPORTANCE UNIT (PIU) BY PAIRWISE COMPARISON
1 0.5 0.1
EG A B C 1 / 0.5 / 0.1 :: / /
1.6 1.6 1.6
630 / 310/ 60 = 1000 PIUS
TRANSFORM EP IN COMMENSURATE UNITS BY VALUE FN. OR RATING CURVES
TOTAL EIU = PIUi (EQ+i EQ-i)
RECENT METHODS : EXPERT SYSTEM, AHP

1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 EQ 0.6 EQ 0.6

EQ 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0 0 0

EP CO CONC. SPECIES DIVERSITY

THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF A THERMAL
POWER PLANT
S. PARAMETER EQI PERCENTAGE ENVIRONMENT
NO. WEIGHTAGE AL IMPACT UNIT
(EIU)
WITH WITHOUT (PIU)
PROJECT PROJECT

1 TSP 0.197 0.231 24 -0.816

2 SO2 0.960 0.950 21 +0.210

3 NO2 0.926 0.931 22 -0.110

4 VISIBLE 0.300 0.342 08 -0.336

5 EPISODE 0.250 0.250 13 0

POTENTIAL

6 NOISE QUALITY 0.246 0.261 12 -0.180

TOTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SCORE -1.232

% CHANGE IS 32%
 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS (CBA)

ALL DECISIONS BASED ON A COMMON FACTOR : MONEY

TOTAL ENVTL COST DAMAGE COST + CONTROL COST

CBA : TRADE OFF BETWEEN TWO

DAMAGE
COST

TOTAL COST

COST
OPTIMAL CONTROL

CONTROL COST

LOW POLLUTION HEAVY POLLUTION

DAMAGE COST SAVED (D)

BENEFIT COST RATIO : -------------------------------------
CONTROL COST EXPENDED ( C )
CONTROL COST : EQUIPMENT COST, RELOCATION, SHUT
DOWN, MONITORING COSTS, R AND D

DAMAGE COST : HEALTH LOSS, MATERIAL

DAMAGE, PROPERTY VALUE
REDUCED

TANGIBLE/INTANGIBLE

QUANTIFICATION ? : (I) MARKET BASED

APPROACH
(ii) LOSS OF EARNINGS
APPROACH
WLD WORK LOSS DAYS
RAD RESTRICTED
ACTIVITY DAYS
 CASE STUDY

EIA OF A PROPOSED EXPANSION OF A

THERMAL POWER PLANT (AIR)
CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS
FOR THERMAL POWER PLANTS
ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS IMPACTS
PHYSICAL AIR QUALITY HUMAN HEALTH, RESPIRATORY
RESOURCES [SPM (FLYASH) DISEASES
GASES (SO2, DAMAGE TO VEGETATION,
NOx)] MATERIALS

SURFACE WATER THERMAL POLLUTION

QUALITY TOXIC CHEMICALS

GROUND WATER * PERCOLATION OF TRACE METALS

QUALITY FROM ASH DUMPS AND PONDS

LAND (SOIL) * PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

QUALITY EFFECT ON PLANT LIFE DUE TO ASH
DUMPING
LAND DEVALUATION
CHANGE IN LAND USE
 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
PARAMETERS

ECOLOGICAL VEGETATION REDUCED PRODUCTIVITY &

RESOURCES GROWTH
CHRONIC PLANT INJURY DUE TO
UPTAKE OF HEAVY METALS
AQUATIC LIFE THERMAL SHOCK
BIOTOXICITY DUE TO CHEMICALS,
HEAVY METALS FROM ASH DUMPS

TERRESTRIAL HABITAT LOSS

WILD LIFE REDUCTION IN SPECIES DIVERSITY
ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS IMPACTS

QUALITY OF LIFE SOCIO * POPULATION DISPLACEMENT

VALUES ECONOMIC * CHANGE IN STRUCTURE

AESTHETICS * VISUAL IMPACTS

* MODIFICATION OF STRUCUTRE

PUBLIC DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

HEALTH

HUMAN USE PUBLIC * INCREASE IN DEMAND

VALUES UTILITY
SERVICES

EMPLOYMENT MULTIPLIER EFFECT

 CASE STUDY
EIA OF A PROPOSED EXPANSION OF A THERMAL POWER
PLANT : AIR

STEPS :
i) IDENTIFICATION : * SUITABLE ENVTL. PARAMETERS (EP)
* DATA BASE (PROJECT/REGION)
* EMISSION / MET/AQ SCENARIOS
II) PREDICTION : * ESTIMATES OF CHANGE IN PARAMETERS (PE)
* MODELLING
III) EVALUATION * INTEGRATION OF PE IN COMMENSURATE UNITS
ENVTL. QUALITY INDEX (EQI)
* IMPORTANCE/SIGNIFICANCE OF PE (PIU)
* ESTIMATION OF A TOTAL IMPACT SCOPE
* COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

ENVTL PARAMETERS

AIR QUALITY : SO2, NOx, TSP

CLIMATOLOGY : EPISODE POTENTIAL (u, MH, RAIN)
AESTHETICS : VISIBILITY
OTHERS : NOISE POLLUTION
 EMISSION SCENARIOS
THREE TYPES BASED ON OPERATION SCHEDULE
SC.I = UNITS 1 TO 4 (337.5 MW)
SC.II = UNITS 1 TO 5 (835.5 MW)
SC.III = UNITS 4 TO 6 (1250 MW)
FUEL USED
SCENARIO LSHS GAS COAL
IN TONNES/DAY
I 790 600 60
II 1025 1400 735
III 1268 1268 185
UNIT 5 AND 6 HAVE ESP WITH 99.5 EFF.
UNIT 6 HAS FGD WITH 90% EFF. SO2 REMOVAL
COAL HAS 1% S CONTENT AND 28%ASH
LSHS HAS 0.2% S CONTENT
 EMISSION FACTORS OF FUELS IN
KG/TONNES
TSP SO2 NOx
COAL 5A 15 S 2.5
LSHS 0.36 20 S 2.6
GAS 0.06 20 S 2.9

EMISSION RATES OF DIFF. POLLUTANTS

(SC.III)
SPM = 2.35 TONNES/DAY
SO2 = 14.76 TONNES/DAY
NOx = 16.68 TONNES/DAY
METEOROLOGICAL DATA : WIND ROSES T, RH, RAINFALL ETC.
A) MIXING HEIGHT (L) MODEL :

T1 Z 2 Z1T2 Z Z2
C and m 1
T1 T2 T1 T2

SO,
T max C / m
L
1 1

m A

A = ADIABATIC LAPSE RATE

GOOD AGREEMENT WITH HOLZWORTHS GRAPHICAL METHOD
B) VENTILATION INDEX = L x
C) EPISEODE DAYS : u 4m/sec.
L < 500 m
NO RAIN FOR 2 DAYS
11% OF THE TIME EPISODE WAS OCCURING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF A THERMAL
POWER PLANT
S. PARAMETER EQI PERCENTAGE ENVIRONMENT
NO. WEIGHTAGE AL IMPACT UNIT
(EIU)
WITH WITHOUT (PIU)
PROJECT PROJECT

1 TSP 0.197 0.231 24 -0.816

2 SO2 0.960 0.950 21 +0.210

3 NO2 0.926 0.931 22 -0.110

4 VISIBLE 0.300 0.342 08 -0.336

5 EPISODE 0.250 0.250 13 0

POTENTIAL

6 NOISE QUALITY 0.246 0.261 12 -0.180

TOTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SCORE -1.232

% CHANGE IS 32%
 Region

Air Dispersion Model GIS

Land
Air Quality use
Overlays
Population
Exposure Dose
response
Management Control
Health Damage Model
Scenarios Costs
Cost
Economic
Model
Cost Benefit Analysis

Decision
Damage Cost Saved
CBA
Control Cost Expended
Fig. GIS Based Air Quality Management
 DAMAGE COST ESTIMATION
1. GRIDDING OF THE STUDY REGION
20 KM x 20 KM 100 SQUARES OF 2 KM x 2 KM SIZE
2. DEVELOPED DOSE RESPONSE COEFFICIENTS
TDR = f(POP DEN, SLUM POP, HOSPITALS, AQ)
COLD = f(AQ)
TDR = 0.994 5.7 x 10-6 x POP.DEN. + 0.016 x SLUM POP. + 0.01 x HOSP.
+ 0.00071 X NOx
COLD = 8.74 + 0.180 x NOx

DOSE RESPONSE EQUATIONS FOR NOx ARE SHOWN BELOW

(MORTALITY) = 0.00071 * (NOx)
(COLD) = 0.18 * (NOx)
(DYSPNEA) = 0.114 * (NOx)
(ABSENTEEISM) = 0.16 * (NOx)
(BRONCHITIS) = 0.01 * (NOx)
 <1
1-3
3-5
5-8
8-10
10-13
13-16.5

Cost in lakhs per annum

 EIS CONTENTS
1. SUMMARY
2. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED FACILITY
3. THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
3.1 LOCATION AND LAYOUT
3.2 LAND USE PATTERNS
3.3 WATER USE
3.4 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
3.5 SOILS PROFILE
3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.7 METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY
3.8 ECOLOGY
3.9 NOISE LEVEL
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON
* PHYSICAL RESOURCES
* ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES
* QUALITY OF LIFE VALUES
* HUMAN USE VALUES
5. EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS
6. UNAVOIDABLE PROBABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
7. MITIGATION MEASURES
8. ALTERNATIVES
9. MONITORING PLAN AND EMP
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
11. NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY
 Advantages of Public
Participation in EIA
Provide data and information that is essential
for the assessment of impacts on the physical
and social environment Reduce conflicts
through the early identification of contentious
issues Help to identify local citizens and
groups with special expertise Identify local
and regional issues Provide historical
perspective to current environmental
conditions Help to generate field data
 Provide criteria for evaluating the
significance of identified impacts Suggest
forms and help organizing mechanisms for
public participation Help to define the
scope of work and schedule for the overall
assessment process Provide a link
between the assessment team members
and key organizations Identify and
evaluate potential mitigation measures
Increase public confidence in the EIA
process.
 Disadvantages of Public
Participation in EIA
Public participation can be time-consuming and
sometimes expensive.

To do it effectively, organizations have to build

capacity and train staff.

If done poorly, public participation processes can

result in, for example, loss of faith in the agency.
 A negative experience of the process may
lead participants to have negative
perceptions of the outcome, and they may
be less likely to participate in future
processes.
 EIA : FRIEND OR FOE?
EIA

BENEFITS PROBLEMS

* INTANGIBLE * SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT * EXCESSIVE DEMAND OF RESOURCES

* RESOURCE CONSERVATION * COSTLY DELAYS
* ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION * SUBJECTIVITY AND AMBIGUITY
* ENVIRONMENTALAWARENESS * ONLY CLEARANCE TOOL
* POLITICAL TOOL

* TANGIBLE * IDENTIFIES POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS * PROMOTES UNHEALTHY ISSUES

POLLUTION NEW RESOURCE * TOO MANY ROLE PLAYERS
* ENVTL. DATABASE
* GIVES TIMELY WARNING OF FINANCIAL/
REGULATORY/LITIGATION RISKS
* PROMOTES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
* PROMOTES RESEARCH ON TECHNICAL ISSUES
* ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT
 THE FIVE WS OF EIA
1) WHICH PROJECTS REQUIRE EIA?
COST EFFECTIVE
2) WHEN TO DO EIA?
BEFORE CRITICAL DECISIONS
3) WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN EIA?
DOCUMENTATION
4) WHY TO DO EIA?
END USE
5) WHO SHOULD DO EIA?
NO BIAS