Assignment 3

Subject:UEEP

A REPORT ON EIA

NAME:SUSHMITA SUSHMA
SEMESTER:VII
ROLL NO.:BARCH/15031/13
B.I.T ,PATNA
Background and history of EIA
Many of the more advanced planning systems around the world have considered
the issue of a development's impacts upon the environment in one form or
another. For instance, in 1947 in the United Kingdom (UK), the first Town and
Country Planning Act enabled the local planning authority to take environmental
factors into consideration in sanctioning development proposals. However, no
formal mechanism was enacted to provide for this and the manner in which this
was done was left open to the authorities.
In the United States of America (USA), as early as 1872, national parks were
established to preserve wildernesses and natural ecosystems. Increasingly, too,
the possible adverse effects of water resource and highway development were
realised and steps were taken to investigate their importance during the planning
stages of such proposals.
During the 1960s, the public increasingly became concerned that environmental
quality could not be adequately maintained by market-orientated industries or
single-issue regulating agencies who dealt with only one aspect of the
environment. Although regulations exist to examine specific aspects of
development, such as pollution control legislation, some mechanism was
required to ensure that all major development proposals were subjected to an
examination of their environmental consequences.
Traditionally, economic evaluation techniques have been employed to assess the
costs and benefits associated with a specific development project or proposal.
However, such techniques have rarely been able to consider environmental
impacts effectively. A 'price tag' is difficult to place on, for instance, long-term
environmental degradation. Over-reliance upon the outcome of what may be
flawed calculations means that economic techniques can become the decision-
maker, rather than an aid to decision-making. The need for a more flexible, non-
monetary means of representing environmental gains and losses was identified,
and in the USA in the late 1960s this led to the first introduction of
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
EIA – the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure
The environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a statutory procedure performed
in order to define the environmental impacts of a project. Another purpose of the
assessment is to promote the communication to and involvement of citizens,
even in the early stages of a project.
No project-related decisions are involved in the EIA as it is performed before any
decisions on the licences and permits have been made. The environmental
impact assessment report is mandatory when applying for a decision-in-principle
concerning, for instance, a new nuclear power plant, a repository for spent
nuclear fuel, or an extension to it.
Posiva Performed an Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure in the Late
1990s
During the period 1997 to 1999, Posiva performed an EIA procedure for the
disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Back then, the procedure covered a total of 9,000
uranium tons of spent nuclear fuel, which equals the total amount of spent fuel
from six nuclear power plants.

Updated Environmental Impact Assessment Report

In early 2008, Posiva carried out a revised assessment of the environmental
impacts of the final disposal, or, in other words, updated the 1990s EIA report.
Although the earlier EIA also covered the waste from the sixth nuclear power
plant, the coordinating authority required the contents of the report to be
brought up to date. The updated report was enclosed with an application for the
decision-in-principle concerning the final disposal of the spent nuclear fuel from
the Olkiluoto 4 plant unit.
The EIA Procedure for the Repository Extension
In 2008-2009, Posiva also carried out a new EIA procedure for a potential
extension of the repository with a capacity of 3,000 tons of uranium. This new
environmental impact assessment report was enclosed with an application for
the decision-in-principle concerning the final disposal of the spent nuclear fuel
from Fortum's Loviisa 3 plant unit.
What is EIA
The environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a statutory procedure
in which the environmental impacts of a project are determined. The
assessment is the responsibility of the party implementing the
project.
The EIA studies the impacts of the project on, for example, the
following issues
human health, living conditions and comfort
soil, water, air, climate, vegetation, organisms, their mutual
interaction, and biodiversity
community structure, buildings, landscape, townscape and cultural
heritage
utilisation of natural resources.
Purpose of the EIA Procedure
The purpose of the procedure is to
promote the communication to and involvement of citizens, even in
the early stages of the project
highlight the environmental impacts that should be taken into
consideration in the planning.
No project-related decisions are involved in the EIA, nor does it limit
the citizens’ opportunities to contribute to the project in other ways.
The EIA procedure is performed before any decisions on the licences
and permits are made, and another of its objectives is to offer
additional information for decision-making.

The environmental impact assessment report is mandatory when

applying for a decision-in-pronciple concerning, for instance, a new
nuclear power plant or a repository for spent nuclear fuel. When
applying for a decision-in-pronciple concerning a new nuclear power
plant, another decision-in-pronciple must be applied for in
connection with the disposal of spent fuel from the new plant.
. Environmental Appraisal Committees
With a view to ensure multi-disciplinary input required for
environmental appraisal of development projects, Expert Committees
have been constituted for the following sectors:
Mining Projects
Industrial Projects
Thermal Power Projects
River Valley, Multipurpose, Irrigation and H.E. Projects
Infrastructure Development and Miscellaneous Projects
Nuclear Power Projects
Environmental Appraisal Procedure
Once an application has been submitted by a project authority
alongwith all the requisite documents specified in the EIA
Notification, it is scrutinised by the technical staff of the Ministry
prior to placing it before the Environmental Appraisal Committees.
The Appraisal Committees evaluate the impact of the project based
on the data furnished by the project authorities and if necessary, site
visits or on-the-spot assessment of various environmental aspects are
also undertaken. Based on such examination, the Committees make
recommendations for approval or rejection of the project, which are
then processed in the Ministry for approval or rejection.
In case of site specific projects such as Mining, River Valley, Ports and
Harbours etc., a two stage clearance procedure has been adopted
whereby the project authorities have to obtain site clearance before
applying for environmental clearance of their projects. This is to
ensure avoiding areas which are ecologically fragile and
environmentally sensitive. In case of projects where complete information
has been submitted by the project proponents, a decision is taken within
90 days.
Monitoring
After considering all the facets of a project, environmental clearance is
accorded subject to implementation of the stipulated environmental
safeguards. Monitoring of cleared projects is undertaken by the six regional
offices of the Ministry functioning at Shillong, Bhubaneshwar, Chandigarh,
Bangalore, Lucknow and Bhopal. The primary objective of such a procedure
is to ensure adequacy of the suggested safeguards and also to undertake
mid-course corrections required, if any. The procedure adopted for
monitoring is as follows:
Project authorities are required to report every six months on the progress
of implementation of the conditions/safeguards stipulated, while according
clearance to the project.
Field visits of officers and expert teams from the Ministry and/ or its
Regional Offices are undertaken to collect and analyse performance data of
development projects, so that difficulties encountered are discussed with
the proponents with a view to finding solutions.
In case of substantial deviations and poor or no response, the matter is
taken up with the concerned State Government.
Changes in scope of project are identified to check whether review of
earlier decision is called for or not.
Coastal Area Management
Coastal States/UTs are required to prepare Coastal Zone Management
Plans (CZMPs) as per the provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)
Notification 1991, identifying and categorising the coastal areas for
different activities and submit it to the Ministry for approval.
The Ministry has constituted a Task Force for examination of these plans
submitted by Maharashtra and Gujarat States have been discussed in the
meetings of the Task Force and these need to be modified. The
Government of Orissa has submitted a partial plan covering only a part of
their coastal area. In respect of West Bengal, a preliminary concept
document of the CZMP has been submitted. Revised CZMP/clarifications
have been received from the State of Goa and UTs of Daman & Diu,
Lakshadweep and Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
During the year, the Task Force had seven meetings and two site visits for
consideration of the plans. Once the plans of the different States/UTs are
finalised, the development activities in the coastal belt would be more
forcefully regulated to ensure non-violation of CRZ Notification.
Island Development Authority (IDA)
The 9th meeting of IDA was held on 22.1.96 under the Chairmanship of the
Prime Minister to decide on various policies and programmes aimed at
integrated development of the islands, keeping in view the relevent aspects
of environmental protection, and also to review the progress of
implementation and impact of the programmes of development.
Studies on Carrying Capacity
Natural resources are finite and are dwindling at a fast pace. Optimization
of natural resources for achieving the objective of sustainable development
is therefore, self evidents, this can be done only when environmental
considerations are internalized in the development process. It has often
been observed that one or more natural resource(s) becomes a limiting
resource in a given region thereby restricting the scope of development
portfolios. The Ministry of Environment & Forests has been sponsoring
Carrying Capacity Studies for different regions. The studies involve:

Inventorisation of the natural resources available;

Preparation of the existing environmental settings;
Perspective plans and their impact on natural resources through creation of
"Business As Usual Scenario";
Identification of "Hot Spots" requiring immediate remedial action to
overcome air, water or land pollution;
Formulation of alternative development scenarios including a Preferred
Scenarios. A comparison between "Business As Usual" and the "Preferred
Scenario" would indicate the future course of action to be adopted for
development of the region after the package has been discussed with the
local people as well as the planners.
A few problem areas such as the Doon Valley - an ecologically sensitive
area, the National Capital Region (NCR) which is suffering from air and
water pollution as well as congestion, Damodar River Basin which is very
rich in natural resources and yet has extensive environmental degradation
and Tapi estuary which represents the problems in the coastal region both
for water and land development, have been selected for carrying out such
studies.A multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional approach has been
adopted for conducting these studies. Draft reports are ready for Doon
Valley and the NCR and are being discussed with the NGOs and the local
people for finalising the same. Work relating to Damodar Basin and Tapi
Estuary is continuing with respect to secondary data collection and
analysis so as to identify the requirements of primary data collection and
modification in the development scenarios.
EIA Report
The EIA report was completed in May 1999 and contained an assessment
of the feasibility of the different final disposal options as well as the plans
on how to monitor the project and how to prevent any adverse impacts of
the project.

The Ministry of Trade and Industry put the EIA report of the final disposal
project on public display and requested statements on the report from
several municipalities
Eurajoki
Loviisa
Kuhmo
Äänekoski
as well as their neighbouring municipalities
the environmental authorities
other involved parties.
The EIA procedure was completed when the Ministry of Trade and
Industry provided its statement on the EIA report. In this statement, the
Ministry declared the EIA report to be sufficiently extensive and detailed
and deemed it fulfilled the requirements of the EIA Act and the EIA
Decree.
The EIA Procedure for the Repository Extension
In early 2008, Posiva initiated EIA procedure for a potential extension of
the repository with a capacity of 3,000 tons of uranium. This new
environmental impact assessment report was enclosed with an application
for the decision-in-principle concerning the final disposal of the spent
nuclear fuel from Fortum's Loviisa 3 plant unit.
The EIA procedure was initiated with the drafting of an environmental
impact assessment programme (EIA programme). The EIA programme is a
written plan indicating what kind of environmental impacts will be
accounted for, how the EIA procedure will be organised and what kind of
studies are necessary.
Posiva submitted the EIA programme to the coordinating authority at the
Ministry of Employment and the Economy on 13 May 2008. The Ministry
requested statements from the municipalities within the project's impact
area, as well as from several authorities. Citizens and various corporations
also had a chance to express their opinions about the programme. On the
basis of these statements and opinions, the Ministry of Employment and
the Economy finally issued its own statement on the EIA programme.
An environmental impact assessment report (an EIA report)
was then drafted on the basis of the EIA programme and the
associated statements. The EIA report was submitted to the
Ministry of Employment and the Economy on 31 October
2008.
The Ministry of Employment and the Economy announced the
project in public and started the period for public hearing on
10 November 2008. During the public hearing period citizens
and organisations could give comments on the report. A public
cathering was also organised on 20 November 2008 and public
hearing ended on 12 January 2009. The Ministry of
Employment and the Economy gave its own statement at
March 2009 and Posiva gave the asked further clarifications at
April 2009.
Stages of the EIA procedure
There are two stages in the EIA procedure: the EIA programme
is first completed and the environmental impact assessment
report is drawn up on the basis of the programme.
The EIA procedure sets out with the compilation of an
environmental impact assessment programme (EIA
programme). The EIA programme is a written plan indicating
the types of environmental impacts that will be investigated
and how the EIA procedure will be organised.
The programme is submitted to the Ministry of Employment
and the Economy, which will request statements on it from
the municipalities affected by the project
different authorities
Finnish citizens
corporations.
The Ministry of the Environment presents the project to the
authorities of the Baltic coastal states and Finland’s
neighbouring states. The authorities will then organise the
hearing of their own citizens and issue statements. According
to law, the duration of this hearing period shall be 30-60 days.
Based on the issued statements and opinions, the Ministry of
Employment and the Economy will issue its own statement on
the EIA programme.
An environmental impact assessment report will then be
issued, based on the EIA programme and the statements
issued on it. The assessment report is delivered to the Ministry
of Employment and the Economy, which will collect the
opinions of different parties and statements of other
authorities during the hearing period and issue its own
statement.
After the Ministry’s statement, a decision-in-pronciple can be
applied for in the project whose environmental impacts were
assessed. The environmental impact assessment report forms
an enclosure to the application for a decision-in-pronciple.
YVA-menettelyn vaiheet EN web
The main steps in the EIA process are:
• screening
• scoping
• prediction and mitigation
• management and monitoring
• audit

Objectives of EIA
ensuring environmental factors are considered in the decision-
making process
ensuring that possible adverse environmental impacts are
identified and avoided or minimised
informing the public about the proposal
Other Advantages of EIA:
facilitates the design of a monitoring programme
allows people to examine the underlying need for a project
gives people the opportunity to identify problems
helps a developer to design a more publicly acceptable project
exploration of alternatives can help identify cost-saving and
other beneficial changes
According to a United Nations Environment Program Training
Resource Manual the main advantages and benefits of EIA are:
improved project design/siting;
more informed decision-making;
more environmentally sensitive decisions;
increased accountability and transparency during the
development process;
improved integration of projects into their environmental and
social setting;
reduced environmental damage;
more effective projects in terms of meeting their financial
and/or socio-economic objectives; and
a positive contribution toward achieving sustainability.
EXAMPLE 1: OFFSHORE DRILLING FOR OIL IN THE
BEAUFORT SEA: A PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT (Milne and Smiley, 1976)
This preliminary EIA (written in early 1976) concerns a
proposal for extensive drilling operations in the Beaufort Sea.
The conclusion is as follows.
The action is expected to have substantial environmental and
sociological impacts whether or not any major polluting
incident occurs. The situation will have to be examined and
dealt with by appropriate authorities as it evolves. However,
the drilling of two holes planned for the summer of 1976,
which is the subject of immediate urgent concern, will not
produce a sufficiently large increase of activity in the Beaufort
Sea that a major impact will result unless an oil blowout
should occur. Therefore attention is focused on that
possibility.
Probability of a Blowout in the Summer of 1976
It is very difficult to ascertain the probability of a blowout,
since the number of offshore blowouts worldwide which
produced substantial oil pollution has been too small to
produce a satisfactory statistical base, and the particular
conditions in the Beaufort Sea are unusual. Nevertheless, on
the basis of information given by industry and government
representatives, the probability of an oil or oil and gas well
blowout is judged to be in the range of 10-3 to 10-4 for each
well drilled.
Environmental Threat from a Blowout at Proposed 1976
Drilling Sites
It is unlikely that oil discharged into the Beaufort Sea from a
single oil well blowout running for several years would have
any effect whatever on global or even local climate. Both of
the drilling sites are in the 'transition zone', where winter ice is
subject to movement of the order of kilometres per day, and
where leads open, freeze over, and close throughout the
winter in a manner which is not predictable in detail.
-Site #1 is positioned in the transition zone where a blowout is comparatively
most damaging to plant and animal life because of the likelihood of winter and
spring pollution of the active leads north of the mainland fast ice.
-Site #2 is located in the transition zone where a blowout is marginally less
damaging to over wintering wildlife since much of the winter oil discharge will
be dispersed under the ice, at least until spring.
For comparison, a scenario was developed for a hypothetical Site #3 to reveal
the effects of a blowout if a well was drilled nearer shore where the ice is
landfast in the winter. This scenario showed that a blowout is comparatively
least damaging to overwintering marine mammals and spring migrants,
assuming that burning at the blowout site is effective in the spring.
Drilling a Relief Well in 1977
The environmental threat ratings assume that the imaginary oil and gas
blowout is controlled by drilling a relief well before October, 1977. This may
not be possible, since the 1977 ice year may be heavy and the subsequent
open water season may be short. It is not possible usefully to predict the
likelihood of light or heavy ice years. A blowout site can be continually ice-
covered or ice-infested. This is more probable at Site #2 than Site #1, and less
likely at the landfast Site #3.
Considerations Affecting the Escape of Oil into the Environment
Available technology is severely limited in its capability of mitigating the threat
to the environment arising from the loss of control of an offshore oil well,
particularly in the Beaufort Sea transition zone. Unless a blowout were self-
sealing, damage from released oil could only be prevented in one of three
ways:
The flow could be stopped by the drilling of a suitable relief well.
The oil could be contained at or near the bottom.
The oil could be contained or disposed of after it has reached the surface
At present no technology exists for drilling a relief well in the Beaufort Sea
transition zone except during the brief summer open-water period. In some
years no suitable open-water period occurs.
There exists no technology for containing the oil near the bottom which is
suitable for controlling escaping oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea transition zone.
Containment and disposal of oil at the surface is possible under certain limited
circumstances. However, existing technology is known to fail in modest sea
and wind states such as occur for 55 to 60% of the time during the summer in
the Beaufort Sea. According to scenarios developed in the Beaufort Sea
Project, existing technology is unlikely to be successful in disposing of a large
fraction of the oil which escapes during the winter period of moving ice. The
environmental prediction system which wi1l be in place in the Beaufort Sea
during 1976 and 1977 will not be sufficiently complete to permit prediction of
the movement of escaped oil as accurately as is allowed by the state of the art.
Thus the deployment of devices such as booms for the protection of especially
vulnerable areas will be less efficient than is technologically possible.
Oil Spill Counter-Measures in 1977
The proponent has endeavoured to assemble equipment and develop
methods to mitigate damage of oil pollution from a blowout. However, the
harsh arctic conditions place severe constraints on the effectiveness of clean
up activities in 1976. New technologies adapted to arctic marine waters are in
embryonic stages of development. As a consequence of an imaginary blowout
on 5 October, 1976, and assuming a 'standard blowout' (based on information
received from the industry) in which the initial flow is 2,500 barrels* per day,
reducing in a month to 1,500 barrels a day and then continuing at that rate
until the well is brought under control, it is concluded that:
-Most of the oil discharged from October, 1976 to early July, 1977 will escape
containment and disposal at both sites. Approximately 25,000 m3 of oil will be
mixed with the ice and water of the transition zone. Spring burning will have
only very limited success. Spring burning of the oil might on the other hand be
very effective for a blowout occurring in the landfast ice region. -Fifty-five to
sixty per cent of the 21,000 m3 of oil discharged from July, 1977 to October,
1977 (the assumed month of well control) would be likely to escape
containment
and disposal at either site. Of the total amount blown by winds towards the coastlines, inshore oilspill
counter-measures are unlikely to eliminate more than 5%. On the other hand, where protection of
specific bays and lagoons is sought, counter-measures would be effective for at least 45% of the
summer .
-Oil spill counter-measures proposed for 1977 are not likely to decrease significantly the estimates of
environmental impact of an oil and gas blowout occurring at either site.
* 1 barrel = 0.159 m3
Threats of a Blowout to the Arctic Marine Food Chain
An autumn oil well blowout at either site, but more so from Site #1, just north of the landfast ice
zone, could pollute active leads and open water in the ice of the transition zone through the winter
and spring. Assuming the blowout is controlled within one year, the oiling of these active leads, vital
to the survival of marine mammals and birds, will be short-lived. By the winter of 1977- 78 the oil will
have been dispersed northward into the Beaufort Sea Gyre and southward to the inshore waters and
coastlines.
-It is predicted that primary production will be inhibited where oil collects in the ice of the transition
zone so that a localized depletion of fish stocks, invertebrates, and sub-ice algae will occur. This
depletion would have significance if it occurred in the main E-W leads used for migration and in zones
of active shearing used by resident seal populations. Seals, whales, some marine fishes, and birds
depend on the spring influx of food to recover from a winter's fast, a migration, or an annual moult.
-The mortality of overwintering ringed and bearded seals concentrated in the ice of the transition
zone cannot be predicted; however, it is certain that a large fraction of the sub-adult and adolescent
seal populations, perhaps 30% or more, in the southeastern Beaufort Sea will encounter oil. Adults
seals in good condition are not particularly sensitive to oil. However, it is possible that for seals under
natural stress, short exposures to floating oil could be deadly. Natural stresses occurred in the winter
of 1974-75 which were attributed to the heavy ice year, little open water, and insufficient snow cover.
Bearded seals, up to 50% of the population, could contact oil because of the winter and spring
concentration of the entire population in active leads. In contrast, breeding ringed seals would remain
relatively isolated from, and therefore be unaffected by, oil discharged during the winter because the
landfast ice in which their birth lairs occur is a natural barrier to offshore oil. The significance of a
reduction in the seal population caused by oil-related stresses will be reflected in subsequent
decreases in the numbers of polar bears and white foxes caused by emigration to marginal habitats
elsewhere and low offspring survival. These populations can recover, in time, if the key leads and
polynyi used for feeding and breeding are not chronically polluted.
-The predicted contamination of offshore leads for at least one spring season and the more chronic,
long-lived pollution of the coastal bays and shorelines will have the greatest impact on the bird life of
the southeastern Beaufort Sea. Hundreds of thousands of eiders, oldsquaws, and other diving birds
could be killed during the spring migration along the mainland coast. Large natural bird kills have
occurred during offshore migrations in heavy ice years; in the case of oil-related kills, however,
recovery of these bird populations would be further inhibited by the pollution of critical nesting,
moulting, and staging sites.
-Coastal fishes comprise other wildlife populations sensitive to oil pollution. Large numbers of cisco,
inconnu, whitefish, smelt, cod, and herring concentrate in the low-salinity coastal bays and inshore
waters. Especially in the fall and winter of the year, these marine and freshwater fish will likely
encounter oil. The recovery from an initial fish kill is predicted to be slow, perhaps a decade, a result
of the persistent toxicity of oil in lagoon and embayment sediments. There could be a depletion of
benthic food, and mortality of the breeding fish stock as well as sub-adults. Slow growth rates, and,
frequently, unsuccessful year classes, could further aggravate recovery. The significance in the food
chain of coastal and inshore fish is unknown; some diving birds, seals, and possibly beluga whales prey
on these fishes in shallow waters.
It is evident that the effects of an oil blowout could be severe on some portions of the ecology and on
some populations, particularly sea birds. However, none of these effects is likely to be permanent,
although recovery might take as long as a decade in some cases. Except for birds, the economic value
of marine wildlife resources threatened is of the order of tens of thousands of dollars per annum,
which is very small compared with the magnitude of the investment in the oil industry .Various
estimates have been made of the economic values of migratory birds as a renewable continental
resource -in the order of millions of dollars per annum. Economic valuations of birds are exceedingly
difficult to make on a sound basis, but the birds are visible throughout the continental flyways and are
a substantial recreational resource having a high social and indirectly a high economic value. Even so,
the importance of these consequences will have to be judged on largely sociological and
environmental grounds, not economic ones.