Environmental Assessment And The Circular Economy

Introduction

The United States of America Federal Agencies prepared a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement to help in evaluating the effect which large projects cause on the environment. In addition to the assessment having no specified information, it also said little concerning the scope or quality of the appraisal (Wadelin, 2019). The lack of a qualitative technique of evaluation led in the development of Environmental Assessment where a methodology of assessing environmental impacts from pollutants from industrial operations in specific sites was developed with the scope of the assessment being focused to the process’ boundary. This essay will compare the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies developed for environmental evaluation. It also assesses the factors that are considered when selecting appropriate methods for the assessment to avoid making mistakes during the processes of assessment (Wadelin, 2019).

H1 Methodology

The HI methodology was built purposely as a qualitative technique of assessment to help determine the Best Available Technique for the industrial processes (Wadelin, 2019). The design of the methodology was scientifically based, reliable, reproducible and accurate. It operates through comparing the pollutant concentrations which are emitted by industrial processes against the environmental standards and quality. It is a requirement that further evaluation is done on creation potential of the photochemical ozone and increased wastes leading to bad smell. The methodology is specifically appropriate for assessing the impact that pollutants have on the environment. The method cannot, however, cope with the implications of non-pollutants on the environment. The method also takes into consideration both long-term and short-term effects of industrial processes on the environment at a particular site.

The method can also determine the overall impact that these processes have on the environment. However, because the method is only used at sites where process boundary determines the level of the assessment or study, the assessment fails to consider downstream and upstream effects like transport, off-site generation of power and transportation unlike another methodology known as Life Cycle Assessment.

The Life Cycle Assessment Methodology

This methodology helps in undertaking an in-depth assessment of the environment particularly of the systems or process of manufacturing. This method provides the data needed to conduct a cradle-to-grave kind of evaluation by evaluating the performance of the environment from feedstock extraction to disposal or recycle stage back to the ground. This method provides energy usage, and pollutant releases Life Cycle Inventory which can then be examined using other developed assessment tools. The Life Cycle Assessment method generally includes four main components namely the definition of scope and goal, Life Cycle Inventory, Impact Assessment of the Life Cycle and Interpretation.

The way Life Cycle Inventory is developed allows for separate examinations of the various stages of the systems to be implemented such as transport, material extraction or iron production thus allowing the identification of the sites that will be hugely impacted. Besides energy, life cycle inventory can be applied to evaluate various aspects of the environment and particular routes of a process. The Life cycle assessment technique does not, however, stipulate specific aspects of the environment which should undergo an assessment or the methodologies or approaches which should be applied to conduct the assessment, and the assessor is left to choose which method to use unlike when using H1 (Wadelin, 2019).

The Environmental Burdens Methodology

This is a qualitative approach which acts as an indicator to the level that emissions can exert an effect on the environment. Like the H1 methodology, the environmental burdens approach is prescriptive as it specifies at least eight categories of environmental impacts for assessment. Each of these categories or aspects have their specific assessment criteria. The environmental burdens approach uses adapted or known methods of evaluating selected categories which are relatively quick and straightforward to use. The environmental burdens approach was built as an alternative to the H1 approach. However, its scope and goal are limited to assessing the impact that pollutant releases have on the environment especially permitted processes at particular sites. Therefore, the scope and goals of both the environmental approaches and the H1 methodology are identical (Wadelin, 2019).

The environmental burden methodology, however, ignores waste discharges done on land. Furthermore, there have been issues around the few numbers of substances which are considered in ecotoxicology and human health categories. The environmental burdens approach determines the processes’ long-term and global environmental aspects. However, it ignores short-term and local effects which can cause a rise in severe pollution incidents as well as public complaints. It thereby does qualify as an alternative approach to H1 methodology. However, the environmental burdens method is simple, quick, easily understood, auditable and transparent.

The EEs Methodology

This method was formulated to establish the actual costs of power generation in the United States thereby allowing their government to create policies of energy generation which penalize dirtier producers and credit cleaner electricity producers (Wadelin, 2019). The method has an advantage of valuing environmental damage, prevention and rectification of damage. The method also allows valuing environmental impacts of non-polluting processes like the loss of human life and amenity. This method remains relevant for assessing such effects as quantifying them is complicated making them difficult to be assessed using the other procedures. The critical weakness of this approach is that while there has been an extensive costing of pollutants emerging from processes of combustion, there is no sufficient information on other emissions which qualify as pollutants (Wadelin, 2019).

Considerations to ensure Environmental Assessments are carried out on a Comparable Basis

Besides the credibility issues that are determined by ISO standards, there are other factors to be taken into consideration when choosing the right approach. For instance, the problems of recycling outside and within the boundary of the site being studied. This issue of recycling still causes difficulties as do fuel generation which is burnt externally or internally. The biggest challenge is as a result of the production of by-products and other products as well as the method of allocating the use of feedstock, pollutant discharges and energy use (Wadelin, 2019).

Conclusion

It is established that the environmental burdens approach is appropriate for corporate reporting on the environmental impacts of emissions. Further, the EEs approach is suitable for activities such as external and internal processes’ costing and help determine the total cost from the releases to the environment. The EEs is also essential in situations that non-environmental effects need to be evaluated. The H1 methodology, on the other hand, provides information needs for assessing permit application. Life cycle assessment, on the other hand, considers the effect that a product has on the environment. The life cycle approach also can lead to eco-labeling or green-taxation where the environmental performance of an item is determined.

References

• Wadelin, G., 2019. Lecture 3: Environmental Assessment and the Circular Economy.