°ÀÇÀÚ·á5-lca as eia tool

8/13/2019 5-LCA as EIA tool

1/22

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

20 (2000) 435456www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Feature article

Life cycle assessment as a tool inenvironmental impact assessment

Arnold Tukker*TNO Institute of Strategy, Technology and Policy, P.O. Box 6030, 2600 JA

Delft, The Netherlands

Received 1 May 1999; revised 6 December 1999; accepted 9 December 1999

Abstract

Various authors have stated that Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) dif-fers fundamentally from product Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This paper showsthe contrary. LCA is a specific elaboration of a generic environmental evaluationframework. EIA is a procedure rather than a tool, in which LCA certainly may beuseful. Particularly in strategic and project EIAs, environmental comparisons ofprocess and abatement alternatives may be relevant. Although these alternativesmay lead to different emissions and effects at the location of the process itself(which is usually the focus in project EIAs), they can also influence the demandfor activities upstream and downstream in the production chain. Including suchsecondary effects in an EIA, which may be crucial for a proper comparison ofalternatives, requires asystem approachthat takes into account all relevant effects.This is, in fact, LCA. A review of five case studies shows that it is quite feasibleto use elements of LCA in EIA. ! 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Environmental impact assessment (EIA); Life cycle assessment (LCA)

1. Introduction

Various authors have argued that there is an essential difference betweenthe environmental evaluation in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)and the environmental evaluation in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA; see,e.g., [39,40]). EIA is often regarded as a synonym for a local, point-sourceoriented evaluation of environmental impacts, which takes into accounttime-related aspects, the specific local geographic situation, and the existingbackground pressure on the environment. This approach is often regarded

*Corresponding author. Tel.: 31 15 269 5450; fax: 31 15 269 54 60.E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Tukker)

0195-9255/00/$ see front matter !2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.PII: S019 5-9255( 99)000 45-1


2/22

436 A. Tukker / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 435456

as contradictory to the one adopted in LCA, with its emphasis on a time-and location-independent assessment of potential impacts in relation to an

entire production system. This view of their apparent incompatibility isprobably reinforced by the fact that EIA and LCA were developed andare used by two rather different communities of scientists and practitioners,and are often used in different (legal) contexts.

The aim of this article is to show that the differences between EIA andLCA are not as great as they seem. LCA is an analytical tool specificallydesigned to assess the environmental impacts relating to the whole produc-tion chain of a good, whereas EIA is a procedure that has to supportdecision making with regard to environmental aspects of a much broader

range of activities. Examples include decisions about plans (e.g., wastemanagement plans), process installations, and location choices.1 I will showthat the underlying approach to environmental evaluation in both EIA andLCA is based on the same principles. In principle, the same system definitionand yardsticks (impact categories) that are used in LCA can be adoptedin EIA.

Because my practical experience with Dutch EIA projects formed animportant source of inspiration for this paper, it is written from a predomi-nantly Dutch perspective. In many countries the EIA process simply has

to give insights into the environmental effects of a particular initiative.Dutch EIA regulations, however, place a great emphasis on comparingthe proposed initiative with alternatives: a realistic, most environmentallyfriendly alternative and a business-as-usual scenario (i.e., when the pro-posed alternative does not take place). The Dutch habit of comparingalternatives will, therefore, play a relatively large role in this paper. How-ever, I feel that the analysis and conclusions have a more generic value.

The paper has the following structure. I will start in section 2 with ageneral review of the relevant aspects of environmental evaluations, and

indicate how they relate to the goal and structure of EIA and LCA. Section3 discusses a hierarchical level of alternatives in EIA, and shows how thetype of impact assessment depends on the level of alternative. I will giveexamples of the use of LCA characterisation in EIA, and end with conclu-sions about the relationship between EIA and LCA [35].

2. Environmental evaluations

2.1. General

2.1.1. Introduction

An evaluation of the environmental impacts of human activities for thepurpose of comparing alternatives generally involves the three followingsteps (see Table 1, adapted from [15]; see, also, [34]).

1 EIAs of typical spatial planning questions, such as town planning and highway trajectorychoices, fall outside the scope of this paper.


3/22

A. Tukker / Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20 (2000) 435456 437

Table 1Main steps in the evaluation of environmental impacts of human activities

Step a: Definition of evaluation criteria1. identification of areas of protection, and the relevant categories of environmental

impact end points related to those protection areas;2. choice of impact category end points relevant to the comparison, and possible

midpoints or target points used as a proxy for the true end point;3. choice of criteria or approach to produce a score or a ranking for the impact category.a

Step b: System definition and inventory4. choice of the system boundaries of the process system relevant to the comparison;5. inventory of relevant environmental interventions caused by this system;

Step c: Selection of alternatives

6. selection of relevant alternatives;7. integrated judgement of remaining alternatives;8. sensitivity analysis;9. final choice of the alternative.

a Different terminologies are used in this context. I have used a terminology recently agreedupon in LCA [47]. Areas of protection may also be called objects to protect, and impactcategory end points are also called (possible) effects on those objects (compare [14]).

This general evaluation scheme is divided into three parts. Step A in-

volves defining how and by what criteria alternatives should be judged. Ineffect, the yardsticks for scoring alternatives are chosen in this stage. Instep B, the process trees that have to be included in the system are analyzed,and an inventory is made of the relevant environmental interventions identi-fied in step A (e.g., primary resource use and emissions). In step C, theimpacts (identified in step A) of the relevant processes (identified in stepB) are compared. Step B has also been termed the system definition step,while step A represents the impact assessment step. Various authorshave shown that environmental evaluation tools such as LCA, Substance

Flow Analysis, and Risk Assessment can in essence be divided into thesetwo elements (e.g., 22,37,43].2 I will analyze the three elements of thisgeneral evaluation scheme in the following sections.

2.1.2. Step A: Choices concerning impact assessment

This first step in the evaluation scheme involves the selection of theyardsticks and criteria to be used to analyze the effects of human activities.

Generally speaking, the causal chain between environmental interven-tion and final effect is used as a basis for performing impact assessment

(see, e.g., [20,24,30]). As illustrated in Fig. 1, human activities can causechanges in the state of the environment through a complex sequence ofsteps. The figure divides the emissioneffect chain into a number of parts.

2 Many authors also identify a goal and scope definition step. In this case, that element is,in fact, already embedded in steps A, B, and C. Step A, in particular, calls for a careful choiceof relevant indicators, and consequently, of the relevant system. This, in fact, involves aconsidered choice of the goal and the scope of the evaluation.


4/22


Fig. 1. The interventioneffect chain, with global warming as an example.

Using a terminology adopted by many LCA practitioners, these parts can

be characterized as follows. At the far left the figure shows the so-calledmain areas of protection (or safeguard subjects; cf. [33,40]). These areareas that need protection against environmental damage. In principle,what one wishes to define as a protection area is a value choice. Humanhealth and ecosystem health are often chosen as protection areas, butother choices are also possible, such as the function of a region (cf. [14,34]).Once these areas of protection are defined, the next step is to choose theeffects on them that are regarded as important. For instance, if humanhealth is chosen as an area requiring protection, the relevant types of effect,

or more formally, the impact category end points, could be death, nuisance,or illness (see, e.g., [2]). Once the area of protection and the impact categoryend points are defined, impact assessment is, in theory, straightforward.One simply has to model the relation between the emissions and otherenvironmental interventions and the impact category end point in Fig. 1.The only question left is which criteria one wishes to use to judge themagnitude of the effect. However, because this relation is so complex, inpractice it is often decided not to model this relation in full. One thenchooses atarget-pointor midpointin the interventioneffect chain that has

a simpler relation with the environmental intervention as a basis for impactassessment, tacitly assuming that the effect on the midpoint reflects or hasa (more or less known) relation to the effect on the end point. An exampleof a target point is the concentration of toxic substances in the environment.

From the description above, it follows that choices on the followingaspects determine which elements one includes in an impact assessmentframework:

1. What areas of protection are seen as relevant?2. Which impact category end points (effect types) are seen as relevant

for each area of protection?3. Does one try to model the full relation between environmental inter-

vention and impact category end point, or does one use a midpointor target point in the emissioneffect chain as the basis for evaluation?

4. What criterion one wishes to use to judge the magnitude of the effecton this mid- or end point?


5/22


The questions above provide a fairly general framework for environmen-tal evaluations. The answers on these questions determine which indicators

or yardsticks one uses in the impact assessment: concrete, quantitativeevaluation frameworks can be formulated that are widely used in environ-mental science [3].3 For example, human health risk assessment (RA) con-siders only one area of protection, human health. The whole emissioneffectchain is considered, and the actual or potential daily intake of an emittedsubstance is calculated in the context of a local situation. The criterionused to evaluate the risk is the amount by which intake exceeds a MaximumTolerable Risk (MTR). In most countries the MTR is regarded as beingequal to the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for noncarcinogenic sub-

stances, and a 10

6

chance of a lethal effect a year for carcinogenic sub-stances [6,11]. However, if one wants to calculate the so-called Ecologicalfootprint of a country, totally different choices will be made [45]. Ratherthan trying to calculate the effects of the emissions from a production plantor system on human and ecological health, one concentrates on the naturalresources that the system uses. The area needed to produce each of theseresources is calculated, and this value is ultimately used as the (only)impact yardstick.

2.1.3. Step B: Choices with regard to system boundariesApart from the choice of the yardsticks that reflect the types of environ-mental effect one wishes to include in the evaluation, a second importantchoice to be made concerns the set of societal activities for which onewishes to analyze those environmental impacts. In other words, systemboundaries have to be chosen. There are various possible approaches tothis choice. First, one can concentrate on a regionally delimited system: asingle plant, or a set of industrial activities in a certain region. Alternatively,one could opt for what has been termed a functional perspective (e.g.,

[42]). Every individual industrial process needs an input of raw materialsor other products, and produces waste that has to be processed. The inter-ventions relating to these input and waste treatment processes, which usu-ally take place at a totally different location, form the so-called EcologicalRucksack of the central process.4 As one might imagine, alternative centralprocesses that produce the same products may have different supply andwaste chains, and thus have a different Ecological Rucksack. Obviously,important choices also have to be made here with respect to the goal ofthe evaluation. If one is solely interested in the environmental impacts

3 It has to be noted that decision theory places a number of demands on such a system ofindicatorssee, e.g., [18,25,26,29]. They should be comprehensive and as small as possible innumber; they should not overlap; they should be judgemental independent; and they shouldbe operational.

4 Ecological Rucksack means literally Ecological backpack. The term was coined by theWuppertal Institutee.g., [46]to indicate the hidden environmental impacts related to thesupply processes and waste management processes that serve a central production process.


6/22


of an industrial plant on the immediate surroundings, the regional/localapproach is appropriate. However, if one also wants to include indirect

effects in other parts of the chain, the relevant approach is the functionalapproach, which encompasses the whole production system.

2.1.4. Step C: Comparison of alternatives

Once the relevant impacts and system have been determined in step Aand step B, the comparison of alternatives is straightforward. An inventoryis made of the relevant environmental interventions related to the alterna-tive systems in question, and these are translated into the yardsticks oneuses. If necessary, a sensitivity analysis is performed, and then, probably

after a weighting step, a preference for an alternative is indicated.

2.2. Environmental impact assessment

2.2.1. Goal and formal framework

EIA is a procedure that aims to ensure that the decision-making processconcerning activities that may have a significant influence on the environ-ment takes into account the environmental aspects related to the decision.In the EU, Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, forms the

legal basis for EIA [14,15]. The Directive has been implemented in nationallaw by the EU member states. Table 2 gives a list of instances when anEIA is obligatory under EU and Dutch law. The Dutch regulation, whichis the most important context for the cases discussed later in this article,is somewhat more extensive than the EU directive [14,44].

The preamble to Directive 85/337 states that the effects of a projecton the environment must be assessed in order to take account of concernsto protect human health, to contribute by means of a better environmentto the quality of life, to ensure maintenance of the diversity of species and

to maintain the reproductive capacity of the ecosystem as a basic resourcefor life. This text suggests that the priority of the EIA Directive is onthe protection areas human health and ecosystem health; squandering ofresources does not seem to be regarded as a topic that needs to be addressedin its own right. More specifically, the EU Directive provides that an EIAmust contain at least the following information [14,15]:

a description of the project, consisting of the site, design and size ofthe project;

a description of the measures envisaged to avoid, reduce and, if possi-

ble, remedy significant adverse effects; the data required to identify and assess the main effects that the project

is likely to have on the environment; an outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an

indication of the main reasons for his final choice, taking into accountenvironmental effects.


7/22


Table2

Someactivities,

decisions,andprojectssubjecttoEIAaccordingtotheEIADirectiveandtheDutchEIAdecree

EUdirective

DutchEIADecree

Activity

Case

Decision

Activity

Case

Decision

Crude-oilrefi

neriesand

500tonscoal/

MemberStatedependent;

SeeEU

gasification

/

bituminousshale

a

mostprobablylicensing

Directive

liquefaction

day

installations

Thermalpow

erstations

300MW;


SeeEU

Nuclearplantsin


Directive

allcasesexcept

researchfacilities

Installationsforstorage


SeeEU

orfinaldisposalof


Directive

radioactive

waste

Integratedworksforthe


SeeEU

initialmeltingof


Directive

cast-ironandsteel

Extractionan

d

Aboveseveral


SeeEU

processing

ofasbestos

capacitylimits


Directive

Integratedch

emical


installations


Construction

long-

runway2100m


SeeEU

distancerailways

forairports

mostprobablyspatial

Directive

andairports

plan

Portsandwaterways

Permittingpassa

ge


SeeEU

forvesselsover

mostprobablyspatial

Directive

1.350tons

plan

(continued)


8/22


Table2

Continued

EUdirective

DutchEIADecree

Activity

Case

D

ecision

Activity

Case

Decision

Installationsfor

M

emberStatedependent;Installationsfor

Abovesever

alcapacity

Licensing

treatmentof

m

ostprobablylicensing

treatmentofwaste

limits

Locationchoice

hazardouswaste

Wastemanagement

planningbyauthorities

Severalprojects

M

emberStatedependent;Areasformilitary

100ha

whereMem

ber

m

ostprobablylicensing

training

Statescons

ider

their

characteristics

sorequire

Tra

nsportpipesfor

Dependingo

nthe

gas,water,orother

substancean

darea

liqu

ids

thepipepasses

Lan

duseplanning

Strategicplan

Recreationsites

Dependingo

narea

Buildingof

Overacerta

innumber

Decisionmaking

ona

residentialareas

ofunits

regionalplanfor

landuse

Buildingofadike

5kmandp

rofile250

m2

About10other

activities


9/22


Annex IV of the Directive explains the information to be provided in moredetail. The points it has to cover include:

a description of the environmental aspects likely to be significantlyaffected by the proposed project, specifically including population,fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, includingthe architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors;

a description of the (direct and indirect, short- and long-term, perma-nent and temporary, positive and negative) likely significant effects ofthe proposed project on the environment resulting from: the existence of the project;

the use of natural resources; the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisance and the elimina-

tion of waste.

The EIA Directive has been implemented in somewhat different waysin the national legislation of the EU member states. Common elementsare the requirement of public participation in various steps in the EIAprocess, and, since the amendment of the Directive in 1997, a greateremphasis on a comparison of the proposed activity with alternatives. As

far as the Dutch situation is concerned, the key element in EIA is thecomparison of the proposed activity (PA), the most environmentallyfriendly alternative (MEA), and the business-as-usual scenario (i.e., theexisting situation is not changed). In principle, the EIA should have anindirect impact on decision making. The initiator of a project, who insistson a PA when there is a very feasible MEA, runs the risk of highly negativepublicity. Guidance on how to tackle most of the practical problems inEIA (methods for the prognosis of effects, methods for weighting effects) isgiven in methodological background reports (e.g., [12,13]). This description

clearly indicates that EIA is not simply a tool (in the sense of just providingcalculation guidelines, etc.), but is also intended to provide a frameworkfor organizing the decision-making process.

2.2.2. Impact assessment and choice of system boundaries in EIA

Because an EIA has to be carried out in many different situations, it isimpossible to present a uniform, detailed method of impact assessment andsystem choice that would apply for every EIA. The impact yardsticks thatare chosen will depend on the specific project or plan for which the EIA

is being conducted. In fact, Dutch EIA guides recommend the general,step-by-step approach described in Section 2.1 for choosing the relevantimpact yardsticks. Although neither the EU EIA Directive nor the DutchEIA Decree place much emphasis on it, in practice, EIAs in The Nether-lands (and in other countries) may specifically include squandering of re-sources as an impact (e.g., [4,5]). Most Dutch EIA guides pay relatively


10/22


Fig. 2. A typical environmental evaluation in a project EIA.

little attention to the element of the choice of system boundaries; it isprobably tacitly assumed that it is clear enough which process system hasto be analyzed.

Choosing the right evaluation framework is a crucial step in EIA. Oncethe evaluation framework has been established, most of the time and budgetfor the EIA is used to make an inventory of effects and to formulate andevaluate alternatives. However, because the framework adopted can bedecisive for the result of this evaluation process, it is important to makethe right initial choices about relevant effects that have to be taken intoaccount. Bisset [7] suggests that checklists can be helpful in this scopingprocess. He further stresses the importance of involving all relevant groupsin the scoping process, including decision makers, the local population, andthe scientific community. In fact, the requirements of the EU Directivewith regard to public participation ensure such involvement.

Hence, the formal frameworks for EIA, in fact, leave a large degree offreedom when it comes to choosing the structure of impact assessment andsystem definition. In practice, however, it seems that just a few typicalevaluation approaches have been developed. Most EIAs concentrate onthe possible environmental effects of a project, typically an industrial plant.In most cases, the choice of system is then confined to the plant itself.Furthermore, the effects considered to be of the greatest concern are gener-ally those on the immediate vicinity. This typically leads to evaluations ofthe extent to which the emissions from the proposed plant enhance existingbackground concentrations of harmful substances, what effects can be ex-pected on humans and environment, and to what extent they can be miti-gated. The plants Ecological Rucksack (i.e., the environmental interven-tions from the whole system of supply and waste management chains serving


11/22


the central process) is usually not an issue at all. Fig. 2 illustrates such atypical EIA approach.

2.3. Life cycle assessment

2.3.1. Goal and formal framework

LCA is a tool designed to evaluate the impacts of the production, use,and waste management of goods. An LCA may be performed for thepurpose of [9]: (1) decisions involved in product and process development;(2) decisions on buying; (3) structuring and building up information; (4)eco-labeling; (5) environmental product declarations; and (6) decisionson regulations.

All of these cases are concerned with comparing the impacts related todifferent products or assessing the dominant environmental problems re-lated to the production of a good.

To express the distinction between LCA and EIA at its most extreme,LCA can be seen primarily as a tool to help in making decisions, whileEIA, as shown in Section 2.2.1, is also concerned with the process of decisionmaking itself. Moreover, unlike EIA, LCA is not formalized in legislation.However, several scientific expert groups [e.g., under the umbrella of theSociety of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)] and inter-

national standardization bodies like ISO, have been actively engaged inefforts that have led to a fairly commonly applied framework. This structureis discussed in Section 2.3.2.

2.3.2. Impact assessment and system choice in LCA

The evaluation framework most commonly applied in LCA involves thefollowing steps [9,16,21,23,40]:

1. Goal and scope definition: this phase involves defining the purpose

of the study, its scope, and a method of quality assurance for theresults. A functional unit of a product is defined to be able to compareproducts on the basis of the functions they fulfill rather than theirquantitative amount.5

2. Inventory : a system is defined that includes all relevant process chainsfor the manufacture, use, and waste management of the productfunction in question. For each process in this chain, the relevantenvironmental interventions (emissions to air and water, and extrac-tion of primary resources) are inventoried in relation to the processcontribution to the central product function. Interventions causedby each process that is part of the system concerned are added byintervention type.The final result is a list of all environmental interven-tions associated with the products function. The list is known as the

5 An example for those less familiar with LCA: one milk bottle may be used 15 times,and, thus (provided they are recollected and cleaned), fulfill the same function as 15 milk packs.


12/22


Fig. 3. A typical environmental evaluation in an LCA.

inventory table. A typical inventory table may list a hundred or moreinterventions, such as the total emissions of lead, SO2, and othersubstances to air and to water.

3. Impact assessment (classification, characterization, and valuation): thepurpose of the impact assessment step is to aggregate the informationobtained in the inventory. First, a classification of impact categoriesis chosen, usually reflecting a common mechanism of environmentalthreat (e.g., global warming, acidification, and ozone depletion). Inthe characterization step, the environmental interventions listed inthe inventory table are translated into scores on each impact category.This step is based as far as possible on natural science and generallyaccording to the following formula:6

Si 1j (eij* Ej)

where Si score on impact category (theme) I; Ej magnitude ofenvironmental intervention j; and eij equivalency factor; a factorthat indicates the contribution of one unit of intervention jto impactcategoryi. The result of this operation is called the impact profile ofa functional unit of a product. In principle, the impact categories canbe aggregated, by means of weighting, to give a single score for theenvironmental impact of a product.

The approach is summarized in Fig. 3. Given the goals of LCA describedin the previous section, it is logical that LCA follows a system approach;

6 For instance, 1 mole of H2SO4 can release two times as much H as 1 mole of HCl.Hence, for the score on the impact category acidification, an emission (intervention) of 1mole of H2SO4 is regarded as equivalent to an emission of 2 moles of HCl.


13/22


Table 3Impact categories and units given the CML LCA-manual

Type Impact category Unit

Squandering of Abiotic resources resources Biotic resources year1

Pollution Global warming kg CO2-eq.Depletion of the ozone layer kg CFC-11 eq.Human toxicity kg b.w.a

Aquatic ecotoxicity m3 polluted watera

Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg polluted soila

Photochemical oxidantformation kg C2H4-eq.Acidification kg SO2-eq.Eutrophication kg P-eq.

Waste heat MJOdour m3 polluted aira

Noise Pa2*sAffection Ecosystem and landscape m2s

Death

Adapted from [21].a Polluted to a defined threshold level.

in other words, that it compares systems that include the supply and waste

treatment processes related to a central product function. Impact assess-ment has been discussed extensively in the LCA community. Because thecomparisons in LCA are more specific than in EIA, it has been possibleto develop a fairly well-defined impact assessment framework. The questionof which impacts are important, and at what level of the impact chain animpact is defined, is basically dictated by the purpose of LCA, which is anenvironmental management tool for assessing all (potential) environmentalimpacts related to the fulfilment of a products function over its whole lifecycle. In general, three generic protection areas are distinguished in LCA:

resources (which are not explicitly included in EIA), ecological health, andhuman health [23].7 Usually, a number of more specific impact categoriesare chosen, with a distinction being made between output- or sink-orientedcategories (related to emissions), input- or source-oriented categories (re-lated to the use of resources), and other issues that cannot be included inthe first two categories. The ISO standards for LCA do not stipulate impactcategories. Frequently mentioned approaches for selecting and structuringimpact categories very much resemble those given in Section 2.1.2.

Several influential manuals and codes of practice provide guidelines for

the impact categories that should be included (e.g., [49]). Table 3 gives theexample of the impact categories included in the LCA manual of the Centreof Environmental Science Leiden (CML; [21]. (CML will publish a revision

7 This is comparable to the categorization in environmental monitoring systems at provincial[32], national [20], and OECD level [27]. Some studies proposing indicator systems based onthe notion of environmental space use a similar categorization [28,47,48].


14/22


of its manual in the first half of 2000.) The impact categories they chosecorrespond very closely to those used in numerous national and interna-

tional monitoring systems (e.g., [1]). It has to be noted that in mainstreamLCA all environmental interventions of the different processes in the sys-tem, which may take place at totally different locations and in differenttime frames, are simply added together. Hence, LCA does not address thequestion of whether an emission leads locally to concentrations undereffect thresholds.

3. The use of (elements of) LCA in EIA

3.1. Introduction

In light of what was said in Section 2, in my opinion there is no contradic-tion between LCA and EIA in terms of impact assessment or system choice.LCAs concentrate solely on a comparison of product systems. When anEIA is not concerned with product systems (or similar systems) but, forexample, with a single production plant, the system choice and impactassessment might be different to the one normally used in LCA. But if anEIA has to compare alternatives with similar characteristics to productLCAs (i.e., whole systems related to a central product function, thus aprocess including its Ecological Rucksack), it seems logical to use thefruits of the discussions on LCA methodology as a basis for the evaluationin that particular EIA. This section focuses on identifying types of EIA andtypes of alternatives that have the same characteristics as a product LCA.

3.2. Types of alternatives relevant in an EIA

As previously stated, EIA is often seen as an instrument for evaluating

alternatives at a local level (an industrial plant, a specific location). Yet,as various authors have demonstrated, and can also be deduced from thetypes of activities subject to EIA (see Table 1), this view of EIA is toonarrow. Following the decision-making levels broadly identified by Feld-mann [17], one can roughly discern the following levels of EIA: (a) astrategic EIA (e.g., an electricity plan or a waste management plan); (b)an EIA at company level (or a so-called project EIA); and (c) an EIA oflocation choices or spatial organization.

As I indicated earlier, the comparison of the proposed plan or activity

with alternatives plays a major role in the Dutch EIA system, and wasrecently further emphasised with the 1997 amendment of the EUs EIADirective. Depending on the level of EIA, several types of alternatives canbe distinguished. What is crucial for the argument in this paper is that thetype of alternative determines to what extent the Ecological Rucksacksneed to be taken into account, and what number of impact categories have


15/22


to be included, for a fair comparison of alternatives. Possible alternativesare (adapted from [14]):

1. Goal and policy alternatives: the discussion centers on the goal, orthe policy for reaching that goal. An example is the analysis of thebest mix of prevention, reuse and end treatment in a waste manage-ment policy plan. This type of alternative is generally relevant instrategic plans of provincial or national authorities, and thus in strate-gic EIAs. The alternatives have an impact at what can be termed thesystem level: whole production chains are influenced if another policyalternative is chosen. For instance, promoting reuse of waste producesless use of raw materials (thus fewer effects due to the extraction of

these materials), but might consume more energy. These kinds ofsecondary effects can only be taken into account if a system approachsimilar to LCA is adopted and a broad range of effects is takeninto account.

2. Process alternatives: the discussion centres on the production processto make certain products or to fulfill certain needs. Such alternativesmay be relevant in project EIAs and strategic EIAs. For instance, astrategic electricity plan will most probably involve a choice as to themode of production of electricity. Obviously, such process alternatives

have an impact on the local environment. Applying clean technologyoften means that fewer local emissions are produced. However, theremay be effects on the system level. Certain processes may have to usea better quality of raw material (which has to be refined elsewhere), ormay yield better recyclable waste than others. In such cases, theseinfluences on other production chains have to be taken into accountfor a fair comparison. Hence, a system approach, taking into accounta broad range of effects, is necessary.

3. Abatement alternatives: abatement alternatives are typically relevant

in a project EIA. Abatement measures are in general primarily takento ensure that no direct adverse effects occur on man and nature inthe direct vicinity of an industrial plant. In most cases, the abatementmeasure has to deal with just one or a few critical effects on this locallevel. Examples are the reduction of VOC emissions to prevent smogformation, or the reduction of the emission of a few critical toxicsubstances. For an analysis on local level, the comparison of abate-ment alternatives can thus concentrate on just these few critical effecttypes. However, it has to be noted that different abatement alterna-

tives, that are equally effective in dealing with the locally criticalenvironmental effect, may have very different overall environmentalimpacts when all the related systems are taken into account as well.For instance, in comparison to a wet-flue gas-cleaning system a dry-flue gas-treatment system may produce much more hazardous solidwaste that needs further treatment with other technologies.


16/22


4. Location alternatives: the discussion centers on the location of acertain activity. This is the typical decision for which an EIA of

location choices is made. In general, this type of alternative has onlylocal consequences, and is unlikely to influence other links in theproduction chain. An exception is where the location may have aconsiderable influence on transport distances and transports contri-bution to impacts is not negligible.

3.3. The role of LCA in EIA

Table 4 summarizes the relationship between the types of alternativesrelated to the level of EIA, and the influence of alternative choices on theextent of the production system that is affected, and the number of impacttypes that are relevant. Essentially, one could say that an LCA-type evalua-tion approach is relevant when the alternatives concerned have many indi-rect influences in an entire production system and affect a large numberof impact categories.

Table 4 suggests that LCA-like evaluations can have an important rolein strategic EIAs. This is not surprising, because, like LCAs, strategic EIAsdeal with whole production systems. It is, in fact, often impossible to makea traditional evaluation of local effects in a strategic EIA because thechoices at the strategic level are location independent. Similarly, it is notsurprising that the location choices made in a location EIA call for anenvironmental evaluation approach predominantly related to local effects.In project EIAs, where abatement and process alternatives play a majorrole, this classical EIA approach of the evaluation of the effects of anactivity on the local environment is also relevant.

However, Table 4 suggests something else that may be surprising toEIA practitioners. Because quite a few process alternatives and even someabatement alternatives have a clearindirectinfluence on the structureof other parts of the industrial production system, there may be importantindirect effects. Hence, one could argue that LCAs could also play animportant role in project EIAs where these alternatives are relevant. Forinstance, when considering two water purification systems one would obvi-ously discuss the efficiency of the removal of harmful components fromwaste water and the related effects on the quality of the receiving waterbasin. However, one might also perform an LCA of the two purificationsystems to assess the indirect effects related to the auxiliary material use,electricity use, and waste production, which may very well differ.

This result may be somewhat counterintuitive, and there may be practicalimpediments to applying this suggestion in practice. However, I feel thatit deserves to be taken seriously. It is widely accepted, and, in fact, oftenstressed in the Dutch EIA Commissions reviews, that a comparison ofalternatives should be fair. An improvement with respect to one type ofenvironmental problem at a specific location must not unconsciously have


17/22


Table4

Relationbetw

eentypeofEIA,alternatives,

andlevelofevaluation

Alternativetype

EIAtype

Geographicalscaleonwhichproduction

Relevantnumberofimpact

Relevanttypeof

chainsareinfluencedbyth

edecision

category

endpoints

analysis

Production

system(several

Local(one

partsofthe

productionchain,

chainpart)

ondifferentlocations)

Goalandpolicy

Strategic

all

LCA-like

alternatives

Processalternatives

Strategic,

Project

all

TraditionalEIA

LCA-like

Abatementalterna-

Project

/

oneorfew

TraditionalEIA

tives

LCA-like

Locationalternatives

Location

?

TraditionalEIA


18/22


been achieved at the expense of environmental deterioration at other loca-tions, in other time frames, or on other impact categories. Neither the EU

EIA Directive nor the Dutch EIA Decree explicitly covers effects that areindirectly induced by a change in production processes at locations otherthan that of the primary activity. However, they certainly do not excludethem either. Indeed, one could probably successfully argue that such in-ducedeffects could be regarded as indirect effects, as mentioned inAnnex IV of the EIA Directive. For a fair comparison of alternatives, acomplete set of impacts must be analyzed, and allprocesses causing effectsthat are relevant in the comparison, including those at other locations andin other links of the chain, must be taken into account. And that is just

what LCA does.

3.4. Examples of the use of LCA in EIA or EIA-like studies

There has been relatively extensive experience with the use of LCA inEIAs in The Netherlands. This may have to do with the fact that strategicEIAs, in which LCA can be applied, are quite common in The Netherlands.The following are examples of the use of LCA in Dutch EIAs or EIA-like studies:8

1. Case 1: Dutch National (Hazardous) Waste Management Plans (pol-icy alternative): the Dutch National Waste Management Plan makesdecisions on the configuration of end-treatment techniques for waste(landfill, incineration and separation/fermentation). The alternativesconcerned are location independent. A rough form of LCA was usedto evaluate options in the EIA of the first plan [4]. In the EIA of thesecond waste management plan, the CML methodology for LCA wasapplied to compare alternative planning options [5]. Similarly, LCAwas applied in the EIA of the 1997 Dutch National Hazardous Waste

Management Plan [36,38].2. Case 2: Dutch electricity plan (policy alternative): the Dutch electric-ity plan makes decisions on the electricity production structure inThe Netherlands. No formal LCA was used, but quite a few examplesof LCAs of electricity show that this is a feasible and logical option.

3. Case 3: Waste treatment plants (process alternative): given decisionson prevention and reuse in a waste management plan, a choice hadto be made on the end treatment of incinerable waste. This canbasically be seen as a process alternative: in this situation the alterna-

tives were incineration and separation/fermentation. A LCA of incin-eration versus separation/fermentation was carried out as preparation

8 The examples given here are mainly based on the practical experience of the author withEIA, and hence, mainly concentrate on The Netherlands. Without doubt, many examples areavailable from other countries with extensive experience with EIA, such as the US, Sweden,and the UK.


19/22


for EIA [31]. A similar LCA approach has been used to compare theenvironmental benefits of two process alternatives for domestic waste

and industrial waste: a separation unit followed by reuse, incinerationof Refuse Derived Fuel and bioreactor landfill of organic waste versusintegrated incineration [41].

4. Case 4: Oil desulphurization plant (process alternative): one of thebiggest refineries in Holland built a hydrogenation/desulphurizationplant that was subject to an obligatory EIA. One of the positiveconsequences of this plant was that it produces oil with a relativelylow sulphur content (leading to less SO2emissions by the users) andenables it to use high-sulphur resources. The effects on acidification

of the plant itself may be outweighed by less acidification by consum-ers of products, and the process is also preferable from the perspectiveof squandering. In the EIA, these advantages were indicated, withoutquantification [8]. A system approach and impact assessment of LCAwould have been a suitable means to quantify these influences.

5. Case 5: Flue gas treatment (abatement alternative): an electricity-producing company wanted to compare options for flue gas treatment(SO2). This can be seen as an abatement alternative in EIA. It wascarried out as a voluntary case study in the development of the TNO

methodology on integrated chain management, which uses an LCA-like approach for the environmental evaluation of alternatives [10].

4. Conclusions

This paper has shown that there is no fundamental contradiction betweenEIA and LCA. The main difference is that LCA is mainly used as a fairlydetailed tool for a specific type of comparison, i.e., of alternative productsystems. EIA deals with a broader set of comparisons, and seems to putslightly more emphasis on the organization of the process of decision mak-ing. Nevertheless, in both LCA and EIA procedures the environmentalimpacts related to activities in a specific societal (sub)system have to beevaluated. The building blocks (choice of the system boundaries and impactassessment) do not fundamentally differ. Because EIA procedures dealwith a rather broad type of comparison, the system choice and impactassessment cannot be defined in a detailed way: they depend entirely onthe specific EIA. In traditional project EIAs, which are the most commontype, the system chosen is usually confined to a single industrial plant, andimpact assessment is usually concentrated on the effects on the directsurroundings. LCA is designed to compare the impacts related to a centralproduct function. Hence, the whole system (or Ecological Rucksack) relatedto that product function is included, and the impact assessment is genericand time and location independent.

A second argument in this paper is that applying a LCA-like comparison


20/22


of alternatives in EIA may be more useful than is often thought. In tradi-tional project EIAs, process and abatement alternatives usually play a

role. Obviously, such alternatives may have different direct impacts on thesurrounding environment, which are normally covered in traditional EIAs.Yet, it may well be that such alternatives also differ in their EcologicalRucksacks. In that case, an LCA-like system approach, which takes intoaccount all relevant effects, is necessary for an honest comparison. Onlythen does the EIA truly take into account all indirect effects, asin myviewis demanded by Annex IV of the EU EIA directive.

References

[1] Adriaanse A. Environmental Performance Indicators. The Hauge, The Netherlands: RSdu Publishers, 1993.

[2] Aiking H, de Boer J, Sol VM, Lammers PEM, Feenstra JF. Haalbaarheidstudie Milieube-lastingsindex [Feasibility study environmental pressure index]. Rapport Integrale Mi-lieuzonering No. 6. The Hague, The Netherlands: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planningand Environment, 1990.

[3] Andrews RNL. Environmental impact assessment and risk assessment: learning fromeach other. In: Wathern P, editor. Environmental Impact AssessmentTheory andPractice. London, UK: Unwin Hyman, 1988.

[4] AOO (Waste Management Council). Environmental Impact Assessment on the Multi-Year Waste Management Plan 19922002. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Author, 1992.

[5] AOO (Waste Management Council). Environmental Impact Assessment on the Multi-Year Waste Management Plan 19952005, Utrecht, The Netherlands: Author, 1995.

[6] Berg Rvd, Roels J.M. Risk Assessment for Man and Environment in Cases of Contami-nated Soil. Integration of aspects. Report No. 725201007. The Netherlands: RIVM Bil-

thoven.[7] Bisset R. Developments in EIA methods. In: Wathern P, editor. Environmental Impact

AssessmentTheory and Practice. London, UK: Unwin Hyman, 1988.[8] CMEO-TNO. MER HYCON [EIA on the HYCON]. Delft, The Netherlands: TNO, 1992.[9] Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, Fava J, Franklin W, Jensen AA, de Oude N, Parrish

R, Perriman R, Postlewaite D, Quay B, Seguin J, Vigon B. Guidelines for Life-CycleAssessment: A Code of Practice. Brussels, Belgium: SETAC, 1993.

[10] Cramer JM, Quakernaat J, Dokter T, Groeneveld L, Vis JC. Theorie en Praktijk vanIntegraal Ketenbeheer [Theory and practice of integrated chain management]. Apel-doorn, The Netherlands: NOVEM/TNO-STB, 1993.

[11] Dutch Parliament. Omgaan met Risicos. [White Paper on Risk Policy]. Lower House,year 19881989, 21137, No. 5. The Hague, The Netherlands: Author, 1989.

[12] EIA. Assessment Methods, Theory and Practice. EIA-series No. 13. The Hague, TheNetherlands: Ministry of housing, Physical Planning and Environment and Ministry ofAgriculture and Fishery, 1982.

[13] EIA. Inventory of Methods for Weighting of Effects. EIA-series No. 42. The Hague,The Netherlands: Ministry of housing, Physical Planning and Environment and Ministryof Agriculture and Fishery, 1992.

[14] EU. Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of certain publicand private projects on the environment, 1985.

[15] EU. Council Directive 97/11 EC of 2 March 1997 amending Directieve 85/337/EEC onthe assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment, 1997.

[16] Fava J, Denison R, Jones B, Curran MA, Vigon B, Selke S, Barnum J. A Technical


21/22


Framework for Life-Cycle Assessment. SETAC workshop report. Vermont: Smugglers

Notch, 1990.

[17] Feldmann L. TheEuropean Commissions Proposal for a Strategic Environmental Assess-

ment Directive: Expanding the Scope of Environmental Impact Assessment in Europe.Environ Impact Assesess Rev 1998;18:314.

[18] Finance (Ministry of). Evaluatiemethoden, een Introductie [Evaluation Methods, an

Introduction]. The Hague, The Netherlands: Sdu Publishers, 1986.

[19] Finnveden G, Lindfors LG. LCA in different applicationsdemands and expectations.

In: Product Life Cycle Assessment, principles and Methodology. Nordic Council No.

1992:9, 1992.

[20] Groen WThP. Monitoring in the context of the NMP-2. [Monitoring within the framework

of the second National Environmental Policy Plan]. In: Congresbundel Planning en

Monitoring Milieubeleid [Planning and Monitoring Environmental Policy]. The Hague,

The Netherlands: Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment, Series Envi-

ronmental Strategy, 1994.[21] Heijungs R, Guinee JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk

A, Ansems AAM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, de Goede HP. Environmental Life-Cycle

Assessment of Products, Guide and Backgrounds. Leidin, The Netherlands: CML/TNO/

B&G, 1992.

[22] Heijungs R. Economic Drama and the Environmental Stage. Ph.D. Thesis, CML, Leiden,

The Netherlands, September 1992.

[23] ISO Final standards and draft standards in the ISO 14040 series on LCA, 1998.

[24] Janssen HMA, Leroy P, Bouwer K. Waarover het zal gaan: naar een beschrijvingsmodel

van milieuvraagstukken [Towards a model for description of environmental problems].

In: Het Milieu: Denkbeelden voor de 21ste Eeuw. Zeist, the Netherlands: CLTM, Kerkeb-osch, 1990.

[25] Janssen R. Multi-Objective Decision Support for Environmental Problems. Ph.D. Thesis,

Economic Department of the Free University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1991.

[26] Keeney RF, Riaffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-

offs. New York: Wiley, 1976.

[27] OECD. Synthesis Report by the Group State of the Environment. Paris, France: ENV/

EPOC/GEP(93)/5/ADD, 1993.

[28] Opschoor JB, Reijnders L. Towards sustainable development indicators. In: Verkuik O,

Verbruggen H, editors. In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development. Dordrecht,

The Netherlands: Kluwer, 1991.

[29] Paruccini M. Decision Support Systems for Environmental Management. EUR 14087EN. Luxembourg: Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy/EC DG XIII, 1992.

[30] Ragas AMJ, Leuven RSEW, Schoof DJW. Milieukwaliteit en Normstelling [Environmen-

tal Quality and Standard Setting]. Meppel, The Netherlands: Boom, 1994.

[31] Sas HJ, van Diemen F, Huijse D. Afvalscheiding en Vergisten versus Verbranden

Milieukundige Vergelijking [Waste Separation and Fermentation versus Incinerationan

Environmental Comparison]. Delft, The Netherlands: CE, 1992.

[32] SME. Monitoringssystematiek IPO A-900. [Monitoring framework IPO A-900]. Nij-

megen, The Netherlands: SME, 1994.

[33] Steen B, Ryding S-O. Valuation of environmental impacts with the EPS-system. In:

Integrating Impact Assessment into LCA. Brussels, Belgium, SETAC, 1114 April 1994.

[34] Tukker A, Gielen DJ. A concept for the environmental evaluation of waste management

benefits. In: Goumans JJJM, van der Sloot HA, Aalbers ThG, editors. Environmental

Aspects of Construction with Waste Materials. New York: Elsevier Science.

[35] Tukker A, Heijungs R. Levenscyclusanalyse: Bruikbaar voor Milieu-Effectrapportage

[LCA: Useful in EIA?]. Kenmerken 2/1996, 1995.

[36] Tukker A, editors. Milieu-Effectrapport Meerjarenplan Gevaarlijke Afvalstoffen 1997

2007 [Environmental Impact Assessment Multi-Year Hazardous Waste Management


22/22


Plan 19972007]. The Hague: The Netherlands: Ministry of Housing, Physical Planningand Environment and the Inter-Provincial Union.

[37] Tukker A. Frames in the Toxicity Controversy. Risk Assessment and Policy Analysis

Related to the Dutch Chlorine Debate and Swedish PVC Debate. Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic Publishers, 1999.

[38] Tukker A. LCAs for Waste: A Strategic EIA for the Dutch National Hazardous WasteManagement Plan 19972007, Parts I, II and III. Int J Life Cycle Assess, vol. 4(5,6); vol

5(2) 1999 (in press).[39] Udo de Haes HA, Huppes G. Positioning of LCA in relation to other environmental

edecision support tools. In: Integrating Impact Assessment into LCA. Brussels, Belgium:SETAC, 1114 April 1994.

[40] Udo de Haes HA, editor. Towards a Methodology for Life Cycle Impact Assessment.Brussels, Belgium: SETAC-Europe, 1996.

[41] VAM. Hergebruik van Materiaalstromen. Milieu-Effectrapport [Re-use of Material

Flows. EIA-report]. Wijster, The Netherlands: VAM, 1997.[42] Voet Evd, Heijungs R. Life cycle assessment and material balances. Different approaches?

SETAC Eur LCA News 1994;54:6.[43] Voet Evd. Substances from Cradle to Grave. Ph.D. Thesis. Centre of Environmental

Science Leiden, Leiden, Holland, 1996.[44] VROM. Besluit Milieu-Effectrapportage [EIA Decree]. State Bulletin 278, 20 May 1987,

as adapted in 1994. The Hague, The Netherlands: Ministry of Housing, Physical Planningand Environment, 1994.

[45] Wackernagel M, Reese W. Our Ecological Footprint. Reducing the Human Impact onthe Earth. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers, 1996.

[46] Weizsacker EU von, Lovins A, Lovins LH. Factor Four. Doubling WealthHalving

Resource Use. London, UK: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 1996.[47] Weterings R, OpschoorJB. The Ecocapacity as a Challenge for Technology Development.

Rijswijk, The Netherlands: RMNO, 1992.[48] Weterings R, Opschoor JB. Towards Environmental Performance Indicators Based on

the Notion of Environmental Space. Rijswijk, The Netherlands: RMNO, 1994.[49] WIA-2. Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in

life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1999;(2,3).

°ÀÇÀÚ·á5-lca as eia tool

Documents