The Environmental Statement of the Tilbury Biomass Phase 2 Project - Case Study Example

NEW REGS, NO IMPACT By Name Course Instructor Institution City/State Date Table of Contents NEW REGS, NO IMPACT 1 Table of Contents 2 Executive Summary 3 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Discussion 5 2.1 Sustainability 5 2.2 Environmental Impact 6 3.0 Critique 7 4.0 Recommendations 8 5.0 Conclusion 9 References 10 New Regs, No Impact Executive Summary Examining the environmental impact of a proposed project is a crucial part of measuring whether the project planning is appropriate and can bring about sustainable development. Accordingly, these effects have to be considered while applying for consent under the amended provisions of the Planning and Development Act of 2000. The EIA Directive purposes and objectives must be considered by the competent authorities as set forth in the preamble thereto while making decisions about the proposed development merits. Basically, environmental effects assessment allows for the making of an informed decision and must lead to the reduction or avoidance of hostile environmental effects. The report will focus on the Tilbury Biomass Phase 2 project, which is among the projects listed in the Annex II and with adherence to EIA Directive. The project required environmental impact assessment (EIA) at the discretion of the Thurrock Council, the consenting authority. The report seeks to evaluate the Environmental Statement (ES) of Tilbury Biomass Phase 2 project, identifying the neglected areas as well as offering suggestions on how ES writing can be improved. 1.0 Introduction Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) according to Ogola (2007, p. 15) may be defined broadly as the evaluation of the impact of the proposed program, plan or project onto the environment. Without a doubt, EIA plays an important role in the management of environmental issues that surrounds the development of the project, particularly the power projects (Prasad & Goel, 2000, p.245). Integrating environment in the development planning can be considered as the most important tool for realisation of sustainable development. Therefore, economic development and environmental protection have to be managed in an integrated manner. Imperatively, EIA process is crucial in offering preventive as well as anticipatory mechanism for environmental protection as well as management in all development projects (Tiwari et al., 2016, p.24). This can be evidenced by the revisions to the EU Directive on EIA, whereby the European parliament overwhelmingly voted in support of the revisions. Considering that EIA is used in almost 26,000 project proposals annually across Europe, reference believes that the proposed changes would be beneficial to the economic and environmental performance all through Europe (Fothergill, 2014). The European commission report about the original Directive usefulness established that, even though EIA had enhanced the environment consideration in making decisions in European countries, there was need for changes so as to improve reliability as well as to move towards an approach that emphasise on quality. Even though the process of revision did leave much to be sought after, Fothergill (2014) asserts that the approved amendments offer a valuable contribution in advancing EIA. According to EIA regulations, the Non-Technical Summary is required to offer a summary of the assessments that are in the Environmental Statement (ES) and information is offered in a non-technical manner so as to avoid the utilisation of the technical terms (Carroll & Turpin, 2002, p.4). 2.0 Discussion The revised Directive introduced monitoring that offers academics as well as practitioners important new information about the effectiveness of EIA; thus, making sure that practices in the future are steered by feedback from the real world. Besides that, it offers a source for unceasing improvement in EIA practice by the year 2020. In this case, the environmental statement of Tilbury Biomass Phase 2 project was prepared with the intention of supplementing the RWE npower’s applications that Thurrock Council had received for consent in construction of physical works. Basically, the physical works were needed so that the Tilbury B Power Station could continue operating up to 2027 and also meet the New Plant Standards (RWE npower, 2012, p.6). The construction project is located in Tilbury, Thurrock and its ES covers the effects that could be brought about because of the construction as well as its operational phases. 2.1 Sustainability During the project’s operational phase, it has been projected that solid biomass (wood pellets) weighing almost 2.7 mt will be utilised annually (RWE npower, 2012, p.9). Most of these wood pellets will be imported from United States, Europe as well as Canada. According to the ES, all wood pellets that were to be utilised in the project were 100 per cent sustainably sourced and Green Gold Label standard was utilised to independently certify them. For electricity generation, the project sought to demonstrate a 60 per cent and 35 per cent GHG emission saving for solid/gaseous biomass and liquid biofuels respectively. Imperatively, the GHG saving had to be demonstrated by utilising the model of Life Cycle Analysis that considers the generated electricity carbon footprint. The project had a number of work packages: Materials handling as well as Fuel storage; flue gas clean up equipment; system for intake of cooling water; modifications of the combustion system; station drainage system; and chimney stacks (RWE npower, 2012, p.10). 2.2 Environmental Impact According to RWE npower (2012, p.16), most of the environmental impacts experienced during the construction phase will be very different from those that will be experienced at operational phase. For the site, the aspects of the construction phase environmental management will be steered by the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Imperatively, electricity generated at Tilbury Biomass Power Station will mainly come from the wood pellets within the main boilers. Therefore, this will result in production of, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides as well as fine particles. Besides that, the project will have a number of emissions from the auxiliary boilers as well as open cycle gas turbines. For this reason, the concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and Particle Pollution within the atmosphere according to the ES will be monitored, measured and controlled by the Environment Agency as well as local authorities so as to safeguard the wellbeing of the people. The Environment Agency will also regulate the Atmospheric concentrations of nutrient nitrogen deposition at locations having sensitive ecosystems and vegetation. The steam cycle cooling water for the project will be abstracted from River Thames, and all the water abstracted is expected to be discharged back to the river. Still, the discharged water will be warmer following the cooling process. Still, there will be need for power stations chlorinate cooling water in some power stations so as to prevent aquatic organisms from building up in the cooling system (RWE npower, 2012, p.29). The ES showed that the adverse effect of piling operations can be slightly avoided if appropriate mitigation is espoused. This proves that, adverse effect of piling operations is inevitable and also some fish will be entrained during the planktonic stage. Regrettably, at operational phase it has been projected that fish losses will be exceedingly high because of the unmitigated rate of the impingement. 3.0 Critique Examination of the mitigation as well as treatment of alternatives in the Tilbury Biomass Phase 2 project Environmental Statement as well as the comprehensive analysis of non-pollution effects exhibited that alternatives emphasised more on the processes as well as designs, instead of the site, while the decisions justification were largely associated with cost. According to Jones et al. (2007, p.10) and TERI (2007, p.166), when the alternatives coverage is limited it can be associated with the types of the development projects, which naturally limit the range of the accessible alternative. Jones et al. (2007, p.18) state that the alternatives consideration must be considered suitable, especially where sensitive species or habitats have been identified. In view of the Tilbury Biomass Phase 2 project, the ES has covered less the efficacy of mitigation measures as well as residual impacts, especially at the operational stage. Treweek and Thompson (1997) argue that the key barrier to successful ecological mitigation is the legislation inability to promote sustainable ecological assessment. Thus, creating challenges for constrains options as well as resource-based approach for environmental restoration. Arguably, sustainability commitment creates need for redistributional effects’ consideration that surface when the natural asset is destroyed as well as when they are replaced elsewhere. Still, such consideration is exceedingly challenging when individual projects are examined separately. The construction project failed to consider the issues associated with inter -generational distribution, because there is no estimation of the regeneration time need for the natural assets to be restored. Besides that, the ES of Tilbury Biomass Phase 2 project has not defined environment consistently since they have not estimated the international, regional and national impact of the habitat loss on the related species. According to Treweek and Thompson (1997, p.42), failure to offer numerical estimates provides impediments to rational mitigation approaches; that is to say, failure to quantify the environment use as well as loss it becomes hard to specify the suitable habitat replacement levels. 4.0 Recommendations Tilbury Biomass Phase 2 project should highlight the impacts that should be mitigated so as to facilitate the assessment of the residual impacts. Besides that, the project should determine the need for mitigation with regard to the value of the affected resources as well as identify the impacts severity. Moreover, the Mitigation proposals must be comprehensive and rigorous, especially where there is a projected impact on protected species as well as designated sites. The ES should adequately detail the mitigation proposals so as to facilitate evaluation of their effectiveness (Liebenthal et al., 2005, p.31; Treweek, 2009, p.239). The way ES is written can be improved by telling a story about the project so as to facilitate the readers in understanding the need as well as purpose of the project. This will enable the reader understand how all alternatives can meet the project goals as well as the weaknesses and related to the alternatives. Besides that, the ES document must be very brief, using concise and clear writing; effective visual and graphics elements; and straight to the point (AASHTO, 2006, p.4). Finally, the document must meet every legal requirement to enable technical reviewers and regulators follow it easily. The new EIA Regulations that have taken effect in 2016 have an effect on the ES development because practitioners are expected to understand that scoping process is an important factor to consider while writing the ES. The new regulations have raised the thresholds for screening for development of industrial estate as well as urban projects. While writing the ES, it should be considered that the projects that are completely outside the sensitive areas and those that do not surpass the new screening thresholds cannot be considered as Schedule 2 development; therefore, the local planning authority should not screen them. 5.0 Conclusion In conclusion, the report has evaluated the Environmental Statement (ES) of Tilbury Biomass Phase 2 project, identifying the neglected areas as well as offering suggestions on how to ES writing can be improved. As argued in the report, mitigating adverse environmental impacts plays a crucial role in making sure the natural capital are maintained regardless of damage brought about by the development. In the Tilbury Biomass Phase 2 project, there is no assurance that environmental impacts will be mitigated according to the undertakings stipulated by the environment impact statements. In the reviewed ES, it is hard to determine whether the proposed mitigation measures would be effective, either qualitatively or quantitatively. References AASHTO, 2006. Improving the Quality of Environmental Documents. Work Paper. AASHTO/ACEC. Carroll, B. & Turpin, T., 2002. Environmental Impact Assessment Handbook: A Practical Guide for Planners, Developers and Communities. Old Park, Telford : Thomas Telford. Fothergill, J., 2014. Built to assess impacts. [Online] Available at: http://www.environmentalistonline.com/article/built-assess-impacts [Accessed 26 January 2016]. Jones, C., Barker, A. & Slinn, P., 2007. Quality Review Of Environmental Statements For Offshore Petroleum Production And Pipeline Developments. Final Report. Manchester: Environmental Impact Assessment Centre Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Liebenthal, A., Michelitsch, R. & Tarazona, E.I., 2005. Extractive Industries and Sustainable Development: An Evaluation of World Bank Group Experience. Washington DC: World Bank Publications. Ogola, P.F.A., 2007. Environmental Impact Assessment General Procedures. In Short Course II on Surface Exploration for Geothermal Resources. Naivasha, Kenya, 2007. UNU-GTP. Prasad, K. & Goel, R.S., 2000. Environmental Management in Hydro Electric Projects. New Delhi, Delhi : Concept Publishing Company. RWE npower, 2012. Environmental Statement – Non-Technical Summary; Tilbury Biomass Phase 2 Project. Tilbury, Thurrock: RWE npowe. TERI, 2007. Alternative Development Paths: scope for mobilizing international resources for funding the power sector in India. Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). Tiwari, V.K., Verma, A., Kumar, A. & Gupta, M., 2016. A review on Environmental Impact Assessment of Construction Projects. IOSR Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp.21-25. Treweek, J., 2009. Ecological Impact Assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Treweek, J. & Thompson, S., 1997. A review of ecological mitigation measures in UK environmental statements with respect to sustainable development. Int.J Sustain. Dev. War/dEcal, vol. 4, pp.40-50. Read More