Environments at Risk

Environments at Risk is designed as an introductory text and uses case histories of environmental impact assessment to raise issues important in controlling environmental problems. This approach is novel as is the concentration on assessment procedures. In his twenty years of involvement with such cases, Professor Ellis developed his own method of approach for auditing environmental impact assessments, a method which will help readers appraise similar cases in which they are involved, either as concerned citizen, environmental managers or assessors.

1 Introduction.- 1 Working Concepts.- 1.1 Risk and Assessment.- 1.2 Impact and Recovery: Ecological Catastrophe and Succession.- 1.3 Timing.- 1.4 The Patterns of Risk and Impact.- 1.5 Organisation and Communication.- 1.6 Interaction.- 1.7 Summary.- 2 Assessments.- 2 Construction — Hell’s Gate (Canada).- 2.1 The Risks.- 2.2 The Problem and Its Remedies.- 2.2.1 Location, Impact and Timing.- 2.2.2 Assessments; Biology.- 2.2.3 Remedies.- 2.2.4 Participants.- 2.3 Issues.- 2.3.1 Research and Development.- 2.3.2 Native Rights.- 2.3.3 Delays.- 2.3.4 Values and Costs.- 2.3.5 Construction Risks.- 2.4 Summary.- 3 Chemicals — Minamata (Japan).- 3.1 The Risks.- 3.2 The Problem and Its Resolution.- 3.2.1 Location.- 3.2.2 Minamata Disease.- 3.2.3 Timing.- 3.2.4 Assessments.- 3.2.4.1 Epidemiology.- 3.2.4.2 The Hunt for the Cause.- 3.2.4.3 Mapping Mercury.- 3.2.4.4 Undersea Reclamation and Its Assessment.- 3.3 Issues.- 3.3.1 Assessment Personnel.- 3.3.2 Prevention: by Discharge Standards.- 3.3.3 The Risk: As Seen Now.- 3.4 Summary.- 4 Mining — Island Copper (Canada).- 4.1 The Industry Risks.- 4.1.1 In General.- 4.1.2 Coastal Mines and Waste Disposal to the Sea.- 4.2 Island Copper’s Resolutions.- 4.2.1 Introduction.- 4.2.2 Location.- 4.2.3 Timing.- 4.2.4 Pollution Controls.- 4.2.5 Assessment.- 4.2.6 Effluent.- 4.2.7 Tailing — Direct Impacts.- 4.2.7.1 Water Turbidity.- 4.2.7.2 Seabed Covering.- 4.2.7.3 Water Contamination.- 4.2.7.4 Fish (and Shellfish) Kills.- 4.2.8 Tailings-Derived Impacts.- 4.2.8.1 Habitat and Ecosystem Changes.- 4.2.8.2 Biological Productivity.- 4.2.8.3 Food Chains and Fisheries Changes.- 4.2.8.4 Biological Contamination.- 4.2.9 Land and Freshwater Assessments.- 4.2.10 Summary of Assessments.- 4.3 Issues.- 4.3.1 Assessment Personnel.- 4.3.2 Pollution Controls.- 4.3.3 Media Attention, Social Protest and Environmental Action.- 4.4 Summary.- 5 Organic Chemicals, Pulp and Paper — Annat Point (Scotland).- 5.1 The Industry Risks.- 5.2 Annat Point’s Resolution.- 5.2.1 The Impact.- 5.2.2 Assessments.- 5.3 Issues.- 5.3.1 The Team of Scientists.- 5.3.2 Field Versus Laboratory Science: and Timing.- 5.3.3 One-Shot Versus Continuing Assessments: Canadian Mills.- 5.4 Summary.- 6 Sewage — Victoria (Canada).- 6.1 The Risks.- 6.2 Victoria’s Resolution.- 6.2.1 The Location of Victoria — Next to the U.S.A.- 6.2.2 The Sewerage Authority.- 6.2.3 The Sewerage System in Victoria.- 6.2.4 Timing — Five Assessment Phases.- 6.2.5 Assessments and Impacts.- 6.2.5.1 MacaulayPoint — The First Deep Outfall.- 6.2.5.2 Clover Point — Accident!.- 6.2.5.3 McMicking Point — Citizen Protests.- 6.2.5.4 Finnerty Cove — Insufficient Action.- 6.2.5.5 The Western Community — The Supreme Court.- 6.2.5.6 West Saanich Peninsula — A Unique Environment.- 6.2.5.7 East Saanich Peninsula — Small Treatment Plants.- 6.2.5.8 Ganges — A Remote Community.- 6.3 Issues.- 6.3.1 Periodic Reviews.- 6.3.2 Institutional Frameworks.- 6.3.3 Assessment Personnel.- 6.3.4 Changing Social Perceptions of EIA.- 6.3.5 Future Risk Assessment.- 6.4 Summary.- 7 Spills — AMOCO CADIZ (France), Bhopal (India), Chernobyl (U.S.S.R.).- 7.1 The Risks.- 7.2 Case 1. AMOCO CADIZ (France).- 7.2.1 Impact and Timing.- 7.2.2 Assessments.- 7.2.3 Issues: Institutional Frameworks and International Co-Operation.- 7.2.4 Summary.- 7.3 Case 2. Bhopal (India).- 7.3.1 Site, Impact and Timing.- 7.3.2 Assessment Problems.- 7.3.3 Issues: The Sudden Emergency.- 7.3.4 Summary.- 7.4 Case 3. Chernobyl (U.S.S.R.).- 7.4.1 Site, Timing and Impact.- 7.4.2 Derived Impacts and Assessments.- 7.4.3 Issues.- 7.4.3.1 A Near-Global Emergency.- 7.4.3.2 The Massive Emergency Response.- 7.4.3.3 International Co-Operation and Information Flow.- 7.4.3.4 Reporting, Archiving, and Hindsight Reviews.- 7.4.4 Summary.- 7.5 Comparison of the Spills.- 8 Multiple and Dispersed Impacts — Acid Rain (USA/Canada), the Thames Estuary (England).- 8.1 The Risks.- 8.2 Case 1. Acid Rain (Eastern North America).- 8.2.1 Location and Background.- 8.2.2 Impact and Timing.- 8.2.3 Assessments.- 8.2.4 Events.- 8.2.5 Networking.- 8.2.6 Controls.- 8.2.7 Issues.- 8.2.8 Summary.- 8.3 Case 2. The Thames Estuary (England).- 8.3.1 History.- 8.3.2 Site, Impact and Timing.- 8.3.2.1 London.- 8.3.2.2 The First Degeneration.- 8.3.2.3 The Second Degeneration.- 8.3.3 Assessments.- 8.3.3.1 D.O.1884.- 8.3.3.2 Chemicals.- 8.3.3.3 Fish.- 8.3.3.4 Other Biological Measures.- 8.3.4 Environmental Quality Control.- 8.3.5 Issues.- 8.3.5.1 Timing.- 8.3.5.2 Powerful People.- 8.3.5.3 Centres of Science.- 8.3.6 Fine-Tuning the Risk.- 8.3.7 Summary.- 8.4 Comparison of Risks.- 3 Reducing Risk.- 9 Environmental Audits — Marcopper Mining Corp. (The Philippines), Bougainville Copper Mine (Papua New Guinea).- 9.1 The Needs.- 9.2 Case 1. Marcopper Mining (The Philippines).- 9.2.1 Location and Timing.- 9.2.2 Environmental Action and Assessments.- 9.2.3 The Audit.- 9.2.4 Summary.- 9.3 Case 2. Bougainville Copper Mine (Papua New Guinea).- 9.3.1 Location and Timing.- 9.3.2 Environmental Action and Assessments.- 9.3.3 The Audit.- 9.3.3.1 Marine Benthos.- 9.3.3.2 Fish Populations.- 9.3.3.3 Fish Trace Metals.- 9.3.3.4 Interaction with the Geomorphology Project.- 9.3.3.5 Interaction with the Geochemistry Project.- 9.3.3.6 Interaction with the Reclamation Project.- 9.3.4 Issues.- 9.3.5 Predictive Assessments.- 9.3.6 Summary.- 9.4 Comparison of the Two Audits.- 10 Permitting and Regulating — Quartz Hill Molybdenum Mine (Alaska), Yabulu Nickel Refinery (Australia).- 10.1 The Permitting Process.- 10.2 Case 1. Quartz Hill Molybdenum Mine (Alaska).- 10.2.1 Location, Timing and Risks.- 10.2.2 The Local Resolutions.- 10.2.2.1 Assessments.- 10.2.2.2 Permitting.- 10.2.3 Issues: Openness.- 10.2.4 Summary.- 10.3 Case 2. Yabulu Nickel Refinery (Australia).- 10.3.1 The Risks for Smelters and Refineries.- 10.3.2 Yabulu’s Resolutions.- 10.3.2.1 Location and Processing.- 10.3.2.2 The Permits and Timing.- 10.3.2.3 Assessments.- 10.3.3 Issues: Discretionary Action.- 10.3.4 Summary.- 10.4 Comparison.- 11 Fact-Finding and Social Input — a Public Hearing (Mining, Canada) and a Multinational AGM (Rio Tinto Zinc, England).- 11.1 The Problem.- 11.2 Case 1. A Public Hearing — Mining (Canada).- 11.2.1 The Situation.- 11.2.2 The Event and Timing.- 11.2.3 The Product.- 11.2.4 Media Responses.- 11.2.5 Issues: Alternatives to Public Hearings.- 11.2.6 Summary.- 11.3 Case 2. A Multinational AGM — Rio Tinto Zinc PLC (England).- 11.3.1 The Company.- 11.3.2 The 1984 AGM.- 11.3.3 Issues.- 11.3.3.1 AGM Strategies by Management and Intervenors.- 11.3.3.2 Specifics Versus Issues.- 11.3.3.3 Information Flow.- 11.3.4 Summary.- 4 Self-Help.- 12 Issues.- 12.1 Science and Technology.- 12.1.1 Research and Development.- 12.1.2 Assessment Procedures.- 12.1.3 Pollution Controls and Quality Controls.- 12.2 People: Personnel and Participants.- 12.2.1 Assessment Personnel.- 12.2.2 Case Participants.- 12.3 Social Organisation.- 12.3.1 Delays.- 12.3.2 Costs.- 12.3.3 Openness.- 12.4 Information Flow.- 12.5 Social Demands.- 12.5.1 Native Rights.- 12.5.2 Media and Protest.- 12.6 Risk Planning.- 12.7 Case Histories.- References.