Integrating a Life-Cycle Assessment with NEPA: Does It Make Sense?

Charles H. Eccleston

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of1969 provides the basic national charter for protection of the environment in the United States. Today NEPA provides an environmental policy model, emulated by nations around the world. Recently, questions have been raised regarding the appropriateness and under what conditions it makes sense to combine the preparation of a NEPA nnalysis with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) I S 0 14000 standards for Life-Cycle Assessment ( L a ) . This article advances a decision-making tool consisting of six dis- crete factors for use in determining when it is appropriate to perform an integrated NEPNLCA analysis. Properly applied, this tool should reduce the risk that an LCA may be inappropriately prepared and integrated with a NEPA analysis. 0 1999John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

p rkpGzon of a Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) can be a challenging, time consum- ing, and costly effort. Clearly, prudence must be exercised in reaching a decision to perform such an assessment or to inte- grate it with other environmental analyses such as an Environmental Impact State- ment (EIS) pursuant to the National Envi- ronmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.l Many questions have been raised regard- ing the possibility of integrating such analyses. For example, the author was re- cently privileged with the opportunity to participate in a panel discussion at the 23rd annual conference of the National Association of Environmental Profession- als to discuss the possibility of integrating an International Organization for Stan- dardization IS0 14000-consistent LCA with a NEPA analysis.

This article addresses the following questions:

Under what circumstances (if at all) does it make sense to integrate an LCA with an EIS? More specifically, are there explicit factors that one could use in determining if an EIS action is amenable to an LCA?

Before delving into this question, let us briefly review the requirements of both NEPA and those for performing an LCA. Later, a tool will be presented for assisting decision makers and practitioners in ad- dressing this question. The decision-making tool may also have applicability outside the United States, where other nations have adopted environmental policies modeled after NEPA, containing similar environmen- tal impact assessment requirements.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT In enacting NEPA, the U.S. Congress

established the world’s first national policy

CCC 1088-1 913/99/0803043-05 0 1999 John Wiley & Sons. Inc ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Spring 1999 / 43

~~

With respect to other U.S. environmental

laws and regulations, NEPA is

unique.

for preserving and safeguarding the envi- ronment for future generations. Since 1969, NEPA’s precedent has served as a global model.

Had NEPA simply been limited to es- tablishing a national policy, it may have been a “paper tiger.” Such was not the case, Beyond propagating a national policy, NEPA also established a systematic frame- work for factoring environmental conse- quences of potential actions into federal decision making. The NEPA planning pro- cess can be conceptualized as consisting of three distinct levels:

Categorical Exclusions. Environmental Assessments. Environmental Impact Statements.

As indicated by the first bullet, some actions fall into predetermined categories, which have been previously examined and found to have no significant environmental impacts. Such actions can be categorically excluded from further environmental ex- amination with respect to NEPA require- ments. An Environmental Assessment (EA) can be prepared if an action cannot be cat- egorically excluded and if there is uncer- tainty as to whether the action would result in significant environmental impacts. An EIS must be prepared if the EA concludes that the action would significantly impact the environment. Specifically, an EIS must be prepared for “all major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the hu- man environment. ”

With respect to other U.S. environmen- tal laws and regulations, NEPA is unique. Virtually every other environmental statute and regulation can be viewed as a type of permit or approval. Permits and approvals restrict the types of activities that might take place, and establish how actions may be carried out within proscriptive limitations. In contrast, NEPA places no restrictions on what or how actions may be undertaken. As a planning process, NEPA forces decision makers to consider potentially significant

impacts early in the federal agency plan- ning process before a decision is made to pursue a particular course of action. The EIS must rigorously evaluate the direct, in- direct, and cumulative impacts of a proposal and the alternatives that would reduce or avoid environmental damage. An EIS must also evaluate any irreversible and irretriev- able commitment of resources, and mitiga- tion measures. Decision makers must consider the results of this analysis in making a final decision to pursue a course of action.

LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT Life-cycle assessment is a valuable

“cradle-to-grave” accounting tool for use in identifying and mitigating negative en- vironmental/economic impacts of prod- ucts and processes. An LCA provides an effective methodology for detecting re- source inefficiencies and major sources of waste generation. The IS0 14000 series of standards has been designed to guide or- ganizations towards more environmen- tally responsible practices. As defined in I S 0 14040: Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principals and Framework, an LCA is composed of four phases.

The first phase, described in I S 0 14040, provides the definition of scope and goals for an LCA. Phase two (IS0 14041) describes the LCA inventory analysis (dis- cussed in IS0 14040) which is used to quantify the inputs and outputs of a prod- uct or process. Phase three (IS0 14042) provides guidance on performing an LCA impact assessment for evaluating the mag- nitude of potential environmental impacts of a product or system based on the LCA inventory analysis. The fourth phase (IS0 14043) provides guidance for interpreting the results of the LCA.

FACTORS USEFUL IN DETERMINING IF A N LCA SHOULD BE INTEGRATED WITH NEPA

Based on the purpose and regulatory requirements of NEPA, the following fac- tors are proposed for determining i f a

44 / Spring 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT Charles H Eccleston

federal action is a candidate for a com- bined NEPA/LCA.

1. Significant Impacts As noted earlier, an EIS is prepared on

federal proposals that might “significantly” affect the environment. An EIS is typically a large and complex undertaking, requiring a rigorous analysis of potential actions, al- ternatives, and their significant impacts. Categorical exclusions and EAs require sub- stantially less effort.

The principal reason for preparing an EA, for example, is to “[blriefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for deter- mining whether to prepare” an EIS.3 The recommended length of an EA is between 10 to 15 pages. For this and other reasons that will become apparent later, an EA clearly does not appear to provide a practi- cal forum or mechanism for performing an LCA analysis. Since little or no documen- tation is required, the same logic is true for a categorical exclusion. Thus, an integrated NEPA/LCA effort should not be performed on actions that do not involve significant im- pacts (Lee, preparation of an EIS).

2. Reasonably Foreseeable Impacts With respect to NEPA, the courts have

generally concluded that the analysis of environmental impacts is governed by the Rule of Reason. That is to say, environmen- tal impacts need only be evaluated to the extent they are deemed reasonably foresee- able. The requirement to investigate im- pacts does not extend to impacts deemed remote or speculative.

3. Ripe for Decision While the scope of an EIS inquiry is

normally much broader than for an LCA, an LCA generally requires a level of assess- ment that is narrower, but more detailed. Because an LCA normally requires more detailed information than for an EIS, the LCA should normally only be performed if the proposal has matured to a stage where sufficiently detailed information exists to

support such an analysis. For this reason, an LCA may often need to be performed at a later stage in project development than an EIS. The NEPA regulations recognize such limitations as they encourage federal agencies to tier their EISs to focus on actual issues “ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. ”

If a proposal has not advanced to the stage where sufficient information exists to support an LCA, it may be appropriate to defer preparation of the LCA until such time as any lower-tier NEPA analysis might be prepared and tiered from the EIS. In such cases, it may be appropriate to pre- pare a LCA analysis even if the tiered NEPA document is an EA, as long as the LCA would contribute to the decision- making process.

4. NEPA’s Intent-Environmental Planning and Decision Making

NEPA is a planning and decision-mak- ing process. As indicated in the regulations:

The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. . .

Use the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alterna- tives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment.‘j

Use all practical means . . . to re- store and enhance the quality of the human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse ef- fects of their actions upon the quality of the human en~i ronment .~

Consistent with this direction, an LCA might be justified if it has a potential to im- prove the agency’s plans or final decision.*

With respect to NEPA, the courts have generally concluded that the analysis of environmental impacts is governed by the Rule of Reason.

Integrating a Life-Cycle Assessment with NEPA: Does It Make Sense? ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Spring 1999 / 45

~~~~ ~

This tool does not completely eliminate subjectivity inherent

in making such determinations.

5. Unresolved Conflicts

required to: In complying with NEPA, agencies are

, , . study, develop, and describe ap- propriate alternatives to recom- mended courses of action in any pro- posal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.

Many LCA studies are performed to evalu- ate unresolved conflicts in the use of envi- ronmental resources. An LCA therefore might be justified if it would help settle or clarify unresolved conflicts in the commit- ment of environmental resources.

6. A Clear Basis for Choice among Options The section on alternatives is the

“heart” of the EIS. In describing the pro- posal and alternatives, this section of an EIS supports the ultimate goal of “sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options.’’I0 An LCA might be justified if it could help to define the issues thus providing the decision makers with a clear basis for making a rea- soned choice between alternatives.

CONSTRUCTING A DECISION-MAKING TOOL

At this point, factors have been iden- tified for determining if and when it makes sense to integrate an LCA with NEPA. Let us now examine how these factors can be assembled to construct a tool for making such decisions. A decision-making tool consisting of six distinct tests is presented in Exhibit 1.

Applying the Tool Application of the decision-making

tool is initiated by the rounded first rect- angle depicted in Exhibit 1. The user re- views a proposal (e.g., action, alternative, process, subprocess, mitigation measure) to determine if an integrated NEPA/LCA analysis is warranted. A series of six dis-

tinct tests (diamond symbols) assist the user in reaching a determination.

The first three tests (beginning with the criterion labeled: “Would the integrated analy- sis involve significant issues or impacts?”) are screening factors. A “No” response to any one of the first three tests is sufficient to reach a determination that an integrated NEPA/LCA analysis is not appropriate.

If the response to the first three tests is “Yes,” the user proceeds to the second rectangle labeled: “Is there a reasonable chance that preparing an LCA could. . . ?” This question is followed by three addi- tional tests. A response of “Yes” to any one of these three tests is sufficient to support a determination that the particular action, alternative, or process being reviewed might benefit from an integrated NEPA/ LCA analysis; professional judgement must be exercised in reaching a final deter- mination to either include or reject an in- tegrated NEPA/LCA analysis. A response of “No” to all three tests supports a deter- mination that an integrated NEPA/LCA analysis is not justified.

ADVANTAGES, LIMITATION, AND APPLl CAB I LlTY

Exhibit 1 provides a general-purpose tool that can be applied to a broad array of proposals. The tool is designed to provide a rigorous, systematic, and de- fensible approach in determining the applicability of performing an integrated NEPA/LCA analysis. This tool does not completely eliminate subjectivity inher- ent i n making such determinations. However, the tool does provide a valu- able methodology for reducing the vast number of factors that practitioners and decision makers are inundated with as they ponder such issues.

CON CLUS I0 N Prudence must be exercised in deter-

mining the appropriateness of combining an LCA analysis with the NEPA planning process. To effectively manage cost and

46 / Spring 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT Charles H. Eccleston

Exhibit 1. Methodology for Determining Under Which Circumstances It Is Appropriate to Combine an IS0 14040 LCA with a NEPA Analysis

~ ~~~

Review a potential action, alternative, or process as a for an integrated NEPARife-Cycle Analysis (LCA).

Are the lifecyck impacts "reasonably foreseeable" (ie., nc4 remote or

speculative)7

decision")?

Is there a reasonable chance that preparing an LCA could:

1 plans or decisions?

Settle or clarify "unresolved conflicts concerning akernatie uses of availabk

resources?"

I 1 No

Performing an integrated NEPNLCA analysis on the proposed action,

options?" alternative, or process is

Contribute in "shwpv defining the issues and

rovlding a clear basis for choice among

not appropriate. 1 from an integrated NEPNLCA analysis. Review the advantages of performing an integrated analysis in more

schedule constraints, it appears that an in- tegrated NEPA/LCA analysis should nor- mally be limited to a narrowlyfocused pro- cess or portion of the NEPA action under investigation. Because NEPA is initiated during the early planning process, a review should be conducted to determine if suffi-

cient data exists to support a potential LCA. As depicted in Exhibit 1, a tool consist-

ing of six tests provides the user with cri- teria for determining if an integrated LCA/ NEPA analysis should be performed. These tests do not completely eliminate subjec- tivity. Professional experience must still

Integrating a Life-Cycle Assessment with NEPA: Does It Make Sense? ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Spring 1999 / 47

be exercised in reaching a final determina- tion to perform an integrated NEPA/LCA analysis.

3. 40 CFR S1508.9(a)(1). 4. 40 CFR §1502.4[bl, 1502.20, 1508.28. 5. 40 CFR §1500.l(c). 6. 40 CFR §1500.2(e). 7. 40 CFR §1500.2(f). 8. 40CFR§1500.l(c), 1500.4(f), 1501.2,1502.1,1502.5,1502.14.

NOTES 1. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC

04321-4347 (January 1,1970). 9. 42 USC §43214347,102(2)(e).

2. 42 USC 043214347, Sec. 102(2)(c), (January 1,1970). 10. 40 CFR 01502.14.

Charles H. Eccleston is a principal scientist with the Waste Management Federal Services of Hanford, Inc. He is chairman of the NationalAssociation of Environmental Professional's Tools and Techniques (TNT) Committee. His principal interest involves developing strategies for streamlining and integrating NEPA with other environmental processes. Mr. Eccleston participated in a task force supporting the White House's Reinventing NEPA Initiative. The strategyproposed in this paper is an outgrowth of this effort.

48 / Spring 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT Charles H. Eccleston