Starting up; early stages - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 99

The “no action” option refers to environmental conditions if a project were not to go
ahead. In essence, consideration of the “no action” option is equivalent to a discussion of
the need for the project: do the benefits of the project outweigh its costs? Consideration
of this option is required in some countries, e.g. the USA, 2 but has been rarely discussed
in UK EISs.
The consideration of alternative locations is an essential component of the project
planning process. In some cases, a project's location is constrained in varying degrees:
for instance, gravel extraction can take place only in areas with sufficient gravel deposits,
and wind farms require locations with sufficient wind speed. In other cases, the best
location can be chosen to maximize, for example, economic, planning and environmental
considerations. For industrial projects, for instance, economic criteria such as land values,
the availability of infrastructure, the distance from sources and markets, and the labour
supply are likely to be important (Fortlage 1990). For road projects, engineering criteria
strongly influence the alignment. In all these cases, however, siting the project in
“environmentally robust” areas, or away from designated or environmentally sensitive
areas, should be considered.
The consideration of different scales of development is also integral to project
planning. In some cases, a project's scale will be flexible. For instance, the scale of a
waste-disposal site can be changed, depending, for example, on the demand for landfill
space, the availability of other sites and the presence of nearby residences or
environmentally sensitive sites. The number of turbines on a wind farm could vary
widely. In other cases, the developer will need to decide whether an entire unit should be
built or not. For instance, the reactor building of a PWR nuclear power station is a large
discrete structure that cannot easily be scaled down. Pipelines or bridges, to be functional,
cannot be broken down into smaller sections.
Alternative processes and equipment involve the possibility of achieving the same
objective by a different method. For instance, 1500 MW of electricity can be generated
by one combined-cycle gas turbine power station, by a tidal barrage, by several waste-
burning power stations or by hundreds of wind turbines. Gravel can be directly extracted
or recycled, using wet or dry processes. Waste may be recycled, incinerated or put in a
landfill
Once the location, scale and processes of a development have been decided upon,
different site layouts can still have different impacts. For instance, noisy plant can be
sited near or away from residences. Power-station cooling towers can be few and tall
(using less land) or many and short (causing less visual impact). Buildings can be sited
either prominently or to minimize their visual impact. Similarly, operating conditions can
be changed to minimize impacts. For instance, a level of noise at night is usually more
annoying than the same level during the day, so night-time work could be avoided.
Establishing designated routes for project-related traffic can help to minimize disturbance
to local residents. Construction can take place at times of the year that minimize
environmental impacts, for example on migratory and nesting birds. These kinds of
“alternatives” act like mitigation measures.
Alternatives must be reasonable: they should not include ideas that are not technically
possible, or illegal. The type of alternatives that can realistically be considered by a given
developer will also vary: a mineral extraction company that has put a deposit on a parcel
of land in the hope of extracting sand and gravel from it will not consider the option of