Risk management of chemicals and contaminated land – from planning to verification - Environmental Deterioration and Contamination: Problems and their Management - page 281

A possible integration of ERA and LCA has been tested by having carried out
ERA for each emission quantified in an LCA. Such detailed combination has very high
resource and time demand, so it seems to be a more practical approach if ERAs only
focus on the most significant emissions identified by an LCA. So LCA can have a role
to define a priority for ERA concerning the type of emissions and the life cycle phase.
This integrated method leads toward the consolidation of a “life cycle risk assessment''
methodology (Flemström et al., 2004).
Also the REACH directive offers a possibility to apply LCA as a support for ERA.
Application of a chemical in a defined use scenario may require a RR strategy according
to RA results. LCA can be a powerful method to define such a strategy by comparing the
entire life cycle of the chemical with its alternatives, to identify and optimize its benefits
and disadvantages. The different approach offered by LCA may highlight consequences
hidden from ERA concerning the potential substitution of a chemical (Christensen &
Olsen, 2004). On the other hand, without an assessment of human and ecological
risks of chemicals, LCA cannot characterize the sum of threats stemming from the
production, use and waste phase of chemicals (Gruiz & Sára, 2009). LCA should be
harmonized with ERA and SEA. It would be essential to achieve complete coverage
(without overlaps) by these assessment tools in support of an efficient environmental
decision making.
6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT AND DECISION MAKING
K. Gruiz
Socio-economic assessment (SEA) in ERM and decision making for chemicals and
contaminated land ensures an objective scheme for the evaluation of legislation, man-
agement options, remedial alternatives and supports decision making. A systematic
and uniform methodology, similar to the one developed for ERA would result in a
coherent and objective decision-making process. The cooperation between ERA and
SEA experts helps to put things in their right place, and provides a sound base for a
dynamic decision making, with improved understanding of environmental and social
risks and benefits, as well as their interactions and their aggregation. It is important
to see to what extent the scale of risk, and other, economic and social arguments may
influence risk management. The framework for integrating socio-economic analysis
in chemical risk management and decision making has been established by OECD
(OECD, 2000; OECD, 1999a and OECD, 1999b).
Socio-economic analysis can help to determine whether the RR measures under
consideration are necessary, what the risks are, who and how much will be influenced
by the proposed measures and what the benefits will be. What will be the costs of
implementing various measures, which cost can be balanced by future benefits and
how will the costs be distributed.
Similar to ERA, SEA has its data acquisition and analysis tools. As in ERA, SEA
should use substance-based approaches instead of impact-based ones. SEA should be
based on ERA in many aspects: considering the life cycle of chemicals and the mean-
ing of the risk values ( RCR ), the identified RR options should meet the targeted risk