millerhill energy recovery facility...1488-01 millerhill energy recovery facility eia informal...
Post on 04-Nov-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
MILLERHILL ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT INFORMAL SCOPING REPORT
JANUARY 2014
C h e s t e r O f f i c e | W e l l H o u s e B a r n s | C h e s t e r R o a d | B r e t t o n | C h e s t e r | C H 4 0 D H
S o u t h M a n c h e s t e r O f f i c e | C a m e l l i a H o u s e | 7 6 W a t e r L a n e | W i l m s l o w | S K 9 5 B B
t 0 8 4 4 8 7 0 0 0 0 7 | e e n q u i r i e s @ a x i s p e d . c o . u k
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 i
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 The Site and Planning History
3.0 The Proposed Development
4.0 Proposed Scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment
5.0 Proposed Structure of the Environmental Statement
Figures Figure 1: Site Location Plan
Figure 2: Approved Plan (Extant PPiP Consent)
Figure 3: Overlay drawing showing proposed Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility
and Zero Waste Facility approved under PPiP
Figure 4: Proposed Layout Plan
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 This document has been prepared to aid an informal request to agree the
scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) required to accompany a
planning application for the development of an Energy Recovery Facility. The
facility is proposed on land at the former Millerhill railway marshalling yards,
Millerhill, Dalkeith. The location of the site is shown at Figure 1.
1.1.2 The applicant for the planning application will be FCC Environment (hereafter
referred to as FCC). This document provides all the information necessary for
the relevant planning authority, Midlothian Council, to adopt an informal
Scoping Opinion.
1.1.3 The site already benefits from an existing Planning Permission in Principle
(PPiP) for the development of a waste recycling and treatment facility, granted
on 19th January 2012 (reference: 11/00174/PPP). The application was
submitted by Zero Waste, which is a joint enterprise between Midlothian
Council and the City of Edinburgh Council, to procure facilities for the
treatment of residual waste in response to the Scottish Government’s aim to
make Scotland a zero waste society.
1.1.4 The extant PPiP is for a facility capable of processing 230,000 tonnes per
annum of predominantly, but not exclusively, household residual waste
comprising all, or a combination of the following waste management facilities:
Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT);
Energy from Waste (EfW) (Combined Heat and Power Plant); and
An Anaerobic Digestion (AD) facility.
1.1.5 The approved development is collectively referred to hereafter as the Zero
Waste Facility. The Zero Waste Facility would maximise the recycling of
principally municipal waste, and allow its conversion into energy (electricity and
heat) with the intention of making such energy available to surrounding uses.
1.1.6 Following approval of the Zero Waste Facility, Alauna Renewable Energy has
been progressing with proposals for the proposed AD plant and submitted an
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 2
application for the Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions (AMSC) of the
PPiP. The application for the AMSC was granted with an additional condition
relating to landscaping on 12th June 2013 (Reference: 13/00077/MSC).
1.1.7 FCC intends to submit a new detailed planning application for the revised
solution for the remains of the Zero Waste proposal approved under the PPiP.
This would comprise:
A Mechanical Treatment (MT) facility. This would recover recyclable
materials from residual waste and turn the remaining residual waste into
a Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF); and
An Energy from Waste (EfW) Combined Heat and Power Plant. This
would recover energy and heat from the site SRF generated on site
through a combustion process.
1.1.8 Whilst the PPiP for the residual waste treatment element of the overall scheme
exists, FCC’s proposal is for an Energy Recovery Facility that incorporates
elements of the approved principles under the PPiP, albeit materially different
in built form. The key differences are summarised below:
The building footprint has been reduced from 18,350 m2 to 12,500 m2;
The maximum height of the tallest building (the boiler house) has
increased from 20m to 43m, although the height of the stack remains the
same at circa 65m. Other buildings vary in height and include the bunker
building (34m), the turbine building (18m), the Mechanical Treatment and
waste reception building (16m) and the amenity and reception building
(6m).
The facility would also be reconfigured differently on the application site,
although the footprint overlaps that approved under the PPiP (See Figure
3).
1.1.9 In consultation with Midlothian Council, FCC has concluded that whilst not
altering the approved description of the development or the use of the land, the
amendments above are such that their current proposal falls outside the ambit
of what was approved for the Zero Waste facility in the PPiP. Consequently
FCC has elected to submit a new detailed planning application for the Energy
Recovery Facility, rather than pursuing the development through an application
for the AMSC. This amended proposal is hereafter referred to as the Millerhill
Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) or the ‘proposed development’.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 3
1.1.10 Planning permission for the Zero Waste Facility approved under the PPiP
remains extant and is a material planning consideration to which significant
weight should be attached. Furthermore, the development approved under the
PPiP represents a baseline as to what form of development has been deemed
acceptable in principle at the site. Consequently, whilst FCC will apply for a
new detailed planning permission, the development approved under the PPiP
will form a key part of the baseline and this is reflected within this informal EIA
Scoping Report.
1.1.11 The ERF development would accept approximately 165,000 tonnes per annum
(tpa) of household, industrial and commercial waste. Taking into account the
30,000 tpa specified for the AD plant, the overall site would accept circa
195,000 tpa, which is 35,000 less than the 230,000 tpa specified in the Zero
Waste Facility approved under the PPiP.
1.1.12 One of the major benefits of the ERF facility would be the ability to recover
energy from the combustion of the RDF by way of electricity and heat
production. The energy generation process at the ERF would be founded upon
hot gases from the combustion chamber passing to a boiler which converts the
energy from the gases into steam. This can either be exported as heat in the
form of steam or hot water, or a proportion (or indeed practically all) of the
steam used to generate electricity which can be exported to the electricity grid.
In practice the ERF would always generate some electricity and depending
upon the level of electricity generation for which the plant is configured, there
would be a variable balance of heat available for export.
1.1.13 It is anticipated that the maximum amount of both heat and electricity that
could be produced by the facility simultaneously would be 20 MWt and 11.25
MWe (of which circa 9.8 MWe would be exported to the local supply grid with
the remainder used in the operation of the facility). The proposed facility would
have a maximum electrical generation capacity of 14 MWe, of which it is
estimated that circa 12.5 MWe would be exported to the local supply grid.
1.1.14 Heat generated from the ERF would be exported by underground insulated
pipes direct to local users which could include nearby institutional, commercial
and residential developments. See 4.16.10 for details of the Heat Study
submitted as part of the Zero Waste facility PPiP application.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 4
1.1.15 A separate Heat and Power Plan (HPP) will also be prepared in support of the
planning application. This will set out the currently defined proposals for heat
and power export together with the steps that would be taken in the future to
maximise the benefits of the proposal in this regard.
1.2 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
1.2.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
(Scotland) Regulations 2011 (EIA Regulations), prescribe the types of
development for which EIA is mandatory (Schedule 1 development) and others
which may require an assessment if they have the potential to give rise to
significant environmental impacts (Schedule 2 development). The proposed
Energy Recovery facility is consistent with Schedule 1, Part 10 of the EIA
Regulations as follows: “Waste disposal installations for the incineration or
chemical treatment (as defined in Annex 1 to Directive 2008/98/EC under
heading D9) of non-hazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes
per day.”
1.2.2 The facility would involve incineration within an ERF facility that would have a
capacity of greater than 100 tonnes per day. As such the proposed ERF facility
is deemed to be a Schedule 1 development for which EIA is a mandatory
requirement.
1.2.3 Scoping is the process through which the content and extent of matters to be
covered by the EIA are identified by considering the potential impacts that
could arise from the construction and operation of the proposed facility. Only
the ‘main’ or significant effects of the development should be subject to full
environmental assessment within the EIA.
1.2.4 The process of scoping and environmental assessment ensures that mitigation
and enhancement measures are identified at an early stage of the design
process of a development. It also provides the opportunity for the planning
authority and other consultees to ensure areas of the environment that have
the potential to be significantly affected by the project are considered within the
EIA.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 5
1.2.5 The scoping process also helps to identify potential design constraints at an
early stage in the design process. This helps to ensure that environmental
protection and sustainability are key factors in the final proposed solution.
1.2.6 As highlighted at paragraph 1.10, planning permission for the approved Zero
Waste Facility remains a material planning consideration to which significant
weight should be attached. The approved development will form a key part of
the baseline information which is reflected in this informal EIA Scoping Report.
The proposed scope of the EIA focusses on assessing the potential changes
to environmental effects likely to result from the proposed ERF, when
compared to the Zero Waste Facility approved under the PPiP.
Alternative Site Assessment
1.2.7 The Zero Waste Facility was selected after considering its strategic
development potential and proximity to potential energy consumers (to
maximise the energy recovery benefits), but also its capacity to limit potential
impacts upon the environment and other sensitive receptors. A full Site
Assessment Report is appended to the Environmental Statement (ES) for the
Zero Waste Facility and will be referred to in the ES for the ERF. No further
assessment of alternative sites will be undertaken for this application.
1.3 The Structure of the Report 1.3.1 Following on from this introduction, this report is divided into the following
chapters:
Section 2.0 of the report briefly describes the site, its surroundings and
recent relevant planning history;
Section 3.0 provides a description of the development and summarises
the alternatives that will be considered;
Section 4.0 outlines the broad principles of the EIA methodology and the
proposed scope of the Environmental Assessment. It describes the main
environmental issues that could arise through the construction and
operation of the proposed development and how these will be assessed;
and
Section 5.0 sets out the proposed structure of the Environmental
Statement (ES), which is the document in which the EIA will be reported.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 6
2.0 THE SITE AND RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
2.1 The site and Site Context 2.1.1 The proposed site is part of the former Millerhill Marshalling Yards, located
approximately 6km south east of Edinburgh city centre near to Millerhill village
(see figure 1). the site is in the administrative area of Midlothian Council, but is
also in close proximity to the boundaries of East Lothian Council and the City
of Edinburgh Council.
2.1.2 The Zero Waste site approved under the PPiP is narrow and elongated in
shape, covering an area of approximately 20.3 hectares. The ERF site
proposed under this new application (covering approximately 5.53 hectares)
would encompass the central area of the site (see Figure 1) with the AD plant
to its immediate north.
2.1.3 The site lies between the operational Millerhill railway marshalling yards and
the former Monktonhall Colliery, and is presently in a vacant and partly derelict
condition, which has become overgrown with young birch trees. West of the
proposed ERF site there are large areas of despoiled brownfield land
associated with the former Monktonhall Colliery.
2.1.4 Much of the land in the immediate area is Green Belt land utilised for
agricultural purposes. This is interspersed by transport infrastructure (e.g.
railway tracks and roads) and residential development comprising mainly
individual properties with some smaller settlements. Major roads in close
proximity to the site include the A1 which runs north and east of the site and
the A720 (City of Edinburgh bypass) to the south. Settlements in close
proximity to the site include Old Craighall, Millerhill, Newton village and
Danderhall and Musselburgh (See Figure 1).
2.1.5 Outside of the surrounding settlement areas there are a number of isolated
residential properties. Properties in close proximity to the site include Hope
Cottage and Harelow Farm (approximately 650m south west), Shawfair
(approximately 350m west), properties along the B6156 to the south (including
Wellington House and Wellington Farm), and Whitehill Mains (immediately
north of the AD plant site) (See Figure 1).
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 7
2.1.6 In addition to residential settlement, the commercial centre of Fort Kinnaird is
approximately 1km north west of the site, and the Queen Margaret University
approximately 650m east of the site, both located north of the A1 road.
2.1.7 The area to the immediate west of the proposed ERF site has for some time
been earmarked as the location for a new development, known as Shawfair,
comprising a maximum of 3,500 homes with associated infrastructure, some
industrial / commercial and amenities. The Shawfair New Community is a
‘committed development’ within the 2008 adopted Midlothian Local Plan and
has a ‘minded to approve’ outline planning consent (subject to Section 75
consent) from Midlothian Council.
2.1.8 The site is west of a functioning railway line which travels north-west into
Edinburgh. Beyond the western boundary of the site is the route of the new
Borders Railway line (former Waverley line) which intersects across the Zero
Waste site north of the AD plant and then across the proposed Shawfair New
Community area where a new station is proposed. The access road to the AD
plant and proposed Millerhill ERF includes a rail bridge crossing. The new
Border Railway will re-establish passenger railway services from Edinburgh to
Tweedbank in the Scottish Borders. This is currently under construction and
has an anticipated delivery date of Autumn 2015.
2.2 Summary of Relevant Planning Applications at the Site
2.2.1 The Planning Statement submitted to support the new application for the
proposed ERF will provide details of the planning policy and planning history
relevant to the development.
2.2.2 The site benefits from an existing PPiP for the development of a waste
recycling and treatment facility granted on 19th January 2012 (Reference:
11/00174/PPP) with conditions. The PPiP is for a facility capable of processing
230,000 tonnes per annum of predominantly, but not exclusively, household
residual waste comprising all, or a combination of the following waste
management facilities:
Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT);
Energy from Waste (EfW) (Combined Heat and Power Plant); and
An Anaerobic Digestion (AD) facility.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 8
2.2.3 Following approval of the PPiP, Alauna Renewable Energy has been
progressing with proposals for the AD facility with the submission of an
application for the Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions (AMSC) of the
PPiP. The application for the AMSC was granted with a further condition
relating to landscaping on 12th June 2013 (Reference: 13/00077/MSC).
2.2.4 Condition 5 of planning permission 11/00174/PPP required that development
of the waste recycling and treatment facility (approved under the PPiP) should
not commence until an application for AMSC for the site access and
associated infrastructure had been submitted to and approved by the local
authority. Proposals for the erection of a road bridge over the adjacent Borders
Railway Line and the formation of a new access road from Whitehill Mains
Road to access the proposed facility were subsequently submitted as a further
detailed planning application. The application was approved with conditions
(Reference: 12/00060/DPP) on 6th March 2012.
2.2.5 The site for the proposed Shawfair New Community development is located
immediately west of the site. This major development is a committed
development in the adopted Midlothian Local Plan (2008), and has a ‘minded
to approve’ planning consent (Application reference: 02/00660/OUT) subject to
the prior completion of a section 75 legal agreement.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 9
3.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 This section of the Scoping Report outlines the differences between the
proposed Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) and the Zero Waste Facility
previously approved under the Planning Permission in Principle (PPiP). It then
describes the ERF scheme in greater detail.
3.1.2 The principal changes between the ERF and the Mechanical Biological
Treatment (MBT) and Energy from Waste (EfW) elements of the Zero Waste
Facility approved under the PPiP are:
The building footprint has been reduced from 18,350m to 12,500m;
The maximum height of the tallest building (the boiler house) has
increased from 20m to 43m, although the height of the stack is likely to
remain the same at circa 65m. Other buildings vary in height and include
the bunker building (34m), the turbine building (18m), the Mechanical
Treatment and waste reception building (16m) and the amenity and
reception building (6m).
The ERF would also be reconfigured differently on the application site,
although the footprint overlaps that approved under the PPiP (See Figure
4).
The PPiP included Biological Treatment as one of the technology
options, but this will not form part of this application for the ERF.
The capacity of the facility has been reduced from 230,000 tonnes per
annum to approximately 165,000 tonnes per annum.
3.2 The Proposed Development 3.2.1 The ERF would comprise a MT facility to recover recyclable materials collected
from residual waste and an ERF Combined Heat and Power Plant to recover
energy and heat from the solid recovered fuel (SRF).
3.2.2 The waste treated would comprise a combination of municipal solid waste and
commercial and industrial waste from the authority areas of the City of
Edinburgh Council and Midlothian Council. A small proportion of treatment
capacity may also be available for waste from nearby council administrative
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 10
areas. The proposed development would not accept any hazardous or clinical
waste.
3.2.3 The MT facility would have a design capacity to process up to 165,000 tonnes
of collected residual waste per annum. It is anticipated that a minimum of 5
percent of this tonnage can be recovered for recycling. The recyclable material
would include dense plastics, metals, glass and grit, which would be baled and
exported s to appropriate recycling processors. The remaining waste material
would then form an SRF which would be fed into the ERF facility.
3.2.4 The ERF facility would also have a design capacity to treat approximately
165,000 tonnes of SRF per annum. SRF combusted within the ERF would
have been ‘pre-treated’, firstly having been segregated from recyclable
materials at source (kerbside), before passing through the on-site MT.
3.2.5 The ERF would generate energy in the form of heat and electricity. Allowing for
some electricity use within the residual waste facility itself, the vast majority of
this energy would be then exported to the local grid and to heat users
potentially including the adjacent AD plant.
3.2.6 Subject to securing planning permission and an operating permit, it is
anticipated that construction of the proposed development would commence in
Spring 2015. A 24 month construction programme is estimated at this stage
followed by a commissioning period. On this basis, the programmed
commencement date of full operation is the end of 2017.
Built Development
3.2.7 The main ERF facility will be sited within a footprint approximately 128m by
85m. At this stage is it anticipated that the stack would be approximately 65m
high, although this will be confirmed through the air quality assessment
undertaken as part of the EIA.
3.2.8 The EFR facility would contain the following elements (see Figure 4):
Waste reception / tipping hall including waste storage bunkers;
Mechanical treatment hall comprising equipment to sort and remove
recyclable materials;
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 11
SRF Conveyor;
SRF bunker;
Crane and hopper;
Boiler Hall;
Air treatment plant;
Flue Gas cleaning system and flue stack;
Turbine Hall;
Harvested rainwater storage;
Output recyclables and Bale storage area;
Waste quarantine area;
Workshops;
Staff welfare building (lockers and mess room);
Parts store;
Incinerator bottom ash storage / loading area; and
Fly ash silo.
3.2.9 In addition a number of ancillary buildings and infrastructure would be provided
at the site, which include:
Crew toilet and waiting area;
Laybys;
Weighbridges with vehicle queuing and by-pass lanes;
Gatehouse;
Standalone amenity building containing offices, visitor centre, meeting
room and welfare facilities for staff operatives (lockers and mess room);
CCTV;
Wheel wash;
Air Cooler Condensers;
Emergency diesel generator;
Diesel and ammonia storage area;
Surface water attenuation lagoon which would retain a permanent water
level for fire water storage;
Site access roads / vehicle manoeuvring areas;
Car parking and cycle park;
Landscaped areas;
Substation incorporating electrical switchgear / transformer;
Site fencing; and
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 12
External lighting.
Exporting Heat / Electricity
3.2.10 As well as the on-site development described above, the export of heat would
require the construction of underground pipework between the ERF and
potential local users. Several existing sites offer clear potential as customers to
be part of district heating schemes, in particular the Royal Infirmary of
Edinburgh, the new AD facility and Queen Margaret University which could
potentially accept significant quantities of heat or electricity from the plant.
There are other developments (existing, proposed or under construction)
including housing, shops and commercial outlets that could also be potential
heat customers with the adjacent Shawfair new town offering good potential.
3.2.11 A separate Heat and Power Plan (HPP) will be prepared in support of the
planning application. This will set out the currently defined proposals for heat
and power export together with the steps that would be taken in the future to
maximise the benefits of the proposal in this regard.
3.2.12 The pipe connections would either be included in the ERF planning application
or would be the subject of a separate consenting / authorisation procedure.
Irrespective of this, the likely significant environmental effects of constructing
the pipelines will be assessed in the ERF EIA. There may also be good
potential to supply electricity directly to the sites mentioned above via a private
wire connection.
3.2.13 The export of excess electricity to the national grid would require the
construction of over-head power cables or underground cables. The electricity
grid connection will not be included in the ERF planning application as this type
of development is the subject of a separate consenting / authorisation
procedure. However, irrespective of this, the likely significant environmental
effects of constructing the grid connection will also be covered in the ERF EIA.
Construction
3.2.14 Subject to securing planning permission and an operating permit, it is
anticipated that construction of the proposed development would commence in
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 13
Spring 2015. A 24 month construction programme is estimated at this stage
followed by a commissioning period. On this basis, the programmed
commencement date of full operation is by the end of 2017.
3.2.15 During construction of the site there is expected to be between 50 and 250
workers on site each day subject to the particular construction activities.
Construction would normally take place during the hours of 07.00 to 19.00
(Monday to Sunday). Construction activities are unlikely to be required on
Bank Holidays, and if required would be with the prior consent of the local
authority.
3.2.16 Prior to any construction activities taking place a Construction Environmental
Management Plan (CEMP) would be drafted and agreed with the local
authority. The CEMP would define the specific mitigation measures to be
applied on site and demonstrate application of the relevant pollution prevention
guidelines.
3.2.17 Further details of the construction methods and programme will be included
within the EIA. The construction is likely however to comprise the following
principal activities:
Site preparation;
Foundation and substructure works;
Construction of building envelopes;
External works (including new service roads, creation of hardstandings,
formation of access into the site from the new access road, new fencing
and landscaping;
Internal civil construction works (including construction of walls and
storage areas, office areas, control rooms, installation of mechanical,
electrical and public health systems);
Installation of internal plant and machinery;
Installation of external plant and machinery (including weighbridges etc);
and
Commissioning of all systems.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 14
3.3 Operational Development
Staff, Employment and Operating Hours
3.3.1 It is anticipated that 51 permanent members of staff would be employed at the
ERF comprising approximately 46 staff within the ERF facility and MT facility
(split into shifts), and approximately 5 managerial and office support staff.
3.3.2 In addition to this permanent employment there would be temporary jobs
associated with the construction phase and further employment in the supply
chain, both in the construction and operation phases. During construction of
the site there is expected to be between 50 and 250 workers on site each day
subject to the particular construction activities.
3.3.3 The Millerhilll ERF would (as for the Zero Waste approved facility) be
operational 24hrs per day, seven days a week including both internal and
external operations and waste delivery and despatch.
Site Access
3.3.4 Access to the site for construction and operation would be achieved via a new
priority junction off Whitehill Road, that would incorporate a bridge crossing of
the new Waverley Railway Line. This is currently under construction. As stated
in Section 2.0 the access road does not form a part of this application and has
been approved under a separate planning permission to serve the Zero Waste
Facility site as a whole. There would be two separate vehicular accesses at the
ERF, one for HGVs importing / exporting materials, and the other for bus / car
access for staff and visitors.
Process Description
3.3.5 During operation, the main waste management process would include the
following:
Collection and receipt of household collected residual waste and
industrial commercial wastes into a waste reception / tipping hall within a
building;
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 15
Mechanical sorting of waste to separate materials for recycling and to
prepare the waste as an SRF for the Energy Recovery process
(Mechanical Treatment or MT);
Energy Recovery, by way of Thermal treatment to produce energy from
the SRF that otherwise cannot readily be reused or recycled after pre-
sorting at Kerbside and in the MT to this proposed facility.
Temporary storage of products and residues of waste treatment including
Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) (ferrous metals extracted by magnet for
recycling);
Transferral of heat from treatment processes to water through a boiler
creating steam for CHP and / or to drive turbines to generate electricity;
Cleaning of gases by a flue gas cleaning system; and
Filtering of gas through a fine fabric filter to remove particles before flue
gas is released through the stack.
Mechanical Treatment (SRF Production Area- Primary Treatment)
3.3.6 Waste would be delivered to the site in refuse collection vehicles or articulated
bulker vehicles. The vehicles would enter the site and as part of the sites
waste acceptance procedures would first have all paperwork checked at the
weighbridge before being weighed in and proceeding to the waste tipping /
reception hall. From here the waste would be loaded via a hopper and then
conveyed into the adjacent mechanical treatment (MT) process building where
it would be processed into SRF by using various elements of mechanical
separation, equipment in a highly controlled environment. A small proportion of
material may be delivered to the site as SRF and not require further processing
within the MT.
3.3.7 The MT process would sort and screen the waste through a series of
mechanical processes which would recover key recyclables such as metals,
plastics, glass, stones, grit etc, some of which could form a secondary
aggregate. The residual waste would be formed into an SRF for thermal
treatment. There would also be a small quantity of MT rejects which are both
non-recyclable and cannot be thermally treated that would be sent offsite to
landfill. The recyclable materials would be temporarily stored in separate
storage areas and removed from site in covered vehicles for onward
transportation to reprocessing facilities.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 16
3.3.8 Following extraction of the recyclable materials / rejects, the leftover residual
waste (now SRF) would be transferred to the SRF / EfW bunker via an over-
head conveyor.
3.3.9 The design of the facility and associated control systems will take into account
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency’s (SEPA) internal guidance notes
including that of the guidance on odour (2010). The process building would be
maintained under negative pressure conditions, which would minimise the
potential for the release of particulates and odour to the outside.
3.3.10 The part of the building housing the MT process would be fully enclosed, with
all access points to the operational areas of the building being via high speed
rollers shutter doors. All waste treatment and handling would take place within
the building, and when the shutter doors are closed. There would be an
atmosphere control system within the building maintaining an overall negative
air pressure. The design of the atmosphere control system would duct the air
from the waste reception area and MT area into the ERF bunker where the
processed SFR would be stored prior to entering the main ERF.
The ERF Process Combustion Process
3.3.11 The feed hopper from the SRF bunker would deliver the SRF to the feed table
which would control the movement of material into the combustion chamber
housed within the Boiler Hall. The hearth, a mechanical inclined moving grate
design, would ensure continuous mixing of the waste and hence promotes
good combustion. The SRF would be put into the grate from the top. As the
SRF moves down the grate through the combustion chamber it would pass
through a drying zone, combustion zone and a burnout zone. As referred to
above primary combustion air would be extracted from within the waste tipping
/ reception hall and MT facility and fed in below the SRF through the grate bars
to promote good combustion. This as mentioned above also has the effect of
maintaining the waste tipping / reception hall under negative pressure to
prevent egress of odour, dust and litter.
3.3.12 Secondary combustion air would be injected above the SRF where it provides
for good mixing and combustion control. Ammonia or urea would be injected
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 17
into the combustion chamber to react with the oxides of nitrogen, chemically
reducing them to nitrogen and water.
3.3.13 Auxiliary low nitrogen oxide (NOX) burners operating on low sulphur gasoil
would be fitted for start-up sequencing and occasionally (if required) to
maintain combustion gas temperatures above the requisite 850°C for 2
seconds. The oxygen concentration and temperature would be carefully
controlled to ensure complete combustion and minimise dioxin emissions in full
accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED).
Energy Recovery from the ERF
3.3.14 Hot gases from the SRF combustion would pass through a series of heat
exchangers and superheaters and finally through an economiser, located
within the Boiler Hall. The boiler would generate steam at a pressure and
temperature of around 40 Bar and 400°C, which would be fed to a steam
turbine within the Turbine Hall to generate electricity. Once as much energy as
possible has been recovered from the steam in the turbine, it would be
condensed using an air cooled condenser and re-circulated back into the
boiler. The turbine would drive an electrical generator to produce electricity.
3.3.15 The boiler would be designed with various efficiency improvement measures
such as an economiser to preheat feedwater before it is supplied to the boiler
and to heat up condensate which would ensure high steam generation
efficiency. Low grade heat would also be extracted from the turbine and used
to preheat combustion air in order to improve the efficiency of the thermal
cycle.
3.3.16 The steam turbine would be designed with extraction points to allow heat to be
exported as steam or hot water to a variety of local users as referred to in this
document as part of potential district heating schemes, therefore improving the
overall energy efficiency of the process.
Flue Gas Treatment
3.3.17 Nitrogen oxides (NOX) abatement would be achieved by the use of selective
non-catalytic reduction (SNCR). The SNCR is based on the injection of
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 18
ammonia into the furnace chambers before the boilers and before the lime and
carbon injection and before the gas passes to bag filters.
3.3.18 Flue gases would pass from the boiler to the flue gas treatment system located
within the Boiler Hall. The gas would enter a reaction duct where dry hydrated
lime reacts with and neutralises the acid gases. Activated carbon would be
injected into the duct preceding the bag filter to adsorb (primarily) dioxins,
other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), mercury and other trace metals. The
lime injection rate would be controlled by upstream measurement of hydrogen
chloride (HCl) thus optimising the efficiency of gas scrubbing and lime usage.
3.3.19 Bag filters would be used to remove the fine ash plus excess and spent lime
and carbon as the gases pass through the bag filter fabric. The build-up of the
latter two enhances the performance of the system. Reverse pulses of
compressed air would be used to remove the accumulated particulate from the
bags. These air pollution control residues (APCR) would fall into a collection
hopper and are then conveyed to a storage silo.
3.3.20 The cleaned gas would then discharge to atmosphere via the flue stack which
would be approximately 65m in height.
3.3.21 A continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) would be installed to
monitor the emissions to atmosphere and ensure compliance with the emission
limits in the WID. The CEMS would be certified and maintained to the
requirements of SEPA.
Residue Handling
3.3.22 The ash produced from the combustion of the SRF (referred to as Incinerator
Bottom Ash (IBA)) would fall from the end of the grate into a water bath ash
quench system. This cools the ash down and prevents dust emissions. The
ash would be transported to the IBA storage bunker via a conveyer and any
ferrous metals within the ash would be removed by an overband magnet for
off-site recycling. The ash would be held in the IBA bunker before being loaded
into covered transport containers and removed from site to an ash reprocessor
to be used as secondary aggregate.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 19
3.3.23 Ash which is carried through the boiler and collected in the bag filter would
already be combined with the flue gas treatment residues such as excess lime
and carbon. This APCR would be taken off-site by licensed contractors for
disposal at a hazardous landfill or for further treatment. The residues would be
removed from site in enclosed tankers to prevent emissions of dust.
Ancillaries
3.3.24 Water for steam generation would be taken from the public water supply and
treated prior to use in the boilers.
3.3.25 Odour control for the Waste Reception and MT areas and ERF would be
provided by air extraction into the MT primary combustion air system. Fast
acting roller shutter doors would ensure negative pressure is maintained within
these areas.
3.3.26 The raw materials required for the flue gas treatment system, including
powdered lime, powdered activated carbon and ammonia or urea, would be
stored on site in silos or tanks (See proposed layout on Figure 4). Delivery of
these raw materials would be via road tanker, off-loaded using a fully
contained system.
3.3.27 The plant would be controlled from a centralised control room via a
sophisticated computer control system within the main building to ensure all
the requirements of the IED are monitored and achieved.
Meeting Room
3.3.28 A meeting room for staff use would be located within the amenity building.
Visitors Centre
3.3.29 A Visitors Centre will be located in an ancillary building. This would be
available for use by invited visitor groups (schools, community groups etc). For
general security reasons and operational efficiency, the site would not be open
to visitors on a casual ‘drop-in’ basis. Visitors would generally arrive at the site
on a pre-arranged basis and on a pre-booked bus.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 20
3.4 Environmental Statement
3.4.1 The ES will describe and illustrate all of the components of the proposed
development and will include a description of:
The site and development formation levels;
Access details;
The electricity and Heat generating process – from receipt of waste
through to the export of electricity and heat;
Waste source and quantities and traffic movements;
Operating hours during construction and operation;
Structures on the site, including appearance;
Foul and surface water drainage infrastructure;
Emissions to the air;
Landscaping proposals;
The construction period and an outline of the main construction
operations;
The number of people to be employed at the site; and
Outline environmental management systems.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 21
4.0 PROPOSED SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 This section provides a brief description of the approach to the EIA and
describes the broad principles that will be applied within each technical
assessment. It describes the main topic areas that are planned to be covered
in the ES and the proposed scope of assessment work associated with each of
the relevant EIA headings. 4.1.2 The ES will contain the following general introductory chapters:
Introduction and Background;
General Approach to and Scope of the EIA;
Site Description; and
The Proposed Development (the detailed scheme description).
4.1.3 The ES will not address planning policy or the need for the development in
detail, both of which will be contained within a separate Planning Statement. 4.1.4 Whilst the proposed development must be considered in relation to its impact
on existing environmental conditions, it is entirely appropriate to note within the
assessment that PPiP for a large scale residual waste management facility has
been granted consent at the site. As such, it can be considered that the
impacts associated with the consented development were deemed acceptable
at the time the permission was granted. The proposed scope of the EIA
therefore focusses on assessing the potential changes to environmental
effects likely to result from the proposed ERF, when compared to the Zero
Waste Facility approved under the PPiP. In considering factors that mitigate
the effects of the proposed ERF, reference will be made to the approved Zero
Waste permission.
4.2 Structure of the ES Assessment Chapters 4.2.1 Each technical assessment chapter of the ES will follow a similar approach as
follows:
An introduction describing the basic scope and approach undertaken to
the assessment;
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 22
A description of the methodology applied to the assessment both in
terms of any surveys carried out and also the criteria used in the
assessment and in particular the identification of likely significant
environmental effects;
A presentation of the baseline conditions relevant to that discipline, this
will include a presentation of survey data;
A description of potential impacts and mitigation that summarises the
effects that are likely to arise from the proposed development and sets
out mitigation measures that could be introduced to avoid, reduce or
manage potential effects of the development;
An assessment of residual effects that are likely to arise from the
proposed development after mitigation. The assessment will include a
description of the nature, extent and significance of these effects and the
identification of likely significant environmental effects; and
Finally each section will provide a conclusion that summarises the
findings of the assessment for that particular discipline. The conclusions
will note the potential effects and any difference in effects between the
ERF and the previously approved Zero Waste Facility.
4.3 Determining Impact Significance 4.3.1 Each technical chapter will include a detailed description of the assessment
methodology. This will include a description of any surveys undertaken and the
approach undertaken in determining the significance of effects that may arise
from the development. 4.3.2 The EIA Regulations do not provide definitive methods for the assessment of
significance and a variety of methods are employed within EIAs. The method
used to assess the effects will be specific to each discipline. In most cases the
assessment methods used will be defined by the relevant professional body or
by industry best practice guidelines.
4.3.3 When determining the significance of the impacts each of the disciplines will
give particular regard to the following elements of the impact:
Status of the impact;
Extent or spatial scale of the impact;
Duration of the impact;
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 23
Sensitivity of receptor;
Probability / likelihood of the impact; and
Magnitude of the impact.
4.3.4 The significance of the impact will be established through the evaluation of the
above impact elements and will ultimately be determined through professional
judgement. The criteria used to define significance will be described within the
ES for each discipline. 4.4 Mitigation Measures 4.4.1 Mitigation measures are listed as a requirement under part of both Part I and
Part II of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations. Part I requires “a description of
the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any
significant adverse effects on the environment”. Part II requires “a description
of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and if possible remedy
significant adverse effects”. 4.4.2 Should potential environmental impacts be identified during the assessments
these will be taken into account by the technical design team. Where possible
the impacts would be reduced or avoided through design changes, these
measures will then form part of the project and be taken into account in the
EIA.
4.4.3 Mitigation measures will be considered from the outset of the project and will
take into account comments received during consultation with key
stakeholders. Mitigation and enhancement measures not included in the
design and measures that are dealt with through management will be
described within each technical chapter. 4.5 Cumulative Effects
4.5.1 A cumulative effects assessment was undertaken as part of the EIA for the
Zero Waste Facility PPiP application. This will be revisited in the ERF EIA to
re-assess the potential cumulative effects of the proposed development in
combination with consented developments, including the AD plant.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 24
4.6 Main ES Chapters
4.6.1 A preliminary consideration of the potential environmental effects of the ERF
development has been carried out in the preparation of this Scoping report.
This initial assessment has been used to determine whether any issues may
be scoped out of the EIA on the grounds that they are unlikely to give rise to
significant effects. Those issues which are not scoped out as a result of this
process would form the technical scope of the EIA.
4.6.2 As the project develops and consultation with statutory and non-statutory
bodies is carried out it is possible that further issues may be scoped into the
assessment. Where this occurs the issues would be fully assessed within the
ES.
4.6.3 The remainder of this section of the report sets out the applicant’s view as to
the main environmental issues that could potentially arise as a result of the
ERF development. The principal issues have been considered under the
following headings:
Traffic and Transportation;
Landscape and Visual Impact;
Ecology and Nature Conservation;
Geology and Ground Conditions;
Surface Waters, Flood Risk and Drainage;
Noise and Vibration;
Air Quality;
Human Health;
Cultural Heritage;
Socio-economics; and
Airport Safeguarding.
4.7 Traffic and Transportation
Introduction
4.7.1 The ERF would be developed on land associated with the Zero Waste Facility,
located to the south of Whitehill Road and west of Millerhill railway sidings. The
Zero Waste Facility was granted outline planning consent in January 2012 for
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 25
up to 230,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of waste treatment development
(including for Anaerobic Digestion (AD), Energy from Waste (EfW) and
Mechanical & Biological Treatment (MBT) elements) and is to be supported by
local highway network improvements, including a new site access road
connection to Whitehill Road. This extant planning consent represents a
material planning matter when reviewing highways and transport issues, as it
establishes the principle of development at the site and a ‘fall-back’ threshold
of development related traffic demand that the highway stakeholders have
identified as being acceptable.
Baseline
Previously Consented Site Traffic Volumes
4.7.2 The formal transport submissions prepared to support the consented
230,000tpa Zero Waste Facility (Feb 2011 Transport Assessment Report by
Colin Buchanan & Partners Ltd) identified the following anticipated typical
weekday daily traffic levels (NB – assuming no back loading and including for
the potential for night time deliveries):
Waste Inputs: 164 arrivals / 164 departures
Other Raw Materials / Outputs: 12 arrivals / 12 departures
Staff Trips: 24 arrivals / 24 departures
Total Traffic (two way): 400 movements
4.7.3 It should be noted that the TA & ES for the Zero Waste Facility PPiP
application concluded that the above traffic levels would not result in a material
detrimental impact on the operation of the surrounding road network – a
position accepted by the local highway authorities of Midlothian Council, the
City of Edinburgh Council and Transport Scotland (strategic highway network).
The above predicted values therefore represent the extant traffic generation
‘fall-back’ position and thus should act as the starting point for the assessment
of the traffic effects of the proposed ERF development.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 26
Proposed Development Traffic Volumes
4.7.4 Development of the ERF scheme envisages a revised waste treatment
development at the Millerhill site, which would accommodate the following
elements:
New ERF & MT Facility (permission to be sought under a new detailed
application): 165,000tpa capacity; and
Retention of the AD Facility (previously consented under the PPiP:
30,000tpa capacity).
4.7.5 The proposed development would be road served both in of terms waste /
consumables inputs and the export of process residues / output materials.
Access to the site for construction and operation would be achieved via a new
priority junction off Whitehill Road that would incorporate a bridge crossing of
the new Waverley Railway Line. This is currently under construction.
4.7.6 Preliminary estimates of the future maximum site operation (165,000tpa MT /
ERF + 30,000tpa AD) suggest the following daily traffic levels (based on no
back loading at the site & the potential for night time deliveries to the MT/ERF:
MT / ERF Facility (165,000tpa)
Waste Inputs: 48 arrivals / 48 departures;
Other Raw Materials / Outputs: 10 arrivals / 10 departures; and
Staff Trips: 51 arrivals / 51 departures.
Consented AD Facility (30,000tpa)
Waste Inputs: 19 arrivals / 19 departures;
Compost Product Outputs: 4 arrivals / 4 departures; and
Staff Trips: 6 arrivals / 6 departures. Total Traffic (Two-way): 276 movements
4.7.7 It is therefore anticipated that the ‘net’ effects of the proposed development
would be to reduce overall site traffic demand when compared to the planning
fall-back case (development of the consented Zero Waste Facility). Indeed,
site related daily HGV levels associated with the proposed ERF development
could be expected be of the order of 124 movements (in + out) less than the
previously consented scheme.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 27
Assessment Methodology
Assessment Scope
4.7.8 Given the predicted positive ‘net’ impact case identified above, it is proposed
that technical highway capacity and road network operational matters can be
dealt with via a simple Transport Statement (TS) report, reflecting the guidance
set out in June 2010 Transport Scotland good practice document “Transport
Assessment Guidance”.
4.7.9 Ultimately it is anticipated that the scope of assessment set out in the TS
report could be limited to a simple comparison of predicted traffic demand
under the following scenarios:
‘Fall Back’ Baseline Planning Scenario: i.e. Full development of the
consented Zero Waste Facility scheme;
Development Scenario: Proposed MT / ERF + retained AD facility.
4.7.10 The TS report will set out the predicted traffic estimates associated with the
proposed development for relevant time periods across a typical working
weekday. This presentation of information is in line with the approach pursued
in support of the previous ERF scheme.
4.7.11 Due to the predicted reduction in overall site related traffic demand associated
with the proposed development when compared to the extant ‘fall back’
planning position for the site, it is not anticipated that any off-site network
safety or capacity assessment would be required. Some highway
improvements proposed in the PPiP will be implemented as part of the AD
plant installation.
4.7.12 The TS report would also include reference to estimates of the likely
construction traffic levels for the proposed ERF development. Ultimately,
however, given the similar nature of the development when compared to the
consented Zero Waste Facility scheme, it is not anticipated that this exercise
will identify a material increase in construction traffic volumes compared to the
planning ‘fall-back’ position. On this basis it is not anticipated that any off-site
construction traffic related network safety or capacity assessment would be
required. Furthermore it should be recognised that construction traffic is, by its
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 28
nature, temporary in duration and that the delivery of any construction works at
the site could be expected to be subject to a Construction Traffic Management
Plan to assist in managing traffic effects to acceptable levels.
Traffic Related Environmental Assessment
4.7.13 Given that the proposed development could be expected to result in an overall
reduction in site related traffic volumes when compared to the planning ‘fall
back’ position of the delivery of the consented Zero Waste Facility scheme,
which itself was identified as only being expected to result in ‘negligible’ traffic
related environmental impacts, it is considered that there is no requirement for
a detailed assessment of development traffic related environmental issues.
The ES Transport Chapter will therefore be limited to a simple setting out of
the summary of the ‘net’ traffic case identified in the supporting TS report.
4.7.14 Potential effects on noise and air quality related to traffic and transport will be
detailed within the specific Noise and Vibration and Air Quality topic chapters
within the ES.
4.8 Landscape and Visual Impact Introduction
4.8.1 This chapter of the ES will report the findings of the landscape and visual
impact assessment (LVIA) and will identify and assess the effects of the ERF
upon the physical landscape fabric of the site, the surrounding landscape
character and upon views and visual amenity. The assessment will focus on
the impact of the development including the locations of the proposed buildings
and stack.
4.8.2 A LVIA was carried out for the previous PPiP application at the Millerhill site.
The ES concluded that the proposed development would change the baseline
conditions in terms of both landscape character and visual amenity. It stated
that although some local receptors would experience significant effects to both
landscape resource and visual amenity, on a wider scale the proposed
development would not have a significant effect upon the majority of receptors
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 29
within the study area. Mitigation measures were proposed to reduce effects
over time, together with landscape management and maintenance plans.
4.8.3 In order to address reserved matters associated with the PPiP, a further LVIA
was prepared in respect of the AD plant, which is to be located immediately
north of the proposed development site (See Figure 1).
4.8.4 Section 3.1.2 above highlights the key differences between the Zero Waste
development approved under the PPiP and FCC’s proposals for the ERF
development. The key changes most relevant to landscape and views are the
proposed reduction in the overall footprint of the facility from approximately
18,350m2 to approximately 12,500m2 and an increase in height of the main
boiler house building from 20 metres to 43 metres.
4.8.5 As a consequence, the proposed development is likely to be more visible from
the surrounding area than the approved PPiP development. Given this, the
potential effects on landscape and views will inevitably differ from those stated
in the PPiP ES, and will require re-assessment. The Zone of Theoretical
Visibility (ZTV) will be more extensive due to the increased building height and
this may result in additional visual receptors requiring consideration in the
LVIA.
Baseline
4.8.6 The baseline for the LVIA will be determined via both desk and field based
surveys, taking into account the previous assessments undertaken for the
PPiP application and the AD plant. Landscape and visual receptors will be re-
assessed for inclusion in the new LVIA. This process will also identify key
landscape and visual constraints and will feed into the design of the proposed
development as part of an iterative process.
4.8.7 With regards to the study area for the LVIA, it is considered that, based upon
previous experience of similar developments, if any significant landscape and
visual effects would be experienced, they would arise at relatively closer
distances to the proposed development, most likely within 2.5km. Whilst
elements of the proposed development would potentially be visible at longer-
range, it is considered highly unlikely that this would give rise to significant
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 30
effects upon either the landscape or upon views. An additional 2.5km radius
has been included to act as a buffer which captures longer-distance views from
sensitive receptors, giving an overall study area of 5km radius. Effects on
views from Arthur’s Seat, which is just over 5km from the development site,
would also be assessed.
4.8.8 In general terms, the site is set within a typically urban fringe landscape which
is subject to a variety of influences. The nearby A1 and A720 trunk roads are
obvious features as are electricity pylons and built development at the edge of
Edinburgh. Further afield, views towards the site are available from Arthur’s
Seat, a prominent and well known hill summit within Edinburgh itself.
4.8.9 Immediately south west of the site, the Shawfair development, would comprise
a new community including housing, community facilities and employment
units. If / when constructed, this would give rise to considerable landscape and
visual change in its own right, as well as introducing many additional visual
receptors (residents, employees and visitors). The cumulative effects of the
proposed Shawfair development were considered as part of the Zero Waste
Facility PPiP application and will be reviewed as part of the ERF EIA.
4.8.10 There are no National Parks or National Scenic Areas within approximately
30km of the development site. Additionally, the site is not covered by the non-
statutory Areas of Great Landscape Value designation currently maintained by
Midlothian Council.
4.8.11 At a regional level, the development site is located within a sliver of urban land
surrounded to east and west by the Musselburgh / Prestonpans Fringe Coastal
Margins landscape character area (The Lothians landscape character
assessment Ash Consulting 1998). The dominant urban / industrial character
of this area is identified in the regional character assessment as a negative
attribute of the landscape.
4.8.12 At a more local level, the Edinburgh Green Belt Landscape Character
Assessment (Land Use Consultants 2008) identifies that the development site
is located within an urban area which is excluded from the study. The site
borders landscape character areas 46: Danderhall Settled Farmland and 95:
Old Craighall.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 31
Assessment Methodology
4.8.13 An assessment will be made of the effects of the proposed development upon
the landscape fabric of the site itself and upon the surrounding landscape
character. The visual effects of the development on nearby residential areas,
public rights of way and important recreational areas will also be considered.
The conclusions of the Zero Waste PPiP ES in respect of landscape and visual
effects will be taken into account and consultation will be undertaken with
Midlothian Council and Scottish Natural Heritage.
4.8.14 The assessment will be carried out in accordance with guidance provided
within Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment - GLVIA (The
Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and
Assessment, 3rd edition 2013).
4.8.15 Other relevant guidance that will inform the LVIA include:
Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland
(Scottish Natural Heritage and The Countryside Agency 2002);
Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact
assessment. Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11 (Landscape
Institute 2011); and
Visual Representation of Windfarms Good Practice Guidance (Horner &
MacLennan / Envision, 2007, Scottish Natural Heritage).
4.8.16 The LVIA will aim to provide:
A clear understanding of the development site and its context, in
respect of the physical and perceived landscape and of views and
visual amenity;
An understanding of the proposed development in terms of how this
would relate to the existing landscape and views;
An identification of likely significant effects of the proposed
development upon the landscape and upon views, throughout the life-
cycle of the development, including cumulative interactions with other
developments;
Those mitigation measures necessary to reduce / eliminate any
potential adverse effect on the landscape or views arising as a result of
the proposed development; and
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 32
A conclusion as to the residual likely significant effects of the proposed
development.
4.8.17 The LVIA process will follow a standard approach, namely:
The establishment of the baseline conditions, against which the effects
of the proposed ERF development will be assessed;
The determination of the nature of the receptor likely to be affected, i.e.
its sensitivity;
The prediction of the nature of the effect likely to occur, i.e. the
magnitude of change; and
An assessment of whether a likely significant effect would occur upon
any receptor, by considering the predicted magnitude of change
together with the sensitivity of the receptor, taking into account any
proposed mitigation measures.
4.8.18 The LVIA will include an assessment of visual effects from a series of
predetermined viewpoints. The location of these viewpoints will be agreed with
Midlothian Council (and other consultees as appropriate) as part of the LVIA
process. It is anticipated that the same locations would be used as for the PPiP
and AD plant assessments, with additional viewpoints included should the ZTV
of the proposed development highlight any further sensitive locations requiring
inclusion.
4.8.19 Existing developments and developments under construction will be
considered as part of the overall baseline for the LVIA. The assessment of
cumulative effects will consider the ERF in combination with consented
developments including the AD plant.
4.8.20 A landscape design for the proposed development would also be prepared in
tandem with the LVIA. This would incorporate any changes to the existing
landscape masterplan (associated with the approved PPiP scheme) and
include any additional relevant mitigation measures identified during the course
of the assessment process.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 33
4.9 Ecology and Nature Conservation Introduction
4.9.1 An ecological impact assessment (EcIA) will be carried out which will assess
the effects of the proposed ERF on flora and fauna in accordance with the EIA
Regulations and current best practice guidelines.
4.9.2 The assessment will take full account of potential impacts in a wider context,
including European designated sites within 10km of the site and nationally
designated sites within 2km. This will be achieved in co-ordination with an
assessment of air quality impacts.
4.9.3 This scoping report identifies the relevant designated sites proximate to the
application site and sets out any additional survey and assessment work which
will be undertaken in order to establish the site’s ecological context and identify
any species, habitats and / or sensitive receptors which may have to be
considered in the impact assessment. Key features of the site are also briefly
described.
4.9.4 It should be noted that a significant number of ecological surveys have been
undertaken on the site as part of the 2011 Millerhill Waste Treatment Facility:
Zero Waste PPiP application, and as part of the 2013 AD Plant application for
approval of matters specified in conditions relating to the PPiP.
4.9.5 The AD plant is located immediately north of the present proposal, and was
supported by ecological surveys carried out in 2012 with a wider geographic
scope encompassing the present proposal area. These included an updated
Phase 1 habitat survey, an emergence survey of a possible bat roost identified
in the 2009 surveys, and an inspection of possible barn owl roost sites.
4.9.6 AMEC were subsequently commissioned in 2013 by Zero Waste: Edinburgh
and Midlothian to update the ecological surveys undertaken in 2009 for the
2011 PPiP application. These further surveys included a vegetation survey
(updating the previous Phase 1 survey), an invasive species search, bat
survey, breeding bird survey and badger survey. The bat surveys followed
BCT guidelines for bat activity surveys appropriate to the habitat quality
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 34
present, while the breeding bird survey similarly followed standard
methodology used to support ecological impact assessments.
Baseline
4.9.7 The wider ecological context of the development site has been updated from
information provided in the ES for the PPiP application. Digital boundary
datasets for European Conservation Sites (Natura 2000 sites, i.e. SAC & SPA)
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and Ancient Woodland Inventory
data have been downloaded from SNH Natural Spaces website
(https://gateway.snh.gov.uk/natural-spaces/, accessed 08/12/2013). The
location and distance from the site have been determined by measurement
using Google Earth Pro.
Table 4.1: Designated Conservation Sites of European or National Importance
Site Status Interest features Approximate Distance from
Site
European and International Importance within 10km of the proposed development
Firth of Forth Ramsar site
See below 2.58km N
Firth of Forth SPA See below 2.58km N
National Importance within 2km of the proposed development
Dalkeith Oakwood SSSI 2km SE 4.9.8 The proposed development site is located just over 2.5km south of the Firth of
Forth Special Protection Area (SPA), Ramsar site and Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI). These designations are largely contiguous, and cover a large
area of 6,313.72ha.
4.9.9 Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance, designated under the
Ramsar Convention. The Firth of Forth Ramsar site meets the qualifying
criteria for the following features:
Regularly supporting over 20,000 wintering waterfowl (winter peak
mean 1993/94 – 1997/98 95,000);
Internationally important wintering populations of the following species:
Bar-tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica);
Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula);
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 35
Knot (Calidris canutus);
Pink-footed goose (Anas brachyrhynchus);
Redshank (Tringa totanus);
Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna);
Slavonian grebe (Podiceps auritus);
Turnstone (Arenaria interpres); and
Internationally important post-breeding populations of Sandwich tern
(Sterna sandvicensis).
4.9.10 SPA sites are designated under Article 4 of the European Union Birds Directive
(79/409/EEC, replaced by 2009/147/EC), to protect rare and vulnerable birds
and regularly occurring migratory species. The Directive is implemented in
Scotland through the 1994 Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations (SI
2716), as amended by the 2004 & 2007 Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.)
Amendment (Scotland) Regulations (2004 SI 475 / 2007 SSI 80).
4.9.11 The site is designated for the following interest features of European
importance:
Regularly supporting wintering populations of European importance of
the following Annex I species:
Slavonian grebe (Podiceps auritus);
Bar-tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica);
Golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria);
Regularly supporting post-breeding populations of European
importance of Sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis), an Annex I
species;
Regularly supporting wintering populations of European or international
importance of the following migratory species:
Knot (Calidris canutus);
Pink-footed goose (Anas brachyrhynchus);
Redshank (Tringa totanus);
Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna);
Turnstone (Arenaria interpres);
Regularly supporting a wintering waterfowl assemblage of European
importance, including nationally important numbers of the following
species:
Great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus);
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 36
Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo);
Scaup (Aythya merila);
Long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis);
Common scoter (Melanitta nigra);
Velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca);
Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula);
Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator);
Ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula);
Grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola);
Dunlin (Calidris alpina); and
Curlew (Numenius arquata).
4.9.12 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) are nationally important sites,
designated under Section 28 of the 1981 Wildlife & Countryside Act, or Section
3 of the 2004 Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act, and protected by legislation
set out in Chapter 1 of the 2004 Act.
4.9.13 Dalkeith Oakwood SSSI (approximately 2km away) is designated for the
presence of the following qualifying features:
Wood pasture and parkland;
Lichen assemblage; and
Beetles (source: SNH Sitelink).
4.9.14 Habitats within the application site were described in the ES for the Zero
Waste PPiP application as consisting largely of young birch woodland of
uniform age and structure. This was confirmed by the verification survey
undertaken by AMEC in April 2013 to still be the case, although the north-
western part of the wider survey area had been disturbed by construction
works for the Borders Rail project.
4.9.15 No protected species have been confirmed within the application site, apart
from low levels of foraging activity by common and soprano pipistrelles. The
nearest potential bat roost was located around 300m south of the application
site, and subsequent surveys have not confirmed any recent usage by bats.
Although a 2009 reptile survey found no evidence of reptiles on site, there was
an incidental record of common lizard in 2013; although this is not believed to
have occurred within the present application site. Barn owl roosts are located
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 37
to the north and south of the application site, but there are no suitable roost
sites for barn owl within the site, and the current level of tree cover renders it
unsuitable as a foraging site. No badger setts have been recorded.
4.9.16 Bird survey works undertaken by AMEC in 2013 provide an assessment of the
number of breeding territories within the application site. These comprise
common passerines of woodland habitats, with 7 willow warbler territories, 3
robin, 2 chaffinch, 1 blackcap and 1 wren.
Assessment
4.9.17 Due to the recent (2013) ecological surveys undertaken on this site and
summarised above, it is not considered necessary to carry out further detailed
surveys in order to inform this development proposal. A comprehensive survey
programme was undertaken in 2009, and verified by further surveys in 2012
and 2013.
4.9.18 Notwithstanding, further verification of the Phase 1 and bryophyte surveys
carried out in 2009 is planned to inform the present application. This will be
concentrated on the proposed development area, and will be carried out at an
optimum season (May – June 2014) when all elements of the woodland ground
flora will be readily visible. The purpose of this will be to inform any detailed
ecological mitigation works, and confirm the value of the woodland in relation
to Scottish Biodiversity List categories. It will be undertaken by the ecologist
responsible for compiling the Ecology section of the Environmental Statement.
4.9.19 No other ecological survey works are proposed. In particular, measures to
address possible future use of the site by badgers, and the possible presence
of common lizard, would be more appropriately dealt with by way of condition,
since their aim would be to address any legislative issues arising prior to
construction, not to inform the decision-making process.
4.9.20 An ecological impact assessment will be undertaken that will incorporate a full
evaluation of ecological interest features within the vicinity of the proposed
Millerhill ERF and provide an assessment of how the proposals may potentially
affect the integrity of these features.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 38
4.9.21 The findings of the air quality assessment will provide data to confirm the
likelihood of potential effects on off-site nature conservation designations and
inform the requirements for any detailed appraisal of effects on such features. 4.9.22 In accordance with Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)
guidance this will involve consideration of impacts on European conservation
sites within 10km of the development, and other sites including SSSIs and
LNRs within 2km of the site. The results of the Air Quality Assessment will
inform the determination of likely significant effect in accordance with the
Habitats Regulations. 4.9.23 Other near-site impacts of the development as a consequence of noise, traffic
and lighting will be addressed by cross-referencing with the results of the
appropriate technical assessments. 4.10 Geology and Ground Conditions
Introduction
4.10.1 An assessment will be undertaken on the effects of the ERF upon geology,
hydrogeology and ground conditions (including contamination and
geotechnical stability).
4.10.2 Soils, geology and hydrogeology (i.e. groundwater) play an important role in
determining the environmental character of an area. Development schemes
can have both direct and indirect effects on geology and groundwater. Existing
soil conditions (particularly land contamination), can impose constraints on
development and pipelines can form pathways for the migration of
groundwater, both in the short-term, during construction, and in the long-term.
Ground conditions can also introduce physical constraints on the construction
of structures (e.g. historic mining, foundations, hard standing, services and
excavations). This section of the ES scoping report will set out how these
issues will be assessed in a systematic manner.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 39
Baseline
4.10.3 The EIA undertaken for the Zero Waste PPiP application assessed the
geological and hydrogeological impacts of the proposed development. The ES
concluded that most potential impacts during the construction, operational and
decommissioning phases of the development were assessed as being of
negligible or minor significance. This was with the exception of the potential for
mineral instability to impact site operatives during construction and
decommissioning (assessed as being of moderate / major significance) and for
contamination to impact human health assessed as being of moderate
significance, due to construction workers being considered as high sensitivity.
With the mitigation measures and monitoring identified in the ES in place the
potential impacts of the proposed development were assessed as being
negligible and not significant.
4.10.4 The extant PPiP (Reference number: 11/00174/PPP) contained a condition
(condition 6) which related to any potential contaminated land. Condition 6
reads as follows:
“Development shall not begin until a scheme to deal with any contamination of
the site and/or previous mineral workings has been submitted to and approved
by the planning authority. The scheme shall contain details of the proposals to
deal with any contamination and/or previous mineral workings and include:
A) The nature, extent and types of contamination and/or previous mineral
workings on the site;
B) Measures to treat or remove contamination and/or previous mineral
workings to ensure that the site is fit for the uses hereby approved,
and that there is no risk to the wider environment from contamination
and/or previous mineral workings originating within the site;
C) Measures to deal with contamination and/or previous mineral
workings encountered during construction work; and
D) The condition of the site on completion of the specified
decontamination measures.
Before any of part of the development is brought into use, the measures to
decontaminate the site shall be fully implemented as approved by the planning
authority.”
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 40
Assessment Methodology
4.10.5 The assessment methodology will involve assessing the existing baseline
conditions, assessing the risks to various receptors in order to rank the
significance during all aspects of the project lifetime (e.g. current conditions,
during construction and operational phases). The required mitigation
measures will then be presented and the revised level of potential impact will
then be assessed.
Baseline
4.10.6 As part of the ES process, a site walkover and Phase 1 desk-based
assessment of the development site will be carried out which incorporates the
results from the activities listed below. A Phase 2 project specific site
investigation will also be undertaken to inform the EIA and the ERW design
process. The information for the desk-based study will comprise the following
sources summarised in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Sources of Geological and Hydrogeological Information
Data Source Information Obtained
British Geological Survey Hydrogeological Map (at 1:625,000 scale): Scotland;•
British Geological Survey Groundwater Vulnerability Map (at 1:625,000 scale): Scotland;
British Geological Survey (BGS) Map (at 1:50,000 scale): Edinburgh, Bedrock and Superficial Deposits.
Superficial and solid geology. Hydrogeology
Ordnance Survey Historic Maps. Previous site use, possible contaminant sources, existing foundations, former excavations and infilled ground etc.
SEPA website (www.sepa.org.uk) with regard to Water Framework Directive water quality.
Exisiting background conditions, aquifer designations, Groundwater Source Protection Zones, groundwater and aquifer information
Environmental Data Base Search (EnviroCheck / Groundsure report & web-based searches) including Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Sitelink, online designated site database
Contamination sources (historic colliery, landfilling etc) and receptors (including adjacent lake, surface waters), heritage sites.
Historic aerial photography Information on geology, hydrogeology, contamination sources, potential buried obstructions etc.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 41
Coal Authority Coal Mining Report Historic mining, shafts, mining risk
BGS Borehole Logs Superficial and solid geology.
White Young Green Environmental Ltd (2005) Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretative Report: Millerhill Depot.
Details of ground conditions on the development and adjacent areas with particular reference to the stability of the site from shallow coal workings and the presence of shafts/mine entries.
WSP Environment and Energy (WSPE) (2009a) Millerhill Waste Facility Site: Geo‐environmental Review for The City of Edinburgh Council and Midlothian Council
Desk Study Information and preliminary risk assessments.
WSP Environment and Energy (WSPE) (2009c) Millerhill Waste Facility Site: Geotechnical and Mineral Stability Assessment for the City of Edinburgh Council and Midlothian Council
Geo-environmental conditions for the development area.
WSP (2009c) Proposed Millerhill Waste Facility Site. Geotechnical and Mineral Stability Assessment. WSP Report No 12141325/003
A more in depth study on ground conditions for the development area with particular reference to the stability of the site from shallow coal workings and the presence of shafts/mine entries.
Proposed project specific Phase 2 site investigations programmed for Spring 2014.
Ground, groundwater, contamination, geotechnical parameters and stability of the ground.
Midlothian Council to provide information on private water supplies
Potential water supply receptors.
Topographical Survey Ground levels
4.10.7 A site walkover will be undertaken in order to inspect areas of potential interest
from the plans and other pertinent information, identifying key features that are
visible and assess the site specific conditions.
Assessment Methodology
4.10.8 An assessment will be undertaken on the effects of the proposed development
upon geology and hydrology together with geotechnical stability. Particular
emphasis will be made on the possibility of contamination due to soil,
groundwater and ground gases.
4.10.9 It is proposed that the following would be carried out in order to establish the
baseline conditions:
Review of all existing site investigation information;
Additional desk study (environmental data base search, aerial
photographs of the site etc.);
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 42
Site walkover;
Environmental setting: former and current land-uses and the
hydrogeological setting of the site;
Potential contaminant sources both on-site and off-site including
soil contamination, groundwater and ground gas conditions;
Potential receptors both on-site and off-site including humans,
controlled waters, structures and ecology;
Contaminant linkages (pathways) between contaminant sources
and receptors will be reviewed and described; and
Use of the above information to develop a Conceptual Site Model,
which identifies potential receptors and helps to characterise the
physical and geochemical parameters. The Conceptual Site Model
will be in pictorial and tabular form.
4.10.10 The assessment would comply with the relevant principles and requirements
of: BS5930:1999: +A2 2010: “Code of practice for site investigations”,
BS10175: 2011 +A1 2013 “Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites -
Code of Practice” and the DEFRA / Environment Agency (EA) Report CLR11
“Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination” (referred to in
SEPA: 2010: An Introduction to Land Contamination and Development
Management), together with other SEPA, British Standards, CIRIA and a range
of other guidance.
4.10.11 A Tier 2 assessment on soils, groundwater and ground gas will be undertaken
if deemed necessary. Chemical data from the existing site investigation results
would be used to inform the Tier 2 assessment which would be undertaken in
line with SEPA guidelines and recommendations.
Identification and Characterisation of Potential Effects
4.10.12 The potential effects of the presence of contamination at the site will be
identified and evaluated using the contaminant-pathway-receptor risk
assessment approach and from this, potential contaminant linkages will be
identified. The potential for the creation of pathways between contaminant
sources and receptors, as well as consideration of the significance of the
predicted effect, will be considered.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 43
4.10.13 The sensitive receptors identified as part of this assessment will be considered
in terms of their importance and their sensitivity to change within the context of
the site. The criteria used to define this are presented in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 Evaluation of Sensitive Receptors
Importance
National Nationally designated sites (e.g. Geological SSSI). A nationally important feature that is rare in the region.
Regional A feature that falls short of national designation guidelines but provides a resource that is rare or relied upon at a regional level (e.g. a RIGS).
Local A regularly occurring feature that provides a resource that is relied upon at a local level.
Sensitivity to Change
High Long-term integrity of the receptor may be compromised at a national or regional level
Medium Integrity of the receptor may be compromised at a local level
Low Integrity of the receptor is not at risk
4.10.14 Significance criteria used in this assessment are based on changes (resulting
from the development) to the impact of contamination on the environment in
terms of statutory standards (primarily statutory guidance Contaminated Land
(Scotland) Regulation 2005 under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act
1990).
4.10.15 Significance of impact is based on the change in level of risk from
contamination. The classification of risk is explained in Table 4.4 over the
page. This follows DEFRA’s Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment
and Management (2000).
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 44
Table 4.4: Classification of Risks from Contamination
Probability High Medium Low Negligible
Level of
Severity Consequence of Risk Likely Reasonably
Foreseeable Unlikely Not Credible
Seve
re
Acute risks to human health
Catastrophic damage to buildings / property (e.g. by explosion).
Direct pollution of sensitive water receptors or serious pollution of other controlled water (watercourses or groundwater) bodies.
Very High High High /
Medium Low
Mod
erat
e
Harm to human health from long-term exposure.
Slight pollution of sensitive controlled waters (surface waters or aquifers) or pollution of other water bodies.
Significant effects on sensitive ecosystems or species.
High Medium Medium/ Low Low
Mild
No significant harm to human health in either short or long term.
No pollution of sensitive controlled waters, no more than slight pollution of non-sensitive waters.
Significant damage to buildings or structures.
Requirement for protective equipment during site works to mitigate health effects.
Medium / Low Low Low Low
Neg
ligib
le Damage to non-sensitive
ecosystems or species.
Minor damage to buildings or structures
No harm or pollution of water.
Low Near Zero Near Zero Near Zero
4.10.16 The risks will be assessed to all pathways to relevant receptors from
contaminant sources. Where potential linkages between sources of
contamination and sensitive receptors are identified, predicted effects will be
documented. The prediction of these effects will consider the importance and
sensitivity of the receptor and will also be assessed to determine whether the
predicted effect is beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect and permanent or
temporary.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 45
4.10.17 The predicted effects will be evaluated in terms of their likely significance,
which will then inform any proposed mitigation measures. The criteria used to
determine the significance of predicted effects are provided in Table 4.5.
Where the significance of a predicted effect would be influenced by further
intrusive data and quantitative risk assessment, a worst case scenario will be
assumed in order to provide a robust assessment.
Table 4.5: Impact Significance
Significance Criteria
Major Adverse The effect would adversely affect the integrity of the receptor, and would be difficult to reverse and / or alleviate.
Moderate Adverse The effect would not permanently affect the integrity of the receptor but may result in noticeable damage that would require mitigation.
Slight Adverse No permanent or noticeable damage but requiring mitigation as a preventative measure.
No Significant Effect
No significant adverse or beneficial effects would result.
Beneficial The effect would benefit the quality of the receptor but not such that its importance would be improved.
Major Beneficial The effect would improve the integrity of the receptor such that its overall importance would improve.
Geotechnical Assessment
4.10.18 An assessment will be made of likely issues associated with ground conditions
present at the site including natural hazards, land instability due to the
presence of low strength and compressible strata and the presence of deep
Made Ground. The risks from shallow mine workings and mine entries together
with former railway structures (e.g. basements) and presence of shafts will be
assessed. The risk from past mineral workings is currently considered to be a
significant risk that requires mitigation.
4.10.19 Areas of uncertainty would be indicated and additional site investigations
recommended if required to reduce any uncertainty prior to commencement of
construction. Where piling is proposed for foundations a preliminary piling risk
assessment will be carried out in accordance with SEPA requirements.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 46
Stages of Assessment
4.10.20 The ground based environmental conditions will change over time given the
different processes that will be carried out at each stage. An evaluation will be
made of each of the following stages:
Current (Baseline) Conditions;
Effects of the construction process;
Effects during the operational phase; and
Effects during decommissioning.
Mitigation
4.10.21 Mitigation measures, including any further investigation considered necessary
prior to construction, will be described in the assessment. This will include any
measures required to mitigate harmful effects on human health, the
environment or built structures that may arise from the proposed development.
If options exist to mitigate the potential risks then these will be compared and
assessed in a rational and economical manner as set out in CLR11 (EA, 2004)
for contamination and CIRIA Report SP34 (due out January 2014) regarding
the mitigation of risk from abandoned mine workings. Potential mitigation
measures may include:
Remedial Options Appraisal – An appraisal of remedial options for all
plausible contaminant linkages would be assessed and discussed in an
appropriate manner with different technically feasible options being
ranked in terms of practicality, effectiveness, durability, sustainability,
environmental benefits, timescale, cost etc;
Remediation Strategy – this would be prepared based on the findings of
the Options Appraisal for the highest ranked solution. Any Environmental
Permits required for the remediation will also be indicated; and
Consolidation of shallow nine workings (particularly in the northern part
of the site) prior to construction.
Grouting and capping of shafts present on the site.
Proposals for the mitigation of other geotechnical risks.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 47
References
4.10.22 This section of the ES will be devised to generally comply with the relevant
principles and requirements of a wide range of guidance including:
Part IIA of the Environment Protection Act, 1990;
Contaminated Land (Scotland) Regulation 2005;
BS5930:1999 + A2 2010: Code of practice for site investigations;
BS10175: 2011 + A1 2013: Investigation of Potentially
Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice;
DEFRA / Environment Agency (2004) Report CLR11 Model
Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination;
SEPA (2010) “An Introduction to Land Contamination and
Development Management”;
SEPA (2010) “Environmental Standards for Discharges to Surface
Waters.” WAT-SG-53 V3.1, August 2010; and
Environment Agency (2001) Piling and Penetrative Ground
Improvement Methods on Land Affected by Contamination:
Guidance on Pollution Prevention” (Ref: NC/99/73).
4.11 Surface Waters, Flood Risk and Drainage
Introduction and Baseline
4.11.1 An assessment of the potential impacts that the ERF may have on the water
environment during construction and operation will be undertaken in relation to
both surface water, flood risk and drainage issues.
4.11.2 The EIA undertaken for the Zero Waste PPiP application assessed the
potential hydrological and hydrogeological impacts of the proposed
development. It identified areas of activity, particularly during construction that
have the potential to impact upon the water features at or near the site.
4.11.3 The site falls within the catchment of the Cairnie Burn, a tributary of the Esk
and the Niddrie Burn. The SEPA indicative flood map shows a small strip
either side of the Cairnie Burn, approximately 400m south of the Millerhill ERF
site that is potentially vulnerable to flooding (greater than 0.5% annual
probability).
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 48
4.11.4 A flood risk assessment (FRA) was undertaken as part of the Zero Waste PPiP
application. The risk assessment methodology was based on guidance
provided in Scottish Planning Policy 7: Planning and Flooding, Scottish
Executive (2004) and Planning and Buildings Standards Advice on Flooding,
Scottish Executive (2004).
4.11.5 All potential flood risks identified were assessed as being low (or less) and the
FRA concluded that there was minimal risk of flooding at the site. This
conclusion assumed that:
The final development layout was confined to the same area of the site
as that proposed in the Zero Waste PPiP application, (i.e. not extending
in close proximity to the Cairnie Burn in the south); and
Measures were incorporated into the development layout to intercept any
flood water originating from localised flood sources that might migrate
onto the site from adjacent land.
4.11.6 SEPA advised in its consultation response that it had no objection to the
development on flood risk grounds as it was of a sufficient distance from the
Cairnie Burn.
4.11.7 The ES concluded that most potential water impacts during the construction,
operational and decommissioning phases of the development were assessed
as being of negligible or minor significance. This was with the exception of
sedimentation and the alteration of natural drainage patterns and surface water
run-off / rates to impact the Cairnie Burn, which were assessed as being of
moderate significance. With the proposed mitigation and monitoring identified
in the ES in place, the potential impacts of the proposed development were
assessed as being negligible.
Assessment
4.11.8 The ERF would occupy the same site, and would have a smaller impermeable
surface area than the scheme approved under the Zero Waste PPiP. It would
be designed and operated to minimise fugitive emissions to surface water and
groundwater. The drainage design would incorporate a combination of
rainwater harvesting for reuse, sustainable urban drainage systems and
wastewater treatment followed by disposal to foul sewer.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 49
4.11.9 The assessment of potential impacts arising from the ERF on water resources
will be undertaken by analysing interactions between the construction and
operational processes on surface water patterns and groundwater
characteristics. The assessment will consider the potential impacts on the local
surface water systems on and around the site and local water supply and
drainage infrastructure.
4.11.10 The assessment will also include an appraisal of on-site activities and the
potential effects these may have upon the local water environment. It will
specifically concentrate upon the following issues:
Disturbance of surface water drainage regimes and attenuation of
discharge rates;
Contamination of surface waters by suspended solids or by other
pollutants; and
Contamination of groundwater.
4.11.11 A revised FRA that is specific to the ERF will be produced to consider:
The potential impact of the ERF on flood risk to users of the site, and to
buildings and infrastructure at the site; and
The potential impact on the level of flood risk elsewhere.
4.12 Noise and Vibration
Introduction
4.12.1 The noise and vibration chapter of the ES will present an assessment of the
potential noise and vibration impacts of the proposal on neighbouring noise
sensitive receptors during both the construction and operational phases.
Baseline
4.12.2 The ES for the Zero Waste PPiP application included information on baseline
noise surveys that have been undertaken in the vicinity of neighbouring noise
sensitive receptors to the proposed site.
4.12.3 The baseline surveys were undertaken at 4 sensitive receptor locations for the
original PPiP ES in 2009 and in 2012 for the AD plant noise assessment to
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 50
supplement the original baseline noise survey data. The monitoring included
manned surveys with monitoring occurring during daytime, evening and night-
time periods at the chosen locations.
4.12.4 Monitoring included the following four positions:
Harelow Farm;
Old Craighall;
Whitehill Mains; and
Newton Cottages.
4.12.5 Baseline data positions and monitoring methodology were agreed with the
Local Authority Environmental Health Officer (EHO) and SEPA. It is assumed
therefore that the baseline levels obtained in 2009 and the update in 2012
would be suitable for reference for the new application for the ERF.
Assessment Methodology
4.12.6 All information on the proposed site layout, building materials, detail of the
likely plant list and any available information from equipment suppliers on plant
noise levels or research into library data will be reviewed. Where appropriate,
empirical noise level data will be obtained from similar plant operating in the
UK.
4.12.7 Following the review of the proposed site layout and data available on plant
noise levels, noise prediction calculations will be undertaken to determine the
cumulative effect of the plant in operation. This will consist of producing a
noise model using computer-based noise modelling software for the operation
of the facility. This will include the cumulative effect of the operation of all
facilities on-site and assess the impact of the operation of the permitted AD
facility on overall noise levels. The predicted noise levels will assist in
establishing the likely impact at the sensitive receptor positions.
4.12.8 Noise will also be assessed for the construction phase of the development.
Information on noise sources likely to be used at the site will be derived from
the construction phase description and library data. An assessment of the
highest likely noise levels will be provided based on the methodology provided
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 51
within BS5228-1:2009 ‘Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on
Construction and Open Sites.’
4.12.9 The results of the previously obtained baseline noise monitoring surveys will
be reviewed. The main noise sources will be assessed in terms of their
contribution to noise radiating from the site at nearest sensitive receptors.
4.12.10 Where appropriate, noise control measures will be considered to ensure that
noise levels are within relevant noise criteria guidance. Recommendations for
appropriate noise control would be detailed taking Best Available Techniques
(BAT) into consideration.
4.12.11 Noise arising from road traffic will be determined from the traffic figures
provided in the TA in accordance with the methodologies provided within
‘Calculation of Road Traffic Noise’ and the Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges (DMRB) 2011.
4.12.12 The ES for the PPiP established the noise criteria for the site to relate to a
noise limit of background noise +5dB(A). Additional noise criteria relating to
internal noise limits of NR25 were proposed by Midlothian Council for the AD
noise assessment. The impact assessment will make reference to the agreed
noise criteria and will make reference to the following standards and guidance:
BS4142:1997 ‘Method for Rating Industrial Noise affecting Mixed
Residential and Industrial Areas’;
BS8233:1999 ‘Sound Insulation and Noise reduction for Buildings –
Code of Practice’;
World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines for Community Noise: April
1999;
World Health Organisation (WHO) Night Noise Guidelines for Europe:
2009;
Planning Advice Note 1/2011 `Planning and Noise: 2011;
SEPA Guidance on the control of noise at PPC installations
BS5228:2009 Parts 1 and 2 ‘Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration
Control on Construction and Open Sites’;
DMRB: Volume 11: 2011;
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 52
BS7385:1993 Evaluation and Measurement for Vibration in Buildings:
Part 2 guide to Damage Levels from Ground Borne Vibration. British
Standards Institution; and
BS6472-1:2008 ‘Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in
Buildings.’
4.12.13 In summary, key sensitive receptors have been determined by the original
assessment for the ES and baseline noise surveys have been completed to
inform the noise assessment for the revised ERF. The assessment of site
noise will include the following:
Review of established background noise data at nearest sensitive
receptors;
Review of determined noise limits by reference to the original ES and AD
noise assessment;
Identification of noise generating activities, such as:
o Traffic movements;
o Operational mobile plant;
o Noise from fixed plant; and
o Construction activities.
Calculation of predicted noise levels using a computer model;
Assessment of vibration levels from site construction and operations;
Assessment of the predicted noise and vibration levels from fixed and
mobile plant against the pre-determined limits to derive a significant
impact; and
Identification of mitigation measures to address any significant impacts.
4.13 Air Quality
Introduction
4.13.1 The Air Quality chapter will provide details on the sources and nature of the
potential emissions to air from the ERF. The main sources of potential release
to the atmosphere would be flue gases from the stack. In addition, traffic
movements associated with the construction and operation of the development
would lead to releases to atmosphere. It is also possible that odour and dust
originating from the facility could have an effect on local receptors during
construction and operation.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 53
4.13.2 An air quality assessment was completed as part of the EIA for the Zero Waste
PPiP application. In order to demonstrate the likely impact of a waste
management facility on air quality, two indicative footprints utilising three
typical waste management processes were assessed. The assessment results
indicated that for a facility which is well designed and with suitable mitigation
measures (including setting appropriate stack heights for combustion sources)
incorporated into the design, there are unlikely to be any significant impacts on
air quality. The predicted concentrations of all substances were within the
relevant air quality objectives and guidelines. On this basis, the Environmental
Statement (ES) concluded that the site is suitable for use as a waste
management facility from the perspective of air quality.
4.13.3 The previous air quality impact assessment of the plant undertaken for the
Zero Waste Facility approved under the PPiP will need to be updated for the
ERF. Primarily, this will focus on assessing the effect of changes in the plant
capacity and design, as these are the key factors in determining impacts to
ambient air quality. An assessment to determine the optimum stack height will
also be undertaken.
Baseline
4.13.4 Within the previous ES for the Zero Waste PPiP application, baseline air
quality around the proposed development location was identified from a
number of sources. In the main, these sources of information remain valid;
however, the baseline data used in the study will require updating to reflect the
most recent monitoring data available. In addition, the baseline data used will
be reviewed to ensure that the monitoring sites used remain reflective of
conditions around the proposed plant. 4.13.5 The previous ES made use of Defra background mapping data extrapolated to
2014. Recent evidence indicates that this data may underestimate baseline
conditions, in this case for NO2, PM10 and PM2.5. This is because the future
projections of the emissions of these pollutants from road traffic have been
fundamentally revised, and therefore the use of these datasets may
underestimate concentrations (SO2 from mapping data was also used in the
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 54
assessment, but as emissions of SO2 from traffic are negligible, this remains
unaffected by the recent findings).
4.13.6 On this basis, the baseline information used in the assessment will be revisited
and updated. The Defra mapping will be used with the most recent fully
validated data set from 2010, with no forward projection incorporated. A review
of local monitoring will be undertaken to identify any additional sources of data
not considered in the previous ES which will be used to supplement the Defra
data. This will ensure that baseline concentrations are considered as
pragmatically as possible. As the previous EIA was accepted using Defra data,
no project specific monitoring is proposed. Assessment Methodology – Construction Phase
4.13.7 The construction phase of the proposed project will have two primary impacts:
those related to traffic generated during the construction phase; and those
related to construction activity, primarily associated with dust emissions.
Emissions from non-road mobile machinery have been scoped out as the
emissions from these sources are considered to be negligible. A review of the
previous ES was undertaken to ascertain whether the previous assessments
remain valid for these impacts.
4.13.8 The traffic assessment undertaken for the Zero Waste PPiP will be revisited in
order to reflect the change in traffic flows that will arise due to the change in
capacity and design. However, within the previous ES, the traffic flows
identified were substantially below the thresholds above which significant
impacts due to traffic increases may arise. On this basis, the scope of the
revised transport assessment would be limited to verifying the previous
conclusions that construction traffic impacts are insignificant.
4.13.9 With regards to construction dust, the methodology used to assess dust
impacts associated with the Zero Waste Facility was based upon a
methodology that is now out of date due to revised guidance. However, the
changes to the methodology within the new guidance are not considered likely
to change conclusions of the assessment, nor the mitigation measures
proposed. On this basis, updates to the dust impact assessment have been
scoped out for the ERF.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 55
Assessment Methodology – Operational Phase
4.13.10 The changes to the proposed development will necessitate the updating of the
previous air quality impact assessment undertaken for the Zero Waste Facility.
The key updates will be the change in the total waste throughput, and
therefore the total mass emissions to air; changes to the building envelope;
and the baseline air quality information used in the assessment.
4.13.11 The overarching method used in the previous Zero Waste PPiP ES remains
valid, and will therefore be reflected in the updated impact assessment.
However, since the previous ES, there have been a number of updates to the
requirements for the assessment of this type of facility, and these will therefore
be incorporated as required. Primarily, these relate to: revised and new air
quality standards and guidelines for the protection of human health (including a
new air quality standard for PM2.5); revised guidance on the consideration of
emissions of metals; revised critical loads and critical levels for the protection
of sensitive ecological receptors; and revised criteria for the determination of
significance in the context of EIA. Within this, the changes to the methodology
for the assessment of impacts to sensitive habitats is particularly critical, as
this aspect of the required assessment has been considerably revised since
the previous assessment was undertaken.
4.13.12 The revised assessment will be undertaken on the basis of a detailed
dispersion model using the ADMS model, as was previously used. The most
recent model version, v5.1 will be used in the assessment. The model utilises
plant specifications and combines these with local meteorological and land use
characteristics to predict concentrations of pollutants arising at sensitive
human and ecological receptors. In addition to the concentration arising from
the process, concentrations are identified at sensitive receptors by combining
these with the existing baseline environmental conditions. These predicted
concentrations are then considered in terms of the relevant air quality
standards and guidelines for the protection of human health, and the relevant
critical loads and critical levels for the protection of sensitive ecological
receptors. The magnitude and significance of these impacts are then derived
with reference to relevant Scottish and UK guidance.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 56
4.13.13 A design stack height of circa 65m was utilised in the previous study. With the
change in plant capacity this may no longer be the optimum height. Therefore,
the assessment will also incorporate an updated determination of the optimum
stack height. Furthermore, the changes in the plant capacity and design will
also have a bearing on the occurrence of visible plumes. Again, this aspect of
the ES will be updated.
4.13.14 The traffic assessment undertaken for the PPiP will be revisited in order to
reflect the change in traffic flows that will arise due to the change in capacity
and design. However, within the previous ES, the traffic flows identified were
substantially below the thresholds above which significant impacts due to
traffic increases may arise. On this basis, the scope of the revised transport
assessment is likely to be limited to verifying the previous conclusions that
operational traffic impacts are insignificant. However, it is foreseeable that
since the previous assessment there may have been changes in the local
circumstances that would mean that the previous conclusions are no longer
valid; this may include changes to base flows, for example due to changes to
road layouts, or due to the declaration of Air Quality Management Areas.
These aspects will be validated, and if required, any changes will be reflected
in the revised TS produced.
4.13.15 In the previous ES, dust arising during the operational phase was considered
in a pragmatic manner, with a small number of mitigation measures identified
for the control of fugitive dust. The assessment will be updated to reflect
current understanding and guidance, for example to reflect the fact that
controls around ash handling are required to control dust emissions.
4.13.16 Within the previous ES, consideration was made in the air quality chapter of
the potential impacts due to exposure to dioxins and furans. Within the update,
this will be addressed within the Human Health Risk Assessment which will be
summarised in the Air Quality section of the ES.
4.13.17 The updated impact assessment will need to consider cumulative impacts,
relating to committed developments including the AD Plant. A review will be
undertaken of these potential sources and cumulative impacts, and the
assessment will consider these on a qualitative basis.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 57
4.14 Human Health Risk Assessment
Introduction
4.14.1 A Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) will be undertaken. This will be
presented as a separate section of the Air Quality Assessment and
summarised within the Air Quality chapter of the ES. The HHRA chapter will
outline the residual environmental effects of the proposed ERF on human
health.
4.14.2 Many natural processes and human activities give rise to the emissions of
pollutants to air. The emissions from the proposed ERF must be considered in
the context that combustion processes Heat and power generation, internal
combustion engines, cooking fires, bonfires and smoking are examples of
anthropogenic combustion processes, whilst natural forest fires an example of
a ‘natural’ combustion processes.
4.14.3 Comparing the results of the air dispersion modelling study undertaken to
assess the impact of releases to air from the proposed facility against the
relevant Air Quality Statements (AQs) s will generally inform the health risk
assessment for those pollutants for which an AQS has been assigned and
inhalation is the primary exposure routes.
4.14.4 However, some pollutants, including polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans (“dioxins and furans”) exist in both gaseous and
solid phases with the potential for both inhalation and deposition. Comparison
with an AQS alone would not characterise the potential for exposure where the
principal route is ingestion, usually through the food chain, and where the main
risk to health is through accumulation in the body over a period of time. The
HHRA must therefore consider exposure routes other than inhalation.
4.14.5 The HHRA will be carried out using the Industrial Risk Assessment Program-
Human Health (IRAP-h View – Version 4.0). The programme, created by
Lakes Environmental is based on the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (“USEPA”) Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (“HHRAP”) for
Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities (EAP530-R-05-006, September
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 58
2005). This considers the possible effects on human health of key receptors
which are likely to be exposed to the greatest impact from the facility.
Baseline
4.14.6 To ensure consistency in assessment, the baseline air quality data used in the
HHRA will be that used for the air quality assessment.
4.14.7 When undertaking the HHRA, specific exposure rates for each exposure
pathway involves estimation of certain factors such as the media concentration
and consumption rates. In the absence of a definitive SEPA / Environment
Agency (EA) protocol on HHRA relating to health effects from emissions from
air, the USEPA HHRA protocols and relevant UK specific data from the
Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) / EA guidance
will be used.
4.14.8 The HHRA will consider the same potentially sensitive human receptors as the
air dispersion modelling.
Assessment Methodology
4.14.9 The Industrial Risk Assessment Program - Human Health (IRAP-h View) which
is based on the USEPA HHRAP, will be used to calculate the transport and
fate of dioxins and furans emitted from the discharge stack.
4.14.10 The approach taken by the IRAP-h View software seeks to quantify the hazard
faced by the receptor- the exposure of the receptor - to the substance
identified as being a potential hazard and then to assess the risk of exposure,
as follows:
(i) Quantification of the exposure - an exposure evaluation determines the
dose and intake of key indicator chemicals for an exposed person. The
dose is defined as the amount of a substance contacting the body (e.g. in
the case of inhalation - the lungs) and intake is the amount of the
substance absorbed into the body. The evaluation is based on, worst
case, conservative scenarios, with respect to the following:
Location of the exposed individual and duration of exposure;
Exposure rate; and
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 59
Emission rate from the source.
(ii) Risk characterisation - following quantification of the exposure, the risk is
characterised by examining the toxicity of the substances to which the
individual has been exposed and evaluating the significance of the
calculated dose in the context of probabilistic risk.
4.14.11 Multiple exposure scenarios will be assessed including ‘resident’, ‘farmer’ and
‘fisher’, and will consider the following pathways where relevant:
Inhalation (including acute inhalation);
Ingestion of soil;
Consumption of fruit and vegetables;
Consumption of poultry and eggs;
Consumption of meat (beef, pork and fish);
Consumption of cow’s milk and human breast milk; and
Consumption of drinking water.
4.14.12 A conceptual model will then be developed for the proposed ERF identifying all
viable sources, receptors and pathways of exposure relevant to each of the
receptors.
4.14.13 The outputs of the IRAP assessment will then be assessed using the EA
guidance ‘Human Health Toxicological Assessment of Contaminants in Soil’.
This will require two types of assessment:
For those chemicals with a threshold level for toxicity, a Tolerable Daily
Intake (TDI) is defined. This is “an estimate of the amount of a
contaminant, expressed on a bodyweight basis that can be ingested daily
over a lifetime without appreciable health risk.” A Mean Daily Intake
(MDI) is also defined, which is the typical intake from background
sources. In order to assess the impact of the facility, the predicted intake
of a chemical is added to the MDI and compared with the TDI.
For pollutants without a threshold level for toxicity, an Index Dose (ID) is
defined. This is a level of exposure which is associated with a negligible
risk to human health. The predicted intake of a chemical is compared
directly with the ID without taking account of background levels.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 60
4.15 Cultural Heritage
Introduction
4.15.1 The effects on the historic environment resulting from development may arise
both from direct physical damage to archaeological features present within and
below a site, and / or indirect effects on the setting of a heritage asset resulting
from the presence of a proposed development.
4.15.2 The ERF would occupy part of the site approved under the Zero Waste PPiP
(See Figure 3), and would have a smaller developed area (hard surfacing) than
that assessed in the previous EIA. The site falls within an area defined in the
PPiP archaeological assessment as the ‘Inner Study Area’, within which all
known cultural heritage assets were considered.
4.15.3 The proposed development site was previously a marshalling yard. The ES for
the PPiP identified negligible potential for the survival of both known and
previously unrecorded cultural heritage assets at the site following the
extensive ground disturbance that accompanied the construction of the
marshalling yards. It confirmed that scheduled monuments in the area are
predominantly underground remains that do not have a setting that may be
affected by the development. The setting of the remaining scheduled
monuments would not be negatively impacted upon and the potential impacts
upon listed buildings were deemed as being of no greater than minor
significance.
4.15.4 The Zero Waste Facility ES concluded that the proposed development would
have no significant impacts upon cultural heritage. As a consequence of the
ES findings, and in light of the extant consent, it is considered that there is no
additional potential for effects upon buried archaeology at the site and that it is
therefore reasonable to scope out any further assessment of buried
archaeology.
4.15.5 Due to the increased height of the main building from 20m to 39m ERF, there
is the potential for the presence of the proposed development to give rise to
changes to the setting of any designated heritage assets, leading to effects
upon these assets.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 61
4.15.6 It is therefore proposed that the assessment considers the effects of the
proposed development upon the setting of designated heritage assets.
4.15.7 Should the Planning Authority also require effects on the setting of non-
designated assets to be considered in the assessment, it would be of great
benefit if a clear indication of which non-designated assets should be included
in the assessment is provided. Many non-designated assets, as recorded on
the local authority Historic Environment Record or other similar databases,
relate to archaeological findspots, records of former features that are no longer
present, buried archaeology (including potential sites), and other features that
would have no scope to be affected by indirect changes in setting.
Baseline
4.15.8 The study area for the assessment has been determined following the scoping
process and is based upon the experience of the assessor in respect of other
similar development projects.
4.15.9 Likely significant effects on the setting of designated assets including category
A Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Scheduled Ancient Monuments
(SAMs), Inventory Battlefields, Gardens and Designed Landscapes and World
Heritage Sites will be considered within a 5km radius of the proposed
development. Likely significant effects on the setting of Category B and C
Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas will be considered within a 2km
radius of the proposed development.
4.15.10 Details of these assets will be obtained from the following sources as required
(and any other sources identified during the assessment process):
Historic Scotland;
Pastmap;
Local Historic Environment Records (HER); and
British Listed Buildings.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 62
Assessment Methodology
4.15.11 The assessment will be undertaken in accordance with Historic Scotland’s
Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Note: Setting (2010).
This will be supplemented by reference to the more detailed guidance set out
in The Setting of Heritage Assets (English Heritage 2011) where appropriate.
4.15.12 A three stage approach to the assessment will be followed , in-line with the
Historic Scotland guidance, as follows:
Identify the historic assets that might be identified by a proposed change;
Define the setting by establishing how the surroundings contribute to the
ways in which the historic asset or place is understood, appreciated and
experienced; and
Assess how any change would impact upon that setting.
4.15.13 These three stages will be reported in an appropriate level of detail as part of
the assessment.
4.15.14 A sieving (or screening) exercise will be undertaken as part of the second
stage of the assessment, in order to determine whether any of the assets
identified within the study area are vulnerable to changes in setting resulting
from the proposed development. This sieving exercise will examine briefly the
heritage significance of the asset in question, based upon the listing / citation
text (or equivalent information) for designated assets. A conclusion will be
drawn as to whether the heritage significance is vulnerable to change in setting
and, if so, as to whether such change is likely to result from the presence of
the proposed development. Where there is potential for such change to take
place, the asset in question will be carried forward for a more detailed
assessment which would form the third stage of the assessment.
4.15.15 With regard to the likely visibility of the proposed development, the heritage
assessment will be informed by the findings of the Landscape and Visual
Impact Assessment.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 63
4.16 Socio-economics
Introduction
4.16.1 The study for a socio-economic assessment is based upon a combination of
factors including the context of the application site, the nature of the proposed
development and its likely employment catchment area. The social benefits of
heat off take are recognised as a significant positive element to the project. By
delivering energy the ERF scheme would allow the local community to harness
the benefits of hosting the facility.
Baseline
4.16.2 The EIA for the Zero Waste Facility scheme assessed socio‐economic impacts
including those relating to population characteristics and social and community
resources. The assessment of impacts was undertaken using professional
judgement and feedback from consultation. It considered the prevailing social
and economic conditions existing within the vicinity of the site and its context
within Midlothian, City of Edinburgh and East Lothian districts, upon whose
borders the site lies.
4.16.3 The ES chapter stated that regardless of the final design (footprint and
location) of the proposed development, the predicted impacts and their
significance would not change. Many of the socio‐economic impacts identified
were positive minor effects. In conclusion, the ES stated that the proposed
development would have several beneficial socio‐economic impacts
throughout the construction and operational phases, including:
Job creation, during both the construction and operational phases;
Safeguarding of future employment opportunities in the area through
associated business;
Ensuring that Edinburgh and Midlothian Councils are able to meet the
EU and Scottish Government Zero Waste Targets;
Overall improvement to the existing site which is derelict, in particular for
safety and access; and
Providing indirect opportunities for the local community through
associated job creation in B&Bs, restaurants, public houses, public
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 64
transport and community services such as schools due to the addition of
the construction and operational workforce.
4.16.4 The potential for some minor adverse impacts during the construction phase in
terms of disruption on the local road network and potential air, noise and visual
impacts during periods of the construction phase was identified. The ES
proposed that these would be minimised where possible with the application of
appropriate transport and environmental management plans and mitigation
measures which were outlined in the appropriate technical chapters in the ES.
Heat / Electricity Offtake
4.16.5 The social benefits of heat off take are recognised as a significant positive
element to the project. By delivering energy the ERF scheme would allow the
local community to harness the benefits of hosting the facility. The ERF
scheme would provide the opportunity for heat off take which reduces the
capital expenditure to local business and communities by providing a cheap
and reliable source of energy. This in turn could have indirect effects allowing
for greater local investment opportunities, job creation, skills development, and
education benefits, and providing a potential significant increase to the local
economy.
4.16.6 It is clear from discussions with Midlothian Council that the possibility for heat
off take is something which is considered extremely important, and this is also
supported in planning policy at the national level.
4.16.7 The Scottish Government’s Third National Planning Framework was laid in
Parliament on the 14th January 2014 which states at Section 3.16 that: “We are
seeing an increasing number of district heating networks across the country.
We can make much better use of the heat sources we have, including unused
and renewable heat, and are preparing a Scotland heat map to help this to
happen. We believe that there are significant opportunities for the cities in
particular to use renewable and low carbon heat energy. New development
should be future-proofed to ensure that connections to existing or planned heat
networks are taken forward as soon as they are viable.”
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 65
4.16.8 Scottish Planning Policy (2010) states that “thermal treatment technology is
more beneficial if it delivers both heat and power. Siting of plant close to
energy grids or users of heat is an important factor in determining appropriate
locations for installations capable of being run as combined heat and power
(CHP) plants”.
4.16.9 A review of Scottish Planning Policy 2010 has been undertaken and a
Consultation Draft produced in 2013. Section 214 states that “Local
development plans should use heat mapping to assess the potential for co-
locating developments with a high heat demand with sources of heat supply.
Heat supply sources include harvestable woodlands, sawmills producing
biomass and developments producing waste or surplus heat, as well as
geothermal systems, heat recoverable from mine waters, aquifers and heat
storage systems. Heat demand sites include high density developments,
communities off the gas grid, fuel poor areas and anchor developments such
as hospitals and schools”.
4.16.10 A Heat Study was submitted as part of the Zero Waste PPiP application to
determine the potential demand for heat in the area that could be supplied
from the facility. This identified a number of significant heat loads located
nearby, and various planned developments and general enthusiasm from
potential customers and other stakeholders.
4.16.11 Several existing sites offer potential as heat customers to be part of district
heating schemes, in particular the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh and Queen
Margaret University which could potentially accept significant quantities of heat
or electricity from the plant. There are other developments (existing, proposed
or under construction) including housing, shops and commercial outlets that
could also be potential heat customers with the adjacent Shawfair new town
offering good potential. As well as supplying third party sites there may be
potential to provide heat to the proposed AD plant co-located on the site. The
study focused on heat supply, but noted that there may also be good potential
to supply electricity directly to the sites mentioned above via a private wire
connection.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 66
Assessment
4.16.12 Many of the socio economic impacts of the approved Zero Waste scheme
were identified as being positive minor effects. The revised scheme with its
reduced footprint and increased height of buildings does not necessitate a re-
assessment of most of the socio-economic impacts identified, such as the
creation of jobs and meeting waste targets. In addition the social benefits of
potential heat / electricity off take are recognised as being a significant positive
element to the project.
4.16.13 The potential for socio‐economic impacts relating to amenity issues such as
air, noise and visual effects will be assessed in other specific chapters of the
ES, as listed below:
Landscape and Views;
Air Quality;
Geology and Ground Conditions; and
Noise and Vibration.
4.16.14 It is therefore considered that this chapter can be scoped out of the ES for the
proposed ERF.
4.17 Airport Safeguarding
4.17.1 The site is situated approximately 22km east of Edinburgh airport. The ES for
the Zero Waste Facility PPiP application did not raise any issues with regard to
airport safeguarding and an initial desk based review of public information has
not identified any other airports (public, private or military) within 25km of the
site.
4.17.2 Although the approved PPiP scheme raised no issues with regard to the
safeguarding of operations at the airport, the ERF incorporates taller buildings.
As such consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority and BAA Aerodrome
Safeguarding (responsible for safeguarding issues for Edinburgh airport) will
be undertaken as part of the EIA to confirm that the development would not
give rise to any issues related to airport safeguarding.
1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 67
5.0 PROPOSED STRUCTURE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
5.1 The proposed contents and structure of the ES is outlined below. It will be
produced in three volumes: the first of which is the main report (which will be
bound together with illustrative figures) and the second is a series of technical
appendices. The third is a non-technical summary.
VOLUME 1 – ES MAIN REPORT (INCLUDING FIGURES) 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
2.0 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
4.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
4.0 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
5.0 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT
6.0 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION
7.0 GEOLOGY AND GROUND CONDITIONS
8.0 SURFACE WATERS, FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE
9.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION
10.0 AIR QUALITY (INCLUDING HUMAN HEALTH)
11.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE
12.0 AIRPORT SAFEGUARDING
13.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
14.0 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS
VOLUME 2 – ES TECHNICAL APPENDICES
VOLUME 3 – ES NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY
FIGURES
top related