MILLERHILL ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITY...1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 3 1.1.10 Planning permission for the Zero Waste Facility

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


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’.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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.


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


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;


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


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


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.


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;


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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;


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;


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.



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


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.


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


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);


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);


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


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.


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.


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.”



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.


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.


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.);


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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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


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.


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


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;


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.



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.


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


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.”


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.


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.


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

Documents

MILLERHILL ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITY...1488-01 Millerhill Energy Recovery Facility EIA Informal Scoping Report January 2014 3 1.1.10 Planning permission for the Zero Waste Facility