« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
6 Significant environmental effects
6.1 Introduction
This section will summarise the significant positive and negative environmental effects which have been identified during the course of the assessment process. Effects are discussed with relation to the set of environmental topics as specified in the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005.
The assessment was carried out using the assessment framework shown in the table below. This allowed for the assessment of Options 1 and 2 in terms of a set of SEA objectives and sub-objectives. A summary table of the effects assessed is shown below.
Table 6-1 Assessment of Options 1 and 2
Environmental Objective | Option 1 | Option 2 |
|---|
Is the Option moving towards or away from the objective? | Is the Option moving towards or away from the objective? |
|---|
To increase the rates of waste prevention, reuse, recycling and recovery in Scotland in accordance with the waste hierarchy * | ? | ? |
To reduce landfilling of waste in Scotland | ? | ? |
To manage waste in a way that reduces emissions to air | ? ? | ? ? |
To manage waste in a way that reduces emissions to land and soil | ? ? | ? ? |
To manage waste in a way that reduces emissions to water | ? | ? |
To manage waste in a way that protects and, where appropriate enhances, biodiversity | ?\? | ?\? |
To manage waste in a way that reduces greenhouse gas emissions | ? | ? |
To support the development of alternative renewable energy supplies | ? | ? |
To reduce the movement of waste | ? | ? |
To manage waste in a way that protects communities and their local environment ** | ? | ? |
To manage waste in a way that protects and, where appropriate enhances, cultural heritage ** | ? | ? |
To manage waste in a way that protects and, where appropriate enhances, landscape ** | ? | ? |
* this objective has been amended since the Scoping Report to include 'waste prevention'
** highlighted objectives have been introduced since the Scoping Report in response to comments from the Statutory Consultees.
Key
Symbol | Meaning |
|---|
? | The option is moving towards achieving this objectives |
? | The option is moving away achieving this objectives |
? | There is insufficient information on how parts of this Option will contribute to meeting the objective |
It can be seen that overall the effects of the two Options are assessed as being the same, although this is a simplification of the underlying factors in the final assessment. However, this approach demonstrates that the chief difference between the two Options is one of magnitude; the overall effects are more pronounced in the more aspirational Option.
6.2 Description of significant environmental effects arising from the Plan
The summary table shown above gives the overall assessment according to the assessment framework developed previously, however the following section describes the range of environmental effects which could be experienced by each of the specified SEA topics.
6.2.1 Draft NWMP
The following sections describe the results of the assessment of the Draft NWMP, or Option 1 as it is referred to in the assessment. The detailed assessment sheets are contained in Appendix F.
Particular attention is paid to those measures which have a significant negative effect, or have both a significant positive and negative effect as these are more likely to require mitigation measures.
Few short term effects have been identified due to the long lead in process associated with the development of new waste infrastructure. Short term effects arising from the plan are only identified in relation to the increase of waste reuse, reduction and recovery; and with the decrease of landfilling
Medium and long term effects associated with the range of SEA topics are described in more detail in the full assessment matrices which can be found in Appendix F.
Biodiversity, flora and fauna
It is not considered likely that this Option will have nationally significant positive or negative effects on biodiversity, flora and fauna.
One effect arising from the Plan is an expected increase in the number of EfW sites operating in Scotland. This type of facility produces a range of air emissions including CO 2, and sulphur and nitrogen dioxides. While these emissions can have negative impacts on biodiversity they are very strictly regulated under the Pollution Prevention and Control regulatory system and as such it is not considered likely that nationally significant effects will occur given the scale of increase in EfW which is expected.
The development of new waste management facilities, however, does offer some opportunities for enhancement of biodiversity, flora and fauna. As with much new development the opportunity should be taken, if and where appropriate, to use such development to support and improve wildlife corridors between protected sites. To achieve these benefits, however, will require close local scale assessment and action.
It is expected that there is potential for negative environmental effects at a local scale. The precise nature of these cannot be assessed as there is no information contained in the Plan about the locations of new facilities or different types. Assessing, managing and mitigating any environmental impacts at a regional or local level will require a further level of assessment at a later stage. Mitigation of potential effects are discussed in a Section 7 of this report.
Population and human health
It is not expected that this Option will have nationally significant positive or negative effects on population and human health.
A number of potential negative effects have been identified which might be experienced at a local level. The precise extent of these effects cannot be fully assessed as there is no information contained in the plan about likely locations of new facilities. It is possible, however, to detail some of the expected effects which could be experienced at a local level due to new waste facilities, or changes to collection and treatment approaches under the new Plan.
There are a number of potential impacts associated with the provision of new facilities of all types. It is expected that a newly located waste facility may generate increased levels of traffic in the surrounding area (particularly if they are not created on existing waste management sites), and that there may be noise nuisance in the local area both from this increased traffic and from the operations of the site itself. New facilities, depending on type, may also see an increase in levels of pests and vermin. This risk may be more likely at composting sites and waste storage sites.
It is expected that there may be positive effects of the Plan through the reduction of reliance on landfill, and hence the reduced numbers of operating landfill sites. Aside from local odour and dust impacts there may be a reduction in wind blown litter from landfill sites. However, other types of waste facility yet to be built may lead to increased litter in local areas.
Aside from local traffic increases in areas where new facilities are located there may also be a more widespread increase in traffic levels and movements as a result of new waste collection regimes. Increased recycling levels could lead to wider use of separate local authority collections and, depending on the recycling regime in place, could lead to increased collections and vehicle movements.
Other potential impacts on local population and communities include anxiety about new waste facilities. This is particularly relevant with relation to any proposed new EfW sites. There is widespread concern about the health impacts of living close to an incineration facility amongst the public, although the available research on the subject considers these concerns to be disproportionate.
An increase in the number of waste facilities and increased waste collections could also have the adverse effects of leading to an increase in occupational health risk, with more instances of personal injury or death. Waste is one of the industry sectors with a relatively poor health and safety record, particularly in relation to manual handling operations (as indicated in the partial Health Impact Assessment as Annex K of the draft Plan)Although it is also noted that increased employment in this sector can provide community benefit especially work to disadvantaged people.
A more widespread potential effect of the Plan could be an increase in fly-tipping as restrictions of disposal to landfill are increased. Fly-tipping has the potential to produce a number of adverse effects on a local community including risks of water or soil pollution along with direct risks to human safety.
Generally it is considered that the potential impacts on human health, population and communities are very local in nature and as such need to be considered at the individual project level when a greater understanding of the local environment can be assessed and an understanding of vulnerable receptors can be developed.
More information on the potential impacts on human health arising from the plan can be found in the Partial Health Impact Assessment included as Annex K of the draft NWMP.
Water
Generally this Option is expected to have positive effects on controlled waters. Leachate from landfill sites is identified as a key contributor to point pollution impacts on water bodies and the reduction of landfill usage and numbers should reduce this effect. While other facilities also produce liquid liquor this is generally manageable either through recycling into the facility ( e.g. in composting) or through controlled disposal to land or into wastewater treatment works.
Air
This Option is expected to have both positive and negative effects on air quality.
The reduction in the use of landfill, especially in the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste, will lead to a reduction in odour problems associated with landfill. It will also see a reduction of emissions of methane and CO 2 from landfill sites (this is also discussed under climatic factors).
Other types of waste facility, however, may lead to increases in adverse local dust and odour effects including composting, anaerobic digestion (from loading and unloading) and other facilities.
It is also expected that there will be some increased levels of emissions to air from the greater number of EfW sites - in particular sulphur and nitrogen dioxides. This is not expectedly to be nationally significant, however, given the rigorous regulatory system operated by SEPA. However it should be noted that there could be specific local problems if new EfW facilities were located near to an area with existing air quality problems, such as those areas already designated an Air Quality Management Area.
Climate factors
This option is expected to have both positive and negative effects on climate factors through the generation of greenhouse gases.
Landfilling of waste is a significant source of greenhouse gases, producing methane which is a particularly potent GHG. While a large proportion of the methane produced by landfill sites is currently captured and used for energy and heat generation there is still a proportion which escapes to the atmosphere. A reduction of use of landfill will reduce this impact further.
There is, however, a potential negative effect from the operation of other waste facilities. Composting sites produce carbon dioxide, and other treatment processes such as autoclaving can use substantial amounts of energy. An increase in the numbers of these sites is likely to lead to some increase in GHG emissions.
There are also potential impacts associated with traffic and the transportation of waste. These can be attributed to the collection of waste, and to the transport of wastes to facilities.
An increase in the frequency, quantity or types of recyclate collected could result in increased traffic movements where individual vehicles are used for collections of recyclable and residual wastes. It should be noted, however, that the Life Cycle Analysis carried out by SEPA for the Lothian and Borders Area Waste Plan suggested that any potential increase in traffic movements (and associated emissions) was marginal compared to other emissions in the waste management process.
There is also scope for increased transport of waste depending on the specific locations of waste facilities. The Plan does not contain details of the location of new facilities. Transport to facilities is a significant locational criterion for feasibility, and it should be noted that there is a risk that the removal of Area Waste Plans might reduce the opportunity for local authorities to collaborate on the planning of waste facilities for MSW, as AWPs provide a source of strategic waste information on waste management.
This Option is expected to contribute to the development and use of renewable energy supplies as it is expected to lead to an increase in the use of EfW and anaerobic digestion technologies, both of which produce power and heat.
Soil
This Option is expected to have both positive and negative environmental effects.
The reduction in the use of landfill which will result from this Option will reduce the usage of this finite resource. Landfill sites are also, typically, large and a shift towards the use of other technologies and facilities will offer benefits through their smaller footprints.
There are potential negative effects associated with this Option. The increased use of EfW will lead to an increase in the production of fly ash which can contain a wide range of pollutants and which requires disposal to a hazardous landfill.
Waste facilities are identified as a significant source of soil and land pollution incidents and there is a risk that the increased numbers of different waste facilities which will be developed under this Option could increase the risk of frequency of pollution events, although these may be expected to be less significant than those from landfill sites.
There is also a potential risk to soil through the by-products of some processes. Composting and anaerobic digestion as well as other recovery processes may produce low grade compost like material and other similar low grade materials which, subject to licensing controls enforced by SEPA, may be applied to land. These may offer a benefit to soils, and may improve local soil quality. Occasionally there can be problems with the transfer of contaminants from these waste products. However, to prevent this, the disposal to land of these waste products is regulated by SEPA through the Waste Licence Exemption Process. Additionally, quality standards for composting are also in place through the Publicly Available Standard ( PAS100) for Composted Materials and a similar standard ( PAS110) is proposed for digestate from AD facilities.
Cultural heritage
This Option is not expected to have any nationally significant effects on cultural heritage. There is scope for effects to occur at a local level, most probably where new facilities are to be developed and a local assessment through the local authority planning process will be required to determine the extent of these effects.
Landscape
This Option is not expected to have any nationally significant effects on landscape. There is scope for effects to occur at a local level, most probably where new facilities are to be developed, and a local assessment through the local authority planning process will be required to determine the extent of these effects and the planning and/or design methods that can be used to reduce or remove this impact.
Material assets
In respect of waste production and management the Plan is expected to have significant positive effects through the reduction of resource use, and the increase in reuse, recycling and composting of waste. The Plan is expected to reduce the volume of all types of waste being sent to landfill.
The Plan is likely to lead to an increase in the number of waste facilities across Scotland with the development of new Waste Transfer Stations, EfW, Composting and Anaerobic Digestion sites amongst others.
6.2.2 NWMP - The Aspirational Option
Generally the assessment of the Aspirational Option found a similar set of potential impacts on the various SEA topics. This was expected since the Aspirational Option represents changes to targets, but is essentially managing waste with the same strategic aims in mind ( i.e. moving waste up the waste hierarchy).
For this reason the potential environmental effects will not be reiterated here except where a significant change in the magnitude of an effect is expected.
Biodiversity, flora and fauna
No additional impacts on biodiversity, flora and fauna are expected under this Option. However the magnitude of any potentially negative local effects due to acidification (through emissions from EfW) may be greater due to the increased number of EfW facilities (perhaps 1-2 in number) under the increased 30% cap on usage.
Population and human health
No additional impacts on population and human health are expected under this Option. However, the increased cap on EfW is expected to lead to a greater number of facilities, and so the impacts of public concern and anxiety over new EfW facilities may be more widespread.
Water
No additional impacts on water are expected under this Option. However the magnitude of any potentially positive effects through reduced landfill leachate will be greater given the reduced level of landfilling expected under this Option.
Air
No additional impacts on air are expected under this Option. However the magnitude of any potentially negative effects due to emissions to air may be greater due to the increased number of EfW sites. On the positive side the reduction in waste to landfill would reduce levels of odour. Overall reductions in waste produced would lead to lower emissions to air from transport as opposed to Option 1.
Climate factors
No additional impacts on the emission of greenhouse gases are expected under this Option. The reduction to zero of the landfilling of MSW, and the converse increase in the use of EfW will similarly increase emissions of CO 2 while reducing emissions of (more harmful) methane from landfill.
Soil
No additional impacts on soil are expected under this Option. However the magnitude of any potentially positive and negative effects from the replacement of landfill with other waste treatment processes may be greater due to the increased number of waste treatment sites expected.
Cultural heritage
No additional impacts on cultural heritage are expected under this Option.
Landscape
No additional impacts on landscape are expected under this Option
Material assets
The effects on material assets are considered to be most significant in relation to waste. Clearly the enhanced set of targets under this Option will offer additional benefits over and above Option 1 through the reduction in landfilling of waste, increased waste reuse and recycling/composting, and perhaps increased AD, MBT and EfW facilities.
6.3 Cumulative and synergistic effects of the NWMP Options
Schedule 3 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 identifies that cumulative and synergistic effects are required to be considered within the Environmental Report. This approach allows for the identification of:
- significant effects which could arise from an accumulation of multiple instances of a smaller environmental effect;
- significant effects which could arise from the interaction of different environmental effects.
Typically this type of assessment would be carried out by comparing the individual effects of a number of activities or actions on a particular receptor to identify if this could produce a cumulative negative or positive effect. However, this is not appropriate given the way in which this assessment process has been carried out, as rather than consider multiple actions and their individual effects the assessment has instead been carried out at a high level based on the targets contained within the Plan. Instead an attempt has been made to identify, for each of the SEA topics, where there is potential for an accumulation of activities within the context of the two Options identified.
As the assessment of the two Options gave little difference in the types of effects under each Option and instead just indicated the relative magnitudes of effects it is not considered useful to discuss each Option separately.
A summary of this analysis is shown in the table below.
Table 6-2 Potential cumulative and synergistic effects by SEA topic
SEA Topic | Potential cumulative effects |
|---|
Biodiversity, flora and fauna | It is not expected that there will be cumulative effects on biodiversity, flora and fauna. While there are risks of local effects around new facilities it is not expected that the scale of increase in the number of facilities would produce a significant cumulative effect at the scale of the Plan. |
Population and human health | The area in which cumulative effects are considered most likely to occur is where these could impact on local communities. The environmental assessment has highlighted a number of environmental impacts which can be experienced at a local level in the vicinity of new waste infrastructure: dust, odour, increased noise and traffic etc. Additionally these impacts on local communities can be manifested not only in identifiable environmental terms, but also in the levels of anxiety and concern about health implications experienced by the local community (regardless of the accuracy of validity of these concerns). The cumulative effects on a community of these multiple environmental effects have the potential to be significant. As such any proposals for new or expanded facilities require a detailed assessment at a local level. This should be coupled with local stakeholder engagement and awareness-raising. In most cases this will be provided through the use of Environmental Impact Assessment ( EIA) and this will be discussed further under the issue of mitigation in Section 7. |
Water | It is not expected that there will be cumulative effects on water. |
Air | It is not expected that there will be significant cumulative effects on air as a result of the Plan. However, as with other indicators there is scope for local impacts. Some waste facilities will result in the emission of increased pollutants to air and consideration should be given at a local level to how these will interact with air quality in the immediate area. One risk is that the location of a facility could adversely impact on an area already suffering from poor air quality. As with most other effects identified this will be mitigated through application of a robust local planning system. |
Climate factors | Consideration of the potential cumulative effects of the Plan on climate factors is challenging. It is expected that the contributions of GHGs emitted by the waste sector in Scotland will be significantly reduced by the ongoing reduction in the use of landfill, and methane emissions associated with it. While other treatment technologies also contribute to the emission of GHGs it is expected that the benefits gained from landfill will more than outweigh these. Consideration of the impact of the Plan on transport is also important. The assessment process highlighted various ways in which adoption of the Plan could increase traffic emissions associated with waste - be these at the level of waste collection, or through increased transportation of waste between facilities. Drawing on the Life Cycle Assessment carried out by SEPA for their Lothian and Borders Area Waste Plan it is considered unlikely that this increase will be significant when considered relative to the overall emissions from the waste sector. |
Soil | It is not expected that there will be cumulative effects on soil. |
Cultural heritage | It is not expected that there will be cumulative effects on cultural heritage. |
Landscape | Significant effects on landscape were not identified during the assessment, although it is possible that through the ongoing expansion of waste infrastructure there could be a disproportionate impact in some geographical locations where multiple facilities are located in (relatively) close proximity. While this is unlikely to happen within a single Local Authority area, where the risk would be managed through the local planning system, the potential in this Plan for the absence of any Area Waste Plans (and in the absence of detailed guidance in Local Development Plans) could increase the risk that clustering could occur around the boundaries of Local Authorities with significant impacts on the landscape quality of a particular area. |
Material assets | The cumulative benefit offered in terms of waste management and the minimisation of resource use are significant being, as they are, the primary drivers behind the Plan and both of the Options. Waste infrastructure will almost certainly increase in terms of the number of waste management facilities under either Option as the focus on landfill is gradually replaced by a range of recycling, reuse and recovery facilities. |
A discussion of the mitigation of these potential cumulative and synergistic effects is included in subsequent sections.
Question C: Do you have any comments on the evaluation of the environmental effects of the options and the findings derived from them?
Question D: Has the evaluation covered all of the environmental issues that you would like to see considered?
« Previous | Contents | Next »