Appendix F
Part 1: Assessment Matrices
Option 1
Summary of targets:
There are a range of targets in the plan but the key ones are set out in the Table below.
Focus in Waste Hierarchy | Key Targets | Option 1 -
The Planned Option |
|---|
Waste Prevention and Resource Efficiency | MSW Arising | 0% growth by 2010 |
Recycling and Composting | MSW Recycling/Composting Level | Relative to 1995 levels MSW reductions of:
50% by 2013
60% by 2020
70% by 2025 |
Construction and Demolition Preparing for Waste Recycling/Composting | Recycling of C&D to reach 70% by 2020 |
Recovery and Disposal | EfW Cap for MSW | 25% (maximum amount of MSW treated through EfW) |
MSW Landfill Cap | 5% (maximum amount of MSW disposed to landfill) |
Implications for National Waste Management:
Option 1 is the planned option documented within the Draft National Waste Management Plan. The targets impact on some types of waste and not others, which are controlled or reduced by other measures in the plan.
It should be recognised that this option reflects the new target based framework in the revised Waste Framework Directive, and in the case of recycling/composting, Option 1 goes beyond the EU targets i.e. the Scottish Government have proposed a 70% recycling / composting rate for MSW target by 2025 (the EU Directive target is 50% by 2020). The current recycling/composting rate for MSW is 31.8% (based on SEPA data from 2007/08 in Annex B of the draft plan) and so this rate will require doubling by 2025.
The cap on MSW incineration of 25% will limit incineration of waste to around 850k tonnes per annum (based on Annex B 2007/08 data) subject to the detail of how the cap is applied. Currently MSW incineration is c75k tonnes per annum. The EU Directive and SEPA's thermal treatment guidelines 10 will require EfW plants to be 60-65% efficient to achieve "recovery status" in the waste hierarchy - therefore limiting the number of suitable sites due to the need to have a significant heat user adjacent to the plant or nearby.
1 | A. SEA Objective: To increase the rates of reuse, recycling and recovery in Scotland in accordance with the waste hierarchy |
Supplementary questions:
a) Reduce the overall amount of waste generated in Scotland?
b) Increase recycling and composting rates in Scotland?
c) Increase waste recovery (incl energy recovery) in Scotland? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | S/M/L | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - Option 1 does not explicitly include a target on reducing the overall quantity of waste generated, however it does aim to halt the current growth;
- Option 1 will deliver the zero growth in MSW through the promotion of waste reduction and reuse (although this target is carried forward from the previous National Waste Plan);
- The proposed cap on EfW is at a level above current usage, and so it is expected that its use will increase over the course of the Plan timescale.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored positively because: - the plan will increase levels of recycling and composting in Scotland;
- although the Option includes a 25% cap on EfW it is expected that there will be an increase in usage of EfW from the current level, replacing landfill as a disposal route.
|
2 | A. SEA Objective: To reduce landfilling of waste in Scotland |
Supplementary questions:
a) Result in reduction of waste sent to landfill?
d) Support the meeting of BMW landfill allowances? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | S/M/L | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - Option 1 proposes a target for MSW to landfill of 5% by 2025, a significant reduction on current levels;
- The 70% recycling/composting target on C&D waste by 2025 is likely to reduce the volume of this waste stream being sent to landfill;
- While outputs from large scale composting/recycling processes can sometimes be sent to landfill the reporting system ensures that this is recorded as 'disposal' rather than 'recycling' or 'reuse' and so will still count towards the 5% target;
- The Plan will support the system of Landfill Allowances (note this is currently under review).
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored positively because: - It will lead to lower levels of landfilling of MSW and Construction and Demolition Waste over the period between 2009 and 2025.
|
3 | A. SEA Objective: To manage waste in a way that reduces emissions to air |
Supplementary questions:
a) Reduce the amount of pollution released to air?
b) Significantly affect air quality standards due to emissions from waste facilities?
c) Significantly affect dust levels from waste management facilities?
d) Result in increased odour issues? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ?? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | M/L | D. Any other types of effects? | v |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - Option 1 is likely to lead to a general reduction in odour and landfill gas emissions (methane and CO 2) as a result of the reductions in landfilling of waste;
- Dust and odour problems may increase around some waste management facilities (such as anaerobic digestion or composting sites)
- There may also be general increases in dust and odour issues if increased waste storage takes place, however this is likely to be at a local level only. There may also be impacts during the construction phase however these are not considered significant relative to the operating emissions of facilties;
- There will be higher emissions due to the increased number of EfW plants, however these are tightly controlled under PPC regulations;
- Health impacts associated with increased levels of EfW are discussed in Objective 10;;
- Emissions from EfW facilities can also impact adversely on biodiversity, flora and fauna (for example acidification of soils and freshwater habitats)
- Generally air quality effects from waste management facilities decrease rapidly with distance from the site when dispersed effectively.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored positively because: - There will be a likely reduction in odour and dust resulting from reduced landfill;
- Impacts on air quality standards are unlikely to be significant given the PPC regulatory regime;
This option scored negatively because: - There is potential for increased dust and emissions from composting and other recycling facilities;
- There is potential for impacts on biodiversity, flora and fauna due to emissions from EfW facilities.
This option scored as having potential cumulative effects if facilities are located where there is an existing air quality issue. |
4 | A. SEA Objective: To manage waste in a way that reduces emissions to land and soil |
Supplementary questions:
a) Significantly change the quality and quantity of soils as a result of waste management activities?
b) Significantly increase/reduce rates of derelict, vacant or contaminated land? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ?? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | M/L | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - It is assumed that this Option will lead to reduced landfilling of waste;
- Some processes, such as composting and AD, will provide an end product which can be used for improvement of soils;
- Some end products from AD and composting may include contaminants which could inadvertently be applied to land; application of composting can, however, offer benefits to soil quality in some areas;
- End products of composting and AD may reduce the need for the use of peat based composts and other fertilisers;
- Increased use of EfW will result in the production of hazardous fly ash which requires disposal to landfill;
- Occurrences of land pollution incidents may be associated with waste transfer stations and certain types of recycling plant;
- There may be scope for the use of some brownfield areas where facilities are to be located;
- Usage of land will be lower for new facilities than would otherwise be used for landfill.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This objective scored positively because: - There will be reduced disposal to landfill;
- Smaller footprints of facilities over landfill sites offers benefits.
This objective scored negatively because: - There is increased generation of hazardous fly ash through increased EfW;
- Increased quantities of waste transfer stations and recycling plants may lead to increased pollution incidents;
- There is a potential issue for some end products which are applied to land to contain contaminants or pollutants.
|
5 | A. SEA Objective: To manage waste in a way that reduces emissions to water |
Supplementary questions:
a) Reduce the amount of pollution released to water?
b) Significantly affect the ecological status of waterbodies?
c) Significantly affect flood risk in Scotland?
d) Affect the status of groundwater? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | M/L | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - Reduced use of landfill is expected to significantly reduce impacts on nearby controlled waters;
- Effluents produced during composting or AD can be recycled or disposed of through the sewerage system, or supplementary treatment, and so impacts on controlled waters can be managed although this will require consideration at the individual project level
- There may be local effects or risks on controlled waters, although these will be managed through local regulation and environmental licensing.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored positively because: - There are decreased levels of landfill which will reduce discharges of leachate which may potentially impact controlled waters.
|
6 | A. SEA Objective: To manage waste in a way that protects biodiversity |
Supplementary questions:
a) Have significant effects upon sites or species protected for their nature conservation value?
b) Safeguard the ecological processes on which protected sites/species depend? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | ? | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - It is considered that most effects on biodiversity, flora and fauna are likely to be experienced at a localised level. The Option contains no specific geographical information and as such it is not possible to assess the potential impacts on biodiversity;
- There is scope for some facilities to generate emissions which lead to acidification of air and soils beyond the immediate vicinity although such emissions are strongly regulated under PPC regulations.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored as a question mark because: - Impacts on biodiversity are expected to be experienced locally and there is no information available on the location of facilities.
|
7 | A. SEA Objective: To manage waste in a way that reduces greenhouse gas emissions |
Supplementary questions:
a) Significantly reduce GHG emissions from waste management and reduce the need for virgin materials extraction?
b) Significantly increases the release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | M/L | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: SEPALCA from 2007 which maps closely to this Option in relation to MSW concluded that: - Emissions avoided through the reduced use of landfilling (predominantly methane) are greater than those produced by increased EfW (mainly CO 2) although it should be noted that other GHG emissions can result from different waste management processes including N20, VOC etc;
- There are emissions associated with EfW feedstock containing non-renewable materials ( e.g. plastics) although reclaiming the energy in these through EfW is better than disposing in landfill;
- While landfill gas can be used for energy generation this may not be practical at all sites (especially small sites) and so methane capture cannot be assumed in all cases and efficiency of capture varies;
- Options with high recycling/composting combined with energy recovery are best in terms of non-renewable resource depletion;
- While increased segregated recycling may result in higher vehicle movements this does not significantly affect the overall differences between this option and landfilling (in the terms of the LCA process);
- In general the LCA analysis indicates that transport effects are marginal compared to effects from the waste management itself (although there are a number of assumptions in this conclusion
Additionally: - Other processes, such as composting, may lead to increased CO 2 emissions but these are considered to be significantly less damaging that the impacts from methane
- Some processes are suitable for contribution to renewable energy, anaerobic digestion can provide a source of methane for energy and heat generation.;
- Although emissions from waste do not include those from its transportation, the structure of collection and distribution networks is managed efficiently, including consideration of the mode of transport, there is the potential for further contributions to Scotland's emissions targets under the Climate Change Bill
- The aim of greater streaming of feedstock for EfW, if implemented, has the potential to yield knowledge to inform the further reduction of emissions from waste
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scores positively because: - There will be reductions in methane resulting from less landfilling and this will outweigh any increase in emissions of CO 2 from more EfW treatment, and any minor increases in CO 2 emissions from transport associated with waste transfer and increased recycling collections.
|
8 | A. SEA Objective: To support the development of renewable energy supplies |
Supplementary questions:
a) Support or inhibit renewable energy development? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | M/L | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - The option supports the use of EfW up to the 25% cap which will see an increase in usage over the period of the Plan;
- EfW could also be used to generate heat for district heating schemes of for industrial premises/processes;
- The option supports the use of AD technology for biowaste, which can generate renewable gas for heat/electricity or vehicle fuel.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored positively because: - It is expected to encourage the use of EfW and AD technologies.
|
9 | A. SEA Objective: To reduce the movement of waste |
Supplementary questions:
a) Significantly affect the volume of waste transported?
b) Significantly affect the distance waste is transported? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | ? | D. Any other types of effects? | v |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - The Plan offers no information on the specific locations of waste facilities, however it is possible that pursuing a move up the waste hierarchy might require transportation of waste over greater distances in some cases;
- Increased diversity of recyclates, and increased commercial and MSW collections, may also require additional vehicle movements, although this will likely be offset by the operation of longer collection routes by vehicles and reduced frequencies e.g. alternate week collections for households.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored a question mark because there is insufficient information on the location of waste facilities. While a greater number of faculties should reduce transport distances it is possible that some waste streams may end up travelling further for reprocessing. This option scored as having potential cumulative effects because increased traffic may impact where there are existing traffic problems. |
10 | A. SEA Objective: To manage waste in a way that protects communities and their local environment |
Supplementary questions:
a) Significantly affect traffic levels in local communities?
b) Significantly affect ambient noise levels?
c) Significantly affect levels of litter in local communities?
d) Increase risk of accident?
e) Significantly affect human health? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | ? | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - The change in collection frequency and diversity of recyclates collected may lead to increased vehicle movements in a local area, resulting in increased disturbance and potential traffic congestion. This may also have implications for noise levels
- Ambient noise may increase due to the increased numbers of facilities, whilst some of these will make only minor use of machinery, the impacts of increased traffic movements should be considered;
- Levels of litter from landfill sites will reduce, but all sites have the capacity to generate litter unless adequately managed;
- Increased storage of wastes could result in increased levels of pests and vermin;
- There is the potential for increased fly-tipping due to landfill bans; this can have an impact on amenity and significant health consequences (water, soil pollution, direct threats to human safety);
- It is possible that increased numbers of facilities and collections might offer more opportunity for more road and occupational accidents;
- While there may be some minor impacts on local communities from composting or other new facilities, there should be a reduction in the minor health impacts from landfill sites.
- Energy from waste and waste incineration facilities can cause community concern and anxiety over perceived health impacts.
- Energy from waste and waste incineration facilities can have localised air pollution effects, though this is regulated.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored a question mark because: - There may be impacts on local communities where waste facilities are located, however the effects would need to be considered on an individual project level, when further details are available, for example: traffic movements, distance of sensitive receptors from proposed facilities, and likely noise and air emissions.
- At a strategic level it is not possible to assess the local impacts on communities and their local environment. This process is managed by the Land Use Planning system.
|
11 | A. SEA Objective: To manage waste in a way that protects and enhances cultural heritage |
Supplementary questions:
a) Significantly affect protected heritage assets such as Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings and archaeological sites?
b) Significantly affect historic gardens and designed landscapes? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | ? | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - There is no detail on the location of waste facilities and so it is not possible to assess impacts on cultural heritage although these would be managed through the land use planning system - currently set out in SPP10, PAN 63, the National Planning Framework and Development Plans.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored a question mark because: - The impact on cultural heritage is dependent on the location of facilities. Any expected impact from traffic levels and emissions are considered to be relatively minor.
|
12 | A. SEA Objective: To manage waste in a way that protects and enhances landscape |
Supplementary questions:
a) Significantly affect overall landscape quality?
b) Significantly affect protected landscapes? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | ? | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - It is considered that effects on landscape are likely to be experienced at a localised level, and will depend on the type and scale of facility. The Option contains no specific geographical information and as such it is not possible to assess the potential impacts on this topic.
- Impacts on designated areas will be limited or mitigated through existing planning processes and controls;
- While former landfill sites may offer opportunities for development there are a wide range of significant difficulties in this process.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored a question mark because: - The impact on landscape is dependent on the type, scale and location of facilities.
- In some cases there may be a local impact however this will be controlled through the planning process and visual impact will, in some cases, be mitigated through suitable planning and/or design.
|
Option 2
Summary of targets:
There are a range of targets in the plan but the key ones are set out in the Table below.
Focus in Waste Hierarchy | Key Targets | Option 2 - The Aspirational Option |
|---|
Waste Prevention and Resource Efficiency | MSW Arising C&I Waste Arising | -1% growth by 2010 Reduction of 150ktpa* |
Recycling and Composting | MSW Recycling/Composting Level | Relative to 1995 levels MSW reductions of: 50% by 2013 60% by 2020 70% by 2025 |
Construction and Demolition Preparing for Waste Recycling/Composting | Recycling of C&D to reach 80% by 2020 |
Recovery and Disposal | EfW Cap for MSW | 30% (maximum amount of MSW treated through EfW) - this higher target is to balance the stricter cap on landfill |
MSW Landfill Cap | 0% (maximum amount of MSW disposed to landfill) |
Reuse | MSW | 1% by 2013 |
* Thousands of tonnes per annum.
Differences between this Option and the draft Plan
The key differences are:
- A move from 0% growth in MSW to a 1% reduction per year
- A waste reduction target for Commercial and Industrial Waste of 150ktpa
- An increase in C&D recycling to 80% (as opposed to 70% in Option1)
- An increase to a 30% cap on MSW Energy from Waste treatment (c170ktpa more than Option1) with 0% MSW sent to landfill by 2020
- An increase to 1% of MSW reuse
1 | A. SEA Objective: To increase the rates of reuse, recycling and recovery in Scotland in accordance with the waste hierarchy |
Supplementary questions: a) Reduce the overall amount of waste generated in Scotland?
b) Increase recycling and composting rates in Scotland?
c) Increase waste recovery (incl energy recovery) in Scotland? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | S/M/L | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - Option 2 includes a target on reducing the overall quantity of waste generated;
- Option 2 will deliver a reduction in MSW through the promotion of waste reduction and reuse (although this target is carried forward from the previous National Waste Plan);
- The proposed cap on EfW is at a level above current usage, and so it is expected that its use will increase over the course of the Plan timescale.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored positively because: - This Option plan will increase levels of recycling and composting in Scotland;
- Although the Option includes a 30% cap on EfW it is expected that there will be an increase in usage of EfW from the current level, replacing landfill as a disposal route.
|
2 | A. SEA Objective: To reduce landfilling of waste in Scotland |
Supplementary questions:
a) Result in reduction of waste sent to landfill?
d) Support the meeting of BMW landfill allowances? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | S/M/L | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - Option 2 proposes a target for MSW to reduce landfill to zero 2025, a significant reduction on current levels;
- The 70% recycling/composting target on C&D waste by 2025 is likely to reduce the volume of this waste stream being sent to landfill;
- The Plan will support the system of Landfill Allowances (note this is currently under review).
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored positively because: - It will lead to lower levels of landfilling of MSW and Construction and Demolition Waste over the period between 2009 and 2025.
|
3 | A. SEA Objective: To manage waste in a way that reduces emissions to air |
Supplementary questions:
a) Reduce the amount of pollution released to air?
b) Significantly affect air quality standards due to emissions from waste facilities?
c) Significantly affect dust levels from waste management facilities?
d) Result in increased odour issues? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | M/L | D. Any other types of effects? | v |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - Option 2 is likely to lead to a general reduction in odour and landfill gas emissions (methane and CO 2) as a result of the reductions in landfilling of waste;
- Dust and odour problems may increase around some waste management facilities (such as anaerobic digestion or composting sites);
- There may also be general increases in dust and odour issues if increased waste storage takes place, however this is likely to be at a local level only. There may also be impacts during the construction phase however these are not considered significant relative to the operating emissions of facilities;
- There will be higher emissions due to the increased number of EfW plants, however these are tightly controlled under PPC regulations. It should be noted that the number of EfW under Option 2 is likely to be greater than under Option 1 due to the higher cap on EfW;
- Health impacts associated with increased levels of EfW are discussed in Objective 10;
- Emissions from EfW facilities can also impact adversely on biodiversity, flora and fauna (for example acidiphication of soils and freshwater habitats). This impact may be greater under this Option than under Option 1;
- Generally air quality effects from waste management facilities decrease rapidly with distance from the site when dispersed effectively.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored positively because: - There will be a likely reduction in odour and dust resulting from reduced landfill;
- Impacts on air quality standards are unlikely to be significant given the PPC regulatory regime;
This option scored negatively because: - There is potential for increased dust and emissions from composting and other recycling facilities;
- There is potential for impacts on biodiversity, flora and fauna due to emissions from EfW facilities;
- Impacts as a result of EfW facilities will be greater than under Option 1.
This option scored as having potential cumulative effects if facilities are located where there is an existing air quality issue. |
4 | A. SEA Objective: To manage waste in a way that reduces emissions to land and soil |
Supplementary questions:
a) Significantly change the quality and quantity of soils as a result of waste management activities?
b) Significantly increase/reduce rates of derelict, vacant or contaminated land? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | M/L | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - It is assumed that this Option will lead to reduced landfilling of waste, and a reduction to zero of the landfilling of MSW;;
- Some processes, such as composting and AD, will provide an end product which can be used for improvement of soils;
- Some end products from AD and composting may include contaminants which could inadvertently be applied to land; application of composting can, however, offer benefits to soil quality in some areas;
- End products of composting and AD may reduce the need for the use of peat based composts and other fertilisers;
- Increased use of EfW will result in the production of hazardous fly ash which requires disposal to landfill. This impact will be greater under Option 2 due to the increased cap on EfW;
- Occurrences of land pollution incidents may be associated with waste transfer stations and certain types of recycling plant;
- There may be scope for the use of some brownfield areas where facilities are to be located;
- Usage of land will be lower for new facilities than would otherwise be used for landfill.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This objective scored positively because: - There will be reduced disposal to landfill;
- Smaller footprints of facilities over landfill sites offers benefits.
This objective scored negatively because: - There is increased generation of hazardous fly ash through increased EfW. This impact will be greater under this Option than under Option 1;
- Increased quantities of waste transfer stations and recycling plants may lead to increased pollution incidents;
- There is a potential issue for some end products which are applied to land to contain contaminants or pollutants.
|
5 | A. SEA Objective: To manage waste in a way that reduces emissions to water |
Supplementary questions:
a) Reduce the amount of pollution released to water?
b) Significantly affect the ecological status of waterbodies?
c) Significantly affect flood risk in Scotland?
d) Affect the status of groundwater? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | M/L | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - Reduced use of landfill is expected to significantly reduce impacts on nearby controlled waters;
- Effluents produced during composting or AD can be recycled or disposed of through the sewerage system, or supplementary treatment, and so impacts on controlled waters can be managed although this will require consideration at the individual project level
- There may be local effects or risks on controlled waters, although these will be managed through local regulation and environmental licensing.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored positively because: - There are decreased levels of landfill which will reduce discharges of leachate which may potentially impact controlled waters. The magnitude of this benefit will be greater than under Option 1 due to the removal of all disposal of MSW to landfill.
|
6 | A. SEA Objective: To manage waste in a way that protects biodiversity |
Supplementary questions:
a) Have significant effects upon sites or species protected for their nature conservation value?
b) Safeguard the ecological processes on which protected sites/species depend? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ?/? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | M/L/? | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - It is considered that most effects on biodiversity, flora and fauna are likely to be experienced at a localised level. The Option contains no specific geographical information and as such it is not possible to assess the potential impacts on biodiversity;
- Schemes involving the construction of buildings and new roads should not be located in, or impact on, wildlife corridors that will lead to habitat fragmentation;
- The design of developments should include habitat and biodiversity enhancement;
- There is scope for some facilities to generate emissions which lead to acidification of air and soils beyond the immediate vicinity although such emissions are strongly regulated under PCC regulations. This risk is greater under this Option due to the increased number of EfW facilities under the increased cap.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored positively because: - There may be an opportunity to enhance wildlife corridors between protected sites depending on the location of buildings and new road schemes.
This option scored as a question mark because: - Impacts on biodiversity are expected to be experienced locally and there is no information available on the location of facilities.
|
7 | A. SEA Objective: To manage waste in a way that reduces greenhouse gas emissions |
Supplementary questions:
a) Significantly reduce GHG emissions from waste management and reduce the need for virgin materials extraction?
b) Significantly increases the release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | M/L | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: The LCA analysis carried out by SEPA in 2007, while mapping less well to this Option, still informs on the assessment. Key points, as in the assessment of Option 1 are: - Emissions avoided through the reduced use of landfilling (predominantly methane) are greater than those produced by increased EfW (mainly CO 2) (although it should be noted that other GHG emissions can result from different waste management processes including N20, VOC etc);
- There are emissions associated with EfW feedstock containing non-renewable materials ( e.g. plastics) although reclaiming the energy in these through EfW is better than disposing in landfill;
- While landfill gas can be used for energy generation this may not be practical at all sites (especially small sites) and so methane capture cannot be assumed in all cases and efficiency of capture varies;
- Options with high recycling/composting combined with energy recovery are best in terms of non-renewable resource depletion;
- While increased segregated recycling may result in higher vehicle movements this does not significantly affect the overall differences between this option and landfilling (in the terms of the LCA process);
- In general the LCA analysis indicates that transport effects are marginal compared to effects from the waste management itself (although there are a number of assumptions in this conclusion
Additionally: - Other processes, such as composting, may lead to increased CO 2 emissions but these are considered to be significantly less damaging that the impacts from methane
- Some processes are suitable for contribution to renewable energy, anaerobic digestion can provide a source of methane for energy and heat generation;
- Although emissions from waste do not include those from its transportation, if the structure of collection and distribution networks is managed efficiently, including consideration of the mode of transport, there is the potential for further contributions to Scotland's emissions targets under the Climate Change Bill
- The aim of greater streaming of feedstock for EfW, if implemented, has the potential to yield knowledge to inform the further reduction of emissions from waste
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scores positively because: - There will be reductions in methane resulting from less landfilling and this will outweigh any increase in emissions of CO 2 from more EfW treatment, and any minor increases in CO 2 emissions from transport associated with waste transfer and increased recycling collections - even though EfW may be greater under Option 2 due to the increased cap on EfW.
|
8 | A. SEA Objective: To support the development of renewable energy supplies |
Supplementary questions:
a) Support or inhibit renewable energy development? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | M/L | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - The Option supports the use of EfW up to the 30% cap which will see an increase in usage over the period of the Plan;
- EfW could also be used to generate heat for district heating schemes of for industrial premises/processes;
- The option supports the use of AD technology for biowaste, which can generate renewable gas for heat/electricity or vehicle fuel.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored positively because: - It is expected to encourage the use of EfW and AD technologies. This Option might also lead to greater EfW use than under Option 1.
|
9 | A. SEA Objective: To reduce the movement of waste |
Supplementary questions:
a) Significantly affect the volume of waste transported?
b) Significantly affect the distance waste is transported? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | ? | D. Any other types of effects? | v |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - This Option offers no information on the specific locations of waste facilities, however it is possible that pursuing a move up the waste hierarchy might require transportation of waste over greater distances in some cases;
- Increased diversity of recyclates, and increased commercial and MSW collections, may also require additional vehicle movements, although this will likely be offset by the operation of longer collection routes by vehicles and reduced frequencies e.g. alternate week collections for households.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored a question mark because there is insufficient information on the location of waste facilities. While a greater number of faculties should reduce transport distances it is possible that some waste streams may end up travelling further for reprocessing. This option scored as having potential cumulative effects because increased traffic may impact where there are existing traffic problems. |
10 | A. SEA Objective: To manage waste in a way that protects communities and their local environment |
Supplementary questions:
a) Significantly affect traffic levels in local communities?
b) Significantly affect ambient noise levels?
c) Significantly affect levels of litter in local communities?
d) Increase risk of accident?
e) Significantly affect human health? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | ? | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - The change in collection frequency and diversity of recyclates collected may lead to increased vehicle movements in a local area, resulting in increased disturbance and potential traffic congestion. This may also have implications for noise levels;
- Ambient noise may increase due to the increased numbers of facilities, whilst some of these will make only minor use of machinery, the impacts of increased traffic movements should be considered;
- Levels of litter from landfill sites will reduce, but all sites have the capacity to generate litter unless adequately managed;
- Increased storage of wastes could result in increased levels of pests and vermin;
- There is the potential for increased fly-tipping due to landfill bans; this can have an impact on amenity and significant health consequences (water, soil pollution, direct threats to human safety);
- It is possible that increased numbers of facilities and collections might offer more opportunity for more road and occupational accidents;
- While there may be some minor impacts on local communities from composting or other new facilities, there should be a reduction in the minor health impacts from landfill sites.
- Energy from waste and waste incineration facilities can cause community concern and anxiety over perceived health impacts.
- Energy from waste and waste incineration facilities can have localised air pollution effects, though this is regulated.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored a question mark because: - There may be impacts on local communities where waste facilities are located, however the effects would need to be considered on an individual project level, when further details are available, for example: traffic movements, distance of sensitive receptors from proposed facilities, and likely noise and air emissions.
- At a strategic level it is not possible to assess the local impacts on communities and their local environment. This process is managed by the Land Use Planning system.
|
11 | A. SEA Objective: To manage waste in a way that protects and enhances cultural heritage |
Supplementary questions:
a) Significantly affect protected heritage assets such as Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings and archaeological sites?
b) Significantly affect historic gardens and designed landscapes? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | ? | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - There is no detail on the location of waste facilities and so it is not possible to assess impacts on cultural heritage although these would be managed through the land use planning system - currently set out in SPP10, PAN 63, the National Planning Framework and Development Plans.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored a question mark because: - The impact on cultural heritage is dependent on the location of facilities. Any expected impact from traffic levels and emissions are considered to be relatively minor.
|
12 | A. SEA Objective: To manage waste in a way that protects and enhances landscape |
Supplementary questions:
a) Significantly affect overall landscape quality?
b) Significantly affect protected landscapes? |
B. Is this part of the NWMP moving towards or away from the objective? | ? | C. Short, medium or long term effects? | ? | D. Any other types of effects? | |
Comments and supporting information |
Supporting information: - It is considered that effects on landscape are likely to be experienced at a localised level, and will depend on the type and scale of facility. The Option contains no specific geographical information and as such it is not possible to assess the potential impacts on this topic.
- Impacts on designated areas will be limited or mitigated through existing planning processes and controls;
- While former landfill sites may offer opportunities for development there are a wide range of significant difficulties in this process.
| Reasons for scores in boxes B-D: This option scored a question mark because: - The impact on landscape is dependent on the type, scale and location of facilities.
- In some cases there may be a local impact however this will be controlled through the planning process and visual impact will, in some cases, be mitigated through suitable planning and/or design.
|