USEFUL DOCUMENTS
SEPA Scoping Report on LRV Proposals, January 2011
Appendix – Detailed Comments
1. Compliance with Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan
1.1 The applicant should ensure that the Environmental Statement demonstrates how the proposal will meet the aims and objectives of the Zero Waste Plan. The following comments should assist the applicant in this regard.
1.2 The revised Waste Framework Directive defines recycling as “any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations.”
1.3 The vision of the Zero Waste Plan is that most waste will be sorted into separate streams for reuse and recycling with only limited amounts of waste to go to residual waste treatment, including energy from waste facilities. For energy from waste to be truly sustainable it should only be used for resource streams which cannot practicably offer greater environmental and economic benefits through reuse and recycling.
1.4 The Scoping Report states in section 1.2 that the planning application will analyse the implications of the Zero Waste Plan on the proposed development. The following commentary is offered to assist the developer, their agent and the Energy Consents Unit with this analysis.
Plant Efficiency
1.5 The Zero Waste Plan does not, in principle, oppose large scale energy from waste (EfW) plant (defined by a tonnage threshold). However, there is a general presumption against inefficient plants. These tend to be plants of a larger scale because not all the energy produced can be used, which is a loss of the resource value in the waste being used to generate the energy (in the form of electricity and heat). For the resource value in the form of energy generated to be optimised, the heat must normally be used and not wasted.
1.6 The Scoping Report states that the scale of the facility has limited the site options for a suitable location resulting in a corresponding lack of opportunities for the excess heat to be used off-site. The main heat user identified so far is the site itself – in the Fuel Preparation Building – but there remains significant quantities of heat for which no use has been found. Please note our comments on plant efficiencies in the section on PPC permitting.
1.7 It should be noted that the issue of plant efficiency is closely related to the site selection as this can have a major impact on whether or not heat and/or power can be utilised. The facility could be a good source of heat and power for other users, but the scoping report has indicated that due to the greenfield location, this may not be possible. As an important aspect of the Thermal Treatment of Waste Guidelines (TTWG) is the efficiency of proposals, the alternative sites considered (and the potential for supplying heat and power for other users close to these sites) and reasons for excluding them from further consideration should be included within the ES.
Only residual waste to be treated in EfW plants
1.8 The Zero Waste Plan requires that only residual wastes - that is wastes which have been subject to all reasonably practicable efforts to extract recyclable material prior to incineration or co-incineration – may be used to generate energy. This is because in general terms there are far higher carbon and resource benefits accrued from reuse and recycling compared to using waste to generate energy.
1.9 High levels of recycling are achieved by high levels of source segregation and separate collection. As source segregation and separate collection become mainstream behaviour and Scotland’s recycling rates move towards 70%, the amount of unsorted waste requiring management – in the type of facility proposed here - will decrease.
1.10 he Scoping Report states that the proposed development will eliminate landfill of the waste it processes and operates on the closed loop principle envisaged by the Zero Waste Plan. This definition of closed loop recycling i.e. burning materials and recycling the ash, differs from that which SEPA understands is desired by the Zero Waste Plan. In this regard SEPA interprets closed loop recycling as the recycling of materials such as plastic, glass, metal and paper back into those materials in order that they may be used as a replacement for virgin resources.
1.11 We would stress the importance of ES assessing the proposal against the ZWP – ie does it comply with the ZWP, what alternative technologies for the waste were rejected (eg recycling technologies not incorporated into the proposal) and why were they discarded in favour of the proposal?
Replacing the 25% Cap with a Restriction on Inputs
1.12 Instead of a cap on municipal waste, legislation will require SEPA to include conditions in PPC permits for EfW facilities to limit the inputs to ‘residual waste’ only. ‘Residual Waste’ is defined as “wastes which have been subject to all reasonably practicable efforts to extract recyclable material prior to incineration or co-incineration”. In practical terms, this directs all unsorted wastes (bag bags, skips etc) through pre-treatment.
1.13 This requirement to limit inputs to EfW plants to residual waste only applies to all inputs regardless of source and focuses more strongly on the resource value of the waste. Until these legislative measures are in force, Annex A of the Zero Waste Plan (paragraph 6.3) states that the 25% cap will continue to apply. However, in light of the proposed changes to EfW policy at Government level, the determining authority may consider that a planning condition relating to the 25% cap may be unnecessary. A consultation on the Zero Waste Regulations 2011 has recently been published by the Scottish Government which details this along with a package of linked regulatory tools to deliver Zero Waste.
Pre-treatment
1.14 Under the proposed Zero Waste Regulations, unsorted (i.e. black bag) waste is not 'residual waste' (see definition above). Therefore, unsorted waste can not go directly from the producer to EfW. EfW facilities will be prohibited from accepting such unsorted waste directly for incineration and co-incineration through the PPC Permit. Efforts must be made to extract as much remaining recyclable material as is reasonably practicable prior to incineration for unsorted waste to be considered 'residual'.
1.15 Modern separation technologies can extract some recyclable materials from the unsorted waste stream, the most obvious examples being ferrous and non-ferrous metals and dense plastics. There are resource recovery and climate change benefits from taking steps to remove recyclable materials from the unsorted waste stream. Life cycle studies indicate that the climate change benefit is especially pronounced for plastics.
Mass balance in Annex B
1.16 The Mass Balance in Annex B indicates that approximately 74,800 tonnes a year of materials will be extracted from 1.5 million tonnes – equivalent to around 5%. This seems low compared to levels of potentially recyclable materials found in compositional analysis studies of unsorted waste streams. Further information about the fuel preparation process will be required to determine whether all reasonably practicable efforts are being made to extract recyclable material from the incoming waste.
2. Site Selection
2.1 The ES should clearly outline the site selection process, how it was drawn up, and why site selection criteria were chosen based on national and local planning policy. It is important that the ES clearly explains why the application site is preferable to any other short listed sites based on land use planning reasons.
3. Technology Selection
3.1 We note that the scoping request report indicates that a large number of alternates were considered. The ES should summarise these and provide details of the criteria used in the final technology selection.
4. Energy Recovery
4.1 The ES should detail how the facility will provide energy recovery in terms of both heat and power. This is a key issue for SEPA in terms of compliance with its Thermal Treatment Guidelines 2009[1] which are a material planning consideration.
4.2 The importance of these guidelines is highlighted in Scottish Planning Policy (SPP).
4.3 In this regard the preparation of a “heat and power plan” is essential and should be fully addressed in the ES outlining, for example, the following information and providing detail of any discussions with planning authority, developers and economic development staff regarding development plan zonings and future development proposals in the area:
· location of potential users;
· percentage of heat to be recovered;
· start up power/heat efficiency
· timetable of works (ideally within a maximum timeframe of 5 years);
· indication of route of pipe work and details of the plant design to facilitate export of both heat and power.
4.4 This issue of energy recovery as far as practicable will be a requirement under SEPA’s permitting process too and regulatory staff will be able to advise further on efficiency levels to be attained. However, at this point we would advise that, given the relative remote location of the proposed site, it would expect to see a robust heat & power plan including amongst other things: evidence that the initial threshold of 20% efficiency on a gross energy basis on electricity generation or ‘electricity and heat’ on start up; and potential heat users in the local vicinity. More details on where to find information on preparing a heat plan are given in Annex 2 of our Thermal Treatment of Waste Guidelines 2009.
4.5 We note the statement in the Scoping Request report that no users for heat out with the site have been identified apart for the potential for future horticultural use. We would expect that the ES provides a comprehensive and robust heat plan to address this omission. The applicant should also be made aware of the Scottish Government’s[2] presumption against large inefficient incineration plants i.e. those plants greater than 300,000 tes per annum. We note that the mass balance indicates some 187,000 tes per annum of material arising from the waste preparation area mixed with other biomass to create ~1 million tonnes of biomass feed for the incineration facility. The source of the additional biomass is not stated (waste or non waste) and we would expect the ES to provide compelling evidence that the proposed facility will meet Scottish Government’s expectations for large incineration plant. We also note that the indicative mass balance provided in the scoping report is some what confusing as it does not balance and also refers to batteries etc being sent forward for plasma furnace for vitrification.
4.6 The applicant should also be aware that the use of biomass should be focussed on the provision of heat as opposed to electricity only in order to meet Scotand’s renewable heat targets. This need should be addressed in the ES. This policy is outlined in 2 Scottish Government documents which may assist the applicant -
5. Residual Waste and Waste Minimisation
5.1 In line with the Zero Waste plan and SEPA’s Thermal Treatment Guidelines, the ES should fully address how the applicants will ensure that only “residual” waste (i.e. waste where all efforts have been made to extract recyclable and compostable materials) will be thermally treated. Details of any facilities (such as Materials Recovery Facilities, storage areas etc) that will be required should be provided with the application and shown on the submitted plans
5.2 The application should also fully address how residual wastes from the treatment process will be dealt with. For example:
· Bottom ash – details of any recycling facilities should be provided or details of where the ash will be recycled for re-use as aggregates or similar;
· Fly ash – details of treatment and end disposal;
· Details of the volumes of material (ideally as a percentage of the total waste being treated) which will require to be finally disposed of to landfill and the location of this landfill;
· Details of excavation material, how it will be reused on the site and in the case of contaminated material how it will be treated and ultimately disposed of.
5.3 A consultation[3] on new regulatory powers for SEPA to control residual waste aspects was recently published. The applicant should refer to this when preparing the ES.
5.4 It is recommended that the ES details how waste will be minimised at the construction stage. We seek in relation to substantial new development that developers demonstrate that a) the development includes construction practices to minimise the use of raw materials and maximise the use of secondary aggregates and recycled or renewable materials; b) waste material generated by the proposal is reduced and re-used or recycled where appropriate on site (for example in landscaping not resulting in excessive earth moulding and mounding). There may be opportunities to utilise surplus soils for sustainable purposes elsewhere. The recovery and reuse of controlled waste should be in accordance with the Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 1994 (as amended).
6. Cumulative Impact
6.1 We recommend that the applicant assess the proposed development in terms of the cumulative impact of any other activities in the vicinity. The applicant should demonstrate what measures will be taken to mitigate any cumulative impacts.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
7. Air Quality
7.1 The facility should be designed as a minimum to be compliant with The Waste Incineration (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (as amended) and therefore will require a permit from SEPA under The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (PPC).
SEPA can only grant a PPC permit for such an installation where the applicant has demonstrated compliance with these regulations and that the installation will operate in accordance with Best Available Techniques (BAT). The ES should therefore include sufficient information demonstrating that BAT is proposed and that SEPA can make a meaningful response as the likely consentability of the proposal under its licensing regimes.
7.2 Note that the contribution of the installation to ambient levels of Air Quality Strategy pollutants will be assessed as part of the PPC Permit application determination. However, the likely impact on local air quality will also be considered by the Scottish Ministers within the context of the planning application in accordance with Scottish Executive Technical and Policy Guidance on Local Air Quality Management (LAQM). It will be necessary to consider the cumulative effect of point source emissions, fugitive emissions and existing background levels to ensure that no air quality objective is likely to be breached as a result of emissions from the development. Further information is available from the LAQM pages on the Air Quality Archive website and from Environmental Protection UK: http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/index.php and www.environmental-protection.org.uk/
7.3 The ES should include an assessment of the impact from emissions including particulate matter (PM10 & PM2.5), Acid gases - HCL, HF, SOx, NOx, heavy metals, VOCs, CO, dioxins and furans, PAHs, carbon dioxide and water. The ES should be clear about how uncertainty is dealt with, where, for instance there is no threshold (standard or guideline) available with which to compare concentrations. Where available actual background air quality should be used before making use of generic data.
7.4 Given the scale of the development it is likely that as a minimum the use of two independent dispersion models such as ADMS and Airmod be used. It is strongly advised that the developer contact our Air Modelling unit to seek detailed input on the air assessment and the use of appropriate air models etc. Our air modelling unit can be contacted at Airmod@sepa.org.uk
7.5 It is noted that odour does not appear to have been addressed. A full odour assessment will be required to be submitted within the ES.
8. Habitats Assessment
8.1 The ES should include an appropriate assessment of impact on nearby sensitive sites. Advice on the location of such sites can be obtained from Scottish Natural Heritage. The assessment should follow a recognised methodology such as SCAIL model and advice from SEPA can be provided on request.
9. Noise
9.1 Information on noise will also inform the PPC application process. As with other aspects of the Permit, the requirement will be for you to demonstrate that working methods proposed represent the Best Available Techniques (BAT) for control of noise and vibration from the installation. Impact on local sensitive receptors will be one key factor in assessing the BAT justification with the overall aim being to prevent, minimise and render harmless noise emissions. Guidance on the control of noise from PPC Installations is available on our website at:
9.2 In general terms the information needed for PPC purposes, and which we considers appropriate as a basis for the ES, falls under the following headings:
a) Identification of key noise sources;
b) Identification of potentially significant sources of vibration;
c) Inherent noise emission levels and character (e.g. tonal, intermittent, impulsive) of each key source;
d) Abatement techniques proposed;
e) Prediction of level at, and impact on, sensitive receptors;
f) The potential impact of foreseeable circumstances causing malfunction or non-operation which may lead to an increase in noise emissions, e.g. emergency vent release;
g) Proposals for on-going noise management including complaint procedures, acoustic specification within procurement policies and noise monitoring; and
h) Identification of other significant local sources e.g. roads, other industries, aircraft.
9.3 The ES will also need to assess the impact of non-prescribed activities, such as vehicle movement outwith the site and shipping, in respect of the noise environment.
10. Land Contamination
10.1 As the site has an industrial history the risk assessment will have to consider whether or not contaminants are entering, or likely to enter, controlled waters and in what concentration, and consider the precise nature of the controlled water receptors and potential impact of entry of the contaminants. SEPA advises information could range from a basic desk study through to a thorough site specific ground investigation which could include borehole drilling, trial pitting and geotechnical and chemical testing of the soils in the areas of the proposed development.
10.2 The Local Authority is in most cases the lead authority in relation to contaminated land and therefore their advice on the requirement for a ground contamination risk assessment prior to redevelopment should be acted upon.
11. Flooding
11.1 With reference to the Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) 200-year flood outline (i.e. the flood with 0.5% chance of occurring in any single year), it is noted that the south-eastern boundary of the development site lies within this flood envelope and may therefore be at medium to high risk of flooding from the Earn Water. In addition to this, several minor watercourses outwith the scope of the Flood Map (catchment areas less than 3km²) are present throughout the proposed site which may increase the risk of flooding.
11.2 Scottish Planning Policy states that “For planning purposes the functional flood plain will generally have a greater than 0.5% (1:200) probability of flooding in any year” and “Built development should not therefore take place on the functional flood plain.”
11.3 For information, we would object in principle to any new development on undeveloped/sparsely developed (Greenfield) flood plain, in accordance with Scottish Planning Policy.
11.4 We hold no record of any form of flooding in the area, however, we would recommend that the Flood Prevention Authority (FPA) should be contacted to determine any local information with regards to flooding and flood alleviation.
11.5 It is also noted in the report that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is proposed for the site and it is recommended that this should be provided in support of the formal planning application. A robust FRA should cover all watercourses within the proposed development, quantify the flood risk and ensure compliance with Scottish Planning Policy (SPP).
11.6 While the proposed development may not constitute a material increase in flood risk, it could result in the loss of storage volume from the flood plain with potentially adverse impacts elsewhere. Therefore, we would recommend that detailed development locations and levels are provided and confirmed in relation to any adjacent watercourses.
11.7 The proposed development includes an electrical sub station and high voltage switch control compound. According to SPP, areas at medium to high risk of flooding are “Generally not suitable for essential civil infrastructure such as … ground-based electrical and telecommunications equipment unless subject to an appropriate long term flood risk management strategy”. For information, we generally recommend that the 1:1000 year flood is considered for such infrastructures due to their sensitive nature. However, standards of protection (SOP) should be confirmed by the FPA. Furthermore, the FPA should be contacted with regard to suitable freeboard allowance for flood control purposes.
11.8 It is acknowledged in section 5.3.3 of the report that various flood flows will be assessed in the FRA, including the 1 in 200 year, to provide some certainty on the peak flood level and extent of flooding adjacent and within the site. It may be appropriate to include a 20% increase of the flow estimates to account for climate change, as recommended in our “Technical Flood Risk Guidance for Stakeholders”. However, climate change allowance should be confirmed by the FPA.
11.9 No development should take place within areas at risk to the 1:200 year flood, in line with Scottish Planning Policy. Furthermore, we recommend that built development should only take place where it will not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
11.10 Flood risk from other sources such as rising groundwater, surface water and drainage systems should also be considered and assessed in the FRA.
11.11 Details of any proposed mitigation measures and the significance of any residual effects should also be presented in the FRA.
11.12 Details of changes or alterations to any existing watercourses should also be included in the FRA. SPP states that “Watercourses should not be culverted as part of a new development unless there is no practical alternative” and “If culverts are unavoidable, they should be designed to maintain or improve existing flow conditions and aquatic life”. A culvert may be acceptable as part of a development where it is used to carry a watercourse under a road or railway or to manage flood risk. The FRA should also assess any existing culverts, including the impacts of blockage, and demonstrate that there will be no increase in flood risk to the development from backing up of such culverts in high flows. In terms of blockage scenarios, we would recommend that 0-100% blockage is assessed.
11.13 The FPA should also satisfy themselves that site access/egress will be viable during flooding. Furthermore, we recommend the use of water resistant materials and forms of construction as appropriate and as outlined in PAN 69.
Caveats & Additional Information for Applicant
11.14 The Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) has been produced following a consistent, nationally-applied methodology for catchment areas equal to or greater than 3km2 using a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) to define river cross-sections and low-lying coastal land. The outlines do not account for flooding arising from sources such as surface water runoff, surcharged culverts or drainage systems. The methodology was not designed to quantify the impacts of factors such as flood alleviation measures, buildings and transport infrastructure on flood conveyance & storage. The Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) is designed to be used as a national strategic assessment of flood risk to support planning policy in Scotland. For further information please visit www.sepa.org.uk/flooding/flood_map.aspx.
11.15 We refer the applicant to the document entitled: “Technical Flood Risk Guidance for Stakeholders”. This document provides generic requirements for undertaking Flood Risk Assessments and can be downloaded from
www.sepa.org.uk/flooding/flood_risk/planning__flooding.aspx. Please note that this document should be read in conjunction with Annex B in SEPA Policy 41: “Development at Risk of Flooding, Advice and Consultation – a SEPA Planning Authority Protocol”, available from www.sepa.org.uk/flooding/flood_risk.aspx.
11.16 Our Flood Risk Assessment checklist should be completed and attached within the front cover of any flood risk assessments issued in support of a development proposal which may be at risk of flooding. The document will take only a few minutes to complete and will assist our review process. It can be downloaded from
11.17 Please note that we are reliant on the accuracy and completeness of any information supplied by the applicant in undertaking our review, and can take no responsibility for incorrect data or interpretation made by the authors.
11.18 The advice contained in this letter is supplied to you by SEPA in terms of Section 72 (1) of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 on the basis of information held by SEPA as at the date hereof. It is intended as advice solely to Scottish Government as Planning Authority in terms of the said Section 72 (1). Our briefing note entitled: “Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009: Flood risk advice to planning authorities” outlines the transitional changes to the basis of our advice inline with the phases of this legislation and can be downloaded from www.sepa.org.uk/flooding/flood_risk/planning__flooding.aspx
12. Ecology
12.1 Grassland habitats are usually protected under Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) targets. The status for the acid grassland in this area should be checked before development goes ahead.
REGULATORY ADVICE FOR THE APPLICANT
13. The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (PPC)
13.1 SEPA has not discussed this proposal with the developer. It is vital that discussions with us regarding the required PPC permit are initiated to ensure that both the PPC and planning application processes can progress as and when required.
13.2 The scoping request does not indicate the specific technology to be used in the energy from waste plant or in any other part of the plant except in generic terms.
13.3 It is essential that the ES takes into account emissions from associated operations (such as the waste preparation area and plasma vitrification ) i.e. not just emissions from the main incineration stack(s).
13.4 Emissions to air from the incineration plant should, as a minimum, be estimated using the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) emissions levels as a benchmark. The ES must ensure that the impact assessment includes human health impact from food etc, uptake of dioxins, poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) or metals. Additionally, the ES must take into account potential future standards e.g. metals in PM fraction.
13.5 The ES must clearly identify sensitive receptors including likely new receptors.
13.6 The ES should take into account the potential impact of odour and consider appropriate back up in case the primary abatement route (furnace secondary air) was not available. The ES should take account of reasonable foreseeable emissions as a consequence of abnormal operations, e.g. dump valve emissions (if these are present) if activated.
13.7 The ES should provide sufficient information that assumptions used in the ES are justified and that values used are achievable.
13.8 The ES should include an assessment of the impact on health and the environment from emissions including particulate matter (PM10 & PM2.5), Acid gases (HCL, HF, etc), SO2, NOx, heavy metals, VOCs, CO, dioxins and furans, PAHs, carbon dioxide and water. The ES should be clear about how uncertainty is dealt with, where, for instance there is no threshold (standard or guideline) available with which to compare concentrations.
13.9 SEPA is of the opinion that it is likely that the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) will apply. Depending in the source of other biomass and the design of the plant the requirements of Large Combustion Directive may also apply.
13.10 Further details on the Pollution Prevention and Control regime can be found at:
14. The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (CAR)
14.1 From 1 April 2006 the above regulations replace the Control of Pollution Act and Groundwater Regulations. These new regulations not only control discharges to watercourses and land but also cover abstractions, impoundments and engineering works within and in the vicinity of inland surface waters. This means that activities such as culverting, ditch clearing, dredging, bridging and damming all now require to be authorised under CAR.
14.2 In order to ensure proportionate controls over activities, the Regulations provide for three levels of control: General Binding Rules (GBR’s), Registrations and Water Use Licences. If SEPA considers that GBR’s or a Registration will not provide sufficient environmental protection, SEPA can require a higher level of control. For example, SEPA could require an activity which was covered by GBRs to be Registered or even Licensed. Any person undertaking an activity which falls within the scope of the GBR’s do not have to contact SEPA but must abide by any rule laid out in the Regulations which relates to their activity. However, an application must be made to SEPA for a Registration or Licence. SEPA has 30 days for determining an application for Registration and 4 months for a Licence; this should be taken into consideration when planning works. CAR allows a variety of different authorisable activities at the one site to be covered by a single licence.
14.3 The publication ‘The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005: A Practical Guide’ provides very useful advice on CAR and it is recommended that all applicants consult this document which is available both from the website
and from local SEPA offices to determine whether an application for authorisation is required for the development.
15. Foul Drainage
15.1 The ES should identify the foul drainage/effluent drainage arrangements and potential impacts. The feasibility of a sewer connection for foul drainage should be investigated and Scottish Water should be contacted in this regard.
16. Surface Water Drainage
16.1 CAR came into force on 1 April 2006 and provides a risk based means of regulating surface water discharges. As this is a large development SEPA requires to make an assessment as to whether this activity can be either carried out under General Binding Rules or will require a licence.
16.2 SEPA considers surface water proposals against a number of risk criteria as outlined in SEPA's Regulatory Method (WAT-RM-08) "Regulation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) (found at www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/wfd/guidance/pointsource/rm08.pdf)
16.3 Further information on GBRs for surface water drainage can be found on pages 12-13 of the CAR Practical Guide (weblink above) or in your local SEPA office).
16.4 SEPA has produced a leaflet as a useful Dos and Don'ts guide on SUDS, with a further explanation on the legal requirements. This is available from SEPA's website at
www.sepa.org.uk/water/water_publications/idoc.ashx?docid=871d1682-f4de-4b49-acd0-013e8b7ce4ee&version=-1 or from the local SEPA office.
16.5 Many SUD systems are susceptible to damage as a result of mud and silt generated during site preparation and construction activity. It is important that the developer puts appropriate measures in place to avoid this happening.
16.6 CIRIA’s SUDS manual (C697) should be consulted for guidance on SUDS selection and design.
17. Watercourse Engineering and Abstractions
17.1 The applicant may need to apply to SEPA for consent for any impoundments, abstractions and engineering activities. Further details can be found in the CAR Practical Guide and you may wish to contact the local team to discuss appropriate design options.
18. The Water Environment (Oil Storage) (Scotland) Regulations 2006
18.1 The Regulations apply to any kind of container which is being used and which is stored on premises above ground, whether inside or outside a building. These include fixed tanks, intermediate bulk containers, drums (oil drums or similar containers used for storing oil) or mobile bowsers. The range of premises covered by the Regulations is wide including land and mobile plant but does not include storage of oil in vehicles or vessels.
18.2 It is not necessary for storage facilities to be registered with SEPA however applicants should ensure compliance with the Regulations. Full details of the requirements can be found from SEPA’s website at:
19. Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 1994 (as amended)
19.1 SEPA encourages waste minimisation whenever possible. Further details can be found on SEPA's website:
19.2 SEPA similarly encourages the recovery and reuse of controlled waste, such as soils from other sites provided that it is in accordance with the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. Any proposals for reuse or recycling of materials, such as soils from other sites, may require to be registered with SEPA under a Waste Management Exemption. There are specific criteria which if met will constitute an exemption from licensing under these Regulations (namely Paragraph 35 of Schedule 3 to the Regulations). These exemptions are required to be registered by SEPA and the details must be forwarded to the relevant SEPA office. Applicants should first consult SEPA’s website at www.sepa.org.uk/waste/waste_regulation/application_forms/exempt_activities.aspx and then contact the local SEPA office for further advice.
20. Regulatory Advice: SEPA contact details
20.1 Details of regulatory requirements and good practice advice for the applicant can be found on our website at www.sepa.org.uk/planning.aspx. If you are unable to find the advice you need for a specific regulatory matter, please contact a member of the regulatory team in your local SEPA office at:
East Kilbride Office
5 Redwood Crescent
Peel Park, East Kilbride
G74 5PP
Tel 01355 574200
POLLUTION PREVENTION ADVICE
In addition to the requirements of legislation the following good practice guidance should be considered when developing and an appropriate strategy for prevention pollution from the development:
· Pollution Prevention Guidance note PPG2: Above ground storage tanks (SEPA);
· Pollution Prevention Guidance note PPG5: Works in, near or liable to affect Watercourses (SEPA);
· Pollution Prevention Guidance note PPG6 - Working at Construction and Demolition Sites (SEPA);
· Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites – Guidance for consultants and contractors (CIRIA C532);
· Control of Water Pollution from Linear Construction Sites – Site Guide (CIRIA 649);
· Control of Water Pollution from Linear Construction Projects – Technical Guidance – (CIRIA C648);
· CIRIA C697 SuDS manual
· The Small Environmental Guidance for Construction Works (SEPA/CIRIA); and
· Forests and Water Guidelines: Fourth Edition (Forestry Commission)
SEPA would expect to see the principles contained within this guidance to be incorporated within the environmental statement and construction method statements.
[2] Parliamentary announcement mad by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs & the Environment in January 2008
