Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) - IEMA - Home · 2018-07-20 · Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Document Ref: 6.1 ES Non-Technical Summary July 2014 Page 1 of NTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1.1.
Post on 25-Apr-2020
4 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
PINS Ref: EN010061
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Ferrybridge Power Station Site, Knottingley, West Yorkshire
Environmental Statement (ES) – Non Technical Summary
(NTS)
The Planning Act 2008
The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure)
Regulations 2009
Regulation 5(2)(a)
The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations
2009
Applicant: Multifuel Energy Limited
July 2014
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
June 2014 i
Document Number 6.1
Revision Final
Author Emma Bonser
Signed Date July 2014
Approved By Richard Lowe
Signed Date June 2014
Document Owner URS
Revision History
Revision No. Date Reason for Revision Authorised By
Submission version July 2014 R Lowe
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
ES Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 ii
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
1.2. The Applicant ................................................................................................................... 1
1.3. The Proposed Development and Site .............................................................................. 1
2. RELEVANT LEGISLATION .................................................................... 4
2.1. The Proposed Development Consent Order .................................................................... 4
2.2. Planning Act 2008 and National Policy Statements ......................................................... 4
2.3. National Planning Policy Framework ............................................................................... 4
2.4. Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (WMDC) Development Plans ............................ 4
3. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 5
3.1. EIA Methodology .............................................................................................................. 5
3.2. Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping .................................................................... 5
3.3. The Preliminary Environmental information (PEI) Report ................................................ 6
4. TRANSPORT AND ACCESS .................................................................. 7
4.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 7
4.2. Effects During Construction ............................................................................................. 7
4.3. Effects During Operation .................................................................................................. 7
4.4. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 8
5. AIR QUALITY .......................................................................................... 9
5.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 9
5.2. Effects During Construction ............................................................................................. 9
5.3. Effects During Operation .................................................................................................. 9
5.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 10
6. NOISE AND VIBRATION ...................................................................... 11
6.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 11
6.2. Effects During Construction ........................................................................................... 11
6.3. Effects During Operation ................................................................................................ 11
6.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 12
7. LAND USE AND SOCIO-ECONOMICS ................................................ 13
7.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 13
7.2. Effects During Construction ........................................................................................... 13
7.3. Effects During Operation ................................................................................................ 13
7.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 13
8. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL AMENITY ................................................ 14
8.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 14
8.2. Effects During Construction ........................................................................................... 14
8.3. Effects During Operation ................................................................................................ 14
8.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 15
9. WATER RESOURCES AND FLOOD RISK .......................................... 16
9.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 16
9.2. Effects During Construction ........................................................................................... 16
9.3. Effects During Operation ................................................................................................ 16
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page iii of NTS
9.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 17
10. GROUND CONDITIONS ....................................................................... 18
10.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 18
10.2. Effects During Construction ........................................................................................... 18
10.3. Effects During Operation ................................................................................................ 18
10.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 18
11. ECOLOGY ............................................................................................. 19
11.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 19
11.2. Effects During Construction ........................................................................................... 19
11.3. Effects During Operation ................................................................................................ 20
11.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 20
12. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE .................................. 21
12.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 21
12.2. Effects During Construction ........................................................................................... 21
12.3. Effects During Operation ................................................................................................ 21
12.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 21
13. WASTE AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ......................................... 22
13.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 22
13.2. Effects During Construction ........................................................................................... 22
13.3. Effects During Operation ................................................................................................ 22
13.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 23
14. SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................. 24
14.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 24
14.2. Effects During Construction ........................................................................................... 24
14.3. Effects During Operation ................................................................................................ 24
14.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 24
15. HEALTH IMPACT SUMMARY .............................................................. 25
15.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 25
15.2. Effects During Construction ........................................................................................... 25
15.3. Effects During Operation ................................................................................................ 25
15.4. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 25
16. CUMULATIVE AND COMBINED EFFECTS ......................................... 26
17. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................ 27
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page iv of NTS
Figures
Figure NTS1 Site Location
Figure NTS-2 Proposed Development Application Site Boundary and FM1 Site
Boundary
Figure NTS-3 Proposed Transport Routes
Figure NTS-4 Indicative Concept Layout for the Proposed Development
Figure NTS5a and NTS5b Known Environmental Constraints within the Study Area
Figure NTS6 View from Darkfield Lane, Pontefract With and Without the Proposed
Development (Photomontage)
Figure NTS7 Other Proposed Developments Assessed for Cumulative Impacts
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
ES Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 1 of NTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1.1. This document provides a Non-Technical Summary of the Environmental Statement (ES)
that has been prepared for a proposed generating station, known as Ferrybridge Multifuel
2 (FM2) Power Station or the Proposed Development, which will be capable of producing
low carbon electricity from various waste derived fuels. The purpose of this Non-
Technical Summary is to describe the Proposed Development and provide a summary in
non-technical language of the key findings of the ES for the benefit of consultees and
stakeholders. Full technical details are provided within the ES (Volume I – Main Report
(Application Document Ref. No. 6.2), Volume II – Figures (Application Document Ref. No.
6.3), and Volume III – Appendices (Application Document Ref. No. 6.4)).
1.1.2. The ES has been prepared to comply with The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental
Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) and is submitted with the
application for Development Consent Order (DCO) for the Proposed Development.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a systematic process to predict the adverse
and beneficial effects of a proposed development.
1.1.3. This Non-Technical Summary is available free of charge. A copy of the Environmental
Statement can be purchased as a hard copy for £150 from the Applicant at the address
below. All documents are also available on CD for £15.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 Consultation
Multifuel Energy Ltd
Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station
Stranglands Lane
Knottingley
WF11 8SQ
1.1.4. Further information on the Applicant can be found on the Proposed Development project
website: www.multifuelenergy.com/fm2
1.2. The Applicant
1.2.1. SSE Generation Ltd and WTI/ EFW Holdings Ltd (a subsidiary of Wheelabrator
Technologies Inc (WTI)), have formed a 50:50 joint venture known as Multifuel Energy
Limited (MEL) to develop a low carbon electricity generating station that will use fuels
derived from waste. This joint venture is known as Multifuel Energy Limited, who is the
Applicant for the Development Consent Order under Section 37 of the Planning Act 2008.
The Development Consent Order will allow for the construction and operation of the
Proposed Development.
1.3. The Proposed Development and Site
1.3.1. The Proposed Development will be capable of producing low carbon electricity through
the use of fuel derived from various sources of processed municipal solid waste,
‘commercial and industrial’ waste and waste wood. The fuel will be processed off-Site by
third parties and transported to the Site to an agreed specification. It is estimated that the
Proposed Development will use a maximum of 675,000 tonnes of fuel per year, producing
around 90 megawatts electrical (MWe) output. The actual volume of fuel used will be
determined by the energy content of the fuel (its Net Calorific Value).
1.3.2. The Proposed Development will make a positive contribution towards addressing a
number of challenges. These include the UK Government’s climate change
commitments, security of national electricity supply, and positive use of waste materials
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 2 of NTS
that may otherwise be disposed of to landfill. The Proposed Development thereby forms
part of an integrated waste management system and supports the waste hierarchy, which
is the principle that waste should be managed in the following order of priority:
prevention, re-use, recycling, recovery and finally disposal.
1.3.3. The Ferrybridge Power Station site is located off Stranglands Lane, Knottingley, West
Yorkshire, WF11 8SQ, between the River Aire to the north and east and the A1(M)
Motorway immediately to the west. The Application Site (‘the Site’) is located at the
Ferrybridge Power Station site, within the administrative boundary of Wakefield
Metropolitan District Council (WMDC). See Figures NTS1 and NTS2.
1.3.4. The Site is approximately 32 hectares (ha) in area and is located almost entirely within
the boundary of the Ferrybridge Power Station site. The majority of the Site was
originally part of the former Ferrybridge Power Station golf course.
1.3.5. The Proposed Development will be located to the north of the consented Ferrybridge
Multifuel Power Station (now known and referred to in this report as 'FM1'). FM1 is
currently being constructed, and operation is anticipated to start at the end of 2015.
1.3.6. Fuel would be delivered to the Proposed Development by road and, where feasible, by
rail. The method of delivery is entirely dependent on the fuel contracts available
(including for example the location of the fuel source, the distance from the Site and the
availability of transport infrastructure in the vicinity of the fuel source). Each technical
chapter of the EIA considers the worst case scenario for that environmental effect, which
is generally that all fuel is delivered to the Site by road, and all waste materials from the
operation of the Proposed Development (such as ash) are removed by road, although for
example the noise assessment also considers the impacts of deliveries by rail which may
be noisier than road deliveries at certain times of the day.
1.3.7. Vehicles will access the Site during both construction and operation from the motorway
network via the A162 onto Stranglands Lane, turning up Kirkhaw Lane to enter the
Ferrybridge Power Station site. An alternative route for cars and vans may be used via an
existing track known as the ‘unnamed road’ adjacent to the A1(M) (currently the site
access for FM1) to reduce the number of vehicles using Kirkhaw Lane. HGVs leaving the
site will exit via Kirkhaw Lane, turning left onto Stranglands Lane and then north onto the
A162. Vehicles heading south to join the main motorway network will then turn round at
the new Dish Hill roundabout on the A162 at Low Street. See Figure NTS3.
1.3.8. An indicative concept layout for the Proposed Development, based on maximum building
dimensions, is shown in Figure NTS4. This shows the largest building dimensions and
footprint that could be built although the final dimensions/footprint is likely to be smaller
than the image shown.
1.3.9. Fuel will be delivered to Site via weighbridges before being taken into a fully enclosed
fuel tipping hall and deposited into a fuel storage bunker, which will be partially sunken
into the ground (but constructed above groundwater level).
1.3.10. The fuel will be fed into two combustion lines housed in the same building. On each line,
fuel will be delivered into a furnace kept at a steady operating temperature. The heat from
the combustion of the fuel will turn water into steam in a boiler, with the steam then
passed to a steam turbine to generate electricity. Air cooled condensers will then turn the
steam back into water for re-use in the process.
1.3.11. A number of additional activities will be undertaken to clean the gases from the furnace
before they are emitted to air from a new stack (chimney). The stack will be about 119 m
high, assuming a ground level of around 17 m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) (with the
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 3 of NTS
emission point fixed at 136 mAOD). Combustion by-products from the furnaces will be
collected and stored prior to being sent off-site for recovery or disposal.
1.3.12. Additional facilities will be required to support the operation of the Proposed
Development, including a water treatment plant to purify groundwater abstracted for use
in the boiler, internal site access roads constructed within the Ferrybridge Power Station
site, drainage systems, connections to the electricity grid and other services, and auxiliary
buildings, stores and workshops. Three possible options for connecting to the electricity
grid are included and have been assessed; a single option will be selected at the detailed
design stage.
1.3.13. Some existing (or under construction) facilities will be shared with the existing Ferrybridge
‘C’ Power Station and FM1, including the FM1 rail spur and gantry, utility connections,
groundwater borehole and access routes. These are not included in the Application for
the Proposed Development, but environmental effects associated with their use by the
Proposed Development have been assessed where relevant.
1.3.14. The combustion of fuel will generate a number of residual outputs, including bottom ash
from the furnaces, flue gas treatment residue collected in bag filters, wastewater effluent
(predominantly ‘blowdown’ from the boilers) and heat. Where possible these outputs will
be re-used within the Proposed Development or sent off-site for re-use.
1.3.15. As with any development of this nature, the design process is based upon lessons
learned from previous similar developments underpinned by the application of Best
Available Techniques as published at the time of detailed design. The contractor that will
construct the Proposed Development is yet to be selected, therefore a number of
elements of the Proposed Development cannot be finalised in detail at this stage as
different contractors may have different approaches to certain activities. Where this is the
case, the reasons are outlined in the ES and an indication of the minimum and maximum
parameters for those specific elements of the Proposed Development are clearly defined
and assessed within the ES (Volume I – Main Report (Application Document Ref. No.
6.2)). Examples of where this applies include some of the building dimensions and the
connection point to the electricity grid.
1.3.16. The ES (Volume I – Main Report (Application Document Ref. No. 6.2)) also sets out
information on the expected construction activities and timescales, including anticipated
staff numbers and skill levels, mobile plant and machinery likely to be used, construction
hours, delivery routes and an outline construction programme. Construction works will be
formalised and agreed with regulators through the development of a Construction Method
Statement (CMS) by the contractor and a Construction Environmental Management Plan
(CEMP).
1.3.17. The concept design of the Proposed Development has been developed with the input of
environmental specialists. A number of aspects of the design have evolved through the
EIA and design process and where practicable, decisions have been influenced by
findings of the EIA in order to design out or minimise environmental effects through
embedded mitigation where possible. For example, the height of the stack has been
determined based on air quality modelling and tighter emission limits are to be used for
emissions of nitrogen oxides in order to reduce the predicted effects of the Proposed
Development on air quality. This process is described in detail in Chapter 4 Need,
Alternatives and Design Evolution of the ES (Volume I – Main Report (Application
Document Ref. No. 6.2)).
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 4 of NTS
2. RELEVANT LEGISLATION
2.1. The Proposed Development Consent Order
2.1.1. The Proposed Development falls within the definition of a ‘Nationally Significant
Infrastructure Project’ under the Planning Act 2008, because it is an onshore generating
station in England that will have a generating capacity greater than 50 MWe gross output.
As such, a Development Consent Order (DCO) is required to enable the construction,
operation and maintenance of the Proposed Development.
2.1.2. If the DCO is granted, construction work on Site is envisaged to start at the end of 2015
and will last approximately three years, starting with ground preparation works followed
by construction of the buildings and structures and installation of process equipment. The
construction and commissioning of the Proposed Development is anticipated to be
completed in 2018 and commercial operation will start towards the end of that year.
2.2. The Planning Act 2008 and National Policy Statements
2.2.1. The Planning Act 2008 provides a system for granting DCOs for Nationally Significant
Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). The Planning Inspectorate is responsible for receiving
and examining DCO applications, upon which they make a recommendation to the
relevant Secretary of State, who then decides whether the DCO should be granted.
2.2.2. The Government has put in place a series of National Policy Statements, which set out
the policy for considering NSIPs. There are a number of National Policy Statements
covering new energy developments, which define the need for new energy generating
plant to be developed in the UK, utilising a range of different fuels including waste
materials. The relevant National Policy Statements are described in more detail, including
the specific policies relevant to the Proposed Development, in the ES (Volume I – Main
Report (Application Document Ref. No. 6.2)).
2.3. The National Planning Policy Framework
2.3.1. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for
England and how they are to be applied, though it clearly states that it does not contain
specific policies for NSIPs (these policies are provided by the National Policy Statements
referred to above). The National Planning Policy Framework can, however, be a material
consideration in examining applications for DCOs and therefore the EIA has considered
its policies where relevant.
2.4. Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (WMDC) Development
Plans
2.4.1. There are a number of WMDC local development plan documents that set out relevant
local policy and these have been considered during the assessment process. These
policies are described further within the ES (Volume I – Main Report (Application
Document Ref. No. 6.2)).
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 5 of NTS
3. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
3.1. EIA Methodology
3.1.1. The assessment presented in the ES follows a standard EIA methodology, which is
summarised below.
3.1.2. The objective of the EIA process is to anticipate the changes (or ‘impacts’) that may occur
to the environment as a result of the Proposed Development, such as increases in traffic,
and changes to air quality or noise. The changes are compared to the environmental
conditions that would have occurred without the Proposed Development (defined as ‘the
baseline’). The EIA process identifies potentially sensitive ‘receptors’ that may be affected
by these changes (e.g. people living near the development, local flora and fauna) and
defines the extent to which these receptors may be affected by the predicted changes
(i.e. whether or not the receptors are likely to experience a ‘significant effect’).
3.1.3. The future impacts of the operation of FM1 (which is currently under construction) have
been included in the baseline. This is because FM1 will be operational by the time that
the Proposed Development would be constructed and operated, and also due to its
location and similarity with the Proposed Development, specific details are available on
the potential effects of FM1.
3.1.4. Where possible, the EIA uses standard methodologies, based on legislation, definitive
standards and accepted industry criteria. This is set out in detail in each technical chapter
of the ES (Volume I – Main Report (Application Document Ref. No. 6.2)).
3.1.5. As the design of the Proposed Development has evolved, the Applicant has worked with
the environmental specialists to ensure the design avoids or reduces environmental
effects on receptors where possible, through the use of embedded mitigation measures.
These measures are taken into account in the EIA and assessment of effects of the
Proposed Development.
3.1.6. Effects on receptors can be adverse (negative), neutral (neither negative nor positive) or
beneficial (positive). They can also be temporary (e.g. noise during construction) or
permanent (e.g. the visual effect of the finished buildings).
3.1.7. For the purpose of the ES, adverse and beneficial effects are described as ‘significant’ or
‘not significant’. Where the environmental assessment predicts a significant effect on one
or more receptors, mitigation measures are identified where possible to avoid or reduce
the effect, or to reduce the likelihood of it happening.
3.2. Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping
3.2.1. EIA Scoping is a process that is designed to identify relevant topics that should be
included in the EIA and reported in the ES. The Applicant submitted an EIA Scoping
Report on 6 June 2013 to the Planning Inspectorate and relevant consultees to allow
them to contribute to defining the extent and approach to the environmental assessments
being undertaken.
3.2.2. The scoping process concluded which environmental assessment topics are relevant to
the EIA process. These topics have therefore been assessed and reported within the ES,
and summarised in this Non-Technical Summary.
3.2.3. The EIA scoping process concluded that the following technical topics are not relevant to
the EIA:
• aviation;
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 6 of NTS
• electronic interference (TV reception); and
• accidental events/ health and safety.
3.3. The Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report and
Other EIA-Related Consultation
3.3.1. A Preliminary Environmental Information (PEI) Report was published for consultation in
October 2013, to enable consultees to develop an informed view of the project based on
preliminary findings of the environmental assessments undertaken at that time. This
allowed consultees the opportunity to provide informed comment on the Proposed
Development, the assessment process and preliminary findings prior to the Applicant
finalising the ES.
3.3.2. Consultation with key stakeholders has continued since the formal consultation stage,
including review of draft ES chapters, and comments have been addressed in the final
ES.
3.3.3. A summary of feedback received and how it has been addressed can be found in
Chapter 1 Introduction of the ES (Volume I – Main Report (Application Document Ref.
No. 6.2)) and Appendices 1C and 1D of the ES (Volume III – Appendices) (Application
Document Ref. No. 6.4).
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 7 of NTS
4. TRANSPORT AND ACCESS
4.1. Introduction
4.1.1. The transport and access assessment identifies the potential effects of the Proposed
Development on Kirkhaw Lane, Stranglands Lane and the A162 Ferrybridge Bypass (the
study area). The assessment considers the predicted number of vehicle movements
generated during the construction and operation of the Proposed Development, and the
sensitivity (including pedestrian and cyclist safety) and capacity of the road network.
Effects during the decommissioning phase are anticipated to be similar to those during
the construction phase.
4.2. Effects During Construction
4.2.1. Routes for Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) traffic travelling to and from the Site from the
motorway network have been defined avoiding residential areas wherever possible.
HGVs will leave the M62 at Junction 33 and travel on the A162 to Stranglands Lane,
accessing the Site via Kirkhaw Lane. HGVs leaving the Site will use the same route, but
will need to travel north on the A162 and U-turn at the new Dish Hill roundabout to travel
south, in order to avoid Ferrybridge centre. Cars and Light Goods Vehicles will either use
Kirkhaw Lane or the unnamed road off Stranglands Lane, immediately to the east of the
A1(M). See Figure NTS3.
4.2.2. The Proposed Development construction traffic will result in small, temporary, increases
of traffic flows, including HGVs, on the roads leading to the Site. However the
assessment concludes that predicted number of construction traffic movements will not
have a significant adverse effect on the road network in terms of capacity and effect on
sensitive road users (pedestrians and cyclists). Any abnormal loads would be timed to
minimise disruption following consultation with the local authority, and a Construction
Traffic Management Plan will be developed by the contractor to manage and where
possible, reduce the number of vehicles accessing the Site.
4.3. Effects During Operation
4.3.1. Traffic associated with the operation of the Proposed Development will use the same
routes as for construction traffic (described above).
4.3.2. As a worst case, for the purposes of the EIA, the traffic assessment assumes all fuel (up
to a maximum of 675,000 tonnes per year) will be delivered by road and all combustion
by-products will be removed by road. These deliveries will be restricted to agreed times.
Following consultation, extended delivery times have been adopted (between 0700 and
2200 hours Monday to Friday and 0700 to 1830 hours on Saturday) which should help to
spread out the volume of deliveries across the day, in line with delivery times already in
place for other facilities in the vicinity of the Ferrybridge Power Station site. However the
assessment assumes a ‘worst case’ or shorter delivery hours.
4.3.3. Considering the relatively low sensitivity of the road network (in terms of its use by
pedestrians and cyclists for example) and existing junction capacities, no significant
adverse effects are predicted. As during the construction phase, an Operational Traffic
Management Plan will be used to manage and where possible, reduce the number of
vehicles accessing the Site.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 8 of NTS
4.4. Conclusions
4.4.1. The transport assessment has assumed the ‘worst case’ number of HGVs during
operation based on the maximum tonnage of fuel, and all fuel deliveries coming by road
over shorter (not extended) delivery hours. In summary there are no predicted significant
transport or access effects and the surrounding road network has the capacity to absorb
the additional vehicle movements as a result of the Proposed Development.
4.4.2. The Applicant is continuing to consider other transport methods for material deliveries
and ash removal (e.g. rail or barge) and to encourage the workforce to travel to Site by
shared car, public transport or bicycle through the implementation of Travel Plans.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 9 of NTS
5. AIR QUALITY
5.1. Introduction
5.1.1. The air quality assessment has considered potential impacts up to 10 km from the
Proposed Development (the study area) on both human and ecological receptors
including residential properties, schools, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Local Nature
Reserves and Local Wildlife Sites . There are no internationally designated (European)
ecological sites within the study area. The Site is located within the M62 Air Quality
Management Area that was declared due to higher levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the
air (close to European air quality standards), largely from traffic sources. The Site is also
close to the Castleford Air Quality Management Area, also designated for the same
reason. See Figures NTS5a and NTS5b.
5.1.2. The assessment used computer models to predict the dispersion of air emissions from
the construction and operation of the Proposed Development including anticipated
emissions from the new stack and traffic emissions associated with the Proposed
Development. Effects during the decommissioning phase are anticipated to be similar to
the construction phase.
5.1.3. As discussed in paragraph 3.1.3 above, the combined impacts of FM1 and the Proposed
Development have been assessed by determining a modified air quality baseline from
FM1 traffic and stack emissions, on to which the predicted impacts of the Proposed
Development emissions have been added.
5.1.4. An Odour Management Plan (Application Document Ref. No. 6.4.11) has been prepared
to reduce the potential for nuisance caused by odours.
5.2. Effects During Construction
5.2.1. During construction, impacts could arise from emissions from construction vehicles and
mobile construction plant as well as dust and particulate matter from material
management activities. Any increases in emissions are assessed to have no significant
adverse effects on human or ecological receptors, with dust impacts avoided through the
employment of good practice dust control measures during construction works and the
use of construction travel plans.
5.3. Effects During Operation
5.3.1. The stack height for the Proposed Development has been set at 136 mAOD (slightly
higher than that for FM1) and the emission limit for nitrogen oxides from the stack has
been set at a tighter level than is required by legislation, in order to ensure sufficient
control and dispersion of the air emissions so that no significant air quality effects are
predicted at sensitive receptors through the use of this embedded mitigation. Emissions
from the Proposed Development during operation will be carefully controlled by the strict
requirements of an Environmental Permit that will be required from the Environment
Agency prior to commercial operation of the Proposed Development. The Permit will set
out specific requirements to ensure continuous compliance with European and national
legislation for this type of power station.
5.3.2. To further reduce the predicted effects on the air quality – and in particular the Air Quality
Management Area - traffic emissions will be reduced by the commitment to use of a
‘cleaner’ fleet of HGVs (meeting the 2014 new engine performance standard from the
start of commercial operation) for contracted fuel deliveries and ash collection vehicles.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 10 of NTS
5.3.3. The assessment has concluded that the air quality at all human receptors would comply
with the NO2 and particulate national air quality standards, and any change due to the
operation of the Proposed Development would have no significant adverse effect. Non-
significant adverse effects are also predicted for any trace pollutants that may be emitted
from the Proposed Development stack.
5.3.4. The effects of any change in NO2 on ecological receptors due to the operation of the
Proposed Development are considered to have no significant adverse effect, as the
change in concentration would be very small at the closest ecological receptor.
5.3.5. A separate assessment has been undertaken of the potential health effects of any uptake
or ingestion of trace species that may be emitted from the stack of the Proposed
Development and this has concluded that there are no significant adverse effects on
health.
5.4. Conclusions
5.4.1. In summary it is concluded that there would be no significant effects arising from air
quality changes as a result of the Proposed Development through the use of embedded
mitigation.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 11 of NTS
6. NOISE AND VIBRATION
6.1. Introduction
6.1.1. The study area for the noise and vibration assessment includes the nearest receptors in
each direction from the Site and roads that may be affected by changes in traffic flows.
6.1.2. The potential for increased noise during both construction and operation has been
predicted using noise models and the results compared with recorded baseline noise
levels during the day and night. The degree of change has been compared with national
standards for noise to conclude whether the increased noise will be noticeable at
receptors and whether there is therefore the potential for significant effects.
6.1.3. The assessment has considered the potential for vibration effects from both construction
and operation of the Proposed Development, and concluded that due to the distance to
any utilities and/or buildings (which could be affected by vibration), and the nature of the
works proposed, it is highly unlikely there would be any vibration impacts.
6.1.4. The noise and vibration effects during decommissioning are anticipated to be similar to
those identified for construction.
6.2. Effects During Construction
6.2.1. Due to the distance of the Site from potential receptors and with the implementation of
best practice measures to reduce noise, the assessment concluded that there will be no
significant effects resulting from construction noise emissions during the daytime.
6.2.2. Based on the experience of constructing FM1, it is assumed that some night-time
construction work will be required. Due to the sensitivity of the receptors it has been
concluded that a significant adverse effect on sensitive receptors from noise emissions
could occur, so mitigation measures will therefore be put in place to control night-time
activities, including noise monitoring, limits on the types of activity that can occur and a
noise limit at the Site boundary during night-time hours.
6.2.3. Abnormal loads may be required to be delivered at night during the construction period to
comply with Highways Agency requirements for road closures or restrictions. Such
deliveries would have the potential for a significant adverse but temporary effect on
residential receptors so the Applicant will liaise with WMDC to notify them of plans in
advance through the implementation of the construction traffic routing and management
plan.
6.3. Effects During Operation
6.3.1. The ‘noisiest’ part of the Proposed Development during operation will be the air cooled
condensers. The position of this equipment has therefore been fixed to ensure that other
buildings screen this noise from the closest sensitive receptors.
6.3.2. The assessment also considers the potential for noise to arise from increased traffic
movements on local roads during operation of the Proposed Development. As described
in Section 4 above, fuel delivery times will be restricted to certain times of day. It is
concluded there will be no perceptible increase in traffic noise due to the Proposed
Development during the daytime.
6.3.3. Rail deliveries could occur 24 hours a day to either FM1 or the Proposed Development,
since the rail siding and gantry is shared infrastructure between the two operations. The
potential additional noise effects of the nighttime offloading of rail deliveries for the
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 12 of NTS
Proposed Development have been assessed. No significant noise effects are predicted
from the operation of the gantry crane at night.
6.3.4. During the operation of the Proposed Development, noise from the power station and
associated activities on the Site (including deliveries by road and rail) is predicted to have
no significant adverse effect on the nearest receptors.
6.4. Conclusions
6.4.1. In summary it is concluded that there would be no significant noise and vibration effects
as a result of the Proposed Development, with the implementation of identified mitigation.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 13 of NTS
7. LAND USE AND SOCIO-ECONOMICS
7.1. Introduction
7.1.1. This assessment considers the potential economic impacts of the Proposed Development
on the area surrounding the Site, and social impacts in terms of employment benefits,
land use, amenity and leisure activities. The effects during construction and operation
are described below and the decommissioning phase is considered to be similar to
construction.
7.1.2. The study area used for the economic assessment includes Wakefield District and parts
of North Yorkshire, including Selby. Economic benefits can arise directly (through
employment of local people) and indirectly (e.g. during the construction phase, when
contractors may be using local accommodation and other amenities).
7.1.3. Historically, employment in Wakefield was above the regional and national averages, but
the recent economic recession has resulted in increasing unemployment rates, of 10.0%
in Wakefield compared to 9.3% in Yorkshire and the Humber and nationally, based on
2012 statistics.
7.2. Effects During Construction
7.2.1. The Applicant is committed to taking practical measures to encourage the use local
suppliers and workers, including holding a ‘meet the buyer’ day.
7.2.2. The Proposed Development is predicted to have a temporary significant beneficial effect
on the local and regional economy through the creation of up to 500 construction jobs at
the peak of construction (350 on average), some of which will provide opportunities for
local employment, as well as indirect economic benefits during the construction phase.
7.2.3. No significant effects on land use are anticipated as the majority of the Site lies within the
existing Ferrybridge Power Station site and is currently used as a construction laydown
area for FM1. The Site is also allocated for power generation use in the local
development plan. No Public Rights of Way will be affected by the Proposed
Development.
7.3. Effects During Operation
7.3.1. During operation the Proposed Development will employ between 35 and 46 full-time
permanent staff. Assuming a conservative figure of 35 jobs, approximately 27 are
expected to be filled by people from the local and regional area based on evidence from
similar past projects. This is not predicted to result in a significant beneficial effect on the
local or regional economy.
7.3.2. The assessment concludes that there will be no significant adverse effect on land use,
leisure and amenity, given the current and allocated use of the land and that no Public
Rights of Way will be affected by the Proposed Development.
7.4. Conclusions
7.4.1. The economic benefits generated by the construction of the Proposed Development will
be significant and beneficial on the local and regional economy. No other significant
beneficial or adverse effects on the local or regional economy, land use, amenity and
leisure are predicted.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 14 of NTS
8. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL AMENITY
8.1. Introduction
8.1.1. The study area for landscape and visual effects includes areas where it is considered that
there is potential for significant direct or indirect effects on landscape character or
sensitive views due to the construction or operation of the Proposed Development.
Within the study area, ten representative viewpoints have been identified and agreed with
WMDC for the purposes of the visual assessment.
8.1.2. The existing landscape character is recognised to be influenced by existing large power
stations which may visible over long distances. Within the immediate local landscape,
the Ferrybridge Power Station site is considered to have a significant influence on the
surrounding landscape character.
8.1.3. A Landscape Strategy has been prepared and will be implemented as part of the
Proposed Development. This will deliver landscape, green infrastructure and biodiversity
enhancements within the Site.
8.1.4. A Lighting Strategy has also been prepared, which seeks to minimise lightspill onto
sensitive receptors including residential properties.
8.1.5. The effects during decommissioning are anticipated to be similar to the construction
effects described below.
8.2. Effects During Construction
8.2.1. Considering the scale of the Proposed Development and the context of the existing
landscape setting within the existing Ferrybridge Power Station site, the landscape
character is not predicted to be significantly affected by the construction of the Proposed
Development.
8.2.2. Changes to views from the identified viewpoints agreed with WMDC during the
construction period relate largely to the visibility of the tower cranes, stack and largest
buildings. The assessment concluded that there will be no significant visual effect from
most of the viewpoints, however, one representative viewpoint (residential properties to
the south-west of the Site in the vicinity of the northern end of Darkfield Lane, Pontefract)
would experience a moderately significant adverse effect due to the visibility of tower
cranes, tall structures and stack.
8.2.3. Due to the size and massing of the structures, no specific mitigation measures are
proposed although landscaping will be undertaken within the Site to aid low level
screening and enhance the value of the Site in terms of amenity for site workers, green
infrastructure and biodiversity.
8.3. Effects During Operation
8.3.1. As for the construction phase, no significant effect is anticipated on landscape character
during operation given the characteristics of the setting provided by the existing
Ferrybridge Power Station site.
8.3.2. Only the stack and in some instances the largest buildings will be partially visible from
most of the identified viewpoints during operation. It is anticipated that for all but one
viewpoint there will be no significant visual effect, but due to the angle of the view from
residential properties around the northern end of Darkfield Lane, Pontefract, the stack
and main buildings of the Proposed Development will be visible resulting in a moderately
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 15 of NTS
significant adverse effect. See Figure NTS6. This cannot be mitigated by landscape
planting within the Site due to the scale of the buildings and stack.
8.3.3. Landscaping within the Site will aid low level screening and enhance the value of the Site
in terms of amenity for site workers, green infrastructure and biodiversity.
8.4. Conclusions
8.4.1. The only significant effect identified on visual amenity is an anticipated moderate adverse
visual effect on residential properties around the northern end of Darkfield Lane,
Pontefract. No significant adverse effects on landscape character are predicted.
8.4.2. The Landscape and Biodiversity Strategies for the Site will increase the amenity value to
site workers and visitors and enhance the green infrastructure and biodiversity value of
the Site.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 16 of NTS
9. WATER RESOURCES AND FLOOD RISK
9.1. Introduction
9.1.1. The assessment identifies the key water bodies that may receive run-off from the Site
during construction, operation and decommissioning of the Proposed Development, and
considers the potential contamination risk to these water bodies as a result. The study
areas for groundwater and surface water have been defined based on the potential for
impacts to occur; the groundwater study area is larger than the surface water study area
due to the rock below the Site being highly fractured.
9.1.2. The main surface watercourses close to the Site are the River Aire to the east and
Fryston Beck, which flows through the Ferrybridge Power Station site, partly open and
partly underground. The Site is not within a groundwater protection zone however the
groundwater beneath the site is used for public water supply (defined as a Principal
Aquifer).
9.1.3. The regulator for the water environment (the Environment Agency) defines the existing
quality of watercourses by their ‘potential’ in terms of ecological and chemical quality in
accordance with the Water Framework Directive.
9.1.4. The majority of the Site is located in an area that is at low risk of flooding from surface
watercourses (as defined by the Environment Agency) but some parts of the Site (the
north-east and eastern areas of the Site, Kirkhaw Lane and a small area in the south-
west of the Site adjacent to the A1(M)) are at medium risk. See Figure NTS5b.
9.1.5. Decommissioning effects are anticipated to be similar to those predicted during the
construction phase.
9.2. Effects During Construction
9.2.1. The assessment has concluded that during construction there is the potential for spillages
to occur, but the likelihood of these occurring would be very low through the use of best
practice construction methods. As a result, the potential impact of such an incident is not
considered likely to result in a significant effect on surface or groundwater.
9.2.2. Construction storage and stockpiles will be located away from medium flood risk areas
wherever possible.
9.3. Effects During Operation
9.3.1. During operation of the Proposed Development, the risk and potential impacts are largely
the same as those identified for the construction phase, and therefore will be managed by
similar best practice measures for working procedures and the storage of materials and
fuels. These measures will be implemented through the site Environmental Management
System that will be developed by the operator to maintain compliance with the
Environmental Permit. The drainage design will prevent potentially polluted runoff from
causing pollution of surface or ground water bodies.
9.3.2. The Proposed Development will not increase the risk of flooding off Site because the
drainage of surface water and rainwater from the Site will be designed to restrict the rate
of runoff from the Site. The Proposed Development itself is at low risk of flooding based
on the published flood risk zones and proposed ground levels.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 17 of NTS
9.4. Conclusions
9.4.1. No significant effects on surface or ground water bodies are predicted due to the
proposed use of best practice measures during construction, operation and
decommissioning, and the design of the drainage system for the Proposed Development.
9.4.2. The majority of the Site is at low risk of flooding and the Proposed Development will not
result in any increase in flood risk off Site.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 18 of NTS
10. GROUND CONDITIONS
10.1. Introduction
10.1.1. A desk based assessment of historical ground condition information and previous studies
has been undertaken to identify the potential effects associated with ground conditions.
Further, intrusive ground investigation was also undertaken to provide more site-specific
information on ground conditions within the Site.
10.1.2. Baseline information indicates that the Site sits on mainly thin deposits of Made Ground
directly over limestone bedrock (a Principal Aquifer) in the west of the Site. In the east
and south-east of the Site, the Made Ground is thicker, with natural alluvium at lower
depths and limestone bedrock below. The Site is in an area of historical coal mining
activity but the potential for below ground movements is low.
10.1.3. The assessment has considered the potential risks to people (staff on site during
construction and operation), surrounding land uses, ecological receptors, buildings, soils
and groundwater from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Proposed
Development. Decommissioning effects are predicted to be similar to those described
below for the construction phase.
10.2. Effects During Construction
10.2.1. Best practice measures to protect construction staff and the environment will be used,
including use of Personal Protective Equipment and appropriate storage of materials on
Site.
10.2.2. The ground investigation concluded that all soil samples tested had contaminant
concentrations below the relevant criteria for the protection of human health. Therefore
the risk to human health during construction is not considered significant.
10.2.3. If contaminated land is identified during construction, measures would be put in place to
ensure that further disturbance is reduced and remedial work is undertaken where
appropriate to reduce to risk to human health and groundwater.
10.2.4. No significant effects have been identified as a result of the construction phase.
10.3. Effects During Operation
10.3.1. The Proposed Development has been designed to avoid risks of soil and groundwater
pollution, including locating the fuel storage bunker at least 1 m above the groundwater
level, and using impermeable surfacing and bunding of material storage, supported by
leak prevention (and consideration of detection systems).
10.3.2. No significant effects have been identified as a result of the operation of the Proposed
Development.
10.4. Conclusions
10.4.1. Best practice measures to protect people on Site from any potentially contaminated land
and to prevent the risks of causing contamination of soils and groundwater have been
incorporated into the design and management systems of the Proposed Development.
As a result it is not expected that there will be any significant effect relating to ground
conditions during the construction or operation of the Proposed Development.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 19 of NTS
11. ECOLOGY
11.1. Introduction
11.1.1. Ecological receptors have been identified within a 5 km study area of the Proposed
Development (10 km for the potential effects of emissions to air from the operational
Proposed Development) through a desk based study, and a Phase 1 Habitat Survey has
been undertaken for the Site and its immediate surroundings. Within the 5 km study area,
five statutory and 19 non-statutory designated nature conservation sites have been
identified. In addition, the habitat survey indicated that the wider Ferrybridge Power
Station site holds very little value for wildlife. Ecological receptors of note in the Site
vicinity are the River Aire, Fryston Beck, a pond within the former golf course and
woodland habitat, although none of these sites are internationally or nationally
designated. There are no internationally designated sites within 20 km of the Site and
Natural England has confirmed that there are no potential effects on internationally
designated sites.
11.1.2. No European protected species have been recorded on Site and although a number of
protected species have been recorded in the wider study area (notably great crested
newt, common toad, grass snake, common lizard and slow worm), none have been
detected or are expected to use the habitats currently present within the Site.
11.1.3. The ecology of the Site and surrounding area has the potential to change in the time
period leading up to decommissioning, so the effects of decommissioning cannot be
assessed in detail but are anticipated to be less significant than construction effects.
11.1.4. Landscape and Biodiversity Strategies have been prepared and will be implemented as
part of the Proposed Development. These will deliver biodiversity enhancements within
the Site.
11.1.5. A Lighting Strategy has also been prepared, which seeks to minimise lightspill onto
sensitive receptors including Fryston Wood Local Wildlife Site to the north of the Site.
11.2. Effects During Construction
11.2.1. There will be no loss of habitat within any statutory or non-statutory designated sites
(including Fryston Park Local Wildlife Site) as a result of construction of the Proposed
Development, and the loss of the existing habitats within the Site is not considered to be
significant due to their relatively low ecological value.
11.2.2. No direct or indirect effects on statutory or non-statutory sites have been identified.
Natural England has confirmed that there will be no significant effects on statutory sites.
11.2.3. The loss of the former golf course pond would be a significant local effect but the
Proposed Development includes embedded mitigation of a replacement pond, which will
be designed to provide replacement habitat for amphibians, so there will be no significant
adverse effect in the long term.
11.2.4. There will be no significant adverse effect on protected or notable species as a result of
the Proposed Development. There may inevitably be some level of disturbance but this
would be temporary in nature, reversible and therefore not significant. Design measures,
including directional lighting (directed downwards to minimise light spill), limited lighting
along the boundary of Fryston Park woodland and good practice methods to manage
dust will be employed to minimise any disturbance to species using the habitat within
Fryston Park woodland immediately to the north of the Site.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 20 of NTS
11.3. Effects During Operation
11.3.1. The Proposed Development includes Landscape and Biodiversity Strategies which will
enhance the biodiversity value of the Site during operation, providing a significant
beneficial effect in the long term.
11.3.2. The assessment has concluded there will be no significant adverse effects on designated
sites, notable habitats or protected species during operation.
11.4. Conclusions
11.4.1. As a result of the design of the Proposed Development which includes a replacement
pond and Landscape and Biodiversity Strategies, no significant adverse effects on
ecological receptors are predicted as a result of construction and operation.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 21 of NTS
12. ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
12.1. Introduction
12.1.1. The desk based assessment of the study area has identified no designated heritage
assets within the Site. In the wider area (within 1 km of the Site), 53 heritage assets were
identified, including two Scheduled Monuments, one Grade I and ten Grade II listed
buildings. See Figures NTS5a and 5b. Historical knowledge and understanding of the
area is well documented from prehistoric (30,000 BC) through to modern times. Assets
recorded from these periods range from chance finds to cropmarks associated with early
agriculture and ritual features.
12.1.2. Construction and operation phase effects are described below. No additional effects are
anticipated during the decommissioning phase.
12.2. Effects During Construction
12.2.1. The Proposed Development will have no impact on designated heritage assets in the
study area, and this has been agreed with English Heritage.
12.2.2. Within the former golf course area it is anticipated that previous disturbance during the
construction of Ferrybridge ‘C’ Power Station (the area was used as laydown area) and
subsequently the golf course has led to the loss of any archaeological assets near to the
ground surface. A desk based study and watching brief were carried out for archaeology
at the time of the golf course construction in 2001. No archaeological assets were
identified during the watching brief.
12.2.3. A ground investigation was carried out across the Site in August 2013 to confirm the level
of disturbance within the topsoil and sub-surface layers. Nothing in the ground
investigation results indicates the survival of archaeological deposits and therefore it is
very unlikely that any deposits of archaeological significance survive within the footprint of
the Proposed Development. One asset previously identified within the Site (a cropmark)
is now thought to be related to the Ferrybridge ‘C’ construction process, based on
photographic evidence from the time of the golf course construction. Parts of the Site
that may contain surviving heritage assets below ground will be subject to a watching
brief during the construction phase.
12.2.4. There will be no impact on any of the non-designated assets identified in the search area
as they lie outside the Site and would therefore be undisturbed. Therefore no significant
effects associated with the construction of the Proposed Development are anticipated.
12.3. Effects During Operation
12.3.1. During operation there will be no impact upon any of the identified non-designated
archaeological assets in the study area.
12.4. Conclusions
12.4.1. With the implementation of mitigation, no significant effects on archaeology and cultural
heritage assets have been identified.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 22 of NTS
13. WASTE AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
13.1. Introduction
13.1.1. The assessment has taken into consideration the likely effects associated with the
generation of waste and use of resources during the construction and operation of the
Proposed Development. The assessment does not consider the use of waste materials
as fuel for the Proposed Development (diverting it away from landfill), as this is
considered in a separate Fuel Availability and Waste Hierarchy Assessment (Application
Document Ref. No. 5.9).
13.2. Effects During Construction
13.2.1. It is estimated that the construction of the Proposed Development will generate
approximately 37,800 tonnes of waste based on records from previous comparable
construction projects. This is considered in the context of regional construction,
demolition and excavation waste arisings of around 4.7 million tonnes per year in the
Yorkshire and Humber region. In 2008, 85% of this type of waste in England was
recovered or re-used. Therefore the level of waste expected to be generated from the
construction of the Proposed Development is not considered significant or likely to lead to
any capacity issues within the regional waste management network. Assuming a similar
proportion of demolition waste is recycled at the decommissioning phase, the
decommissioning effects are anticipated to be similar.
13.2.2. A Site Waste Management Plan will be implemented by the contractor to reduce, re-use
and recycle construction waste where feasible (a framework SWMP is included in the ES
(Volume III – Appendices (Application Document Ref. No. 6.4)) as Appendix 16A). The
Proposed Development is being designed to minimise excavation waste by balancing the
‘cut’ of surplus material and ‘fill’ to level the Site prior to construction as much as possible,
and any excess material that cannot be re-used on Site will be considered for the
potential to supply other off-site developments for beneficial re-use. Should that not be
feasible, Welbeck Landfill Site located 8 km to the south-west of the Site could accept
construction waste if it cannot be re-used or recycled.
13.2.3. Good practice waste management procedures will also minimise the risk of adverse
effects on human or ecological receptors from the waste storage, transfer or disposal.
13.2.4. The contractor, where possible, will be required to minimise the use of virgin raw
materials by specifying products and materials with recycled content and which are
durable with a long life.
13.3. Effects During Operation
13.3.1. During operation the Proposed Development will generate up to 116,000 tonnes of ash
and up to 22,500 tonnes of flue gas treatment residue per year, as well as approximately
9 tonnes of general office waste.
13.3.2. Following appropriate storage on Site, the ash will be taken off Site for recycling wherever
possible (for example in cement manufacture or in general low-grade aggregate use) or
sent to landfill if recycling is not possible, and the flue gas treatment residue will be
treated off Site and disposed of as hazardous waste (because of its pH value).
13.3.3. In the context of commercial and industrial waste arisings of around 1.26 million tonnes
per year in Wakefield, and given the proposed waste management procedures, the
generation of waste during operation of the Proposed Development is not considered to
be significant.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 23 of NTS
13.4. Conclusions
13.4.1. It is concluded there will be no significant effects as a result of waste arising from the
construction or operation of the Proposed Development.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 24 of NTS
14. SUSTAINABILITY
14.1. Introduction
14.1.1. This assessment addresses the potential wider sustainability impacts predicted to arise
as a consequence of the Proposed Development, in the context of national, regional and
local planning policy. The Proposed Development will be designed in accordance with the
principle of Best Available Techniques and utilising sustainable building standards, and
by applying these mechanisms, the Proposed Development is considered to meet the key
sustainability requirements as set out in national, regional and local policy.
14.2. Effects During Construction
14.2.1. The construction stage of the Proposed Development will adhere to the basic principles
of environmental sustainability including minimising the use of natural resources,
greenfield land and water consumption, whilst maximising energy efficiency. These will
be achieved through design, including targeting achievement of the Building Research
Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) ‘Very Good’ standard, and
implementation of management plans including a Construction Environmental
Management Plan, Site Waste Management Plan and Construction Traffic Management
Plan.
14.3. Effects During Operation
14.3.1. A carbon assessment and a waste and resource assessment have been undertaken.
These assessments demonstrate that the Proposed Development will provide a low
carbon source of electricity, and is expected to outperform the average existing power
stations in the UK when comparing the amount of carbon emitted per unit of electricity
produced. The proposed diversion of waste from landfill to produce energy is in line with
the waste hierarchy, and also represents significant carbon savings in comparison with
the disposal of waste to landfill. The detailed findings of these assessments are
presented in Appendix 17A and 17B of the ES (Volume III – Appendices (Application
Document Ref. No. 6.4)).
14.3.2. During operation, management plans will also be implemented to improve the
sustainability of the operation, including the implementation of an Environmental
Management System, Sustainable Fuel Transport Management Plan and Operation
Traffic Management Plan. Continued implementation of the waste hierarchy and energy
and water efficiency will be controlled through measures that will be specified in the
Environmental Permit and the site Environmental Management System.
14.4. Conclusions
14.4.1. The design, construction and operation of the Proposed Development will adhere to
national, regional and local sustainable development policies and the diversion of waste
from landfill for use as fuel is considered to be a significant beneficial effect in accordance
with the waste hierarchy.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 25 of NTS
15. HEALTH IMPACT SUMMARY
15.1. Introduction
15.1.1. Potential effects of the Proposed Development on human health are considered in
several of the chapters discussed above, including Air Quality, Noise and Vibration,
Water Resources and Flood Risk, and Ground Conditions. In addition to these
assessments, a Human Health Risk Assessment has been undertaken focussing on
human health effects associated with emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide,
sulphur dioxide, metals and organic substances during the operation of the Proposed
Development. Electromagnetic fields and the risk of accidents have also been assessed
in relation to the operation of the Proposed Development.
15.1.2. In order to deliver improvements to the quality of life and overall life expectancy of the
local population the local health authorities have identified a number of priority areas and
set objectives to deliver benefits to public health and construction and operation of the
Proposed Development have been considered against these objectives.
15.2. Effects During Construction
15.2.1. Potential effects on human health during the construction phase are considered in the Air
Quality, Noise and Vibration, Water Resources and Flood Risk, and Ground Conditions
chapters. No significant adverse effects have been predicted, through the use of the
embedded mitigation measures outlined previously.
15.3. Effects During Operation
15.3.1. Potential effects on human health during the operation phase are also considered in the
Air Quality, Noise and Vibration, Water Resources and Flood Risk, and Ground
Conditions chapters. No significant adverse effects have been predicted, through the use
of the embedded mitigation measures outlined previously.
15.3.2. The Human Health Risk Assessment predicted that the concentrations of each air
pollutant (particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide) and exposure to
metals and persistent organic substances (including dioxins and furans) will be so small
that they are not considered to represent a significant risk to the health of the local
population and will not prevent or impair the local health authorities from delivering the
benefits set out in their objectives.
15.3.3. No significant health effects associated with electromagnetic fields of accidents have
been predicted.
15.4. Conclusions
15.4.1. No significant health effects have been identified as a result of the construction or
operation of the Proposed Development following the implementation of the identified
mitigation measures.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 26 of NTS
16. CUMULATIVE AND COMBINED EFFECTS
16.1.1. Other proposed developments that are also likely to be constructed and operated in
future and have the potential to generate cumulative environmental effects together with
the Proposed Development have been identified. Significant cumulative effects may be
possible due to the nature of these developments (e.g. the potential to release emissions
to air) or their location (e.g. close enough to the site to affect the same receptors).
16.1.2. The other proposed developments that are considered to have potential for significant
cumulative effects, and that have been assessed in more detail, are: Ferrybridge Power
Station Golf Course; Pontefract Road, Knottingley Residential Development; Knottingley
Power Project; Darrington Wind Farm; Southmoor Energy Centre; Prowind (Wood Lane)
Wind Farm; Byram Wind Farm; and Hook Moor Wind Farm (see Figure NTS7), although
a wider list of projects has also been considered and screened out from further
consideration.
16.1.3. The potential for cumulative effects with these other developments was considered for all
of the environmental topics following consideration of the available information (including
the Environmental Statements and detailed environmental modelling information where
available). As a result of the detailed consideration undertaken in respect of the identified
proposed developments, no significant cumulative effects during construction or
operation were identified.
16.1.4. Combined effects (meaning the combination of different types of effects from the
Proposed Development on a single receptor) have also been assessed, and no
significant combined effects have been identified.
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)
Document Ref: 6.1
Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary
July 2014 Page 27 of NTS
17. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
17.1.1. The ES reports the findings of the EIA that has been undertaken for the Proposed
Development.
17.1.2. The Proposed Development is set within the existing Ferrybridge Power Station site, and
has been designed in keeping with the surrounding infrastructure (and in line with the
design and finishes agreed for the adjacent FM1 power station). This has worked to
minimise the potential for significant adverse effects.
17.1.3. Following assessment of a comprehensive range of environmental topics, as agreed
through the EIA Scoping and consultation process, the following potential significant
effects have been identified:
• adverse noise effects on nearby properties during evening and night-time
construction works;
• beneficial effects on the local and regional economy generated by construction
employment;
• adverse effects on views from residential properties around the northern end of
Darkfield Lane, Pontefract during construction and operation, due to the visibility
of tower cranes, and the tallest structures and stack; and
• beneficial effects due to the carbon savings associated with the use of waste
derived fuel in comparison to disposal of that waste directly to landfill.
17.1.4. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the identified significant adverse
noise effect during evening and night-time construction work, but due to the scale of the
buildings and stack, the significant adverse effect on the Darkfield Lane representative
viewpoint cannot be mitigated by landscape planting within the Site.
17.1.5. The landscaping and habitat creation enhancements that will be delivered on Site through
the Landscape and Biodiversity Strategies, will have a significant beneficial effect.
17.1.6. No other significant environmental effects have been identified.
17.1.7. Commitment to the key environmental impact avoidance, design and mitigation
measures, where not embedded in the design of the Proposed Development, will be will
be secured by a number of ‘requirements’ contained within the draft Development
Consent Order that will control the construction and operation of the Proposed
Development.
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2013. All rights reserved. Licence number 0100031673
0 125 250 375 500Metres
LegendDCO (Application Site) Red Line Boundary
DCO (Application Site) Location
47066159/NTS1Document Number: Revision
0
Scale: Original Size: A41:15,000
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2
NTS1Figure Number:
Site Location PlanFigure Title:
Document Reference: 6.1Environmental Statement- Non Technical Summary
Revision Details CheckBy SuffixCheck
DateDrawn Checked DateApprovedG.Bloomer E.Bonser K.Cobb July 2014
Fryston Park Brotherton
Kirkhaw Lane
S tranglands Lane
Ferrybridge 'C'Power Station
FormerGolf Course
Mobile HomePark
A1(M)A1(M)
Fryston Lane
A162
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2013. All rights reserved. Licence number 0100031673
0 80 160 240 320Metres
LegendDCO (Application Site) Red LineBoundaryFM1 Building and Rail SpurFM1 Section 36 consent boundaryStorage area for FM1 construction(Permitted Development)
47066159/NTS2Docu ment Nu mber: Revision
0
Scale: Original Siz e: A41:10,000
Ferry bridge Mu ltifu el 2
NTS2Figu re Nu mber:
Proposed DevelopmentApplication Site Bou ndaryand FM1 Site Bou ndary
Figu re Title:
Docu ment Reference:6.1
Environmental Statement– Non Technical Su mmary
Revision Details CheckBy SuffixCheck
DateDrawn Checked DateApprovedG.Bloomer E.Bonser K.Cobb July 2014
A63
42A63
A63
A1M
A162
River Aire
FerrybridgeB6136
A162
32A639
TO M1 MOTORWAY,MANCHESTER & LEEDS M62/A1M
INTERCHANGE
40
A162
River Aire
A1MNORTH
32a41
A1M
River Aire
Gate 'C'
A162
7.5T
7.5T
7.5T
33
TO HULL
Kirkhaw Lane
7.5T
Stranglands Lane
M62WEST
M62EAST
Gate 'B'
Unnamed Road
From M62 J33 To M62 J33
The Square
Fryston Lane
A1MSOUTH
Legend
N
Document Number:
Document Reference:
Figure Title:
Figure Number:
Drawn Checked Approved Date
Revision Details Date
Suffix
By
Check
NTS3
Proposed Transport Routes
6.1
Environmental Statement
ï Design and Access Statement
Ferrybridge Multifuel 2
47066159/NTS3 0
Revision
Main Construction/Operational Routes
to the Proposed Development
Main Construction/Operational Routes
from the Proposed Development
Potential alternative
Construction/Operational
Routes to/from the Proposed
Development for Car and Light Goods
Vehicles
G.Bloomer E.Bonser K.Cobb July 2014
Scale: Original Size:
NA A4
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2013. All rights reserved. Licence number 0100031673
Legend
47066159/NTS4Document Number: Revision
0
Scale: Original Siz e: A4
Ferry bridge Multifuel 2
NTS4Figure Number:
Indicative Concept Lay outfor the Proposed Development
Figure Title:
Document Reference:6.1
Environmental Statement– Non Technical Summary
Revision Details CheckBy SuffixCheck
DateDrawn Checked DateApprovedG.Bloomer E.Bonser K.Cobb July 2014
N/A
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2013. All rights reserved. Licence number 0100031673
0 580 1,160 1,740 2,320Metres
Le ge ndStudy AreaDCO (Application Site) Red LineBoundaryAir Quality Management AreaResidential ReceptorsFryston Park Local Wildlife SiteLocal Nature ReserveSSSI
Liste d Bu ildingsGrade IGrade II*Grade IIScheduled MonumentRegistered Park and GardenFlood Zone 2Flood Zone 3
47066159/NTS5aDocu me nt Nu mbe r: Re vision
0
Scale : Original Size : A41:70,000
Fe rry bridge Mu ltifu e l 2
NTS5aFigu re Nu mbe r:
Know n Environme ntalConside rations w ithin Stu dy Are a
Figu re Title :
Docu me nt Re fe re nce :6.1
Environme ntal State me nt– Non Te chnical Su mmary
Revision Details CheckBy SuffixCheck
DateDrawn Checked DateApprovedG.Bloomer E.Bonser K.Cobb July 2014
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2013. All rights reserved. Licence number 0100031673
0 170 340 510 680Metres
Le ge ndStudy AreaDCO (Application Site) Red LineBoundaryAir Quality Management AreaResidential ReceptorsFryston Park Local Wildlife Site
Liste d Bu ildingsGrade IGrade IIScheduled MonumentFlood Zone 2Flood Zone 3
47066159/NTS5bDocu me nt Nu mbe r: Re vision
0
Scale : Original Size : A41:20,000
Fe rry bridge Mu ltifu e l 2
NTS5bFigu re Nu mbe r:
Know n Environme ntalConside rations w ithin Stu dy Are a
Figu re Title :
Docu me nt Re fe re nce :6.1
Environme ntal State me nt– Non Te chnical Su mmary
Revision Details CheckBy SuffixCheck
DateDrawn Checked DateApprovedG.Bloomer E.Bonser K.Cobb July 2014
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2013. All rights reserved. Licence number 0100031673
Le ge nd
47066159/NTS6Docu me nt Nu mbe r: Re v is ion
0
Scale : Original Size : A4
Fe rrybridge Mu ltifu e l 2
NTS6Figu re Nu mbe r:
Vie w from Darkfie ld Lane ,Ponte fract With and Withou tthe Propos e d De v e lopme nt
Figu re Title :
Docu me nt Re fe re nce :6.1
Env ironme ntal State me nt– Non Te chnical Su mmary
Revision Details CheckBy SuffixCheck
DateDrawn Checked DateApprovedG.Bloomer E.Bonser K.Cobb July 2014
N/A
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2013. All rights reserved. Licence number 0100031673
0 580 1,160 1,740 2,320Metres
LegendDCO (Application Site) Red LineBoundary5km from Site Boundary
Proposed Developments Assessed inCumulative Impact Assessment
Byram Wind FarmDarrington Wind FarmPontefract Road, Knottingley ResidentialDevelopmentKnottingley Power ProjectProwind (Wood Lane) Wind FarmSouthmoor Energy Centre
47066159/NTS7Docu ment Nu mber: Revision
0
Scale: Original Siz e: A41:70,000
Ferry bridge Mu ltifu el 2
NTS7Figu re Nu mber:
Location of Developmentsto be considered forCu mu lative Impacts
Figu re Title:
Docu ment Reference:6.1
Environmental Statement– Non Technical Su mmary
Revision Details CheckBy SuffixCheck
DateDrawn Checked DateApprovedG.Bloomer E.Bonser K.Cobb July 2014
Hook Moor Wind Farm off the Map
top related