Sustainable Places - Planning Specialist Environment Agency Yorkshire Area Tel

From: Kipling, Sam To: YorksHumberCCSPipeline Subject: EA Yorkshire CCS Deadline 1 - 10029788 Date: 11 December 2014 17:46:07 Attachments: image001.gif EA First Written Qs 10029788.pdf EA RR Summary 10029788.pdf EA Written Rep Summary 10029788.pdf EA Written Representation 10029788.pdf

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Please find attached the Environment Agency’s deadline 1 submissions:- - Summary of Relevant Representations - Written Representations - Summary of Written Representations - Answers to First Written Questions

Please note that we do not currently wish to be heard at an open floor hearing.

Please note that we do not currently wish to be heard at a compulsory acquisition hearing. Our position on our land ownership remains unchanged from our Relevant Representation.

Please note that we do not wish to attend the accompanied site visit.

I am continuing to work with National Grid in order to ensure that we are in a position to provide a Statement of Common ground prior to deadline 1.

Kind regards

Sam Kipling Sustainable Places - Planning Specialist Environment Agency Yorkshire Area Tel. 0113 819 6386 [email protected]

I split my time between Coverdale House in York and Lateral in Leeds. Please direct any post to our York office.

Charging for planning advice From 3rd March 2014 we began charging for some of our planning advice. For more information please see our web pages at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/planning-advice-environment-agency-standard- terms-and-conditions or speak to your local Sustainable Places team.

cid:[email protected]

Have your say on the draft updates to the river basin management plans and the draft flood risk management plans www.gov.uk/government/consultations/update-to-the-draft-river-basin-management-plans www.gov.uk/government/consultations/draft-flood-risk-management-plans

Information in this message may be confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender immediately, delete it and do not copy it to anyone else. We have checked this email and its attachments for viruses. But you should still check any attachment before opening it. We may have to make this message and any reply to it public if asked to under the Freedom of Information Act, Data Protection Act or for litigation. Email messages and attachments sent to or from any Environment Agency address may also be accessed by someone other than the sender or recipient, for business purposes.

This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

Our ref: RA/2014/129706/02-L02 The Infrastructure Planning Commission Your ref: EN070001 Temple Quay House Our ID: 10029788 Temple Quay Date: 12 December 2014 Bristol BS1 6PN

Dear Sir/Madam

WRITTEN REPRESENTATION YORKSHIRE & HUMBER CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE (CCS) PROJECT - DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER CCS ROUTE FROM DRAX TO BARMSTON, EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE.

Further to our previous Relevant Representation we would like to provide the following Written Representation. Since our Relevant Representation we have held further discussions with National Grid and have received additional correspondence addressing a number of outstanding concerns. As such, this Written Representation will expand upon previous points which remain unchanged, as well as updating previous points which have changed as a result of these further discussions.

Water Voles Throughout our pre-application consultation with National Grid and in our Relevant Representation, we have highlighted the need to consider the project’s potential cumulative impacts of multiple watercourse crossings on water vole populations. This included a request that the amount of affected habitat should be quantified. We held meetings with National Grid on 25 September and 21 October 2014 at which we reiterated this need and discussed the most appropriate method of quantifying this risk.

Following this liaison we received a letter from National Grid dated 14 November 2014 in which the project’s cumulative impacts on water voles are clearly and succinctly outlined. We are pleased to see that our previous advice has been taken on board, and now feel that this information addresses previous concerns regarding the assessment of cumulative impacts on water voles. We ask that this information is provided to the ExA such that it is before the Inspector for consideration. It is our understanding that National Grid intend to do this in the form of a comment on our previous Relevant Representation to be submitted at deadline 1.

Sediment

Environment Agency Coverdale House Aviator Court, York, North Yorkshire, YO30 4GZ. Customer services line: 03708 506 506 www.gov.uk/environment-agency Cont/d..

Since our Relevant Representation we have held further discussions with National Grid about our outstanding concerns regarding the impact the project may have on increased rates of sedimentation in the water environment. This could be caused both through the many open cut river crossings or through the creation of large areas of bare, open ground which increases the risk that sediment will be washed into watercourses causing water quality and ecological problems. This risk is greater when working during wet weather and when the area of open, bare ground is large. The larger the area of open, bare ground, the greater the pollution risk, but also the more challenging the management and mitigation of those risks becomes.

We are pleased to see that there appears to be a commitment in the CoCP to focusing construction from April to September (CoCP paras 1.5.3, 3.1.2, 10.3.9, 14.3.3) and therefore avoiding the winter months when the wettest weather is most likely to occur. This commitment is clearest in paragraph 10.3.9 which states “The main pipeline construction works will not commence before 1st April and will be completed by the end of September.” Furthermore, paragraph 3.1.2 makes clear that if there is delay or slippage in the programme, that this time will be made up through Sunday and Bank Holiday working – i.e. not through extending the construction programme beyond the specified period. As set out in paragraph 14.3.3, we are particularly keen to ensure that no earth moving works take place outside this period, as these are the most likely to create sediment.

Given that DCO requirement 14 dictates that construction works ‘must’ been undertaken in accordance with the CoCP and because the CoCP appears to be unambiguous in its commitment to undertaking construction works only within the period April-September, we take comfort that the degree of residual risk of sedimentation is significantly reduced by this control. However, in our discussions with National Grid, it appears to be their interpretation that their commitments to the limitation of the construction period in the CoCP in conjunction with requirement 14 would not bind them strictly to this period. It would be useful to have some clarity on this point as it is important to the degree of residual risk to the environment, particularly in respect to earth works.

We have also suggested to National Grid another measure which could be put in place which would serve to further reduce this residual risk. We would like to see the introduction of a principle of contractor management in the CoCP to ensure that individual contractors/crews/teams tasked with completing individual tasks such as topsoil stripping, trench excavation and backfill, are required to work together to minimise the total length of the route subject to open, bare ground at any given time. This would have the effect of not only minimising the source of potential pollution but also making it simpler and easier to implement and manage the relevant mitigation measures.

Our fear is that individual contractors/crews/teams (as described in CoCP para 1.4.6) will complete their particular task as quickly as possible (because they’re often incentivised to do so), without consideration for the links with other contractors/crews/teams, resulting in an unnecessarily long length of open, bare ground. In our view, such a control would not slow the overall completion of construction works, merely ensuring that the construction ‘production line’ is as compact as possible. We would therefore like to see a commitment to this approach included within the CoCP at 1.4.6. We would suggest the following - “Individual contractors/crews/teams dealing with those tasks listed in 1.4.6 will be managed to ensure that they work collaboratively with the aim of keeping the ‘production line’ as compact as possible without slowing overall progress.”

Cont/d.. 2

The final measure discussed with National Grid relates to ongoing communication with the Environment Agency’s local Environment Management teams during construction, so that pollution prevention audits can take place and good practice promoted. We would therefore like to suggest the following amendment to paragraph 9.3.4 of the CoCP.

“National Grid and its contractors will liaise closely with the Environment Agency’s (EA) local Environment Management team throughout the project, including notifying them of the commencement of key aspects of the works such as significant river crossings, dewatering and hydrostatic testing. All necessary IDB/LLFA and EA consents, environmental permits and licences will be obtained prior to the commencement of the relevant activity. The Contractors shall undertake to adopt reasonable requirements and recommendations of the Environment Agency. Any pollution incidents will be reported immediately to the Environment Agency on 0800 80 70 60”.

We will provide further comments in due course once National Grid’s position on this becomes clear.

Enhancement It is our understanding that at deadline 1, National Grid will be submitting a more detailed and more committed schedule of enhancement measures. We look forward to this document and will provide comments on it in due course. It is our expectation however, that the scale and extent of enhancement measures will remain small when compared to the overall scale of the project.

It is our view that there are many opportunities for biodiversity enhancement along the pipeline route which National Grid has chosen not to take advantage of because of the desire to return this land to agricultural use. We have also previously highlighted the opportunity to retain, as wetland habitat, the water management lagoons proposed at the Wansford crossing, but note National Grid’s decision not to take advantage of this opportunity because of the desire to return the land to agricultural use.

We are pleased to see from recent correspondence that the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust have identified a long list of biodiversity enhancement opportunities which exist in and around the Wansford crossing. Apparently unlike the rest of the pipeline route, it is the land owner’s clear desire for this area to be developed and improved for the benefit of wildlife, not kept in its current state. It appears to us that there is a clear opportunity for National Grid to use its plant and staff to contribute to the delivery of the aspired habitat creation in this area. Many of the opportunities highlighted by the trust also appear to be flexible in respect to the timing of their delivery. This should ensure that the CCS project is not unduly time-constrained by any commitment to contribute to the delivery of these enhancements. The opportunity to use National Grid’s plant and staff to deliver these enhancements also makes it far more likely that such enhancements will be readily affordable and deliverable without jeopardising the viability of the scheme.

It is our view that an appropriately worded DCO requirement in conjunction with a S106 agreement (between National Grid, East Riding of Yorkshire Council and the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust) or brief side-agreement (between National Grid and the YWT) providing National Grid with the necessary access to the land in question, will be capable of securing this enhancement opportunity. For the avoidance of doubt, we see no reason for the Environment Agency to be a party to any such agreement.

We strongly encourage National Grid to take advantage of the opportunity for

Cont/d.. 3

biodiversity enhancement available at the Wansford crossing, to ensure that the requirements of policy EN-1 can clearly be demonstrated as being met.

Cont/d.. 4

Hydro-static Testing In a letter from National Grid on the 14 November 2014, they set out that they were considering a range of water sources for the hydrostatic testing of the northern section of the pipeline. These included groundwater abstracted during ground water management at the Wansford crossing, over-pumping from the river Ouse, groundwater abstraction from a borehole from the chalk aquifer, abstraction from Kelk Beck, West Beck or Gransmoor Drain, and mains water. We are therefore satisfied that a source of water can be found for undertaking this important aspect of the project, especially with the back-stop of a mains water supply. There is therefore no particular concern about the deliverability of the project in this regard.

There are some question marks about the availability of some of the identified potential sources as set-out below, but there would be a need for an appropriate abstraction licence from the Environment Agency under the Water Resources Act, which would involve a more detailed assessment of the environmental impacts and would secure any controls needed to protect the environment.

- Groundwater abstracted during ground water management at the Wansford crossing (Main Drain/ River Hull/ Driffield Canal) - This has the potential to be acceptable, albeit with the caveat that during periods of low flow (below Q95) in West Beck, abstracted groundwater would need to be returned, without loss, to West Beck – see detailed comments below under the ‘River Hull/Driffield Canal Crossing’ heading. - River Ouse - potential for over pumping the water abstracted to test the southern section to test the northern section - There is water currently available in the River Ouse (tide depending) so this appears to be a potential option. - Groundwater abstraction from a borehole from chalk aquifer – This depends on the location but is unlikely to be acceptable close to Kelk Beck/West Beck. - Fill up a lagoon slowly from Kelk Beck, West Beck or Gransmoor Drain – There is water available for abstraction on West Beck although not at Q95. A new abstraction would likely have a ‘hands-off-flow’ equivalent to around Q60 so there should be a reasonable window of availability. Further detailed assessment and consultation with Natural England would be needed to ensure that any abstraction fits with the SSSI Conservation Objectives. - Mains water – We have no objection to this option subject to suitable treatment before discharge into the water environment.

It is our understanding that National Grid intend to submit a supplementary note on this matter at deadline 1, either in answer to the first written questions or as a comment on our Relevant Representation. We expect this to provide further detail about the potential options and a narrative about any associated environmental effects. We look forward to this note and will provide comments on it in due course.

Flood Risk & Drainage Requirements We have held further discussions with National Grid on this matter and received additional correspondence on 14 November 2014. National Grid have suggested that subject to various amendments to existing requirements 5, 6 and 11 there is no need for the additional requirement requested in our Relevant Representation at paragraph 3.1. The letter of 14 November 2014 included amended wording for these requirements which is acceptable to us.

Furthermore, National Grid have also suggested some minor amendments to the additional requirement recommended in our Relevant Representation at paragraph 3.2. These proposed changes are acceptable.

Cont/d.. 5

It is our understanding that these changes will be put before the ExA at deadline 2, so we will provide comments and confirm our acceptance of these changes in due course.

River Hull/Driffield Canal Crossing Since our Relevant Representation we have held further discussions with National Grid and have received additional correspondence on 14 November 2014. We previously requested the addition of a DCO requirement which would have caused dewatering activity to cease during period of low flow in West Beck. However, National Grid have raised legitimate concerns about the implications of this approach, particularly in respect to health and safety. As such, an alternative solution has been proposed which we consider to be effective at protecting the SSSI’s water-related ecology. The agreed approach is that National Grid will update the Code of Construction Practice so that it includes a commitment to return, without loss, all water produced as a result of their groundwater management at the River Hull / Driffield Canal crossing, to West Beck during periods where flows at the Snakeholme gauging station on West Beck drop below 36.4 mega litres per day.

Article 19 National Grid provided useful explanation and clarification on this point in their letter of 14 November 2014. In summary, they have confirmed that it is their view that “Article 19 does not exclude or dis-apply Environment Agency consents. National Grid will therefore still need to apply for consents to the extent those are required under the Land Drainage Act 1991, Yorkshire Drainage Byelaws 1980, Water Resources Act 1991 and Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.” We are content with this matter and accept that the wording can remain unchanged.

Emissions Trading Scheme In their letter to us on 14 November 2014 National Grid state that they “can assure the Environment Agency that appropriate equipment to meter the Carbon Dioxide has been included in the application. Appropriate apparatus will be included within the proposed Barmston Pumping Station and is included within the description of works in Schedule 1 of the draft DCO.” It is useful that National Grid have acknowledged the separate requirements of the ETS permit process and confirmed that they have been mindful of the ETS process in assembling the DCO submission.

The project will require a permit under the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) from the Environment Agency. National Grid is likely to be the first operator embarking on this new permitting process. National Grid must apply for an ETS permit before the regulated activities commence. No application for an ETS permit has been received by the Environment Agency and it is our understanding that National Grid do not intend to submit one during the course of the DCO examination process.

The ExA will be aware that the Environment Agency is unable to provide letters of no impediment in advance of ETS permit determination because we risk pre-determining the permit in breach of our duties to both consult and to have regard to those consultation comments we receive. Because the project is likely to be the first to apply for an ETS permit and because the CCS technology is novel and complex, we are unlikely to be in a position during the course of the examination to provide any additional information to the ExA.

Cont/d.. 6

Should you require any additional information or clarification, please don’t hesitate to contact me on the details below.

Yours faithfully

Mr Sam Kipling Sustainable Places Planning Specialist Direct dial 0113 819 6386 Direct fax 0113 819 6299 Direct e-mail [email protected]

End 7

The Infrastructure Planning Commission Our ref: RA/2014/129706/02-L03 Temple Quay House Your ref: EN070001 Temple Quay Our ID: 10029788 Bristol Date: 12 December 2014 BS1 6PN

Dear Sir/Madam

SUMMARY OF WRITTEN REPRESENTATION YORKSHIRE & HUMBER CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE (CCS) PROJECT - DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER CCS ROUTE FROM DRAX TO BARMSTON, EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE.

We would like to provide the following Summary to our Written Representation.

Since our Relevant Representation we have held further discussions with National Grid and have received additional correspondence. As such, this summary of our Written Representation will update previous points which have changed as a result of these further discussions.

Water Voles We received additional information from National Grid in a letter dated 14 November 2014 which clearly and succinctly outlines the project’s cumulative impacts on water voles. Provided this information is provided to the ExA at deadline 1 we have no further concerns about the project’s impacts on water voles.

Sediment We have sought clarification on the degree to which National Grid will be prevented from working outside the April to September construction period identified in the CoCP. We are keen to ensure that those works most likely to present a pollution risk, such as earth movements, do not take place outside this period.

We have also sought an addition to the CoCP which would require contractors/crews/teams to be managed such that the total length of open, bear ground at any given time is kept to a minimum.

We have also suggested a minor amendment to the CoCP encouraging ongoing liaison with the Environment Agency’s local Environment Management team.

Enhancement

Environment Agency Coverdale House Aviator Court, York, North Yorkshire, YO30 4GZ. Customer services line: 03708 506 506 www.gov.uk/environment-agency Cont/d..

It is our understanding that at deadline 1, National Grid will submit a schedule of enhancement measures. We look forward to this and will provide comments in due course.

We have highlighted that there are significant enhancement opportunities available at the Wansford crossing where the pipeline crosses Yorkshire Wildlife Trust land. We have strongly encouraged National Grid to take advantage of the opportunity for biodiversity enhancement.

Hydro-static Testing In a letter from National Grid on the 14 November 2014, they set out that they were considering a range of water sources for the hydrostatic testing of the northern section of the pipeline. We are satisfied that a source of water can be found for undertaking this important aspect of the project. There is therefore no particular concern about the deliverability of the project in this regard.

There are some question marks about the availability of some of the identified potential sources, but there would be a need for an appropriate abstraction licence from the Environment Agency which would involve a more detailed assessment and secure any controls needed to protect the environment.

It is our understanding that National Grid intend to submit a supplementary note on this matter at deadline 1. We look forward to this note and will provide comments in due course.

National Grid have also suggested some minor amendments to the additional requirement recommended in our Relevant Representation at paragraph 3.2. These proposed changes are acceptable.

It is our understanding that these changes will be put before the ExA at deadline 2, so we will provide comments on these changes in due course.

River Hull/Driffield Canal Crossing Since our Relevant Representation we have held further discussions with National Grid and have received additional correspondence on 14 November 2014. The agreed approach is that National Grid will update the CoCP so that it includes a commitment to return, without loss, all water produced as a result of their groundwater management at the River Hull / Driffield Canal crossing, to West Beck during periods where flows at the Snakeholme gauging station on West Beck drop below 36.4 mega litres per day. This will negate the need for the previously requested requirement.

It is our understanding that National Grid intend to submit a supplementary note on this matter at deadline 1. We will provide comments on that in due course.

Cont/d.. 2

Article 19 National Grid provided useful explanation and clarification on this point in their letter of 14 November 2014. We are now content with this matter and accept that the wording can remain unchanged.

Emissions Trading Scheme It is useful that National Grid have acknowledged the separate requirements of the ETS permit process and confirmed that they have been mindful of the ETS process in assembling the DCO submission.

The project will require a permit under the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) from the Environment Agency. National Grid must apply for an ETS permit before the regulated activities commence. No application for an ETS permit has been received.

The Environment Agency is unable to provide letters of no impediment in advance of ETS permit determination because we risk pre-determining the permit in breach of our duties to both consult and to have regard to those consultation comments we receive.

Should you require any additional information or clarification, please don’t hesitate to contact me on the details below.

Yours faithfully

Mr Sam Kipling Sustainable Places Planning Specialist Direct dial 0113 819 6386 Direct fax 0113 819 6299 Direct e-mail [email protected]

End 3

Our ref: RA/2014/129706/01-L01 The Infrastructure Planning Commission Unique Ref: 10029788 Temple Quay House Your ref: EN070001 Temple Quay Bristol Date: 18 December 2014 BS1 6PN

Dear Sir/Madam,

RELEVANT REPRESENTATION SUMMARY YORKSHIRE & HUMBER CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE (CCS) PROJECT - DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER. CCS ROUTE FROM DRAX TO BARMSTON, EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE.

We would like to provide the following summary of our relevant representation:-

1.0 Water-related Ecology 1.1 Cumulative Impacts - Insufficient mitigation has been provided for the intra- project cumulative impacts on water-related ecology and sedimentation. Additional on-site mitigation measures or off-site compensation should be provided.

1.2 Enhancement Measures - The ecological enhancement measures outlined in the Planning Statement are inadequate. There is no definitive list and those measures discussed are vague and open-ended. A list of commitments should be provided.

2.0 Water Resources 2.1 Sources of water for hydrostatic testing do not appear to have been finalised, particularly for the northern section of the pipeline. This is necessary to ensure that environmental effects are assessed and to ensure the necessary abstraction licences are capable of being granted.

3.0 Flood Risk & Drainage 3.1 Additional requirements should be included for the drainage proposals from the AGIs and to secure the mitigation proposed in the FRA.

3.2 It is unclear why Area B of the Camblesforth Multi-Junction and the Barmston Pumping Station are excluded from requirement 11. Clarification of the reasons for their exclusion is sought.

4.0 River Hull / Driffield Canal Crossing 4.1 The dewatering proposed at the River Hull / Driffield Canal crossing has the potential to impact upon the River Hull Headwaters SSSI. We would like to see dewatering during periods of low flows avoided.

5.0 Disapplication / Protective Provisions 5.1 We are content that the DCO does not seek to disapply those legislative provisions relevant to the EA.

5.2 Clarification is sought regarding DCO Part 2: Works Provisions, Supplemental Powers, paragraph 19 – ‘Discharge of Water’. The meaning and effect of this paragraph is unclear.

6.0 Emissions Trading Scheme 6.1 The CCS project will require an EA permit under the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). Details should be included in the Safety Plan to confirm that the proposal will be capable of complying with these regulations and obtaining an ETS permit.

7.0 Groundwater 7.1 We agree with the groundwater risk assessment. We are also satisfied with the dewatering proposals for the River Hull crossing, and accept that risks will be managed by the mitigation measures proposed along with the cessation of dewatering during low flows.

8.0 Land Contamination 8.1 We agree with the methodology and mitigation measures proposed. The report identifies the potential contamination risks to groundwater and concludes that risks are minimal if managed by a construction plan.

9.0 Foul Drainage 9.1 The CoCP suggests that toilet facilities at site offices and construction yards may be connected to a septic tank. A septic tank is unlikely to be acceptable. The CoCP should be amended accordingly.

10.0 Pollution Prevention 10.1 Notwithstanding our above comments in relation to water-related ecology, we are generally satisfied that water quality risks have been adequately identified and that best practice mitigation is proposed.

11.0 Land Ownership 11.1 The project crosses EA land at the below ground crossing of the River Ouse at Rusholme. Terms for the grant of an Option for an easement have been agreed. Our solicitor is in contact with National Grid to agree the documentation. Draft documentation has been issued.

We will provide additional comments and clarification on our outstanding points at written representation stage.

Yours faithfully

Mr Sam Kipling Sustainable Places Planning Specialist Direct dial 0113 819 6386 Direct fax 0113 819 6299 Direct e-mail [email protected]

The Infrastructure Planning Commission Our ref: RA/2014/129706/02-L02 Temple Quay House Your ref: EN070001 Temple Quay Our ID: 10029788 Bristol Date: 12 December 2014 BS1 6PN

Dear Sir/Madam

INSPECTOR’S FIRST WRITTEN QUESTIONS YORKSHIRE & HUMBER CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE (CCS) PROJECT - DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER. CCS ROUTE FROM DRAX TO BARMSTON, EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE.

Following receipt of the Rule 8 letter on 25 November 2014, we would like to provide the following response to the Inspector’s first written questions.

Q1.16 The DCO refers at Requirement 16 to a drainage strategy certified by the Secretary of State and it is noted a Drainage Design is contained in Document 7.7.1 and 7.7.2 (10-2574-GND-01-05-0100 to 10-2574-GND-01-05-0125). However, Article 49, certification of plans, does not list the drainage strategy. Can the applicant consider whether Article 49 should refer to these plans and are the Local Planning Authorities (LPAs), EA and relevant IDB’s content with the strategy? Answer to Q1.16 It would be useful to have clarity on this from the applicant to ensure the DCO is clear. It should be noted however, that matters of localised land drainage and surface water are better addressed by the relevant land owners, IDB and Lead Local Flood Authority.

Q1.18 Should the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) be updated prior to construction commencing given the requirement within the CoCP to update surveys prior to construction and to apply mitigation as appropriate? Can the applicant consider how can this be secured in the DCO? Do interested parties such as NE, EA, Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and the local authorities agree the content of the CoCP and do they agree that the CoCP is consistent with the schedule of mitigation? Q3.12 Are the local planning authorities, the EA, NE and English Heritage (EH) content that the CoCP adequately ensures all the required mitigation measures can be delivered and enforced? Q5.3 Can the EA consider whether the intended mitigation as proposed in the CoCP (document 7.5) (para 9.2.6 etc) would be sufficient to prevent pollution and protect water quality and whether this has been adequately secured in the DCO to ensure delivery and enforcement? Answer to Q1.18 We have provided advice to National Grid throughout the formal consultation process with regard to additional pre-construction surveys and best

Environment Agency Coverdale House Aviator Court, York, North Yorkshire, YO30 4GZ. Customer services line: 03708 506 506 www.gov.uk/environment-agency Cont/d.. practice mitigation for direct impacts.

We have provided a number of additional detailed comments in our Written Representations which relate to the Code of Construction Practice. Various changes and additions are sought, as set out in our Written Representation.

In respect to biodiversity, our advice has been restricted to species for which we are the lead authority – i.e. water-related ecology. We have deferred to Natural England on other ecology matters. We are comfortable that all necessary pre-construction ecological surveys highlighted within the schedule of mitigation are outlined within the CoCP.

Subject to the requested changes to the CoCP set out in our Written Representation, we are generally content that the CoCP is deliverable and enforceable, in conjunction with requirements 8, 9 and 14.

Q3.13 NE’s Relevant Representation (RR) also advises a requirement is included within the DCO to ensure ”that no dewatering takes place when flow rates as measured at the gauging station at Snakeholme, on the West Beck, are below 36.4 megalitres per day”. This is required in order to protect habitats within the River Hull Headwaters SSSI which may be sensitive to dewatering. The EA’s relevant representation also proposes changes to the DCO/CoCP with regards to dewatering and proposes the following wording which accords with NE’s request: “Dewatering activities at the River Hull / Driffield Canal crossing shall cease should river flows in West Beck (measured at the Environment Agency’s Snakeholme gauging station) drop below 36.4 mega litres per day. Dewatering activities may recommence once three consecutive days of flows above 36.4 mega litres per day are observed.” Is the applicant willing to include such a measure within the DCO/CoCP? Q5.10 Both NE and the EA are seeking (in their RR’s) an additional requirement to protect flows in West Beck associated with dewatering activities at the River Hull / Driffield Canal crossing. Does the applicant accept this additional requirement and, if so, could a form of words be agreed with NE and the EA? Answer to Q3.13 and Q5.10 Further discussions have taken place between ourselves and National Grid. We have reached an agreement which will negate the need for the requirement we recommended in our Relevant Representation. National Grid have committed to updating the Code of Construction Practice so that it includes a commitment to return, without loss, all water produced as a result of their groundwater management at the River Hull / Driffield Canal crossing, to West Beck during periods where flows at the Snakeholme gauging station on West Beck drop below 36.4 mega litres per day. We are content that, subject to this change, there is now no need for the previously suggested requirement. We have also provided comments on this in our Written Representation.

Q3.20 Can the applicant confirm whether the monitoring referred to in ES Chapter 9 Section 10 has been agreed with relevant consultees? Are interested parties (including NE, EA, Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and the local authorities) content with the monitoring proposals? Answer to Q3.20 ES Chapter 9 Section 10 appears to deal with Barn Owls. This issue lies outside the remit of the Environment Agency and, as such, we have no comments on this question.

Q3.28 The silt management and spillage emergency response plans identified in Table 5.1 of the NSER are to be implemented across all construction areas and are stated to be included in the CoCP (Document 7.5). These two plans are not specifically listed in

Cont/d.. 2

the CoCP although measures to address silt and spillage are considered. Does NE/EA consider the CoCP as drafted is sufficient in this respect or do the plans need to be identified separately in the CoCP? Answer to Q3.28 Subject to the changes to the CoCP described in our Written Representation, we are generally content with the CoCP. However, the addition of a Silt Management Plan and a Spillage Emergency Response Plan would add welcome precision and focus to the measures already set out.

Q5.2 Para 4.4.9 of the NSER states that all main rivers and, where practicable, Water Framework Directive (WFD) designated watercourses will be crossed using non-open cut methods. Can the applicant explain which WFD watercourses may not be able to be crossed by non-open cut methods? Do the EA/LPAs/IDBs have comments on this, including whether the mitigation proposed is sufficient to safeguard these watercourses? Answer to Q5.2 We are content with the mitigation approach proposed to protect WFD watercourses, including Bracken Beck, which are being crossed with non-open cut methods. We are satisfies that these measures are adequately secured through requirements 8, 9 and 14. The requested amendments/additions to the CoCP set out in our Written Representation will also serve to further reduce this risk.

Q5.4 In their RR, the EA feel that the applicant has not provided sufficient mitigation for the intra-project cumulative impacts of Ecology and Nature Conservation and water resources in terms of water vole habitat that will be temporarily lost. Given the number of crossings planned (for example, about 100 open-cut crossings are planned), any disturbance from works in the vicinity of watercourses not associated with crossings and effects of the open cut watercourse crossings in relation to the mobilisation of sediment, the EA are concerned that mitigation measures will not be absolute in their efficacy of reducing the mobilisation of sediments and they consider that these residual effects are not adequately acknowledged or mitigated in the ES. The EA has requested additional on-site mitigation measures or off-site compensation measures (paragraphs 1.2-1.5 of their RR). How is the applicant able to respond the request from the EA and how can these and any other mitigation measures be delivered in the DCO? Answer to Q5.4 In relation to the project’s impacts on water voles, at two meetings with National Grid on 25 September and 21 October 2014 we discussed at length the potential for intra-project cumulative impact on water voles, and the most appropriate method of quantifying the risk, given that a thorough assessment was absent from the ES. Subsequently, we received a letter from NG dated 14 November 2014 which provides a more detailed assessment of the cumulative impact of the scheme crossings on water voles, within the context of the whole local population. We have informed National Grid that subject to the formal submission of this information, we would have no further comments regarding cumulative impacts upon water voles.

Q5.5 In their RR, the EA state that “Whilst the mitigation measures proposed represent best practice, and in each individual case, may only have negligible residual impact, cumulatively, the effect of the crossings may result in an unacceptable risk to the water environment. We therefore consider that it is necessary for the applicant to provide additional on-site mitigation measures, or off-site compensation measures to address these residual risks more robustly. Whilst we accept that the applicant has mentioned the provision of new ditch habitat at the AGI sites, we feel these measures fall short of what is needed and suggest that a more thorough investigation of on-site mitigation measures, or off-site compensation measures, is appropriate.” Does the applicant intend to undertake further site-specific surveys in developing specific mitigation measures and if so how will these be undertaken and mitigation measures determined and agreed with statutory consultees? If the provision of any such compensatory

Cont/d.. 3

measures (if required) could be outside the order limits of the DCO, any such compensation would need to be addressed and agreed through a suitably robust method. Would the applicant consider that a separate legal agreement would be necessary in those circumstances and, if so, what form would these agreements take? Answer to Q5.5 We have provided detailed comments on this point in our Written Representation. Subject to some requested additions/amendments to the CoCP we are satisfied that this point has been adequately addressed. We have also provided detailed comments on the quite separate matter of biodiversity enhancement in our Written Representation.

Q5.6 The EA is concerned that the specific sources of water for hydrostatic testing do not appear to have been finalised. The EA is satisfied that an abstraction from the River Ouse for the southern section of the pipeline would be acceptable in principal. However, there is concern that no such watercourse has been specified for the northern section of the pipeline. Do the applicant and EA have sufficient certainty that the necessary abstraction licences are capable of being granted? Have the potential environmental impacts of any such operation been properly assessed in the ES? Answer to Q5.6 Our information suggests that there is currently water available in the River Ouse for the hydrostatic testing of the southern section of the pipeline. However, it should be noted that the River Ouse is tidal at the point the pipeline crosses it and so there would be tidal restrictions on water availability. Any abstraction from the River Ouse would be subject to a separate abstraction licence under the Water Resources Act. Based on current water availability and the information provided in the application, there are no apparent show-stoppers for obtaining the necessary abstraction licence. We cannot however, pre-empt or predetermine any such application which must be judged on the basis of the information relevant at the time.

Since our RR we have had further correspondence with National Grid which suggests they are looking at a range of sources of water for the hydrostatic testing of the northern section of the pipeline. We have provided detailed comments on this matter in our Written Representation and await additional information from National Grid.

Q5.7 DCO Requirement 11 addresses drainage proposals for all AGIs (with the exception of Area B of the Camblesforth Multi-junction and the Barmston Pumping Station. The EA in their RR considers that a more detailed requirement is deemed necessary to ensure the appropriate controls are put in place. The EA is also unclear why Area B of the Camblesforth Multi-Junction and the Barmston Pumping Station are excluded from Requirement 11. Could the applicant explain why this is so and whether they agree to an additional requirement as requested by the EA? Answer to Q5.7 Following further correspondence with National Grid, we now understand and accept the reasons for the exclusion of the Area B of the Camblesforth Multi-Junction and the Barmston Pumping Station from requirement 11 because those elements of the project will be subject to separate approval by the relevant Planning Authority. National Grid have proposed amendments to requirements 5, 6 and 11 which deal with this issue satisfactorily.

Q5.8 The EA is also proposing an additional requirement to tie the DCO to the specifications and mitigation measures within the “approved Flood Risk Assessment”. Does the applicant support that proposal and, if so, could a form of words be agreed with the EA? Answer to Q5.8 Following receipt of a letter from National Grid on 14 November 2014, we are content that the additional requirement we recommended in our Relevant Representation at paragraph 3.1 is now no longer needed. National Grid have proposed amendments to requirements 5, 6 and 11 and to the requirement recommended in our

Cont/d.. 4

RR at paragraph 3.2. Provided these are submitted formally by National Grid, we find these acceptable and support their inclusion.

Q5.11 Do the EA and the NFU consider that the expressions of intent in the CoCP (document 7.5) (para 9.3.18) sufficient to safeguard drainage interests in agricultural land within and adjacent to the application site? If not, can the above parties suggest ways in which those interests can be met? Answer to Q5.11 Matters of local drainage are best answered by the relevant Internal Drainage Board or Lead Local Flood Authority. We are content that the Selby IDB and ERYC are best placed to comment on this question.

Q5.13 Does the EA consider there any reasons to suggest that the issue of an Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) permit for the project would be withheld? Answer to Q5.13 As described in our Relevant Representation, the CCS project will require a permit under the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) from the Environment Agency. National Grid is likely to be the first operator embarking on this new permitting process. The operator of an ‘installation’ (the pipeline would be classed as an installation) carrying out a regulated activity must apply for an ETS permit before the regulated activities commence. No application for an ETS permit has been received by the Environment Agency and it is our understanding that National Grid do not intend to submit one during the course of the DCO examination process.

Q5.15 Can the applicant and the EA agree on how the “true clean bottom” of a watercourse is defined? Answer to Q5.15 In an email from National Grid on 3 December 2014, the following definition of ‘true clean bottom’ was proposed. This is acceptable to the Environment Agency, however, it should be noted that we are not the regulatory authority for works affecting non-main rivers. As such, it is important that the relevant IDBs and Lead Local Flood Authorities are asked to approve the proposed definition.

“True clean bottom”, which is understood to be the interface between the “silts” accumulated at the bottom of a watercourse and the underlying superficial or solid geology, will be established in one of two ways. Where the watercourse is shallow enough and not too fast-flowing to be waded across by a suitably attired and secured operative, a ranging rod or similar spiked probe will be pushed into the bed of the watercourse at intervals along a right-angled traverse. True clean bottom will be deemed to lie at the depth at which significant resistance to further penetration is encountered. Where the depth and current strength of a watercourse precludes the above methodology (such as at the River Ouse) a bathymetry survey will be commissioned.

Should you require any additional information or clarification, please don’t hesitate to contact us on the details below.

Cont/d.. 5

Yours faithfully

Mr Sam Kipling Sustainable Places Planning Specialist Direct dial 0113 819 6386 Direct fax 0113 819 6299 Direct e-mail [email protected]

End 6