Stakeholder Meeting Minutes

T N E M U

C O

D 6.4.9

The Yorkshire and Humber (CCS Cross Country Pipeline) Development Consent Order

Under Regulation 5(2)(a) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009

Application Reference: EN070001 June 2014

Meeting Minutes

Meeting Title: Selby EHO Meeting – Noise and Vibration Assessment

Project: Yorkshire and Humber CCS Cross Country Job No/Ref: 60301887 Pipeline

Location: Selby District Council, Civic Centre Date held: 18 th June 2013

Duration: 1.5 hours Time: 9.00 am Start Invitees: Debbie Preston (DP) – AECOM Apologies: Charlotte Clinton (CC)-- AECOM Richard Gwilliam (RG)- National Grid

Diana Adamson (DA) – Selby Environmental Health Officer No. Item Actions 1. Meeting Agenda Purpose of the Meeting i. Project Update since the Scoping Report Issue ii. Project Programme iii. Scoping Opinion iv. Scope of environmental assessment

Noise Monitoring i. Proposed noise monitoring locations – Camblesforth Multi-junction and Drax Pig Trap ii. Proposed monitoring durations iii. Timing of the monitoring

Noise Policies i. The application of BS 4142 and the WHO Guidelines ii. Construction limits / proposed approach

Net Steps i. Environmental Statement ii. Statements of Common Ground

2. Purpose of the Meeting CC gave an overview of the project explaining that project consists of a 68km cross country pipeline from a proposed Multi-junction near Camblesforth to the Coast to the north of Barmston and a connecting pipeline to the White Rose CCS project at Drax. CC explained that addition to the pipeline there a four different types of installation, a PIG (pipeline inspection gauge) Trap adjacent to the White Rose Project, a Multi-junction to the south of Drax, three block valves at Tollingham, Dalton and Skerne and a Pumping Station at Barmston. CC noted that both the Multi-junction and the PIG Trap fall within Selby’s Authority Area. CC explained the main changes to the scheme since the submission of the Scoping Report in February 2012 as a result of DECC announcement in spring 2013: The scheme no longer consists of a pipeline connection with Hatfield. The White Rose Project includes a compressor facility as part of their proposals. As such there is no longer a need for a compressor station as part of the pipeline scheme. The proposed Compressor and Multi-junction site as set out within the Scoping Report now just consists of a Multi-junction, to enable other emitters to connect into the pipeline in the future.

Page: 1 of 3 Doc. FA/02 Revised: June 2013

Meeting Minutes

CC explained that it is the intention to submit the Development Consent Order (DCO) in February 2014 and a draft Environmental Statement will be produced by September 2013. 3. Noise Monitoring CC explained that as per the Scoping Report it is the intention to undertake noise monitoring for the Pumping Station at Barmston, however explained that noise monitoring is not proposed for the Block Valves as these installations would not produce a noise

source.

Locations

DP presented the three proposed noise monitoring locations for the Multi-junction. DA agreed that the locations looked sensible and three would be sufficient. DA stated at location 3, the monitoring position should not be too close to the trees. DA enquired as to whether DP thought a monitoring location at Camblesforth would be required. DP explained that due to the distance and the intervening railway line and road she did not think this

would be necessary. DA agreed, but suggested that look at recent noise monitoring results in Cambleforth from the recent Drax ES and these could be used if necessary. DP presented the two proposed noise monitoring locations for the Drax PIG Trap. DA explained the recent noise assessments have been undertaken for the Lytog Plant Project and that it may be appropriate to use their data for the Foreman’s Cottage receptor. Therefore it was agreed to monitor at Old Lodge and review the existing data available for Foreman’s Cottage Timings DP proposed that night time noise surveys will be undertaken with two sets of 30 minute surveys undertaken on a rotational basis between 12 midnight and 4am. This is representative of the quietist time of day. All agreed that this was appropriate at that daytime and evening surveys were not required in addition.

DA and DP discussed the requirement for background noise to be obtained at the

weekends. Due to Drax being the influencing noise source within the area and this operates on a 24 hour seven days a week process there is unlikely to be a difference in night time noise levels in the week and at weekends. DP/CC DA noted that it would be beneficial to obtain the shift patterns from Drax and any proposed night time construction operations prior to undertaking the monitoring. DA noted that the Biomass plant was currently under construction. 4. Noise Policies Operation DP proposed the use of principles of BS 4142 It is noted that the background noise levels may be low in Carlton and fall outside the scope of BS 4142. DP and DA discussed using WHO guidance and BS 8388 internal noise levels if background noise levels fall outside the

scope of BS 4142. DA would like to see no disturbance in gardens for daytime and internal disturbance for night. SDC have no policy on noise limits for operational noise, but should seek to achieve that the A-weighted noise emissions at the nearest receptors do not exceed the existing background noise levels. . Construction DP proposed that the approach to assessing the impact of construction noise is to use noise levels of the main items construction plant and predict the potential construction noise using guidance in BS 5288 at set distances from the construction works instead of at every receptor along the pipeline route. DA agreed that that this was a sensible approach. In relation to construction compounds, the impact would be assessed by comparing the change in traffic flow as a result of construction traffic. DA explained that the preference would be for good construction management rather than entering into a form of Section 61 agreement. Construction works should be restricted to Monday to Friday daytime and Saturday mornings where possible. DA highlighted the importance good communication with local residents and keeping them informed of any construction works and durations. CC explained that a draft Environmental Management Plan (EMP) would be included

Page: 2 of 3 Doc. FA/02 Revised: June 2013

Meeting Minutes

within the Environmental Statement. 5. Net Steps Environmental Statement CC explained that impact assessments would be undertaken over the summer and a draft Environmental Statement produced for September 2013. Statements of Common Ground CC explained that it is the intention to produce statements of common ground with stakeholders which will set out the matters agreed on such as noise monitoring locations and methods. This will focus the efforts during the determination to those which are not agreed on.

Page: 3 of 3 Doc. FA/02 Revised: June 2013

Document No. 10-2574-MOM-ERYC-0001

Yorkshire & Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline Notes of Meeting held with East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) Highways on 25th June 2013 10.00 – ERYC County Hall, Cross Street, Beverley Attendees: Name Organisation Role William Park WP ERYC Principal Highway Management Officer Strategic Development Services Jon Phillip JP AECOM EIA Consultant Transportation Gary Smith GS National Grid (NG) Project Engineer (Construction) Anna Firmin AF National Grid Project Environmental Advisor

Apologies: Mark Beevers MB ERYC Planning

REF COMMENT OWNER & CLOSE ACTION 1.0 PURPOSE OF MEETING 1.1 Purpose of meeting: - to discuss traffic & highways issues relating to the Yorkshire & Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline; - to agree the scope of the Traffic Assessment required as part of the EIA - to discuss consents and licenses likely to be required for the construction works and permanent accesses to the public highway.

2.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION 2.1 Anna Firmin (AF) explained that the project comprises a cross country Info

pipeline for the transportation of CO 2 to be captured from regional emitters. To date the project has consulted on strategic options, and the identification of a preferred route corridor to the North of the Humber within which a pipeline could be constructed (2011) and following consultations n 2012 National Grid announced the preferred Above Ground Installation (AGI) site options at the end of 2012. A route corridor from Stainforth (Doncaster BC) has been considered to accommodate a new Power Station proposed as part of the Don Valley Power Project. In addition a route corridor for a pipeline connection from a proposed Oxyfuel Power Station (White Rose CCS Project) at Drax has also been consulted on.

The CO 2 will be transported via a 600mm diameter steel buried pipeline to the coast near Barmston, South of Bridlington and then offshore for permanent geological storage.

The Project is currently in funding negotiations with DECC. Subject to funding another round of public consultation will be undertaken later in the year on the proposed pipeline route alignment within the Preferred 1 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Project: ERYC Highways Meeting 25-06-13 Issued

Document No. 10-2574-MOM-ERYC-0001

REF COMMENT OWNER & CLOSE ACTION Route Corridor and the elements that make up the Preferred Scheme.

Within ERYC these include a cross country pipeline between River Ouse near Drax and the coast near Barmston and above ground installations comprising three small block valves at Tollingham, Dalton, and Skerne and a pumping station at the coast. It is intended that an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) would be submitted to The Planning Inspectorate early next year.

Documents supporting the consultations that have been conducted to date are available on the project website www.ccshumber.co.uk

3 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – TRAFFIC SCOPE 3.1 Aecom have been commissioned to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment and prepare an Environment Statement to be included with the DCO application. Jon Phillip is preparing the Transport Chapter. (Department of Transport Guidance on requirements for Traffic Statements or Traffic Assessments do not apply to EIA).

3.2 Road Links to Assess The main traffic impacts will occur during construction. During operation of the pipeline, the above ground installations would not typically be staffed requiring on average one visit per month. There would be further traffic impacts at the decommissioning stage of the pipeline which will be considered in the ES.

The traffic assessment for the EIA therefore proposes to concentrate on the construction phase. JP tabled a map of the roads surrounding the proposed pipeline corridor with an indication of the type of vehicles that would use them based on an assessment carried out by National Grid. The map also indicated proposed locations for which Automatic Traffic Count Data are to be obtained.

Following discussions (see below) it was agreed that counts were needed from the A165 between Hull and Beverley to cover potential transport route for pipe if it is brought into Hull docks. JP asked WP to confirm that the scope of surveys was acceptable so that the surveys could be commissioned.

3.3 Type of Data Collection Info The ATC data collected would include speed of travel, class of vehicles and direction of travel.

3.4 Assessment Time Periods JP proposed the following assumptions for data collection: 2 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Project: ERYC Highways Meeting 25-06-13 Issued

Document No. 10-2574-MOM-ERYC-0001

REF COMMENT OWNER & CLOSE ACTION Working hours to include Mon – Fri 07.00 – 19.00 Sat 07.00 – 16.00 No movements on Sunday Assessment would therefore include weekdays 08.00 – 20.00 and Saturday 08.00 – 20.00 It was agreed that counts should be taken across the day for ATC data. (Post meeting note: ERYC approved count locations plan on 28.06.13)

3.5 Trip Generation/ Distribution The construction works would be divided into three contracts: Drax – Market Weighton (pipeline & AGIs) Market Weighton – Barmston (pipeline & AGIs) Barmston Pump Station Pipeline construction would be carried out in one season however, the AGIs and in particular the Pumping Station would likely require a two year build with additional time for site set up and demobilisation.

The assessment will take into account the number and location of construction yards, pipe storage yards. Traffic generation would include pipe deliveries (either from docks at Goole/ Hull or potentially the North East); transportation of equipment, plant and materials and staff movements to and from site (assumption staff will lodge locally 20km radius)

3.6 Scope of Transport Assessment for EIA JP/ WP JP will prepare a scope for the Transport part of the EIA taking into account the issues discussed during the meeting and e-mail to Will Parks for comment.

4 PLANNING & CONSENTS 4.1 William Park (WP) is highways specialist for Strategic Development team and will guide the application through planning and will set the necessary conditions to protect the public highways infrastructure. These typically include requirements such as the preparation of a Traffic Management Plan, provision of a Dilapidation Survey (condition survey) and identification of works subject to Section 62 Agreements.

Mark Beevers (Planning) would deal with the planning legal issues such as Section 106 agreements.

4.2 WP provided Highway Management Areas and contacts for the Info Highways Management Officers who will deal (post-planning) with the on ground works, notices and detailed consent requirements in relation to traffic routeing, road crossings and installation of apparatus, road closures, new accesses etc.

Sam Billingham would deal with Abnormal Loads (post planning).

3 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Project: ERYC Highways Meeting 25-06-13 Issued

Document No. 10-2574-MOM-ERYC-0001

REF COMMENT OWNER & CLOSE ACTION Helen Firth would deal with Traffic Regulation Orders.

4.3 AF explained that the project is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project and would therefore require an application via the Planning Inspectorate to the Secretary of State for a Development Consent Order. It is understood that as part of the DCO some highways related consents can be included in the application, subject to obtaining agreement in principle from the relevant Highways Authority.

WP requested details of what is needed for the project which he can GS/ WP then review and advise on the level of information required.

4.4 Construction – Pipeline Road Crossings Installation of the pipeline under public roads will typically employ non- intrusive methods (tunnel / auger bore). There may be a small number of minor roads that will need to be open cut e.g. due to the nature of the surrounding topography. The pipeline would be installed with a minimum depth of cover of 2m although excavations required for installation may be 3-4m depth.

WP explained that the Highways Authority is legally responsible for the safety of the highway. A Sec. 62 agreement under the Highway Act would be required if opening the highway. Non-intrusive works under the highway or smaller operations may be covered under a licence.

Open cut crossing would require a Temporary Road Closure (not Stopping Up) under a Traffic Regulation Order this would require 6 weeks’ notice.

Level of information required for planning/ agreement in principle:

Map showing location of crossings and construction method.

4.5 Construction - Temporary Site Access During construction temporary access to the pipeline working width will be required, locations generally coincide with pipeline road crossings. There will also be a number of construction compounds and storage yards required along the pipeline route which will require temporary accesses to the pubic highway.

Level of information required for planning/ agreement in principle:

WP requested a set of plans showing location of accesses with inset showing planning design/general arrangement indicating visibility

4 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Project: ERYC Highways Meeting 25-06-13 Issued

Document No. 10-2574-MOM-ERYC-0001

REF COMMENT OWNER & CLOSE ACTION splays and radii, topography, location of existing features e.g. hedges. Types of vehicles using accesses and swept paths.

Map of crossing points, (subject to Traffic Management Plan to be prepared post planning including Chapter 8 signs and manned accesses).

Location and size of temporary compounds, projected level of traffic, provision for car parking.

Details to be submitted and approved in writing. Description of works should be cross referenced to drawing numbers.

4.6 Above Ground Installations – Permanent Access Above ground installations including block valves at Tollingham, Dalton, and Skerne; and a pumping station at Barmston will require permanent site accesses to the public highway.

Level of information required for planning/ agreement in principle:

WP requested a set of plans showing location of accesses with inset showing planning design/general arrangement indicating visibility splays and radii, topography, location of existing features e.g. hedges. Types of vehicles using accesses and swept paths. Projected level of traffic using accesses. Plans of accesses (temporary and permanent) should be shown on Topographical Survey base.

Details of junction design specifications and materials would be submitted for approval post planning.

4.7 Identification of Public Highways GS requested confirmation of the designation and names of roads crossed by the proposed pipeline route. Some tracks crossed may be public highway.

GS to send WP a clear map of the route (pdf format) and list of road crossings requesting confirmation of which roads/tracks are public GS/WP highway and their designations.

5 ANY OTHER BUSINESS 5.1 Other contacts within ERYC:

Mark Beevers (Planning) for information on other developments likely to generate traffic in the area. Martin George – Ecology Malte Knocler – Conservation

5 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Project: ERYC Highways Meeting 25-06-13 Issued

Document No. 10-2574-MOM-ERYC-0001

REF COMMENT OWNER & CLOSE ACTION Steve Robinson – Landscape & Visual Gordon Grimley – Public Rights of Way

5 DATE OF NEXT MEETING 5.1 Further consultation will be carried out on the DCO submission and Draft ES. Meetings TBC.

6 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Project: ERYC Highways Meeting 25-06-13 Issued

Meeting Minutes

Meeting Title: East Riding EHO Meeting – Noise and Vibration Assessment

Project: Yorkshire and Humber CCS Cross Country Job No/Ref: 60301887 Pipeline

Location: County Hall Beverley Date held: 26 th June 2013

Duration: 1.5 hours Time: 10.30 am Start Invitees: Richard Gwilliam (RG) - National Grid Apologies: Debbie Preston (DP) – AECOM Helen Shewan (HS) – East Riding Charlotte Clinton (CC) -- AECOM Senior EHO Bridlington

Saboor Sheikh (SS) – East Riding Senior Environmental Control Officer Hilary Holloway (HH) – East Riding Senior EHO Goole No. Item Actions 1. Meeting Agenda Purpose of the Meeting i. Project Update since the Scoping Report Issue ii. Project Programme iii. Scoping Opinion iv. Scope of environmental assessment

Noise Monitoring i. Proposed noise monitoring locations – Barmston Pumping Station ii. Proposed monitoring durations iii. Timing of the monitoring iv. Noise monitoring proposals for Camblesforth Multi-junction (Selby)

Noise Policies i. The application of BS 4142 and the WHO Guidelines ii. Construction limits / proposed approach

Net Steps i. Environmental Statement ii. Statements of Common Ground

Page: 1 of 3 Doc. FA/02 Revised: June 2013

Meeting Minutes

such there is no longer a need for a compressor station as part of the scheme. The proposed Compressor and Multi-junction site as set out within the Scoping Report now just consists of a Multi-junction, to enable other emitters to connect into the pipeline in the future. RG explained that it is the intention to submit the Development Consent Order (DCO) in February 2014 and a draft Environmental Statement will be produced by September 2013. HH enquired as to how the scheme works. RG explained that three technologies are available which are: Post construction (retrofit) Pre combustion (coal heated in the absence of Oxygen) Oxy-fuel (coal burnt in pure Oxygen) RG explained that the White Rose Project is based on the Oxy-fuel technology 3. Noise Monitoring CC explained that as per the Scoping Report it is the intention to undertake noise monitoring for the Pumping Station at Barmston, however explained that noise monitoring is not proposed for the Block Valves as these installations would not produce a noise

source.

RG added that the maintenance of the Block Valves would be infrequent approximately once every six months. It was agreed by all that noise monitoring is not required at the block valve sites. Locations DP presented the proposed noise monitoring locations for the Pumping Station. All agreed that locations 2 and 3 Low Stone Hills and Rose Cottage respectively were appropriate and that location 1 would be moved to a location closer to Barmston, as Hamilton Hill Farm does not have residential dwellings. The proposed noise monitoring locations are shown on

the attached plan.

Timings

DP proposed that night time noise surveys will be undertaken with two sets of 30 minute surveys undertaken on a rotational basis between the three receptors between 12 midnight and 4am on a weekday. This is representative of the quietest time of day. All agreed that this was appropriate and that daytime and evening surveys were not required in addition. DP enquired as to whether the state of the tide had an impact on the background noise levels in the area. DP to speak with Helen Shewan to confirm. DP Post Meeting Note: DP spoke with HS on 3/07/13. Agreed that it is normally the waves crashing which causes the most noise. No policy on if noise surveys should be taken at high or low tide. Agreed to undertake noise monitoring at low wind speeds where possible (to minimise impact from waves) and make note of the tidal conditions. 4. Noise Policies Operation DP proposed the use of principles of BS 4142 (though it is expected that the background noise levels will be low and fall outside the scope of BS 4142). HH explained that this is appropriate in the absence of anything else but should be used indicatively only and should

seek to achieve that the A-weighted noise emissions at the nearest receptors do not exceed the existing background levels. HH expressed concern with regards to Low Frequency emissions as there is no standard for their control. HH enquired as to whether there are any proposed sources of low CC frequency noise generation. CC to confirm. HH explained that if the design included sources of Low Frequency noise emissions ERoYC would wish to see appropriate isolation and attenuation techniques included within the design. Construction DP proposed that the approach to assessing the impact of construction noise is to use noise levels of the main items construction plant and predict the potential construction

Page: 2 of 3 Doc. FA/02 Revised: June 2013

Meeting Minutes

noise using guidance in BS 5288 at set distances from the construction works instead of at every receptor along the pipeline route. HH and SS agreed that that this was a sensible approach. In relation to construction compounds, the impact would be assessed by comparing the change in traffic flow as a result of construction traffic. HH explained that the preference would be for good construction management rather than entering into a form of Section 61 agreement. HH explained that good construction management should also include: Notifying local residents of when activities would be taking place in their area Notification of any 24 hour construction operations Keeping the Parish Councils updated throughout HH noted that where generators would be required for a prolonged periods of time consideration should be given to the use of silent generator.

5. Next Steps Environmental Statement RG explained that impact assessments would be undertaken over the summer and a draft Environmental Statement produced for September 2013. RG explained that this would also include a draft Environmental Management Plan (EMP). HH noted that ERoYC would be happy to provide comment on the EMP in sub draft. Statements of Common Ground CC explained that it is the intention to produce statements of common ground with stakeholders which will set out the matters agreed on such as noise monitoring locations and methods. This will focus the efforts during the determination to those which are not agreed on. HH and SS welcomed this approach.

Page: 3 of 3 Doc. FA/02 Revised: June 2013

Meeting Agenda

Meeting Title: Landscape Environment Thematic Group Meeting No. 2

Project: Yorkshire and Humber CCS Cross Country Job No/Ref: 60301887 Pipeline Project

Location: AECOM Leeds Office Date held: 27 th June 2013

Duration: 3 hours Time: 10.30am – 13.30pm Invitees: Anna Firmin – National Grid Apologies: Mark Welsby – AECOM Richard Gwilliam - National Grid Luke Cooper - AECOM Louise Crook – AECOM Charlotte Clinton - AECOM Steve Robinson – ERoYC Ruth Benson – NYCC Joe O’Sullivan – SDC

No. Item

1. Agenda 1 Introductions (all)

2 Purpose of the Meeting (AECOM)

3 Project and Programme Update – Scheme Design Changes (AF) • Project Summary • Progress Since Last Meeting • Introduction to Scheme Changes since DECC Announcement • Project Programme

4 SoS Scoping Opinion (AECOM)

5 Barmston Pumping Station – Architectural Concepts / Design (AECOM)

6 Emerging Design for AGI Sites (AECOM/AF)

7 Suggested Viewpoint Locations for LVIA (AECOM)

8 Approach to Visualisation and Photomontage (AECOM)

9 AOB (all)

2. Purpose of the Meeting MW explained that the purpose of the meeting was to provide an update on the Yorkshire and Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline project progress and to seek initial feedback from the group on a number of issues relating to design changes, emerging design information, SoS scoping opinion and methodology for the LVIA including viewpoint locations, prior to a CABE design meeting on 5 th July and formal consultation in autumn 2013.

3. Project and Programme Update – Scheme Design Changes AF provided an overview of the project primarily to introduce the scheme to RB who has replaced Malcolm Barnett as Landscape Officer at NYCC. AF ran through the main changes to the scheme since the last meeting, as a result of DECC announcement in spring 2013: - Yorkshire and Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline is being taken forward in

Page: 1 of 6 Doc. FA/02 Revised: April 2009 P:\UKLDS2-IE\Projects\Environmental Services - CCS Don Valley EIA\Correspondence\Meetings\Stakeholder meetings\Landscape Officers\AECOM_CCS LandscapeThematic Group_Meeting 2_Meeting Minutes_270613AF.doc

Meeting Agenda

combination with the White Rose CCS Project (at Drax Power Station) rather than Don Valley Power Project (DVPP) at Hatfield; - The scheme no longer consists of a pipeline connection with Hatfield. - The scheme consists of a 68km pipeline from Camblesforth to Barmston with four different types of installation consisting of a PIG Trap adjacent to the White Rose Project, a Multi-junction to the south of Drax, three block valves at Tollingham, Dalton and Skerne and a Pumping Facility at Barmston. - The White Rose CCS Project includes a compressor facility as part of the proposals. As such there is no longer a need for a compressor station as part of the Cross Country Pipeline scheme. The proposed Compressor and Multi-junction site as set out within the Scoping Report now just consists of a Multi-junction, to enable other emitters to connect into the pipeline in the future. AF outlined progress on the project since the last meeting which has been slightly delayed due awaiting the DECC announcement in spring 2013. Progress is summarised as: - Consultation responses received at/following our last meeting were incorporated into Scoping Report which itself was published and issued to SoS (PINS) in February 2013 - Scoping Opinion received from PINS in March 2013 - Design for the scheme has been developed further since scoping, focussing on AGI sites including an architectural design concept for the proposed Pumping Facility at Barmston; - We are currently progressing with production of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) which will provide an indication of potential effects of the scheme prior to completion of the full EIA. This document will be issued for formal consultation in Autumn 2013 - Next public consultation will be held in Autumn 2013 with the intention that the DCO application will be made in quarter one 2014.

Questions / discussion

RB – Can additional connections be made to the pipeline further along the route? Has site been assessed as most appropriate location for a multi-junction. AF explained that this was possible, but that mult-ijunction location has been assessed taking into account known emitters in the Yorkshire and Humber region ( South Humber Bank, Aire Valley and DVPP, Hatfield) A siting study was undertaken for the multi-junction, separate from that produced for the Compressor Stations, to confirm the most suitable location.

4. SoS Scoping Opinion

MW noted that the response from PINS was broadly in support of the proposed LVIA approach agreed with consultees at our last meeting, but that they had questioned the proposal to limit the assessment to a ‘high level assessment’ of effects during the construction period due to the limited potential for significant effects.

MW explained the reasoning for this approach: - Pipeline route and AGI’s located to avoid significant landscape features e.g. areas of woodland and mature trees, wherever possible; - Scheme located outside urban areas and at some distance from centres of population and scattered rural receptors where possible; - Duration of effects will be limited in the majority of cases as the construction works will move along the route; - Scale of construction works is relatively small scale, and similar to agricultural activity within the landscape; - Reinstatement and enhancement proposals will be included as an integral part of

Page: 2 of 6 Doc. FA/02 Revised: April 2009 P:\UKLDS2-IE\Projects\Environmental Services - CCS Don Valley EIA\Correspondence\Meetings\Stakeholder meetings\Landscape Officers\AECOM_CCS LandscapeThematic Group_Meeting 2_Meeting Minutes_270613AF.doc

Meeting Agenda

the scheme. From experience, agricultural land can be reinstated within a season of works being completed.

SR, RB and JO had no issue with the proposed approach and welcomed the focus on potentially significant effects.

SR and JO noted that local population are used to schemes of this type within the study area (pipelines and long distance cables) so understand what to expect.

Questions / discussion

RB questioned the approach to cumulative effects with respect to wind farms / turbines.

MW clarified that there are a number of windfarm developments in the vicinity but due to the difference in scale they are not proposed to be included within the cumulative assessment. The largest above ground feature of the proposals will be at the pumping station at Barmston at 9m in height. Potential for cumulative effects associated with wind farm infrastructure would be assessed where/if appropriate.

5. Barmston Pumpi ng Facility – Architectural Concepts / Design

Luke Cooper presented the architectural concept for the pumping facility site, noting that it is has been produced in response to public consultation, which showed a preference towards the ‘landscape’ option, and a client brief which requires architectural innovation to reflect the nature, status and national importance of the CCS project. MW provided a brief introduction to the initial landscape response to the design and the wider landscape.

In summary, the following comments were made as an initial response to the proposals, though it is noted that consultees did so without full design details or intention of compromising future consultation opportunities for more detailed comments once design is progressed:

SR – innovative approach to design is welcomed in this location, for a scheme of this type, and supports principles behind concept at this stage. ERYC are considering using the scheme as an example of innovative infrastructure design.

SR – The age and structure of the area of existing woodland needs to be considered as part of ongoing (long term) commitments to the management and enhancement of the woodland.

SR – Beech, Sycamore, Oak, Ash, Scots Pine and Blackthorn are typical of the locality.

RB – Questioned use of Gabions as feels they may be too industrial. Acknowledged that the gabions were unlikely to be visible from outwith the site so were less of an issue.

RB – Suggested consideration of different grass mixes on different facets of the faceted landscape could be considered to add visual interest.

RB – Lighting is a key visual issue. Requested this is taken into account as part of architectural design process, particularly in limiting visibility of the site in longer distance views.

RB – Questioned whether there are any particular views from the seaward side towards the site e.g. ferry routes, and again whether lighting of the site may conflict with navigation.

RB – suggested a case study of similar proposal in Dusseldorf, Gemany.

Page: 3 of 6 Doc. FA/02 Revised: April 2009 P:\UKLDS2-IE\Projects\Environmental Services - CCS Don Valley EIA\Correspondence\Meetings\Stakeholder meetings\Landscape Officers\AECOM_CCS LandscapeThematic Group_Meeting 2_Meeting Minutes_270613AF.doc

Meeting Agenda

Questions / Discussion

RB asked why the scheme could not be dug down, rather than mounding up?

LC confirmed that this had been considered but was not possible due to requirement to allow airflow to prevent CO2 cooling /minimise H&S risk .

6. Emerging Design for AGI Sites AF provided an introduction to each AGI site and the rationale behind the outline landscape propsoals at each site. The following comments were noted and will be incorporated at each site where possible:

Drax - Potential to include evergreen tree species (e.g. Larch / Pine) within the mix as there are plantations nearby. - Approach to enhancement encouraged, though acknowledged that the setting of the site is primarily industrial (Drax) with limited scope for adverse impact as a result. - Species proposed are appropriate.

Camblesforth - Species proposed are appropriate. - SR noted that habitat for grey partridge identified as important in neighbouring authority.

Tollingham - Agreed standard trees in hedgerows appropriate to provide some instant impact . - Species proposed are appropriate.

Dalton - Species proposed are appropriate. - Standard trees have not been proposed in hedgerows because they are not characteristic of the surrounding area – agreed.. - Hedgerows have been proposed on either side of footpath adjacent to the site. The need for these will be discussed with ERYC Public Rights of Way Officer.

Skerne - Species proposed are appropriate.

The alternatives for Ash within planting mixes were discussed e.g. field maple. Sycamore proposed would be appropriate as part of a wider mix.

7. Suggested Viewpoint Locations for LVIA MW and AF presented potential viewpoint locations for each of the AGI sites. The following comments were received, and will influence final decision making at each site prior to formal consultation: Drax - Viewpoint location on PROW to reflect proposed realignment due to White Rose Project.

Page: 4 of 6 Doc. FA/02 Revised: April 2009 P:\UKLDS2-IE\Projects\Environmental Services - CCS Don Valley EIA\Correspondence\Meetings\Stakeholder meetings\Landscape Officers\AECOM_CCS LandscapeThematic Group_Meeting 2_Meeting Minutes_270613AF.doc

Meeting Agenda

Camblesforth - No additional viewpoints requested. It was acknowledged that with a scheme of the scale proposed (3m high) it was unlikely that the site would be widely visible and viewpoints may be reduced in number following additional site work.

Tollingham - Viewpoints suggested appear appropriate. No additional viewpoints requested.

Dalton - Most sensitive of the AGI sites. - Additional views to be considered relating to road junctions to the south where turning vehicles may get glimpsed views across the local landscape (characteristic feature). Additional VPs to be investigated on site.

Skerne - An additional viewpoint should be investigated from public rights of way to the north as this is a popular route for walkers from Driffield and Wansford, linking to the canal tow path. - Viewpoint from minor road near Green Acre Lodge to be investigated.

Barmston - It was agreed that although the view from the wolds landscape to the north is at a long distance from the site, it would be sensible to include a viewpoint to provide lack of visibility / significance for the sake of completeness. - Likewise, a view from Barmston should also be included though it was acknowledged that intervisibility is likely to be limited by Hamilton hill and the existing woodland.

RB left the meeting at this point.

8. Photomontage

MW explained that a 3D model was being produced to illustrate the pumping facility at Barmston for the benefit of the public consultation. It is proposed to reference these images in the LVIA rather than producing specific photomontage, as it is not considered necessary to underpin the LVIA.

MW explained that photomontage was not a requirement of LVIA and he did not feel it was necessary to understand the effects of the scheme.

JO - agreed that photomontage of the AGI sites was unnecessary for sites in Selby DC of such simplicity and small scale. It was advised that photomontage can sometimes create an issue where there isn’t one so could be unhelpful.

SR - he was happy to be guided by AECOM on this issue, and that from his point of view the approach suggested seemed reasonable.

It was suggested that staged visual representations (e.g. year 0, year 15) would be required for public consultation.

9. AOB No AOB raised.

Page: 5 of 6 Doc. FA/02 Revised: April 2009 P:\UKLDS2-IE\Projects\Environmental Services - CCS Don Valley EIA\Correspondence\Meetings\Stakeholder meetings\Landscape Officers\AECOM_CCS LandscapeThematic Group_Meeting 2_Meeting Minutes_270613AF.doc

Meeting Agenda

Next steps

Next consultation is expected to take place once the PEIR has been drafted to outline predicted effects.

Page: 6 of 6 Doc. FA/02 Revised: April 2009 P:\UKLDS2-IE\Projects\Environmental Services - CCS Don Valley EIA\Correspondence\Meetings\Stakeholder meetings\Landscape Officers\AECOM_CCS LandscapeThematic Group_Meeting 2_Meeting Minutes_270613AF.doc

Meeting Minutes

Meeting Title: Natural England Consultation Meeting

Project: Yorkshire and Humber CCS Cross Country Job No/Ref: 60301887 Pipeline

Location: AECOM Leeds Office Date held: 30 th July 2013

Time: 10:30 Invitees: Richard Gwilliam- National Grid Apologies: Anna Firmin – National Grid Nigel Pilkington – AECOM National Grid Construction Charlotte Clinton- AECOM Clare McIlwraith – AECOM

James Walsh – Natural England Kathryn Murray – Natural England (pre-meeting telecom)

No. Item Action 1. Agenda Points to discuss/aims of meeting 1. Project and programme update Introduction to and approach to dealing with drainage limits of deviation

2. Expectations of the Statement of Common Ground Scoping Opinion SSSI Consent Protected Species Licences Approach to HRA

3. Other Topics Architectural concept for the Pumping Station Indicative landscape proposals for the other AGIs

2. Project and programme update RG gave an overview of the project explaining that project consists of a 68km cross country pipeline from a proposed Multi-junction near Camblesforth to the Coast to the north of Barmston and a connecting pipeline to the White Rose CCS

project at Drax. RG explained that the pipe would be 24 inch in diameter which will

be buried with a minimum depth of cover of 1.2m.

In addition to the pipeline there are four different types of installation, a PIG (Pipeline Internal Gauge) Trap adjacent to the White Rose Project, a Multi-junction to the south of Drax, three block valves at Tollingham, Dalton and Skerne and a Pumping Station at Barmston. RG ran through the main changes to the scheme since the submission of the Scoping Report in February 2012 as a result of DECC announcement in spring 2013:

Page: 1 of 5 Doc. FA/02 Revised: April 2009 \\Uklds2fp001\uklds2fp001-v1ie\Projects\Environmental Services - CCS Don Valley EIA\Correspondence\Meetings\Stakeholder meetings\NE\AECOM_CCS Natural England_Meeting 300713_MinutesFINAL.doc

Meeting Minutes

The scheme no longer consists of a pipeline connection to the Don Valley Power Project. . The White Rose Project includes a compressor facility as part of the proposals. As such there is no longer a need for a compressor station as part of the scheme. The proposed Compressor and Multi-junction site as set out within the Scoping Report now just consists of a Multi-junction, to enable other emitters to connect into the pipeline in the future. RG explained that it is the intention to submit the Development Consent Order (DCO) in February 2014 and a draft Environmental Statement will be produced by September 2013. Limits of Deviation RG explained that in relation to the pipeline the Environmental Statement will be based on a 100m wide corridor (Limits of Deviation). RG also noted that a separate drainage LoD has been produced and presented a plan. RG explained that these had been developed as a detailed drainage survey was yet to be completed and thus the precise location of the off easement drainage was currently unknown. RG explained that a drainage survey had been commissioned the results of which should help to narrow down this area.

3 Expectation of the Statement of Common Ground RG gave an introduction to the Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) and explained that it is the project intention to, as far as possible, have them agreed and submitted prior to the DCO being submitted.

SSSI Consent

RG noted that the pipeline crosses the River Hull and Kelk Beck which are

designated as part of the River Hull Headwaters SSSI. AF explained that it is intended to include SSSI consent for these crossings within the DCO provisions. Natural England will be consulted on the intended approach and the drafting of requirements are to be included as part of the DCO. Therefore the DCO gives the consent subject to final details being provided to NE prior to construction. JW confirmed that this approach was acceptable.

Scoping Opinion (Phase 2 Habitat Survey) CM noted the written response to the scoping opinion had been provided and

explained that as the majority of the scheme is comprised of common and

widespread habitats, mainly arable and species poor grassland therefore the completion of NVC survey equivalent to Phase 2 are not warranted for the scheme. JW explained that the scoping response provided was a generic guidance on scoping which is relevant to all scales of project. Therefore agreed that an Extended Phase 1 habitat survey was appropriate to classify the habitat for this scale of scheme where no untypical or potentially important habitats had been JW highlighted.

JW to response to letter dated 27 th June 2013 to confirm this.

Protected Species Desk Study CM explained that desk study data and records had been obtained in 2012 and 2013 and was not intending to update this data prior to the DCO submission.

Page: 2 of 5 Doc. FA/02 Revised: April 2009 \\Uklds2fp001\uklds2fp001-v1ie\Projects\Environmental Services - CCS Don Valley EIA\Correspondence\Meetings\Stakeholder meetings\NE\AECOM_CCS Natural England_Meeting 300713_MinutesFINAL.doc

Meeting Minutes

JW agreed that this would be acceptable as there have been no major land use changes along the scheme.

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Surveys

CM explained that the Extended Phase 1 habitat survey had been completed across 2012 and 2013 in the main in optimal periods of the year for identification of vegetative interest. Nevertheless some minor areas had been surveyed at sub optimal times of the year, however in those areas revisits had been undertaken to reaffirm the data. JW agreed he was happy with this approach.

Invasive Species

CM explained that a full invasive plant species survey had not been undertaken, however incidental records made during the completion of other ecology surveys have been identified and mapped. . CM explained that invasive plant species would be indentified through pre construction surveys and dealt with through good construction management. JW confirmed he was happy with this approach.

GCN

CM explained that Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessments of ponds have been undertaken all year round as they are not seasonally constrained. JW agreed. CM explained that presence/likely absence surveys have been undertaken within 500m radius of the permanent installations and 250m of the temporary works. CM noted that the surveys have been undertaken in 2012 and 2013 but noted that GCN survey data is valid for three years. JW agreed the validity of the data.

CM explained that out of approximately 225 ponds subject to presence/likely absence GCN surveys, it has not been possible to access two ponds therefore over 99% survey coverage has been achieved. CM explained that the ponds that have not been accessed are both within areas where GCN populations have been confirmed in neighbouring ponds (within 250m). CM noted that she had spoken with Kathryn Murray (who is in the licensing team) who had advised that if mitigation was being proposed in these areas which would satisfy a medium meta population the assumption of presence within these ponds would be sufficient to

satisfy the draft licence.

CM explained that details of access refusal would be included as part of the draft licence application. JW to confirm.

Bats CM explained that surveys would be complete by the end of August and are only being undertaken on trees as no buildings/bridges will be removed/upgraded as part of the scheme. CM explained that surveys had been undertaken within two

survey season; July/August/September 2012 and July and August 2013. JW agreed that that this was an appropriate approach. CM explained that low risk trees have not been surveyed and that these would be addressed through precautionary measures such as soft felling. JW also agreed this was acceptable providing there is confidence that this mitigation can be put in place. JW enquired as to how many trees need assessing for roost potential. CM explained that there are about 25 trees across the scheme; however, work would

Page: 3 of 5 Doc. FA/02 Revised: April 2009 \\Uklds2fp001\uklds2fp001-v1ie\Projects\Environmental Services - CCS Don Valley EIA\Correspondence\Meetings\Stakeholder meetings\NE\AECOM_CCS Natural England_Meeting 300713_MinutesFINAL.doc

Meeting Minutes

be undertaken with the construction team to avoid the removal of these as far as possible.

Water Vole and Otter

CM explained that these surveys would be completed within the next 2-3 weeks, noting that approximately 50% of the sites that have been surveyed have water vole. CM explained that the survey data has been obtained over two years due to the scale and noted that this is valid. JW agreed. Requirement for water vole licences raised by AF – CM outlined that the proposed approach for addressing the predicted effects of open cut crossing of ditches

where water vole are present would be to agree a Method Statement whereby

measures would be implemented to deter water vole from using the section to be affected by works including pre construction surveys, habitat manipulation in advance of works, re-survey and temporary fencing off of crossing sections as required. JW confirmed that Natural England derogation licenses for water vole cannot be issued for development reasons – only for conservation purposes. Otter are present on watercourse along the route but no direct effects requiring a licence have been identified.

Badger CM explained that badger setts had been identified as part of the Phase 1 survey followed by more targeted surveys in those areas. CM explained that in several locations the pipeline alignment has been altered to ensure setts are avoided. CM enquired as to whether a disturbance licence is required where a sett is not lost. JW noted that where setts are not lost NE doesn’t generally no longer tend to issue licences for disturbance only purposes.

Where there would be a direct effect on an active badger sett a draft licence application would need to be submitted pre-DCO.

Birds CM explained that wintering bird surveys have been undertaken over one season only, CM explained that whilst the scheme was a relative distance from the SPAs, a number of the interest features had been recorded and that the use of supporting habitat would be considered within the Ecological Impact Assessment

(EcIA) and HRA screening assessment.

Reptiles CM explained that reptile surveys were only being undertaken in targeted areas, such as adjacent to the Hudson Way. JW explained that NE don’t generally comment on domestic species and would refer the matter generally to the Local Authorities. CM noted that she would agree the targeted areas with the Local Authority. CM All agreed that these do not need to be agreed with NE.

Other Species JW enquired as to whether crayfish surveys were being undertaken at the River Hull. CM explained that there are only historical records now in Yorkshire – the study area is not known to support any populations. Also that non open cut technique would be used to cross the River therefore there would be no direct impacts. Licences

Page: 4 of 5 Doc. FA/02 Revised: April 2009 \\Uklds2fp001\uklds2fp001-v1ie\Projects\Environmental Services - CCS Don Valley EIA\Correspondence\Meetings\Stakeholder meetings\NE\AECOM_CCS Natural England_Meeting 300713_MinutesFINAL.doc

Meeting Minutes

CM explained that draft licences would be produced and it is expected the GCN draft licence would be available in October 2013. CM explained that it is the intention to include confirmation of the draft licences within the Statement of

Common Ground.

CC enquired that if draft licences continue to be agreed post the DCO submission date could the Statement of Common Ground be updated as and when confirmation of the licence is obtained. JW agreed that this approach could be adopted. CM noted that Kathryn Murray had explained all correspondence with regards to licensing would be copied to PINS therefore should draft licences not be in place at the time of making the DCO PINS would have a level of confidence that these

were being progressed by the applicant.

CM enquired as to whether draft licences / letters of comfort would be confirmed by licence or species e.g. in the event of a number of licences being required. JW explained that Kathryn Murray would need to advise. CM to contact KM Habitat Regulations Assessment CC explained that HRA screening was being undertaken. CC noted that the proposed approach is a two staged, screening out those sites and interest features where there is no mechanism for effect and then where required screening the remaining interest features with the application of avoidance or

reduction measures.

CC to liaise with JW on the approach JW agreed to provide feedback. CC JW Other Topics AF explained planting proposals for each of the Above Ground Installations and showed some indicative visualisations of the architectural design of the Pumping Station.

AOB RG enquired as to whether JW would be the signatory on the Statement of Common Ground. JW to confirm. JW

Page: 5 of 5 Doc. FA/02 Revised: April 2009 \\Uklds2fp001\uklds2fp001-v1ie\Projects\Environmental Services - CCS Don Valley EIA\Correspondence\Meetings\Stakeholder meetings\NE\AECOM_CCS Natural England_Meeting 300713_MinutesFINAL.doc

Meeting Minutes

Meeting Title: Environment Agency Meeting –

Project: Yorkshire and Humber CCS Cross Country Job No/Ref: 60301887 Pipeline

Location: AECOM Leeds Date held: 4th July 2013

Duration: 2 hours Time: 10 am Start Invitees: (RG) Richard Gwilliam- National Grid Apologies: (PL) Paul Lee – National Grid (GS) Gary Smith – National Grid (AF) Anna Firmin – National Grid (LW) Liz Wells - WYG (LC) Louise Crook- AECOM PM (OT) Owen Tucker - AECOM Water Env Lead (MS) Matt Stokes – AECOM Flood Risk (DR) David Rosenberg – AECOM Geo (CC) Charlotte Clinton – AECOM

(SK) Sam Kipling – EA, Planning Liaison (RGl) Rachel Glossop – EA Flood Risk (RM) Roger Martin -- EA Biodiversity (JB) John Barber – EA Groundwater No. Item Actions 1. Meeting Agenda Purpose of the Meeting i. Project Update since the Scoping Report Issue ii. Project Programme iii. Scoping Opinion iv. Scope of environmental assessment

Project Overview i. Project Update ii. Key changes iii. Programme iv. Brief overview of the application boundary, Limits of Deviation, Drainage Limits of Deviation. v. Vertical Limits of Deviation

Scoping Opinion i. Pipeline Integrity ii. Flood Risk – Flood Risk Assessments iii. Drainage iv. Groundwater – Routeing in relation to SPZs v. Waste vi. Construction techniques – Crossings (non open cut / open cut), dewatering vii. Landfall – Proposed crossing technique (non open cut) viii. River Hull – Update on GI and ecological surveys

Next Steps i. Environmental Statement

Page: 1 of 6 Doc. FA/02 Revised: June 2013

Meeting Minutes

ii. Statements of Common Ground iii. Letter of Comfort Opportunities for Environmental Improvements

2. Purpose of the Meeting RG gave an overview of the project explaining that project consists of a 68km cross country pipeline from a proposed Multi-junction near Camblesforth to the Coast to the north of Barmston and a connecting pipeline to the White Rose CCS project at Drax. RG explained that the pipe would be 24 inch in diameter which will be buried with a minimum depth of cover of 1.2m. RG explained that in addition to the pipeline there are four different types of installation, a PIG (pipeline internal gauge) Trap adjacent to the White Rose Project, a Multi-junction to the south of Drax, three block valves at Tollingham, Dalton and Skerne and a Pumping Station at Barmston. RG explained the main changes to the scheme since the submission of the Scoping Report in February 2012 as a result of DECC announcement in spring 2013: CCS pipeline is being taken forward in combination with the White Rose Project (at Drax Power Station) rather than Don Valley Power Station at Hatfield; The scheme no longer consists of a pipeline connection with Dom Valley Power Project; and . The White Rose Project includes a compressor facility as part of the proposals. As such there is no longer a need for a compressor station as part of the scheme. The proposed Compressor and Multi-junction site as set out within the Scoping Report now just consists of a Multi-junction, to enable other emitters to connect into the pipeline in the future. RG explained that it is the intention to submit the Development Consent Order (DCO) in February 2014 and a draft Environmental Statement will be produced by September 2013. At the time of the meeting RG explained that the projects position within regards to the Don Valley Power Project was still being evaluated and that a clarification on the position was expected within the next two week. Subsequent confirmation that RG has written to PINS to outline that the scheme no longer includes a connection to Don Valley Power Project.

3. Project Overview Horizontal Limits of Deviation RG explained that in relation to the pipeline the Environmental Statement will be based on a 100m wide corridor (Limits of Deviation). RG also noted that a separate drainage LoD has been produced and presented a plan. PL explained that these had been developed as

a detailed drainage survey was yet to be completed and thus the precise location of the off easement drainage was currently unknown. PL explained that a drainage survey was being commissioned that it is anticipated that 20-30 off easement drainage spines would be required. RG explained that for the purposes of consultation the wide drainage LoD would need to be shown but that this will be narrowed down for the submission of the application

following receipt of the drainage survey.

JB enquired as to whether this is an approach to other gas projects. RG explained that unlike National Grid Gas who are a statutory undertaker, National Grid Carbon do not hold permitted development rights to install drainage outside of the application boundary. RGl enquired as to whether it was just temporary drainage. PL explained that it would be both construction and post construction (reinstatement) drainage. RGl enquired as to how deep the pipe would be buried. PL explained that the pipe would be buried with minimum 1.2m cover.

SK enquired as to whether the DCO could legally distinguish between the two limits. RG explained that different limits could be shown within the overall order limits, however they do create a public perception risk.

Page: 2 of 6 Doc. FA/02 Revised: June 2013

Meeting Minutes

RGl noted that she welcomed the approach and that the IDBs are also likely to welcome the approach. RM enquired as to how many of the drains would be permanent. PL explained that they all would but that the project would not be seeking a permanent easement for the off DP/CC easement drainage. SK enquired as to whether the project could form a partnership with the IDBs and install using their permitted development rights. RG explained that options had been explored.

Vertical Limits of Deviation RG explained that within the order the project would not be seeking a cap to the vertical limits of deviation regarding the depth of the pipeline, however noted that the working width is 36m as such that limits the depth.

4. Groundwater JB asked whether the pipe would be sub water table other than at the watercourse crossing locations. GS explained that 272 boreholes were undertaken last year and a further 50 this year. GS noted that pezos are being dipped every month and that the groundwater levels have been

plotted. GS presented the plans of the results and explained that it was representative of more than one season and will inform where dewatering is required which will be approximately 1/3 of the route. SK enquired as to whether the route avoids SPZ1. PL explained that the route will be going through a small area of Zone 2 to avoid side slope issues. SK enquired as to whether the route could be routed to avoid the SPZ2. PL explained the pipeline had been routed following feedback in relation to the routes through the Dalton

Estate and to avoid issues with side slopes.

SK enquired as to whether there was any SI information available for the section within SPZ2. GS noted that a pezo had gone in this year. Pl also noted the accuracy of the mapping due to the scale that it was shown at and would look to see if it could avoid the edge of the SPZ2. JB noted that it would be useful to know if where the pipeline is within any SPZ whether this would be sub water table. RG enquired that if this was the case would there be any resistance from the EA. JB explained that in the first instance SPZs should be avoided but where this has not been possible due to other routeing considerations that appropriate construction management should be put in place and during the operation consider the affect any leaks could have on the groundwater. PL explained that the pipe would be fully welded throughout and therefore the risk of a leak would be nonexistent. JB noted that the Multi-junction is within SPZ3, GS explained the majority of the pipework

within the site would be above ground.

RG explained that a research team had been commissioned to undertake a study into the effects of a leak. JB enquired as to whether there were any trace compounds within the carbon dioxide and how that would be considered within the EIA. PL explained that the quality is due to the type of compression and noted that Drax are proposing to use Oxyfuel which is the cleanest type process. RG explained that the project could look to provide information on the compounds which would be added to the carbon dioxide

JB explained that it would be useful to have this information and for the information to be

set out within the EIA.

JB enquired as to whether the carbon dioxide would dissolve into groundwater

Page: 3 of 6 Doc. FA/02 Revised: June 2013

Meeting Minutes

RG explained that a statement of safety case would be included within application. SK noted that ensuring that appropriate leak detection is included, if the assessment concludes a negligible effect the need for additional measures is removed. PL explained that the pipeline would not have a leak detection system, but explained that at each of the block valves would have a pressure monitoring system which would pick up a leak. PL noted that carbon dioxide would take the path of least resistance, likely to diffuse straight up. JB noted the greatest concern was carbon dioxide dissolving in water which already has a lower pH.

5. River Hull SK enquired as to whether Natural England have raised any concerns with regards to the River Hull Headwaters SSSI in relation to leaks. The project is in consultation with NE (James Walsh and Chris McGregor). RM explained the EA have a duty in collaboration with NE to implement schemes for the River Hull SSSI to bring it back into favourable condition and would welcome any

opportunity for contribution. RM explained that the plan for the River Hull was written two years ago and that it is now within its implementation stage. RG enquired as to whether it would be possible to obtain a copy of the restoration plan RM RM will provide GS noted that due to high water table there is likely to be a requirement for a significant amount of dewatering around the River Hull and noted that as discussed it would not be appropriate to discharge this to the River Hull. RGl explained that some could potentially be discharged to the Hull at the correct time and in the correct quantities. SK enquired as to whether there was any appreciation of volumes. PL explained that they would need to tunnel for a couple of months and it is likely that dewatering would be constant through this period. GS noted that the application boundary includes sufficient space for temporary lagoons. RGl explained that the integrated management study for the River Hull would be available next year but noted that this would not be in time for the EIA. RGl explained that there was a board meeting coming up and she would raise the issue to see if there is potential to work with the project. SK enquired as to whether the water could be discharged to the Cannel as levels can be managed.

6. Pipeline Integrity SK enquired as to whether the pipe would be lined PL noted that internal discussions were being undertaken and that lining is not proposed however internal coating may be applied but explained that the project is a couple of months away from the answer. External coating and cathodic protection would be applied.

SK enquired as to how far the project are away from the answer on pipeline integrity. RG

explained that this is required for consultation which is due to take place in September and that a update would be provided to the EA prior to consultation. RG 7. Flood Risk SK explained that the EA would wish to see a separate FRA which covered both the construction and operational phase and that all sites were included within one FRA instead of separate ones for each site. SK noted that the level of protection proposed was 1 in

1000 years plus climate change and explained that whilst the EA do not hold flood levels for this scenario, they would support it. RG explained that the project would seek to take as little land as possible. SK noted that

Page: 4 of 6 Doc. FA/02 Revised: June 2013

Meeting Minutes

the EA would prefer as little land to be raised as possible by just raising the critical infrastructure.

RGl suggested that a joint meeting with the IDBs to discuss flood risk may be beneficial, CC CC to contact RGl to arrange. SK enquired as to whether it had been determined to be critical infrastructure as this would make a difference to the exemption test. RG explained that a letter to PINs had been drafted but where waiting for confirmation of the scheme regarding the involvement of Don Valley and what infrastructure is required.

8. Landfall RGl explained that she was pleased to see that coastal erosion had been taken into account in the siting of the Pumping Station within the preferred site, RGl went on to explain that 10m had recently been lost in one night on the coast.

RGl explained that coastal erosion had accelerated in the past two years and that this was

thought to be due to high groundwater levels and explained that it was good to see the site of the Pumping Station is now beyond the 100 year Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) policy line. SK noted that the thing to bear in mind is that if the interest was to be exposed the project could not protect it as the SMP policy for the coastline is no active intervention. RGl enquired as to the crossing technique and depth for the landfall. PL explained that a study has been undertaken and that tunnel or HDD would be used and RG explained that the final technique would be determined post determination. PL

explained that this would be set back some 200m from the cliffs.

RGl noted that ERYC are the coastal authority (contact: Neil McClaughan Coastal Engineer.) and explained that the EA would wish East Riding to be involved with PL discussions on erosion and depth of pipe. RG is to arrange a meeting with East Riding to discuss the landfall.

9. Waste CC explained that the scheme will not produce significant amounts of waste and for that reason waste has been scoped out and that this has been confirmed in the scoping opinion. CC noted that a Site Waste Management Plan would be implemented during

construction.

SK enquired as to whether it would be possible to have figures which support this position.

AF noted that the waste would be mainly general waste and GS explained that bog mats generally have a three project lifespan. AF / CC to produce a note on why the position in relation to waste is legitimate. AF/ CC

10. Rivers PL explained that all main rivers would be crossed by a trenchless technique but the actual technique could not be committed to prior to the submission of the DCO. GS presented a crossing schedule RG explained that the EIA would make the assessment on the worst available technique. SK noted that open cut is a preferred technique for smaller watercourses as it is balance between time required for a non open cut technique and impact.

AF provided information on the consents required.

SK noted that a separate consent would still be required in addition to the DCO

AF explained that a letter of comfort was required for the DCO to give assurance that the

secondary consents could be acquired.

RGl explained that any additional water which is required to discharge into watercourses would need to be considered within the FRA. RGl also noted that the River Hull was at capacity and that the EA would not wish to see

Page: 5 of 6 Doc. FA/02 Revised: June 2013

Meeting Minutes

any additional water from dewatering activities being discharges into this watercourse. RGl noted that the River Hull was currently subject to a large catchment study.

AF enquired as to whether it would be possible to obtain a blanket abstraction licence for

excavation dewatering that would cover the project.

SK noted that this question would be taken back to JB to confirm.

RG explained that a draft schedule would be produced and sent to the EA as to how the project would seek to achieve licences and would seek to feed this into a statement of AF common ground. AF explained that abstractions would be required for hydrostatic testing and that this is likely to be from the Ouse in the south but an appropriate source had not been located as to yet in the north. Discussion was had on using Nafferton Inland Drain, sea water and

groundwater.

11. Foul water PL explained that welfare facilities would be located at the Pumping Station only. SK explained that details would need to be provided.

12. Biodiversity PL explained that a study had been undertaken on another pipeline as to the effects on fish from drilling or tunnelling beneath a River and this concluded that this effect was negligible. AECOM SK explained that it would be good to clarify this issue within the EIA. SK also noted that fish should also be a consideration in relation to the discharge of water.

13. Next Steps RG explained that the project is seeking to establish statements of common ground with stakeholders and that a draft would be produced and circulated for comment. A draft ES would be produced for September and the DCO submission to be in quarter one 2014.

14. Environmental Enhancement RM explained that a programme has been developed and is being implemented to improve the quality of watercourses under the WFD . RM noted that the ultimate goal is 2027 RM explained that the EA hold a lot of data as to why the watercourses are failing and that 11 out of 22 are failing on sediment loads so noted that the project should seek to minimise

the amount of sediment that is discharged into watercourses.

RM explained that most of the projects are small scale and one is the Agriculture Best Practice Project which is working with farmers to minimise diffuse water pollution and sedimentation from small schemes such as installing stock proof fencing along watercourses. RM to send details to RG and noted that work in kind maybe an opportunity. OT enquired as to whether the information on why the watercourses were failing is available.

RM to provide additional information. RM

Page: 6 of 6 Doc. FA/02 Revised: June 2013

Yorkshire & Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline Project

Notes of Meeting held with Internal Drainage Boards on

28th October 2013 11.00am – York Consortium Offices, Crockey Hill, York YO19 4SR

Attendees: Name Organisation Role Bill Symons York Consortium Drainage Boards Clerk (Beverley & North Holderness IDB) Jon Church Beverley & North Holderness IDB Engineer Paul Jones Shire Group of IDBs (Selby IDB) Water Level Management Engineer

Gary Smith GS National Grid Project Engineer (Construction) Brian McPhee BMc National Grid Project Supervisor (Construction) Anna Firmin AF National Grid Project Environmental Advisor Rob Govier RG National Grid Land & Consents Charlotte Clinton CC AECOM EIA Consultant Matt Stokes MS AECOM EIA Consultant (Water & Flood Risk)

Apologies: Andrew Morritt AM Ouse & Humber Drainage Board Chief Executive (Lower Ouse IDB & Market Weighton IDB)

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION 1.0 PURPOSE OF MEETING 1.1 Purpose of meeting: - to provide an update on the Yorkshire & Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline Project; - to obtain feedback from IDBs on the Preferred Scheme as part of the Public Consultation process; - to confirm drains under IDB control, IDB rights of access and IDB bye-laws; - to discuss IDB consents required for the development and potential provisions available through the Development Consent Order (DCO) process with a view to reaching agreement on the approach to be taken to obtain consents; and - to discuss the Environmental Statement – assessment and findings .

2.0 PROJECT UPDATE 2.1 AF explained that following consultation in 2011, National Grid Info announced a preferred route corridor for the potential onshore pipeline required for the transportation of carbon dioxide captured from the Don Valley Power Station at Stainforth. Then in 2012 National Grid 1 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Project: IDB Meeting 28-10-13 FINAL

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION consulted on the potential sites for above ground installations (AGIs) required to operate the pipeline. These included a compressor station; three block valves required at 15-23km intervals along the pipeline; and a pumping station near the coast (which may be required if other emitters connect to the pipeline). From there the carbon dioxide will be transported via pipeline off-shore for permanent geological storage.

In addition a route corridor for a pipeline connection from a proposed Oxyfuel Power Station (White Rose Project) at Drax was also consulted on during 2012.

2.2 The Project is reliant on co-funding from either Europe or the UK government. To date the Project has benefited from European funding linked to the Don Valley Power Project (DVPP).

In summer 2012 both DVPP and White Rose Project submitted individual applications, each in conjunction with National Grid, for funding under the UK Government’s CCS Commercialisation Programme. In March 2013 the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) announced its preferred bidders which included the White Rose CCS Project but did not include DVPP.

As a consequence the timescales for the development of the DVPP have been delayed and the DCO application for the proposed Yorkshire and Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline will not include the section of pipeline between Stainforth and Camblesforth. It also means that a compressor station is no longer required, however a multi-junction facility is proposed at the same site to allow connection of pipelines from other emitters (including DVPP) in the future.

2.3 National Grid have now identified a pipeline alignment and locations for Info all the above ground installations. The YHCCS Cross Country Pipeline Project includes approximately 5.6km of 300mm dia pipeline from an AGI north of Drax Power Station to Camblesforth multi-junction south of Drax village and approximately 68km of 600mm dia pipeline from Camblesforth to a Pumping facility at the coast just north of Barmston. This passes through a number of IDB areas.

2.4 National Grid has notified the Planning Inspectorate of the intension to submit a DCO application for the project and is currently undertaking formal public consultation on the proposed pipeline alignment and preferred scheme.

The IDBs have been sent a package of documents as part of the formal IDBs consultation. The public and consultee bodies are requested to provide response 1/11/13

2 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Project: IDB Meeting 28-10-13 FINAL

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION feedback by 1st November.

2.5 It is anticipated that subject to funding a submission would be made for Info a Development Consent Order in early 2014 with construction anticipated to commence in 2016 (main construction 2017-18).

3 CONFIRMATION OF WATERCOURSES UNDER IDB CONTROL 3.1 Within each IDB District there are some watercourses that are Info maintained by the relevant IDB these are shown on the relevant IDBs website. The IDB needs to retain access to those watercourses for maintenance.

Drains are maintained by IDBs but culverts/bridges are the responsibility of the landowner.

In areas outside the IDB Districts, watercourses are the responsibility of the Lead Local Flood Authority, in this case East Riding of Yorkshire Council.

3.2 Beverley & North Holderness IDB and Selby IDB do not own any watercourses. This needs to be checked with Ouse & Humber Drainage Board AM

4 IDB LOCAL DRAINAGE BYE-LAWS 4.1 York Consortium of Drainage Boards (Beverley & North Holderness IDB) Info – Byelaws can be downloaded from their website. BS noted that these may be changed following a national review of Model Drainage Bye-laws.

Bye-laws state no obstruction allowed within 9m of the edge of the watercourse without IDB consent.

4.2 PJ provided a hard copy of the Selby IDB Bye-laws at the meeting – Info these can also be downloaded from the Shire Group of IDBs website.

Bye-laws state no obstruction allowed within 7m of the edge of the watercourse without IDB consent.

4.3 Post meeting note: Lower Ouse IDB & Market Weighton IDB are part Info of the Ouse & Humber Drainage Board – bye-laws for the Ouse & Humber Drainage Board are available on their website.

Bye-laws state no obstruction allowed within 9m of the edge of the watercourse without IDB consent.

3 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Project: IDB Meeting 28-10-13 FINAL

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION 5 WORKS AFFECTING WATERCOURSES 5.1 The works affecting watercourses will include the installation of the Info pipeline; temporary and permanent vehicle accesses and land drainage outfalls.

5.2 Pipeline installation Typical pipeline watercourse crossing drawings were tabled (from National Grid Specification T/SP/P/10). The minimum depth of cover for a minor water course is 1.7m from the crown of the pipeline to the clean true bottom of the watercourse.

Marker posts will be required at deeper drains to mark the location of the buried pipeline.

5.3 Crossing methods BS noted that Beverley & North Holderness IDB do not favour “cut and cover” (open cut) because of the risk of bank slippage due to poor reinstatement. GS/BMc explained that trenchless methods would be applied to the larger drains however, it would not be practicable to cross every field ditch using a trenchless method. Open cut methods have been used to cross drains on previous pipeline projects and successfully reinstated without bank collapse.

It was agreed that crossing methods would be assessed during detailed design and as part of the consenting process.

5.4 IDB Revetments BMc noted that several IDB drains have wooden revetments at the foot of the banks with 6-10ft wooden stakes/piles. These could be an issue for National Grid during pipeline installation, particularly if a trenchless method such as auger or tunnelling is to be used.

BS/JC confirmed that most of the IDB revetments were installed in the 1960’s and 70’s and the timbers were now rotten. They noted that replacement piling is on-going – generally timber is used, however in some places metal piling may be installed.

5.5 Vehicle Accesses During construction temporary accesses will need to be installed across drains to allow access along the pipeline working width and so reduce the amount of construction traffic on public roads.

Photographs of a typical “Irish bridge” and bailey bridge were tabled as examples of the kind of temporary crossings that can be installed. Flumes would be sized to accommodate estimated flows. 4 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Project: IDB Meeting 28-10-13 FINAL

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION

New road accesses required for above ground installations may require ditch crossings.

BS noted that the Environment Agency are not keen on culverts/flumed accesses.

5.6 Land Drainage Prior to construction, pre-construction drainage is put in along the pipeline working width to capture run-off from the existing land drains and retain the integrity of the drainage system. Post construction drainage is also installed. Outfalls for these drains are to be determined during detailed design.

For the purposes of the public consultation the pipeline route was shown with two “limits of deviation” one for the pipeline (50m either side of the centreline) to accommodate any variations in the route required during detailed design and one for the land drainage to allow for any off-easement drainage outfalls required due to local ground levels.

Land drainage surveys are being carried out at present with a view to reducing the drainage limits of deviation prior to submission of the DCO application.

Land drainage requirements are determined in consultation with the landowners.

BS expressed concern that the land drainage installed should not increase discharge to land drains. Discharge consents will be required from the IDB (see Consents section).

5.7 BS noted that there had been problems with the installation of land drains on another pipeline where the new systems had been put in to ditches at below bed level because the ditches they discharged to had not been cleaned out. This resulted in a need to dig out the ditches.

National Grid need to ensure the drains are put into the ditches at the right levels.

GS/BMc noted that National Grid employ inspectors to be present on site during works who should pick up on such drainage issues.

5.8 BS noted that the pipeline trench could affect land drainage.

GS/BMc explained that the pipeline would be buried at a minimum

5 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Project: IDB Meeting 28-10-13 FINAL

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION depth of cover of 1.2m. The pipe trench would generally be backfilled with the same material removed during excavation of the trench and tampered down in layers. It may be treated to remove sharp stones. On slopes stops can be installed to prevent the pipe trench acting as an adventitious pathway.

5.9 BS noted that the River Hull Strategy may change the IDBs approach to drainage.

6 CONSENTS 6.1 IDB consents will be required for all watercourses and drains within an IDB district (apart from main rivers which are controlled by the Environment Agency). Jon Church (Beverley & Holderness) and Paul Jones (Selby) process applications.

6.2 Section 23 Consents Consents will be determined by the IDBs under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 for works likely to obstruct or affect the flow of any watercourse this would include: - Open cut installation of the pipeline; - Temporary accesses across watercourse; - Permanent accesses across watercourse; - Land drainage outfalls.

JC/PJ advised that permanent installation of the pipeline under a watercourse would require S23 consent.

An application fee of £50 per application.

6.3 Section 66 Consents Consents will be determined by the IDBs under Drainage Byelaws created under Section 66 of the Land Drainage Act for works causing obstruction (structures / building/ planting) within the byelaw limit (9m or 7m) of a watercourse and for the discharge of water into a watercourse that increases the volume or flow of water. This would include: - Open cut installation of the pipeline; - Temporary accesses across watercourse; - Permanent accesses across watercourse; - Land drainage outfalls - Water discharges from excavations/ de-watering.

6.4 Water discharge consents BS/JC noted that the IDB discharge consent does not cover water quality. 6 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Project: IDB Meeting 28-10-13 FINAL

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION

In areas where water levels are controlled by the IDB by pumping, there is 1p per cubic metre charge for the discharge of ground water to surface water.

6.5 The statutory determination period for IDB consents is 2 months, however, if there are a large number of applications to be processed the IDBs would require more time. A staggered approach to applications was requested.

Consents for permanent structures and temporary works should be separate.

IDBs conduct inspections to check site works are being carried out in accordance with agreed specifications/ consent conditions.

IDBs usually require a 36 month defects liability period. GS/BMc advised that National Grids contracts usually have a 24 month defects period.

BS advised that IDB recommend non open cut installation – National Grid will be liable for reinstatement if open cut methods are employed.

6.6 DCO Powers Under section 150 of the Planning Act 2008 the requirement for a consent under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act can be removed with the agreement of the consenting authority (in this case the Internal Drainage Boards). This would in effect include consent within the Development Consent Order.

The consent could be included in the DCO with requirements (conditions) such as the details of crossing methods, vehicle accesses and discharges to be agreed with the relevant IDB.

BS noted it is very unlikely that any of the Boards of the York Consortium will be able to sign a document which relinquishes these powers for the project.

6.7 Statement of Common Ground The purpose of the Statement of Common Ground is to provide a record of the issues upon which the IDBs have been consulted; the matters agreed and matters upon which agreement has not been achieved and the reasons why.

The SoCG will not require the relinquishment of the IDBs’ consenting 7 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Project: IDB Meeting 28-10-13 FINAL

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION powers if the IDBs do not agree to do so.

The SoCG will provide evidence to the Planning Inspector that the IDBs have been consulted and would preferably include some assurance that the need to obtain separate IDB consents would not be an impediment to the proposed development.

BS expressed reluctance to sign a document when things may change in the period between the DCO submission and construction such as legislation, climate change etc.

AF will draft a SoCG including the requirement to submit applications AF 15/11/13 for IDB consents separately and a commitment to on-going consultation with the IDBs to discuss construction methods, mitigation measures, pollution control etc.

This will be sent to IDBs for comment with a view to arriving at a document that all parties are willing to sign.

7 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 7.1 Approach to Assessment The Environmental Statement has assessed the potential effects of the pipeline within the Limits of Deviation (50m either side of the proposed alignment) and for crossings the worst case scenario has been assessed. For example for a watercourse if open cut is one of the options being considered that has been assessed although the final method selected may be trenchless.

The project has committed to crossing all Main Rivers by trenchless methods.

7.2 Ecology Ecological surveys have been carried out including Phase I Habitat Surveys, and protected species surveys including Otter and Water Vole.

JC noted that some watercourses support Brook Lamprey. CC explained that fish surveys have not been undertaken and are not proposed but noted that fish data is being obtained and the effect of fish will be taken into account within the ES.

7.3 Flood Risk Assessment For the buried pipeline route a high level approach has been taken for the flood risk assessment.

For the AGIs – the IDBs, EA and ERYC have been consulted and Drainage Strategy taken into account as part of the Flood Risk Assessment. 8 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Project: IDB Meeting 28-10-13 FINAL

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION

Flood levels are not available from the IDBs so a qualitative approach has been taken based on aerial photographs, topographical data, and site photographs. The EA have agreed to the approach.

It was noted that LIDAR data are available.

There will be no direct discharge from AGIs to watercourses, run-off will be via a SUDS.

7.4 PJ noted that the effects of groundwater levels on the buoyancy of the pipeline may be an issue in the Selby IDB area.

AF noted that as part of the ground investigation surveys conducted to date, some borehole have been left with piezometers installed. Ground water levels are being monitored monthly.

GS noted that buoyancy may be an issue in the vicinity of the R Foulness. This will be looked at as part of the detailed design. Mitigation measures can be taken to weigh the pipe down in areas of buoyancy potential.

8 ANY OTHER BUSINESS 8.1 PJ asked whether the White Rose Project was part of the same DCO application and whether the pipeline was dependent on the White Rose Project getting consent.

AF explained that the White Rose Project would be consented under a separate DCO application. The programme for the White Rose DCO application is approximately 9 months after the pipeline.

Both projects are dependent on getting UK government/ European funding.

9 DATE OF NEXT MEETING 9.1 Further meetings proposed to discuss Statement of Common Ground (date to be confirmed)

9 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Project: IDB Meeting 28-10-13 FINAL

Meeting Minutes

Meeting Title: Environment Agency Meeting –

Project: Yorkshire and Humber CCS Cross Country Job No/Ref: 60301887 Pipeline

Location: EA Lateral Office Date held: 13th January 2014

Duration: 2 hours Time: 1 pm Start Invitees: (RG) Richard Gwilliam- National Grid Apologies: (BM) Brain McPhee – National Grid (AF) Anna Firmin – National Grid (AC) Allen Cartmell – National Grid (CC) Charlotte Clinton – AECOM

(SK) Sam Kipling – EA, Planning Liaison (TP ) Tom Pagett -- EA Biodiversity (JB) John Barber – EA Groundwater No. Item Actions 1. Meeting Agenda Project update and overview RG gave an update on the Onshore Scheme since the publication of the Section 42 consultation. RG explained for the most part there have not been any major changes to the Onshore Scheme as a result of consultation, however the landowner of the proposed

Pumping Station site has expressed the wish for the Pumping Station to be moved to a different field directly north of that which was consulted upon. RG explained because of the nature of the change the project will be re consulting on this change and that this is expected to be in mid February. RG explained that a drain runs through the centre of the alternative site, however the intention would be to keep this and the riparian habitat either side and integrate it into the

design.

RG explained that due to the need to re consult the proposed submission date of the DCO would now be in early May 2014. RG also explained that the number of proposed Construction Compounds presented during the Section 42 consultation has also been reduced from six to two at Tollingham and Driffield. He further explained that the proposed order limits for the project have been reduced following the completion of a land drainage survey.

RG noted the draft Environmental Statement (ES) chapters would be ready in draft for the middle of February 2014 and asked SK if the EA would be happy to review those relevant prior to the submission of the DCO. SK enquired as to the length of review period. RG suggested 4 weeks, however if there are any headline issues asked if these could be sent CC through in the interim. SK also asked to review a copy of the Draft Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and draft DCO requirements. 2. Flood Risk Agenda item to be discussed at a separate meeting on 17/01/2014, however CC gave an overview of the Flood Risk Assessment which concludes that for all sites the Onshore Scheme are not proposing any land raising instead the critical infrastructure will be raised. CC explained that the proposed PIG Trap is within the curtiledge of the White Rose CCS project, the programme of which is approximately 6 months behind the Yorkshire and Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline as such any requirement for land raising is unknown. CC explained the difficulty for the FRA in assessing Drax PIG Trap which is on land which may need to be raised but not for the purpose of the Yorkshire and Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline.

3. Pipeline Integrity. RG explained that the research team have been working up a safety statement which is likely to be appended to the ES. RG gave an overview of the safety statement explaining

Page: 1 of 3 Doc. FA/02 Revised: June 2013

Meeting Minutes

that it covers the design philosophy, design process and risk assessment based on the most credible occurrence of a leak which is taken to be the AGIs as everything else is

demonstrated to be unlikely and which concludes that in general the risk is not likely. RG explained that the report also covers the impact of a leak on plants / crops / water / groundwater / aquatic ecology based on changes in pH levels / human health and drinking water in high level terms. RG explained that as the safety statement concludes that as a leak is unlikely, leaks are not being considered formally in the main body of the ES as would not meet the

expectations of the EIA Directive which asks applicants to assess likely significant effect on the environment. SK agreed in terms of the EIA and noted that the most important thing is that all risks have been considered and measures (where necessary) built in from the outset. RG confirmed that leak detection is incorporated into the design and management procedures.

RG noted previous correspondence from the EA which had requested that National Grid consider the effects of a leak on drinking water. RG asked whether there were any specific RG locations on the pipeline route that the EA would like the likelihood and effects of a leak considering. JB explained that the main concern is where the pipeline comes close to SPZ1 and the likelihood of leak getting into a borehole. JB asked about purity specifications for carbon dioxide. RG noted that the safety statement also includes the carbon dioxide purity specification and this will not result in a corrosion risk. 4. Surface Hydrology and Hydrogeology AC gave an overview of the work to date for the crossing of the River Hull, Driffield Canal and Main Drain watercourse. AC explained that initially a desk study was undertaken in accordance with BS: Eurocodes and Y&H CCS Minimum Scope of Works. In 2012

boreholes were sunk both negative and positive of the crossing and in 2013 further boreholes were carried out on the land in-between the River Hull and the Driffield Canal (access previously denied). AC tabled a borehole location plan describing reasons for ‘site specific’ locations and depths plus a simplified stratigraphy. AC further explained that the boreholes revealed groundwater under sub-artesian (several strikes during drilling through the interbedded Glacial Till) and significant artesian pressure to almost 3m agl (artesian groundwater in the upper horizons of chalk and sub-artesian groundwater in the form of perched water within the Glacial Till). Making the crossing complex both in determining the method and the position of the crossing and the amount of dewatering required. JB enquired as to whether the water from the dewatering activities would be tankered off? AF explained that due to volumes of water it is likely that the water would be stored in lagoons and discharged to the River Hull at an appropriate time. SK enquired as to the volumes of water and the quality. AC explained that the groundwater had been tested against the suite of parameters provided by the Agency and that it was of good quality. AC also explained that a surface water quality analysis was to be undertaken for river, canal and main drain, applying the test suite provided by the EA. Likely dewatering (groundwater control) volumes however are not currently known as a detailed design has not been undertaken. JB enquired as to how suspended sediment would be dealt with. AC explained this would be done through a primary, secondary and tertiary lagoon system and presented some examples from other schemes. SK enquired as to how long the construction period would last. AC explained that dewatering would likely be approximately 3 months. BMc explained that due to the difficulty of finding suitable sources for hydro-static test water in the north of the scheme, that water from the dewatering operations may be retained in lagoons for use during the hydro-static testing of the pipeline and then discharge to the R Hull. The River Ouse would be used to source water for the southern end of the scheme, this would be returned to the R Ouse. SK noted that discharge of this water into the River Hull would be subject to Environmental

Page: 2 of 3 Doc. FA/02 Revised: June 2013

Meeting Minutes

Permits and that discharge is likely be restricted at times of high flow. SK expressed the need for the DCO to demonstrate that the project has the ability within the order limits to deal with the dewatering and the flood risk caused by the presence of the lagoons and that the lagoons are designed for flood exceedance. SK/TP suggested that Natural England should be consulted on dewatering and discharge to the River Hull (SSSI) catchment. Contact: Ruth Bull Hydrogeologist / Chris McGregor Elsewhere along the pipeline route groundwater monitoring is being carried out. 5. Consents SK expressed a preference for consents to be sort post DCO but that the DCO should include a list of crossings and parameters which will be applied and that the Agency would expect a corresponding requirement which would include non open cutting main rivers.

AF ran through the list of consents required.

JB to confirm whether an abstraction license is required for dewatering of trenches. JB SK to confirm conclusion that carbon dioxide does not require the project to become a SK licensed waste carrier. AF to provide more details on conclusions reached if required.

SK to confirm the position on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Permit. SK SK to provide AF with a copy of the Yorkshire Land Drainage Byelaws SK SK confirmed that sewage discharge requires Environmental Permit from the EA – if reed bed is to be used some form or pre-treatment would be required. SK confirmed that Flood Defence Consent would be required from the EA for the River Ouse crossing unless it is specifically dis-applied by the Deemed Marine Licence. 6. Environmental Enhancements RG explained that there are limited opportunities for enhancement along the Pipeline Route as only easement rights to the land are being sought and the land is not being permanently acquired. RG explained what is reasonable and appropriate has been included such as at

the above ground Installations through the provision of planting and habitat creation and SuDS. SK noted that the proposals to date were acceptable. CC also explained that where possible along the pipeline route enhancement would be provided by the replacement of gappy hedgerows with an appropriate species mix. SK noted the need to meet the policy objectives. TP suggested that the enhancement discussed is quantified to demonstrate this.

Page: 3 of 3 Doc. FA/02 Revised: June 2013

Yorkshire & Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline

Notes of Meeting held with Lead Local Flood Authority / Internal Drainage Board on

17th January 2014 10.30am – Environment Agency Offices, Coverdale House, York YO30 4GZ

Attendees: Name Organisation Role Rachel Glossop RGl Environment Agency Flood Risk Eddy Allen EAl Ouse & Humber WMP (Lower Ouse Engineer IDB & Market Weighton IDB) Neil Ager NA East Riding of Yorkshire Council Senior Drainage Engineer

Richard Gwilliam RG National Grid Consents Philip Knipe PK National Grid Project Manager (Construction) Brian McPhee BMc National Grid Project Supervisor (Construction) Anna Firmin AF National Grid Project Environmental Advisor Charlotte Clinton CC AECOM EIA Consultant Matt Stokes MS AECOM EIA Consultant (Water & Flood Risk) Pre-meeting Jim Doyle JD White Rose CCS Project Consents Rod Ellison RE ERM White Rose EIA Consultant (Flood Risk) Apologies:

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION 1.0 PURPOSE OF MEETING 1.1 Purpose of meeting: - to provide an update on the Yorkshire & Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline Project; - to confirm drains under LLFA /IDB control, LLFA /IDB rights of access and LLFA /IDB bye-laws; - to discuss IDB consents required for the development and potential provisions available through the Development Consent Order (DCO) process with a view to reaching agreement on the approach to be taken to obtain consents; and - to discuss the Environmental Statement – flood risk assessment and findings .

2.0 PROJECT UPDATE 2.1 RG provided a description of the proposed scheme. Info The Government have confirmed funding for the project which comprises a pipeline to transport carbon dioxide captured by local emitters for permanent geological storage in sandstone beneath the North Sea. 1 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline: IDB Meeting 17-01-14 ISSUED

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION

The onshore scheme now starts from Drax where a proposed Oxyfuel Power Station (the White Rose Project) will generate 2.5M tonnes per year of carbon dioxide. Approximately 5km of 300mm (12”) diameter pipeline will link the White Rose Project to the cross country pipeline at a multi-junction to be located to the south of Drax.

The 600mm (24”) diameter cross country pipeline will run North East from Drax for approximately 68km to a Pumping Station at the coast near Barmston. Three block valves will be located along the pipeline at Tollingham, Dalton and Skerne. The pipeline will have the capacity to transport up to 17M tonnes of carbon dioxide a year and so will be able to accommodate connections from other emitters in the future.

This is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) and so an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) will be submitted via the Planning Inspectorate for determination by the Secretary of State. It is proposed to submit an application in May 2014.

The application boundary (or Order Limits) includes a 100m wide corridor or Limits of Deviation within which the pipeline will be located this is to allow some flexibility in the routeing of the pipeline during detailed design. The application boundary also allows for land drainage outside the 100m corridor, although the land areas included have been reduced following a land drainage survey.

2.2 Project programme Info Following submission of the DCO application in May 2014 it is likely to take approximately 15 months for the determination process.

It is anticipated that construction will be carried out in 2018. The pumping station will take two years to construct. The pipeline is likely to be split between two contracts and take one year to build. The main construction season for the pipeline will be March - October with pre- construction removal of vegetation carried out in the February prior to construction to avoid the bird nesting season.

2.3 The onshore scheme therefore passes through three IDB areas and East Info Riding of Yorkshire. The whole of the scheme within North Yorkshire is covered by Selby IDB.

2.4 EAl asked whether landowners had been consulted. There are outstanding drainage issues following the construction of natural gas pipelines in the Asselby area. EAl requested a list of the landowners affected by the proposed pipeline since it may affect the Land Drainage rates paid by landowners. The IDB has details of the landowners already but it would help to know which may be affected.

2 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline: IDB Meeting 17-01-14 ISSUED

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION

RG/PK noted landowner consultation has started and National Grid are RG plans aware of some outstanding issues. Data protection may prevent supply to EAl of a list but detailed maps could be provided.

3 CONFIRMATION OF WATERCOURSES UNDER IDB /LLFA CONTROL 3.1 Ouse & Humber WMP Info EAl confirmed that Ouse & Humber Water Management Partnership (IDB) do not own any watercourses. Landowners on either side own to the middle of the drain / watercourse.

Within the District some watercourses are maintained by the IDB and others by riparian owners.

The IDB has a right of access within a 9m easement adjacent to watercourses for maintenance. There is usually a track within the 9m easement or access along field boundaries. To gain access via land outside the 9m easement the IDB would need to apply for landowner consent.

3.2 East Riding of Yorkshire Council NA confirmed that East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) is the Drainage Authority (or Lead Local Flood Authority, LLFA) in areas outside the IDB Districts.

ERYC is the enforcement authority for land drainage consents.

ERYC does not own or maintain any watercourses except for ditches adjacent to Public Highways. Main rivers are maintained by the Environment Agency and other watercourses by riparian owners.

NA offered to supply an electronic copy of maps showing the ERYC NA to Drainage Authority’s area and IDB Districts within East Riding. supply to CC / AF

3.3 Land Drainage Byelaws Bye-laws for the Ouse & Humber WMP are available on their website. Info

ERYC do not currently have an approved set of Bye-laws but use the same bye-laws as IDBs.

See Item 5.6 re DCO Powers to dis-apply Bye-laws

3 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline: IDB Meeting 17-01-14 ISSUED

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION 4 WORKS AFFECTING WATERCOURSES 4.1 The works affecting watercourses will include the installation of the Info pipeline; temporary and permanent vehicle accesses and land drainage outfalls.

4.2 Pipeline installation crossing methods Typical pipeline watercourse crossing drawings were tabled (from National Grid Specification T/SP/P/10). The minimum depth of cover for a minor water course is 1.7m from the crown of the pipeline to the clean true bottom of the watercourse.

Marker posts will be required at deeper drains to mark the location of the buried pipeline.

PK/BMc explained that trenchless methods would be applied to the larger drains however, it would not be practicable to cross every field ditch using a trenchless method. Open cut methods have been used to cross drains on previous pipeline projects and successfully reinstated without bank collapse.

4.3 IDB Revetments BMc noted that several IDB drains have wooden revetments at the foot of the banks with 6-10ft wooden stakes/piles. These could be an issue for National Grid during pipeline installation, particularly if a trenchless method such as auger or tunnelling is to be used.

EAl confirmed that some watercourses have revetments installed, no steel piles but wooden stakes may be 2- 2.5m long.

4.4 Vehicle Accesses During construction temporary accesses will need to be installed across drains to allow access along the pipeline working width and so reduce the amount of construction traffic on public roads.

Temporary crossings may include “Irish bridge” flumed/culvert style crossings – the number and size of flumes would be designed to accommodate estimated flows.

At River Foulness and Kelk Beck bailey bridges are likely to be used.

New road accesses required for above ground installations may require ditch crossings.

4.5 Land Drainage Prior to construction, pre-construction drainage is put in along the pipeline working width to capture run-off from the existing land drains 4 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline: IDB Meeting 17-01-14 ISSUED

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION and retain the integrity of the drainage system. Post construction drainage is also installed. Outfalls for these drains are to be determined during detailed design.

The pipeline would be buried at a minimum depth of cover of 1.2m. The pipe trench would generally be backfilled with the same material removed during excavation of the trench and tampered down in layers. It may be treated to remove sharp stones. On slopes stops can be installed to prevent the pipe trench acting as an adventitious pathway.

It was agreed that the DCO should include an undertaking that land RG drainage will be reinstated to a condition no worse than the existing.

4.7 Old Derwent EAl noted that the pipeline will cross the Old Derwent near Asselby. In the event of a breach of the flood banks along the River Derwent then the Old Derwent channel would act as a pathway for flood waters with a risk of flooding to Howden.

4.8 River Foulness EAl noted that the IDB is responsible for maintenance along the River Foulness.

Vegetation control is a particular issue on the R Foulness due to its effect on flooding. The IDB cut back vegetation along the Foulness in May however, this outfalls to the Market Weighton Canal which is not cut until August. The EA maintain the canal and the timing of the cut is determined by fisheries interests.

EAl noted that oxidation of peat soils along the R Foulness has led to land shrinkage (recorded in recent topographical surveys) which in turn affects flood risk to properties.

4.9 Market Weighton Canal The pipeline will cross the Market Weighton Canal at Delfin Drain. This is not navigable canal. Defin Drain is maintained by the EA as “Critical Ordinary Watercourse”.

RGl offered to obtain information on the cutting regime on Market RGl Weighton Beck.

4.10 River Hull The River Hull and Kelk Beck are part of the River Hull Headwaters SSSI - trenchless crossing methods are therefore proposed. Due to the nature of artesian water in the vicinity of the River Hull water management is 5 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline: IDB Meeting 17-01-14 ISSUED

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION likely to be an issue during construction.

RGl suggested a meeting with the EA, ERYC and York IDB once crossing method has been confirmed.

RGl to provide information on DCO issues to consider. RGl

4.11 Information for Clerks Meeting

EAl noted that it would help if generic crossing information could be provide to all the drainage boards so that a consistent approach to permanent and temporary works could be agreed.

There is an IDB Clerks meeting scheduled for 25th March at which the project is likely to be discussed. BMc It was agreed National Grid will provide IDBs with: distribute - Examples of generic crossings (P10); to IDBs/ 17/02/14 - Photographs of “Irish bridge” ERYC - Photographs of bailey bridge

4.12 Pollution Control Measures Construction work will be carried out in accordance with a Pollution Prevention Plan. Water discharged to watercourses will be controlled either by pumping to land (in grassed areas) or via a filtering system.

EAl concerned that discharge to land may result in the release of fertilisers to watercourses. PK noted that if that were a risk then other filtration methods would be used.

4.13 Reinstatement All watercourses will be reinstated after construction.

PK/BMc advised that National Grids contracts usually have a 24 month defects period.

5 CONSENTS 5.1 IDB consents will be required for all watercourses and drains within an IDB district (apart from main rivers which are controlled by the Environment Agency). EAl confirmed that River Foulness would require IDB consent because it Info is maintained by IDB.

6 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline: IDB Meeting 17-01-14 ISSUED

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION 5.2 Section 23 Consents Consents will be determined by the IDBs/ERYC under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 for works likely to obstruct or affect the flow of any watercourse this would include: - Open cut installation of the pipeline; - Temporary accesses across watercourse; - Permanent accesses across watercourse; - Land drainage outfalls.

Clarification is required as to whether permanent installation of the EAl / NA pipeline under a watercourse would require S23 consent even if a trenchless method is used.

5.3 Section 66 Consents Consents will be determined by the IDBs / ERYC under Drainage Byelaws created under Section 66 of the Land Drainage Act for works causing obstruction (structures / building/ planting) within the byelaw limit (9m) of a watercourse and for the discharge of water into a watercourse that increases the volume or flow of water. This would include: - Open cut installation of the pipeline; - Temporary accesses across watercourse; - Permanent accesses across watercourse; - Land drainage outfalls - Water discharges from excavations/ de-watering.

5.4 ERYC Consents NA requested a Schedule of crossings with grid references, size, crossing method, vehicle access & type with a view to bunching together activities within one consent.

5.5 DCO Powers - Consents Under section 150 of the Planning Act 2008 the requirement for a consent under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act can be removed with the agreement of the consenting authority (in this case the Internal Drainage Boards/ ERYC). This would in effect include consent within the Development Consent Order.

The consent could be included in the DCO with requirements (conditions) such as the details of crossing methods, vehicle accesses and discharges to be agreed with the relevant IDB/ERYC.

AF noted that at a previous meeting with Selby and York IDBs it was felt that the IDBs would not be willing to relinquish these powers for the

7 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline: IDB Meeting 17-01-14 ISSUED

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION project.

5.6 DCO Powers – Byelaws Under the DCO, provision can be made to dis-apply local enactments and byelaws that would be inconsistent with the exercise of a power conferred by the Order. As such, provision can be made to dis-apply the IDBs’ Land Drainage Byelaws as they apply to the Onshore Scheme.

National Grid have been legally advised to dis-apply the IDB Byelaws.

However, taking into account the feedback received during a meeting with the Selby and York IDBs in October 2013 during which the IDBs felt that they would be unlikely to agree to the relinquishment of their consenting powers - National Grid propose only to dis-apply those byelaws which have a prohibition and to retain those byelaws that require IDB Consent.

EAl expressed concern over the proposal. The byelaws are adopted following Ministerial approval and the IDBs do not have the power to agree to dis-apply them.

AF explained that the DCO which is approved by the Secretary of State would confer the power to dis-apply the bye-laws.

EAl requested clarification of which bye-laws are to be dis-applied. AF AF 17/02/14 to provide information before meeting on 25th March.

5.7 Statement of Common Ground The purpose of the Statement of Common Ground is to provide a record of the issues upon which the IDBs have been consulted (including the dis-application of bye-laws and the requirement for separate IDB consents); the matters agreed and matters upon which agreement has not been achieved and the reasons why.

The SoCG will not require the relinquishment of the IDBs’ consenting powers if the IDBs do not agree to do so.

AF will draft a SoCG including the requirement to submit applications for IDB consents separately and a commitment to on-going consultation with the IDBs to discuss construction methods, mitigation measures,

8 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline: IDB Meeting 17-01-14 ISSUED

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION pollution control etc.

This will be sent to IDBs for comment with a view to arriving at a AF 17/02/14 document that all parties are willing to sign.

6 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 6.1 Approach to Assessment The Environmental Statement has assessed the potential effects of the pipeline within the Limits of Deviation (50m either side of the proposed alignment) and for crossings the worst case scenario has been assessed. For example for a watercourse if open cut is one of the options being considered that has been assessed although the final method selected may be trenchless.

The project has committed to crossing all Main Rivers and Water Framework Directive watercourses by trenchless methods.

CC to provide a list of Main River crossings to RGl CC The Main Rivers are: River Ouse, Market Weighton Canal, River Hull, Driffield Canal, Nafferton Highland Stream, White Dike and Kelk Beck

6.2 Ecology Ecological surveys have been carried out including Phase I Habitat Surveys, and protected species surveys including Otter and Water Vole.

EAl noted that where water vole are known to be present the IDBs cut back vegetation from mid-July onwards. CC noted that as part of the mitigation for water voles, vegetation will be cut back prior to construction and will be kept low to deter water vole.

Jon Traill from Yorkshire Wildlife Trust should be consulted on Water Info Voles.

6.3 Flood Risk Assessment RG explained that the National Grid is not proposing any land rising at the Above Ground Installations along the Yorkshire and Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline instead critical infrastructure will be raised. RG explained the proposed PIG Trap however is within the White Rose CCS Project site and that they potentially need to raise the land.

In a pre-meeting JD highlighted the possible need to raise the White Rose CCS Project site.

RE explained that a breach analysis has been undertaken and they 9 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline: IDB Meeting 17-01-14 ISSUED

REF COMMENT OWNER CLOSE & ACTION currently have interim results. RE noted that the Flood Risk Assessment would be undertaken following the results of the breach analysis.

RG enquired as to whether the whole site would need to be raised or whether the approach would be to raise the critical infrastructure. RE explained that this would be determined by the FRA but blanket raising may be favoured from a civils and a health and safety perspective.

RGl noted that the FRA would need to look at compensatory storage. RG explained the difficulty in taking this into account within the Yorkshire and Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline FRA and proposed that this could potentially be dealt with through a three way Statement RGl of Common Ground. RGl to discuss with Sam Kipling and feedback.

MS explained the approach to the remainder of the FRA explaining that For the buried pipeline route a high level approach has been taken.

CC highlighted the discussions on dewatering for the River Hull crossing and the need for lagoons. CC explained that at the previous meeting with the EA (13/01/14) it had been suggested that the flood risk of the lagoons themselves be considered by the FRA. CC and MS explained RGl that this is not usually covered within an FRA. RGl to feedback.

For the AGIs – the IDBs, EA and ERYC have been consulted on Drainage

6.4 Essential Infrastructure National Grid have categorised the development as Essential Infrastructure in terms of flood risk and have consulted PINS who advise that the EA should be consulted and a Statement of Common Ground AF/CC/EA drafted to record that the EA agree to the categorisation.

CC to send RGl correspondence from PINS re Essential Infrastructure CC

7 DATE OF NEXT MEETING 7.1 Further meetings proposed to discuss Statement of Common Ground (date to be confirmed)

10 Yorkshire & Humber CCS Cross Country Pipeline: IDB Meeting 17-01-14 ISSUED