Applicant’s Responses to the Examining Authority’s First Written Questions Abergelli Power Project EN010069 Deadline 1 – 9 November 2018 Abergelli Power Project INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background On 17 October 2018 the Examining Authority (ExA) issued a timetable for the examination in accordance with Planning Act 2008 – Section 88 and the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 – Rules 8 and 13. This Rule 8 procedural decision requested the following document submissions to be made available by Deadline 1 on 9 November 2018: • Comments on Relevant Representations • Written Representations • Local Impact Reports from any Local Authorities • Statements of Common Ground requested by the ExA • Comments on updated application documents • Responses to further information requested by the ExA • Post hearing submissions including written submissions of oral case 1.2 Content This document provides responses to the ExA’s First Written Questions which have been directed to the Applicant, Abergelli Power Limited (APL). In addition, where input from the Applicant would assist the ExA, the Applicant has provided answers to questions directed to other parties. Answers to questions are provided in numerical order as per the sections and headings outlined in the ExA First Written Questions. Questions have been repeated for ease of reference, and where a substantial response is required or where additional information or documents are provided, these have been provided as Appendices. These are clearly outlined in the relevant response, and the Appendices are attached to this submission document. Relevant cross referencing to other DCO documentation (either revised and submitted at the same time as this document or as submitted with the DCO application) has also been provided where appropriate. 1 Abergelli Power Project Question Question to Question Response number 1. 0 General and Cross-topic Questions Two separate planning applications for the Gas Connection and Electrical Connection 1.0.1. The Applicant and Gas and electrical connections planning applications: have been submitted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) to City and City and County of Swansea (CCS). The Planning Statement [APP-007] at paragraph 1.1.5 states: Council of Swansea (CCS) (References 2018/2020/FUL and 2018/2021/FUL). These applications were validated on 25 September 2018. “Separately, APL will seek planning permission for the Gas Connection under the These two applications are currently under consideration by CCS. It is anticipated that the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) and the Electrical Connection applications will be determined at a Planning Committee on the 4 December 2018. under either the TCPA 1990 or as permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO).” What is the current status of these applications? 1.0.2. The Applicant Planning Statement [APP-007] Table 3-1(contains no key for 3 asterisks), ES Table 3-1 is missing a key below the table, which explains that the asterisks highlight items Table 3-3 [APP-042] and draft DCO Table 2 [APP-014]: that are not included in the DCO. This table has been amended to include the key and can be found in Appendix 1. Can the Applicant explain why Tables 3-1 and 3-3 Parameters for Assessment differs from Table 2 in the draft DCO? Table 2 in the draft DCO does not contain the Gas Pipeline, the AGI (above ground installation) or MOC (minimum offtake connection) (which have an asterisk by them) as these are not included in the DCO Application. Consent for these elements is being sought via the TCPA Application for the gas connection and therefore no parameters have been included in the DCO and will instead be secured where required through the gas connection planning permission. The Applicant can confirm that there are no further discrepancies between the Parameters for Assessment and draft DCO. The Draft DCO does not secure the operational hours of the generating station, and it does 1.0.3. The Applicant and Operating Hours: not need to as the environmental permit will do so, and overlapping controls in different NRW regimes are unnecessary and should be avoided. APL submitted its application for an The ES [APP-042] at paragraph 6.4.37 states: environmental permit alongside the DCO application (22 May 2018), and NRW has “The Generating Equipment Site is a peaking plant and will therefore only operate confirmed it was 'duly made' on 29 May 2018. NRW has issued a draft environmental during periods of high power demand. It is therefore anticipated that the Generating permit to APL for its review (without prejudice to the decision NRW may make on the Equipment will normally operate for 1,500 hours per year, estimated as a rolling application), and that draft includes the following paragraph as is standard for such average over 5 years, but may operate for up to a maximum of 2,250 hours per year peaking plants: as a realistic worst-case for any given year. The maximum number of hours that the plant can operate will be set out in the site's Environmental Permit and this operating "The plant has been designed and will run as a peaking power station supplying electricity period cannot be exceeded.” to the National Electricity Transmission System for up to 2250 hours per year (1500 hours Where in the draft DCO [APP-014] is it secured that operation of the gas turbine per 5-year rolling average) at times of high demand or during periods of instability in the generators will not exceed 1500 hours in any calendar year? grid". 2 Abergelli Power Project Question Question to Question Response number How is it proposed to calculate the rolling average level of hours of operation in each In terms of the 5 year rolling average, this provides some flexibility for the operator to of the first five calendar years of operation? exceed 1,500 hours in a calendar year, but ensuring that over any 5 year period that 1,500 hours per annum is not exceeded on average. The maximum permitted operation in a single year is 2,250 hours. Over 5 years the average must still remain at 1,500 hours and hence not exceed a total of 7,500 hours. The following table provides an example of how the generating station could be operated, remaining within those parameters: Year Operational hours Cumulative hours 1 2,250 2,250 2 1,600 3,850 3 1,600 5,450 4 750 6,200 5 1,300 7,500 Total 7,500 Average (7,500 / 5) = 1,500 1.0.4. The Applicant and Decommissioning strategy Requirement 27 of draft DCO [APP-014]: The Applicant does not consider it necessary to impose a time limit for the operation of the CCS plant. This is further explained in Agenda Item 6.5 of the Applicant's Written Summary of The Project has a design life of 25 years and this is stated throughout the ES [APP- Oral Representations for Issue Specific Hearing 1 (submitted by the Applicant at Deadline 042] and several management plans [APP-036] are written to last for the duration of 1). the Project. In addition, the project has been designed for this design life, for example in terms of the attenuation requirements for surface water discharge. Appendix 7 of the Applicant's Written Summary of Oral Representations for Issue Specific Does the Applicant consider that there should be a requirement limiting the lifetime of Hearing 1 provides a sensitivity test of a scenario in which the operational life of the Project this Order, and if not provide reasons? is over 25 years – the technical note specifically considers an operational life of 35 years and (an undefined) longer period. In every case the conclusions in the ES as to the magnitude and significance of effects would remain the same, for all topics. 1.0.5. The Applicant and Bond for Decommissioning of Plant: The Applicant does not consider that it is necessary to provide a bond or other financial CCS security for future decommissioning costs. This is further explained in Agenda Item 6.6 of CCS [RR-022] believe that a bond should be provided to cover the full cost of the written summary of the Applicant's oral case put at the development consent order decommissioning, repayable upon completion of this element, to ensure that there is issue specific hearing on Wednesday 10 October 2018. funding available to dismantle/ decommission the project in the future. Does the Applicant propose to put such a bond in place, and if not provide reasons? 3 Abergelli Power Project Question Question to Question Response number 1.0.6. The Applicant and Discharge, monitoring and enforcement costs: The draft DCO submitted by the Applicant at Deadline 1 now includes provisions at CCS paragraph 3 of Schedule 12 for the payment of a fee to the local planning authority on CCS [RR-022] the Local Planning Authority will be responsible for discharging, submission of an application for the discharge of requirements under the DCO. monitoring and enforcing any requirements imposed on the development as well as any planning obligations. Currently there is no provision for charging in the draft DCO The payment is based upon the current fee payable to local planning authorities in Wales [APP-014]. for the discharge of conditions under the Town and Country Planning (Fees for What is the Applicants view on this proposal? Applications, Deemed Applications and Site Visits) (Wales) Regulations 2015 (as amended from time to time). At present, this is a fee of £95 per submission. The use of the standard fee scale has been discussed and agreed with CCS.