Back to list The Net Zero Teesside Project

Representation by INEOS Nitriles (UK) Limited (INEOS Nitriles (UK) Limited)

Date submitted
16 December 2021
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses
  1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 We are instructed by INEOS Nitriles (UK) Limited (“INEOS”) in relation to the development consent application made by Net Zero Teesside Power Limited (“NZT Power”) and Net Zero North Sea Storage Limited (“NZNS Storage”) (together the “Applicant”) for a development consent order (“DCO”) authorising the Net Zero Teesside Project (the “Project”). This Section 56 representation is made on behalf of INEOS. 1.2 The INEOS group is a global manufacturer of petrochemicals, speciality chemicals and oil products. 1.3 INEOS’s facility is shown surrounded by the pipe corridors on sheets 3 and 4 of the land plans (document No. 4.2). 1.4 The proposed DCO and authorised works have the potential to: 1.4.1 prevent access (by INEOS and other third parties) to critical infrastructure (owned by both INEOS and other third parties); 1.4.2 adversely affect INEOS’s existing offices and related access; 1.4.3 compromise Pipelines Safety Regulations 1996 and the Control of Major Accident Hazards (“COMAH”) safety planning and give rise to unacceptable hazards; 1.4.4 inadequately address decommissioning. 1.5 As part of the Project, the Applicant seeks to compulsorily acquire new rights over various plots of land which INEOS either owns, occupies or has rights over. The Applicant also proposes to take powers to extinguish, suspend or interfere with INEOS’ rights and impose new restrictions on such land. 1.6 INEOS supports the Applicant’s project in principle but must ensure that the construction and operation of the proposed works do not adversely affect its operations (nor those of others who have rights in INEOS’s land) or lead to the impacts identified above. It is expected that these concerns can be addressed by the inclusion of appropriate protective provisions in the Order. 2. LAND PLOTS/ISSUES 2.1 A schedule of the land plots in which the Book of Reference identifies that INEOS has an interest is listed below, as follows: 2.1.1 Part 1 – Freehold interests ? Plot 122, Plot 123, Plot 123, Plot 125, Plot 130, Plot 135, Plot 138 and Plot 141 Part 1 – Occupiers or Reputed Occupiers ? Plot 98, Plot 111, Plot 122, Plot 123, Plot 125, Plot 126, Plot 130, Plot 135, Plot 138 and Plot 141 Part 3 – Persons enjoying rights over land ? Plot 98, Plot 111 and Plot 126 2.2 A number of these plots comprise land over which existing pipeline and cabling infrastructure is present and/or where INEOS has rights to install infrastructure. This includes both above and below ground infrastructure as well as pipe bridges. Whilst within INEOS’s Title, such infrastructure does not always belong to INEOS and does not always serve its operations. Nevertheless, as such plots are within its site and close to its operations, it is important that any works in these areas are conducted safely and without interruption to existing occupiers. 2.3 Much of the infrastructure in the existing pipe corridors inherently gives rise to major accident/hazard risks and is subject to either or both The Pipelines Safety Regulations 1996 and the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015 (the “COMAH Regulations”). Both of these Regulations require that the Operator ensures that the risks from potential major accidents are assessed and appropriate safety management systems to control those risks are in place. In order to ensure such assessments remain valid it is crucial that additional causes of risk presented by the proposals are thoroughly understood to allow assessment of how the accumulated risks affect the overall risk profile and its tolerability in line with accepted regulatory standards. It can be anticipated that risks from external impacts will be increased during various phases, however additional domino effects from potential proximate incidents must also be considered. Furthermore, the proposals may lead to safeguards that mitigate existing risks to be weakened and therefore detriment the risk profile. For example, access for safety-related inspections and maintenance may be hindered. 2.4 The Applicant has not yet been able to present INEOS with any detailed designs for its proposed infrastructure, precise locations or constructions programmes. Such matters must also be agreed with those whose infrastructure lies in the existing pipeline corridor. Without appropriate protections, there is no guarantee that the Applicant would be able to ensure that its works are suitably timed, located or undertaken in a way that reduces major hazard risk to as low as reasonably practicable. Nor is there any guarantee that access will be maintained for appropriate safety inspections and emergency maintenance. 2.5 The proposed powers include the ability to extinguish, suspend or interfere with rights. Unchecked, this is unacceptable in the context of critical infrastructure which must be maintained in situ without interruption and with a continuous right of access for maintenance and major accident prevention reasons. 2.6 In addition to this, land is also sought for a temporary construction compound and accessway (plots 122 and 123). Whilst the principle of using part of INEOS’ site for such purposes would be supported, INEOS has concerns that the part of the site selected is not practicable without significant impacts to its operations. The identified plots are an office carpark and accessway that passes the office building. Use of this accessway by construction vehicles would cause major disturbance to the office buildings and is completely unnecessary given the size of the INEOS site and the amount of vacant land. INEOS instead wishes to be able to offer alternatives to these plots and has sought agreement to this from the Applicant. 3. DECOMMISSIONING 3.1 The current draft requirement for decommissioning states: “Decommissioning 32.—(1) Within 12 months of the date that the undertaker decides to decommission any part of the authorised development, the undertaker must submit to the relevant planning authority for its approval a decommissioning environmental management plan in relation to that part. (2) No decommissioning works must be carried out until the relevant planning authority has approved the decommissioning environmental management plan. (3) The plan submitted pursuant to sub-paragraph (1) must include details of— (a) the buildings to be demolished; (b) the means of removal of the materials resulting from the decommissioning works; (c) the phasing of the demolition and removal works; (d) any restoration works to restore the land to a condition agreed with the relevant planning authority; (e) the phasing of any restoration works; and (f) a timetable for the implementation of the scheme. (4) The plan must be implemented as approved unless otherwise agreed with the relevant planning authority.” 3.2 The words “Within 12 months of the date that the undertaker decides to decommission any part of the authorised development” essentially makes this requirement optional and in no way obliges the Applicant to decommission anything. In the case of pipelines in a particularly congested corridor, where capacity is an identified concern, there should be an effective requirement to decommission once use ceases. This should be an objectively identifiable event, as opposed to something at the election of the Applicant. INEOS also wishes to have this matter addressed in protective provisions so that any remaining pipelines no longer in use must be cleared from its site. 4. THE PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS 4.1 The protective provisions for INEOS are contained in Part 8 of Schedule 12. The current draft fails to adequately protect INEOS, particularly in light of the extensive powers sought within the DCO to interfere with critical infrastructure. 4.2 Paragraphs 83 and 84 of Part 8 relate to the provision of works details, but are only triggered in circumstances where such works would “have an effect on the operation or maintenance of the INEOS operations or access to them”. This may be difficult to discern unilaterally by the Applicant, and INEOS would prefer that in addition to this provision, no works should commence on any part of its land without works details having been provided and agreed with INEOS. Such works details should also be provided to each of the parties who occupy/have infrastructure running through the site. 4.3 Paragraph 85 provides for the right for INEOS to insist upon reasonable requirements in respect of certain matters which are limited to safety and operational viability and emergency access. Such matters are too narrowly drawn and should as a minimum include: 4.3.1 the continuing safe operation of infrastructure not belonging to INEOS but within or adjacent to its land, including access at all times for inspection maintenance and repair etc whether that be by INEOS or by any party with rights in the land or infrastructure on or in the land; and 4.3.2 continued normal access to the site and INEOS’s operations (as opposed to just emergency access). 4.4 The protective provisions also fail to address the extensive powers in the draft DCO which would allow the Applicant to extinguish, suspend or interfere with the rights in the land. Such rights include the ability for third parties to maintain and access their own critical infrastructure as well as lay new pipelines. Any interference with such rights could be disastrous and may prevent INEOS or third parties from: 4.4.1 continuing to utilise their infrastructure; 4.4.2 inspecting such infrastructure in accordance with their duties under the COMAH Regulations; and 4.4.3 carrying out maintenance and responding to leak detection swiftly. 5. OBJECTION 5.1 For these reasons INEOS must currently OBJECT to the DCO application. 5.2 It is acknowledged that discussions with the Applicant to date are ongoing and that the concerns identified above should be capable of being addressed through protective provisions and requirements. INEOS will update the Examining Authority as soon as possible if private treaty negotiations successfully conclude or indeed acceptable protective provisions and requirements are agreed between the parties enabling this objection to be withdrawn.