Representation by Environment Agency (Environment Agency)
- Date submitted
- 1 September 2022
- Submitted by
- Other statutory consultees
Dear Sir/Madam DRAX POWER STATION BIOENERGY WITH CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER: RELEVANT REPRESENTATION BY THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. Drax Power Limited have advised that on 28 July 2022 an application (reference EN010120) for a Development Consent Order (DCO) was accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination. 1. SUMMARY 1.1 These Relevant Representation contain an overview of the project issues which fall within the Environment Agency’s (EA) remit. They are given without prejudice to any future detailed representations that we may make throughout the examination process. We may also have further representations to make when supplementary information becomes available in relation to the project. 1.2 We have reviewed the draft DCO, Environmental Statement (ES) and supporting documents submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on the 23 May 2022, as part of the above-mentioned application. We are pleased that some of the concerns and issues raised by the EA during pre-application consultation have been considered and addressed. 1.3 We can confirm at this stage that we consider that the ES provides a satisfactory assessment of the potential impacts of the scheme with reference to flood risk, water resources, groundwater and ecology. The mitigation and enhancement measures identified for the construction of the development are considered appropriate. However there are certain issues we do not consider have been yet been fully addressed: 1.3.1 Volume 1 Chapter 12 - Water Environment We consider foul water treatment and drains with hydraulic connectivity should be scoped into the ES. We disagree on the ponds considered not to be ‘sensitive receptors’ and request clarification of the assessment of surface water receptors in relation to increased pollution from silt and sediments. 1.3.2 Volume 1 – Chapter 13 Materials and Waste We provide advice on the correct assessment of waste. 1.3.3 Volume 3 – Appendix 12.1 Flood Risk Assessment We are unable to confirm that the flood risk modelling, on which the FRA was based, is fit for purpose and so at this stage we are currently in discussions with the applicant to resolve the outstanding issues. 1.3.4 6.10 Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment We have indicated to the applicant that we expect a minimum of 10% net gain for each habitat type present on the site, including river habitat and we welcome the applicant’s confirmation they will consult us on this. 1.3.5 Draft Development Consent Order We request additional text within some of the Requirements to ensure that we are consulted on the approval of relevant documents. 1.3.6 Environmental Permit We provide details on the permit variation application. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 2.1 Volume 1 – Chapter 12 Water Environment 2.1.1 Section 12.2 Legislative and Policy Framework. The Water Resources Act 1991 Paragraph 12.2.12 states: Part III of the Act deals with control of water pollution, including the discharge consent system and water pollution offences, regulated by the Environment Agency. The text should be amended to state that Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2016 currently lay down the regime on water discharge permits. 2.1.2 Within table 12.2 Elements Scoped Out of the Assessment it is stated that for Foul Water Treatment: No discharge to Yorkshire Water sewers during construction and / or operational phases is proposed. Foul water is to be treated at the on-site waste water treatment works which has sufficient headroom for the additional on-site workers during construction in a similar manner as it does for the planned shut down periods when a similar work force is on site. The Proposed Scheme would therefore not have impacts on the water environment. And for Changes to the nature of water discharge from Drax Power Station: No changes to the nature (water quality) of the water discharge from Drax Power Station is envisaged as the Proposed Scheme has been designed to ensure compliance with the limits of the existing environmental permit. These statements do not indicate that a new on-site wastewater treatment works is to be constructed and conflict with document 3.1 Draft Development Consent Order Schedule 1 - Work No. 1 (f) (viii) Work No. 1D common supporting infrastructure including - (aa) a wastewater treatment plant. 2.1.3 Within table 12.2 Elements Scoped Out of the Assessment it is stated that the following are scoped out: The following Selby Area IDB drains surrounding Drax Power Station: Drax Abbey Drain, Sand Lane Drain,Hooks Field Drain, Long Drax Drain, Back Lane Drain, drains with reference 20/9,19/3, UN114, 18/1, 18/2, 18, 18/7, 18/9,18/10, UN109, UN110, 13/14, UN13/16 The reason given is that the drains are not connected hydraulically with the Proposed Scheme. This was a criterion for Scoping Out within the Scoping Report. However, Figure 12.3 Water Constraints Part 3, document number EN010120-PA-ES -6.2.12.3-Sheet1, shows that certain of those features are closely located to the site’s boundary (e.g Drax Abbey Lane) while many off those are within the 500m buffer zone. We do not agree these features should be scoped out and invite the applicant to discuss their decision with us as soon as possible. Also, within this table it is stated that: Drains within the boundary of Drax Power Station (reference SW20, SW21, SW22, SW38 on the Water Constraints map). The drains are part of the existing drainage system serving Drax Power Station. They are located greater than 500 m from the Proposed Scheme. These drains are also not hydraulically connected to the Proposed Scheme. However, in Section 12.7 Baseline Conditions, it is stated in paragraphs.12.7.11 and 12.7.12 that surface water run-off is managed by a drainage system and then discharged into Carr Dyke and the River Ouse. Therefore, there is potential for contaminants in particular silt and gravel during construction entering those waterbodies. We do not agree these features should be scoped out and invite the applicant to discuss their decision with us as soon as possible. 2.1.4 Table 12.6 Surface Water Features within the study area that have the Potential to be Affected by the Proposed Scheme. Several of the ponds within this table which have a recorded presence of Great Crested Newt are not considered as ‘sensitive receptor’. We disagree with this as they may be a habitat of the Great Crested Newt, which is a protected species and therefore a ‘sensitive receptor’. 2.1.5 Section 12.9 Preliminary Assessment of Likely Impacts and Effects should clarify why from the surface water receptors identified as ‘sensitive’, only three are assessed in relation to increased pollution from silt and sediments. Similarly, not all of the waterbodies are assessed in relation to risk from accidental spillage of oil, hydrocarbons and hazardous substances. The applicant should confirm whether this implies that none of the other waterbodies will be affected, or whether they have not been assessed. 2.2 Volume 1 – Chapter 13 Materials and Waste 2.2.1 We have reviewed this chapter and are satisfied that the assessment has fully considered matters relating to our remit with regards to waste minimisation etc. 2.2.2 Any material not deemed suitable for reuse on site, which therefore cannot be used in the CL:AIRE scheme, would be a “waste” and would require full assessment before being sent off site. There is a requirement to ensure the correct assessment of any waste produced. Correct assessment by suitable sampling procedures, would prevent misclassification of waste (specifically EWC Codes 17 05 04 and 17 09 04). 2.2.3 As part of the waste duty of care, a producer must classify the waste the business produces before it is collected, disposed of or recovered. This will identify the controls that apply to the movement of the waste, to complete waste documents and records, to identify suitably authorised waste management options and to prevent harm to people and the environment. The law requires anyone dealing with waste to keep it safe and make sure it’s dealt with responsibly and only given to businesses authorised to take it. The code of practice can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/waste-duty-of-care-code-of-practice/waste-duty-of-care-code-of-practice 2.2.4 The operator/producer of any waste should, if necessary, comply with the guidance laid out in the document Technical Guidance WM3: Waste Classification – Guidance on the classification and assessment of waste. 2.3 Volume 3 – Appendix 12.1 Flood Risk Assessment 2.3.1 The EA’s current position on the flood risk assessment (FRA) has been stated considering the flood risk modelling results as submitted. The EA is unable to confirm that this modelling, submitted in support of the flood risk assessment, is fit for purpose. This is because the EA review of the modelling has not been completed and updates to the model may be required. The EA’s overall position on flood risk may be subject to change if the model outputs differ in the future. 2.3.2 The baseline modelling has been undertaken by the applicant and received by the EA. It is currently under review with the EA’s Modelling team, with a formal response due to go back to the applicant early in September. 2.3.3 The Environmental Statement, Volume 1 – Chapter 12 Water Environment, paragraph 12.10.35 and Environmental Statement, Volume 3 – Flood Risk Assessment, paragraph 7.1.13, state that floodplain compensation storage will be provided for the loss of floodplain. We are in ongoing discussions with the applicant with respect to flood risk, and with regards to the displacement of risk, and any compensatory storage that may be required (location and quantitative volume). Further information regarding this is to be submitted by the applicant following completion of the model review. 2.3.4 The FRA contains much of the relevant information required to ensure that the development will be safe. Relevant mitigation with respect to flood risk is included in sections 6 and 7 of the FRA and includes details for both the construction and operational phase of the development. 2.3.5 The applicant should include further detail regarding the possible extension of the lifetime of the development and how this risk will be managed and mitigated for. The lifetime for the proposed development is 25 years. The applicant should look at what mitigation would be required, and its feasibility, should the development be extended beyond this. This is to ensure that should it continue beyond 25 years, the risks to and arising from, the development can be mitigated for. 2.3.6 The applicant should provide clarification of the proximity of the works to the defences adjacent to the River Ouse. Any works (including hedging) within 16m of the toe of the landward side of the defence would require a Flood Risk Activity Permit. We note that the applicant is not seeking to disapply the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 with respect to Flood Risk Activity Permits. 2.3.7 These comments are based on the information currently presented and may change following the submission of any further information. 3. 6.10 BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN ASSESSMENT 3.1.1 The Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Assessment submitted records a baseline river unit value of 2.41 but fails to deliver any increase in river units. We would like to reiterate to the applicant that we expect a minimum of 10% net gain for each habitat type present on the site, and that this includes river habitat (River Units). 3.1.2 We welcome the statement within paragraph 4.1.3 for us to be consulted with regards to meeting a 10% net gains in river units and note that this is also stated in the Environmental Statement, Volume 1, Chapter 12 Water Environment, paragraph 12.10.36. We support this approach and would recommend that we are consulted in relation to providing 10% net gain for river units as soon as possible. 3.1.3 It is an important rule of the Natural England Biodiversity Metric that the three types of biodiversity units (Habitat Units, Hedgerow Units and River Units) are unique and cannot be summed, traded, or converted. When reporting biodiversity gains or losses within the metric, the three different biodiversity unit types must be reported separately and not summed to give an overall biodiversity unit value – i.e., a minimum of 10% net gain must be demonstrated for each of the biodiversity unit habitat types present on the development site. 3.1.4 Any assumption that no enhancement is required for the river habitat, and that this can be justified by a lack of direct impact, is misplaced reasoning. BNG is primarily about enhancement, not mitigation, and so a lack of impact on a habitat doesn’t omit the need for net gain within that habitat type. Where a habitat falls within a site boundary, BNG aims to leave it in a measurably better state than before (irrespective of impact). 3.1.5 Ideally, delivery of net gain for river habitat (River Units) should be delivered on-site, through improvements to this section of the existing watercourse. However, we recognise that this may not always be feasible/possible. Where necessary, off-site river habitat improvements can be used to off-set any losses and/or to deliver an overall net gain. Where a 10% net gain for a habitat type cannot be achieved on-site, off-site delivery locations should be sought before a commuted sum is agreed. Where necessary evidence that off-site locations have been sought and exhausted should be provided within the updated BNG assessment report. 3.1.6 In line with the CIEEM, CIRIA and IEMA ‘BNG Good Practice Principles, No.10 - Be transparent’, it would be useful if the full BNG metric assessment details, rather than just the headline figures, were provided for review as part of the DCO application. 4. DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER 4.1 Schedule 2 Requirements 4.1.1 We are supportive of Requirements and request that the text ‘approved by the relevant planning authority’ is amended to read ‘approved by the relevant planning authority and in consultation with the Environment Agency’ in the following requirements: • 6(1) Detailed Design Approval • 7(1) Provision of landscape and biodiversity mitigation and enhancement • 12(1) and 12(3) Ground conditions • 14(1) Construction environmental management plan We would also wish to ensure that we are consulted on Requirement 18 – Decommissioning environmental management plan. 4.1.2 We request that in Requirement 11 Flood risk mitigation, the text ‘operated in accordance with the flood risk assessment.’ is amended to ‘operated in accordance with the approved flood risk assessment.’ 5. 6.5 REGISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS AND COMMITMENTS 5.1 Approval of documents 5.1.1 We would expect that the actions within the register are updated to reflect the changes requested in our paragraph 4.2.1. 5.1.2 Actions G3, MW1 and MW2 include the requirement for the Materials Management Plan (MMP) to be approved by the EA. The EA do not review or approve MMPs. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT 6.1 Environmental permit: operation of the proposed power plant 6.1.1 This project is for the installation of post combustion Carbon Capture technology on up to two of the existing 660-megawatt electrical biomass power generating units (Units 1 and 2). The proposal is designed to remove approximately 95% of the carbon dioxide from these two units which will then undergo further processing and compression before being transported for storage in geological formations under the North Sea. 6.1.2 As the works described in Schedule 1 ‘Authorised Development’ of the ‘Draft Development Consent Order’ PINS Reference: EN010120 are classed as a ‘Carbon Capture and Storage’ activity under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (EPR), a variation to the existing environment permit (VP3530LS) would be required before operations commence. 6.1.3 We have held discussions with the Operator regarding the variation application process and have agreed, in principle, to accept a ‘staged’ application as defined in Section 5.13 of the ‘Environmental permitting: Core guidance For the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016 No 1154)’. The agreement is subject to the staged application containing sufficient information, in relation to the areas not being ‘staged’, for us to start the determination process, and the subsequent information provided in a timely manner according to a schedule agreed upfront. 6.1.4 An application to vary the existing environmental permit was submitted on the 22 August 2022. The application will, in due course, undergo a full technical assessment of this proposal, including an appropriate assessment under the Conservation and Habitats Regulations 2010, in our role as a competent authority under the Habitats Directive for the environmental permit. 6.1.5 As we are yet to carry out this assessment, the comments within this letter are provided in response to the DCO application only. They do not determine whether or not a permit will be granted. 6.1.6 In determining a permit application, we will consider: • Management - including general management, accident management, energy efficiency, efficient use of raw materials and waste recovery • Operating activities and techniques - including the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT) for process design and management • Emissions to air and discharges to water, land and groundwater along with odour, noise and vibration • Information - monitoring, records, reporting and notifications. 6.1.7 When assessing the permit variation application we will set conditions to ensure the emissions and discharges are at a level that will not significantly affect people and the environment. This reflects current statutory requirements and will ensure compliance with European Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions. We cannot grant a permit until we are satisfied that the operation of the process will not cause significant pollution to the environment or harm to human health. 6.1.8 If the applicant does not demonstrate an ability to comply with such conditions, the permit variation will be refused. 6.2 Combined heat and power (CHP) ready requirements 6.2.1 We have advised the Operator that there is no requirement to undertake a CHP-Ready assessment. Our decision is based on our understanding that the proposal does not include any new, additional, combustion processes above and beyond that already permitted. 6.2.2 The Operator has been made aware that BAT applies not only to the proposal but to the whole of the installation. The maximisation of energy recovery is explicit in both the ‘Large Combustion plant Best Available Techniques Reference document’ and the ‘BAT Review for New-Build and Retrofit Post-Combustion Carbon Dioxide Capture Using Amine-Based Technologies for Power and CHP Plants Fuelled by Gas and Biomass as an Emerging Technology under the IED for the UK’. Energy / process efficiency is included under paragraph 6.1.6 above. We trust this advice is useful. Yours faithfully Mrs Frances Edwards Planning Specialist (Humber), Sustainable Places [Redacted]