Representation by Environment Agency (Environment Agency)
- Date submitted
- 14 June 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Emma Cottam Planning Inspectorate National Infrastructure Planning Our ref: SL/2023/122661/03-L01 Your ref: EN010128 Date: 14 June 2024 Dear Emma SECTION 56 PLANNING ACT 2008; REGULATION 8 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (APPLICATIONS: PRESCRIBED FORMS AND PROCEDURE) REGULATIONS 2009 (AS AMENDED); AND REGULATION 16 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2017 (“EIA REGULATIONS”) BELVEDERE Please find below our Relevant Representation on behalf of the Environment Agency in relation to the application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) for the Cory Decarbonisation Project PINS Reference: EN010128 made by Cory Environmental Holdings Limited (hereafter referred to as ‘the Applicant’ or ‘Cory’). The Environment Agency’s Role The Environment Agency works to create better places for people and wildlife. We were established to bring together responsibilities for protecting and improving the environment and to contribute to sustainable development. We take an integrated approach in which we consider all elements of the environment when we plan and carry out our work. This allows us to advise on the best environmental options and solutions, taking into account the different impacts on water, land, air, resources and energy. We help prevent hundreds of millions of pounds worth of damage from flooding. Our work helps to support a greener economy through protecting and improving the natural environment for beneficial uses, working with businesses to reduce waste and save money, and helping to ensure that the UK economy is ready to cope with climate change. We will facilitate, as appropriate, the development of low carbon sources of energy ensuring people and the environment are properly protected. We have three main roles: • We are an environmental regulator – we take a risk-based approach and target our effort to maintain and improve environmental standards and to minimise unnecessary burdens on businesses. We issue a range of permits and consents. • We are an environmental operator – we are a national organisation that operates locally. We work with people and communities across England to protect and improve the environment in an integrated way. We provide a vital incident response capability. • We are an environmental adviser – we compile and assess the best available evidence and use this to report on the state of the environment. We use our own monitoring information and that of others to inform this activity. We provide technical information and advice to national and local governments to support their roles in policy and decision-making. Yours sincerely Joe Martyn Planning Specialist Direct e-mail kslplanning@environment-agency.gov.uk 1 The Environment Agency’s position on the Cory Decarbonisation Project 1.1 We will support the Examining Authority by advising them if the application is in line with these objectives so that they can be satisfied that their recommendation in relation to the application for the DCO can be made taking full account of environmental impacts. 1.2 The Environment Agency intends to attend the Preliminary Meeting and to make further written representations if necessary. We may also make oral representations at any relevant hearings. We may add to or amend the matters set out in this Relevant Representation. We will keep the matters set out under review and update the Examining Authority on progress with the resolution of these issues at appropriate points as the examination progresses. Pre-application consultation 1.2 We have had a number of initial meetings with the applicant to discuss the proposals and the environmental constraints and opportunities on site with our remit. At this point in time we have not seen the level of detail or assessment at the pre-application stage to agree in principle to any of the design choices or approaches 1.3 There remain outstanding issues that we will need to work through for the application to demonstrate there will not be environmental harm and there is still further information to be submitted around these and other areas of interest. This is in part to do with the complicated nature of the environmental conditions in relation to the needs of the project and partly due to the timescales for solutions to be found as these issues are worked through. Matters not agreed 1.4 We believe that are a number of remaining issues that remain matters not agreed that need to be resolved, subject to further endeavours by the applicant in accordance with the suggested solutions and concerns provided in this Relevant Representation. 1.4.1 Flood Risk – We have yet to agree the spatial extent of the Order Land, both the freehold and leasehold to be compulsorily acquired and where easements, servitudes, and other private rights are to be extinguished, the breach flood modelling, the fluvial modelling, the offsets relative to the flood defences, offsets relative to watercourses, the adequacy of fluvial flood risk mitigation, proposed land raising, engineering designs, acceptable proximity to the great breach pumping station the sedimentation modelling and any needed mitigation. This is needed to ensure that there is no increased risk to third parties through loss of flood storage, impact on the flood defences, impact on the maintenance of, upgrading of and discharging from the great breach pumping station. 1.4.2 Terrestrial Ecology – The land raising could have significant impacts to watercourses, designated habitats and protected species. Further survey data on water voles and details of proposed compensatory habitat is required 1.4.3 Water Framework Directive – The submitted Water Framework Directive (WFD) Assessment fails use the baseline data available for some failing chemicals and therefore cannot predict concentrations after factoring in any uplifts. There is therefore no justification within the supplied WFD assessment that the uplift in suspended solids that might be predicting (by modelling) has sufficiently limited effects on contaminant concentrations to be able to conclude compliance. 1.4.4 Alignment between submission of Environmental Permits and DCO – At this time we must highlight that we are currently unable to advise the Examining Authority of our position on the environmental permits required for this project. Pre-permit application discussions are still ongoing. 1.4.5 Protective provisions – The protective provisions included within the draft development consent order are not acceptable to the Environment Agency. We expect to enter into discussions with the applicant seeking to agree protective provisions. Schedule 3 of the dDCO seeks to disapply (c) Metropolis Management (Thames River Prevention of Floods) Amendment Act 1879(c) and (k) Thames Barrier and Flood Prevention Act 1972(k); and replace it with bespoke Article 6(2). We do not agree to those disapplications until and unless we agree the protective provisions. We expect to have a new standard set of protective provisions available shortly. 2 Flood Risk- matters not agreed 2.1.1 Land Raising - ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT: 6.3 APPENDIX 11-2: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT Cory Decarbonisation Project PINS Reference: EN010128 March 2024 Revision A (FRA) Paragraphs 8.3.26 We do not believe that any serious attempt has been made to justify or minimise the amount of proposed ground raising. For context, in London such as in the London Borough of Bexley’s Local Plan the minimum requirement for housing is that sleeping accommodation is set no lower than the modelled breach flood level and commercial developments are often set below the breach flood level. An alternative approach would be to only raise the equipment vulnerable to flooding but leave the buildings or at least the surrounding landscaping and access routes at the existing level. During one meeting the development team confirmed that in the event of a failure of the Carbon Capture equipment the power station would continue to operate with the CO2 vented to atmosphere until the Carbon Capture equipment was functioning again. We question if it not likely that the amount of carbon emitted in achieving the ground raising would be more than that released if the equipment was out of action for a limited period. 2.1.2 7.4 hectares of ground raising appears disproportionate to the risk of damage to the Carbon Capture equipment being protected. It appears unlikely that all of the infrastructure proposed within the 7.4 area of land raising will be vulnerable to damage from flooding. 2.1.3 The ground raising is increasing the exact same risks to nearby existing development as the applicant is seeking to mitigate to the scheme infrastructure. In our opinion it is unreasonable to provide no mitigation for the off-site impacts given the scale of the ground raising and the impacts. The area of land proposed to be raised is not currently a flood storage area but functions as floodplain. Reducing the void available to store water in the floodplain will increase flood levels elsewhere in the event of breach failure of the tidal defences. 2.1.4 The amount of ground works required to achieve the raised ground levels over that whole area will require the transport of large amounts of material inevitably with associated environmental impacts. We question if this is not contrary to the purpose of the scheme? 2.1.5 As previously stated in Environment Agency comments, options to prevent that impact could include: - Reducing the area of ground raising. Lowering ground levels elsewhere as floodplain compensation, although it is unclear if doner high ground exists where it would be needed. Pumping to discharge flood water to the Thames to reduce residual risk flooding. Improvements to the flood defences, although that is difficult including due to much of the run of the defences being outside the current proposed site extent. 2.1.6 The Marsh Dykes is a man-made drainage network prone to sediment build up. How will sediment discharge into the dyke network be changed by the scheme potentially increasing the need for maintenance of the downstream ditch network? 2.2 Breach modelling 2.2.1 We do not agree with the approach taken to model the impacts of at breach of the Thames tidal flood defences. On page 22 Flood Risk Assessment states: - 6.3.4. The key aspects of this guidance which apply to the River Thames Flood Defences adjacent to the Site are: the landward toe level was determined as the lowest point within a semicircle centred on the breach crest with a radius equal to the breach width; and each breach is 20m wide and open for 18 hours as the defences on an estuary and are of reinforced concrete in an urban environment. We consider that the breaches being modelled as open for 18 hours is not long enough, as downstream of the Thames Barrier breaches should be modelled as open for three tidal cycles. For soft (earth) defences the breaches should be modelled with 50m wide breaches. 2.2.3 Paragraph 8.3.27 of the FRA. Illustrates the unnecessarily precautionary approach to the ground raising. For infrastructure that is relatively easily replaced within the Site surely it is not just the freeboard that is not required but the ground raising is not required. 2.2.4 Paragraph 8.3.28 of the FRA states that the platform and equipment/building levels referred to above will be maintained for the lifetime of the Proposed Scheme. We would support the lower of the at the end of the development and the restoration of existing ground levels. 2.2.5 Paragraph 8.3.40 of the FRA. The approach of modelling breaches at discreet locations is less granular than the Environment Agency’s method of modelling breaches all along the defence line. The worst-case location may well not have been modelled. 2.2.6 The guidance on gov.uk under the heading ‘Impact on off-site flood risk’ needs to be followed including the analysis using raw results. Please find below and attached a link to the relevant page on gov.uk. using modelling for flood risk assessments 2.2.7 We would ask that the depth difference mapping includes a + or – 1mm band to allow the reader to distinguish modelled increases and decreases in depth. The adoption of any model tolerance is problematic because of the difficulty in distinguishing between impression in the modelling and detriment to off-site receptors. The benefit of the doubt should be given to those already at risk within a floodplain. Please note the robust technical justification requirement referred to in the gov.uk guidance. 2.2.8 Paragraphs 8.3.62 + 63 + 64 of the FRA. The Environment Agency disagree with the opinion over the significance of the off-site increases in flood levels. The argument that receptors that are already shown to flood are not sensitive to a small increase in flood levels because they are going from wet to wetter during the design event is false because the design even is merely a somewhat arbitrary standardised scenario for modelling purposes. During a real breach of the flood defences the severity could be more or less. The increased risk and flood level could therefore take a flood water level above the threshold for any given receptor including housing and other buildings. 2.2.9 Paragraph 8.3.70 – We disagree that no mitigation is required for the off-site increases in flood risk. 2.2.10 The 2020 Marsh Dykes modelling study established that the operation of the pumping stations significantly reduced the breach / residual risk floodplain. The construction of a new gravity outfall at a different location and the provision of additional pumping capacity has the potential to address more than one of our concerns, all subject to feasibility and modelling. 2.2.11 Paragraphs 8.3.70 + 71 of the FRA - A risk-based approach is proposed to address the risk of a breach in the tidal defences between Riverside 1 and Riverside 2. That approach of considering the vulnerability of different aspects of the proposed scheme in more detail would be a more appropriate approach for the area where ground raising is currently proposed rather than the wholesale ground raising with its associated impacts. 2.2.12 Paragraph 8.4.3 of the FRA - It is not possible to generalise over whether or not overtopping of the River Thames Flood Defences would cause lower or higher depths of flooding because that depend on how much higher the river level reached above the defence crest level. We do not normally ask for overtopping to be assessed in London considering the relatively high standard of protection afforded by the defence crest level. 2.1.13 Paragraph 8.5.2 of the FRA - We would suggest that an alternative approach is to adopt the TE2100 plan future defence crest levels that apply at this location. 2.1.14 Paragraph 8.6.10 of the FRA. - We would ask that this assertion is substantiated. Please can the applicant show that overland flow from Riverside 1 and 2 will not escape to the south during a critical duration 100-year plus climate change event. Floodplain plots normally only show flooding in excess of 50mm depth and so shallow overland flow is often not represented. Will the works be designed to prevent flow south from Riverside 1 and 2 with ground level changes as required? 2.2.15 Paragraph 8.6.22 of the FRA. We are opposed to the buffer strips being only 5 metres wide. A minimum 8 metres measured horizontally from the top of the riverbank should be provided. It is not clear that acceptable floodplain compensation can be provided with those narrow buffer strips for loses to the fluvial floodplain. 2.2.16 The applicant’s approach of assuming that exact offsets to watercourses and flood risk management infrastructure can be dealt with later through the protective provisions is unsafe because the amount of development required may conflict with achieving the needed width of buffer / access strips. 2.3 The risk of hindering the restoration of the gravity outfall from Great Breach Pumping Station 2.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT: 6.3 APPENDIX 11-4: COASTAL MODELLING STUDIES (planninginspectorate.gov.uk) shows increased deposition upstream of the new jetty. This is in the realm of 0.1 to 0.2 m increase; however, this could be enough to make an existing sedimentation problems worse. The fact that the proposed option of the new jetty in combination with the removal of the disused Belvedere power station jetty is shown to lead to greater upstream sedimentation than retaining the disused Belvedere power station jetty appears counter intuitive. We question the validity of the modelling, as, based on Figures 3-22, 3-23 and 3-24 (pages 30 and 31), there does not appear be any water flowing through the area formerly occupied by the disused Belvedere power station jetty and ask for more information on the geometry of the existing and proposed in-channel structures as well as how they are represented in the model in order to clarify this. Wave modelling has not been included but is also required. 2.3.1 Despite the statements made in the meeting in September 2023, the Environment Agency are now concerned over the risk of increased deposition at the location of the Great Breach Pumping station gravity outfall. Additional deposition at that location could further hinder the ability to restore discharge from the gravity outfall, for which discussions have recently reopened. 2.4 The need for further information and clarification of the different flood models prior to the Environment Agency undertaking a technical review of the adequacy of the flood modelling. 2.4.1 Our normal practice is to first seek to achieve clarity over flood modelling including what is being modelled before requesting a review by our specialist Evidence and Risk teams. That is our intention here. ENGINEERING PLANS: PROPOSED JETTY INDICATIVE DRAWING: 2.12 - Drawing Title: - Proposed Jetty Indicative Drawing Regulation 5(2) (o) Application Document Reference 2.12 2.4.2 Comment - The drawing is stated to be indicative and only provides section views with the plan view undefined. That lack of certainty over the exact location and design effects the ability to model the impacts of the new jetty. It is not clear that the worst case has been modelled in terms of changes to the river. 2.5 Proximity to main river, tidal defences and the great breach pumping station LAND PLANS: 2.2 - as well as the associated parts of the Book of Reference and the draft Development Control Order. Drawing Title: - Lands Plans Regulation 5(2) (i) Application Document Reference 2.2 Key Plan, 2.5.1 Comment – The Environment Agency is opposed to the spatial extent of the Order Land, both the freehold and leasehold to be compulsorily acquired and where easements, servitudes, and other private rights are to be extinguished. This includes the land where Great Breach Pumping Station and the culverts and services that serve the pumping station are located and land where works may be required to maintain, uprate and replace those flood risk management assets. WORKS PLANS: 2.3 28 May 2024 Revision P02 2.5.2 Comment – the Environment Agency require clarification on the extent of the works to be carried out within the construction compounds show within the works plan. Engineering Plans: Indicative Equipment Layout: 2.5 - as well as the associated parts of the draft Development Control Order. Drawing Title: Indicative Equipment Layout Regulation 5(2)(q) Application Document Reference 2.5 2.5.3 Comment: The Environment Agency have not agreed to the location of Equipment Item 1 - The Liquid CO2 Export Jetty and 2 - The Elevated Process Pipe & Duct Bridge. Those items may adversely affect access to the flood defences and Great Breach Pumping station and the associated culverts open channels and services as well as future maintenance and upgrade works. 2.6 Advice on the future Thames Barrier 2.6.1 The Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (the Plan) sets out how we (the Environment Agency) and our partners can work together to manage tidal flood risk in the Thames Estuary, from now until the end of the century. It is an adaptive plan, ensuring current standards of flood protection provided by the existing tidal defence system are maintained or improved whilst taking into account the effects of climate change e.g. sea level rise. 2.6.2 Current climate projections suggest that the Thames Barrier can continue to protect London from tidal flooding until 2070. After this, the Plan identifies seven end of the century options that may be implemented across the estuary, these include: • Upgrading the existing Thames Barrier? • Creating flood storage and upgrading the existing Thames Barrier? • A new barrier within Gravesend Reach with a single set of gates (the existing Thames Barrier has a single set of gates)? • A new barrier within Long Reach with a single set of gates • A new barrier within Gravesend Reach with two sets of gates and locks • A new barrier within Long Reach with two sets of gates and locks • Converting the existing Thames Barrier by adding a second set of gates and locks 2.6.3 If we are to ensure one of these options is operational by 2070, a decision will need to be taken on the preferred end of the century option by around 2040 and for construction/upgrade works to begin by around 2050. 2.6.4The Cory Decarbonisation Project falls within an area that has been identified for flood storage, as per bullet point 2. The flood storage areas are shown on a map within the Plan. We have started work to explore the possible land we will require for each of the end of the century options and how we can secure the land in advance of the 2040 decision date for whichever option is chosen. 2.6.5 The end of the century options within the Plan, and the ongoing work regarding these, is something the applicant should be aware of as the possible new flood storage space may be on or in close proximity to the Cory Decarbonisation Project site in the future. We recommend the applicant regularly checks the Gov.uk site or contacts the Environment Agency for updates. 3 Terrestrial Biodiversity Overview 3.1 The Environment Agency is part of the Defra family along with Natural England (NE). There are areas where our responsibilities can overlap in relation to ecological advice and guidance. Our comments relate to impacts to the water environment through groundwater and surface water pollution and impacts to Main Rivers. We have reviewed: Biodiversity APP-057 6.1 - Environmental Statement - Chapter 8 - Marine Biodiversity net gain Terrestrial and Marine ecology report Preliminary ecological Appraisal, - Information to Inform a Habitat Regulations Assessment APP-091 6.3 – Environmental Statement - Appendix 7-4 - Bat Survey Report APP-092 6.3 - Environmental Statement - Appendix 7-5 - Breeding Birds Survey Report APP-093 6.3 - Environmental Statement - Appendix 7-6 - Botanical Survey Report APP-094 6.3 - Environmental Statement - Appendix 7-7 - Reptile Survey Report APP-095 6.3 - Environmental Statement - Appendix 7-8 - Terrestrial Invertebrates Survey Report APP-096 6.3 - Environmental Statement - Appendix 7-9 - Water Vole Survey Report APP-097 6.3 - Environmental Statement - Appendix 7-10 - Wintering Bird Survey Report APP-098 6.3 - Environmental Statement - Appendix 7-11 - Shading Study APP-099 6.3 - Environmental Statement - Appendix 8-1 - Marine Baseline 2.2 Areas outstanding - Inadequate survey data. More information needed. 3.2.1 We note from the Water Vole report within the terrestrial biodiversity environmental statement that Water Vole populations were present in 8 out of the 11 wet ditches. The proposal highlights that pre-existing viable habitat would be destroyed. Creation of 1300m of ditch habitat for the loss of 756 does seem like adequate compensation however, if the proposal outlines that new ditches will be created within a pre existing ecological niche (s) rather than within land with low ecological value, this could lead to a net biodiversity loss. 3.2.2 We also note that in page 7.6.50 of the Environmental statement (Terrestrial Biodiversity) Vegetation growth may have been a limiting factor in establishing a true population. Therefore, it would be fair to assume that Water Vole population is more numerous than the data provides, and therefore removal of existing ditch networks may be much more ecologically impactful. Translocation of water voles will require a permit from Natural England Water voles: licence to intentionally damage or destroy water vole burrows by displacement (CL31) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) 3.3 Advice 3.3.1 Intertidal habitat creation We strongly recommend that the opportunity to remove the remaining part of the Old Borax Jetty and replace that with sloping intertidal habitat features should be explored as a way to provide environmental mitigation for the impacts of the scheme on the river corridor. This shout be considered in combination with the removal or retention of the disused Belvedere power station jetty 3.3.2 Great crested newts We have concerns that data for Great crested newts (GCN) presence or absence may have relied on supposition rather than survey. Confirmation should be provided that the Warden who supplied the applicant with presence information had based this assumption or on survey work. If so, this data should the data be supplied. The ditch network should provide adequate habitat for GCN. Did the eDNA surveys that were carried out also include GCN? If not, we would recommend that GCN surveys are undertaken. Provision of updated survey data, to reflect GCN surveys and an more information to demonstrate how the proposed habitat creation will not be at the detriment to pre-existing habitat. 3.3.3 Reptiles The report refers to a low population, which may be a function of grazing. We would strongly recommend the translocation of reptiles if the land is deemed suitable for development. 4 Aquatic biodiversity advice 4.1 Wherever possible silent, press or vibration piling is preferred to percussive impact piling. Piling noise from percussive impact piling will have the biggest risk of adverse effects on migrating and resident fish populations. This is addressed in Appendix 6-4 Underwater Noise Assessment. 4.2 This makes certain assumptions when determining likely impacts upon the fish populations. Paragraph 7.1.16 asserts that there will a single pile installation per day (for 4 months), taking a total time of 30 minutes to drive the pile. Consideration should therefore be given to including this limit of driving a single pile and approximately 30 minute maximum of cumulative percussive piling per day within the draft Code of Construction Practice. 5 Water Framework Directive Overview 5.1 We acknowledge the receipt of a WFD impact assessment (which within it includes a WFD impact assessment for water quality), which builds on the scoping assessment already provided. 5.2 Areas outstanding 5.2.1The impact assessment claims (p50) there are no baseline chemistry data (ND) for the chemical elements benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene, naphthalene, zinc, mercury, copper or chromium in Thames Middle water body. This is an incorrect statement. 5.2.2 The effect of this statement is to justify not having provided calculated uplifts for a number of failing chemicals, and thereby giving the impression that it is not possible to predict whether the activity of dredging will deteriorate the WFD status of the waterbody further (though at the same time claiming it will not). This is unacceptable. 5.2.3 There is data collected during the 2016-18 period, more specifically there was a 6 month high resolution water column monitoring program in 2016 which specifically addressed the levels of the PAH compounds benzo(ghi)perylene and benzo(a)pyrene. Both these chemicals are known to have exceeded their EQS Maximum Allowable Concentration. 5.2.4 Whilst there is no EQS AA set under WFD specifically for benzo(ghi)perylene (because the proxy benzo(a)pyrene is used) there is clearly a reason to believe that baseline concentrations are high (because it is classed as a failing element so benzo(a)pyrene must fail its EQS AA and in fact it also fails its EQS MAC), and in the case of benzo(a)pyrene it should be possible to obtain a baseline concentration that is a reasonable value to use within the calculation model because there are chemistry results viewable on Open Data. We therefore disagree that no data is available. 5.2.7 In the case of benzo(ghi)perylene, it would be appropriate to consider whether the existing concentration is elevated by more than 3% at waterbody scale to define whether this is a “fail worse” deterioration or not. This is irrespective of the fact that we’d formally look at the proxy chemical to judge if the notional EQS AA for benzo(ghi)perylene would be failing. Benzo(ghi)perylene doesn’t exist in WFD-instead we refer to the proxy result using benzo(a)pyrene). We know that the proxy chemical, benzo(a)pyrene, is failing and have published data available. 5.2.8 There are some unclear statements made within the assessment: 5.2.9 “Table 5-9 shows a preliminary assessment of the potential increase of contaminants within the water column as a result of the capital dredge works. This is to determine if the increase in suspended sediment (impacted by contaminants) would result in the baseline concentration exceeding the threshold annual average (AA) Environmental Quality Standard (EQS). Calculations were undertaken to determine the potential uplift in contaminant concentrations. The following conservative assumptions were used: • it is assumed that 100% of the contaminant concentrations present within the sediment enter solution within the water column (which is unlikely especially for less soluble compounds such as some PAH); and • no dilution calculation has been undertaken”. 5.2.10 Whilst (assumption 1) it is often appropriate to assume 100% transfer of sediment contaminant to water column (particularly for the PAH compounds because they are not analysed only as the dissolved component but are considered for classification purposes as the “total present” in the sample (ie includes any that is chemically “stuck” onto particulates), it is not appropriate (assumption 2) to ignore dilution within the waterbody and it is a little unclear what this assumption statement is meant to mean, the prediction of final (waterbody) concentration necessitates a consideration of dilution within the waterbody, as the concentration EQS AA is based on waterbody- scale effect. Whatever levels are present in the dredge plume, it is the levels in the waterbody as a whole that affect the classification. It would be reasonable to expect uplifts at plume volume level to become corresponding smaller when translated to waterbody volume scale. 5.2.11 As regards benzo(ghi)perylene; a precautionary analysis would be expected where it is known the baseline exceeds the EQS MAC, since this EQS is generally a higher concentration that the corresponding EQS AA (where a corresponding EQS AA has been articulated for a specific chemical). It is clear that if the levels are high enough to exceed the EQS MAC then reliance on the use of a proxy chemical is not safe, for if it were, there would be no need to have different values of the EQS MAC for benzo(a)pyrene and benzo(ghi)perylene. There is a point at which the real (measured) concentration of benzo(ghi)perylene becomes more important than the proxy’s concentration. 5.2.12 “11.8.57. Sediment sampling to understand potential contamination at the depth of the proposed dredge pocket has not yet been undertaken. This will be agreed with the MMO in consultation with CEFAS prior to commencement of works and will verify the findings of the Appendix 11-1: Water Framework Directive Assessment (Volume 3).” 5.2.13 The submitted WFD assessment has not used relevant data and therefore we do not agree with the conclusions presented. 5.2.14 The proposal to (re-)consider potential mitigation under the DCO cannot pre-empt the conclusions of a WFD assessment which has not been carried out thoroughly. A revised WFD assessment will need to include: 1) Evidence that the correct sampling and analysis (including samples collected at depth) has been carried out. 2) The results from 1) above are will need to be incorporated into a new WFD impact assessment, which will address the errors and omissions regarding baseline contaminant concentrations, and sufficiently detailed calculations are provided to justify why the applicant believes the activity will not deteriorate the waterbody in relation to chemicals which are already stated in the River Basin Management Plan to be failing. This should include a justified prediction of the predicted uplift in the annual average of each failing chemical to define whether of not the final average concentrations exceed 3% of the baseline. 3) The updated WFD impact assessment is submitted to us and we have agreed that it is acceptable. 5.2.15 The currently supplied WFD assessment is not fit for purpose. We cannot advise that the activity will comply with WFD for water quality based upon the information so far received. Baseline data has been overlooked which is materially relevant to calculation of uplifts in baseline due to dredging. Furthermore the sediment chemistry upon which the assessment is based lacks credibility being based on surfical samples alone, and these results lack data for deeper sediments which could well be more seriously contaminated (and thus alter the perceptions of the risk posed by dredging this material). 6 Groundwater protection 6.1 We have reviewed the following chapters of the ES: • Appendix 11-3 (Groundwater Impact Assessment) • Appendix 17.1 (Preliminary Risk Assessment) • ES Chapter 11 (Water Environment and Flood Risk) • ES Chapter 12 (Ground Conditions and Soils) 6.2 We agree that further ground investigation, with appropriate sampling of soil and groundwater, will be necessary as part of any consent issued. We note from the baseline information that Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) related chemicals are a potential contaminant associated with historic activities at the application site. The presence of PFAS, particularly within any soils or other materials (such as legacy concrete building and foundation remnants) will be a relevant consideration for the potential reuse of materials on-site. Waste reuse assessments must ensure PFAS risks are considered. 7 Permitting and waste Overview 5.1 The activities needed to construct the project may be subject to regulations, permits, licences and best practice (SoCG item 2.1.1, APP-058 Consents and Agreements Position Statement). These are: • Landfill Directive – this sets operational and technical requirements for disposal of waste by landfill, with the aim of reducing the negative effects of landfilling. • Industrial Emissions Directive – this is for larger industrial facilities undertaking specific types of activity. They are required to use Best Available Techniques (BAT) to reduce emissions to air, water and land. • Waste Framework Directive – this covers the definition of waste, end of waste, and quality protocols • Water Resources Act 1991 – applies to anyone who wants to take more than twenty cubic metres of water each day from ground or surface waters • Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 • Statutory guidance (waste duty of care code of practice) - the Code of Practice requires anyone dealing with waste to keep it safe, make sure it’s dealt with responsibly and only given to businesses authorised to take it. 5.3 The types of permits under discussion for these activities include bespoke permits, deposit for recovery permits, standard rules, mobile plant, and some exemptions may be considered. Waste recovery plans will be required for the recovery permits. 8 Wastewater discharge 8.1 The applicant should reach an agreement with the Thames Water Utilites Limited to connect to the local sewer if you opt for Route 1 as the method for discharging wastewater. No operation of the Carbon Capture Facility should commence until connection(s) to TWUL supply network are agreed and in operation. 8.2 Route 2 as one of the wastewater discharge options to discharge wastewater into the River Thames will require a wastewater discharge permit from the Environment Agency. 8.3 Page 966, 3.12.2, for the amine wastewater effluent and waste offsite disposal via road tanker. The applicant should confirm whether they have an agreement with a specialised contractor and clarify where the waste will be disposed.