appendix 1.2 scoping response - planning inspectorate...scoping report - tata steel uk limited:...

Appendix 1.2 Scoping Response

3/18 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol, BS1 6PN

Customer Services: e-mail:

0303 444 5000 [email protected]

Mr B Lewis Planning, Development and Regeneration GVA One Kingsway Cardiff CF10 3AN

Your Ref: rwbl/PERAPT scoping/07B116894/250913

Our Ref: 131105_EN010062_2109595

Date: 5 November 2013

Dear Mr Lewis Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) – Regulation 8 Application by Tata Steel UK limited for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Internal Power Generation Enhancement for the Port Talbot Steelworks Issue of Scoping Opinion and list of the prescribed consultation bodies notified by the Secretary of State Thank you for your letter received on 26 September 2013 requesting a scoping opinion under Regulation 8 of the EIA Regulations and for the scoping report entitled Scoping Report - TATA Steel UK Limited: Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks - September 2013. In accordance with Regulation 8 of the EIA Regulations the Secretary of State has: • consulted the prescribed consultation bodies and other interested parties;

• taken account of the consultation responses received within the prescribed time

period; and

• taken account of the specific characteristics of the project as described by the promoter and the environmental features likely to be affected by the project.

The attached document entitled ‘Scoping Opinion - Proposed Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks’ and dated November 2013 is the Secretary of State’s written opinion as to the information to be provided in the environmental statement which must be submitted with an application for development consent. It should be read in conjunction with your EIA Scoping Report.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/infrastructure

All consultation responses received up to and including 28 October 2013 from the prescribed consultation bodies have been appended to and form part of the Scoping Opinion. Further consultation responses have been received by the Secretary of State following the end of the statutory deadline. These have also been enclosed for your consideration. Any further late consultation responses the Secretary of State receives will be forwarded to you for your consideration and made available via the Planning Portal: www.planningportal.gov.uk/infrastructure. Under Regulation 9(1)(b) of the EIA Regulations, the Secretary of State is required to notify the applicant of the list of prescribed consultation bodies whom the Secretary of State has notified in accordance with Regulation 9 of the EIA Regulations that the applicant intends to provide an Environmental Statement (ES) in respect of the proposed project and of their duty under Regulation 9(3) to enter into consultation with the applicant regarding preparation of the ES, if requested. Please find this list enclosed. To clarify, the Secretary of State has not identified any persons under Regulation 9(1)(c) of the EIA Regulations, who may be affected by the proposed development. Please be aware that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure their consultation fully accords with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended), and associated regulations and guidance. The enclosed list has been compiled by the Secretary of State in its duty to notify the consultees in accordance with Regulation 9(1)(a) and, whilst it can inform the applicant’s own consultation, it should not be relied upon for that purpose. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours sincerely

Helen Lancaster HELEN LANCASTER Senior EIA & Land Rights Advisor on behalf of the Secretary of State Enclosed:

• Secretary of State Scoping Opinion - Proposed Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks - November 2013.

• Regulation 9 Notification List

• Late consultation response from:

Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board

Advice may be given about applying for an order granting development consent or making representations about an application (or a proposed application). This communication does not however constitute legal advice upon which you can rely and you should obtain your own legal advice and professional advice as required. A record of the advice which is provided will be recorded on the Planning Inspectorate website together with the name of the person or organisation who asked for the advice. The privacy of any other personal information will be protected in accordance with our Information Charter which you should view before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/infrastructure

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/infrastructure

SCOPING OPINION Proposed Internal Power

Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks

November 2013

Scoping Opinion for: Internal Power Generation

Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................... 1

2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................ 4

3.0 EIA APPROACH AND TOPIC AREAS ..................................... 14

4.0 OTHER INFORMATION ........................................................ 29

APPENDIX 1 – LIST OF CONSULTEES

APPENDIX 2 – RESPONDENTS TO CONSULTATION AND COPIES OF REPLIES

APPENDIX 3 – PRESENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

Scoping Opinion for: Internal Power Generation

Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the Scoping Opinion (‘the Opinion’) provided by the Secretary of State in respect of the content of the Environmental Statement for the Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks proposal by TATA Steel UK Limited, located at Port Talbot, South Wales. The purpose of the scheme is to enhance current on-site generating capacity and to renew existing infrastructure.

This report sets out the Secretary of State’s opinion on the basis of the information provided by TATA Steel UK Limited (‘the applicant’) in its report entitled: ‘Scoping Report TATA Steel UK Limited: Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks (September 2013)’ (‘the Scoping Report’). The Opinion can only reflect the proposals as currently described by the applicant.

The Secretary of State has consulted on the Scoping Report and the responses received have been taken into account in adopting this Opinion. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the topic areas identified in the Scoping Report encompass those matters identified in Schedule 4, Part 1, paragraph 19 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended).

The Secretary of State draws attention both to the general points and those made in respect of each of the specialist topic areas in this Opinion. The main potential issues identified are:

• Air quality

• Landscape and visual impacts

• Noise

• Ground conditions

• Flood risk

Matters are not scoped out unless specifically addressed and justified by the applicant, and confirmed as being scoped out by the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State notes the potential need to carry out an assessment under the Habitats Regulations1.

1 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)

Scoping Opinion for TATA Steel

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Background

1.1 On 26 September 2013, the Secretary of State (SoS) received the Scoping Report submitted by TATA Steel UK Limited under Regulation 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2263) (as amended) (‘the EIA Regulations’) in order to request a scoping opinion for the proposed Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks (‘the Project’). This Opinion is provided in response to this request and should be read in conjunction with the applicant’s Scoping Report.

1.2 The applicant has formally provided notification under Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIA Regulations that it proposes to provide an ES in respect of the proposed development. Therefore, in accordance with Regulation 4(2)(a) of the EIA Regulations, the proposed development is determined to be EIA development.

1.3 The EIA Regulations enable an applicant, before making an application for an order granting development consent, to ask the SoS to state in writing their formal opinion (a ‘scoping opinion’) on the information to be provided in the environmental statement (ES).

1.4 Before adopting a scoping opinion the SoS must take into account:

(a) the specific characteristics of the particular development;

(b) the specific characteristics of the development of the type concerned; and

(c) environmental features likely to be affected by the development’.

(EIA Regulation 8 (9))

1.5 This Opinion sets out what information the SoS considers should be included in the ES for the proposed development. The Opinion has taken account of:

i the EIA Regulations;

ii the nature and scale of the proposed development;

iii the nature of the receiving environment; and

iv current best practice in the preparation of environmental statements.

1.6 The SoS has also taken account of the responses received from the statutory consultees (see Appendix 2 of this Opinion). The

1


matters addressed by the applicant have been carefully considered and use has been made of professional judgement and experience in order to adopt this Opinion. It should be noted that when it comes to consider the ES, the SoS will take account of relevant legislation and guidelines (as appropriate). The SoS, when considering any application for a development consent order (DCO), will not be precluded from requiring additional information if it is considered necessary in connection with the ES submitted with that application when considering the application for a development consent order (DCO).

1.7 This Opinion should not be construed as implying that the SoS agrees with the information or comments provided by the applicant in their request for an opinion from the SoS. In particular, comments from the SoS in this Opinion are without prejudice to any decision taken by the SoS (on submission of the application) that any development identified by the applicant is necessarily to be treated as part of a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP), or associated development, or development that does not require development consent.

1.8 Regulation 8(3) of the EIA Regulations states that a request for a scoping opinion must include:

(a) ‘a plan sufficient to identify the land;

(b) a brief description of the nature and purpose of the development and of its possible effects on the environment; and

(c) such other information or representations as the person making the request may wish to provide or make’.

(EIA Regulation 8 (3))

1.9 The SoS considers that this has been provided in the applicant’s Scoping Report.

The Secretary of State’s Consultation

1.10 The SoS has a duty under Regulation 8(6) of the EIA Regulations to consult widely before adopting a scoping opinion. A full list of the consultation bodies is provided at Appendix 1. The list has been compiled by the SoS under his duty to notify the consultees in accordance with Regulation 9(1)(a). The applicant should note that whilst the SoS’s list can inform their consultation, it should not be relied upon for that purpose.

1.11 The list of respondents who replied within the statutory timeframe and whose comments have been taken into account in the preparation of this Opinion is provided at Appendix 2, along with copies of their comments, to which the applicant should refer in undertaking the EIA.

2


1.12 The ES submitted by the applicant should demonstrate consideration of the points raised by the consultation bodies. It is recommended that a table is provided in the ES summarising the scoping responses from the consultation bodies and how they are, or are not, addressed in the ES.

1.13 Any consultation responses received after the statutory deadline for receipt of comments will not be taken into account within this Opinion. Late responses will be forwarded to the applicant and will be made available on the Planning Inspectorate’s website. The applicant should also give due consideration to those comments in carrying out the EIA.

Structure of the Document

1.14 This Opinion is structured as follows:

Section 1 Introduction

Section 2 The proposed development

Section 3 EIA approach and topic areas

Section 4 Other information

This Opinion is accompanied by the following Appendices:

Appendix 1 List of consultees

Appendix 2 Respondents to consultation and copies of replies

Appendix 3 Presentation of the environmental statement

3


2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

2.1 The following is a summary of the information on the proposed development and its site and surroundings prepared by the applicant and included in their Scoping Report. The information has not been verified and it has been assumed that the information provided reflects the existing knowledge of the proposed development and the potential receptors/resources.

The Applicant’s Information

Overview of the proposed development

2.2 The proposed development comprises enhancements to a power station that would be housed in a new building on the existing Port Talbot site adjacent to the existing power generation facilities, together with new gas, steam and utilities network pipes, and a new electrical connection.

2.3 The existing Port Talbot site is an integrated steelmaking site using imported raw materials. Current on-site activities include producing hot-rolled, cold-rolled and metallic-coated strip steels, and providing solutions in product design, processing technologies and management of the supply chain.

2.4 The proposed development comprises two new boilers (nominally 164MWth each); two new steam turbines (nominally 65MWe each); the construction of one or two stacks (up to 120m high); new gas, steam and utilities network pipes; and a new 66kv electrical connection cable to an existing onsite substation.

2.5 The total onsite power generation capacity, inclusive of the proposed development, will be increased to a maximum of 225MWe. An average power generation of approximately 130MWe will result in a reduction of grid import of 40MWe to 10MWe.

2.6 Gas, steam and utilities network pipes and a 66kv electrical connection cable are integral to the project. The cable will connect to an existing substation approximately 2.8km to the south east. The method of connecting the cable is to be confirmed but will be either via undergrounding or via existing overhead infrastructure, or a combination of both.

2.7 The primary fuel for the project consists of gases formed as a by-product of the steelmaking process on-site. The proposed development will provide capacity to significantly reduce the amount of gases presently being flared.

4


2.8 Certain parts of the existing power generation facilities - three turbo alternators (8MWe each, total of 24MWe); four boilers; and up to three existing flare stacks – will be decommissioned. However, these works do not form part of the DCO application.

Description of the site and surrounding area

The Application Site

2.9 The application site is located within the County Borough of Neath Port Talbot, South Wales, approximately 1.5km to the south east of Port Talbot town.

2.10 The main generating structures of the proposed development would be located in the north of the site adjacent to existing power generation facilities. The grid reference: SS 7719888433 is centred on the Internal Power Generation Enhancement Works. The grid reference: SS 7874586081 is centred on the existing onsite substation which denotes the end of the electrical connection. The red-line boundary of the proposed development covers an area of approximately 19.2ha and is shown on Figure 1.2.

2.11 The site is classified as urban land – with reference to the Agricultural Land Use Maps in Wales.

2.12 The proposed location on the application site of the proposed main generating facilities was previously the location of coke works but is currently open scrub land with a park/concrete hardstanding in the northwest. The site is characterised by low-lying industrial land.

2.13 The application site is located within an area of recorded mining. The search noted that four seams of coal (between 170m and 770m deep) are present within the application site and were last worked in 1913. Coal is believed to exist at or close to the surface in parts of the application site and may have been reported in the past. The proposed development is not in a zone of influence of any existing workings.

2.14 A site investigation was undertaken in October 2011 at Blast Furnace 3 outside of the red-line boundary. Made Ground comprised 1.2m to 6.3m of fused slag, concrete, sand and bricks overlying an estuarine alluvium comprising soft to firm sandy clay, dense brown clayey sand, with numerous gravels cobbles was encountered to thickness up to 8.8m.

2.15 Ground investigations were undertaken at the Port Talbot site in December 2001, outside the redline boundary of the application site. Groundwater was encountered between 1.4m to 2.7m. Contaminants of concern were copper and zinc with the majority of samples exceeding the Tier 1 SAC for potential phytotoxicity. In

5


addition, the maximum concentration of arsenic was in excess of the Soil Guideline Value.

2.16 There are currently 16 buildings and structures within the application site redline boundary. One of the several, corrugated steel buildings on the application site will be connected to the new pipe work. A water tower and a chimney of concrete construction are also on site. No information is provided on the height of these existing buildings but the existing steelworks chimney stack is 135m high.

2.17 If the electrical connection cable connecting the proposed power station to the existing substation is run underground, it will predominantly run within the internal highway verge, with one section routed under the existing internal railway track through existing ducting. Some new short sections of cable length will be needed and these are proposed within areas that are currently scrub land.

2.18 There are no statutory internationally or nationally designated nature conservation sites within a 1km radius of the application site.

The Surrounding Area

2.19 Immediately adjacent to the northeast of the application site is an active railway line. The application site is neighboured by steel works to the south and west. Residential, urban and industrial development dominates the surrounding landscape with associated roads and highways. A lake used for the steel works cooling lies 200m to the west and the coast is 1.8km to the west. Port Talbot town lies to the north of the Port Talbot site.

2.20 Harbour Way, the Port Talbot Peripheral Distributor Road (PDR), is directly to the north of the area of the application site where the main generating facilities are proposed to be located, with the existing Port Talbot works to the east, an internal railway line (owned by Network Rail) to the south and the existing power station to the west.

2.21 The A48 lies just to the east of the application site running parallel to the M4. The Port Talbot Docks Industrial Area adjoins the Port Talbot site to the northwest as does Port Talbot Parkway station, where an active branch line serves the steelworks and links Port Talbot with Llanwern in Newport.

2.22 An Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) is located directly to the north of the application site. The AQMA covers the majority of land and properties between the Corus Steel Works and the M4.

2.23 According to Table 6.4 of the Scoping Report eleven Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), three Special Areas of

6


Conservation (SACs), one Ramsar and two National Nature Reserves (NNRs) lie within 10km of the application site.

2.24 There are two designated Landscapes of Outstanding Historic Interest, located to the east and to the northeast of the application site, as shown on Figure 3.1 of the Scoping Report. No archaeological designations, listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments or registered park and gardens are located within the application site boundary. Figure 3.3 of the Scoping Report shows the historic features located within the 15km study area around the application site boundary. These are shown on Figure 3.3 of the Scoping Report.

2.25 Settlements located nearby the application site can be found at Figure 1.1 of the Scoping Report and include Margam, Cwmavon, Neath, Baglan and Maesteg.

Description of the proposed development

2.26 The Scoping Report identifies several major components of the proposed development as detailed below (and in Table 3.2 of the Scoping Report):

• stacks up to 120m in height;

• cooling towers up to 22m high x 160m long and 16m wide;

• turbine hall up to 25m high x 55m long x 65m wide;

• boiler house up to 35m high (at apex) x 60m long x 65m wide;

• 66kv electrical connection, 2.8km in length to be run underground, off existing above ground infrastructure or a combination of both; and

• Transformer compound up to 35m long x 55m wide.

2.27 Other elements of the proposed development include smaller standalone buildings and structures such as tanks, a pump house, and a control building.

2.28 The proposed cooling tower/s will run in a closed loop where the water used in the turbine condensers is cooled and then recycled.

2.29 The proposed development will be predominantly fuelled by gases which are generated by the existing steel making processes, with imported natural gas being used as a standby fuel. The process gases and natural gas will be redistributed to the proposed development by extending existing pipework. The proposed development will reduce the requirement to flare process gases.

2.30 The new pipework for the proposed development will be an extension to the existing pipework for the existing generation

7


facilities, gas distribution, steam and utilities network. All pipework will be contained within the red-line boundary.

2.31 Up to two new stacks will be installed as part of the proposed development. These will be up to 120m in height, although this is subject to detailed design and air dispersion modelling.

Proposed access

2.32 The access to the proposed development will be directly from the existing junction on the PDR and therefore no additional access points will be required.

Alternatives

2.33 The alternatives considered by the applicant are described in Section 2.6 of the Scoping Report. These include a ‘Do Nothing’ scenario and importing electricity from the National Grid.

2.34 Three options on the wider Port Talbot site have been considered for the location of the proposed development; these are identified on Figure 2.1 of the Scoping Report.

2.35 Location A: the Old Margam Coke Oven Site (adjacent to existing power generation buildings) is under the ownership of the Applicant; Location B is part owned by the Association of British Ports (ABP); and Location C requires a termination of lease and re-location of onsite contractor compounds.

2.36 The applicant concluded that location A is the most suitable site for locating the proposed development for the reasons given in paragraphs 2.6.6 - 2.6.12 of the Scoping Report.

Grid connection

2.37 The 66kv electrical connection will run from the proposed development to the onsite substation approximately 2.8km to the east which is centred at SS 7874586081. It is likely that the cables will be run underground either in new excavations or existing ducts and/or be supported off existing structures.

2.38 Where a new section of ducting is required, a trench will be excavated and the new cables installed. This is denoted within the red line boundary shown in Figure 1.2 of the Scoping Report. This denotes a 12m buffer which is required to take account of local ground conditions and existing infrastructure.

2.39 Electricity produced on-site will be utilised by on-site operations. Electricity demand within the steelworks is cyclical; when excess electricity is available it will be exported to the Grid.

8


Construction

2.40 The SoS notes that the construction phase of the proposed development is likely to last approximately three years from commencement of site works. Construction activities will take place 07:00 – 19:00 Monday to Friday and 07:00 – 13:00 Saturday.

2.41 Many of the components of the proposed development are of modular design and can be transported on low loader transport vehicles or by sea freight. There may be the requirement for some abnormal loads, including cranes and other mobile equipment.

2.42 Commissioning of the new equipment that forms part of the proposed development will take approximately six months and is included within the three year construction phase.

2.43 The existing power generation facilities will be operational during the construction phase of the proposed development.

Operation and maintenance

2.44 The indicative operational lifespan of the proposed development is 35 years.

2.45 The proposed development will have continuous operation throughout its lifecycle except for planned maintenance. Therefore, for the purposes of the ES it is assumed that it will be operational for approximately 8716.2 hours a year or approximately 99.5% available.

Decommissioning

2.46 A number of options exist for the proposed development at the end of its 35 year indicative operational lifespan:

• it will be decommissioned;

• an application will be made to extend its life using existing equipment; or

• an application will be made to replace the existing equipment and to refurbish it to provide continuing power and steam generation.

2.47 The Scoping Report assumes that decommissioning may occur after an indicative 35 year operational lifespan.

9


The Secretary of State’s Comments

Description of the application site and surrounding area

2.48 In addition to detailed baseline information to be provided within topic-specific chapters of the ES, the SoS would find it helpful for the ES to include a separate section in the beginning of the ES that provides a summary of the site and surroundings. This would identify the context of the proposed development, and any relevant designations and sensitive receptors. This section should identify land that could be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed development and any associated auxiliary facilities, landscaping areas and potential off site mitigation or compensation schemes.

2.49 There are various references throughout the Scoping Report to the PDR. However, it is stated in some sections that it is already fully operational while in others it is stated that it is expected to be fully operational by the end of 2013. The status of the PDR should be clearly explained and referenced consistently in the ES.

Description of the proposed development

2.50 The applicant should ensure that the description of the proposed development that is being applied for is as accurate and firm as possible as this will form the basis of the environmental impact assessment. It is understood that at this stage in the evolution of the scheme the description of the proposals and even the location of the site may not be confirmed. The applicant should be aware however, that the description of the development in the ES must be sufficiently certain to meet the requirements of paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations and there should therefore be more certainty, particularly in relation to siting of built development, by the time the ES is submitted with the DCO.

2.51 The Scoping Report does not contain a plan identifying the proposed location on the application site of the various elements of the proposed development. The SoS expects this to be provided in the ES.

2.52 The SoS recommends that the ES should include a clear description of all aspects of the proposed development, at the construction, operation and decommissioning stages, and include:

• land use requirements;

• site preparation;

• construction processes and methods;

• transport routes;

10


• operational requirements including the main characteristics of the production process and the nature and quantity of materials used, as well as waste arisings and their disposal;

• maintenance activities including any potential environmental or navigation impacts; and

• emissions - water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation.

2.53 The environmental effects of all wastes to be processed and removed from the site should be addressed. The ES will need to identify and describe the control processes and mitigation procedures for storing and transporting waste off site. All waste types should be quantified and classified.

Alternatives

2.54 The SoS notes that the alternatives considered by the applicant are discussed in Section 2.6 of the Scoping Report. The applicant should provide in the ES ‘An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental effects’ (see Appendix 3). The choice of location was apparently based on the use of the Kepner Tregoe decision analysis tool. The SoS would like some further explanation or illustration within the ES of how this tool was used to inform the choice of site and what parameters were considered.

Flexibility

2.55 The SoS notes the comments in Paragraphs 2.7.1 – 2.7.7 of the Scoping Report that the detailed design of the proposed development is still being developed and that the draft description of development contains a number of variables, eg building dimensions, number of stacks, routeing of electrical connection cable. The EIA will be based on maximum, and where relevant, minimum parameters. The choice of parameters should be clearly stated and justified for each topic considered within the ES.

2.56 The SoS welcomes that the proposals will be firmed up during the pre-application stages but encourages the description of the proposed development to be as accurate and firm as possible so that its environmental impact can be more accurately assessed. The SoS welcomes the reference to Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 9 ‘Using the ‘Rochdale Envelope’ but also directs the applicant’s attention to relevant case law and to the ‘Flexibility’ section in Appendix 3 of this Opinion which provides additional details on the recommended approach.

11


Grid connection

2.57 The SoS notes that the grid connection is considered an integral part of the proposed development and DCO application by the developer. The ES should clearly identify those elements of the electrical infrastructure that will form part of the DCO application, and those elements that will form part of separate application/applications under a different consenting regime either by this applicant or other applicants. The applicant should ensure that such elements are taken into account in the Cumulative Impact Assessment.

Proposed access

2.58 No additional access points are proposed.

Construction

2.59 The SoS notes that no information has been provided in the Scoping Request regarding the size and location of construction compounds. Whilst is it appreciated that this information may not be available at this stage in the evolution of the proposed development, applicants are reminded that this information will be required, and that all construction compounds should be included within the DCO boundary.

2.60 The SoS considers it would be helpful if an outline construction programme was included in the ES to include: phasing programme; construction methods and activities associated with each phase; siting of construction compounds (including on and off site); lighting equipment/requirements; and number, movements and parking of construction vehicles (both HGVs and staff).

2.61 The SoS notes that the existing power station and associated infrastructure would be decommissioned once the proposed development is fully operational. Consent for this would be sought from the local planning authority and not as part of the DCO. The applicant should consider whether the decommissioning of this existing plant should be included in the CIA for this proposed development.

Operation and maintenance

2.62 Information on the operation and maintenance of the proposed development should be included in the ES and should cover but not be limited to such matters as: the number of full/part-time jobs; the operational hours and if appropriate, shift patterns; the number and types of vehicle movements generated during the operational stage.

12


Decommissioning

2.63 In terms of decommissioning, the SoS acknowledges that the further into the future any assessment is made, the less reliance may be placed on the outcome. However, the purpose of such a long term assessment is to enable the decommissioning of the works to be taken into account in the design and use of materials such that structures can be taken down with the minimum of disruption. The process and methods of decommissioning should be considered and options presented in the ES.

2.64 Paragraph 3.8.1 of the Scoping Report indicates that the design life of the substation is 35 years. The SoS recommends that the EIA covers the life span of the proposed development, including construction, operation and decommissioning.

13


3.0 EIA APPROACH AND TOPIC AREAS

Introduction

3.1 This section contains the SoS’s specific comments on the approach to the ES and topic areas as set out in the Scoping Report. General advice on the presentation of an ES is provided at Appendix 3 of this Opinion and should be read in conjunction with this Section.

3.2 Applicants are advised that the scope of the DCO application should be clearly addressed and assessed consistently within the ES.

Environmental Statement - approach

3.3 The information provided in the Scoping Report sets out the proposed approach to the preparation of the ES. Whilst early engagement on the scope of the ES is to be welcomed, the SoS notes that the level of information provided at this stage is not always sufficient to allow for detailed comments from either the SoS or the consultees.

3.4 The SoS suggests that the applicant ensures that appropriate consultation is undertaken with the relevant consultees in order to agree wherever possible the timing and relevance of survey work as well as the methodologies to be used. The SoS notes and welcomes the intention to finalise the scope of investigations in conjunction with ongoing stakeholder liaison and consultation with the relevant regulatory authorities and their advisors.

3.5 The extent of the study area is not clearly identified in all the topic sections of the Scoping Report. The SoS recommends that the physical scope of the study areas should be identified under all the environmental topics and should be sufficiently robust in order to undertake the assessment. The extent of the study areas should be on the basis of recognised professional guidance, whenever such guidance is available. The study areas should also be agreed with the relevant consultees and, where this is not possible, this should be stated clearly in the ES and a reasoned justification given. The scope should also cover the breadth of the topic area and the temporal scope, and these aspects should be described and justified.

3.6 The source of some of the criteria and standards that it is proposed to use in the EIA are not always clearly described in the Scoping Report, for example, in the Air Quality, Ecology and Socio-economic sections. These will need to be clearly identified and referenced in the ES.

3.7 The SoS notes that at this stage there are a number of alternatives under consideration for some features of the proposed

14


development, such as for example the number and height of the new stacks, the exact route of pipelines, and the structures required for the electrical connection. The SoS also notes that the ‘Rochdale Envelope’ approach may be applied to the application, and that the EIA and application may be based on minimum and maximum parameters. The applicant should ensure that it is made clear in the proposed development description in the ES for which features the design and location has or has not been finalised.

Matters to be scoped out

3.8 The applicant has identified in Table 2.1 and the relevant sections of the Scoping Report the matters proposed to be ‘scoped out’ of the EIA. These are:

• Fugitive dust emissions during the operational phase, operational traffic emissions, and air quality effects during decommissioning;

• effects on bats;

• effects on breeding and nesting birds;

• effects on reptiles;

• a Minerals Assessment;

• an Agricultural Assessment;

• socio-economic operational effects;

• public access and rights of way; and

• tourism.

3.9 Matters are not scoped out unless specifically addressed and justified by the applicant, and confirmed as being scoped out by the SoS.

3.10 In respect of Air Quality, the SoS accepts the exclusion of fugitive dust emissions during the operational phase, but is not satisfied that sufficient evidence has been presented to allow the exclusion of operational traffic emissions, nor is the SoS satisfied that sufficient evidence has been presented to ascertain whether or not the air quality effects during decommissioning would necessarily be the same as during construction.

3.11 In respect of Ecology, the Scoping Report states that it is not intended to include further work on the effects on bats in the EIA. The SoS notes the information on the unsuitability of the existing buildings and site for roosting bats. However these are mobile species and the situation could change. The applicant should consider bats colonising areas on the development site or immediate vicinity, and bats should be assessed in the ES and appropriate mitigation put in place as necessary. The SoS does not agree therefore that effects on bats can be scoped out of the

15


EIA. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from Natural Resources Wales (NRW) on the need to draw up and include contingency measures in the ES to be used in the event that bats are found on site during the construction phase (see Appendix 2).

3.12 It is proposed in the Scoping Report not to further consider breeding and nesting birds because of the lack of suitable habitat and because mitigation measures have been proposed which would avoid impacts. The SoS accepts the decision not to consider impacts on breeding birds further due to the lack of suitable habitat but reminds the applicant that if mitigation is being relied on to avoid impacts then that mitigation and its purpose must be included in the ES. It should be clear how the mitigation will be secured and delivered.

3.13 The Scoping Report states that no further survey work is proposed for invertebrates. Given the potential value of brownfield sites for invertebrates the SoS is not satisfied that sufficient evidence has been presented to exclude further work on invertebrates.

3.14 The Scoping Report states that as no reptiles have been found during ecological surveys, no reptile translocation will be required although mitigation will be necessary when clearing vegetation. The SoS accepts the decision not to consider impacts on reptiles further but reminds the applicant that if mitigation is being relied on to avoid impacts then that mitigation and its purpose must be included in the ES. It should be clear how the mitigation will be secured and delivered. The applicant’s attention is also drawn to the related comments from NRW (see Appendix 2).

3.15 Minerals assessment and agricultural land assessment are to be scoped out due to the historic previous uses of the application site and overworking of the ground material, therefore the area is unlikely to be used for mineral extraction or for agricultural purposes. The SoS is satisfied that minerals and agricultural land assessment are not required. However the applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from the Coal Authority on the need to consider the extraction of surface coal if present (see Appendix 2).

3.16 It is proposed that socio-economic operational effects will not be included in the EIA because the proposed development would be operated by existing power station staff and so there would be no effect on direct employment. Other socio-economic effects are scoped in. The SoS agrees that socio-economic operational effects can be scoped out of the EIA.

3.17 The Scoping Report states that as there no Public Rights of Way (PROW) or other forms of public access across the site these will not be considered further. The study area has not yet been agreed and may include land outside the application site which encompasses public access routes and/or PROWS. For instance,

16


Table 7.2 identifies a public footpath 1.2km from the application site. The SoS does not agree at this stage on the basis of the justification provided that this matter can be scoped out.

3.18 The Scoping Report states that it is not anticipated that the proposed development will affect local tourism and so the topic has been scoped out of the EIA. The SoS is not satisfied that sufficient evidence has been provided to support the exclusion of effects on local tourism.

3.19 Whilst the SoS has not agreed to scope out certain topics or matters on the basis of the information available at this time, this does not prevent the applicant from subsequently agreeing with the relevant consultees to scope matters out of the ES, where further evidence has been provided to justify this approach. The approach should be explained fully in the ES.

3.20 In order to demonstrate that topics or particular matters have not simply been overlooked, where they are scoped out prior to submission of the DCO application, the ES should still explain the reasoning and justify the approach taken.

National Policy Statements (NPSs)

3.21 Sector-specific NPSs are produced by the relevant Government Departments and set out national policy for NSIPs. They provide the framework within which the Examining Authority (ExA) will make their recommendations to the SoS and include the Government’s objectives for the development of NSIPs.

3.22 The relevant NPSs for the proposed development, EN-1, EN-2, EN-4, and EN-5, set out both the generic and technology-specific impacts that should be considered in the EIA. When undertaking the EIA, the applicant must have regard to both the generic and technology-specific impacts and identify how these impacts have been assessed in the ES.

3.23 The SoS must have regard to any matter that the SoS thinks is important and relevant to the SoS’s decision on the NSIP application. This could include a draft NPS if the relevant NPS has not been formally designated.

Environmental Statement - Structure

3.24 Paragraph 2.8.2 of the Scoping Report sets out the proposed content of the ES, on which the applicant seeks the opinion of the SoS. The proposed topic chapter headings for the ES differ slightly from those used in the Scoping Report and are as follows:

• Introduction;

• Environmental Impact Assessment;

17


• Project Description;

• Planning Policy;

• Air Quality;

• Ecology;

• Landscape & Visual Assessment;

• Noise;

• Ground Conditions;

• Traffic & Transportation;

• Archaeology and cultural heritage;

• Socio-Economics;

• Flood Risk; and

• Water Environment.

3.25 The SoS notes that it does not include any reference to alternatives, although Section 2.6 of the Scoping Opinion states the requirement of the EIA Regulations that main alternatives, where studied, must be included in the ES, and summarises those alternatives that were considered and the reasons for the preferred option. The ES must include an outline of those main alternatives studied by the applicant and provide an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental effects.

Topic Areas

Air Quality (see Scoping Report Section 5)

3.26 Table 5.3 on pages 5-7 identifies examples of dust sensitive receptors that will be considered in the air quality assessment and assigns them a sensitivity value, but does not explain the source of the classification. The ES should identify the source/s of all values applied in the assessment.

3.27 There are references to various guidance documents in this section, such as for example in paragraphs 5.3.3, 5.3.4 and 5.3.5, but the publication dates are not identified and the reference in paragraph 5.3.5 does not identify a specific document. All documents on which the assessment relies should be the most recent version, and fully referenced and identifiable in the ES. If these are not published documents they should be appended to the ES.

3.28 The SoS welcomes the statement in paragraph 5.3.6 of the Scoping Report that Best Available Techniques (BAT) will be applied in preventing emissions at source, and that dispersion modelling will consider a range of stack heights.

18


3.29 It is stated in paragraph 5.3.11 of the Scoping Report that receptor locations will be selected consistent with the approach followed for a previous Tata Steel permit variation application. The applicant should be satisfied and demonstrate that such an approach remains appropriate and will identify all potential relevant receptors, and fully explain it in the ES rather than referencing a previous application. The scope of the assessment should be clearly set out in the ES.

3.30 Section 5 of the Scoping Report makes reference to an AQMA in Taibach/Margam but does not identify its location relative to the proposed development in the text or in a plan. The location of any AQMAs that could be affected should be clearly identified in the topic assessment.

3.31 The SoS notes that the applicant concludes that no site specific monitoring of air quality background concentrations is required as existing monitoring undertaken by the local authority is considered sufficient. The applicant is reminded that they need to establish the baseline levels experienced by sensitive receptors. The approach to collection of baseline data and choice of receptors should be agreed with NPTCBC Environmental Health Officers and NRW. It should also be clearly stated which pollutants are being considered in the assessment and the choice justified. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from NPTCBC in Appendix 2.

3.32 The approach to modelling air dispersion modelling should be agreed with NRW in relation to nature conservation matters. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from NRW in Appendix 2 which endorses the applicant’s general approach but also requests a comparison between the current aerial emissions and the aerial emissions that would result from the proposed scheme.

3.33 The SoS notes that the applicant proposes to scope out of the EIA fugitive dust emissions during the operational phase, operational traffic emissions, and air quality effects during decommissioning. The basis for doing so should be fully explained in the ES.

3.34 There is only a brief reference to mitigation in this section. The SoS would expect the assessment to identify significant impacts, propose appropriate mitigation measures and identify any residual effects and their significance after mitigation. Consideration should be given to monitoring dust complaints.

3.35 This topic chapter should cross-reference to other chapters within the ES as appropriate, such as for example, Traffic and Transportation and Ecology. Where the outcomes of other parts of the EIA (such as transport assessment) are being relied on to establish the likely impact on air quality this should be made clear.

19


3.36 The comments made by Public Health England (PHE) (see Appendix 2) in their scoping consultation response should be taken into account in preparing the ES.

3.37 The applicant’s attention is also drawn to the comments from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council (NPTCBC) and the City and Council of Swansea (CCS) on the need to ensure that air quality effects on Crymlyn Bog SAC is considered (see Appendix 2).

Ecology (see Scoping Report Section 6)

3.38 The extent of the study areas for the ecological surveys is not clear. The SoS notes that for the desk study the applicant considered a study area up to 1km for internationally, nationally and locally designated sites and up to 10km only for SACs and SSSIs designated for bat interests, and records of protected species within 1km of the application site, although there are references later in the section to a 10km Grid Square record. The justification for the choice of study area is not clear.

3.39 The SoS would expect the study area to reflect the ecological zone of influence of the proposed development and for this to be explained and justified within the ES. Particular reference should be made to the results of the air dispersion modelling. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from NRW in Appendix 2 on the need to consider dispersion and deposition of aerial pollutants on sites protected under the Habitats Regulations.

3.40 The SoS notes that the walkover Phase One survey does not include the cable route on the basis that it is likely to be excavated within the road verge, but that a walkover survey is proposed prior to excavation commencing. The applicant should ensure that potential impacts of the cable route are identified at the earliest stage, and consider extending the survey should the expected cable route change.

3.41 This section identifies eleven SSSIs within 10km of the application site, although paragraph 3.1.5 in the Project Description section and section 5 of Appendix B: Ecological Constraints Report states that there are six. The applicant should ensure that descriptive information throughout the ES is consistent.

3.42 Reference is made in this section to the IEEM guidance, ‘The Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom’, which is welcomed, but it is not made clear if the definitions applied in Tables 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7 are from that or another source. The sources of criteria used in the assessment will need to be clearly identified in the ES.

3.43 Paragraph 6.7.3 states that a ‘Test of Likely Significance’ will be undertaken as part of the ES to determine whether a ‘further

20


Habitats Regulations Assessment’ (HRA) should be undertaken in relation to the three SACs identified within a 10km radius of the site. HRA is a separate process to that under the EIA Regulations and it is not clear what is meant by this and what stage any HRA has reached to-date. These processes should be clearly differentiated in the ES. Further information on HRA under the Habitats Regulations is provided in Section 4 of this Opinion.

3.44 Paragraph 6.8.1 states that the ecological assessment will be focussed on ecological receptors known to be present at the application site. The assessment should additionally consider impacts on species and habitats beyond the boundaries of the application site and in the area, as appropriate, and as identified in this section of the Scoping Report, and should cover the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the development.

3.45 No reference is made in this section to consideration of cumulative or combined impacts. The SoS advises that this should be included in the assessment and is particularly relevant in assessing the impacts on ecological interests.

3.46 The SoS recommends that all surveys should be thorough, up to date and take account of other development proposed in the vicinity. The potential need for further invertebrate surveys is discussed above.

3.47 The need to clearly establish which mitigation measures are being relied on to avoid significant effects and how they will be delivered is discussed above. The applicant may find it useful to include a table in the ES identifying mitigation measures and stating how/where these are secured in the DCO.

3.48 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from NPTCBC on the need to secure translocation receptor sites for kidney vetch (see Appendix 2).

3.49 This topic chapter should cross-reference to other chapters within the ES as appropriate, such as for example, Noise and Vibration, Air Quality, and Surface Water Environment.

Landscape and Visual Assessment (see Scoping Report Section 7)

3.50 Reference is made within this section to including within the assessment the three existing stacks that will be decommissioned but not demolished. It is understood from other sections of the Scoping Report that other structures are to be decommissioned but will remain, such as alternators and boilers. These should also be included in the assessment.

21


3.51 Paragraph 7.1.6 of the Scoping Report suggests that the proposed development will include one stack although it is understood that there could be two. The assessment should consider the worst case scenario, and in the event that this element of the proposed development has not been finalised by the time the application is submitted the impacts of both options should be assessed in the ES.

3.52 The choice of viewpoints and sensitive receptors should be agreed with the relevant local authorities; choice of viewpoints and receptors should be clearly explained and justified within the ES. The baseline should reflect the current situation and include the PDR.

3.53 The SoS notes that this section identifies three main types of cumulative visual effects and that it is proposed to consider simultaneous visibility effects only, due to the nature of the proposed development in the context of the existing industrial area. The applicant must fully justify the approach taken in the ES and be satisfied that the scope of the cumulative effects assessment is sufficient to encompass all those developments which may contribute to cumulative visual effects.

3.54 Definitions of significance criteria are not provided in this section and very little information is provided on the identification of mitigation measures that may be required. The SoS expects that this information will be fully set out in the ES.

3.55 This section of the scoping report refers to the use in the assessment of a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV). The ES should describe the model used and provide information on the area covered, the timing of any survey work, and the methodology applied. The location of viewpoints should be agreed with the relevant local authorities, and the SoS is pleased to note that discussions have taken place with NPTCBC and that NRW will also be consulted.

3.56 Night time views should be considered in addition to day time views for all phases of the proposed development.

3.57 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from NRW on the need to consider the Mynydd Margam Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest and Merthyr Mawr, Kenfig and Margam Burrows Landscape of Special Historic Interest (see Appendix 2).

Noise (see Scoping Report Section 8)

3.58 The SoS notes that this section also includes information on the assessment of vibration and suggests that the title of this topic chapter in the ES should reflect that.

22


3.59 The extent of the proposed study area is not defined in this section. The SoS expects it to be clearly identified in the ES.

3.60 The SoS welcomes the statement that the methodology and choice of noise receptors will be agreed with NPTCBC, and recommends that NRW are also consulted on these matters. The EIA should identify both relative and absolute changes in noise levels for construction, commissioning, operation and decommissioning.

3.61 Information should be provided on the types of vehicles and plant to be used during the construction phase. The noise and vibration assessments should take account of traffic movements along access routes, especially during the construction phase.

3.62 Consideration should be given to monitoring noise complaints during construction and when the development is operational. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from NPTCBC on previous concerns that have arisen as a result of the use of piling on the site (see Appendix 2).

3.63 This topic chapter should cross-reference to other chapters within the ES as appropriate, such as for example, Ecology.

Ground Conditions (see Scoping Report Section 9)

3.64 It is stated in this section that no intrusive investigation on the application site has yet been undertaken but that a number of reports have separately been prepared which relate to the wider Port Talbot site, outside the boundary of the application site. References are made to specific investigations undertaken in 2001 on the wider Port Talbot site but it is recognised that the relevance of some of these given the passage of time and their location is limited. However, paragraph 9.6.1 of the Scoping Report notes that no additional surveys on the wider Port Talbot site are proposed. All sources of evidence on which the applicant intends to rely should be clearly described in the ES, and the applicant should be satisfied and able to justify that the information is sufficiently relevant and up-to-date.

3.65 It is noted that it is not proposed to undertake site-specific ground investigations prior to any DCO being granted, and that it is intended that any DCO would include conditions requiring investigation and remediation as required, the scope of which will subsequently be described within the ES. It is noted that this approach has been agreed with NRW, but the SoS advises that the applicant should ensure that the worst case scenario has been considered, and that potential sources of contamination, impacts and remedial measures have been properly identified and assessed in the ES so the environmental effects are known and understood at the time of submission of any application. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from the Coal

23


Authority on the need to carry out a risk assessment for the area covered by the access road.

Traffic and Transportation (see Scoping Report Section 10)

3.66 It is not clear from the information in paragraph 10.3.4 about the nature of the works being undertaken as part of the Harbour Way PDR project, or whether it is yet fully operational, although it is noted that it will be included in the ES baseline assessment.

3.67 The extent of the study area, and the potential receptors, must be clearly set out in the ES. Reference is made in paragraph 10.3.5 of the Scoping Report to a National Cycle Network Route and other footpaths and cycle paths in the area. The SoS recommends that the ES should identify the location of footpaths, cycle paths and any PROW, including bridleways and byways, that could be affected by the proposed development, and clearly set out potential traffic impacts on them.

3.68 The SoS welcomes the applicant’s consultation with the local highways authority already undertaken, and the intention to hold further discussions about the local highway network and the scope of the traffic assessment. The SoS would expect on-going discussions, and agreement where possible, with the local highways authority and the Welsh Government.

3.69 The SoS notes that it is anticipated for the purposes of the traffic impact assessment baseline that the opening year of the proposed development is likely to be 2018. The applicant will need to be confident that the expected timescales for the proposed development are realistic so that traffic flow forecasts will properly reflect future baselines.

3.70 The number and type of vehicle movements and likely routes required for removal of waste from the site should also be included in the assessment.

3.71 The SoS notes that construction components will primarily be delivered by low loader vehicles or by sea freight. It is not clear whether it is intended that it would be one or the other or a combination of both. The applicant will need to ensure that the impacts of all potential scenarios are included in the assessment.

3.72 This topic chapter should cross-reference to other chapters within the ES as appropriate, such as for example, Air Quality.

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology (see Scoping Report Section 11)

3.73 Paragraph 11.1.1 of the Scoping Report states that a study area of 1km from the centre of the application site has been considered, although paragraph 11.3.1 states that data has been collected for

24


sites up to 1km from the application site boundary. Descriptions of the study area in the ES must be consistent, and the applicant must be satisfied that the extent of the study area is sufficient to include all the features of the proposed development, such as for example the electrical connection, and all those cultural heritage features that may be affected by it. The setting of historic features should be considered as well as the potential effects on archaeological remains.

3.74 The SoS notes that the proposed electrical connection will be about 2.8km long and that it has not yet been decided whether it will be overground off existing towers, underground, or a combination of both. The assessment will need to include consideration of impacts from activities such as, for example, excavation, in the event that any parts of the connection are put underground.

3.75 The SoS is pleased to note that the applicant intends to consult with and agree requirements with the Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust, the County Archaeologist, and statutory consultees.

3.76 This topic chapter should cross-reference to other chapters within the ES as appropriate, such as for example, Landscape and Visual Impacts.

Socio-economics (see Scoping Report Section 12)

3.77 The SoS notes and welcomes that the proposed study area for this topic will be agreed with NPTCBC.

3.78 Paragraph 12.3.4 of the Scoping Report states that the assessment process will use good practice methodology, and Tables 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 identify respectively the sensitivity, magnitude, and significance criteria that will be used to inform the assessment. However, this section does not identify the sources of the methodology and criteria. Similarly no information is provided on the measuring tool referred to in paragraph 12.5.2. Such information should be provided in the ES.

3.79 The SoS recommends that the types of jobs generated during the construction phase should be considered in the context of the available workforce in the area.

3.80 The SoS recommends that the assessment criteria should be locationally specific and consider the potential significance of the impacts of the proposal within the local and regional context.

Flood Risk (see Scoping Report Section 13)

3.81 This section of the scoping report provides very little information on the likely content of the ES in relation to flood risk. It is stated

25


that existing information provided in the 2010 ES related to the nearby PDR project has been used to assess the potential flood risk of the proposed development but it is not clear what stage this assessment has reached and what other information is likely to be relied upon to inform it. The Flood Risk Assessment (or similar) for the proposed development should be based on the current conditions at the site and include any effects generated by the PDR.

3.82 Paragraph 13.3.2 states that the application site is almost wholly located in Welsh Government Development Advice Maps Zone B, with a small area in the northwest corner of the site in Zone C2. However, it appears from the plan at Figure 13.2 that the extent of the site which is located in Zone C2 is larger than that. The classification of the site must be accurately and consistently reflected in the text and related plans in the ES. The applicant’s attention is also drawn to the comment from NPTCBC that Figure 13.2 appears to be out of date (see Appendix 2).

3.83 Although a flood risk assessment (FRA) is required for energy projects located in Zones B and C, it is not clearly stated that one will be provided or what form it will take. Any FRA should be appended to the ES.

3.84 Paragraph 13.3.4 notes that the application site is located in an area potentially at risk from reservoir flooding and Figure 13.3 shows such areas but does not clearly identify the reservoirs.

3.85 There is a reference in this section to further consultation with NRW to agree the scope of a Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA), but no further information is provided on this. The SoS recommends that the applicant should consider if there are additional relevant bodies that should be consulted in relation to the FRA.

3.86 Bearing in mind the proximity of the proposed development to the coast, the SoS considers that the impacts of climate change in relation to rises in sea levels should be considered in the ES.

3.87 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from NRW (see Appendix 2) on the likely need for hydraulic modelling to support the FCA.

3.88 This topic chapter should cross-reference to other chapters within the ES as appropriate, such as for example, Surface Water Environment.

Surface Water Environment (see Scoping Report Section 14)

3.89 It is stated that a desk study covering a 1km study area has been undertaken but it is not identified if that is from the boundary of

26


the application site or from another point. The study area needs to be clearly defined and justified in the ES.

3.90 The SoS notes that it is explained in this section that the proposed development will require water abstraction and discharge from the cooling tower/s, although this was not included in the proposed development description or covered in the Ecology section. The SoS advises that full consideration will need to be given to the potential effects of the cooling water system, and notes that the ES will include information on volumes and rates of abstractions and discharges and whether new outfalls will need to be installed. The position of any proposed new outfalls will need to be included in the proposed development description.

3.91 It is noted that the applicant already holds abstraction licences and a discharge permit for watercourses that are relevant to the proposed development, but that it is likely that these will either need to be varied or new ones obtained to reflect changes as a result of the new development. It is stated that this will be discussed with NRW. The applicant should ensure that the confirmed position is reflected in the ES. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from NRW in Appendix 2, particularly the limitations on further abstraction from the River Afan.

3.92 On-going monitoring of any required mitigation measures should be addressed and agreed with the relevant authorities to ensure that any mitigation measures are effective.

3.93 With particular reference to the effects on aquatic flora and fauna as a result of discharges and abstractions, this topic chapter should cross-reference to other chapters within the ES as appropriate such as for example, Ecology, and Ground Conditions. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from NRW (see Appendix 2) in relation to the need to maintain water discharge quality.

Other Matters Raised by Consultees (Appendix 2 of this Opinion)

3.94 The Health and Safety Executive advise that it is not possible to determine whether the proposed development will lead to an increase in employees working in close proximity to the major hazards associated with the gas pipelines. The applicant is reminded of their duty to ensure that risks to staff are ‘As Low as Reasonably Possible’.

3.95 The Civil Aviation Authority has raised a number of issues including the need to consult local aerodromes, the MOD and the local emergency services air support units. They also suggest that aviation lighting may be required for the stacks. If this is the case then the applicant may need to take this into account when

27


considering the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development.

3.96 It is stated in Section 2 that information on waste management during construction will either be incorporated into the introductory chapters or contained in a separate chapter. The SoS advises that the ES should clarify the types of all wastes to be processed and identify the likely number of potential traffic movements and the routes required to remove the waste from the site. The applicant should also consider whether the ES should include information on waste arisings during the operational and decommissioning phases of the proposed development.

28


4.0 OTHER INFORMATION

4.1 This section does not form part of the SoS’s Opinion as to the information to be provided in the environmental statement. However, it does respond to other issues that the SoS has identified which may help to inform the preparation of the application for the DCO.

Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

4.2 The SoS notes that European sites are located within 10km of the proposed development. It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide sufficient information to the Competent Authority (CA) to enable them to carry out a HRA if required. The applicant should note that the CA is the SoS.

4.3 The applicant’s attention is drawn to The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (as amended) (The APFP Regulations) and the need to include information identifying European sites to which the Habitats Regulations applies or any Ramsar site or potential SPA which may be affected by a proposal. The submitted information should be sufficient for the competent authority to make an appropriate assessment (AA) of the implications for the site if required by Regulation 61(1) of the Habitats Regulations.

4.4 The report to be submitted under Regulation 5(2)(g) of the APFP Regulations with the application must deal with two issues: the first is to enable a formal assessment by the CA of whether there is a likely significant effect; and the second, should it be required, is to enable the carrying out of an AA by the CA.

4.5 When considering aspects of the environment likely to be affected by the proposed development; including flora, fauna, soil, water, air and the inter-relationship between these, consideration should be given to the designated sites in the vicinity of the proposed development.

4.6 Further information with regard to the HRA process is contained within Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 10 available on the National Infrastructure pages on the Planning Portal website.

4.7 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)

4.8 The Secretary of State notes that a number of SSSIs are located within 10km of the proposed development. Where there may be potential impacts on the SSSIs, the SoS has duties under sections 28(G) and 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (the W&C Act). These are set out below for information.

29


4.9 Under s28(G), the SoS has a general duty ‘… to take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of the authority’s functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is of special scientific interest’.

4.10 Under s28(I), the SoS must notify the relevant nature conservation body (NCB), NRW in this case, before authorising the carrying out of operations likely to damage the special interest features of a SSSI. Under these circumstances 28 days must elapse before deciding whether to grant consent, and the SoS must take account of any advice received from the NCB, including advice on attaching conditions to the consent. The NCB will be notified during the examination period.

4.11 If applicants consider it likely that notification may be necessary under s28(I), they are advised to resolve any issues with the NCB before the DCO application is submitted to the SoS. If, following assessment by applicants, it is considered that operations affecting the SSSI will not lead to damage of the special interest features, applicants should make this clear in the ES. The application documents submitted in accordance with Regulation 5(2)(l) could also provide this information. Applicants should seek to agree with the NCB the DCO requirements which will provide protection for the SSSI before the DCO application is submitted.

European Protected Species (EPS)

4.12 Applicants should be aware that the decision maker under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has, as the CA, a duty to engage with the Habitats Directive. Where a potential risk to an EPS is identified, and before making a decision to grant development consent, the CA must, amongst other things, address the derogation tests2 in Regulation 53 of the Habitats Regulations. Therefore the applicant may wish to provide information which will assist the decision maker to meet this duty.

4.13 If an applicant has concluded that an EPS licence is required the ExA will need to understand whether there is any impediment to the licence being granted. The decision to apply for a licence or not will rest with the applicant as the person responsible for commissioning the proposed activity by taking into account the advice of their consultant ecologist.

4.14 Applicants are encouraged to consult with NRW and, where required, to agree appropriate requirements to secure necessary mitigation. It would assist the examination if applicants could provide, with the application documents, confirmation from NRW

2 Key case law re need to consider Article 16 of the Habitats Directive: Woolley vs East Cheshire County Council 2009 and Morge v Hampshire County Council 2010.

30


whether any issues have been identified which would prevent the EPS licence being granted.

4.15 Generally, NRW are unable to grant an EPS licence in respect of any development until all the necessary consents required have been secured in order to proceed. For NSIPs, NRW will assess a draft licence application in order to ensure that all the relevant issues have been addressed. Within 30 working days of receipt,

NRW will either issue ‘a letter of comfort’ stating that it is satisfied, insofar as it can make a judgement, that the proposals presented comply with the regulations or will issue a letter outlining why NRW consider the proposals do not meet licensing requirements and what further information is required before a ‘letter of comfort’ can be issued. The applicant is responsible for ensure draft licence applications are satisfactory for the purposes of informing formal pre-application assessment by NRW.

4.16 Ecological conditions on the site may change over time. It will be the applicant’s responsibility to ensure information is satisfactory for the purposes of informing the assessment of no detriment to the maintenance of favourable conservation status (FCS) of the population of EPS affected by the proposals3. Applicants are advised that current conservation status of populations may or may not be favourable. Demonstration of no detriment to favourable populations may require further survey and/or submission of revised short or long term mitigation or compensation proposals. In Wales, the focus is on evidencing the demonstration of no detriment to the maintenance of FCS of the population or colony of EPS potentially affected by the proposals. This approach will help to ensure no delay in issuing the licence should the DCO application be successful.

4.17 In Wales, assistance may be obtained from NRW’s Regional Species Teams. These Teams provide advice on a range of issues concerning EPS including advice on compensation site design, measures to mitigate incidental capture/killing, evidencing compliance and post project surveillance. The service is free of charge and entirely voluntary. Regional Species Teams can be contacted via NRW’s Enquiry Service. Further information is available from the following link:

4.18 http://naturalresourceswales.gov.uk/apply-buy-report/apply-buy-grid/protected-species-licensing/european-protected-species-licensing/?lang=en

3 Key case law in respect of the application of the FCS test at a site level: Hafod Quarry Land Tribunal (Mersey Waste (Holdings) Limited v Wrexham County Borough Council) 2012, and Court of Appeal 2012.

31


Health Impact Assessment (HIA)

4.19 The SoS considers that it is a matter for the applicant to decide whether or not to submit a stand-alone HIA. However, the applicant should have regard to the responses received from the relevant consultees regarding health, and in particular to the comments from the Health and Safety Executive and Public Health England. The methodology for the HIA, if prepared, should be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees and take into account mitigation measures for acute risks.

Other regulatory regimes

4.20 The SoS recommends that the applicant should state clearly what regulatory areas are addressed in the ES and that the applicant should ensure that all relevant authorisations, licences, permits and consents that are necessary to enable operations to proceed are described in the ES. Also it should be clear that any likely significant effects of the proposed development which may be regulated by other statutory regimes have been properly taken into account in the ES.

4.21 It will not necessarily follow that the granting of consent under one regime will ensure consent under another regime. For those consents not capable of being included in an application for consent under the PA 2008, the SoS will require a level of assurance or comfort from the relevant regulatory authorities that the proposal is acceptable and likely to be approved, before they make a recommendation or decision on an application. The applicant is encouraged to make early contact with other regulators. Information from the applicant about progress in obtaining other permits, licences or consents, including any confirmation that there is no obvious reason why these will not subsequently be granted, will be helpful in supporting an application for development consent to the SoS.

Transboundary Impacts

4.22 The SoS has noted that the applicant has not indicated whether the proposed development is likely to have significant impacts on another European Economic Area (EEA) State.

4.23 Regulation 24 of the EIA Regulations, which inter alia require the SoS to publicise a DCO application if the SoS is of the view that the proposal is likely to have significant effects on the environment of another EEA state and where relevant to consult with the EEA state affected. The SoS considers that where Regulation 24 applies, this is likely to have implications for the examination of a DCO application.

32


4.24 The SoS recommends that the ES should identify whether the proposed development has the potential for significant transboundary impacts and if so, what these are and which EEA States would be affected.

33

APPENDIX 1

List of Consultees

APPENDIX 1

BODIES FORMALLY CONSULTED DURING THE SCOPING EXERCISE

CONSULTEE

ORGANISATION

SCHEDULE 1 The Welsh Ministers Welsh Government

The Health and Safety Executive Health and Safety Executive

The Relevant Fire and Rescue

Authority

Mid and West Wales Fire & Rescue

Services

South Wales Fire & Rescue Service

The Relevant Police and Crime

Commissioner

South Wales Police and Crime

Commissioner

Office of the Police and Crime

Commissioner

The Relevant Parish Council(s) or

Relevant Community Council

Cornelly Community Council

The Equality and Human Rights

Commission

Equality and Human Rights

Commission

Royal Commission On Ancient and

Historical Monuments Of Wales

Royal Commission On Ancient and

Historical Monuments Of Wales

The Natural Resources Body for

Wales

Natural Resources Wales

The Civil Aviation Authority Civil Aviation Authority

The Relevant Highways Authority Neath Port Talbot CBC

The Passengers Council Passenger Focus

The Disabled Persons Transport

Advisory Committee

Disabled Persons Transport

Advisory Committee

The Coal Authority The Coal Authority

The Office Of Rail Regulation Office of Rail Regulation

Appendix 1

Approved Operator

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd

Network Rail (CTRL) Ltd

The Gas and Electricity Markets

Authority

OFGEM

The Water Services Regulation

Authority

OFWAT

The Relevant Waste Regulation

Authority


Public Health England, an executive

agency to the Department of Health

Public Health England

The Relevant Local Resilience forum South Wales Local Resilience Forum

The Crown Estate Commissioners The Crown Estate

RELEVANT STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS

Health Bodies (s.16 of the Acquisition of Land Act (ALA) 1981)

The relevant local heath board

Public Health Wales Mid and West

Wales Region

Abertawe Bro Morgannwg

University Health Board

The National Health Service Trusts

Public Health Wales

Welsh Ambulance Services Trust

Velindre NHS Trust

Ambulance Trusts Welsh Ambulance Services NHS

Trust

Relevant Statutory Undertakers (s.8 ALA 1981)

Railway

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd

BRB Residuary Limited

Network Rail (CTRL) Ltd

Canal Or Inland Navigation

Authorities

Company of Proprietors of Neath

Canal Navigation

Ports Associated British Ports

Appendix 1

Harbour Neath Harbour Commissioners

Civil Aviation Authority Civil Aviation Authority

Licence Holder (Chapter 1 Of Part 1

Of Transport Act 2000)

NATS En-Route (NERL)

Safeguarding

Universal Service Provider Royal Mail Group

Relevant Environment Agency Natural Resources Wales

Water and Sewage Undertakers Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water)

Public Gas Transporter British Gas Pipelines Limited

Energetics Gas Limited

ES Pipelines Ltd

ESP Connections Ltd

ESP Networks Ltd

ESP Pipelines Ltd

Fulcrum Pipelines Limited

GTC Pipelines Limited

Independent Pipelines Limited

LNG Portable Pipeline Services

Limited

National Grid Gas Plc

National Grid Plc

Quadrant Pipelines Limited

SSE Pipelines Ltd

The Gas Transportation Company

Limited

Utility Grid Installations Limited

Wales and West Utilities Ltd

Electricity Generators With CPO

Powers

Prenergy Limited

Electricity Distributors With CPO

Powers

Energetics Electricity Limited

ESP Electricity Limited

Independent Power Networks

Limited

The Electricity Network Company

Limited

Appendix 1

Western Power Distribution

(South Wales) Plc

Electricity Transmitters With CPO

Powers

National Grid Electricity

Transmission Plc

National Grid Plc

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SECTION 43)

National Park Authority Brecon Beacons National Park Authority

Local Authority

Neath Port Talbot CBC

Carmarthenshire County Council

Swansea City Council

Bridgend County Borough Council

Rhondda Cynon Taf

Powys County Council

NON-PRESCRIBED CONSULTATION BODIES

Welsh Language Commissioner Welsh Language Commissioner

Joint Transport Authority South West Wales Integrated Transport

Consortium (SWWitch)

CADW CADW

Note: the Prescribed Consultees have been consulted in accordance with the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 3 ‘Consultation and notification undertaken by the Planning Inspectorate’ (April 2012).

Appendix 1

APPENDIX 2

Respondents to Consultation and Copies of Replies

Appendix 2

APPENDIX 2

BODIES WHO REPLIED BY THE STATUTORY DEADLINE

Brecon Beacons National Park Authority

Civil Aviation Authority

Energetics

ES Pipelines Ltd

Fulcrum Pipelines Ltd

Health and Safety Executive

National Grid

NATS Safeguarding


Neath Port Authority

Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council

Prenergy Limited

Public Health England

Swansea City Council

Swwitch

The Coal Authority

Welsh Water

Appendix 2

From: Helen Fry [[email protected]]Sent: 21 October 2013 10:25To: Environmental ServicesSubject: 130927_EN010062_2036374

Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) – Regulations 8 and 9 Application by Tata Steel UK Limited for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Pot Talbot Steelworks. Scoping consultation and notification of the applicant’s contact details and duty to make available information to the applicant if requested. I write in response to the above scoping consultation. Many thanks for giving the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority opportunity to provide comments. Having reviewed the location of the proposal in relation to the NPA boundary, we are satisfied that there will be no likely significant adverse effect on the special qualities of the National Park. As such we have no further comments to make. I trust the above is clear, if you have any further queries please do not hesitate to get in contact. Regards Helen Fry Planning Officer (Policy) Working days:- Mondays,Tuesdays and alternate Wednesdays Brecon Beacons National Park Authority/Awdurdod Parc Cenedlaethol Bannau Brycheiniog Plas y Ffynnon Cambrian Way/Ffordd Cambrian Brecon/Aberhonddu LD3 7HP Telephone/Ffôn - 01874 620468 Fax/Ffacs – 01874 622574 Peidiwch argraffu'r neges yma oni bai ei fod yn hollol angenrheidiol - ARBEDWCH YNNI a PHAPUR!/Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary - SAVE ENERGY and PAPER Croesewir gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg a’r Saesneg/Correspondence welcomed in Welsh and English

Mae’r farn a fynegir gan anfonwr y neges hon yn un bersonol ac, heblaw a fynegir hynny yn hollol eglur, nid yw yn cynrhychioli barn Awdurdod Parc Cenedlaethol Bannau Brycheiniog. Bwriedir yr ebost yma a’i atodiadau ar gyfer y derbynnydd/derbynyddion yn unig ac all fod yn gyfrinachol. Os ydych wedi eu derbyn mewn camgymeriad peidiwch a chymeryd unrhyw weithred yn seiliedig arnynt na’i copïo na’u dangos i unrhyw un arall; rhowch wybod o’r camgymeriad i ni yn [email protected]) ac yna dilëwch bob copi. Unless explicitly stated the views and opinions expressed by the sender of this message are those of the individual and do not represent the

Civil Aviation Authority CAA House 45-59 Kingsway London WC2B 6TE www.caa.co.uk Telephone 0207 453 6545 Fax 0207 453 6565 [email protected]

Directorate of Airspace Policy Mr Jeffrey Penfold (via e-mail) The Planning Inspectorate 30 September 2013 Reference: ERM/DAP/Planning/PortTalbotSteelPowerGeneration Dear Mr Penfold, Proposed Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks – Scoping Comment Thank you for The Planning Inspectorate’s recent correspondence relating to the subject development. The Inspectorate sought related Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) scoping comment; I trust the following is useful. I note from the Scoping Report (SR) that the tallest associated structures are expected to be up to 2 ‘chimney stacks, each of a maximum height of 120 meters (m). On that basis I belief the following (potential) issues are worthy of consideration and mention within any associated environmental statement:

• Aerodromes. In respect of any potential aerodrome related issue, I should highlight the need to check any safeguarding maps lodged with relevant planning authorities to identify any aerodrome specific safeguarding issues. Noting that aerodrome safeguarding responsibility rests in all cases with the relevant aerodrome operator / licensee, not the CAA, it is important that the related viewpoints of any relevant aerodrome license holders / operators is established and any concerns expressed appropriately mitigated.

• Aviation Warning Lighting: o In the UK, the need for aviation obstruction lighting on 'tall' structures depends in the first

instance upon any particular structure's location in relationship to an aerodrome. If the structure constitutes an 'aerodrome obstruction' it is the aerodrome operator that with review the lighting requirement. For civil aerodromes, they will, in general terms, follow the requirements of CAP 168 - Licensing of Aerodromes. This document can be downloaded from the Civil Aviation CAA website at www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP168.PDF - Chapter 4 (12.8) refers to obstacle lighting.

o Away from aerodromes Article 219 of the UK Air Navigation Order applies. This Article requires that for en-route obstructions (ie away from aerodromes) lighting only becomes legally mandated for structures of a height of 150m or more. However, structures of lesser high might need aviation obstruction lighting if, by virtue of their location and nature, they are considered a significant navigational hazard.

o Cranes, whether in situ temporarily or long term are captured by the points heighted above. Note that if a crane is located on top of another structure, it is the overall height (structure + crane) than is relevant.

• In this case, notwithstanding the non applicability of Article 219, even given the and the potential lack of aerodrome-related lighting requirement, I suggest that from a duty of care perspective it would be sensible for the an aviation lighting requirement to be considered. The CAA would certainly recommend that the structures are equipped with aviation warning lighting.

blocked::http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP168.PDF�

• Gas Venting and/or Flaring. It is assumed that the power generating facility is not intended to vent or flare gas either routinely or as an emergency procedure such as to cause a danger to overlying aircraft. If that is not the case parties are invited to use myself as an appropriate point of contact for any further related discussion.

• Aviation Promulgation. There is a civil aviation requirement in the UK for all structures over 300 feet high to be charted on aviation maps. It follows that, at 120m (394 feet) high, there is a requirement for civil aviation charting. When construction time frames are known, the developer should liaise accordingly with the Defence Geographic Agency which manages the UK’s master database of tall structure from which aviation charting is derived. I should add that even temporary structures such as cranes need to be notified for civil aviation purposes; short term notification can be achieved through the publication of a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). NOTAMs can be arranged through the developer providing related details to the CAA’s Airspace Utilisation Section ([email protected] / 0207 453 6599).

• Military Aviation. For completeness, the Ministry of Defence position in regards to the proposed development and military aviation activity should be established.

• I should also add that that due to the unique nature of associated operations in respect of operating altitudes and potentially unusual landing sites, it would also be sensible to establish the related viewpoint of local emergency services air support units.

I believe that any associated Environmental Statement / Development Consent Order (or equivalent / similar) should be expected to acknowledge and where applicable address the issues highlighted above and accordingly the scoping opinion should make related comment. Whilst none of the above negates any aforementioned need to consult in line with Government requirements associated with the safeguarding of aerodromes and other technical sites (Government Circular 1/2003 refers), I hope this information matches your requirements. Please do not hesitate to get in touch if you require any further comment or needs clarification of any point. Yours sincerely, {original signed} Mark Smailes Airspace Regulator

mailto:[email protected]�

From: Karen Dickson [[email protected]]Sent: 01 October 2013 15:41To: Environmental ServicesSubject: Tata Steel UK Limited for Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot

Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for submitting your recent plant enquiry. Based on the information provided, I can confirm that Energetics does not have any plant within the area(s) specified in your request. Please be advised that it may take around 10 working days to process enquiries. In the unlikely event that you have been waiting longer than 10 working days, or require further assistance with outstanding enquiries, please call 01698 404968. Please ensure all plant enquiries are sent to plantenquiries@energetics‐uk.com Your Reference – 130927_EN010062_2036374 Regards

Karen Dickson Technical Clerical Team Energetics Design & Build International House Stanley Boulevard Hamilton International Technology Park Glasgow G72 0BN t: 01698 404 968 f: 01698 404 940 e: karen.dickson@energetics‐uk.com w: www.energetics‐uk.com This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

**********************************************************************

From: Alan Slee [[email protected]]Sent: 27 September 2013 13:52To: Environmental ServicesSubject: RE: EN010062 - TATA Steel - Scoping Consultation

Hi Jeffery, Application by Tata Steel UK Limited for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks. (SA13 2ND) Your ref:

ESP ref: PE121838 Further to your email communication to E S Pipelines Ltd, ESP Networks Ltd, ESP Pipelines Ltd, ESP Electricity Ltd and ESP Connections Ltd dated 27 September 2013 I can confirm that our businesses have no comments at this stage. Regards, Alan Slee Operations Manager DD 01372 227567 Mobile 07766 802070 Fax 01372 386203 www.espipelines.com From: Jeffrey Penfold [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Environmental Services Sent: 27 September 2013 11:48 Subject: EN010062 - TATA Steel - Scoping Consultation

Dear Sir/Madam

Please see the attached correspondence in relation to the above application:

<<130927_EN010062_Letter to stat cons_Scoping AND Reg 9 Notification_English AND Welsh.pdf>> Best regards

Jeffrey Penfold EIA & Land Rights Advisor Major Applications & Plans Room 3/18 Eagle Wing The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN Direct line: 0303 444 5614 Helpline: 0303 444 5000

130927_EN010062_2036374

From: Penlington, Graham [[email protected]] on behalf of &box_FPLplantprotection_conx, [[email protected]]

Sent: 03 October 2013 11:03To: Environmental ServicesSubject: RE: EN010062 - TATA Steel - Scoping Consultation

Thank you for asking Fulcrum Pipelines Limited to examine your consultation document for the above project. We can confirm that Fulcrum Pipelines Limited have no comments to make on this scoping report. Please note that we are constantly adding to our underground assets and would strongly advise that you consult us again prior to undertaking any excavations. Please note that other gas transporters may have plant in this locality which could be affected. We will always make every effort to help you where we can, but Fulcrum Pipelines Limited will not be held responsible for any incident or accident arising from the use of the information associated with this search. The details provided are given in good faith, but no liability whatsoever can be accepted in respect thereof. If you need any help or information simply contact Graham Penlington directly on 01142 804175. To save you time, any future requests for information about our plant, can be emailed to [email protected] GRAHAM PENLINGTON Process Assistant

Tel: 0845 641 3010 ext: 4175 Direct Dial: Email: [email protected] Web: www.fulcrum.co.uk

FULCRUM NEWS FULCRUM SELECTED TO DELIVER FOUR KILOMETRE GOVERNMENT FUNDED PIPELINE We've been selected to deliver a significant government funded gas installation project which will enable a rural village to convert to natural gas. Learn more. FULCRUM SUPPORTS £30 MILLION CHESTER ZOO EXPANSION Chester Zoo, the most‐visited wildlife attraction in Britain, has again turned to Fulcrum to deliver gas installation works as part of the Zoo’s new £30 million Islands project ‐ one of the biggest zoo developments in Europe. Learn more. From: Jeffrey Penfold [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Environmental Services Sent: 27 September 2013 11:48 Subject: EN010062 - TATA Steel - Scoping Consultation

National Grid house

Warwick Technology Park

Gallows Hill, Warwick

CV34 6DA

National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid is a trading name for:

National Grid Electricity Transmission plc National Grid Gas plc

Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH

Registered in England and Wales, No 2366977 Registered in England and Wales, No 2006000

FAO – Jeffrey Penfold

The Planning Inspectorate

3/18 Eagle Wing

Temple Quay House

2 The Square

Bristol

BS1 6PN

Land and Development Group

Vicky Stirling

Town Planner

Land & Development

[email protected]

Direct tel: +44 (0)1926 653746

SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL TO:

[email protected]

www.nationalgrid.com

25 October 2013 Our Ref:

Your Ref: 130927_EN010062_2036374

Dear Sir/Madam,

Application by Tata Steel UK limited for an Order Granting Development Consent for the

Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks

I refer to your letter dated 27

th September 2013 regarding the above proposed application. Having

reviewed the scoping consultation documents, I would like to make the following comments: National Grid Infrastructure within or in close proximity to the Proposed Order Limits National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET)

National Grid Transmission has two high voltage electricity overhead transmission lines and one high voltage electricity underground cable which lie within close proximity to the proposed order limits. These lines and cable form an essential part of the electricity transmission network in England and Wales and include the following:

� VE 275kV Overhead Line Route Baglan Bay to Margam

� VE 275kV Overhead Line Route Margam to Pyle

� 66kV Underground Cable

The following substation is also located within or in close proximity to the proposed order limits:

� Margam Substation I enclose plans showing the routes of our overhead lines, underground cable and the location of our substation within the area shown in the consultation documents. The following points should be taken into consideration:

� Statutory electrical safety clearances must be maintained at all times. Any proposed buildings must not be closer than 5.3m to the lowest conductor. National Grid recommends that no permanent structures are built directly beneath overhead lines. These distances are

National Grid house



CV34 6DA





set out in EN 43 – 8 Technical Specification for “overhead line clearances Issue 3 (2004) available at: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/devnearohl final/appendixIII/appIII-part2

� If any changes in ground levels are proposed either beneath or in close proximity to our

existing overhead lines then this would serve to reduce the safety clearances for such overhead lines. Safe clearances for existing overhead lines must be maintained in all circumstances.

� Further guidance on development near electricity transmission overhead lines is available

here: http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/1E990EE5-D068-4DD6-8C9A-4D0B06A1BA79/31436/Developmentnearoverheadlines1.pdf

� The relevant guidance in relation to working safely near to existing overhead lines is

contained within the Health and Safety Executive’s (www.hse.gov.uk) Guidance Note GS 6 “Avoidance of Danger from Overhead Electric Lines” and all relevant site staff should make sure that they are both aware of and understand this guidance.

� Plant, machinery, equipment, buildings or scaffolding should not encroach within 5.3

metres of any of our high voltage conductors when those conductors are under their worse conditions of maximum “sag” and “swing” and overhead line profile (maximum “sag” and “swing”) drawings should be obtained via the National Grid’s Asset Protection Team at Warwick.

� Drilling or excavation works should not be undertaken if they have the potential to disturb

or adversely affect the foundations or “pillars of support” of any existing tower. These foundations always extend beyond the base area of the existing tower and foundation (“pillar of support”) drawings can be obtained via the Asset Protection Team at Warwick.

Underground Cables

� National Grid’s underground cables are protected by a Deed of grant; Easement; Wayleave Agreement or the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act. These agreements provide full right of access to retain, maintain, repair and inspect our asset. Hence we require that no permanent structures are to be built over our cables or within the easement strip.

� Ground levels above our cables must not be altered in any way. Any alterations to the

depth of our cables will subsequently alter the rating of the circuit and can compromise the reliability, efficiency and safety of our electricity network.

� Copies of the detailed route records for the cable circuit can be supplied on request.

� The detailed route records should not be taken as positive indication of the cable location.

This can only be determined by digging trial holes. Where trial holes are dug the concrete and / or polymeric cable protection tiles must not be disturbed.

To view the Development Near Lines Documents. Please use the link below: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/SC/devnearohl final/ To view the National Grid Policy's for our Sense of Place Document. Please use the link below: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/

National Grid house



CV34 6DA





National Grid Gas Transmission and Gas Distribution National Grid Gas has no assets within or in close proximity to the Order limits.

Further Advice

We would request that the potential impact of the proposed scheme on National Grid’s

existing assets as set out above is considered in any subsequent reports, including in the

Environmental Statement, and as part of any subsequent application.

Where the promoter intends to acquire land, extinguish rights, or interfere with any of

National Grid apparatus protective provisions will be required in a form acceptable to it to

be included within the DCO.

Where any diversion of apparatus may be required to facilitate a scheme, National Grid is

unable to give any certainty with the regard to diversions until such time as adequate

feasibility and conceptual design studies have been undertaken by National Grid. Further

information relating to this can be obtained by contacting the email address below.

National Grid requests to be consulted at the earliest stages to ensure that the most

appropriate protective provisions are included within the DCO application to safeguard the

integrity of our apparatus and to remove the requirement for objection. All consultations

should be sent to the following: [email protected] as well as by post to

the following address:

The Company Secretary

1-3 The Strand

London

WC2N 5EH

In order to respond at the earliest opportunity National Grid will require the following:

� Draft DCO including the Book of Reference and relevant Land Plans � Shape Files or CAD Files for the order limits

I hope the above information is useful. If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me. The information in this letter is provided not withstanding any discussions taking place in relation to connections with electricity or gas customer services.

Yours sincerely

Vicky Stirling

Aerial Photography

Eagles Enquiry

Electricity Tx Assets

Cables and Accessories

OHL and Towers

400kV

275kV

132kV and Less

Towers

Substations and Stations

Cooling Station

Substation

Substation Labels

Electricity Tx Capital Schemes

Gas Tx Assets

Land Tenure

Proposed HS2 Route

Maps

500 m 1 : 7500

Background Mapping information has been reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.©Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey.National Grid Electricity - 100024241.

National Grid Gas -100024886

Produced by 10.34.25.158 11:20 25/10/2013

National Grid UK Transmission. The asset position information represented on this map is the

intellectual propery of National Grid PLC,Warwick

Technology Park,Warwick,CV346DA

Page 1 of 1Print Preview

25/10/2013http://tmap/t_landndev/commands/printadvanced/print_preview_landscape.asp

From: ROSSI, Sacha [[email protected]]Sent: 09 October 2013 17:19To: Jeffrey PenfoldCc: NATS SafeguardingSubject: RE: EN010062 - TATA Steel - Scoping Consultation.

Dear Sir, As the application contains no proposals for wind turbines, NATS does not anticipate any impact and has no comments to make. Regards S. Rossi NATS Safeguarding Office Mr Sacha Rossi ATC Systems Safeguarding Engineer ℡: 01489 444 205

: [email protected] NATS Safeguarding 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, PO15 7FL http://www.nats.co.uk/windfarms From: Jeffrey Penfold [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Environmental Services Sent: 27 September 2013 12:18 Subject: FW: EN010062 - TATA Steel - Scoping Consultation.

Dear Sir/Madam

Please see the attached correspondence in relation to the above application:

<<130927_EN010062_Letter to stat cons_Scoping AND Reg 9 Notification_English AND Welsh.pdf>> Best regards

Jeffrey Penfold EIA & Land Rights Advisor Major Applications & Plans Room 3/18 Eagle Wing The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN Direct line: 0303 444 5614 Helpline: 0303 444 5000

Natural Resources Wales/Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru Maes Newydd, Llandarcy, Neath Port Talbot, SA10 6JQ. Llinell gwasanaethau cwsmeriaid/Customer services line: 0300 065 3000 www.cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk / www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk Croesewir gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg a'r Saesneg Correspondence welcomed in Welsh and English

Mr Jeffrey Penfold The Planning Inspectorate 3/18 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

Ein cyf/Our ref: SH/2013/115631/01-L01 Eich cyf/Your ref: 130927_EN010062_2036374 Dyddiad/Date: 25 October 2013

Annwyl / Dear Mr Penfold PLANNING ACT 2008 (AS AMENDED) AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2009 (AS AMENDED) - REGULATIONS 8 AND 9. APPLICATION BY TATA STEEL UK LIMITED FOR AN ORDER GRANTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT FOR THE INTERNAL POWER GENERATION ENHANCEMENT FOR PORT TALBOT STEELWORKS TATA STEELWORKS, PORT TALBOT Thank you for consulting Natural Resources Wales (NRW) on the above development proposal, which we received on 27 September 2013. On 1 April 2013, NRW brought together the work of the Countryside Council for Wales, Environment Agency Wales and Forestry Commission Wales, as well as some functions of Welsh Government. Our purpose is to ensure that the natural resources of Wales are sustainably maintained, used and enhanced, now and in the future. We note that at this stage, you are seeking our comments on what information we consider should be provided within the Environmental Statement (ES). These comments are detailed below. Overall, we are supportive of the proposed development and believe that in general terms it will result in a positive contribution to improving air quality and the wider environment. Environmental Permit Considerations The proposed development would require a variation of the current Environmental Permit issued under the Environment Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations

2

2010 (as amended). The new development would be required to be fully compliant with the requirements of the regulation. It should be noted that these regulations have being significantly amended to transpose the EU Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) into national legislation. For further information in this regard, please see: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-permitting-regulations-guidance-on-part-a-installations We would also like to highlight that we are in discussions with Tata regarding the variation of their permit and the design specification that would be required. We will be encouraging the company to submit their application for the variation of their Environmental Permit and for their Development Consent Order (DCO) at the same time to enable concurrent determination of both applications. We wish to draw attention to close proximity the Port Talbot Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for Particulate Matter less than 10 microns. (PM10). There is need for careful consideration of the AQMA in both the EPR application and the ES for both the construction and specification of the new activity. If granted, the EPR variation would cover all aspects of the operation of the new plant including emissions substances to land, water and air and the control of noise from the installation from the start of combustion. Please note the Permit does not cover the construction of the installation. Appropriate noise modelling should be undertaken using the best information available. The model should consider all potentially sensitive receptors and include consideration of the effect of different frequencies on the receptors. The modelling should consider construction, commissioning and operation phases of the proposed installation. Please note that the comments made in this response should not be taken to include those of the Competent Authority (CA) for COMAH of which NRW is a part. Consultations with the CA for COMAH should be undertaken through the Health and Safety Executive. They are the part of the CA who leads on planning matters. Notwithstanding the above, having reviewed the ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report’ produced by Aecom (on behalf of Tata, dated September 2013) we would offer the following comments. Chapter 1 Introduction Environmental Impact Assessment We note that ecological assessment topics relating to bats, breeding & nesting birds and reptiles have been screened out due to unsuitable supporting habitat or, in the case of bats, no likely supporting features to be affected by the proposed development1. While we agree that it is appropriate to screen these out for consideration given the nature and characteristics of the site, due consideration

1 Table 2.1 Assessment topics to be scoped out - Scoping Report – TATA Steel UK Ltd: Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks (AECOM, September 2013)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-permitting-regulations-guidance-on-part-a-installations


3

should be given in the Environmental Statement to contingencies, should they be encountered on site during the construction phase of the development Chapter 5 Air Quality As highlighted above, the proposal is in close proximity to the Port Talbot Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for Particulate Matter less than 10 microns (PM10). This AQMA has been acknowledged in the Scoping Report and we are pleased to note that construction activities will be considered as part of the air quality modelling assessment as well as the imact on air quality once operational. We also conform that we endorse the assessment methodology set out in sections 5.3.12 to 5.2.21 of the Scoping Report. In addition to this, a comparison should be made between the current consented scenario versus the proposed consented scenario, in relation to aerial emissions and their subsequent effects on protected sites. Chapter 6 Ecology Designated Sites We agree with the conclusion that the likely impacts on surrounding designated sites will be limited to air quality impacts2. We note the commitment for the Applicant to consult further with Natural Resources Wales on this matter3, and we would be happy to provide further advice on the requirements for dispersion and deposition modelling in relation to impacts on European Protected Sites. Bats As outlined above, we agree that it is appropriate to screen the presence of bats out for consideration given the nature and characteristics of the site. However, we would advise that specific contingency measures be drawn up and included in the EIA to be used in the event that bats are encountered on site during the construction phase of the development. Reptiles We note the conclusion that, on the basis of survey, reptiles are not present on the site in numbers that would require a translocation scheme to be implemented4. We agree that the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate for inclusion at the EIA stage and the suggested tool box talk should incorporate contingency measures, should reptiles be encountered on site during the construction phase of the development. Chapter 7 Landscape and Visual We agree with the main objectives and scope of the proposed LVIA5, however we

2 6.5.1 Initial Assessment – Designated Sites – Scoping Report 3 6.7.3 Proposed Scope – Designated Sites – Scoping Report 4 6.7.6 Proposed Scope – Reptiles – Scoping Report 5 7.1.5 Introduction – Landscape and Visual – Scoping Report

4

advise that consideration of the nearby Mynydd Margam Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest and Merthyr Mawr, Kenfig and Margam Burrows Landscape of Special Historic Interest should be included. There is a separate assessment methodology required to be used for these receptors, the Assessment of the Significance of Impacts of Development on Historic Landscape (ASIDOHL). This assessment is expected for any development which is of such a scale it would have more than a local impact on an area of Historic Landscape. While it is likely, given the setting and surrounds of the proposed development, that neither receptor will be subject to more than a local impact due to the proposal, due to the different assessment methodology, we suggest that assessment against the ASIDOHL methodology be a separate objective. Chapter 8 Ground Conditions Historic activities at the site, prior to the PPC permit being issued for the site, may have included some contaminative uses. Notably there was a coking works on one part of the site, which may have caused an impact on controlled waters. We note site investigation data from a neighbouring site (Port Talbot Peripheral Distributor Road (PDR)) has been used to set the context as part of setting the generic conceptual model. Although previous investigations in the surrounding area are useful references for site settings, they do not give the level of detail we require for the area within the development boundary. It is also likely that standards of investigation have improved and that the level of detail in any such investigation will not be sufficient for current standards e.g. MCERTs. This has been acknowledged within the Scoping Report and we welcome the suggestion that site specific investigations be undertaken. We are also pleased to note that our previous comments (made in response to a pre-application enquiry) have been taken on board and that the risk to controlled waters as a receptor is to be considered as well as human health. We would welcome a technical summary of the proposed investigations within the ES, but are satisfied that land contamination issues, including any required remediation can be addressed by means of appropriate land contamination DCO requirements (in line with Planning Policy Wales). Chapter 13 Flood Risk We are pleased to note that the Scoping Report accepts the requirement for a Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA), the scope of which is still to be agreed. It is highly likely that a supporting hydraulic model will be required and we are undertaking discussions with the consultant, Aecom, on this matter. If Aecom decide to purchase our (NRW) model to form part of their FCA, then it will be their responsibility to ensure this sufficiently covers the required study area. If our model doesn’t adequately cover the study area then Aecom will need to undertake the necessary additional work.

5

We would like to highlight that our model may not be based on up-to-date hydrology. It is the responsibility of Aecom to ensure the hydrology used is current. Furthermore, our model does not include the recently constructed PDR. This must be included as it is likely to affect the presently modelled flood regime. We would also advise that our model is solely based on the flood risk from the River Afan. Aecom may need to look at potential flood risk from some the ordinary watercourses located to the east of the application site. The risk of extreme tidal flooding will also need to be considered, including an allowance for climate change. Finally, the FCA must clearly demonstrate that the proposed development can comply with the requirements of TAN15 and must also show that the development (post construction) will not increase flood risk elsewhere. Chapter 14 Surface Water Environment We are pleased to learn that the proposed development will lead to better water efficiency at the installation; in turn we hope that the pressures borne on the local water environment will be lessened. With regards to water usage (for cooling etc), Tata Steel Ltd currently holds a total of 5 abstraction licences for the Port Talbot site. Three are at the north end of the site and two at the south end of the site. This Section concentrates on two of the three northern abstraction points. The abstraction from the Afan Ffrwdwyllt has not been included within the scope. We presume this is because it could not be used to supply water to the power plant? It would be helpful if this could be clarified. Reference is made to the Docks and River Afan abstractions. To clarify the River Afan abstraction takes water from the docks feeder channel rather than the river itself. The Docks and Docks feeder channel abstractions have been considered under our Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) project. The abstractions have the ability to abstract the whole River Afan at times of low and medium flow. Following the RSA investigation it was concluded that it would be too costly to reduce the Tata abstractions to a sustainable level. We therefore looked at alternative water management solutions to meet the environmental objectives of the River Afan. One of those options was to set up the Afan Water Management Group. The group consists of representatives from NRW, Tata Steel Limited, Associated British Ports, Afan Anglers and Neath Port Talbot Council. This group has worked hard over the last few years to try and achieve the environmental objectives of the River Afan by improving fish passage, encouraging water efficiency, considering alternative sources of supply and improving water management. The current abstraction licences are not fully utilised and any increase in demand could probably be met with the existing headroom in the licences. This will need to be confirmed. However, given that we have already identified that the existing abstraction licences have the potential to have an environmental impact, we would

6

be very unlikely to increase the total abstraction volumes to make up any short fall for supply to the new Power Plant We would recommend that any options/proposals to change the abstraction regime from the Docks and Docks feeder are fed back via the Afan Water Management Group for consideration. Should Aecom have any queries regarding this matter, they are advised to contact our Senior Environmental Planner, Lloyd Jones (01792 325553). Careful consideration needs to be given to the assessment and classification of local receptors, especially Port Talbot Dock. The Dock is a very diverse habitat in terms of the fish species which it supports. We are not aware of another Fishery or Water Body that has the same diversity of fish species within Wales. It supports Sea Fish, Coarse Fish, Brown Trout, Sea Trout and Salmon. It is highly productive because of the water temperature (warm water discharged into the docks from Tata) and from having a mix of fresh and sea water. Consequently, it may be considered as unique in a national context and we would not like to see the water quality change as a result of this development (e.g. from discharges /blowdown). We also welcome and support the intention to provide further detail within the ES on the pollution prevention controls to be deployed during the construction phase, especially with regard to controlled waters. Specifically, we are interested in further clarification of the statement: “intermittent miscellaneous discharges of water associated with ancillary equipment and rainwater run-off from associated construction and activities.” I trust the above comments are helpful and will assist you to formulate the Environmental Statement for this development. Please note that these comments do not set a precedent for our response to the formal application for planning permission, or any other legal consent. Such applications shall be assessed on the information submitted and regulations of relevance at that time. The details contained in this letter are based on the information available to date Yn ddiffuant / Yours sincerely Pete Jordan Area Planning & Corporate Services Manager Cynllunio a’r Rheolwr Gwasanaethau Corddoraethol Deialu uniongyrchol/Direct dial 01792 325563 Ffacs uniongyrchol/Direct fax 01792 325511 E-bost uniongyrchol/Direct e-mail [email protected] [email protected]

Reference No: P2013/0895

DECNSCO

NEATH PORT TALBOT COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL CYNGOR BWRDEISTREF SIROL CASTELL-NEDD PORT TALBOT

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) (ENGLAND AND WALES) REGULATIONS 1999

SCOPING OPINION

Name and address of the applicant GVA One Kingsway Cardiff CF10 3AN

Name and Address of the agent Planning Inspectorate 3/18 Eagle Wing, Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN

Whereas on the Monday, 30 September 2013 you submitted an application for the following development:- PROPOSAL Scoping opinion under Infrastructure Planning

(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (As Amended) Regulations 8 and 9 for a Power Generation Scheme (Consultation)

LOCATION Land at TATA Steelworks Margam Works Port Talbot

THE NEATH PORT TALBOT COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY IN PURSUANCE OF ITS POWER UNDER THE ABOVE MENTIONED ACT AND REGULATIONS HEREBYADOPTS THE FOLLOWING SCOPING OPINION SUBJECT TO ANY COMENTS BELOW: COMMENTS:-

Reference No: P2013/0895

DECNSCO

Signed : ………… ……………………… Nicola Pearce – Head Of Planning Date: 25/10/2013.

Officer Report

Scoping Report

Application Reference: P2013/895

Planning History: Application P2011/707 – Blast furnace No 4 rebuild – Approved 31/5/2012 Application P2012/750 – Replacement cooling system and turbine – Approved Application P2012/1070 – Replacement gas holder - Approved 15/7/2013 Application P2013/708 - Re cladding industrial buildings – Approved 1/10/2013 Publicity and Responses if applicable: Ward Member informed – No comments received. Biodiversity unit – Additional information required with regard to receptor site for vegetation translocation. Planning Policy – No response Head of Engineering and Transport (Highways)–No further comments to add Head of Engineering and Transport (Drainage) - No further comments to add Pollution control (noise) – The proposed content of the noise impact assessment appears to be satisfactory. As suggested, early communication between the acoustic consultant and the relevant Environmental Health (Noise) sections will be important especially in relation to noise associated with proposed piling techniques. Contaminated Land – Request for conditions to be applied. Air Quality – Clarification of CO emissions.

Page 1 of 8

Officer Report

Site and surroundings: The Tata steel works complex covers approximately 3000 acres of intensively developed industrial land located between the towns of Port Talbot, Margam and the coast. The larger steel works site is bounded by Margam Moors SSSI to the south, Port Talbot docks and town to the north and east, the London mainline railway and M4 transport corridor to the east and the coast to the west. The application site is approximately 19.2 hectares in area and located within the north east section of steel works and consists of a level area of land which was previously used as an on site coke works. The land has been cleared and is largely covered in areas of scrub and hard standing together with a number of older flat roofed buildings a water tower and concrete chimney. The areas surrounding the site consist of intensively developed industrial land including a large number of buildings and engineering structures associated with the production of steel. Significant developments have recently been completed immediately to the east of the application sites including the peripheral distributor road (PDR) together with the Tata main stores warehouse, visitor and training centres. The nearest residential properties are located approximately 200 metres to the east of the boundary of the site on the opposite side of the recently constructed PDR and existing mainline railway. It is noted that the proposal forms part of a larger overall redevelopment of the site involving the rebuilding of No 4 Blast Furnace, replacement stacks and casting house together with the improvements to the off gas and cooling systems, and replacement gas holder. Brief description of proposal: The proposal involves the construction of an electricity generating plant which will produce approximately 110 MW raising the amount of electricity produced on site from approximately 115 MW at present to a total of 225MW.

Page 2 of 8

Officer Report

The turbines which will produce the electricity will be powered by waste gases produced during the steel making process. The present system is inefficient and inadequate and does not have sufficient capacity to process all the gases generated. The development will involve the construction of a number of new structures (Indicative dimensions):

• One or two stacks up to 120 m in height. • Cooling towers up 22m in height, 160 m long and 16m wide. • Turbine hall up to 25 m in height 55m long and 65 m wide • Boiler house 35m high, 60m long and 65 m wide. • Ancillary standalone buildings and structures and transformer

compound. The proposal will also involve the installation of a 66kv electrical connection which will connect to an existing sub station located approximately 2.8 kilometres to the south of the proposal, this connection will be accommodated underground. Material considerations: As the proposed Tata generating station has an output more than 50MW, it is considered as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under The Planning Act 2008. As such an application is required to be made to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) for the grant of development consent under a Development Consent Order (DCO) by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, along with other consents. As part of the application for a DCO, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be required. The Planning Inspectorate have therefore consulted the Authority for comments in respect of the scope of the EIA that will be undertaken to evaluate the potential effects of the project on the surrounding area. It should be noted that PINS will consult separately with external bodies (such as NRW), so any representations made will be the views of the Authority only. The Authority’s comments will follow the format of the Scoping report for ease of reference.

Page 3 of 8

Officer Report

Planning Policy: With respect to current Planning policies it is noted that topic chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 do not consider or quote the current adopted UDP policies relevant to the topics, only the emerging LDP policies. UDP policies should inform the approach taken to the proposal at present. The Noise section should probably refer to the Environmental Noise Directive/Environmental Noise (Wales) Regulations and WG’s Noise Action Plan covering the Swansea/Neath Port Talbot agglomeration. Air Quality: The Environmental Statement will include the likely significant effects of the proposed development on air quality on sensitive receptors. Bearing in mind the present use of the Tata site and the proximity of the Air Quality Management Area. Air Quality modelling will be required to be undertaken in line with established methodologies in order to derive results for comparison against relevant UK, EU and NRW air quality legislation. Results will need to be assessed against current and future air quality standards. The potential receptors include residential properties and schools within the vicinity of the site, together with water resources and local ecology which will focus on atmospheric concentrations of NOx, PM10, SO2 and CO2 together with nitrogen and acid deposition. The impact of the operational stage of the development on air quality in relation designated areas including Crymlyn Bog SAC Crymlyn Burrows SSSI will require screening under Habitat Regulations. The air quality section has commented that carbon monoxide has not been included in the assessment, it is assumed that this is because emissions are expected to be minimal. However, it is requested that this is clarified in the air quality section of the environmental statement. No further issues have been raised. Ecology: The submitted ecological impact assessment which includes an extended Phase I and a number of specific ecological surveys. The assessment has

Page 4 of 8

Officer Report

identified and evaluated the likely significant impacts to the ecological system of the proposed development. The Assessment has also suggested measures to mitigate any significant adverse affects. The Local Authority’s biodiversity section has advised that the scoping report is largely adequate and covers the areas expected at this stage. However, prior to submission and as part of the full EIA submission a receptor site for the kidney vetch translocation will need to be resolved. Landscape and visual impact: The proposed development has the potential to have significant impact on local receptors especially residential properties with Taibach and Margam and the recently constructed Peripheral Distributor Road (PDR) although there will clearly be visual impacts from elevated points to the north and east. The draft scoping report assesses the landscape and visual effects of the propose development in accordance with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). The assessment will identify the baseline landscape and visual conditions and landscape designations these are then correlated with the magnitude of the change to establish the potential scale of visual effects caused by the proposed development. Assessments of the scale of visual effects are further correlated with sensitivity of visual receptor criteria to establish an assessment of visual significance. The visual assessment will consider the effects on sensitive visual receptors with a 15 km study area and will also consider the landscape, seascape and visual cumulative affects on the proposed steelwork refurbishment during construction, operation and decommissioning. As part of the visual assessment fourteen representative viewpoints have been identified and agreed after discussions with Neath Port Talbot planning department. It is considered that the scoping section relating to visual impact is acceptable, however it is recommended that the plan (fig 7.1) and inset plan is updated to include the PDR road alignment. Noise and vibrations: Chapter 8 of the Scoping Report examines the noise and vibration

Page 5 of 8

Officer Report

impacts of the proposed development. As stated in the report, this development is within the boundary of a site permitted by Natural Resources Wales and the noise and vibration generated during the operating phase of this development would be controlled by the permit. The Authority’s Environmental Health Officer (Noise) has noted that controls on construction and demolition noise in accordance with the requirements of BS5228:2009 would generally be appropriate. Given the proximity of residential properties and complaints in relation to previous construction projects at this site, further information on proposed piling techniques would be appreciated when available as ground contamination concerns may limit the use of some low noise piling techniques. The planning policy section has suggested that the Noise section should refer to the Environmental Noise Directive/Environmental Noise (Wales) Regulations and WG’s Noise Action Plan covering the Swansea/Neath Port Talbot agglomeration. Ground Conditions: It is noted that extensive intrusive investigation and remediation works has been undertaken on adjacent land and the wider Port Talbot site both as part of the PDR development and additional sites within the area. Given this existing baseline data it has been decided not to carry out any additional surveys. However, it is intended to undertake site specific ground investigations during the design and development stages in order to obtain final design parameters for construction. With regard to human health, the contaminated land section has recommended that standard land contamination conditions are applied this requirement has also been stipulated by NRW, no further comments with regard to land contamination have been received. Transport: With regard to transport the scoping report confirms that a Transport Assessment will support Traffic and Transport chapter included within the Environmental Statement. It is anticipated that the operational and construction traffic will be relatively low as construction components will be primarily be delivered on low loader vehicles via the Peripheral Distributor Road or sea freight via Port Talbot Docks over a period of three years. The Head of Engineering and Transport (Highways) has confirmed that the proposed methodology for both the construction and

Page 6 of 8

Officer Report

operational phases contained within the transport section of the Environmental Statement and the Transport Assessment are acceptable and that there are no additional comments to make. Drainage surface water: The scoping report includes an assessment of the surface water environment and methodology which will be used to assess the likely significant effect of the proposed development on drainage. The Head of Engineering and Transport (Drainage) has noted that there are no ordinary water courses within the vicinity which are likely to be affected by the proposal and has confirmed that the methodologies, potential effects and mitigation measures contained within the scoping report are acceptable and has no additional comments to add. Flood Risk: The scoping report sets out the proposed methodology that will be used in order to assess the likely effects on the risk of flooding arising from the proposed development. A significant proportion of the application site lies within Flood zone 2 and Flood zone 3 as such it is considered that detailed consideration is taken with regard to the relevant policies outlined in the scoping report relating to flooding contained within the adopted Unitary development plan. It is noted that the DAM map reproduced in Fig 13.2 appears to be an out of date version. Conclusion: It is considered that the scoping report provides a comprehensive list of key issues and criteria that would appear to address the potential environmental impacts of the development. However, there are a number of issues which are detailed in the above report which should be addressed prior to final submission of the Environmental Statement. Recommendation: The assessment and consideration of the information set out in this report be provided be provided to the developer as a formal Scoping Opinion. The developer shall also note that whilst there has been every effort to be thorough and extensive during this process this does not preclude the

Page 7 of 8

Officer Report

Local Planning Authority from requesting information at a later stage under Regulation 19 of the TCP EIA Regulations 1999. Case Officer Name: ……………………………. Signature: …………………………. Date: ……………………………… Authorised by: Name: …………………………….… Signature: …………………………… Date: …………………………………

Page 8 of 8

From: Casnati Giorgio [[email protected]]Sent: 30 September 2013 17:46To: Environmental ServicesSubject: re: 130927 EN010062 2036374 dated 27 Sept 2013 attention Mr Jeffrey Penfold

Dear Mr Jeffrey Penfold, with reference to your above letter, I have to inform you that both Prenergy Ltd and Prenergy Power Ltd have been put into liquidation last July. There are no more employees and no organization still in place. Giorgio Casnati Former Managing Director of both Prenergy ltd and Prenergy Power Ltd Ps: in case of need please contact me by mail at: [email protected] This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

**********************************************************************

Correspondents should note that all communications to Department for Communities and Local Government may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for lawful purposes.

**********************************************************************

CRCE/NSIP Consultations Chilton Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0RQ

T +44 (0) 1235 825278 F +44 (0) 1235 822614 www.gov.uk/phe

The Planning Inspectorate 3/18 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN F.A.O. Jeffrey Penfold 28th October 2013 Dear Jeffrey, Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 SI 2263 (as amended) (the EIA Regulations) Proposed Order Granting Development Consent for the Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks (the project) Proposal by Tata Steel UK Limited (the applicant) Thank you for your letter dated 27th September 2013. Tata Steel UK Limited has asked the Planning Inspectorate (PIN) for its opinion (“scoping opinion”) on the information to be provided in an Environmental Statement (ES) relating to a proposal for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) of an internal power generation enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks. The request for a scoping opinion is a precursor to an intensive and detailed independent assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed development.

Public Health England (PHE) is a statutory consultee at the pre-application and application stages for NSIPs “All proposed applications likely to involve chemicals, poisons or radiation which could potentially cause harm to people and likely to affect significantly public health.”1 For those NSIP applications subject to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) PHE is a consultation body under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. The PIN must therefore consult PHE on the information that PHE considers should be provided in the ES (or confirm that PHE has no comments) before the PIN adopts its scoping opinion.

PHE’s enclosed response focuses on health protection issues relating to chemicals and radiation. The advice offered by PHE is impartial and independent. The scope of PHE’s response does not extend to wider health matters; these fall under the remit of other stakeholders. Please note that the advice was sought from the Centre for

1 Cited in the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescr bed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 as amended

Your Ref: 130927_EN010062_2036374

Our Ref: 130927 265

Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (Wales) in the preparation of this response.

The attached appendix outlines generic considerations that the PHE advises are addressed by all promoters when they are preparing ESs for NSIPs. In the case of this application there is already local sensitivity and concern relating to the issues of air quality. Consequently PHE additionally wishes to make the following specific recommendations:

You confirm that an air quality assessment (modelling) is to be undertaken. PHE recommends the inclusion criteria for sensitive receptors and model specifications should be agreed with the local authority prior to any assessment being undertaken.

The PM10 Air quality objective has previously been exceeded in the vicinity of the proposed development and consequently the local authority has identified that cumulative impacts on air quality must be assessed as part of the application process. PHE is in agreement with this approach.

Your submission identifies that consideration should be given to the cumulative impacts arising from the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Scheme, the proposed wind farm at Mynydd Brombil and other cumulative developments. PHE agrees with this approach and recommends that any assessments, risk assessment, conclusions or mitigation proposals are agreed with Natural Resources Wales and the Local authority prior to the submission of your application for a development consent order.

In terms of the level of detail to be included in ESs, PHE recognises that the differing nature of projects is such that their impacts will vary. PHE’s view is that the assessments undertaken to inform the ES should be proportionate to the potential impacts of the proposal. Where a promoter determines that it is not necessary to undertake detailed assessment(s) (e.g. undertakes qualitative rather than quantitative assessments), if the rationale for this is fully explained and justified within the application documents, then PHE considers this to be an acceptable approach.

Yours sincerely

Antonio Peña Fernández Public Health Scientist

[email protected]

Please mark any correspondence for the attention of National Infrastructure Planning Administration.

mailto:[email protected]

Appendix: PHE recommendations regarding the scoping document

General approach

The EIA should give consideration to best practice guidance such as the Government’s Good Practice Guide for EIA2. It is important that the EIA identifies and assesses the potential public health impacts of the activities at, and emissions from, the installation. Assessment should consider the development, operational, and decommissioning phases.

The EIA Directive3 requires that ESs include a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including “population”. The EIA should provide sufficient information for PHE to fully assess the potential impact of the development on public health. PHE will only consider information contained or referenced in a separate section of the ES summarising the impact of the proposed development on public health: summarising risk assessments, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts. This section should summarise key information and conclusions relating to human health impacts contained in other sections of the application (e.g. in the separate sections dealing with: air quality, emissions to water, waste, contaminated land etc.) without undue duplication. Compliance with the requirements of National Policy Statements and relevant guidance and standards should be highlighted.

It is not PHE’s role to undertake these assessments on behalf of promoters as this would conflict with PHE’s role as an impartial and independent body.

Consideration of alternatives (including alternative sites, choice of process, and the phasing of construction) is widely regarded as good practice. Ideally, EIA should start at the stage of site and process selection, so that the environmental merits of practicable alternatives can be properly considered. Where this is undertaken, the main alternatives considered should be outlined in the ES4.

The following text covers a range of issues that PHE would expect to be addressed by the promoter. However this list is not exhaustive and the onus is on the promoter to ensure that the relevant public health issues are identified and addressed. PHE’s advice and recommendations carry no statutory weight and constitute non-binding guidance.

Receptors

The ES should clearly identify the development’s location and the location and distance from the development of off-site human receptors that may be affected by emissions from, or activities at, the development. Off-site human receptors may include people living in residential premises; people working in commercial, and

2 Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to good practice and procedures - A consultation paper; 2006; Department for Communities and Local Government. Available from: http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/planningandbuilding/environmentalimpactassessment 3 Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1985L0337:20090625:EN:PDF 4 DCLG guidance, 1999 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/155958.pdf

http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/planningandbuilding/environmentalimpactassessment

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1985L0337:20090625:EN:PDF

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/155958.pdf

industrial premises and people using transport infrastructure (such as roads and railways), recreational areas, and publicly-accessible land. Consideration should also be given to environmental receptors such as the surrounding land, watercourses, surface and groundwater, and drinking water supplies such as wells, boreholes and water abstraction points.

Impacts arising from construction and decommissioning

Any assessment of impacts arising from emissions due to construction and decommissioning should consider potential impacts on all receptors and describe monitoring and mitigation during these phases. Construction and decommissioning will be associated with vehicle movements and cumulative impacts should be accounted for.

We would expect the promoter to follow best practice guidance during all phases from construction to decommissioning to ensure appropriate measures are in place to mitigate any potential impact on health from emissions (point source, fugitive and traffic-related). An effective Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (and Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan (DEMP)) will help provide reassurance that activities are well managed. The promoter should ensure that there are robust mechanisms in place to respond to any complaints of traffic-related pollution, during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the facility.

Emissions to air and water

Significant impacts are unlikely to arise from installations which employ Best Available Techniques (BAT) and which meet regulatory requirements concerning emission limits and design parameters. However, PHE has a number of comments regarding emissions in order that the EIA provides a comprehensive assessment of potential impacts.

When considering a baseline (of existing environmental quality) and in the assessment and future monitoring of impacts these:

should include appropriate screening assessments and detailed dispersion modelling where this is screened as necessary

should encompass all pollutants which may be emitted by the installation in combination with all pollutants arising from associated development and transport, ideally these should be considered in a single holistic assessment

should consider the construction, operational, and decommissioning phases

should consider the typical operational emissions and emissions from start-up, shut-down, abnormal operation and accidents when assessing potential impacts and include an assessment of worst-case impacts

should fully account for fugitive emissions

should include appropriate estimates of background levels

should identify cumulative and incremental impacts (i.e. assess cumulative impacts from multiple sources), including those arising from associated development, other existing and proposed development in the local area, and new vehicle movements associated with the proposed development; associated transport emissions should include consideration of non-road impacts (i.e. rail, sea, and air)

should include consideration of local authority, Environment Agency, Defra national network, and any other local site-specific sources of monitoring data

should compare predicted environmental concentrations to the applicable standard or guideline value for the affected medium (such as UK Air Quality Standards and Objectives and Environmental Assessment Levels)

If no standard or guideline value exists, the predicted exposure to humans should be estimated and compared to an appropriate health-based value (a Tolerable Daily Intake or equivalent). Further guidance is provided in Annex 1

This should consider all applicable routes of exposure e.g. include consideration of aspects such as the deposition of chemicals emitted to air and their uptake via ingestion

should identify and consider impacts on residential areas and sensitive receptors (such as schools, nursing homes and healthcare facilities) in the area(s) which may be affected by emissions, this should include consideration of any new receptors arising from future development

Whilst screening of impacts using qualitative methodologies is common practice (e.g. for impacts arising from fugitive emissions such as dust), where it is possible to undertake a quantitative assessment of impacts then this should be undertaken.

PHE’s view is that the EIA should appraise and describe the measures that will be used to control both point source and fugitive emissions and demonstrate that standards, guideline values or health-based values will not be exceeded due to emissions from the installation, as described above. This should include consideration of any emitted pollutants for which there are no set emission limits. When assessing the potential impact of a proposed installation on environmental quality, predicted environmental concentrations should be compared to the permitted concentrations in the affected media; this should include both standards for short and long-term exposure.

Additional points specific to emissions to air

When considering a baseline (of existing air quality) and in the assessment and future monitoring of impacts these:

should include consideration of impacts on existing areas of poor air quality e.g. existing or proposed local authority Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs)

should include modelling using appropriate meteorological data (i.e. come from the nearest suitable meteorological station and include a range of years and worst case conditions)

should include modelling taking into account local topography

Additional points specific to emissions to water

When considering a baseline (of existing water quality) and in the assessment and future monitoring of impacts these:

should include assessment of potential impacts on human health and not focus solely on ecological impacts

should identify and consider all routes by which emissions may lead to population exposure (e.g. surface watercourses; recreational waters; sewers; geological routes etc.)

should assess the potential off-site effects of emissions to groundwater (e.g. on aquifers used for drinking water) and surface water (used for drinking water abstraction) in terms of the potential for population exposure

should include consideration of potential impacts on recreational users (e.g. from fishing, canoeing etc) alongside assessment of potential exposure via drinking water

Land quality We would expect the promoter to provide details of any hazardous contamination present on site (including ground gas) as part of the site condition report.

Emissions to and from the ground should be considered in terms of the previous history of the site and the potential of the site, once operational, to give rise to issues. Public health impacts associated with ground contamination and/or the migration of material off-site should be assessed5 and the potential impact on nearby receptors and control and mitigation measures should be outlined.

5 Following the approach outlined in the section above dealing with emissions to air and water i.e. comparing predicted environmental concentrations to the applicable standard or guideline value for the affected medium (such as Soil Guideline Values)

Relevant areas outlined in the Government’s Good Practice Guide for EIA include:

effects associated with ground contamination that may already exist

effects associated with the potential for polluting substances that are used (during construction / operation) to cause new ground contamination issues on a site, for example introducing / changing the source of contamination

impacts associated with re-use of soils and waste soils, for example, re-use of site-sourced materials on-site or offsite, disposal of site-sourced materials offsite, importation of materials to the site, etc.

Waste

The EIA should demonstrate compliance with the waste hierarchy (e.g. with respect to re-use, recycling or recovery and disposal).

For wastes delivered to the installation:

the EIA should consider issues associated with waste delivery and acceptance procedures (including delivery of prohibited wastes) and should assess potential off-site impacts and describe their mitigation

For wastes arising from the installation the EIA should consider:

the implications and wider environmental and public health impacts of different waste disposal options

disposal route(s) and transport method(s) and how potential impacts on public health will be mitigated

Other aspects

Within the EIA PHE would expect to see information about how the promoter would respond to accidents with potential off-site emissions e.g. flooding or fires, spills, leaks or releases off-site. Assessment of accidents should: identify all potential hazards in relation to construction, operation and decommissioning; include an assessment of the risks posed; and identify risk management measures and contingency actions that will be employed in the event of an accident in order to mitigate off-site effects.

The EIA should include consideration of the COMAH Regulations (Control of Major Accident Hazards) and the Major Accident Off-Site Emergency Plan (Management of Waste from Extractive Industries) (England and Wales) Regulations 2009: both in terms of their applicability to the installation itself, and the installation’s potential to impact on, or be impacted by, any nearby installations themselves subject to the these Regulations.

There is evidence that, in some cases, perception of risk may have a greater impact on health than the hazard itself. A 2009 report6, jointly published by Liverpool John Moores University and PHE, examined health risk perception and environmental problems using a number of case studies. As a point to consider, the report suggested: “Estimation of community anxiety and stress should be included as part of every risk or impact assessment of proposed plans that involve a potential environmental hazard. This is true even when the physical health risks may be negligible.” PHE supports the inclusion of this information within EIAs as good practice.

Biomass

Biomass is a relatively new cargo for many shipping and freight companies and the transportation and storage of biomass is an emerging area. As organic material releases heat when it degrades it can self-combust, leading to fires and associated public health issues. Storage and transport of biomass material also has the potential to give rise to fugitive emissions of particulate matter. It is recommended that the ES includes a review of potential impacts associated with the transport and storage of biomass and the measures that will be used to control these impacts.

Electromagnetic fields (EMF)

There is a potential health impact associated with the electric and magnetic fields around substations and the connecting cables or lines. The following information provides a framework for considering the potential health impact.

In March 2004, the National Radiological Protection Board, NRPB (now part of PHE), published advice on limiting public exposure to electromagnetic fields. The advice was based on an extensive review of the science and a public consultation on its website, and recommended the adoption in the UK of the EMF exposure guidelines published by the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP):-

http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/Radiation/NPRBArchive/DocumentsOfTheNRPB/Absd1502/

The ICNIRP guidelines are based on the avoidance of known adverse effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) at frequencies up to 300 GHz (gigahertz), which includes static magnetic fields and 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields associated with electricity transmission.

PHE notes the current Government policy is that the ICNIRP guidelines are implemented in line with the terms of the EU Council Recommendation on limiting exposure of the general public (1999/519/EC):

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Healthprotection/DH 4089500

6 Available from: http://www.cph.org.uk/showPublication.aspx?pubid=538



http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Healthprotection/DH_4089500

http://www.cph.org.uk/showPublication.aspx?pubid=538

For static magnetic fields, the latest ICNIRP guidelines (2009) recommend that acute exposure of the general public should not exceed 400 mT (millitesla), for any part of the body, although the previously recommended value of 40 mT is the value used in the Council Recommendation. However, because of potential indirect adverse effects, ICNIRP recognises that practical policies need to be implemented to prevent inadvertent harmful exposure of people with implanted electronic medical devices and implants containing ferromagnetic materials, and injuries due to flying ferromagnetic objects, and these considerations can lead to much lower restrictions, such as 0.5 mT as advised by the International Electrotechnical Commission.

At 50 Hz, the known direct effects include those of induced currents in the body on the central nervous system (CNS) and indirect effects include the risk of painful spark discharge on contact with metal objects exposed to the field. The ICNIRP guidelines give reference levels for public exposure to 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields, and these are respectively 5 kV m−1 (kilovolts per metre) and 100 μT (microtesla). If people are not exposed to field strengths above these levels, direct effects on the CNS should be avoided and indirect effects such as the risk of painful spark discharge will be small. The reference levels are not in themselves limits but provide guidance for assessing compliance with the basic restrictions and reducing the risk of indirect effects. Further clarification on advice on exposure guidelines for 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields is provided in the following note on PHE website:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb C/1195733805036

The Department of Energy and Climate Change has also published voluntary code of practices which set out key principles for complying with the ICNIRP guidelines for the industry.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what we do/uk supply/consents planning/codes/codes.aspx

There is concern about the possible effects of long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields, including possible carcinogenic effects at levels much lower than those given in the ICNIRP guidelines. In the NRPB advice issued in 2004, it was concluded that the studies that suggest health effects, including those concerning childhood leukaemia, could not be used to derive quantitative guidance on restricting exposure. However, the results of these studies represented uncertainty in the underlying evidence base, and taken together with people’s concerns, provided a basis for

providing an additional recommendation for Government to consider the need for further precautionary measures, particularly with respect to the exposure of children to power frequency magnetic fields.

The Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs (SAGE) was then set up to take this recommendation forward, explore the implications for a precautionary approach to extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields (ELF EMFs), and to make practical recommendations to Government. In the First Interim Assessment of the Group, consideration was given to mitigation options such as the 'corridor option' near power lines, and optimal phasing to reduce electric and magnetic fields. A

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733805036

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733805036

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/consents_planning/codes/codes.aspx

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/consents_planning/codes/codes.aspx

Second Interim Assessment addresses electricity distribution systems up to 66 kV. The SAGE reports can be found at the following link:

http://sagedialogue.org.uk/ (go to “Document Index” and Scroll to SAGE/Formal reports with recommendations)

The Agency has given advice to Health Ministers on the First Interim Assessment of SAGE regarding precautionary approaches to ELF EMFs and specifically regarding power lines and property, wiring and electrical equipment in homes:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb C/1204276682532?p=1207897920036

The evidence to date suggests that in general there are no adverse effects on the health of the population of the UK caused by exposure to ELF EMFs below the guideline levels. The scientific evidence, as reviewed by HPA, supports the view that precautionary measures should address solely the possible association with childhood leukaemia and not other more speculative health effects. The measures should be proportionate in that overall benefits outweigh the fiscal and social costs, have a convincing evidence base to show that they will be successful in reducing exposure, and be effective in providing reassurance to the public.

The Government response to the SAGE report is given in the written Ministerial Statement by Gillian Merron, then Minister of State, Department of Health, published on 16th October 2009:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091016/wmstext/91016m0001.htm

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH 107124

HPA and Government responses to the Second Interim Assessment of SAGE are available at the following links:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/Radiation/HPAResponseStatementsOnRadiationTopics/rpdadvice sage2

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH 130703

The above information provides a framework for considering the health impact associated with the proposed development, including the direct and indirect effects of the electric and magnetic fields as indicated above.

http://sagedialogue.org.uk/

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1204276682532?p=1207897920036

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1204276682532?p=1207897920036



http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_107124


http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/Radiation/HPAResponseStatementsOnRadiationTopics/rpdadvice_sage2

http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/Radiation/HPAResponseStatementsOnRadiationTopics/rpdadvice_sage2



Liaison with other stakeholders, comments should be sought from:

the local authority for matters relating to noise, odour, vermin and dust nuisance

the local authority regarding any site investigation and subsequent construction (and remediation) proposals to ensure that the site could not be determined as ‘contaminated land’ under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act

the local authority regarding any impacts on existing or proposed Air Quality Management Areas

the Food Standards Agency for matters relating to the impact on human health of pollutants deposited on land used for growing food/ crops

the Environment Agency for matters relating to flood risk and releases with the potential to impact on surface and groundwaters

the Environment Agency for matters relating to waste characterisation and acceptance

the Local Authority Director of Public Health, Clinical Commissioning Groups and NHS commissioning Board for matters relating to wider public health

Environmental Permitting

Amongst other permits and consents, the development will require an environmental permit from the Environment Agency to operate (under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010). Therefore the installation will need to comply with the requirements of best available techniques (BAT). PHE is a consultee for bespoke environmental permit applications and will respond separately to any such consultation.

Annex 1

Human health risk assessment (chemical pollutants)

The points below are cross-cutting and should be considered when undertaking a human health risk assessment:

The promoter should consider including Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) numbers alongside chemical names, where referenced in the ES

Where available, the most recent United Kingdom standards for the appropriate media (e.g. air, water, and/or soil) and health-based guideline values should be used when quantifying the risk to human health from chemical pollutants. Where UK standards or guideline values are not available, those recommended by the European Union or World Health Organisation can be used

When assessing the human health risk of a chemical emitted from a facility or operation, the background exposure to the chemical from other sources should be taken into account

When quantitatively assessing the health risk of genotoxic and carcinogenic chemical pollutants PHE does not favour the use of mathematical models to extrapolate from high dose levels used in animal carcinogenicity studies to well below the observed region of a dose-response relationship. When only animal data are available, we recommend that the ‘Margin of Exposure’ (MOE) approach7 is used

7 Benford D et al. 2010. Application of the margin of exposure approach to substances in food that are genotoxic and carcinogenic. Food Chem Toxicol 48 Suppl 1: S2-24

From: Jones, Richard (Planning) [[email protected]]Sent: 25 October 2013 11:14To: Environmental ServicesSubject: FW: Aplication by Tata Steel UK - 130927_EN010062_2036374 - FAO Jeffrey PenfoldAttachments: Scoping Opinion - Tata Steelworks

04/11/2013

Dear Mr Penfold, Please see attached additional response received from Natural Resources Wales. Kind regards, Richard.

From: Jones, Richard (Planning) Sent: 24 October 2013 14:17 To: 'Environmental Services' Subject: Aplication by Tata Steel UK - 130927_EN010062_2036374 - FAO Jeffrey Penfold Dear Mr Penfold, I refer to your letter of the 27th September 2013 regarding the scoping consultation for Tata Steel UK. The key issues for CCS are likely to be restricted to landscape/visual impact, ecology and air quality. To this end the Environmental Impact Assessment should include agreed viewpoints for the LVIA with CCS and not just NPT. Cumulative impacts should include the proposed tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay. There may be an issue with airborne pollutants which could potentially affect Crymlyn Bog SAC. Information on this would be needed in the Environmental Impact Assessment Kind regards, Richard. Richard Jones Major Projects Team Leader 01792 635735 ****************************************************************** This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the administrator on the following address: [email protected] All communications sent to or from the Council may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation Mae'r e-bost hwn ac unrhyw ffeiliau a drosglwyddir gydag ef yn gyfrinachol ac at ddefnydd yr unigolyn neu'r corff y cyfeiriwyd hwy atynt yn unig. Os ydych wedi derbyn yr e-bost hwn drwy gamgymeriad, dylech hysbysu'r gweinyddydd yn y cyfeiriad canlynol: [email protected]

Natural Resources Wales/Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru Maes Newydd, Llandarcy, Neath Port Talbot, SA10 6JQ. Llinell gwasanaethau cwsmeriaid/Customer services line: 0300 065 3000 www.cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk / www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk Croesewir gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg a'r Saesneg Correspondence welcomed in Welsh and English

Mr Richard Jones City & County of Swansea Development control Civic Centre Oystermouth Road Swansea SA1 3SN

Ein cyf/Our ref: SH/2013/115651/01-L01 Eich cyf/Your ref: Scoping Opinion – Internal Power Generation, Tata Dyddiad/Date: 25 October 2013

Annwyl / Dear Mr Jones PLANNING ACT 2008 (AS AMENDED) AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2009 (AS AMENDED) - REGULATIONS 8 AND 9 INTERNAL POWER GENERATION ENHANCEMENT FOR PORT TALBOT STEELWORKS TATA STEELWORKS, PORT TALBOT Thank you for your email of 1 October 2013, regarding the consultation from the Planning Inspectorate relating to a Scoping Opinion for the above project. We have responded directly to the Planning Inspectorate and copies of our comments are provided below for your reference. Thank you for consulting Natural Resources Wales (NRW) on the above development proposal, which we received on 27 September 2013. On 1 April 2013, NRW brought together the work of the Countryside Council for Wales, Environment Agency Wales and Forestry Commission Wales, as well as some functions of Welsh Government. Our purpose is to ensure that the natural resources of Wales are sustainably maintained, used and enhanced, now and in the future. We note that at this stage, you are seeking our comments on what information we consider should be provided within the Environmental Statement (ES). These comments are detailed below. Overall, we are supportive of the proposed development and believe that in general terms it will result in a positive contribution to improving air quality and the wider environment.

2

Environmental Permit Considerations The proposed development would require a variation of the current Environmental Permit issued under the Environment Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (as amended). The new development would be required to be fully compliant with the requirements of the regulation. It should be noted that these regulations have being significantly amended to transpose the EU Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) into national legislation. For further information in this regard, please see: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-permitting-regulations-guidance-on-part-a-installations We would also like to highlight that we are in discussions with Tata regarding the variation of their permit and the design specification that would be required. We will be encouraging the company to submit their application for the variation of their Environmental Permit and for their Development Consent Order at the same time to enable concurrent determination of both applications. We wish to draw attention to close proximity the Port Talbot Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for Particulate Matter less than 10 microns. (PM10). There is need for careful consideration of the AQMA in both the EPR application and the ES for both the construction and specification of the new activity. If granted, the EPR variation would cover all aspects of the operation of the new plant including emissions substances to land, water and air and the control of noise from the installation from the start of combustion. Please note the Permit does not cover the construction of the installation. Appropriate noise modelling should be undertaken using the best information available. The model should consider all potentially sensitive receptors and include consideration of the effect of different frequencies on the receptors. The modelling should consider construction, commissioning and operation phases of the proposed installation. Please note that the comments made in this response should not be taken to include those of the Competent Authority (CA) for COMAH of which NRW is a part. Consultations with the CA for COMAH should be undertaken through the Health and Safety Executive. They are the part of the CA who leads on planning matters. Notwithstanding the above, having reviewed the ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report’ produced by Aecom (on behalf of Tata, dated September 2013) we would offer the following comments. Chapter 1 Introduction Environmental Impact Assessment We note that ecological assessment topics relating to bats, breeding & nesting birds and reptiles have been screened out due to unsuitable supporting habitat or, in the case of bats, no likely supporting features to be affected by the proposed



3

development1. While we agree that it is appropriate to screen these out for consideration given the nature and characteristics of the site, due consideration should be given in the Environmental Statement to contingencies, should they be encountered on site during the construction phase of the development Chapter 5 Air Quality As highlighted above, the proposal is in close proximity to the Port Talbot Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for Particulate Matter less than 10 microns (PM10). This AQMA has been acknowledged in the Scoping Report and we are pleased to note that construction activities will be considered as part of the air quality modelling assessment as well as the imact on air quality once operational. We also conform that we endorse the assessment methodology set out in sections 5.3.12 to 5.2.21 of the Scoping Report. In addition to this, a comparison should be made between the current consented scenario versus the proposed consented scenario, in relation to aerial emissions and their subsequent effects on protected sites. Chapter 6 Ecology Designated Sites We agree with the conclusion that the likely impacts on surrounding designated sites will be limited to air quality impacts2. We note the commitment for the Applicant to consult further with Natural Resources Wales on this matter3, and we would be happy to provide further advice on the requirements for dispersion and deposition modelling in relation to impacts on European Protected Sites. Bats As outlined above, we agree that it is appropriate to screen the presence of bats out for consideration given the nature and characteristics of the site. However, we would advise that specific contingency measures be drawn up and included in the EIA to be used in the event that bats are encountered on site during the construction phase of the development. Reptiles We note the conclusion that, on the basis of survey, reptiles are not present on the site in numbers that would require a translocation scheme to be implemented4. We agree that the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate for inclusion at the EIA stage and the suggested tool box talk should incorporate contingency measures, should reptiles be encountered on site during the construction phase of the development. Chapter 7 Landscape and Visual

1 Table 2.1 Assessment topics to be scoped out - Scoping Report – TATA Steel UK Ltd: Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks (AECOM, September 2013) 2 6.5.1 Initial Assessment – Designated Sites – Scoping Report 3 6.7.3 Proposed Scope – Designated Sites – Scoping Report 4 6.7.6 Proposed Scope – Reptiles – Scoping Report

4

We agree with the main objectives and scope of the proposed LVIA5, however we advise that consideration of the nearby Mynydd Margam Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest and Merthyr Mawr, Kenfig and Margam Burrows Landscape of Special Historic Interest should be included. There is a separate assessment methodology required to be used for these receptors, the Assessment of the Significance of Impacts of Development on Historic Landscape (ASIDOHL). This assessment is expected for any development which is of such a scale it would have more than a local impact on an area of Historic Landscape. While it is likely, given the setting and surrounds of the proposed development, that neither receptor will be subject to more than a local impact due to the proposal, due to the different assessment methodology, we suggest that assessment against the ASIDOHL methodology be a separate objective. Chapter 8 Ground Conditions Historic activities at the site, prior to the PPC permit being issued for the site, may have included some contaminative uses. Notably there was a coking works on one part of the site, which may have caused an impact on controlled waters. We note site investigation data from a neighbouring site (Port Talbot Peripheral Distributor Road (PDR)) has been used to set the context as part of setting the generic conceptual model. Although previous investigations in the surrounding area are useful references for site settings, they do not give the level of detail we require for the area within the development boundary. It is also likely that standards of investigation have improved and that the level of detail in any such investigation will not be sufficient for current standards e.g. MCERTs. This has been acknowledged within the Scoping Report and we welcome the suggestion that site specific investigations be undertaken. We are also pleased to note that our previous comments (made in response to a pre-application enquiry) have been taken on board and that the risk to controlled waters as a receptor is to be considered as well as human health. We would welcome a technical summary of the proposed investigations within the ES, but are satisfied that land contamination issues, including any required remediation can be addressed by means of appropriate land contamination DCO requirements (in line with Planning Policy Wales). Chapter 13 Flood Risk We are pleased to note that the Scoping Report accepts the requirement for a Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA), the scope of which is still to be agreed. It is highly likely that a supporting hydraulic model will be required and we are undertaking discussions with the consultant, Aecom, on this matter.

5 7.1.5 Introduction – Landscape and Visual – Scoping Report

5

If Aecom decide to purchase our (NRW) model to form part of their FCA, then it will be their responsibility to ensure this sufficiently covers the required study area. If our model doesn’t adequately cover the study area then Aecom will need to undertake the necessary additional work. We would like to highlight that our model may not be based on up-to-date hydrology. It is the responsibility of Aecom to ensure the hydrology used is current. Furthermore, our model does not include the recently constructed PDR. This must be included as it is likely to affect the presently modelled flood regime. We would also advise that our model is solely based on the flood risk from the River Afan. Aecom may need to look at potential flood risk from some the ordinary watercourses located to the east of the application site. The risk of extreme tidal flooding will also need to be considered, including an allowance for climate change. Finally, the FCA must clearly demonstrate that the proposed development can comply with the requirements of TAN15 and must also show that the development (post construction) will not increase flood risk elsewhere. Chapter 14 Surface Water Environment We are pleased to learn that the proposed development will lead to better water efficiency at the installation; in turn we hope that the pressures borne on the local water environment will be lessened. With regards to water usage (for cooling etc), Tata Steel Ltd currently holds a total of 5 abstraction licences for the Port Talbot site. Three are at the north end of the site and two at the south end of the site. This Section concentrates on two of the three northern abstraction points. The abstraction from the Afan Ffrwdwyllt has not been included within the scope. We presume this is because it could not be used to supply water to the power plant? It would be helpful if this could be clarified. Reference is made to the Docks and River Afan abstractions. To clarify the River Afan abstraction takes water from the docks feeder channel rather than the river itself. The Docks and Docks feeder channel abstractions have been considered under our Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) project. The abstractions have the ability to abstract the whole River Afan at times of low and medium flow. Following the RSA investigation it was concluded that it would be too costly to reduce the Tata abstractions to a sustainable level. We therefore looked at alternative water management solutions to meet the environmental objectives of the River Afan. One of those options was to set up the Afan Water Management Group. The group consists of representatives from NRW, Tata Steel Limited, Associated British Ports, Afan Anglers and Neath Port Talbot Council. This group has worked hard over the last few years to try and achieve the environmental objectives of the River Afan by improving fish passage, encouraging water efficiency, considering alternative sources of supply and improving water management.

6

The current abstraction licences are not fully utilised and any increase in demand could probably be met with the existing headroom in the licences. This will need to be confirmed. However, given that we have already identified that the existing abstraction licences have the potential to have an environmental impact, we would be very unlikely to increase the total abstraction volumes to make up any short fall for supply to the new Power Plant We would recommend that any options/proposals to change the abstraction regime from the Docks and Docks feeder are fed back via the Afan Water Management Group for consideration. Should Aecom have any queries regarding this matter, they are advised to contact our Senior Environmental Planner, Lloyd Jones (01792 325553). Careful consideration needs to be given to the assessment and classification of local receptors, especially Port Talbot Dock. The Dock is a very diverse habitat in terms of the fish species which it supports. We are not aware of another Fishery or Water Body that has the same diversity of fish species within Wales. It supports Sea Fish, Coarse Fish, Brown Trout, Sea Trout and Salmon. It is highly productive because of the water temperature (warm water discharged into the docks from Tata) and from having a mix of fresh and sea water. Consequently, it may be considered as unique in a national context and we would not like to see the water quality change as a result of this development (e.g. from discharges /blowdown). We also welcome and support the intention to provide further detail within the ES on the pollution prevention controls to be deployed during the construction phase, especially with regard to controlled waters. Specifically, we are interested in further clarification of the statement: “intermittent miscellaneous discharges of water associated with ancillary equipment and rainwater run-off from associated construction and activities.” I trust the above comments are helpful and will assist you to formulate the Environmental Statement for this development. Please note that these comments do not set a precedent for our response to the formal application for planning permission, or any other legal consent. Such applications shall be assessed on the information submitted and regulations of relevance at that time. The details contained in this letter are based on the information available to date Yn ddiffuant / Yours sincerely Mrs Jenny Dickinson Planning Liaison Officer Deialu uniongyrchol/Direct dial 01792 325578 Ffacs uniongyrchol/Direct fax 01792 325511 E-bost uniongyrchol/Direct e-mail [email protected]

FAO Jeffrey Penfold EIA & Land Rights Advisor The Planning Inspectorate 3/18 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square BRISTOL BS1 6PN

e.mail:[email protected] e.bost: Your ref:130927_EN010062_2036045 Our ref:SM/91318 Eich Cyf: Ein Cyf: Direct Line: 01792 637760 Date: 23/10/13 This matter is being dealt with by: Sue Miles Trafodir y mater hwn gan:

Room 202 Penllergaer Offices

Swansea SA4 9GJ

Dear Mr Penfold,

APPLICATION BY TATA STEEL UK LIMITED FOR ORDER GRANTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT FOR THE INTERNAL POWER GENERATION

ENHANCEMENT FOR PORT TALBOT STEEL WORKS

Thank you for your letter dated 27th September in which you invited SWWITCH to provide any relevant information on, or comment on, the Scoping consultation in respect of the above application. I can confirm that having discussed this issue with colleagues in Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, one of the four Councils which comprise SWWITCH, no separate comments or information will be provided by SWWITCH. SWWITCH is confident that Neath Port Talbot Council is engaging with you and other relevant agencies on this matter and working with the developer to highlight and assess relevant work such as the Transport Assessment which will be required. Thank you for inviting us to comment in this instance. Yours sincerely Sue Miles – SWWITCH Co-ordinator

1

Protecting the public and the environment in coal mining areas

200 Lichfield Lane

Berry Hill

Mansfield

Nottinghamshire

NG18 4RG

Tel: 01623 637 119 (Planning Enquiries)

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.coal.decc.gov.uk/services/planning

Mr J. Penfold – EIA & Land Rights Advisor The Planning Inspectorate [By Email: [email protected]] Your Ref: 130927_EN010062_2036374 28 October 2013 Dear Mr Penfold Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental

Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) – Regulations 8 and 9

Proposed Internal Power Generation Enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks

Thank you for your consultation letter of 27 September 2013 seeking the views of The Coal Authority on the EIA Scoping Opinion for the above proposal. The Coal Authority is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. As a statutory consultee, The Coal Authority has a duty to respond to planning applications and development plans in order to protect the public and the environment in mining areas. The Coal Authority Response The southern part of the site of this proposed EIA development is located within the defined Development High Risk Area; the site therefore has been subject to past coal mining activity and is located within an area of surface coal resource. In accordance with the agreed risk-based approach to development management in Development High Risk Areas, the past coal mining activities and the presence of surface coal resources within the site should be fully considered as part of the Environmental Statement (ES); this should take the form of a risk assessment, together with any necessary mitigation measures. It should be noted that it is only the access road that falls within the High Risk area; there is no recorded legacy that poses a risk to land stability in the northern part of the site.

mailto:[email protected]�

http://www.coal.decc.gov.uk/services/planning�

2

Protecting the public and the environment in coal mining areas

The Coal Authority is therefore pleased to note that the Scoping Report submitted affords consideration to ground conditions in Chapter 9.

The location and stability of abandoned mine entries

Consideration of Coal Mining Issues in the ES There are a number of coal mining legacy issues that can potentially pose a risk to new development and therefore should be considered as part of an Environmental Statement for development proposals within coalfield areas:

The extent and stability of shallow mine workings Outcropping coal seams and unrecorded mine workings Hydrogeology, minewater and minegas

In addition, consideration should be afforded as part of development proposals and the ES to the following: If surface coal resources are present, whether prior extraction of the mineral

resource is practicable and viable Whether Coal Authority permission is required to intersect, enter, or disturb

any coal or coal workings during site investigation or development work

Information on these issues can be obtained from The Coal Authority's Property Search Services Team (Tel: 0845 762 6848 or via The Coal Authority’s

Coal Mining Information

website) or book an appointment to visit The Coal Authority’s Mining Records Centre in Mansfield to view our mining information (Tel: 01623 637 233). An assessment of the risks associated with the presence of coal mining legacy issues on a proposed development should be prepared by a “competent body”. Links to the relevant professional institutions of competent bodies can be found at; http://coal.decc.gov.uk/en/coal/cms/services/planning/strategy/strategy.aspx In accordance with our consultation requirements, we look forward to receiving the planning application and Environmental Statement for comment in due course. I trust this is acceptable, please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any additional information or would like to discuss this matter further. Yours sincerely

Mark Harrison

Mark E. N. Harrison B.A.(Hons), DipTP, LL.M, MInstLM, MRTPI

Planning Liaison Manager

http://coal.decc.gov.uk/en/coal/cms/services/reports/reports.aspx�

http://coal.decc.gov.uk/en/coal/cms/services/planning/strategy/strategy.aspx�

Developer Services PO Box 3146 Cardiff CF30 0EH Tel: +44 (0)800 917 2652 Fax: +44 (0)2920 740472 E.mail: [email protected]

Gwasanaethau Datblygu Blwch Post 3146 Caerdydd CF30 0EH Ffôn: +44 (0)800 917 2652 Ffacs: +44 (0)2920 740472 E.bost: [email protected]

Welsh Water is owned by Glas Cymru – a ‘not-for-profit’ company. Mae Dŵr Cymru yn eiddo i Glas Cymru – cwmni ‘nid-er-elw’.

We welcome correspondence in Welsh and English Dŵr Cymru Cyf, a limited company registered in Wales no. 2366777. Registered office: Pentwyn Road, Nelson, Treharris, Mid Glamorgan CF46 6LY

Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg Dŵr Cymru Cyf, cwmni cyfyngedig wedi’i gofrestru yng Nghymru rhif 2366777. Swyddfa gofrestredig: Heol Pentwyn Nelson, Treharris, Morgannwg Ganol CF46 6LY.

The Planning Inspectorate 3/18 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol CF46 6LY

Date: 25th October 2013 Your ref: 130927_EN010062_2036374 Our ref: DS/JP/NPT/20

For the attention of Jeffrey Penfold Dear Mr. Penfold, Re: Proposed internal power generation enhancement for Port Talbot Steelworks We refer to your correspondence dated 27th September 2013, regarding the above and wish to comment as follows. We do not have any representations to make in respect of the proposed internal power generation enhancement at Port Talbot Steelworks. However, we would welcome any further correspondence on the matter, so that we might continue to consider its potential impact on our assets. We trust this clarifies our position. If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact Jason Price on the above number. Yours faithfully,

Jason Price

Development Control Officer

Developer Services

APPENDIX 3

Presentation of the Environmental Statement

APPENDIX 3

PRESENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (SI 2264) (as amended) sets out the information which must be provided for an application for a development consent order (DCO) for nationally significant infrastructure under the Planning Act 2008. Where required, this includes an environmental statement. Applicants may also provide any other documents considered necessary to support the application. Information which is not environmental information need not be replicated or included in the ES.

An environmental statement (ES) is described under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2263) (as amended) (the EIA Regulations) as a statement:

a) ‘that includes such of the information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 as is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development and of any associated development and which the applicant can, having regard in particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment, reasonably be required to compile; but

b) that includes at least the information required in Part 2 of Schedule 4’.

(EIA Regulations Regulation 2)

The purpose of an ES is to ensure that the environmental effects of a proposed development are fully considered, together with the economic or social benefits of the development, before the development consent application under the Planning Act 2008 is determined. The ES should be an aid to decision making.

The SoS advises that the ES should be laid out clearly with a minimum amount of technical terms and should provide a clear objective and realistic description of the likely significant impacts of the proposed development. The information should be presented so as to be comprehensible to the specialist and non-specialist alike. The SoS recommends that the ES be concise with technical information placed in appendices.

ES Indicative Contents

The SoS emphasises that the ES should be a ‘stand alone’ document in line with best practice and case law. The EIA Regulations Schedule 4, Parts 1 and 2, set out the information for inclusion in environmental statements.

Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations states this information includes:

‘17. Description of the development, including in particular—

Appendix 3

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole development and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases;

(b) a description of the main characteristics of the production processes, for instance, nature and quantity of the materials used;

(c) an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc) resulting from the operation of the proposed development.

18. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant

and an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental effects.

19. A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be

significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors.

20. A description of the likely significant effects of the

development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development, resulting from: (a) the existence of the development; (b) the use of natural resources; (c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances

and the elimination of waste, and the description by the applicant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment.

21. A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce

and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.

22. A non-technical summary of the information provided under

paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Part. 23. An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack

of know-how) encountered by the applicant in compiling the required information’.

EIA Regulations Schedule 4 Part 1

4.25 The content of the ES must include as a minimum those matters set out in Schedule 4 Part 2 of the EIA Regulations. This includes the consideration of ‘the main alternatives studied by the applicant’ which the SoS recommends could be addressed as a separate chapter in the ES. Part 2 is included below for reference:

Appendix 3

4.26 Schedule 4 Part 2

• A description of the development comprising information on the site, design and size of the development

• A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects

• The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment

• An outline of the main alternatives studies by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental effects, and

• A non-technical summary of the information provided [under the four paragraphs above].

Traffic and transport is not specified as a topic for assessment under Schedule 4; although in line with good practice the SoS considers it is an important consideration per se, as well as being the source of further impacts in terms of air quality and noise and vibration.

Balance

The SoS recommends that the ES should be balanced, with matters which give rise to a greater number or more significant impacts being given greater prominence. Where few or no impacts are identified, the technical section may be much shorter, with greater use of information in appendices as appropriate.

The SoS considers that the ES should not be a series of disparate reports and stresses the importance of considering inter-relationships between factors and cumulative impacts.

Scheme Proposals

The scheme parameters will need to be clearly defined in the draft DCO and therefore in the accompanying ES which should support the application as described. The SoS is not able to entertain material changes to a project once an application is submitted. The SoS draws the attention of the applicant to the DCLG and the Planning Inspectorate’s published advice on the preparation of a draft DCO and accompanying application documents.

Flexibility

The SoS acknowledges that the EIA process is iterative, and therefore the proposals may change and evolve. For example, there may be changes to the scheme design in response to consultation. Such changes should be addressed in the ES. However, at the time of the application for a DCO, any proposed scheme parameters should not be so wide ranging as to represent effectively different schemes.

Appendix 3

It is a matter for the applicant, in preparing an ES, to consider whether it is possible to assess robustly a range of impacts resulting from a large number of undecided parameters. The description of the proposed development in the ES must not be so wide that it is insufficiently certain to comply with requirements of paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations.

The Rochdale Envelope principle (see R v Rochdale MBC ex parte Tew (1999) and R v Rochdale MBC ex parte Milne (2000)) is an accepted way of dealing with uncertainty in preparing development applications. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 9 ‘Rochdale Envelope’ which is available on the Advice Note’s page of the National Infrastructure Planning website.

The applicant should make every attempt to narrow the range of options and explain clearly in the ES which elements of the scheme have yet to be finalised and provide the reasons. Where some flexibility is sought and the precise details are not known, the applicant should assess the maximum potential adverse impacts the project could have to ensure that the project as it may be constructed has been properly assessed.

The ES should be able to confirm that any changes to the development within any proposed parameters would not result in significant impacts not previously identified and assessed. The maximum and other dimensions of the proposed development should be clearly described in the ES, with appropriate justification. It will also be important to consider choice of materials, colour and the form of the structures and of any buildings. Lighting proposals should also be described.

Scope

The SoS recommends that the physical scope of the study areas should be identified under all the environmental topics and should be sufficiently robust in order to undertake the assessment. The extent of the study areas should be on the basis of recognised professional guidance, whenever such guidance is available. The study areas should also be agreed with the relevant consultees and local authorities and, where this is not possible, this should be stated clearly in the ES and a reasoned justification given. The scope should also cover the breadth of the topic area and the temporal scope, and these aspects should be described and justified.

Physical Scope

In general the SoS recommends that the physical scope for the EIA should be determined in the light of:

• the nature of the proposal being considered

• the relevance in terms of the specialist topic

Appendix 3

• the breadth of the topic

• the physical extent of any surveys or the study area, and

• the potential significant impacts.

The SoS recommends that the physical scope of the study areas should be identified for each of the environmental topics and should be sufficiently robust in order to undertake the assessment. This should include at least the whole of the application site, and include all offsite works. For certain topics, such as landscape and transport, the study area will need to be wider. The extent of the study areas should be on the basis of recognised professional guidance and best practice, whenever this is available, and determined by establishing the physical extent of the likely impacts. The study areas should also be agreed with the relevant consultees and, where this is not possible, this should be stated clearly in the ES and a reasoned justification given.

Breadth of the Topic Area

The ES should explain the range of matters to be considered under each topic and this may respond partly to the type of project being considered. If the range considered is drawn narrowly then a justification for the approach should be provided.

Temporal Scope

The assessment should consider:

• environmental impacts during construction works • environmental impacts on completion/operation of the proposed

development • where appropriate, environmental impacts a suitable number of

years after completion of the proposed development (for example, in order to allow for traffic growth or maturing of any landscape proposals), and

• environmental impacts during decommissioning.

In terms of decommissioning, the SoS acknowledges that the further into the future any assessment is made, the less reliance may be placed on the outcome. However, the purpose of such a long term assessment, as well as to enable the decommissioning of the works to be taken into account, is to encourage early consideration as to how structures can be taken down. The purpose of this is to seek to minimise disruption, to re-use materials and to restore the site or put it to a suitable new use. The SoS encourages consideration of such matters in the ES.

The SoS recommends that these matters should be set out clearly in the ES and that the suitable time period for the assessment should be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees.

The SoS recommends that throughout the ES a standard terminology for time periods should be defined, such that for example, ‘short term’ always refers to the same period of time.

Appendix 3

Baseline

The SoS recommends that the baseline should describe the position from which the impacts of the proposed development are measured. The baseline should be chosen carefully and, whenever possible, be consistent between topics. The identification of a single baseline is to be welcomed in terms of the approach to the assessment, although it is recognised that this may not always be possible.

The SoS recommends that the baseline environment should be clearly explained in the ES, including any dates of surveys, and care should be taken to ensure that all the baseline data remains relevant and up to date.

For each of the environmental topics, the data source(s) for the baseline should be set out together with any survey work undertaken with the dates. The timing and scope of all surveys should be agreed with the relevant statutory bodies and appropriate consultees, wherever possible.

The baseline situation and the proposed development should be described within the context of the site and any other proposals in the vicinity.

Identification of Impacts and Method Statement

Legislation and Guidelines

In terms of the EIA methodology, the SoS recommends that reference should be made to best practice and any standards, guidelines and legislation that have been used to inform the assessment. This should include guidelines prepared by relevant professional bodies.

In terms of other regulatory regimes, the SoS recommends that relevant legislation and all permit and licences required should be listed in the ES where relevant to each topic. This information should also be submitted with the application in accordance with the APFP Regulations.

In terms of assessing the impacts, the ES should approach all relevant planning and environmental policy – local, regional and national (and where appropriate international) – in a consistent manner.

Assessment of Effects and Impact Significance

The EIA Regulations require the identification of the ‘likely significant effects of the development on the environment’ (Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 20).

As a matter of principle, the SoS applies the precautionary approach to follow the Court’s4 reasoning in judging ‘significant effects’. In other words

4 See Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretris van Landbouw (Waddenzee Case No C 127/02/2004)

Appendix 3

‘likely to affect’ will be taken as meaning that there is a probability or risk that the proposed development will have an effect, and not that a development will definitely have an effect.

The SoS considers it is imperative for the ES to define the meaning of ‘significant’ in the context of each of the specialist topics and for significant impacts to be clearly identified. The SoS recommends that the criteria should be set out fully and that the ES should set out clearly the interpretation of ‘significant’ in terms of each of the EIA topics. Quantitative criteria should be used where available. The SoS considers that this should also apply to the consideration of cumulative impacts and impact inter-relationships.

The SoS recognises that the way in which each element of the environment may be affected by the proposed development can be approached in a number of ways. However it considers that it would be helpful, in terms of ease of understanding and in terms of clarity of presentation, to consider the impact assessment in a similar manner for each of the specialist topic areas. The SoS recommends that a common format should be applied where possible.

Inter-relationships between environmental factors

The inter-relationship between aspects of the environments likely to be significantly affected is a requirement of the EIA Regulations (see Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations). These occur where a number of separate impacts, e.g. noise and air quality, affect a single receptor such as fauna.

The SoS considers that the inter-relationships between factors must be assessed in order to address the environmental impacts of the proposal as a whole. This will help to ensure that the ES is not a series of separate reports collated into one document, but rather a comprehensive assessment drawing together the environmental impacts of the proposed development. This is particularly important when considering impacts in terms of any permutations or parameters to the proposed development.

Cumulative Impacts

The potential cumulative impacts with other major developments will need to be identified, as required by the Directive. The significance of such impacts should be shown to have been assessed against the baseline position (which would include built and operational development). In assessing cumulative impacts, other major development should be identified through consultation with the local planning authorities and other relevant authorities on the basis of those that are:

• projects that are under construction • permitted application(s) not yet implemented • submitted application(s) not yet determined

Appendix 3

• all refusals subject to appeal procedures not yet determined • projects on the National Infrastructure’s programme of projects, and • projects identified in the relevant development plan (and emerging

development plans - with appropriate weight being given as they move closer to adoption) recognising that much information on any relevant proposals will be limited.

Details should be provided in the ES, including the types of development, location and key aspects that may affect the EIA and how these have been taken into account as part of the assessment.

The SoS recommends that offshore wind farms should also take account of any offshore licensed and consented activities in the area, for the purposes of assessing cumulative effects, through consultation with the relevant licensing/consenting bodies.

For the purposes of identifying any cumulative effects with other developments in the area, applicants should also consult consenting bodies in other EU states to assist in identifying those developments (see commentary on Transboundary Effects below).

Related Development

The ES should give equal prominence to any development which is related with the proposed development to ensure that all the impacts of the proposal are assessed.

The SoS recommends that the applicant should distinguish between the proposed development for which development consent will be sought and any other development. This distinction should be clear in the ES.

Alternatives

The ES must set out an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and provide an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking account of the environmental effect (Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 18).

Matters should be included, such as inter alia alternative design options and alternative mitigation measures. The justification for the final choice and evolution of the scheme development should be made clear. Where other sites have been considered, the reasons for the final choice should be addressed.

The SoS advises that the ES should give sufficient attention to the alternative forms and locations for the off-site proposals, where appropriate, and justify the needs and choices made in terms of the form of the development proposed and the sites chosen.

Appendix 3

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures may fall into certain categories namely: avoid; reduce; compensate or enhance (see Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 21); and should be identified as such in the specialist topics. Mitigation measures should not be developed in isolation as they may relate to more than one topic area. For each topic, the ES should set out any mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects, and to identify any residual effects with mitigation in place. Any proposed mitigation should be discussed and agreed with the relevant consultees.

The effectiveness of mitigation should be apparent. Only mitigation measures which are a firm commitment and can be shown to be deliverable should be taken into account as part of the assessment.

It would be helpful if the mitigation measures proposed could be cross referred to specific provisions and/or requirements proposed within the draft development consent order. This could be achieved by means of describing the mitigation measures proposed either in each of the specialist reports or collating these within a summary section on mitigation.

The SoS advises that it is considered best practice to outline in the ES, the structure of the environmental management and monitoring plan and safety procedures which will be adopted during construction and operation and may be adopted during decommissioning.

Cross References and Interactions

The SoS recommends that all the specialist topics in the ES should cross reference their text to other relevant disciplines. Interactions between the specialist topics is essential to the production of a robust assessment, as the ES should not be a collection of separate specialist topics, but a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposal and how these impacts can be mitigated.

As set out in EIA Regulations Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 23, the ES should include an indication of any technical difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant in compiling the required information.

Consultation

The SoS recommends that any changes to the scheme design in response to consultation should be addressed in the ES.

It is recommended that the applicant provides preliminary environmental information (PEI) (this term is defined in the EIA Regulations under regulation 2 ‘Interpretation’) to the local authorities.

Consultation with the local community should be carried out in accordance with the SoCC which will state how the applicant intends to consult on the

Appendix 3

preliminary environmental information (PEI). This PEI could include results of detailed surveys and recommended mitigation actions. Where effective consultation is carried out in accordance with Section 47 of the Planning Act, this could usefully assist the applicant in the EIA process – for example the local community may be able to identify possible mitigation measures to address the impacts identified in the PEI. Attention is drawn to the duty upon applicants under Section 50 of the Planning Act to have regard to the guidance on pre-application consultation.

Transboundary Effects

The SoS recommends that consideration should be given in the ES to any likely significant effects on the environment of another Member State of the European Economic Area. In particular, the SoS recommends consideration should be given to discharges to the air and water and to potential impacts on migratory species and to impacts on shipping and fishing areas.

The Applicant’s attention is also drawn to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 12 ‘Development with significant transboundary impacts consultation’ which is available on the Advice Notes Page of the National Infrastructure Planning website

Summary Tables

The SoS recommends that in order to assist the decision making process, the applicant may wish to consider the use of tables:

Table X to identify and collate the residual impacts after mitigation on the basis of specialist topics, inter-relationships and cumulative impacts.

Table XX to demonstrate how the assessment has taken account of this Opinion and other responses to consultation.

Table XXX to set out the mitigation measures proposed, as well as assisting the reader, the SoS considers that this would also enable the applicant to cross refer mitigation to specific provisions proposed to be included within the draft Development Consent Order.

Table XXXX to cross reference where details in the HRA (where one is provided) such as descriptions of sites and their locations, together with any mitigation or compensation measures, are to be found in the ES.

Terminology and Glossary of Technical Terms

The SoS recommends that a common terminology should be adopted. This will help to ensure consistency and ease of understanding for the decision making process. For example, ‘the site’ should be defined and used only in

Appendix 3

terms of this definition so as to avoid confusion with, for example, the wider site area or the surrounding site.

A glossary of technical terms should be included in the ES.

Presentation

The ES should have all of its paragraphs numbered, as this makes referencing easier as well as accurate.

Appendices must be clearly referenced, again with all paragraphs numbered.

All figures and drawings, photographs and photomontages should be clearly referenced. Figures should clearly show the proposed site application boundary.

Bibliography

A bibliography should be included in the ES. The author, date and publication title should be included for all references. All publications referred to within the technical reports should be included.

Non Technical Summary

The EIA Regulations require a Non Technical Summary (EIA Regulations Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 22). This should be a summary of the assessment in simple language. It should be supported by appropriate figures, photographs and photomontages.

Appendix 3

PROPOSED INTERNAL POWER GENERATION ENHANCEMENT FOR PORT TALBOT STEELWORKS

PROJECT REFERENCE: EN010062

LIST OF PRESCRIBED CONSULTATION BODIES NOTIFIED BY THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE UNDER REGULATION 9(1)(a) OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT)

REGULATIONS 2009 (AS AMENDED)

This information has been provided in accordance with Regulation 9(1)(b) of the EIA Regulations in response to a Regulation 6 notification received from TATA Steel UK Ltd on 26 November 2013. The table below lists the bodies that the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) has notified under Regulation 9(1)(a) of the EIA Regulations. Notification bodies have been identified based on the red line boundary provided by the applicant as a shapefile in the correspondence dated 26 November 2013. When meeting their statutory pre-application obligations, the applicant must make diligent inquiries, carry out their own investigations and take legal advice, as appropriate. The applicant should also have regard to the relevant guidance prepared by the Planning Inspectorate, which is available from the Planning Portal website. SCHEDULE 1 DESCRIPTION ORGANISATION CONTACT The Welsh Ministers Welsh Government Carl Sargeant AM

Minister for Housing and Regeneration Cardiff Bay C99 1NA

The Welsh Ministers Welsh Government Ron Loveland Director of Sustainable Energy and Industry in Wales Cardiff Bay C99 1NA

The Health and Safety Executive Health and Safety Executive Laura Evans NSIP Consultations 5.S.2 Redgrave Court

Page 1 of 17

Merton Road Bootle L20 7HS

The Relevant Fire and Rescue Authority

Mid and West Wales Fire & Rescue Services

The Chief Executive Fire Service Headquarters Lime Grove Avenue Carmarthen SA31 1SP

The Relevant Fire and Rescue Authority

South Wales Fire & Rescue Service The Chief Executive Forest View Business Park Llantrisant CF72 8LX

The Relevant Police and Crime Commissioner

South Wales Police and Crime Commissioner

Mr Alun Michael Ty Morgannwg Police Headquarters Bridgend CF31 3SU

The Relevant Police and Crime Commissioner

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

The Chief Executive

Police Headquarters Croesyceiliog Cwmbran Gwent NP44 2XJ

The Relevant Parish Council(s) or Relevant Community Council

Cornelly Community Council Dawn Evans [email protected]

The Equality and Human Rights Commission

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Baroness Onora O Neill Fleetbank House

Page 2 of 17

mailto:[email protected],uk

2-6 Salisbury Square London EC4Y 8JX

Royal Commission On Ancient and Historical Monuments Of Wales

Royal Commission On Ancient and Historical Monuments Of Wales

Peter Wakelin Library and Enquiries Service, National Monuments Record of Wales Plas Crug Aberystwyth SY23 1NJ

The Natural Resources Body for Wales Natural Resources Wales Sarah Wood [email protected] General consultation email address: [email protected]

The Civil Aviation Authority Civil Aviation Authority Directorate of Airspace Policy [email protected]

The Relevant Highways Authority Neath Port Talbot CBC Head of Highways Department The Quays, Brunel Way Baglan, SA11 2GG.

The Passengers Council Passenger Focus Mike Hewitson 1 Drummond Gate Pimlico London

Page 3 of 17






SW1V 2QY

The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

Committee Secretary 2/17 Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR

The Coal Authority The Coal Authority Rachael Bust 2 Lichfield Lane Mansfield Nottinghamshire NG18 4RG

The Office Of Rail Regulation Office of Rail Regulation Paul Wilkinson One Kemble Street London WC2B 4AN

Approved Operator Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd Tom Higginson 1 Eversholt Street London NW1 2DN

Approved Operator Network Rail (CTRL) Ltd The Chief Executive Kings Place 90 York Way London N19AG

Page 4 of 17

The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority

OFGEM Keith Smith 9 Millbank London SW1P 3QE

The Water Services Regulation Authority

OFWAT Gail Harris 20th Floor Centre City Tower 7 Hill St Birmingham B5 4UA

The Relevant Waste Regulation Authority

Natural Resources Wales Sarah Wood [email protected]

Public Health England, an executive agency to the Department of Health

Public Health England [email protected]

The Relevant Local Resilience forum South Wales Local Resilience Forum Julia Fogarty Secretariat Room 215 Merthyr Tydfil CBC Civic Centre Castle Street Merthyr Tydfil CF47 8AN

The Crown Estate Commissioners The Crown Estate Dr David Tudor Planning and Consents Manager 16 New Burlington Place London W1S 2HX

The relevant local heath board Public Health Wales Mid and West Wales Region

Huw Brunt c/o Sharon Jones Swansea Office

Page 5 of 17


36 Orcvhard Street Swansea SA1 5AQ

The relevant local heath board Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board

Dr Stephen Monaghan c/o Mr Steven Coombe Director of Corporate Services 1 Talbot Gateway

Baglan Energy Park

Baglan

Port Talbot SA12 7BR

The National Health Service Trusts Public Health Wales The Chief Executive 14 Cathedral Road Cardiff CF11 9LJ

The National Health Service Trusts Welsh Ambulance Services Trust The Chief Executive HM Stanley Hospital St Asaph Denbighshire LL17 0RS

The National Health Service Trusts Velindre NHS Trust The Chief Executive Corporate Headquarters Unit 2 Charnwood Court Parc Nantgarw Nantgarw

Page 6 of 17

Cardiff CF15 7QZ

RELEVANT STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS Ambulance Trusts Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust The Chief Executive

HM Stanley Hospital St Asaph Denbighshire LL17 0RS

Railway Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd Tom Higginson 1 Eversholt Street London NW1 2DN

Railways BRB Residuary Limited Peter Trewin 4th Floor One Kemble Street London WC2B 4AN

Railways Network Rail (CTRL) Ltd The Chief Executive Kings Place 90 York Way London N19AG

Canal Or Inland Navigation Authorities Company of Proprietors of Neath Canal Navigation

The Chief Executive Bankside The Green Neath

Page 7 of 17

SA11 1RY Ports Associated British Ports Port Director

Harbour Office Lock Head King's Dock Swansea SA1 1QR

Ports Associated British Ports Mr John Copping, Port Director Puckey House The Docks Port Talbot West Glamorgan SA13 1RB

Harbour Neath Harbour Commissioners Chief Executive Bankside The Green Neath SA11 1RY Wales

Civil Aviation Authority Civil Aviation Authority Directorate of Airspace Policy Policy CAA House 45-59 Kingsway London WC2B GTE

Licence Holder (Chapter 1 Of Part 1 Of Transport Act 2000)

NATS En-Route (NERL) Safeguarding The Chief Executive Mailbox 25 NATS Corporate and Technical Centre 4000 Parkway Whiteley, Fareham

Page 8 of 17

Hampshire PO15 7FL

Universal Service Provider Royal Mail Group The Chief Executive 100 Victoria Embankment London EC4Y 0HQ

Relevant Environment Agency Natural Resources Wales Sarah Wood [email protected] General consultation email address: [email protected]

Water and Sewage Undertakers Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water) The Chief Executive Pentwyn Road Nelson Treharris Mid Glamorgan CF46 6LY

Public Gas Transporter British Gas Pipelines Limited The Chief Executive Centrica Energy 1st Floor Millstream East Maidenhead Road Windsor, Berkshire SL4 5GD

Public Gas Transporter Energetics Gas Limited The Chief Executive International House Stanley Boulevard Hamilton International Technology Park Glasgow

Page 9 of 17



G72 OBN Public Gas Transporter ES Pipelines Ltd Alan Slee

Hazeldean Station Road Leatherhead Surrey KT22 7AA

Public Gas Transporter ESP Connections Ltd Alan Slee Hazeldean Station Road Leatherhead Surrey KT22 7AA

Public Gas Transporter ESP Networks Ltd Alan Slee Hazeldean Station Road Leatherhead Surrey KT22 7AA

Public Gas Transporter ESP Pipelines Ltd Alan Slee Hazeldean Station Road Leatherhead Surrey KT22 7AA

Public Gas Transporter Fulcrum Pipelines Limited The Chief Executive [email protected]

Public Gas Transporter GTC Pipelines Limited The Chief Executive Energy House

Page 10 of 17


Woolpit Business Park Woolpit Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP30 9UP

Public Gas Transporter Independent Pipelines Limited The Chief Executive Energy House Woolpit Business Park Woolpit Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP30 9UP

Public Gas Transporter LNG Portable Pipeline Services Limited The Chief Executive Cadarache Bere Court Pangbourne Reading RG8 8HT

Public Gas Transporter National Grid Gas Plc Vicky Stirling Asset Protection - Town Planner National Grid Land and Development Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill Warwick CV34 6DA [email protected] [email protected]

Page 11 of 17

mailto:[email protected]@nationalgrid.com


Public Gas Transporter National Grid Plc Vicky Stirling

Asset Protection - Town Planner National Grid Land and Development Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill Warwick CV34 6DA [email protected] [email protected]

Public Gas Transporter Quadrant Pipelines Limited Chief Executive Energy House Woolpit Business Park Woolpit Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP30 9UP

Public Gas Transporter SSE Pipelines Ltd Chief Executive 55 Vastern Road Reading RG1 8BU

Public Gas Transporter The Gas Transportation Company Limited

Chief Executive The Energy Centre Admiral Park St Peter Port Guernsey Islands GY1 3TB

Page 12 of 17



Public Gas Transporter Utility Grid Installations Limited Chief Executive Energy House Woolpit Business Park Woolpit Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP30 9UP

Public Gas Transporter Wales and West Utilities Ltd Chief Executive Wales and West House Spooner Close Celtic Springs Newport NP10 8FZ

Electricity Generators With CPO Powers Prenergy Limited Chief Executive 59A Brent Street London NW4 2EA

Electricity Distributors With CPO Powers

Energetics Electricity Limited Chief Executive International House Stanley Boulevard Hamilton International Technology Park Glasgow South Lanarkshire G72 0BN


ESP Electricity Limited Alan Slee Hazeldean Station Road Leatherhead Surrey KT22 7AA

Page 13 of 17

[email protected]


Independent Power Networks Limited Chief Executive Energy House Woolpit Business Park Woolpit Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP30 9UP


The Electricity Network Company Limited

Chief Executive Energy House Woolpit Business Park Bury St Edmonds Suffolk IP30 9UP


Western Power Distribution (South Wales) Plc

Chief Executive Avonbank Feeder Road Bristol BS2 0TB

Electricity Transmitters With CPO Powers

National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc

Vicky Stirling Asset Protection - Town Planner National Grid Land and Development Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill Warwick CV34 6DA [email protected]

Page 14 of 17



[email protected]

Electricity Transmitters With CPO Powers

National Grid Plc Vicky Stirling Asset Protection - Town Planner National Grid Land and Development Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill Warwick CV34 6DA [email protected] [email protected]

SECTION 43 CONSULTEES National Park Authority Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Christopher Morgan - Director of

Planning Plas y Ffynnon Cambrian Way Brecon Powys LD3 7HP

Local Authority Neath Port Talbot CBC Nicola Pearce - Head of Planning The Quays Brunel Way Baglan SA11 2GG.

Page 15 of 17



Local Authority Carmarthenshire County Council The Chief Executive [email protected]

Local Authority Swansea City Council Steve Smith - Major Projects City and County of Swansea Civic Centre Swansea SA1 3SN

Local Authority Bridgend County Borough Council The Chief Executive [email protected]

Local Authority Rhondda Cynon Taf Christopher Jones - Development & Control Manager Regeneration & Planning Cardis House Cardis Road Pontyyprid CF37 1DU

Local Authority Powys County Council Gwilym Davis - Principal Planning Officer The Gwalia Ithon road Llandrindod Wells Powys LD1 6AA

NON-PRESCRIBED CONSULTATION BODIES

Welsh Language Commissioner Welsh Language Commissioner The Chief Executive

Page 16 of 17



[email protected]

Joint Transport Authority South West Wales Integrated Transport Consortium (SWWitch)

The Chief Executive SWWITCH Office C/O Penllergaer Offices City & County of Swansea Penllergaer Swansea SA4 9GJ

CADW CADW The Chief Executive Welsh Government Plas Carew Unit 5/7 Cefn Coed Parc Nantgarw CF15 7QQ

Please note that the Prescribed Consultation Bodies have been notified in accordance with the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 3: Consultation and notification undertaken by the Planning Inspectorate. The non-prescribed consultation bodies have been notified by PINS, as they are not prescribed consultees the duty imposed under Regulation 9 (3) of the EIA Regulations (if requested by the applicant, to make information relevant to the preparation of the environmental statement available) does not apply to these consultees. 27 September 2013

Page 17 of 17

LATE SCOPING CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Consultation bodies have 28 days to respond with any comments, stating either the information that they consider should be included in the ES or that they do not have any comments. Any responses received after the deadline will not be considered within the scoping opinion but are forwarded to the applicant for consideration in accordance with the policy set out in Advice Note 7: Environmental Impact Assessment, Screening and Scoping. The following EIA scoping consultation responses were received after the consultation deadline specified under legislation and therefore did not form part of the Secretary of State's scoping opinion.

Bwrdd Iechyd ABM yw enw gweithredu Bwrdd Iechyd Lleol Prifysgol Abertawe Bro Morgannwg ABM University Health Board is the operational name of Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board Pencadlys ABM / ABM Headquarters, 1 Talbot Gateway, Port Ta bot, SA12 7BR. Ffon / Tel: (01656) 752752 www.abm.university-trust.wales.nhs.uk 1

ABM Headquarters One Talbot Gateway, Seaway Parade, Port Talbot

SA12 7BR Our Ref: Your Ref: Date: 28 October 2013 The Planning Inspectorate 2/18 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN FAO MR RICHARD KENT Dear Mr Penfold INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT) ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS 2009 SI 2263 (AS AMENDED) (THE EIA REGULATIONS) RE: TATA STEEL APPLICATION REFERENCE: 130927_EN010062_2036374 ADDRESS: TATA STEEL, PORT TALBOT STEEL WORKS, ABBEY WORKS, PORT TALBOT SA13 2NG We have consulted our technical advisers within Public Health Wales as well as PHE CRCE – Wales, and our comments are based on the information contained within the application documentation. The Health Board wishes to make the following comments in relation to this development. We would also remind you that, in Wales, the statutory function for public health is delivered through Health Boards with specialist support from Public Health Wales as necessary. Public Health England does not have the primary public health remit in Wales. TATA Steel has asked the Planning Inspectorate for its opinion on the recommended structure and contents of an Environmental Statement for generation enhancement for Port Talbot Steel Works, Abbey Works, Port Talbot SA13 2NG. The request for assessment of the environmental opinion is a precursor to an intensive and detailed independent impact of the proposed development.

(01639) 683362 WHTN (01787) 3362

[email protected]


The attached appendix outlines generic considerations that we advise are addressed by all promoters when they are preparing environmental statements for nationally significant infrastructure projects. We have adopted the same framework as Public Health England. In terms of detail to be included in environmental statements, we recognise that the differing nature of projects is such that their impacts will vary. Our view is that the assessments undertaken to inform the environmental statement should be proportionate to the potential impacts of the proposal. Where a promoter determines that it is not necessary to undertake detailed assessment(s) (e.g. undertake qualitative rather than quantitative assessments), the rationale for this should be fully explained and justified within the application documents. Specific Comments Relating To Submitted Documents The Welsh Government regards the inclusion of a Health Impact Assessment within the scoping and environmental assessments as a best practice requirement. The applicant is therefore advised that any subsequent application for a Development Consent Order must include a detailed Health Impact Assessment. It is noted that section 5.1 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report (Cumulative Assessment) outlines the intention to take into account the potential cumulative impact the plan will have on local air quality and sensitive receptors. The applicant is advised that any other sources of local air pollution (existing or planned) should be included in the assessment and in any air dispersion modelling undertaken as part of the application process. In addition, we make the following specific comments

• You confirm that an air quality assessment (modelling) is to be undertaken. We recommend the inclusion criteria for sensitive receptors and model specifications should be agreed with the local authority prior to any assessment being undertaken.

• The PM10 Air Quality Objective has previously been exceeded in the vicinity of the proposed development and consequently the local authority has identified that cumulative impacts on air quality must be assessed as part of the application process. The Health Board is in agreement with this approach.

• Your submission identifies that consideration should be given to the cumulative impacts arising from the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Scheme, the proposed wind farm at Mynydd Brombil and other cumulative developments. We agree with this approach and recommend that any assessments, risk assessment, conclusions or mitigation proposals are agreed with Natural Resources Wales and the Local authority prior to the submission of your application for a development consent order.


Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely

Director of Public Health