Mr Jonathan Haine Lancashire County Council Development Management PO Box 100 Preston Lancashire PR1 0LD Our ref: Your ref: NO/2014/106122/01-L01 LCC/2014/0020 Date: 26 February 2014 Dear Mr Haine SCOPING OPINION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT TO ACCOMPANY APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A WELL PAD, DRILLING AND HYDRAULIC FRACTURING OF FOUR EXPLORATORY BOREHOLES, TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESTORATION OF SITE LAND AT ROSEACRE WOOD, OFF ROSEACRE LANE, ROSEACRE, ELSWICK, NR KIRKHAM I refer to the above and the following report which has been referred to us for consultation purposes: • EIA Scoping Report for Temporary Shale Gas Exploration at Roseacre Wood, Lancashire for Cuadrilla Elswick Ltd by ARUP (RW_EIA Scoping; February 2014) The proposed development involves activities that will be regulated by the Environment Agency under separate legislation and more detailed information will be required as part of any subsequent permit application submitted for the activities proposed. We would recommend that in this instance, the applicant considers parallel tracking any subsequent planning and permitting applications. We consider that there would be benefits to parallel tracking the planning and environmental permit applications. Parallel tracking planning and environmental permit applications offers the best option for ensuring that all issues can be identified and resolved, where possible, at the earliest possible stages. This will avoid the potential need for amendments to the planning application post-permission. Parallel tracking the applications will also ensure that both Lancashire County Council and the Environment Agency can review the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in full in so far as it relates to the separate legislative regimes and the decision making process of both organisations is open and transparent. Environment Agency PO Box 519, South Preston, Lancashire, PR5 8GD. Customer services line: 03708 506 506 www.environment-agency.gov.uk Cont/d.. Whether or not the applicant chooses to parallel track their applications, we have reviewed the proposed scope of the EIA and the content of the Environmental Statement (ES) in so far as it relates to our remit and we would offer the following recommendations and comments:2.4 Geology, hydrogeology and hydrology Within section 2.4.2, the report states that “the site is not underlain by a ‘groundwater body’ (under the Water Framework Directive) and has not been assessed by the Environment Agency to determine groundwater resource availability or WFD groundwater status”. This statement is incorrect. The River Basin Management Plan indicates that the groundwater body in this area is the West Lancashire Quaternary Sand and Gravels Aquifers, and has been assessed as having good quantitative status and good chemical status under the Water Framework Directive. 3.4 Construction of the well pad and access track Section 3.4.3 describes how surface water will be intercepted and collected but does not provide details of how the water will be discharged. The EIA will be expected to demonstrate how surface water run-off from the site will be disposed of to ensure that there is no increased risk of pollution to ground and surface waters, no detrimental impacts on aquatic ecology and no increase in flood risk off site. Section 3.4.3.4 describes the proposed groundwater monitoring boreholes and that they will allow baseline groundwater quality data to be collected prior, during and post exploration. As part of the EIA, groundwater monitoring proposals should be considered, including whether or not it would be technically possible to obtain groundwater samples from the Sherwood Sandstone during the drilling process. This would serve to confirm the expected groundwater quality in this geological unit 3.6 Hydraulic fracturing and 3.7 Flow testing In relation to the steps in the hydraulic fracturing process (3.6.3) and the post-hydraulic fracturing flowback and testing (3.7.2), if it is intended to reuse/recycle flow back fluid following sufficient treatment at any time we feel that this option should be assessed through the EIA and the potential risks considered. 5.1 Air quality The issue of determining whether or not radon is emitted in the flare gas on page 41 contains some technical errors, for example “volume” of radon should be “activity”. However, it is acknowledged that there is an undertaking to assess the impact on people (rather than air quality per se) so the substantive point is addressed. The assessment should also consider any risk associated with naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in the flare gas. 5.3 Greenhouse gas emissions The scoping report makes no reference to fugitive emissions of methane, nor does it include the Environment Agency in the list of organisations to be consulted on this issue. We will expect the applicant to demonstrate that any fugitive emissions of methane from the site will be contained in full and for this to be demonstrated through Cont/d.. 2 the EIA process. The ES should include details of how the applicant intends to achieve this. 5.5 Ecology We have considered the proposals in relation to the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the need for a WFD compliance assessment. The scoping report does not clearly identify how surface water run-off from the site will be disposed of. Where there is no discharge of surface water run-off from the site to a watercourse and there are no works to a watercourse, it is our opinion that a WFD compliance assessment for fluvial water bodies will not be required. Where there is a discharge of surface water run-off that could result in adverse impacts to fluvial water bodies or the proposal involves works to a watercourse, the need for a WFD compliance assessment will need to be reviewed. 5.6 Hydrogeology & ground gas Table 7 in section 5.6.4 should include all possible fluids that may be used during construction and testing of the well, for example, cement and spacer fluids. For information, groundwater receptors’ includes all groundwater bearing formations where fluid entering these formations could be considered a groundwater activity under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010. 5.7 Induced seismicity At section 5.7.4.6, the report indicates that it will consider the effects of seismic events on the environment, built environment and human response. This assessment will also need to consider the impact that a seismic event will have upon the well integrity (including the integrity of any neighbouring wells) and the risks that these may pose to the groundwater environment. 5.12 Resources and waste In the third paragraph of 5.12.1 it is reported that a waste management plan will be developed and regulated under the Mining Waste Directive Permit and is to include a section on the installation of the arrays. To date we have not included these in any Mining Waste Permit as they are generally installed outside of the site boundary to monitor for seismic activity and map the geological setting. We would suggest that the installation of the arrays are specifically a land-use planning matter for the consideration of the local authority. We would require the operator to follow best practice and our guidance on pollution prevention when drilling the monitoring array mini wells and disposing of any wastes that arise should be referred to. Table 9 on page 81 identifies the waste streams likely to be generated by the project. The range of wastes identified will be regulated under a number of different regimes. Through the EIA, we would expect the applicant to identify the different types of waste that will be generated by the project and under which regime each waste identified will be regulated. This should be clearly identified in the ES. The issue of NORM has been identified in the scoping report, but the extent to which it will be assessed through the EIA has not been identified. Overall there are very few references to NORM and where they do occur they are short and very high level. In the absence of any detail in relation to the approach to the assessment of NORM, we are Cont/d.. 3 unable to comment on the adequacy or otherwise of any methodology used to assess the impacts of NORM as a result of the proposed development. Footnote 51 on page 81 refers to a separate document entitled “arrangements for the disposal of radioactive waste” by Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd (dated 2012) and this purportedly describes how radioactive waste is to be disposed of, but as that information is not presented in the scoping report we cannot comment on these arrangements or their future value. The statement in section 5.12.4.1 about NORM in return water only identifies it as an issue, without saying what will be considered or done to address this through the EIA. In addition, there are a number of minor errors/comments within section 5.12: • The Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (footnote 49, page 80) is now Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2010 Schedule 23 • The Department of Energy and Climate Change Strategy for the Management of Solid Low Level Radioactive Waste from the Non-Nuclear Industry in the United Kingdom (2012) (footnote 50, page 80) is now the “Strategy for the management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) waste in the United Kingdom: A consultation” (available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/02/8435) • In relation to paragraph 5.12.2, the baseline will not be zero as there will be NORM at the site prior to operations generating waste. It would be prudent for the applicant to obtain a number of baseline NORM samples from the existing site as a reference for the surrender of any subsequent RSR permit. • Within paragraph 5.12.4, the statement that “there is no recognised methodology or waste significance criteria to assess the likely significant environmental effects of waste generation” is incorrect in relation to radiological assessments. They will already exist for water treatment facilities remote from the site and in our view the EIA would not be complete without reference to the impact of disposals at waste management sites as it is the proposed development that is resulting in the off-site activity. The EIA should clearly identify all the requirements that would apply to the management of radioactive waste associated with the proposals and the ES should demonstrate that all the relevant issues and concerns have been considered and assessed in full. 5.14 Water resources & flood risk The impact on water resources will need to be given greater consideration. The EIA will need to consider water availability for fracking and where it will come from, i.e. mains or groundwater abstraction. The starting point for the latter will be the Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy for the area, the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) for the North West and our EIA guidance for water resources projects. The EIA must consider how any proposals for a groundwater abstraction would impact on RBMP objectives and any other local impacts on the environment and other water users. Where the applicant proposes to use public supplies, they will need to approach the local water undertaker and demonstrate through the EIA how this would affect the water company operations, i.e. would the water company need to increase their abstraction to cater for the proposed development? Where there are constraints to water supply, we Cont/d.. 4 would expect this to be assessed and any detrimental impacts associated with getting water to site would need to be satisfactorily addressed. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) will be produced and this should demonstrate that there will be no increase in the surface water run-off generated by the site. The watercourse adjoining the site is designated a 'Main River' and therefore subject to the Land Drainage Byelaws. The prior written Consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of the Main River, Nigget Brook. The Agency has a right of entry to Nigget Brook by virtue of Section 172 of the Water Resources Act 1991, and a right to carry out maintenance and improvement works by virtue of Section 165 of the same Act. We trust these comments are of assistance to you. Yours sincerely Philip Carter Planning Officer - Sustainable Places Direct dial 01772 714219 Direct fax 01772 697032 Direct e-mail [email protected] End 5