OSL Deepwater Jetty - IEMA - Home Deep Water Jett… · OSL Deepwater Jetty Non-Technical Summary...

OSL Deepwater Jetty Non-Technical Summary – ES Volume 1

Oikos Storage Ltd

Prepared by Adams Hendry Consulting Ltd.

February 2016

2 © Adams Hendry Consulting Ltd. February 2016

OSL Deepwater Jetty Non-Technical Summary- V1 Final

Title

OSL Deepwater Jetty Non-Technical Summary Client

Oikos Storage Ltd Project Number

OSL/1320 Status

Final Report Number

ODWJ/NTS/V1 Adams Hendry Consulting Ltd. 7 St Peter Street, Winchester, SO23 8BW T 01962 877414 E [email protected] www.adamshendry.co.uk Author Name: D Ivory Date: February 2016

Approved by: P Rowell Date: February 2016

Certified to ISO9001 Standard

ISO 9001 Registration Number Q10324 Registered Office: Avebury House, 6 St Peter Street, Winchester SO23 8BN Registered in England No. 3804753 VAT Registration No. 807 9759 79



Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5 2 The OSL Site and Surroundings .................................................................................... 9 3 The Oikos Deep Water Jetty Proposals ....................................................................... 11 4 Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 15 5 Environmental Effects .................................................................................................. 19



This page is intentionally blank



1 Introduction This document is the Non-Technical Summary of the Environmental Statement (ES) for proposed development consisting of the refurbishment and extension of Jetty 2, the demolition and replacement of storage tanks at Compound 4 and the provision of other related infrastructure at the Oikos Bulk liquid storage terminal, Canvey Island, Essex.

1.1 Oikos Storage Ltd (subsequently referred to as OSL) is applying for planning permission, a marine licence, a river works licence and other associated consents to construct and operate a deepwater jetty and to improve landside storage facilities at its existing liquid bulk storage port facility at Canvey Island in Essex. The application site lies within the administrative area of Castle Point Borough Council, within the county of Essex.

1.2 The OSL Terminal has been used as a liquid bulk storage facility for over 70 years and includes three jetties that extend out into the River Thames along with landside storage tanks of varying sizes behind. The OSL Terminal benefits from good road connections, good marine connections and direct connections to both the Compania Logistica de Hidrocarburos – Pipeline System (the CLH-PS which was formerly known as the Government Pipeline Storage System (GPSS)), and the independent UKOP fuel distribution pipeline network. It, therefore, forms a critical element in the UK energy supply chain.

1.3 Only one of the OSL jetties (Jetty 1) is, however, currently used and these proposals seek to extend the central jetty, Jetty 2, further out into the River Thames in line with other deep water facilities nearby. This jetty extension will allow ships up to 120,000 dead weight tonnage (DWT) to access the OSL Terminal and provide more efficient transfer of bulk liquid from ships to the site.

1.4 On land, the 12 storage tanks in Compound 4 are empty and are not currently used. The proposals seek to replace the existing storage tanks in this compound with new tanks of a similar size and which meet relevant safety and operational standards.

1.5 Deliveries of liquid bulk supplies to the site will continue to be via the River Thames and new pipelines will be provided around the site to connect the extended Jetty 2 to the renewed Compound 4 and other existing infrastructure already on site. Other related site and operational infrastructure will be provided.

Why is an Environmental Statement required? 1.6 Some types of development proposals require that an Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA) is undertaken where it is considered that they may give rise to likely significant effects on the environment.

1.7 For OSL’s proposed development, the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) - the



determining body in respect of a marine licence application - was consulted at an early stage. After considering the proposed works to extend the jetty, the MMO determined that an EIA needed to be undertaken. The Environmental Statement (ES) reports the findings of the EIA.

Methodology 1.8 EIA is a detailed technical process undertaken by specialists to determine whether a

development proposal, having regard to factors such as its size, nature and location, could potentially cause likely significant effects. The effects for both the construction stage of the proposed development and once completed, i.e., when the development is in operation, are considered. The EIA process does not seek to identify every environmental effect, only those considered to be significant, and these are reported in an ES.

1.9 OSL asked the following team of specialists (Table 1) to assist with the EIA of its proposals and to prepare the ES.

Table 1 – The Environmental Impact Assessment Team

Consultancy Contribution

Oikos Storage Ltd Need, Alternatives, Engineering Design, Safety

Adams Hendry Consulting Ltd Planning, Need, Alternatives, Site and Surroundings, Policy Context, EIA Process, EIA Management and ES Production

Haydn Evans Consulting Engineering Design (Marine)

Thomson Unicomarine Marine Ecology and Nature Conservation

Waterman Infrastructure and Environment Ltd

Terrestrial Ecology and Nature Conservation, Contamination, Landscape and Visual, Flooding and Drainage, the Historic Environment

ABP Marine Environment Research (ABPmer)

The Water Environment and Navigation

DTA Transportation Traffic and Transport

WBM Noise and Vibration

Air Quality Consultants Air Quality

Atkins Socio-Economic

1.10 Where practicable a common structure has been used by each of the consultants in reporting their assessments. The assessments take account of specific EIA guidance and best practice for each discipline where necessary.

The Environmental Statement 1.11 The ES accompanies each of the main applications for consent. The primary applications

include a planning application (submitted to Castle Point Borough Council), a marine licence application (submitted to the MMO) and a River Works Licence (submitted to the Port of London Authority). In addition to the ES, a separate Supporting Statement has



also been prepared to assist the authorities in their consideration of the applications.

1.12 The full ES includes:

• Volume One: Non-Technical Summary of the ES (this document);

• Volume Two: The main ES; and

• Volume Three: Appendices to the ES, including technical surveys, reports and supporting information referred to in Volume Two.

1.13 The documents can be viewed at Castle Point Borough Council offices, Kiln Road, Benfleet, Essex SS7 1TF during office hours and on the Council’s website https://www.castlepoint.gov.uk/ by following the link to view planning applications.

1.14 Copies of the ES documentation can be purchased from Adams Hendry Consulting Limited, 7 St Peter Street, Winchester SO23 8BW (01962 877414) at the following costs:

• Non-Technical Summary of the ES: No charge • ES Volume 2: £50 plus postage; • ES Volume 3: £80 plus postage; • ES Volumes 2, 3 and NTS (CD Version) £10



2 The OSL Site and Surroundings The application site lies within and adjacent to the existing OSL Terminal and will maintain the current high standard of safety and environmental performance that already applies at the facility.

Surroundings 2.1 The operational OSL Terminal lies within the south west part of Canvey Island on land

which is owned by the Port of London Authority and leased to OSL on a long term basis. It has been used for the storage of fuel and other bulk liquid products since the 1930’s and at one time occupied a much larger site. Today the terminal covers an area of approximately 27.5 hectares fronting the northern bank of the River Thames. It forms part of the industrial landscape of the area and other notable installations in the vicinity include the Calor Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) import terminal and HBC Vehicle Services immediately to the north and east, and the former Coryton Refinery and the DP World London Gateway Port to the west of the site. A location plan of the OSL site and its surroundings is provided at Figure 1.

2.2 The OSL Terminal is accessed from Haven Road, which leads to Roscommon Way and links to the A130, A13 and ultimately the M25 motorway. The Lobster Smack public house and the few residential properties close to the site lie to the south west at Haven Quays. The Calor Gas LPG import terminal and HBC vehicle services facility are located to the north and the east of the OSL Terminal. Further to the north lies open grazing land and a small collection of farm buildings which form part of Brick House Farm. Part of this open farmland area is designated as a Local Wildlife Site and provides a buffer to the main built up area of Canvey Island beyond.

2.3 Further to the east lies a wastewater treatment works, the site of Concorde Rangers Football Club and Thorney Bay residential caravan park.

2.4 Land to the west of Haven Road consists predominantly of open marshland and grazing land designated as the Canvey Village Marsh Local Wildlife site and Holehaven Creek and Canvey Wick Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). North of Roscommon Way is the Charfleet Industrial Estate and Northwick retail park.

The OSL Site 2.5 The OSL Terminal handles a variety of fuel and other bulk liquid products and has three

existing jetties. Jetty 1 – currently the only operational jetty – is located at the western end of the terminal site and is capable of accommodating tanker vessels of up to 55,000 Dead Weight Tonnage (DWT). Products are imported by ship, pumped ashore along the jetty and stored in one or more of the landside tanks before onward distribution by underground



pipeline. Jetty 3 is not currently used and an extension to Jetty 2 is included as part of the current proposals. A plan of the existing site is provided at Figure 2.

2.6 The storage tanks range in size and are contained in various bunded compounds around the site. A network of pipelines connects the compounds to Jetty 1 and ancillary and associated infrastructure ensures that the site operates effectively and efficiently.

2.7 The site is protected from tidal flooding by a flood defence wall between 1.5m and 2m above ground level running along the southern boundary of the Terminal. Immediately adjacent to the river defences, a public footpath (reference: CANV_8), forms part of a circular route that runs around Canvey Island.

2.8 Since acquiring Oikos in 2007, Challenger Financial Group Services Limited has made improvements to the safety, environmental impact and security of the OSL Terminal. Operations at the OSL Terminal are carefully controlled and regulated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Environment Agency (EA) under the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015, also known as the COMAH Regulations. The OSL Terminal is an upper tier COMAH site and operates in compliance with the relevant parts of the COMAH regulations.

2.9 An existing Hazardous Substances Consent (HSC) allows the storage of petroleum and related products in various tanks on site. The HSC will be updated as necessary to include the area of the new extended Jetty 2.

2.10 The proposals have been designed to ensure that the OSL Terminal continues to meet the most up to date requirements laid down by the regulators. This will maintain the current high standard of safety and environmental performance that already applies at the facility.



3 The Oikos Deep Water Jetty Proposals This section of the Non-Technical Summary describes the proposals and the benefits these proposals offer to provide secure, resilient and safe energy supplies whilst minimising environmental impacts.

3.1 OSL proposes to construct and operate a new deepwater jetty and associated land storage infrastructure improvements and additions, collectively known as the Oikos Deep Water Jetty proposals – or ODWJ proposals for short. An overview plan showing the proposals is provided at Figure 3.

3.2 The proposals can be broken down into two main parts – the marine elements, which consist of works in the area that roughly stretches from the existing flood wall out into the River Thames, and the terrestrial or landside elements, which consist of works taking place in the area extending northwards from the existing flood wall into the OSL Terminal.

3.3 The proposals will incorporate advanced safety and environmental features as necessary, and the existing Terminal safety and emergency procedures and plans will be updated as required to comply with the relevant requirements of the COMAH Regulations.

Marine works 3.4 The marine elements, in summary, consist of:

• The construction of a new jetty approach way extending out from the existing Jetty 2 approach way to a new jetty head platform in the River Thames supported on steel piles;

• Three new marine loading arms, with ancillary equipment and infrastructure, including a gangway tower and fire monitor columns, on the new jetty head platform;

• New fender and mooring monopile dolphins connected to the new jetty platform by new access walkways, supported on steel piles;

• Two new 24” import pipelines from the jetty head back into the OSL Terminal;

• New lighting for operational, safety, security and navigational purposes, and

• The removal of existing redundant pipelines and infrastructure.

3.5 A full description of the marine works is provided in Chapter 3 of the ES.



Terrestrial Works 3.6 The on shore (terrestrial) elements, in summary, consist of:

• A new combined pipeline and personnel walkway gantry at the point where the Jetty 2 approach way crosses over the flood defence wall and public footpath;

• Renovation of tank storage Compound 4 including the removal of 12 existing storage tanks and their replacement with 12 new tanks of the same diameter and of similar height, located in the same positions;

• A new bund wall to Compound 4;

• The installation of an impervious base across the whole of the Compound 4 with a new drainage system;

• A new fire/access road around the perimeter of Compound 4 and an extension of an existing internal Terminal road access road south of Compound 5;

• New product and service pipelines within the Terminal from Jetty 2 to Compounds 4 and 10 and to an existing pipebridge near Jetty 1, to offer operational flexibility;

• New fire/safety equipment and operational infrastructure – such as pumps, pipework etc - to support the new works and to link to the existing infrastructure on site;

• Demolition of redundant buildings and structures and the removal of redundant pipelines and infrastructure;

• Surface water drainage improvements, and

• Lighting improvements.

3.7 A full description of the terrestrial works is provided in Chapter 3 of the ES.

Construction 3.8 It is anticipated that the construction of the marine and landside elements of the proposals

will take place in parallel. Overall an 18 to 20 month construction programme is envisaged and generally works will be undertaken across a 12 day fortnight, whereby shifts start on a Monday and continue through to the second Friday. Working hours Monday to Friday would generally be 10 hours (8am to 6pm) and 8 hours (8am to 4pm) on the Saturdays and Sundays worked in the middle of the 12 day shift. No deliveries to site would be allowed on Saturdays after 12.00 or at any time on Sundays. Some equipment maintenance or set up work and some specialist piling activities may, however, need to take place outside of the hours specified.

3.9 Access to the site during construction will be via both the main entrance to the OSL Terminal and the secondary / emergency access point from Haven Road. The main



entrance gate benefits from a fully manned 24 hour security cabin, which will control the movements of all personnel and vehicles into and out of the terminal site. Similar arrangements will be put in place at the secondary access point.

3.10 The majority of construction material required for the marine works will be brought to site by barge, up to five per day. Where road transport is required for the landside elements of the proposals, vehicles will use traffic routes agreed with the local authorities where practicable. There is likely to be a maximum of 75 HGV movements to the site per day during the busiest construction period.

3.11 A maximum of approximately 95 workers are predicted to be on site during the construction phase. Where practicable, OSL intend to seek suitable skilled workers from the local workforce. However, due to the specialist nature of the construction works it is envisaged that some skilled personnel will come from other areas of the country and live temporarily in the locality, in turn creating demand for additional local services. Once operational, the ODWJ proposals will create five additional shift based permanent jobs.

3.12 The ODWJ proposals will operate on a 24 hour / seven day a week basis, which is consistent with the operation of the rest of the OSL terminal and the vast majority of port facilities generally. Once the proposals are in operation, the terminal will be able to handle a range of vessels up to and including a 120,000 DWT tanker. It is estimated that approximately 36 vessels of varying sizes will use the extended jetty per year. For the purposes of robust assessments, however, an assumption has been made that up to 72 vessels per year will use the jetty.

3.13 With the ODWJ proposals in place, the overall operation of the Terminal will remain much the same as existing. Products will continue to be unloaded from the berthed vessels via pipelines that run along the jetties, pumped into storage tanks and then transferred from the site by underground pipelines. This project does not contemplate the movement of product off site by road on a commercial basis.

The Need for the ODWJ Proposals 3.14 In order to understand the need for the ODWJ proposals, it is first necessary to understand

some background of relevance, including:

(i) the OSL Terminal is a facility which has a number of existing significant benefits, including its strategic Thames side location, its existing connections to underground pipeline distribution networks and the availability of existing infrastructure and processes at the site compliant with relevant safety and environmental standards;

(ii) the cargo handled at the OSL Terminal is vital to the nation’s quality of life and the nature of the trade in such cargoes is changing resulting in the need for larger deeper drafted vessels; and

(iii) the significance of ensuring that the nation has a flexible, resilient, competitive and safe fuel provision and distribution system.



3.15 Against this background, the need for the ODWJ proposal has several strands, including:

(i) the need to provide the existing nationally significant OSL Terminal with further deepwater accessibility;

(ii) the need to make best use of existing sustainable, safe and secure transport and distribution opportunities;

(iii) the need to make the best use of the OSL Terminal as an existing storage facility;

(iv) the need to ensure import capacity is located within the right place to effectively and efficiently serve the needs of the market; and

(v) the need to ensure that the OSL Terminal continues to provide competition and resilience in the market and thereby assist in the provision of secure and affordable energy supplies for the UK.

3.16 These strands, along with the background to them, are explained further in Chapter 4 of the ES.

3.17 Having regard to the significance of the OSL Terminal, the significance of the cargo handled at the Terminal and the changing nature of that trade, and the significance of ensuring the UK has a flexible, resilient, competitive and safe fuel provision and distribution system, there is, in summary, a clear need of ensuring that the existing critical piece of infrastructure that is the OSL Terminal continues to contribute to a reliable, cost effective and resilient UK fuel distribution system.



4 Alternatives The EIA Regulations require that an Environmental Statement (ES) should include an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant, along with an indication for selecting the chosen option taking into account the environmental effects.

4.1 Relevant guidance contained in national ports policy indicates that consideration of alternatives should be carried out in a proportionate manner. Alternative proposals, which do not achieve the primary objectives identified, can be excluded, as they are not important or relevant to the decision. OSL has undertaken a four-staged approach to the consideration of alternatives to meet the need identified. The details of this work are summarised below.

Stage 1: Identification and consideration of broad options

Broad Option 1

The option of doing nothing

This option would mean that the identified need would not be met. The OSL terminal would, going forward, struggle to meet market demand for the types of facilities required by those who wish to import refined product into the UK.

‘Doing nothing’ would also strongly go against the public interest and Government policy in providing facilities to provide competitive, secure and resilient energy supplies.

Broad Option 2

The option of development at other locations remote from the OSL terminal site

The development of fuel import and storage infrastructure at locations elsewhere other than at the OSL Terminal is not a realistic option as this would, amongst other things, not meet the need identified.

Broad Option 3

The option of development at or close to the existing OSL Terminal

The only realistic option is to undertake development at the OSL Terminal, or at a location close by with the ability to serve the terminal.

4.2 The next stage was to identify potential alternatives that fell within the parameters of the identified broad option of development at or close to the existing OSL Terminal.



Stage 2: Identification of initial potential alternatives that fall within the identified broad option

Step 1

Determine the physical requirements

Provide additional and improved access to deep water within the River Thames

Accommodate a range of vessels up to 120,000 DWT

Provide additional - up to 75,000m3 – of physically suitable tank storage capacity to meet the requirements of existing and potential customers

Provide additional infrastructure to facilitate the fast, efficient and cost effective imports of products

Step 2

Identify initial potential alternatives – marine and landside

Marine:

(i) the improvement and use of the unused ‘Chainrock’ jetty located within Holehaven Creek to the west of the OSL Terminal site;

(ii) the improvement and use of the existing operational OSL Terminal Jetty 1;

(iii) the improvement and use of the existing unused OSL Terminal Jetty 2;

(iv) the improvement and use of the existing unused OSL Terminal Jetty 3; and

(v) the improvement and use of the existing operational jetty serving the Calor Gas import terminal located east of the OSL Terminal.

Landside:

(i) the renewal and updating of an existing storage compound / compounds at the Terminal site; and

(ii) the provision of an entirely new storage compound or compounds at the Terminal site.

Stage 3: Analysis of initial potential alternatives 4.3 Having identified initial potential alternatives in stage 2, the next stage was the analysis of

those alternatives to identify the preferred solution. For the reasons summarised in the following diagram, the initial alternative of improve the existing Jetty 2 emerged as the most viable, realistic and physically suitable solution in respect of marine aspects, whilst renewing and upgrading an existing compound (Compound 4) was considered to be the best solution in respect of landside aspects.



Option Summary of Analysis

(i) Improve Chainrock jetty, Holehaven Creek

Jetty has never been completed / used

Third party ownership

Likely impact on Holehaven Creek SSSI and Canvey Wick SSSI

Likely impact on local wildlife site and designated green belt

Dredging likely to be required

Connections to OSL Terminal likely to result in significant issues

Viability and practicability concerns

(ii) Improve OSL Jetty 1

Connection to OSL operational infrastructure already in place

Cannot accommodate size of vessels to meet demand without extending and undertaking dredging to widen, lengthen and deepen the berth pocket

Close proximity to Holehaven Creek SSSI

Close proximity to residential properties

Potential navigation issues for vessels using other jetties nearby

OSL Terminal would have no marine access during construction

OSL Terminal would still only be able to offer one jetty to its customers

(iii) Improve OSL Jetty 2

Connection to OSL operational infrastructure already in place

Capital dredging required if jetty not extended

New Jetty head required

Extension to jetty is further away from Holehaven Creek SSSI than Jetty 1 or Chainrock options

(iv) Improve OSL Jetty 3

Space on land to provide the necessary connections and infrastructure to terminal

Capital dredging required if jetty not extended

New Jetty head required

Closer to Calor LPG terminal jetty than Jetty 2 or Jetty 1

More extensive works likely to be required than extending and using Jetty 2

(v) Improve and use Calor Gas import terminal jetty

Third party ownership

Additional operational infrastructure required on the jetty head for the import of liquid bulk products

Possible rebuild of jetty head required

Jetty out of use during construction phases – impact on Calor

Import pipelines required from Calor Gas LPG site to OSL Terminal

Viability and practicability concerns



Stage 4: Working up detailed proposals 4.4 The design of the preferred option focused, amongst other things, on achieving the most

appropriate solution to accommodate the range of vessels likely to use the jetty which minimised physical works in the River Thames.

Summary 4.5 In summary, the option of extending and refurbishing the existing, and currently unused,

Jetty 2 at the OSL Terminal, along with the renewal and updating of the existing Compound 4 within the OSL Terminal, was identified as being the best solution to the identified need.



5 Environmental Effects The likely significant effects that construction and subsequent operation of the proposals would have on the environment have been identified and assessed under the different topics identified within the ES. Full details of the assessments undertaken are provided in Chapters 7 to 20 of the ES.

Marine Ecology and Nature Conservation 5.1 The ODWJ proposals are situated in an area that is highly industrialised. No part of the

ODWJ proposals is located within a Special Protected Area (SPA), a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), or a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The marine elements of the proposals are, however, located within the Thames Estuary recommended Marine Conservation Zone (rMCZ), which has been recommended for designation due to the diversity of habitats and species it supports, and as an important fish nursery and spawning ground.

5.2 The following protected marine related nature conservation sites exist in the vicinity of the site of the ODWJ proposals, all of which support important numbers of bird species.

• Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar site (avocet, hen harrier, ringed plover, grey plover, dunlin, knot, black-tailed godwit and redshank);

• South Thames Estuary and Marshes SSSI (species as the Thames Estuary SPA plus garganey, shoveler, curlew, gadwall, greenshank, pintail. Shelduck, teal and white-fronted goose); and

• Holehaven Creek SSSI (black-tailed godwit).

5.3 In general these areas have seen an increase in bird species. Holehaven Creek SSSI is closest to the proposed development and provides feeding and roosting areas for birds and sheltered inner estuary conditions which are rare in the Thames Estuary.

5.4 Potential significant environmental effects of OSL’s proposals on these sites have been considered. The assessment reported in Chapter 7 of the ES, concludes that construction and operational activities within the OSL Terminal will not have a significant effect on birds within these nearby designated sites. Furthermore, the assessment also concludes that, with relevant mitigation in place, the construction and operation activities will also not have a significant effect on bird species using the important (but undesignated) intertidal area adjacent to the OSL terminal itself.

5.5 The majority of activities associated with the construction and operation phases are assessed as having minor or negligible significant effects on marine ecology and nature conservation. As explained further in the assessment, it is considered that no mitigation measures are necessary to deal with these effects as they are not considered significant in



EIA terms.

5.6 The impact of piling noise on birds, fish and marine mammals during construction will be reduced by measures such as limiting the time period during the year when piling can take place, adherence to certain noise threshold levels during piling and the use of a soft start piling procedure. With such measures in place the effects will be reduced to acceptable levels.

5.7 The assessment concluded that the potential impact of a pollution event on water quality is adequately mitigated by the procedures which OSL already have in place to handle such emergency scenarios.

5.8 The assessment concluded that the construction and operation of the proposals will not have a significant impact on the conservation features within the Thames Estuary rMCZ or have an adverse impact on the integrity of the nearby protected sites, or prevent or compromise the conservation objectives for these sites.

5.9 The marine ecology assessment reported in Chapter 7 of the ES is supported by a stand alone Habitats Regulations Assessment, a Water Framework Directive Assessment and an underwater noise assessment, which are provided in Appendix 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 respectively and contained within Volume 3 of the ES.

Terrestrial Ecology and Nature Conservation 5.10 A series of ecological surveys were undertaken of the area of the proposed landside

(terrestrial) works during 2015. The results of these surveys are detailed in Appendix 8.1 to 8.7 of Volume 3 of the ES.

5.11 No part of the ODWJ proposals is covered or adjacent to a statutory nature conservation site. Canvey Wick SSSI lies in the order of 0.75km to the north west of the site and Canvey Lake Local Nature Reserve is less than 2km to the north east. Two Local Wildlife Sites lie to the north and north west of the OSL Terminal site and there are others in the wider area.

5.12 The surveys undertaken identified habitats within the site that are only of ecological value largely at the local level. Protected and notable species were recorded on the site, including breeding birds, reptiles and invertebrates.

5.13 During construction, some species could be disturbed by the increased activity on the site. Measures to deal with increased levels of dust, vibration and noise will be implemented to minimise these effects. Such measures will be included within a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), which contractors will have to adhere to.

5.14 Relevant aspects of the construction activity will be undertaken in accordance with a terrestrial ecology strategy, the details of which are provided in Appendix 8.8 of the ES. This strategy sets out measures to avoid harm to protected and notable species such as breeding birds, reptiles and invertebrates.

5.15 During demolition and construction works, habitats present within the construction areas



will be lost. However, other areas within the development site will be retained and enhanced to provide areas of ecological value Enhancements in these areas will include the creation of a mosaic of grassland types and sward heights, which will provide ecological enhancement for reptiles, invertebrates and breeding birds. In addition, house sparrow boxes will be installed in appropriate locations. These measures will be implemented prior to the demolition and construction phase.

5.16 The assessment identified that there would only be negligible effects on valued ecological receptors during the operational phase of the ODWJ proposals. Therefore, no mitigation is considered necessary for the operational phase of the proposals.

5.17 Subsequently, the assessment – reported in detail in Chapter 8 of the ES - concluded that all activities associated with the construction and operation of the ODWJ proposals would result in negligible or minor adverse residual terrestrial ecological effects, and as such are not considered to be significant in EIA terms.

The Water Environment 5.18 The assessment of the potential effects of the ODWJ proposals on the water (marine)

environment, reported in Chapter 9 of the ES, used a combination of analytical methods. It has been undertaken using conservative assumptions that result in a worst case scenario being considered. The assessment is supported by a detailed hydrodynamic modelling study which is provided at Appendix 9.1 within Volume 3 of the ES.

5.19 The assessment considered the impacts on the marine environment of disturbing sediment in the river during the construction process, of changes caused by the presence of the extended jetty structure and the extended jetty structure and vessels berthing at it, and the change caused by vessel movements during construction and once the jetty extension is operational.

5.20 The site of the marine element of the proposed development is located close to the navigation channel of the River Thames at a depth of around 14.5m below Chart Datum. The proposals do not include a capital dredge element.

5.21 The Thames estuary has been subject to much change in the past influenced by historical reclamation, channel deepening and the construction of flood defences. Canvey Island is part of a complex and extensive creek system comprising Holehaven, Vange, East Haven and Benfleet Creeks. The creek system that feeds from and to Holehaven Creek is presently increasing in size. However, similar to much of the estuary, the width of the creek system is generally highly constrained by coastal defences and is likely to be subject to ‘coastal squeeze’ in the future as sea levels rise.

5.22 The assessment identified one potential impact from the construction of the ODWJ proposals. This is as a result of change to the sediment concentration within the water resulting from the bed disturbance during installation of the jetty structure and associated piles along with subsequent initial bed scour.

5.23 The potential impacts from the operation of the ODWJ proposals are identified as:



• Changes to the tidal regime due to blockage from infrastructure and shipping.

• Changes to the wave regime due to blockage from infrastructure and shipping.

• Changes to the sediment transport regime due to blockage from infrastructure and shipping.

• Changes to the ship wash characteristics at the intertidal due to different vessels using the proposed jetty.

• Changes to maintenance dredging requirements at adjacent berths.

• Local scour effects around jetty infrastructure.

5.24 Having considered these potential impacts, the assessment concludes that the potential for significant effects on the marine environment arising are very limited. The only potential for significant effects during operation arises through localised changes in sediment transport and associated effects on maintenance dredge commitments at OSL’s existing Jetty 1. All other effects on receptors are minor or insignificant and no impact reduction measures are considered necessary.

5.25 Jetty 1 has a high sensitivity due to the existing patterns of sedimentation requiring regular maintenance dredging. The assessment concludes that initially additional sediment accumulation is likely at Jetty 1 as a result of the ODWJ proposals and maintenance dredging will probably need to be increased for the first year following the construction of the ODWJ proposals. In the longer term, however, the existing high rates of sedimentation at Jetty 1 could be marginally reduced, particularly whilst a vessel is moored at the extended Jetty 2. The extended Jetty 2 berth is likely to remain self-maintaining, subject to natural variations in the tidal regime.

5.26 The exposure of the intertidal adjacent to the OSL Terminal to changes in sediment transport is likely to result in erosion of a few centimetres before a new equilibrium is reached. Although this habitat is considered to be functionally important to other designated areas, the overall effect of this change in the intertidal is not considered to be significant in EIA terms.

Commercial and Recreational Navigation 5.27 The potential effects of the extended Jetty 2 proposals on commercial shipping and

recreational navigation has been undertaken and is reported in Chapter 10 of the ES. Potential navigation effects have been assessed using a set of Navigational Risk Assessments. In terms of navigational safety, OSL’s overall objective is to maintain risk within a limit that is deemed to be ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ as required by the Department for Transport’s Port Marine Safety Code.

5.28 The Port of London Authority (PLA) as the statutory harbour authority, the local lighthouse authority and the competent harbour authority has been consulted as necessary in undertaking the navigation assessment.



5.29 Once completed the extended Jetty 2 will be able to accommodate a range of vessels up to and including a 120,000 DWT tanker of approximately 277m length overall with a beam of 44.7m and with a maximum draft of 16.2m when fully laden. Whilst the new berth can accommodate such vessels, it is recognised and accepted that there will be tidal restrictions for such large vessels when they are fully laden, or alternatively require such vessels to be partially laden. Whilst it is estimated that approximately 36 vessels of varying sizes per year, on average three per month, will use the new extended Jetty 2 when it becomes operational, an assumption that up to 72 vessels per year will use the jetty has been made, to ensure a robust assessment.

5.30 The new Jetty 2 berth will incorporate a number of safety features including an advanced mooring system with distance display panel, CCTV and necessary emergency equipment. New lighting for operational, safety, security and navigational purposes will be installed as necessary. OSL are confident that the proposals will meet all required maritime standards in respect of current guidance and aids to navigation. OSL already operate in accordance with the Harbour Authority’s marine safety management system in place for the River Thames.

5.31 The proposed development will extend Jetty 2 southwards into the River by approximately 260m, closer to the main and secondary Yantlet deep water shipping channels of the River Thames. This will place the jetty head in deeper water, providing access for larger draft vessels.

5.32 Table 2 summarises the impacts that could potentially occur during the construction and operation phases of the ODWJ proposals. The table also sets out the risk control measures that OSL intend to put in place to reduce risks to as low as reasonably practicable.

Table 2 – Potential Navigation Impacts and Risk Control Measures

Potential Impact

Risk Control Measures

Construction

Manoeuvering construction craft results in heavy contact with ODWJ works during construction

• Contractor operating procedures and marine risk assessments to be produced and agreed with the Harbour Authority prior to commencement of work;

• Effective marker lights on fixed marine works; • Manoeuvring weather restrictions/parameters to be

identified and adhered to; • Mandatory local weather monitoring and planning to be

undertaken: • The provision of a vessel capable of rescuing persons

from the water to be on-site during the construction phase; and

• Mandatory use of Automatic Identification System (AIS) on all construction vessels

Passing river traffic makes contact with ODWJ construction works during the build

• The provision of a safety zone during construction; • Enhanced broadcasting of manoeuvring intentions; • Effective marker lights on fixed marine works; • Enhanced CCTV surveillance;



• Mandatory input to and use of PLA's congestion monitoring tool (as applied by VTS at the PLA);

• Contractor operating procedures and marine risk assessments to be produced and agreed with the Harbour Authority prior to commencement of work;

• Mandatory local weather monitoring and planning to be undertaken; and

• Notice to Mariners issued by the Harbour Authority as necessary

Passing river traffic collides with ODWJ construction craft

• Provision of a safety zone during marine construction; • Enhanced broadcasting of manoeuvring intentions; • Manoeuvring plan exchange (between the Haven Pilot

assigned the passage and the Duty Port Controller (DPC) at the PLA. The passage plan is drawn up by the Pilot and verified by the DPC);

• Enhanced CCTV surveillance; • Mandatory use of congestion monitoring tool (as applied

by VTS at the PLA); • The provision of a vessel capable of rescuing persons

from the water on-site during the construction phase; • Mandatory use of AIS on all construction vessels; • Mandatory local weather monitoring and planning to be

undertaken; and • Manoeuvring weather restrictions/parameters to

identified and adhered to.

Vessel collides with ODWJ construction plant or vessel on passage to site

• Mandatory use of AIS on all construction vessels; • Enhanced CCTV surveillance; • Enhanced broadcasting of manoeuvring intentions; • Manoeuvring plan exchange (between the Haven Pilot

assigned the passage and the Duty Port Controller at the PLA;

• Mandatory use of congestion monitoring tool (as applied by VTS at the PLA);

• Mandatory use of AIS on all construction vessels; • Mandatory local weather monitoring and planning to be

undertaken; and • Notice to Mariners issued by the Harbour Authority as

necessary.

Operation

Collision of tanker on transit to ODWJ site with other vessels

• Provision of a safety zone during manoeuvring; • Enhanced broadcasting of manoeuvring intentions; • Manoeuvring plan exchange (between the Haven Pilot

and DPC at the PLA); • Enhanced CCTV surveillance; • Mandatory use of congestion monitoring tool (as applied

by VTS at the PLA); • Mandatory local weather monitoring and planning; and • Manoeuvring weather restrictions/parameters.

Vessel manoeuvring at ODWJ berth collides with passing traffic

Manoeuvring vessel or tug in contact with new Jetty 2

Passing traffic in contact with new Jetty 2 when it is unoccupied

• Effective marker lights along the length of the approach jetty structure;

• High intensity white light (restricted visibility) on both ends of the Jetty; and



• Enhanced CCTV surveillance.

Passing traffic in contact with vessel at new Jetty 2

• Appropriate and necessary passing/overtaking restrictions on vessels passing one another off the berth;

• Speed restrictions when the berth is occupied; • High intensity white light (restricted visibility) on both

ends of the Jetty; and • Enhanced CCTV surveillance.

Vessel at new Jetty 2 breaks away from moorings

• Speed restrictions when the berth is occupied; • Dynamic mooring load monitoring; • Facility berth planning and a mooring plan for each

vessel; • Passing/overtaking restrictions on vessels passing one

another off the berth; • Weather monitoring (berth and Port of London VTS); • Weather restrictions, vessel remains alongside the berth;

and • Berth monitoring of moorings

Some of vessel’s moorings and/or cargo line break resulting in vessel movement and loss of cargo

5.33 Following the implementation of these risk control measures, marine risks from navigational activities as a result of the ODWJ proposals will be reduced to levels which are minor adverse or insignificant. As such they are reduced to a level, which is as low as reasonably practicable, which meets the requirements of the Port Marine Safety Code.

Traffic and Transport 5.34 The assessment of the impact of the proposed ODWJ development in respect of Traffic

and Transport matters is reported in Chapter 11 of the ES. The methodology used has due regard to the IEMA Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (1993) and to the guidance given in ‘Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Vol II Section 2 Part 5 HA205/08 – Determining Significance of Environment Effects’.

5.35 Following completion of the works, traffic levels to and from the site are expected to remain similar to existing movements. During a typical working week between 15 and 20 staff, generating around 30 to 40 two way car movements spread throughout the day, reflecting shift work patterns and 24 hour working. Around 2 to 3 HGV movements occur per week and relate to maintenance activity, deliveries and refuse collection. The ODWJ proposal does not contemplate the movement of product off site by road on a commercial basis.

5.36 The assessment, therefore, focuses primarily on temporary construction related traffic and transport impacts. Outside of the site, HGV construction traffic and, where practicable construction worker traffic, will be routed to and from the OSL site via Haven Road, Roscommon Way (A130), Canvey Way (A130) and then the A13. The routing arrangements will be formalised through a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP).

5.37 The construction phase of the marine works is scheduled to take approximately 18 months and for the landside works approximately 20 months. Construction work will take place across the site in parallel in 12 day fortnight shifts running from the Monday to the following



Friday. The working hours from Monday-Friday will be 8am to 6pm, and 8am to 4pm on Saturday and Sunday in the middle of the 12 day shift.

5.38 Access to the site will mainly be via the main security gate on Haven Road, which is continuously manned, although the secondary / emergency access gate (also along Haven Road) will also be used on a more occasional basis as necessary. Sufficient parking and vehicle waiting areas are available within the OSL site to accommodate vehicles as necessary. An area within the terminal will be made available for contractor worker parking, and for security reasons, workers will be transported to the working areas via separate site security transport.

5.39 It is anticipated that the majority of deliveries associated with the marine elements of the proposals will be made by vessel. Any deliveries by road associated with the marine elements of the proposals are likely to be modest and small scale.

5.40 For the landside works the assessment has been undertaken on the assumption that all material to be removed from site, and all construction material will be delivered via road transport, even though, in practice, material generated on site will be re-used on site wherever practicable.

5.41 Table 3 summaries the traffic generation assumptions and gives peak traffic levels as a worst case scenario.

Table 3 - Traffic generation assumptions (per day) – two-way movements

Cars / Vans HGVs Total

Operational (ongoing) 40 2 42

Marine Construction 30 8 38

Terrestrial Construction 70 42 112

Construction (average) 100 50 150

Construction (peak) 100 75 175

Combined (average) 140 52 192

Combined (peak) 140 77 217

5.42 A peak of 75 HGV movements per day is therefore predicted for the combined terrestrial and marine construction.

5.43 The traffic impact on surrounding road network of the predicted traffic to be generated is shown in Table 4



Table 4 - Traffic impact on the surrounding road network (annual average daily traffic)

Location Base Traffic Flow (2014)

Peak Construction Traffic Flow

Total Percentage Increase

HGV Percentage Increase

Totals HGVs Totals HGVs

A130 (North of Roscommon Way)

20,866 1,910 150 75 0.7% 3.9%

A130 (South East of Northwick Road)

19,471 975 25 0 0.1% 0.0%

Roscommon Way (North of Northwick Road)

4,748 546 125 75 2.6% 13.7%

Roscommon Way (South of Northwick Road)

3,304 200 125 75 3.8% 37.5%

Roscommon Way (East of Romainville Way)

1,872 235 125 75 6.7% 31.9%

Haven Road (North East of Roscommon Way)

2,237 155 50 0 2.2% 0.0%

Haven Road (South of Oikos Main Gate)

650 40 0 0 0.0% 0.0%

5.44 Each of the roads considered within the assessment operate well within capacity threshold levels for future years, particularly Roscommon Way where the majority of traffic will be routed. The proposed route for construction traffic will not include any major pedestrian routes and analysis of accident data concludes that the route is not particularly hazardous for HGV’s.

5.45 The construction process will be supported by a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) (likely to form part of a wider Construction Environment Management Plan – CEMP) and is likely to include information relating to:

• Construction programme;

• Hours of working;

• Routing agreement;

• Site control and security;

• Site parking and loading arrangements;

• Pedestrian access, and



• Traffic management measures (if necessary)

5.46 The traffic and transport assessment undertaken concludes that there will be no significant impacts in terms of road traffic generated as a result of the proposals during either construction or operational phases. The traffic generation for the operation of the site will remain unchanged to the present base traffic levels. The construction phase will result in a temporary minor impact, which will be mitigated through the CTMP.

Noise and Vibration 5.47 A noise and vibration assessment of the construction and operational phases of the

proposals has been undertaken based on noise measurement surveys and background noise surveys gathered for day and night time periods at locations representative of the nearest dwellings to the wider OSL terminal. The assessment is detailed in Chapter 12 of the ES. Specifically, the assessment considers the effect of construction noise associated with piling for the proposed jetty; demolition and construction noise for the landside storage compound works; off-site HGV noise on the local road network during the demolition and construction phase, and operational noise from the proposed Jetty 2 with the loading and unloading of vessels at any time.

5.48 From observations during three daytime periods and one late evening period, operational noise from the wider OSL Terminal (other than a vessel unloading at Jetty 1) was not audible at locations in the vicinity of the nearest dwellings to the site. As the proposals will not materially alter the way in which the Terminal operates, operational noise from the wider OSL Terminal, once the works are complete, has, therefore, not been considered in the assessment.

5.49 For the construction phase, the effects of noise associated with piling for the proposed jetty are temporary with an indicative duration of 25 days for the installation of the larger piles and 60 days for the installation of the smaller diameter piles. Noise reduction at source will be implemented as required for the piling operations. The contractor has not yet been appointed, so it may be that a noise reduction system is selected for the piling different to the one considered as part of the assessment. In this circumstance, OSL will require the noise reduction system used to meet the relevant noise requirements outlined in the assessment.

5.50 Works to renew Compound 4 will take place at the same time as the marine works and the assessment has considered noise impacts for these works and HGV movements associated with the construction works going on at the same time. The effects of noise associated with the storage compound redevelopment and associated works are temporary with an indicative duration of 20 months.

5.51 Once completed and operational, the effects of noise associated with operation of the proposed Jetty 2 with the loading and unloading of vessels at any time are potentially cumulative with the noise from loading and unloading of vessels at any time at the existing operational jetty (Jetty 1) and they would be seen in this context.

5.52 The majority of construction works will take place using a 12 day shift pattern. Working



hours for demolition and construction activity on Monday to Friday would generally be 10 hours (08:00 to 18:00) and generally 8 hours (08:00 to 16:00) on the Saturdays and Sundays worked in the middle of the 12 day shift. No deliveries to site would take place after 12.00 on Saturday or on Sundays. The exception to these hours is in respect of piling, which is discussed further in the following paragraphs.

5.53 Using appropriate guidance contained within British Standards, the assessment identified a set of threshold value for the significant effect for construction and demolition noise have been determined for the following time periods:

• weekdays (07:00-19:00) and Saturday (07:00-13:00);

• weekday evenings (19:00-23:00) and Saturday afternoon and evening (13:00-23:00) and Sundays (07:00-23:00); and

• night-time (23:00-07:00).

5.54 All available techniques will be used where practicable to minimise, as far as is appropriate, the level of noise to which operators and others in the neighbourhood of site operations will be exposed. Where construction and demolition activities cannot comply with the defined Threshold Values, either mitigation is put forward to reduce noise levels to the Threshold Values, or the construction and demolition activities generating the relevant noise will not take place during this period.

5.55 Taking these Threshold Values into account, the implications for piling are that the simultaneous use of separate piling rigs for the monopoles and smaller piles could take place during daytime on weekdays (07:00 to 19:00) and on Saturday mornings (07:00 to 13:00). The impact piling of smaller piles on their own could also take place on weekday evenings (19:00 to 23:00) and weekends (Saturday afternoon and evening (13:00 to 23:00) and all day Sunday (07:00 to 23:00)) but not during the night time. However, noise levels from impact piling associated with the large monopiles would exceed the night-time and evenings and weekends Threshold Value at relevant receptors, and will, therefore, not take place during these periods.

5.56 For the redevelopment of Compound 4, all identified operations and activities could take place during daytimes on weekdays (07:00 to 19:00) and on Saturday mornings (07:00 to 13:00). Construction activities such as crushing and screening could not, however, take place in the evenings or over the rest of the weekends.

5.57 The assessment also concluded that the anticipated change in road traffic noise levels as a result of peak construction flows will have a negligible effect.

5.58 The combined operational noise from a vessel unloading at Jetty 1 and Jetty 2 (including an allowance for the larger vessels which will use Jetty 2) was considered. The main source of noise at the nearest residential location would be from a vessel at the existing Jetty 1, as the separation distance is much greater to the proposed Jetty 2. The assessment concluded that a vessel at the proposed Jetty 2 does not represent an adverse impact for the dwellings at the closest residential location. It also concluded that the proposed Jetty 2 represents a low impact for all other dwellings in the vicinity of the



works.

5.59 At Compound 4, the operational plant to be positioned to the south of the tanks in Compound 4 is at about 450 m to the nearest dwellings and screened by existing tanks and structures to all of the nearest dwellings. Pumps, which offer lower noise levels or enclosures, will be selected to achieve night time noise levels below acceptable standards.

5.60 For most plant associated with construction and demolition work, even the use of a vibrating roller, vibration is not likely to be perceptible beyond the boundaries of the site. With demolition and construction activity about 400m at its closest point to the nearest dwellings, it is considered that vibration at dwellings will be close to or below the threshold of perception with resulting insignificant effects on people.

Air Quality 5.61 An air quality assessment has been undertaken of the impacts of the ODWJ proposals

during the temporary construction phase and the permanent operation of the proposals using approaches developed by the Institute of Air Quality Management. In addition, regard has been had to the air quality standards and objectives established by Government to protect human health. The assessment is detailed in Chapter 13 of the ES.

5.62 The main air quality pollutants identified of concern, along with the potential sources of each pollutant, are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 - Summary of potential air quality pollutants and sources

Source Air pollutants

Construction activities Dust and PM10

Shipping vessels Oxides of nitrogen (NOx), nitrogen dioxide, PM10, PM2.5 and sulphur dioxide

Traffic emissions Oxides of nitrogen (NOx), nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)

Heating and energy plant Oxides of nitrogen (NOx), nitrogen dioxide, PM10 and PM2.5.

5.63 The assessment identifies that it is highly unlikely that existing levels of nitrogen dioxide, PM10 and PM2.5 will exceed the set objectives within the area studied for the purposes of the assessment. Concentrations of nitrogen dioxide are consistently measured as being well below the national annual mean objective at all monitoring locations near to the OSL site in recent years. There is also a general downward trend (reduction/improvement) in locally measured annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations over the past six years. This contrasts with experience elsewhere in the UK, where concentrations have remained fairly stable over this period, despite the expected decline due to the progressive introduction of new vehicles operating to more stringent emission standards.



5.64 Construction activities for both the marine and landside elements of the ODWJ proposals will give rise to a risk of temporary increases in levels of dust and fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) during demolition, earthworks, and construction activities and from vehicle emissions and dirt carried by vehicles onto the public highway (referred to as trackout).

5.65 The removal of redundant buildings and infrastructure on the existing Jetty 2 will not involve the use of crushing or screening equipment and therefore the risk of increased dust from this activity is small. For the landside works demolition will take place in a phased manner alongside construction. Where practicable crushed material will be re-used on site.

5.66 The earthworks involved in the construction of the landside elements of the proposals has the potential to give rise to the highest levels of dust based on the volume of material to be removed, approximately 50,000 tonnes. Again material will be re-used on site wherever practicable.

5.67 The majority of infrastructure, tanks and buildings for both the marine and landside elements of the works will be manufactured off site, although the new storage tanks will need to be grit blasted on site prior to painting. Delivery of the marine elements to site will largely be via the river. The assessment considered the peak HGV vehicle flows associated with the works, although these flows only occur on roads with no sensitive receptors, i.e. no residential properties, and, therefore, there will be no significant effects resulting from construction traffic.

5.68 The bulk of earthworks will take place over 350m from the closest residential properties and there are no properties within 50m of the first 500m section of the route along which material would be transported. In terms of sensitive ecological receptors, the bulk of the construction works will occur over 500m from Holehaven Creek SSSI. A summary of the risk of dust impacts during construction, without any mitigation applied, is shown in Table 6.

Table 6 - Summary of risk of dust impacts during construction activities without mitigation

Source Dust Emission Magnitude

Landside Elements Marine Elements

Demolition Negligible Negligible

Earthworks Low Risk None

Construction Negligible Negligible

Trackout from vehicles Low Risk None

5.69 Procedures and measures – as detailed within Chapter 13 - will be put in place to mitigate dust emissions. It is envisaged that they will be incorporated into the CEMP. With these measures in place and effectively implemented the residual effects during the construction phase of the works are judged to be insignificant.

5.70 In terms of the operational air quality impacts, the closest residential properties are more



than 400m from the new Jetty 2, and it is anticipated that once vessels are safely moored the main engines are shut down as with current procedures. It is expected that any air quality impacts associated with the expected increase of vessels using the new Jetty 2, and taking account of vessels using Jetty 1, will be insignificant.

5.71 The use of on site plant and emergency diesel powered generators is not envisaged to increase over and above current levels with the ODWJ proposals. No significant increases in road traffic are expected once the proposals are operational. The assessment, therefore, concludes that the operational air quality effects of the proposals would be insignificant.

Contaminated Land 5.72 An assessment of ground conditions and contaminated land has been undertaken to

assess the likely risk of significant soil and groundwater contamination at the site of the proposed development, and the likely risk posed to a range of sensitive receptors. The assessment is reported in Chapter 14 of the ES and is supported by a Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment (PERA) provided within Appendix 14.1 of Volume 3 of the ES.

5.73 The underlying geology of the site is characterised, in summary, by a layer of made ground, 6m to 8m of tidal flat deposits, 11 to 30m of beach and tidal flat deposits underlain by London Clay (50 to 60m thick), beneath which the Lambeth Group and Thanet Sand Formation overlie Chalk formations. The Environment Agency (EA) has classified the Chalk formations as a principal aquifer and the Lambeth Group and Thanet Sand formation as secondary aquifer. The beach and tidal flat deposits are also classified as a secondary aquifer. The London Clay deposits act as a barrier between aquifers preventing mixing.

5.74 The assessment has identified and assessed potential effects from ground contamination during the demolition and construction stage on:

• human health;

• controlled waters;

• ecological receptors; and

• services and buried structures.

5.75 The same potential effects have been assessed once the proposals have been completed, along with the potential effect to property from ground conditions.

5.76 During demolition and construction works measures contained within the Contaminated Land Remediation Strategy (provided as Appendix 14.2 of the ES) and the CEMP will ensure that appropriate controls and measures relating to contamination are put in place. Measures to be put in place include relevant dust control measures, the use of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Respiratory Protective Equipment (RPE) and good practice hygiene measures.



5.77 With relevant mitigation measures in place, the residual effect on human health during both the demolition and construction phase of the development is considered to be negligible. Once the proposals are operational, there is considered to be a minor beneficial effect because of the removal of material from within Compound 4 in order to create an impermeable base to the compound.

5.78 In respect of controlled waters, there is a risk that piling works associated with the jetty extension could disturb contaminants that may be in the riverbed or create contamination linkages between aquifers. The Water Framework Directive Assessment (Appendix 7.1), however, indicates that the River Thames is considered to have a naturally high level of suspended sediment, due to strong tidal currents. Furthermore, a piling works risk assessment will be carried out to ensure piling does not create relevant pollution linkages. The tidal flat deposits that underlie made ground on the site also act as a barrier preventing potential surface contamination from migrating to underlying aquifers or towards the River Thames.

5.79 Once completed larger vessels will be able to use Jetty 2 which may mobilise potential contaminants into the water. However, given the strong tidal regime within the river, this impact, along with all other operational phase potential impacts on controlled waters, is also considered to be negligible. Therefore, residual impacts during the construction and demolition phase on controlled waters are considered to be negligible.

5.80 With mitigation measures in place, residual impacts on identified receptors are considered to be either negligible or minor beneficial. The benefit is considered to arise because of the removal of material from the site.

Landscape and Visual 5.81 An assessment of the likely significant effects of the ODWJ proposals on the landscape

character and visual amenity has been undertaken and is included in Chapter 15 of the ES. This includes consideration of lighting that is proposed. Landscape effects are those that result from changes in the landscape and changes to the surrounding landscape character. Visual effects are changes to views resulting from the development and on the amenity value of these views. The methodology for the assessment follows current best practice and guidance from the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA).

5.82 The site is a well established operational port and liquid bulk storage terminal lying adjacent to other prominent port installations along the Thames, within a wider landscape of low lying land and the built up area of Canvey Island. Within the site, some of the areas proposed for development are currently disused although the infrastructure remains in place. Overall the site has a strong industrial appearance.

5.83 Natural England’s Natural Character Map of England places the site within the Greater Thames Estuary, while the Essex Landscape Character Assessment includes the landside portion of the site within South Essex Coastal Towns landscape character area and the marine elements within Thames Estuary landscape character area.



5.84 It is inevitable that construction of the ODWJ proposals will result in temporary adverse visual effects due to the exposed and low lying nature of the landscape within which the site sits. From some areas these views will be seen within the existing industrialised nature of the site or be limited to the taller elements of the works such as the tops of cranes or the installation of the new marine loading arms on Jetty 2, due to intervening buildings and structures. From other viewpoints an increase in construction traffic may be noticeable.

5.85 Existing areas of hardstanding will be used for contractor parking and existing buildings used for site offices and welfare facilities wherever possible. All contractors will be required to adhere to the site’s CEMP to ensure good site management, and measures taken to control lighting to minimise visual impacts to those areas closest to the site. Works to install the pipelines and construct the walkway / gantry over the flood defence wall and public footpath may require that this small section of the footpath is temporarily closed although the remainder of the footpath will remain open. Construction traffic to and from the site will use an agreed haulage route avoiding the built up area of Canvey Island to minimise disruption.

5.86 The design, scale, massing and location of the new tanks in Compound 4 will appear as direct replacements for the current tanks and there will be no discernible difference in the views of the site compared with existing. The new walkway / gantry over the public footpath will be non-reflective light grey to minimise visual intrusion. The marine works will utilise an existing jetty and once completed Jetty 2 will be seen within the context of the terminal and operational site and the wider industrial landscape along this part of the River Thames.

5.87 A lighting strategy for the permanent lighting associated with more visually prominent elements of the ODWJ proposals will be localised and kept to a functional minimum, shielded and directed to focus on specific areas and minimise obtrusive light spill. Automated controls will ensure that lights are only switched on as required. Existing lighting in some locations will be improved and replaced with lights with reduced intensity and directed downwards to reduce light spill. As such, the permanent lighting proposed is anticipated to give rise to imperceptible changes in comparison with existing lighting at the site.

5.88 The new walkway / gantry over the public footpath will be lit as will the new Jetty 2, although this will be seen in the context of other jetties along this stretch of the river, including OSL’s existing Jetty 1.

5.89 Overall, the ODWJ proposals are predicted to give rise to no significant adverse effects for the landscape character of the site and the area studied, during both the construction and operational phase. The proposals will, however, give rise to limited number of significant temporary and permanent adverse effects to visual amenity.

Flood Risk 5.90 The potential effects of the ODWJ proposals on all sources of flood risk and site drainage



have been assessed, and is reported in Chapter 16 of the ES. The assessment is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Surface Water Drainage Management Plan. These are provided in Appendix 16.1 respectively within Volume 3 of the ES.

5.91 The FRA for the ODWJ proposals indicates that the OSL site, as with much of Canvey Island, lies within Flood Zone 3 and is, therefore, classified as having a high probability of flooding from rivers or the sea. However, the OSL site and the landside part of the ODWJ proposals site is protected from tidal flooding by the existing flood defences located to the south. The Environment Agency (EA) has confirmed that the site is defended up to the 1 in 1000 year standard by the existing River Thames defences. This comprises a continuous flood defence wall and flood gates adjacent to the existing jetties. These defences are regularly inspected by the EA and are considered to currently be in a ‘good’ condition.

5.92 No works to the existing flood defences are required as part of the proposals except the removal of existing redundant pipework that currently runs through the existing flood defence wall. This will be undertaken and completed to the satisfaction of the EA.

5.93 Furthermore, to ensure that the development is future proofed in respect of flood risk matters, the design of the ODWJ proposals has taken the new import / export pipelines over the flood defence wall in replacement for the pipelines which currently run through it. The new pipelines are positioned at a sufficient distance above and away from the flood defence wall to enable the height of the defences to be raised in excess of current recommendations from the EA, in line with the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (TE2100 Plan).

5.94 The marine elements of the proposals will be compatible with the water environment in which they need to be located. The design of these elements has taken account of the environment in which they will be located, including having due regard to existing and future water levels within the River Thames. The design work undertaken to date, and the final detailed design work, will ensure that flood risk during the construction and operation stage associated with the marine elements is low.

5.95 The ODWJ proposals incorporate improvements to the OSL site’s surface water drainage system to improve efficiency and replace older infrastructure. This includes a new permanent drainage system for Compound 4 (which will become an impermeable bunded storage compound area) and the installation of new drainage elements across parts of the OSL site as necessary. Appropriate pollution prevention is already provided in the existing system, and betterment will be provided through the provision of a new interceptor to ensure water quality is acceptable.

5.96 In terms of flood risk and drainage no likely significant adverse effects have been identified as a result of the demolition and construction works, and as such no mitigation measures are considered necessary. Therefore the assessment has concluded that the residual flood risk and drainage effects during demolition and construction are negligible.

5.97 No likely significant adverse effects have been identified once the development is completed and operational, and the assessment concluded that the flood risk effects of the completed development would be negligible. The provision of a new surface water drainage interceptor will improve water quality, and the drainage effects will be beneficial of



minor significance.

Historic Environment 5.98 The potential effects of the ODWJ proposals on the historic environment have been

considered. The assessment undertaken is reported in Chapter 17 of the ES.

5.99 There are no designated heritage assets within the area of the proposed works. Within the local area, the Lobster Smack Public House, and numbers 1, 1A, and 2 to 8 Haven Road, located to the west of the OSL Terminal, are all Grade II listed buildings. The historic setting of these listed buildings has been significantly eroded with development of the area, including the OSL Terminal since the 1930’s. Given that the ODWJ proposals are largely within the footprint of the existing terminal site, there will be no significant adverse impact to the historic setting of the listed cottages or the Lobster Smack Public House on Haven Road as a result of the ODWJ proposals. A study of the wider area revealed further features of varying historic importance within the locality.

5.100 It is highly likely that within the area of the landside works any archaeological remains will have been damaged or destroyed, due to the considerable 20th Century development on site and the potential of uncovering unknown remains is negligible or low. Where works are proposed in those limited areas which have not previously been developed, an archaeological watching brief will be put in place so that construction activities involving trenches, foundations and other ground works are undertaken in the presence of a suitably qualified archaeologist.

5.101 Within the wider area, there have been numerous finds from the Prehistoric, Roman, Saxon and later periods which clearly suggests historic human activity took place along the north shore of the River Thames. However, these finds have been some distance from the OSL site.

5.102 Marine geophysical surveys have been undertaken within the area of the marine works, and the assessment concludes that the likelihood of encountering significant archaeological remains such as evidence of occupation or wrecks is considered to be neglible. However, marine anomalies uncovered as part of the geophysical survey will be investigated and verified prior to construction works starting, if necessary. If any archaeological features are confirmed, appropriate further mitigation will be taken.

5.103 The assessment concludes that the residual effects of the proposed development on the historic environment are generally neutral or slight in terms of historical, aesthetic and communal heritage values. In terms of evidential value, the proposed development is overall predicted to have a slight to moderate adverse effect as it has the potential to damage, truncate or destroy archaeological remains if present.

Socio-Economic 5.104 An assessment of the potential socio-economic impacts at the local, sub-regional and

national level, arising from the ODWJ proposals, has been undertaken and is reported in



Chapter 18 of the ES.

5.105 It is estimated that construction of the proposals will take between 18 and 20 months and will result in a positive employment benefits. This includes direct construction jobs, a maximum of 95 workers will be on site at any one time, as well as further induced and indirect jobs for firms supplying construction materials and equipment and construction workers spending part of their wages in the local economy. Overall this will generate a beneficial impact.

5.106 Due to the specialist nature of the construction work, some skilled workers may need to travel from other areas and stay in the local area for the duration of the construction phase. This will provide a boost to the local economy and local employment by providing food, accommodation and leisure for the visiting construction workforce. In addition, there will be opportunities to transfer skills and knowledge between workers.

5.107 Where possible, OSL will seek to use local, Thames-based companies for the necessary supplies for the construction phase, which will create indirect jobs at the local and sub-regional level. This could include surveyors, construction and plant material manufacturing employment and employment involved in transport of materials.

5.108 Disruption to local businesses and residents as a result of additional construction traffic will be minimised and once completed it is expected that traffic levels associated with the OSL Terminal would revert back to current levels. It is possible that temporary disruption to commercial fishing in the area could occur during the construction phase and liaison with local fishermen will ensure that any disruption is kept to a minimum. The installation of piles for the jetty will not be allowed between the months of April and September to ensure that vibration from piling does not impact fish breeding within the estuary.

5.109 Once fully operational, the proposals will create 5 additional shift based jobs on site. Further indirect jobs are also likely to be created. The operation of the ODWJ proposals will allow the terminal to accommodate larger vessels allowing, OSL to meet current and future fuel demand and contribute to a secure, reliable, cost effective and resilient UK fuel distribution system. The development will also maintain OSL’s competitiveness, ensuring it maintains its role as a source of employment and economic activity at a regional and local level. Overall the proposals represent a major significant and positive impact in terms of OSL’s contribution to local, regional and national socio-economic policy objectives.

Safety 5.110 Health and safety effects on the surrounding population and the environment have been

considered, and the assessment undertaken is reported in Chapter 19 of the ES.

5.111 The construction of the ODWJ proposals will be undertaken in accordance with all necessary health and safety legislation relevant to construction sites. By adhering to such legislation no significant health and safety impacts are considered likely.

5.112 The ODWJ proposals have been designed to ensure that the OSL facility continues to



meet the most up to date relevant requirements laid down by the regulators and to maintain the current high standard of safety and environmental performance that already applies at the site. As an Upper Tier COMAH site, operations at the OSL Terminal are strictly controlled by legislation and the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency (as the Competent Authority). Existing safety, operational and emergency plans will be updated and amended in the light of the ODWJ proposals. The site has an enviable safety record and operates with the full knowledge of other contingency and emergency plans in place from the Port of London Authority (PLA), Essex County Council as well as those drawn up by neighbouring operators of COMAH sites.

5.113 The construction of the ODWJ proposals will be undertaken by a highly skilled workforce who will have the necessary experience to complete the works to OSL’s high standards. Proactive risk assessment is a critical part of the operation of the OSL facility, such procedures are used to control work within a “live” operational facility. These measures will be used during the construction phase of the works.

5.114 Access to the site is fully manned 24 hours a day and will continue on this basis during the construction phase. Vehicle movements around the site will continue to be carefully controlled and managed and escorted as required.

5.115 The assessment has identified and assessed the following safety risks during the construction phase:

(i) risk of product remaining in the tanks and pipes to be demolished and / or removed;

(ii) risk associated with construction activity occurring at an operational site;

(iii) risk to construction workers during the construction phase;

(iv) risk of construction work being undertaken in close proximity to a gas pipeline;

(v) risk of construction activity being undertaken in close proximity to unexploded ordnance, and

(vi) risk of construction work taking place in close proximity to a public right of way.

5.116 The assessment has identified and assessed the following safety risks during the operational phase:

(i) risk associated with a failure of on site infrastructure;

(ii) risk associated with a failure of an on site process or procedure;

(iii) risk associated with a security or terrorist threat, and

(iv) risk associated with flooding of the site.

5.117 With the implementation of the various mitigation measures proposed, the assessment concludes that the safety risks identified can be reduced to ones of minor adverse significance or insignificant, which equates to a level that is as low as reasonably



practicable.

Cumulative and In-Combination Effects 5.118 An assessment has been undertaken of the likely cumulative effects of the ODWJ

proposals and other existing future plans or projects. In addition, bringing together certain principal findings of relevant topic chapters of the ES an assessment of the in-combination effects of the ODWJ proposals has also been undertaken. These are reported in Chapter 20 of the ES.

5.119 The conclusions reached by the assessments are that no significant cumulative effects are anticipated and no significant in combination effects are anticipated.

Compound 10

Compound 2Compound 4

Compound 5

River Thames

1

12

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

13

14 15 20

16

17

18

10

1911

20

2122

23

24

25

262728

29

30

31

1. New Jetty 2 head2. Approach way to Jetty 2 berth & pipelines3. Jetty 2 control room4. Fire fighting station5. Cathodic protection transformer6. Pedestrian link bridge7. Foreshore pipelines & walkway gantry8. Pipeline manifold & pigging station area9. Nitrogen storage facility10. Underground pipeline to allow access through gates11. GP5 & GP6 Pig receivers12. Access road extension13. New pipelines on existing Jetty 2 approach way14. Surface water holding tank15. Jetty 2 switchroom & transformer16. Pipebridge17. Interceptor & oil recovery

18. New pipelines to Compound 4 pipeline manifold area19. New pipelines to southern pipebridge20. Compressor house with air receiver21. Compound 4 switchroom & transformer22. Pipebridge23. Compound 4 bund wall24. Fire/access road25. Compound 4 pipeline manifold area26. Road culvert27. Culvert extension28. Pipeline to existing services29. New pipeline to Compound 1030. 12 replacement tanks31. Compound 10 manifold area (with additional pumps in existing area)

ODWJ Application Boundary

Figure 3: PROPOSALS OVERVIEW

Revision: 3

OSL DEEPWATER JETTY

NorthNorth

DWG Ref: OSL/1320/PO

Drawn by: NM Date: 260116

© Crown Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. Licence Number 100047514

Scale 1: 3000 @ A3

0 50 100 m

Source. Oikos Storage Ltd

OSL Deepwater Jetty - IEMA - Home Deep Water Jett… · OSL Deepwater Jetty Non-Technical Summary...

Documents

Transcript of OSL Deepwater Jetty - IEMA - Home Deep Water Jett… · OSL Deepwater Jetty Non-Technical Summary...