In 2012 based on the 15 samples analysed, which appears to have been proposed by Cefas in support of a 1 year licence renewal, as Cefas recommended only 1 year licence with annual sampling.

Cefas response 12th March 2012 - (email 01082012 Cefas advice to applicant MLA201200141; Tees and Hartlepool Maintenance Dredge and Disposal.msg)

Cefas understanding of the licence - 1. This a renewal application by PD Teesport for the disposal of 2 889 700 tonnes (approximately 1 850 553 cubic metres) of sand and silt maintenance dredge material from the areas previously listed for disposal under this licence comprising the River Tees (channel, berths and frontages), Hartlepool (entrance channel docks and water area) and Seaton channel (basin and berths). The requested licensed quantity this year represents a slight increase on the previous 12 month licence period but is broadly in line with annual quantities of material licensed previously over the duration of this long standing maintenance licence held by PD Teesport.

Summary 12. Based on my assessment of this application I would suggest that some elevation in contaminant levels is observed in sediments throughout the sites analysed this year. I would suggest that in general these are within those ranges which would be considered acceptable for disposal at sea, however I consider that maintenance material arising from the sites listed below should be excluded at the present time. Against the backdrop of ongoing contamination of dredge material from the Tees the continued policy of issue of a 1-year licence would be recommended. Continuing to re-sample on a rolling program simplifies the logistics of the sampling demands on the port, together with targeted monitoring samples where these are considered appropriate.

Advice from the Environment Agency was reproduced verbatim in the Decision Letter (Marine) from the MMO.

With regard to the potential impacts on migratory salmonids, background conditions are likely to be stressful during the warm summer months. The smolt migration will occur during April to June and numbers of returning adults are likely to peak in early autumn. To reduce the risks to migratory fish, we would recommend that dredging in chart areas* 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 should only occur during a time window from the beginning of November till the end of March inclusive wherever possible. Chart areas 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 may be maintenance dredged throughout the year. * Chart areas are taken from the Tees Maintenance Dredging Annual Review 2011 PD Teesport (included in the Marine Licence application)

L/2012/00366 - 1st October 2012 to 31st May 2015

MMO issued a 3 year licence with conditions including:

3.2.1 Material should be excluded from disposal at sea from the following wharfs/frontages; Cochrane's/Tees wharf, Normanby Wharf Graving Dock Tees Offshore Base And in the interim, also from Teesport Commerce wharf (TPC) Dry Dock

Reason: To ensure that only material which has contaminant levels within those ranges which are considered acceptable for disposal at sea are disposed via this route.

20151118 MLA201500088 PD Teesport Tees and Hartelpool maintenance dredge advice final.docx

25 surface samples taken concentrated on Tees berths as 2012 concentrated on Tees Channel, Approaches and Hartlepool. Only analysed for metals, organotins and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s), as a gradual decline has been observed in previous years in maintenance material levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) and BDE’s,

Observed metal and organotin levels considered acceptable for disposal at sea. Bamletts Wharf and Britannia Enterprise Zone, showed lead levels in excess of Cefas AL2 comparable to other excluded areas such as Teesport Commerce Wharf (TPC) Dry Dock, all higher than 2010 measurements suggesting some sporadic source of contaminant input into these sites. Recommended exclusion from new licence and stopping dredging these areas immediately.

“PAH’s demonstrate some areas of elevation, particularly with respect to those PAH’s associated with redundancy from the petro chemical industry but generally levels observed were consistent with those anticipated in sediments from the Tees estuary and within those ranges previously disposed of to the Tees Bay site. I recommend continuing the monitoring of sediment quality through regular future sampling campaigns.”

“It is my view that these works will fall outside the scope of a relevant project as defined by the Marine Works (EIA) Regulations 2007.”

“18. Based on my assessment of this application I consider that 2,889,700 tonnes (per annum) from the proposed dredged areas is suitable for disposal at sea to the licensed disposal site TY 160 (Tees Bay A).”

“19. I would suggest however that due to the elevation in contaminant levels observed from sample analyses in both previous and this year in sediments at specific sites. Those locations as listed below should be excluded from inclusion in the maintenance renewal licence at the present time.”

“20. Against the backdrop of ongoing contamination of dredge material identified within the Tees I suggest that the continued policy of issue of shorter term licences would be desirable. This is however a policy decision and if a 10 year licence is granted I would stress the necessity to re-sample on a regular basis within a strategic rolling sampling monitoring program. I recommend the following licence conditions;….”

20190814 MLA2015000882 Tees and Hartlepool - Mid-licence Advice Minute + CC QC.docx

Mid-licence sampling consultation based on 9 samples for Hartlepool's 55hectares dredge area and 10 samples from 1,610hectares of Tees, however had expected 37 samples from Northern Gateway Container Terminal to be included, they weren't available for this response.

The new assessor from Cefas stated that the samples had been assessed against the erroneous only 10% of the level of actual annual dredging: “This licence permits PD Teesport to dispose of 243,842 wet tonnes (187,570 m ) of material from the Port of Tees, and 45,128 wet tonnes (34,740 m ) of material from the Port of Hartlepool at Tees Bay A (TY160) per annum. PD Teesport are licensed to use trailer suction hopper dredging (TSHD) for these works.”

Would the opinion have been different if the correct disposal volumes have been considered?

Hartlepool: Considered acceptable for disposal at sea despite metal levels above Cefas AL1, both LMW PAHs and HMW PAHs all samples exceeded ERL, while 60% exceeded LMW ERM. The Tees disposal site are used to receive dredged sediment which has been more contaminated in the past so no problem!

Tees: elevated levels of PCBs were seen, with one sample many times above 25 PCBs sum AL2 and as such disposal was not acceptable, with a specific restriction place on Billingham Reach where the highest level was seen. PAHs levels were also considered to preclude disposal at sea, however the decision on PAHs was deferred until more sample results were returned.

20191017 MLA2015000884 Tees and Hartlepool L201500427 - Mid-licence advice minute KR QC.docx

Advice based on 37 samples in the downstream Tees without provision of PBDE analysis.

Correct disposal volume quoted - “The licence permits the licence holder to dredge and dispose of 2,988,700 tonnes of material…”

No issues seen for PCBs all below AL1, or metals close or slightly above AL1, PAHs exceed ERLs for both LMW and HMW, plus all samples exceeded LMW ERM. So “11. Considering these results alone the disposal activities present too high a risk and are thus not acceptable for disposal at sea.” If we are serious about improving our marine environment then that was the right decision, but “However, Cefas recognises the history of the area, and that the licensed disposal site (TY160) has received material from the area many times before.” This last statement ignoress, the fact that only a fraction of the PAHs will get to the disposal site. The process of dredging using a trailing suction hopper dredger operating with overflow, means that much of the burden of PAHs, as they are hydrophobic will have been adsorbed on small mineral particles or absorbed within small organic carbon particles and so released at the dredging site.

So once again based on past history of the Tees, disposal of material is allowed that would not be allowed elsewhere in the UK.

It was also concerning that “12. Figure 3 (sum of LMW PAHs) shows a larger range of results from 2015, in that the 2015 dataset contains both the lowest and highest values across both datasets.”, did not result in a request for more samples, as such a level of increased heterogeneity should have done.

It is amazing that the conclusion was “14. The data presented for this consultation do not present significant cause for concern.” While the results may have been historically not unique on the Tees, surely there should have been some suggestion that cleaner methods of keeping navigation open in the Tees should be investigated as a matter of priority or that alternative disposal routes should be developed for Tees dredged material.

20191107 MLA2015000884 Tees and Hartlepool L201500427 - Mid-licence advice minute + JLQC.docx

This response was on receipt of the final set of PBDE analyses, bearing in mind that first only upstream results were supplied, then all but PBDE for the downstream samples and that no samples were requested for the approaches, Seaton channel, Teesport or Philips berths.

It does not inspire confidence at the care which taken over the preparation of analysis data when “The licence holder initially submitted a dataset with very high levels of PBDEs; levels that are not usually observed in environmental concentrations i.e. BDE209 was recorded at 400 ppm in one sample. The licence holder has now confirmed (6th November 2019) that these results were not correctly transcribed into the MMO Results Template, in that, they were not converted from ppb to ppm as is the usual procedure. The licence holder has provided the original certificate of analysis to corroborate this, and I am satisfied that this is valid.” The requested Approach Channel data was also not supplied.

There is a comment about sampling number meeting OSPAR guidelines “Using the OSPAR guidelines, this equates to approximately 30-35 samples required, as the guidelines stipulate that 16 – 30 samples should be taken for dredges between 500,000 m³ and 2,000,000 m³ and an additional 10 samples for each 1,000,000 m³ beyond this amount. As such, the sampling effort, 37 samples including one exclusion, is acceptable.” As elsewhere I have commented on the MMO/Cefas approach to OSPAR Sampling Guidelines is incorrect as it ignores the area being dredged and only considers the volume of material. This is particularly inappropriate here, as in the response of 16th October 2019, Cefas had stated how variable the results were for PAHs, showing how inhomogeneous the Tees is and as such as stated by OSPAR “…assuming a reasonably uniform sediment distribution in the area…”, so rather than considering the whole dredged area first the area should have been compartmentalised into areas where the sediment was similar.

Dredging was allowed to continue.

20210329 MLA2015000885 L2015004275 Tees and Hart Maintenance Disposal - Variation Advice Minute FINAL.docx

Once again the wrong dredged volumes are quoted as the levels against which the assessment is carried out “PD Teesport (PDT) hold marine licence L/2015/00427/4, which permits the disposal of 243,842 tonnes (~165,000 m³) from the Tees, and 42,128 tonnes (~30,058 m³) from Hartlepool, dredged under their statutory powers, at Tees Bay A (TY150) disposal site per year. Their licence was granted in 2015 and expires in 2025. The licence holder now proposes to undertake a dredge of the navigation channel within the Tees estuary to deepen the channel from a depth of an advertised 5.1m below Chart Datum (bCD) to a maximum depth of 5.7m bCD. The dredged material is to be disposed of within Tees Bay A.”

“20. In light of the above points (17 – 20), my opinion is that the levels of BDE-209 recorded in the 2021 data pose a potentially unacceptable risk to the marine environment. However, the concentrations for all other BDE-congeners and analytes (i.e., metals, tins, PAHs and PCBs) observed do not preclude the material from disposal to sea. As the generally elevated presence of PBDEs in the Tees is documented with sampling data and published literature, and as we know that this elevated presence can be traced to historic industrial inputs, I am content at this time that the proposed works be licensed. However, I recommend that PBDEs analysis is continued for them to be fully assessed in future sampling campaigns in the Tees.”

Once again despite sediments showing levels which should have made disposal at sea a last resort, disposal at sea continued.

20211217 MLA2015000885 L2015004276 Tees and Hartlepool Maintenance Disposal Mid-licence Advice Minute FINAL.pdf

Once again Cefas are under the impression that only 10% of the material that is actually dumped from Tees annually is being dumped “permits the annual disposal of 243,842 wet tonnes (187,570 m³) of material from the Tees, and 45,128 wet tonnes (34,740 m³) from Hartlepool.”

Why does the applicant not follow the exact instruction on sampling advice? “7. Major comment: This sampling mostly adheres to pre-application sampling advice (SAM/2020/00057; Joe Perry, 25th August 2020), however no data have been presented for polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) which were recommended in the sample plan. My comments within this advice minute will not be final until these data are presented for review.

8. Further, the sample plan recommended only 8 samples, but the licence holder has presented data for 20. As these samples appear to be representative of the dredge areas, I will consider the results alongside the 8 recommended samples,”

PAHs once again show the major concern with most exceeding LMW PAHs ERM and many being close to the HMW PAHs ERM, such results should preclude disposal at sea.

“14. Viewed in isolation, these results would preclude material from continued disposal at sea. However, it is essential to consider the local and regional context. The Tees river, as with other North-east English rivers, has a documented history of specific industrial activity, which has led to a noticeable presence of both man-made and naturally occurring contaminants. Further, the general PAH footprint of the Tees typically skews more towards LMW PAHs than HMW PAHs, which is reflected in the results presented. Nonetheless, whilst considering local context is important, it is important consider this history holistically, rather than entirely discounting the results presented.”

However “17. Considering the results in both the local context of the Tees, and in comparison to previous years’ data, the PAH results presented for this review do not preclude material from continued disposal at sea.”

This response was prepared just after the initial crustacean die-off had occurred in the River Tees and the local coast.

- Sample plan advice for mid licence sampling for Marine Licence L/2015/00427 at Tees and Hartlepool, Teesside

The MMO advice is introduced by a misquoting of the OSPAR Sampling Guidelines

“2.1. In accordance with the recommendations of the OSPAR Guidelines for the Management of Dredged Material, samples should be taken to provide a good representation of the volume of material to be dredged. The distribution and depth of sampling should reflect the size and depth of the area to be dredged, the amount to be dredged and the expected variability in the horizontal and vertical distribution of contaminants. The MMO also uses the OSPAR guidelines to inform our advice on sampling requirements for other activities which are likely to lead to the mobilisation of sediments. Based on the information submitted (as described above), the following sampling and analysis is required.”

The advice then advised that “In consideration of the volume details of the proposed dredge, the MMO advises that 31 samples should be taken from within the footprint of the proposed dredge area.” and then said “Whilst this could be considered slightly under the guidelines set by OSPAR, which recommends 30 sites for dredges up to 2,000,000 m3 with an additional ten sites per million m3, the MMO is content that these provide adequate spatial coverage across the dredge locations as each Chart Sector contains one or more sampling points, with additional points in non-sectored maintained areas.” The total dredge area of L/2015/00427/7 was 1,660 hectares so this the MMO said that 1 sample was sufficient to sample an area of 55 hectares. This highlights that the OSPAR volume table is meant to be a check for a deep capital dredge happening in a small spatial area and does not ensure proper spatial coverage for which there is explicit guidance in the OSPAR Sampling Guidelines.

The 31 sites were shown in figure 1:

Measurements were required from all 31 sites: Particle Size Analysis (PSA), Trace metals (including arsenic), Organotins (tributyltin and dibutyltin), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), Total Organic Carbon (TOC). 10 sites also needed to measured for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) – must include a sample collected from Chart sectors 1 & 2 (Figure 1), Organochlorine pesticides (OCs) – must include a sample collected from Chart sector 1 & 8, Navigator North Tees and Hartlepool Berths (Figure 1).

L/2015/00427/7 Mid Licence Sediment Sampling Review – Condition 5.2.3

The MMO considered that the sample results submitted discharged the conditions on the licence. However, the levels of BDE209, 99 and 100 were noted as being higher than lower assessment criteria (LAC) but lower than the high assessment criteria (HAC) and as the applicant had not measured total organic carbon (TOC) as requested it was not possible to normalise the values. So the MMO requested annual measurements of BDEs in future.

Cefas comments on particle size were based on the mass particle size distribution, so stated that all but 2 of the samples were similar. A comparison based on area particle size distribution would have seen less difference between all the samples.

All trace metals (including arsenic) showed levels greater than Cefas Action Level 1 (AL1) (beige markers on maps) in multiple samples, but no samples were greater than AL2.

There is only an AL1 for individual polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), so the maps for the individual PAHs are colour coded as green when below AL1, beige when between AL1 and 10*AL1 and red when greater than 10xAL1.

As there is no AL2 for PAHs Cefas uses the Gorham-Test protocol to examine sums of low molecular weight (LMW) and sums of high molecular weight (HMW) PAHs. The sum of each are assessed against effect range low (ERL) below this the sediment is low risk and effects-range median (ERM) above which the sediment is considered of high risk.

“Out of the 31 samples analysed for PAHs 29 were greater than the LMW ERM ranging from around the ERL threshold (3,160 µg/kg) to 4.4x the ERM threshold (14,047 µg/kg). The remaining two samples were 1 (Figure 1 Exolum Riverside) and 27 (Figure 1 Chart 12); sample 1 contained LMW PAH levels greater than ERL but close to the ERM threshold whilst sample 27 contained levels of LMW PAHs less than ERL. Only one sample, sample 6 (Figure 1 Chart 3), was close to, but below, the ERM threshold for HMW PAHs. All remaining levels of HMW PAHs were below the ERM except for three samples which were below the ERL. The three samples below ERL were sample 24 (Figure 1 Chart 9), sample 27 (Figure 1 Chart 12) and sample 28 (Figure 1 Hartlepool Channel). Of note is that sample 27 is the only sample to contain levels of both LMW and HMW PAHs below their respective ERLs.”

“The levels of LMW PAHs alone would normally preclude the material from continued disposal to sea due to levels that would pose a risk to the marine environment, however, the river Tees is historically an area that exhibits PAH levels higher than other UK rivers due to industrial sources and history of the river (Nicolaus et al., 2015; Kirby et al., 1999), especially acute LMW PAHs. This has been evident throughout the current licence whereby both LMW and HMW levels detected in sediment sampling and analysis since 2015 have shown elevated levels of LMW and HMW PAHs that are greater than their respective ERLs and ERMs (documents cited in paragraphs nine and ten). It is prudent to compare the current results to historical levels detected within the duration of the licence so that local and regional context of these results are considered; these are visualised in Figures 4 and 5 below.”

Cefas basically say these high levels are not an issue, despite most of the samples having LMW PAHs above ERM and as Cefas said any sample above ERM “can be considered higher risk, with more likelihood of harm occurring.” As such this material should not have been considered safe for disposal at sea, but ….

“It is observed that levels of LMW PAHs have maintained a similar level since 2023; the minimum value is less than 2023, the median and mean are of a similar value to 2023 but the maximum has increased since 2023. Viewing the levels of LMW PAHs since the start of the licence in 2015 indicates that they have continued to drop over the years with the Tees and Hartlepool dredge area. Interpretation of the HMW PAH levels is more clear cut with all factors (min, median, mean and max) all decreasing in value since 2015, and in broader terms all seeing a decrease every year since 2019.”

“Considering these results holistically; in both the local context of the river Tees and in comparison, to previous mid-licence data, the PAH results alone do not preclude material from continued disposal to sea, in this case to Tees Bay A (TY160) disposal site.”

Neither Cefas figure 4 or 5 show the ERL or ERM levels, but when the ERM level is shown on figure 4, it is obvious that these samples present a significant risk of harm to the marine environment:

This chart without the ERM level was reproduced in the Tees MDP Baseline Document to show how the Tees was getting better, which may be the case, but continued dredging and dumping will still be doing damage and as such should be curtailed.

Surprisingly only low concentrations of PCBs are seen in the samples and only a few organochlorine samples were found to be above German AL1, as the UK has no AL2.

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers were a different story with BDE 209, 99, 100 and 85 show levels that are of concern. Once again averages were used to appear to minimise the issue, however as stated “It should be noted that the sampling numbers for each year vary for PBDEs and therefore differences could be due to sampling variation e.g. 2023 had ten samples, 2021 had nine whilst 2024 and 2019 had over 30 samples each which will affect averages and thus results are not directly comparable.” There are far too few samples taken to be able to make a sensible statistical analysis not only of BDEs but all the chemicals as the spatial area of dredging is so large.

Once again dredging is allowed to continue with disposal of this material to sea: “Given the above, levels of PBDEs pose a high risk to the marine environment at some sites. Overall, my opinion is that the levels of BDE209 and BDE99 observed in the 2024 data pose a potentially unacceptable risk to the marine environment. However, the levels for all other BDE congeners and other contaminants analysed do not preclude the material from disposal to sea. Given that the levels of BDE209 and BDE99 appear to be lower or generally consistent with the levels observed in previous years (excluding the BDE99 maximum) and given that the elevated presence of PBDEs in the river Tees that can be traced to historic industrial inputs the material whilst of concern may be allowed for disposal, in this case to Tees Bay A (TY160) disposal site. However, to evidence the impact of the disposal activity with contaminants at these levels it would be prudent to undertake a site-specific monitoring survey to look at impacts in the sediment flora and fauna around the area of the disposal site. I recommend that Tees Bay A (TY160) disposal site and the wider area, is flagged for future monitoring by the MMO.”

L/2015/00427/7 Mid Licence Sediment Sampling Review Resubmission – Condition 5.2.3