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