SUGGESTED COMMENTS FOR EBBERSTON MOOR SOUTH AND PICKERING
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY PERMIT CONSULTATIONS
NOTES
 There are two very similar waste water re-injection permits that have been applied for
by the applicants – one at Ebberston Moor South, in the North York Moors National
Park, and one at Pickering.

There are therefore two separate sections in the guidelines below, one for each
application. Please use or adapt the text for each section, as they are slightly different
in some details.

This application is for the underground permitting of waste water disposal only and
does not concern itself with overground issues like noise, traffic, etc.

Also please note that this is NOT AN APPLICATION TO FRACK so please don’t mention
fracking in your objection as this might mean it is set aside (ie ignored).

Also note that there we believe there is no evidence that this waste water reinjection
well is to be used to secretly dispose of nuclear waste from elsewhere, e.g. nuclear
power stations, as has been suggested on Facebook and elsewhere.
EBBERSTON MOOR SOUTH - YOUR OBJECTION
Please start by including a few brief comments about who you are and your interest in this
application. For example, if you live in Yorkshire, say where you live and how important the North
York Moors National Park is to you and your family.
If you live in Scarborough, Pickering or surrounding areas, you could mention that the Corallian
aquifer provides your drinking water and that no such operation should be allowed that would
place this at any risk. (how would you get drinking water if the aquifer was contaminated?)
If you live somewhere else in the country, you may wish to mention that you visit, have visited, or
are planning to visit the North York Moors National Park, and the importance of National Parks
remaining protected places, rather than places for major developments such as these.
After your introduction you can make some or all of these more technical points. You don’t have
to include them all, so you could pick just three or four sections and include them.
If you have time to put the points into your own words, or change the order, that would be
helpful, but is not essential for your objection to be registered. What is important is that every
objection is different in some way and is therefore classed as an individual objection.
If you want to read the planning documents themselves, then please go to this page:
https://consult.environmentagency.gov.uk/portal/npsapp/thirdenergy/third_energy_uk_gas_limited_1?pointId=3425264
You can make your comments on the above page by clicking on the comments tab above the long
green box. Add an email address and tick ‘confidential’, then add your comments in the comment
box.
SUGGESTED TEXT FOR OBJECTIONS TO EBBERSTON PERMIT
I would like to object to this draft decision to allow a permit for Ebberston South for the
following reasons.
Legality of waste water reinjection
Disposal of waste in or under land is regulated under the Landfill Directive (1999/31). The planning
application proposes that Ebberston Moor South is used for the purposes of disposing of waste
water in land. It is therefore a landfill site, and should be regulated as such. Liquid waste may
therefore not be disposed of at the sites, because this is contrary to the Landfill Directive (Article
5(3)(a)). The produced water is not properly classified as radioactive waste, hence the Landfill
Directive applies.
In other words, The Environment Agency is claiming that the waste water from the process should
be allowed to be re-injected into the Sherwood Sandstone layer because it is radioactive, and
therefore excluded from the Waste Framework Directive. However, if the waste water wasn’t
radioactive, it would not be allowed to be discharged in this way, and would need to be trucked
off-site. Shouldn’t radioactive waste be subject to the same - or higher - standards of management
and disposal than non-radioactive waste?
Also, how is this to be monitored? Is each batch of produced water to be tested to see if it has
enough NORMs in it to be classed as radioactive waste, so can be re-injected, or if not, that it must
be trucked off-site? How often is this to be checked? There is no mention of this process in the
permit and, given that this operation is intended to continue for up to 20 years, this seems a
significant failing in the application.
Legality of the Permit
Re-injection of waste water is only allowed ‘provided that the injection does not contain
substances other than those resulting from the above operations’ – ie ‘the operation for
exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons or mining activities, and injection of water for
technical reasons.’ However, the Applicants intend to inject water that contains two chemical
additives, Coortreat and Glycol, which do not result from ‘operations for extraction of
hydrocarbons’, but are instead added to help transport the hydrocarbons by preventing corrosion
and blocking. It is therefore illegal to re-inject this water, as it does contain substances other than
those resulting from the operations mentioned above. Also, the EA report confirms that the reinjection is a ‘waste disposal activity’, and is therefore not for ‘technical purposes’, again casting
doubt on the legal interpretation of the draft decision.
Lack of independent and frequent monitoring of the site
The over-reliance on self-monitoring by the Applicant of most aspects of the well is extremely
worrying. For example, relating to the re-injection pressure, the draft permit document states that
‘The operator is required to monitor the rate of discharge and report this to us annually.’
Annually? I am shocked that this key factor in the process, ie the re-injection pressure of the
produced water is a) only monitored by the Applicant and b) is only reported to the EA once a
year. One would expect that an EA technician should be compelled to make inspections at least
monthly and monitor the rate of discharge, independent of the operator. There are other
instances where the lack of independent monitoring or regular checks are either absent or
inadequate. I would strongly recommend a much more vigorous inspection regime be undertaken,
and contend that the current self-regulation is insufficient to deal with the issues that might arise
with the re-injection of waste water.
Risk to Groundwater
The Ebberston site is situated in a groundwater protection zone with a major aquifer which
supplies potable water to Scarborough situated above it. By drilling a well between groundwater
and the target strata, Third Energy has created a pathway between the aquifer and the pollutants
in the event of poor well construction, well failure or a seismic event. The Agency cannot allow the
use of this risky technology in such a sensitive area, particularly given its obligations under EU
water legislation (see the Water Framework Directive (2000/60)) to protect groundwater (Article
4) and in particular as regards “protected areas” in Articles 6 and 8 of the Directive.
Lack of piezometric data from the applicant.
The piezometric elevations of groundwater in the Corallian aquifer and the underlying Sherwood
Sandstone aquifer at the site are unknown, and still have not been provided by the applicant.
These are key descriptors of the hydrogeological conditions of the area and they have not been
examined. This means that the likely upward pressures from the Sherwood Sandstone to the
Corallian aquifer are still not known, which means that there may always be an upward pressure
forcing the waste water upwards through any weaknesses in the decommissioned borehole
structure to the overlying drinking water aquifer. The Environment Agency should not grant a
permit when such key elements of the groundwater conditions are unknown. In fact,
Environmental Permitting Regulations state that ‘A permit may not be granted without
examination of the hydrogeological conditions of the area concerned’, which may also make
granting of a permit without this information supplied illegal.
Environmental monitoring and permit conditions
There has been no opportunity for the public to scrutinise the environmental monitoring
proposals, which will be submitted for approval to the EA after the permit is granted. These are a
key factor in guaranteeing the environmental performance of the scheme, and should be open to
public scrutiny and comment before any decision is made.
The borehole and Sherwood Sandstone aquifer are a waste disposal facility. Why is there no
requirement for long term post-closure environmental monitoring as there would be for landfill?
There is currently no requirement for monitoring of radioactivity in groundwater or surface water
environment, or monitoring of groundwater levels in the Corallian aquifer or formation pressure in
the Sherwood Sandstone formation. These seem essential conditions before any permit is
considered.
Seismic risk
There is considerable evidence (eg: from the United States) of the seismic risk posed by reinjection wells. A recent survey by the US Geological Society points to a dramatic increase in
seismic activity across 10 states in the US following uptake of this disposal technique. Given the
proximity of the sites to nearby fault lines, I am concerned about seismic risk in this area,
particularly given proximity to groundwater. We understand that the applicant has increased the
volume of fluid it proposes to dispose of at the site.
Given that re-injection has, we understand, already been practised at a number of other sites in
the local area by Third Energy (whether subject to supervision by the EA or not), we believe that
the EA must refuse the application in this case given the risks.
Rescinding permit for Ebberston A
It is surprising that the permitting you are suggesting for Ebberston Moor South does not include a
Planning Condition requiring the abandonment of the permit for similar waste water injection at
the Applicants’ other site, Ebberston A, where 1,900 m3 is allowed to be re-injected. As the
Applicant has not used this permit and has also not explained to the EA or the North York Moors
Planning Authority why it intends to move its re-injection operation to Ebberston South, it is a
minimum requirement of any permitting that the EA permits for Ebberston A be rescinded as a
planning condition.
Borehole decommissioning
There appears to be no requirement for ongoing monitoring or aftercare of the boreholes when
they are decommissioned. The Landfill Directive states that the operator should be responsible for
the maintenance, monitoring and control of the borehole ‘for as long as may be required by the
competent authority’. As this would be in the very sensitive setting – ie a National Park – this lack
of aftercare seems to be a serious omission.
Cumulative impacts
We understand that Third Energy has disposed of produced water through re-injection into the
KAF strata at a number of other sites in the local area, although it is not clear how if at all these
sites have been regulated by the EA. It appears that the EA have not undertaken any independent
work analysing the potential cumulative impacts from these sites – as opposed to merely
accepting the Applicants’ own analysis of this risk – in the draft decision and cannot lawfully grant
the permits until it has done so.
National Park
The EA will be aware that the site is situated within the North Yorkshire Moors National Park.
Whilst this may be an issue of concern principally for the National Park Authority, it is not
apparent that the EA has taken this into account at all. The National Park status protects both the
scenic beauty and sensitive ecology of the designated area. It is not clear how the EA seeks to
square these facts with the proposal to undertake this harmful technique in this locality which
poses risks to groundwater and therefore to the surface.
Precedent
We are concerned that by granting permits in this case, the EA will set a precedent which will
green light the use of this risky and harmful technology across the country. The EA must have
proper regard to the implications of setting such a precedent, particularly in this wholly
inappropriate setting.
Precautionary approach
EU environmental law requires organisations such as the EA to adopt a precautionary approach
(see Article 191 TFEU). In this particular case, proximity to groundwater means that precaution is
explicitly required through the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive. It is not clear
how the EA seeks to square the proposal to dispose of pollutants below a major aquifer supply
potable water to a large urban area with this principle, as set out in the Directive.
Bearing in mind the above points, I would therefore like you to reconsider your decision and
refuse these permits.
Just a reminder that you should make your comments on the link below, by clicking on the
comments tab above the long green box. Add an email address and tick ‘confidential’, then add
your comments in the comment box.
https://consult.environmentagency.gov.uk/portal/npsapp/thirdenergy/third_energy_uk_gas_limited_1?pointId=3425264
THANKS A LOT – YOU HAVEN’T FINISHED YET, THOUGH – PLEASE SCROLL DOWN AND DO THE
SAME FOR THE PICKERING PERMIT!!
PICKERING - YOUR OBJECTION
Again, start by including a few brief comments about who you are and your interest in this
application. For example, if you live in Pickering or surrounding areas, you could mention that the
Corallian aquifer provides your drinking water and that no such operation should be allowed that
would place this at any risk.
As with the Ebberston objection, you can make some or all of these more technical points. You
don’t have to include them all, so you could pick just three or four sections and include them.
Please note that some of these are different in detail to the Ebberston points above, so please
make sure you use the correct sections.
You should make your comments on this page, by clicking on the comments tab above the long
green box. Add an email address and tick ‘confidential’, then add your comments in the comment
box.
https://consult.environmentagency.gov.uk/portal/npsapp/thirdenergy_1/third_energy_uk_gas_limited_1?pointId=143211979
3365#section-1432119793365
If you want to read the planning documents themselves, they are in the bottom green box on the
above page.
Comments for Pickering application follow below.
SUGGESTED TEXT FOR OBJECTIONS TO EBBERSTON PERMIT
I would like to object to this draft decision to allow a permit for Pickering Well-site for the
following reasons.
Legality of waste water reinjection
Disposal of waste in or under land is regulated under the Landfill Directive (1999/31). The planning
application proposes that Ebberston Moor South is used for the purposes of disposing of waste
water in land. It is therefore a landfill site, and should be regulated as such. Liquid waste may
therefore not be disposed of at the sites, because this is contrary to the Landfill Directive (Article
5(3)(a)). The produced water is not properly classified as radioactive waste, hence the Landfill
Directive applies.
In other words, The Environment Agency is claiming that the waste water from the process should
be allowed to be re-injected into the Sherwood Sandstone layer because it is radioactive, and
therefore excluded from the Waste Framework Directive. However, if the waste water wasn’t
radioactive, it would not be allowed to be discharged in this way, and would need to be trucked
off-site. Shouldn’t radioactive waste be subject to the same - or higher - standards of management
and disposal than non-radioactive waste?
Also, how is this to be monitored? Is each batch of produced water to be tested to see if it has
enough NORMs in it to be classed as radioactive waste, so can be re-injected, or if not, that it must
be trucked off-site? How often is this to be checked? There is no mention of this process in the
permit and, given that this operation is intended to continue for up to 20 years, this seems a
significant failing in the application.
Legality of the Permit
Re-injection of waste water is only allowed ‘provided that the injection does not contain
substances other than those resulting from the above operations’ – ie ‘the operation for
exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons or mining activities, and injection of water for
technical reasons.’ However, the Applicants intend to inject water that contains two chemical
additives, Coortreat and Glycol, which do not result from ‘operations for extraction of
hydrocarbons’, but are instead added to help transport the hydrocarbons by preventing corrosion
and blocking. It is therefore illegal to re-inject this water, as it contains substances other than
those resulting from the operations mentioned above. Also, the EA report confirms that the reinjection is a ‘waste disposal activity’, and is therefore not for ‘technical purposes’, again casting
doubt on the legal interpretation of the draft decision.
Lack of independent and frequent monitoring of the site
The over-reliance on self-monitoring by the Applicant of most aspects of the well is extremely
worrying. For example, relating to the re-injection pressure, the draft permit document states that
‘The operator is required to monitor the rate of discharge and report this to us annually.’
Annually? I am shocked that this key factor in the process, ie the re-injection pressure of the
produced water is a) only monitored by the Applicant and b) is only reported to the EA once a
year. One would expect that an EA technician should be compelled to make inspections at least
monthly and monitor the rate of discharge, independent of the operator. There are other
instances where the lack of independent monitoring or regular checks are either absent or
inadequate. I would strongly recommend a much more vigorous inspection regime be undertaken,
and contend that the current self-regulation is insufficient to deal with the issues that might arise
with the re-injection of waste water.
Risk to Groundwater
The Pickering site is situated above a major aquifer which supplies potable water to Scarborough
situated above it. By drilling a well between groundwater and the target strata, Third Energy has
created a pathway between the aquifer and the pollutants in the event of poor well construction,
well failure or a seismic event. The Agency cannot allow the use of this risky technology in such a
sensitive area, particularly given its obligations under EU water legislation (see the Water
Framework Directive (2000/60)) to protect groundwater (Article 4) and in particular as regards
“protected areas” in Articles 6 and 8 of the Directive.
Environmental monitoring and permit conditions
There has been no opportunity for the public to scrutinise the environmental monitoring
proposals, which will be submitted for approval to the EA after the permit is granted. These are a
key factor in guaranteeing the environmental performance of the scheme, and should be open to
public scrutiny and comment before any decision is made.
The borehole and Sherwood Sandstone aquifer are a waste disposal facility. Why therefore is
there no requirement for long term post-closure environmental monitoring as there would be for
landfill?
There is currently no requirement for monitoring of radioactivity in groundwater or surface water
environment, or monitoring of groundwater levels in the Corallian aquifer or formation pressure in
the Sherwood Sandstone formation. These seem essential conditions before any permit is
considered.
Seismic risk
There is considerable evidence (eg: from the United States) of the seismic risk posed by reinjection wells. A recent survey by the US Geological Society points to a dramatic increase in
seismic activity across 10 states in the US following uptake of this disposal technique. Given the
proximity of the sites to nearby fault lines, I am concerned about seismic risk in this area,
particularly given proximity to groundwater.
Given that re-injection has, we understand, already been practised at a number of other sites in
the local area by Third Energy (whether subject to supervision by the EA or not), we believe that
the EA must refuse the application in this case given the risks.
Borehole decommissioning
There appears to be no requirement for ongoing monitoring or aftercare of the boreholes when
they are decommissioned. The Landfill Directive states that the operator should be responsible for
the maintenance, monitoring and control of the borehole ‘for as long as may be required by the
competent authority’
Cumulative impacts
We understand that Third Energy has disposed of produced water through re-injection into the
KAF strata at a number of other sites in the local area, although it is not clear how if at all these
sites have been regulated by the EA. It appears that the EA have not undertaken any independent
work analysing the potential cumulative impacts from these sites – as opposed to merely
accepting the Applicants’ own analysis of this risk – in the draft decision and cannot lawfully grant
the permits until it has done so.
Precedent
We are concerned that by granting permits in this case, the EA will set a precedent which will
green light the use of this risky and harmful technology across the country. The EA must have
proper regard to the implications of setting such a precedent in this wholly inappropriate setting.
Precautionary approach
EU environmental law requires organisations such as the EA to adopt a precautionary approach
(see Article 191 TFEU). In this particular case, proximity to groundwater means that precaution is
explicitly required through the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive. It is not clear
how the EA seeks to square the proposal to dispose of pollutants below a major aquifer supply
potable water to a large urban area with this principle, as set out in the Directive.
Bearing in mind the above points, I would therefore like you to reconsider your decision and
refuse the permits requested at the Pickering Well-site.
Just a reminder that you should make your comments on this page, by clicking on the comments
tab above the long green box. Add an email address and tick ‘confidential’, then add your
comments in the comment box.
https://consult.environmentagency.gov.uk/portal/npsapp/thirdenergy_1/third_energy_uk_gas_limited_1?pointId=143211979
3365#section-1432119793365
AND YOU’RE DONE!
Note that there will be some guidance on the KM8 Environment Agency application up by the
weekend.
Thank you for all you do!
Frack Free Ryedale