North East File Collection - NEFC

Dear PD Ports,

I am writing on behalf of North East Marine Research Group (NEMRG) to seek the following information relating to the Tees Maintenance Dredge Protocol (MDP) Baseline Document (dated May 20, 2025) and to PD Ports Ltd’s maintenance dredging operations.

The MDP acknowledges the use of the Emerald Duchess and Heortnesse but omits technical details on hopper overflow. Please provide the following:

• Request 1.1: “Dredge Logs” for the last 24 months, specifying the exact duration of “overflowing” or “overspilling” for each dredge cycle, categorised by Reach.
• Request 1.2: The technical specifications and operational settings for the “green valves” (turbidity control valves) on both vessels, including the threshold density and hopper loading level at which they are triggered.
• Request 1.3: All internal reports and studies used by PD Teesport to validate the claim of environmental sustainability of the dredging operations, specifically that green valves contribute to environmental sustainability by reducing the mass flux of contaminants, as opposed to merely reducing visual surface turbidity.

The MDP provides plume modelling for the offshore disposal site (Tees Bay A) but contains no equivalent modelling for the inner estuary reaches.

• Request 2.1: Disclose all 3D hydrodynamic or sediment transport modelling held by PD Teesport that specifically simulates the “dynamic plume” and “passive plume” created by TSHD overflow.
• Request 2.2: Provide all data regarding the “Sediment Trap Effect” in the Tees, specifically modelling how fine particles overflowed in the main channel are recirculated by flood-dominant currents into sensitive areas like Seal Sands.

The MDP relies on bulk sediment sampling and Cefas Action Levels designed for offshore disposal rather than known toxicity of contaminants. It fails to account for the fact that hydrophobic contaminants (PAHs, PCBs, PBDEs) adsorb preferentially to the fine particles (<63µm) that are systematically released via overflow.

• Request 3.1: Disclose all chemical analysis held by PD Teesport that was conducted specifically on the overflow water/fine sediment fraction, rather than bulk bed samples.
• Request 3.2: Provide the raw data for the Year 9 (2024) mid-licence sampling, specifically the Total Organic Carbon (TOC) levels used to normalise PBDE concentrations, which the MMO noted as a point of concern.

The Tees Transitional water body is currently failing for PBDEs, mercury, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene.

• Request 4.1: Provide the “WFD Compliance Assessment” specifically for the extraction phase, demonstrating that the remobilisation of these substances through dredging disturbance does not impede the recovery of the water body.
• Request 4.2: Disclose any evidence used to conclude that dredging-induced turbidity does not impact the foraging success of Common Terns over their entire estuarine range, particularly in the silty upper reaches.
• Request 4.3: Records of any Turbidity/Dissolved Oxygen monitoring conducted during the dredging process to ensure compliance with WFD.
• Request 4.3: Formal Record of Decision or Test of Likely Significance regarding Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA.

For the avoidance of doubt, this request pertains specifically to the act of extraction and disturbance of sediment within the harbour limits. We are NOT requesting the Marine Licence or returns for sea disposal (e.g., MLA/2015/00088 and MLA/2025/00263). We are also not seeking information that is properly withheld pursuant to data protection requirements.

Please provide the requested information within 20 working days.

1st May 2026

We write further to your email to PD Teesport Limited (“we”, “us” or “PD Teesport”) dated 3 March 2025 in which you requested various items/categories of information, as follows (your “Request”).

• 1.1 “Dredge Logs” for the last 24 months, specifying the exact duration of “overflowing” or “overspilling” for each dredge cycle, categorised by Reach.
• 1.2 The technical specifications and operational settings for the “green valves” (turbidity control valves) on both vessels, including the threshold density and hopper loading level at which they are triggered.
• 1.3 All internal reports and studies used by PD Teesport to validate the claim of environmental sustainability of the dredging operations, specifically that green valves contribute to environmental sustainability by reducing the mass flux of contaminants, as opposed to merely reducing visual surface turbidity.

• 2.1 Disclose all 3D hydrodynamic or sediment transport modelling held by PD Teesport that specifically simulates the “dynamic plume” and “passive plume” created by TSHD overflow.
• 2.2 Provide all data regarding the “Sediment Trap Effect” in the Tees, specifically modelling how fine particles overflowed in the main channel are recirculated by flood-dominant currents into sensitive areas like Seal Sands.

• 3.1 Disclose all chemical analysis held by PD Teesport that was conducted specifically on the overflow water/fine sediment fraction, rather than bulk bed samples.
• 3.2 Provide the raw data for the Year 9 (2024) mid-licence sampling, specifically the Total Organic Carbon (TOC) levels used to normalise PBDE concentrations, which the MMO noted as a point of concern.

• 4.1 Provide the “WFD Compliance Assessment” specifically for the extraction phase, demonstrating that the remobilisation of these substances through dredging disturbance does not impede the recovery of the water body.
• 4.2 Disclose any evidence used to conclude that dredging-induced turbidity does not impact the foraging success of Common Terns over their entire estuarine range, particularly in the silty upper reaches.
• 4.3 Records of any Turbidity/Dissolved Oxygen monitoring conducted during the dredging process to ensure compliance with WFD.
• 4.3 Formal Record of Decision or Test of Likely Significance regarding Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA.

In our letter to you dated 30 March 2026, we explained that your Request is varied and broad, with requested categories of records spanning lengthy time periods and that this would require searching through many years of records for requested information. On the basis of the volume and complexity involved in responding to your Request, we also confirmed that, as a result and as permitted by EIR, the deadline for responding to your Request was extended to 1 May 2026.

We can now provide our response to your Request and confirm that PD Teesport has undertaken required searches for any relevant records of information it may hold responsive to your Request, in line with its obligations under EIR.

We can confirm that PD Teesport holds some, but not all, of the information responsive to the Request. Some of the information is excepted from disclosure under EIR, further information on this is set out under the “Exceptions” heading below.

PD Teesport does not hold information responsive to this part of your Request, as it does not have log sheets which specify the duration of “overflowing” or “overspilling”. To assist you, we have enclosed an example hard copy of a log sheet for the Emerald Duchess. We can also advise you that PD Teesport holds such log sheets for both the Emerald Duchess and the Heortnesse for the 24 month period requested, but has not provided these as part of this response as they do not specify the duration of “overflowing” or “overspilling” and so do not contain the information you have asked for.

PD Teesport holds information which responds to this part of your Request. However, it considers that it may be subject to the exception to disclosure under Regulation 12(5)(e) EIR. More information is provided under the “Commercial information” heading below.

As above, PD Teesport holds information which responds to this part of your Request. However, it considers that it may be subject to the exception to disclosure under Regulation 12(5)(e) EIR. More information is provided under the “Commercial information” heading below.

PD Teesport does not hold information responsive to this part of your Request.

PD Teesport does not hold information responsive to this part of your Request. To assist you, we confirm that PD Teesport can provide data to show the chart areas that accumulate the most sediment and therefore are dredged the most if this would be of interest. However, we do not hold any information regarding the modelling of fine particles as requested.

PD Teesport does not hold information responsive to this part of your Request.

PD Teesport holds information responsive to this part of your Request and has enclosed relevant documents.

PD Teesport holds information responsive to this part of your Request. The Water Environment Regulations (WER) WFD Compliance Assessment was disclosed to your solicitors Goodenough Ring on 4 February 2026 in response to a previous EIR request and we’d direct you to that response.

PD Teesport holds information responsive to this part of your Request. The MDP has previously been disclosed to you. To further assist you, we can advise that relevant information is also available here - Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI - Defra - Citizen Space.

PD Teesport does not hold information responsive to this part of your Request.

PD Teesport holds information responsive to this part of your Request. The MDP has previously been disclosed to you. The SPA was extended in 2020 to cover foraging terns (amongst other reasons), whilst maintenance dredging and disposal operations were ongoing.

We enclose with this letter copies of the requested information held by us, subject to applicable exceptions, as explained below.

PD Teesport considers some of the documented information considered in relation to your Request falls within the exception from the duty to disclose information under Regulation 12(5)(e) (the “Commercially Sensitive Information”) on the basis that it is commercial information and such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest, namely PD Teesport’s commercial interests, or those of a third party. This is because the information we hold which falls within limbs 1.2 and 1.3 is commercial information that has been provided by a third party and is labelled ‘Confidential & for information purposes only’.

There are four which must be met for the exception to apply, namely:

1. The information is commercial or industrial in nature.
2. Confidentiality is provided by law.
3. The confidentiality is protecting a legitimate economic interest.
4. The confidentiality would be adversely affected by disclosure.

The information is commercial or industrial in nature.

ICO guidance provides explanations of what will be considered information that is “commercial or industrial in nature”, as well as specific examples of commercial and industrial information. The exception applies to information about manufacturing and related industrial processes. The information responsive to limbs 1.2 and 1.3 provides details of regulatory information which we consider falls within the ICO’s examples of commercial information, as well as technical details about a product which we would consider to be industrial information.

Confidentiality is provided by law.

We consider that the information meets the test under the common law of confidence, namely that it has the necessary quality of confidence and that it was shared in circumstances creating an obligation of confidence. However, to assist you we are liaising with the relevant third parties and have asked whether they’d have any concerns about disclosing the relevant information to you and therefore assess whether an actionable claim of confidence could be brought against PD Teesport. We are yet to hear back and will update you as soon as we can.

The confidentiality is protecting a legitimate economic interest.

ICO guidance provides a number of examples of “legitimate economic interests”, including “retaining or improving market position; ensuring competitors do not gain access to commercial valuable information; protecting a commercial bargaining position in the context of existing or future negotiations; avoiding commercially significant reputation damage; and avoiding disclosures which would otherwise result in a loss of revenue or income”.

We believe that our third party providers worked hard to ensure the continuing confidentiality of the information shared with us for the purpose of protecting their commercial interests including retaining its market position and protecting commercial valuable information from competitors and avoiding disclosures that would result in a loss of revenue. This is evident from the fact that when sharing the information with us, they sought to be as clear as possible that it would be necessary to protect such information from wider disclosure. However, as set out above, o assist you, we have consulted the relevant third parties to understand whether they have concerns about the confidentiality of the information shared with us.

The confidentiality would be adversely affected by disclosure.

Disclosure of the information into the public domain will inevitably harm the confidential nature of the information within it, and that would also harm the legitimate economic interests that identified above.

Whilst we consider the information to meet the test for the exception for the reasons set out above, as we have explained, to assist you we are liaising with the relevant third parties to understand whether they’d have any concerns about disclosing the relevant information to you. We will update you once we have a response and will make further disclosures to you, if we are able to do so.

You will note that redactions have been applied to the information that has been disclosed to you. This is because some of the information responsive to your Request was excepted from disclosure under Regulation 13 on the basis that it comprises personal data, disclosure of which would “place PD Teesport in breach of at least one of the principles set out in the data protection laws, namely that “Personal data shall be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject” (Article 5(1)(e) UK GDPR)”.

PD Teesport considered the potential lawful bases available to it for disclosure of the affected personal data to you. The individuals identified in this information have not consented to the disclosure of their personal data in this manner, and so the only potential lawful basis under the data protection laws for making the disclosure would be that the processing is necessary for legitimate interests pursued by PD Teesport or a third party, in making the requested disclosure under EIR (including trying to assist you under EIR and being transparent about PD Teesport’s compliance with its obligations). However, the lawful basis would only apply to the extent that disclosure of the relevant information under EIR would be necessary for the identified legitimate interests, and the legitimate interests in disclosure would not be outweighed by the privacy rights and interests of affected individuals.

Having considered the potential disclosure of affected details to the extent it relates to junior members of staff, external individuals or is non-public information about more senior staff, we concluded that disclosure of those details is not necessary for the legitimate interests identified by PD Teesport.

They would not add to your understanding of the issues mentioned in your Request. Employees also have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their work life and may suffer distress or upset if their details were to be disclosed publicly in response to the Request. As such, disclosure of this information is not necessary for legitimate interests and, in any case, such interests would be outweighed by the harm or distress caused to the relevant individuals due to disclosure of their personal data to you. Therefore, we do not consider that the lawful basis of legitimate interests is available to us and disclosure would accordingly breach the data protection principles, meaning that the exception under Regulation 13 applies.

However, you will see that public function/official related personal data relating to senior members of staff or individuals in public roles at PD Teesport was disclosed wherever possible.

If you have any concerns about this response, or any complaints about the handling of your Request to date, we offer an internal review (complaints) procedure.

If you wish to use our internal review procedure, please contact Richard Ellison at dpo@pdports.co.uk. In the internal review procedure, your Request and our decision will be reviewed by a member of our organisation who had no input in the original decision. We will aim to conclude our internal review process within 20 working days of receiving your complaint. We will inform you if we consider that this timescale is unlikely to be complied with and will inform you of a likely response date.

If you are still not satisfied following this, you can raise a concern with the Information Commission. The contact details are:

Information Commission Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF Tel: 0303 123 1113 Website: http://ico.org.uk

Kind regards

Richard Ellison

1. Dredge logs - 1 supplied for 20th December 2025 - no information on overflowing.
2. Green valve - no information supplied as considered commercially sensitive.
3. Proof of environmental sustainability of dredging operations - no information supplied as considered commercially sensitive.

1. Plume dynamics from overflow - no information held.
2. Sediment trap effect - no information held.

1. Chemical analysis of overflow fraction - no information help.
2. TOC for mid-licence sampling - MMO templates supplied.

1. WFD compliance for extraction phase of dredging - pointed to previous WFD for disposal.
2. Dredging induced turbidity impact on terns etc. - MDP and should look at the Teesmouth and Cleveland SPA, Ramsar Site and SSSI - Defra - Citizen Science. The MDP does not address operational dredging, the SPA link is a consultation underpin by the Tees Estuary Partnership designed to simplify continuing operations on the Tees which was a Memorandum of Understanding which was signed in 2017 (Improving regulation in the Tees Estuary). All these links basically assume that current business as usual is having no environmental effect. Rather than saying is business as usual safe to continue, and certainly bare reexamination after the 2021 crustacean die-offs and the ongoing harbour seal pup mortality.