Archaeology celebrated in Senedd - ignoring destruction of major site at Five Mile Lane

A Short debate 5^th December in the Senedd on The Neolithic in the Story of Wales: Valuing the achievements of prehistory (NDM6891) was led by David Melding, AM for South Wales Central.  neolithic = later Stone Age ranging from around 4,500BC to 1,700BC.  David Melding began:

“I want to start with Tinkinswood in the Vale of Glamorgan. It is one of my favourite places. I’ve walked there and spent time there, read poetry there, discussed eruditely, I hope, with some Members in this Chamber, indeed, whilst pondering and looking at that monument. It does remind me, anyway, of the amazing achievements of our ancestors in prehistory. I believe it is really important that we respect and celebrate these achievements.”

https://seneddhome.com/2018/12/david-melding-rocks-senedd-back-to-the-stone-age

So how no mention of the Five-Mile-Lane site, a few km from Tinkinswood, which all authorities including CADW and the GlamGwent Archaeological Trust allowed to be bulldozed this year, despite initial investigations showing a wealth of structures and burial sites? 

The commissioned archaeologists and GGAT got their fees and kept findings quiet till late on, so the WG-bulldozers could complete their work and the VoG Council could claim "too late" to change the new roadway plans.   https://jacothenorth.net/blog/tag/five-mile-lane/

How could the Senedd debate the general matter without recognising the crime on their watch?

Archaeology major discovery and destruction of remains
video  https://youtu.be/o2CRUv8eexc    Narrator: Karl-James Langford
Facebook site:   Barry destroyed heritage at Five Mile Lane
http://www.barryanddistrictnews.co.uk/news/16163151.Ancient_artifacts_from_3500BC_discovered_at_Five_Mile_Lane/

A wide range of very significant evidence for the archaeology and history of the area from early prehistory (3500BC) through to the Roman period (1st to 4th centuries AD). Finds include:
• Prehistoric Bronze Age barrows (burial mounds) and cremations
• Prehistoric Iron Age settlement enclosure with roundhouses and field system
• Roman metalworking site - Iron smelting and smithing
• Roman villa previously excavated in the 1960s and 1970s

FoE lobbies Jane Hutt AM over the M4 mega-roadbuild

Our deputation saw the Vale AM, Jane Hutt, at her recent surgery to press opposition to the M4 'relief' road through the Gwent Levels.

# it's a very high cost, displacing other very worthwhile projects; the £1500 million is just a starting figure, to be increased by 3-years inflation, adding on VAT to over £1700million plus cost over-runs (50% common on major road projects).  Jane agreed from her time as Finance Minister that Wales cannot reclaim the VAT.
# 'Active travel ' measures were hardly considered at the Inquiry, yet Bus and Metro enhancements all show much higher benefit:cost ratio.  The Inquiry Inspector just narrowly followed the Westminster (and Welsh) planning rules and accepted the flawed modelling of car use and cost-saving
# Removal of the Severn Bridge tolls will increase traffic with the environmental costs in air pollution and extra CO2 emissions; the Welsh Government has an obligation to combat these - the High Court requires soonest possible action - so must introduce measures to restrict and deter car use, which would have to reduce existing traffic levels.
# The Future Generation Act requires projects like the M4 to show environmental gain as well as economic gain.  This project's environmental disbenefit makes it unlawful, as the FG Commissioner argues.
# the Welsh Assembly has to consider the aspects ignored by the Inquiry so should insist on referring the project to a full scrutiny process - to cover the wider active travel measures, the inadequacies of government modelling and the FG Act - rather than rush to decision as Carwyn Jones wants before he quits as First Minister pre-Xmas.

Keith Stockdale said for FoE Barry&Vale that Jane Hutt seemed most positive to our arguments; she stressed she's opposed to the Pendoylan link to the M4.  We would encourage others to write and/or lobby her in the next week or so over the Newport M4 decision.

Swansea Tidal Lagoon - huge penalties for El-consumers

Utility Week and Private Eye (2 Nov) have reported on huge demands for subsidy that the Welsh government wanted to keep hidden (FoI refusal). 

The BEIS Department has lifted non-disclosure agreements on several documents and disclosed key points of TLP’s request for financial support from the Welsh government.The company requested £200 million loan funding from Welsh government at a two per cent interest rate and up to £261.1 million in annual equity down payments over 35 years.In return, TLP offered the Welsh government 90 per cent ownership of the lagoon at the end of the 35-year project’s proposed contract for difference when it would still owe up to £822.3 million worth of outstanding debt.The Welsh government would have also taken on the costs of maintenance and turbine replacement after about 50 years of operation as well as any decommissioning liabilities.

The government earlier released a summary of their value-for-money assessment that makes the following points:

• The proposed tidal lagoon at Swansea Bay would have a capital cost more than 3 times as much, per unit of electricity, as the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station.
• It would cost only around £400m to use offshore wind instead to generate the same power as the proposed £1.3bn lagoon at Swansea Bay.
• The entire proposed programme of tidal lagoons – consisting of 6 lagoons – would cost approximately 2 and a half times the cost of Hinkley, to produce around the same amount of electricity.
• Enough offshore wind to provide the same generation as the proposed programme of lagoons is estimated to cost at least £31.5bn less to build.
• The entire proposed programme of tidal lagoons could cost up to £20 billion more to produce the same quantity of electricity compared to generating that same electricity through a mix of offshore wind and nuclear.
• The proposed programme of tidal lagoons could cost the average household consumer up to an additional £700 between 2031 and 2050.
• The additional cost of this proposal on household bills is the same as every household in Wales paying £15,000.

The £1.3 billion Swansea Bay project, which TLP said would generate 572GW of electricity per annum, was intended as the first of a series that would harness tidal power around the Welsh coast, the second to be the Cardiff lagoon.

In a letter to the House of Commons’ Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and Welsh Affairs select committee from Claire Perry, the energy and clean growth minister writes that government estimates of the programme’s economic benefits worked out at between £0.4 billion and £1.2 billion.“Even at the higher end of this range, the estimated wider benefits were less than the most optimistic impact of TLP’s lagoon programme on the costs of the electricity system – a cost of £2 billion to 2050.”Perry adds that the cost of electricity generated by the lagoon would be “more expensive” than alternative  low carbon sources.

The letter also outlined the key points of TLP’s request for financial support from the Welsh government as cited above - a request given support by Carwyn Jones on political grounds - an unquantified hope that it would benefit the Welsh economy.

Note that tidal power would have a high cost on the electricity system, due to the need to fill in the gaps of zero or low generation.  This is higher than the balancing costs for offshore wind power, so tidal lagoons come out even more expensive. The likely unacceptable environmental impacts of the Cardiff, Newport and Bridgewater Bay lagoons come on top of this poor system performance. Tidal stream turbines were not assessed, but are already promising much better prospects in Scotland.

Friends of the Earth (EWNI) were supportive of the Swansea Lagoon, as a trail-finder project for tidal power, but did not appreciate how hugely costly this initial project and potential follow-up projects have turned out.  The above histogram comes from work for the National Infrastructure Commission, to inform their judgment that tidal lagoons are an over-costly generation system. Strong supporter of renewables, Prof. Dave Elliott, has also written very critically of the cost, citing Ecotricity’s Dale Vince  (Facebook post June 1st):

 “The Swansea project is twice as expensive as tidal lagoons need to be, even for the first of a kind. There are alternative approaches and locations that would be far better value for money – if tidal lagoons are going to get government support (and I hope they do) – then it should be done through a proper competitive tender process – to make sure it’s value for money. The Swansea scheme would be an absurd waste of money, given the alternatives that exist. And it would tarnish the whole renewable energy industry. Currently Hinkley is the go-to project (to cite) for ridiculous costs – it can and should remain so.”

The question remains - how could the Welsh Government offer £200million to a project with such poor economic assessments?

Hinkley Mud letter of Mark Drakeford “seriously wrong”

How wrong can the Minister be when he claims to have “followed carefully the scientific evidence” and regards it “as an important and serious matter” ?

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 10:56, Drakeford, Mark (Aelod Cynulliad | Assembly Member) <Mark.Drakeford@assembly.wales> wrote:

Thank you for writing to raise your concerns with me. I can assure you that I regard this as an important and serious matter.

We have followed carefully the scientific evidence and the testing regime employed by Natural Resources Wales. While I understand that there will be differing views, there is no doubt that the results of the studies undertaken conclude that down to a depth of 4.7m no radioactive material can be found [1]. Furthermore, tests developed by the Atomic Energy Agency, have been conducted within the estuary have found that the level of radiation was well below the recommended level [2]. Moreover, Natural Resources for Wales concluded that the material tested did not have unacceptable levels of radiation and that the material was suitable to be disposed at sea [3].

You will be aware that this matter is now concluded, as the mud has been moved.

More broadly, within the Welsh Labour leadership campaign, I have made a commitment that if I were to be in the position of First Minister that we should establish an independent expert committee to provide advice on all matters which pertain to the proposed development at Hinckley Point.

----------------------------------------------------

Scientific Notes - errors in each sentence

[1] down to a depth of 4.7m no radioactive material can be found

Three of the five borehole samples had elevated radioactive Uranium and Radium at 2 to 4metres, but not elevated in the two boreholes deeper than 4.3m. All five borehole samples show Uranium and Radium.  The bulk of extracted matter is between 1 and 4m; there are too few samples of this material under international protocols (minimum of 7-15 under OSPAR).  Parts of the sediment could contain much higher levels of nuclear contamination.

Table B.15  Uranium-238 and Radium-226 concentrations for Vibro core samples.

FUGRO survey of five locations in vicinity of intake, outfall and jetty, on 9/11 and 15/11 2009

Sample              U: surface/deep       Ra: surface/deep        depth           Date

1230/1231        48.73 / 46.13        25.25 / 27.65      4.35-4.42m      9/11

1232/1233        43.98 / 71.23        24.46 / 71.25      3.0-3.08m         9/11

1234/1235        39.46 / 41.25        22.43 / 30.30      4.7-4.8m         15/11

1236/1237        30.83 / 50.9          15.56 / 29.10     1.94-2.16m      15/11

1238/1239        50.65 / 68.56        25.29 / 73.57       3.0-4.12m       15/11

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uranium is naturally occurring and produces radium in its decay chain. So the results do not prove they come from the Hinkley nuclear plant, but other points do:

# There are several times more U-235 relative to U-238 than in natural Uranium

# The surface Ra:U is close to 0.5 (normal), the deep Ra:U is nearer 1 and variable, indicating mixing of a source with higher Ra.

# Americium (Am-241) is detected (Figure from Cefas) and Europium-155 (Eu-155) both indicate leakage of used reactor fuel (Green Audit, Jan. 2018).  Am-241 is an indicator of Plutonium which the nuclear reactor was designed to produce.

[2] level of radiation was well below the recommended level.

No, there are no recommended levels; all levels cause harm according to ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection).  Calculated levels in the graph are quite close to their limit of 10μSv/a.  If the average U is twice that in surface mud – as compatible with the few measurements and with higher past leakages – then the total is close to 10μSv/a, not “well below”.

Figure from CEFAS Tech.Report TR444, 2017 on the NRW website http://www.naturalresources.wales/CardiffGroundsSedimentDisposal

[3] NRW concluded “the material was suitable to be disposed at sea”. 

The 10μSv in the first line in the Table below is close to being exceeded, while the “collective” public dose (line 2) was calculated quite wrongly – it assumed the discharge was into the Irish sea, affecting beach users and sea-food consumers around Morecambe Bay.  The last 3 lines in the Table, impact on marine organisms, were not assessed at all. (The CEFAS ‘experts’ used the outdated 2003 protocol that does not have the bio-tests of the 2015 protocol.)  

   So NRW could conclude nothing about ‘suitability’ for sea dumping on 'de minimis' tests.  

Moreover, toxic metals and PCBs were found to be over Action Level-1 and no detailed assessment was carried out as required under OSPAR, prior to deciding on ‘suitable’ for dumping in the Severn Estuary sea.

Hinkley mud-dumping Pause - Halt it fully!

EdF announced on Friday (Oct.12th) the end of current "work to dredge and deposit mud", amounting to 110 000tonnes.
Yet the license gave them permission to also excavate and dump base clays, estimated at 40% of the total.
One reason they stopped short is that we rumbled NRW's bending of the rules:  dumping solid clays is forbidden under international OSPAR rules Guidelines for the Management of Dredged Material at Sea 2014, which

require permit conditions (10.3) designed to ensure that “solid waste contained within the dredged material should be separated and managed on land”  (see NRW excuses) 

The second reason for stopping short is that their equipment found estuary clays difficult to handle.
  # the bottom-opening barge Sloeber found the clay was sticking, not dropping out easily
  # the giant dredger Peter-the-Great is inefficient in scraping up clay.

Peter-the-Great is a back-hoe dredger with bucket of 11m³, reaching 18.20 m dredging depth 

Clay material remained stuck in the bottom opening barges Pagadder and Sloeber
(overheard on the ship's radio)

Someone boobed in assuming the dredger-system could handle the sticky base-clays.

The barges and dredger come at high cost, £118 000 per day EdF claimed in Court, so they put a brave face on it and cut things short.  The Sloeber, Pagadder and Peter-the-Great have been sent back to work on the major shipping lanes in the Baltic and continental ports. Peter-the-Great was still in Barry Port on Sunday morning, waiting for the stormy weather to pass.

The anti-dumping movement now has a new opportunity, we in FoE believe, to re-start Court action to suspend the dumping license on grounds on no EIA - ie. the obligatory Environmental Impact Assessment. EdF can no longer threaten Cian Ciaran or other public-interest challenger with huge costs from suspending the license.

Senedd debate turns Hinkley Mud-dumping into Political Issue

People from as far as Swansea and Llandrindod joined local protesters in the rally outside the Senedd for the Hinkley mud debate.

Though the Assembly is supposed to hold the Welsh Government to account, the debate was largely political point-scoring rather than challenging set positions.

Not one of the AMs was ready to say NRW were lying in saying the chemical and radiological results from samples taken of the mud were within “acceptable, safe limits”. The published CEFAS data show toxic metals and PCBs above the Action Level-1. That's only "acceptable, safe" if they do a detailed assessment of effects on the wildlife-ecology; neither NRW or Cefas did one.

No AM answered claims of frequent sampling in 2009, 2012 and 2017 – that the number of core samples (5 in 2009 only) was below the minimum prescribed by international rules (7-15), so parts of the mud with high pollution expected from buried drums or leaks from the nuclear plant could well have been missed.

McEvoy (South Wales Central) and other AMs railed against dumping English waste in Welsh seas, but none of them mentioned the ban on dumping waste at sea at all – Jenny Rathbone (Cardiff Central) even said Cardiff Grounds is the place for dumping construction waste.  That ban (London convention) exempts dredging from shipping lanes, but excludes dumping of clays that make up 40% of the Hinkley dredgings.

The Minister came up with a claim that we, the Welsh people, had been “consulted” over the license in 2012.  So did anyone notice - did the local AMs inform us all? Where was the full information?  They now claim the Marine Consents Unit made a decision in 2012 that no EIA was needed – how strange to introduce this so late, when there’s a legal requirement to publish the decision and associated documents.  The Minister’s statement of Oct. 2017 just said “took into account the overall EIA for the Hinkley Point C project”.  That was insufficient for the company's defence at the Cardiff High Court when they conceded doing no EIA ten days ago.

Labour politicians pontificated about ‘we must be bound by the experts’, opposition politicians that we must respect the public.  Since the debate in May, the voting indicates David Melding and David Rowlands have moved against the mud dumping, while Jane Hutt, Julie Morgan and Mike Hedges moved to support it – resulting in a fully political split in voting, a deficit of independent thinkers prepared to read the facts. 

Senedd motions 10th Oct. omit crucial High Court finding

The Motions and Amendments to the Assembly omit the crucial result from the High Court hearings

· the developer NNB Genco stated the Hinkley EIA covered the dumping part of the project; the High Court case proved this untrue, so there is no EIA covering the effects of the dumping in Welsh waters. 

· NRW changed to saying EIA "not required"  (letter to FoE 29 Aug); this is also false.  EIA is always required for 'works' in a Special Area of Conservation. 

· Cefas did some study to contribute to a proper developer-funded EIA, but no full and formal document was produced and no consultation in Wales, as EIA Regs require.  

Amendment 1.   'green' lawyer Julie James is wrong:

· the 'experts' she cites (Cefas) used outdated (2003) version of the IAEA regs she refers to, not the 2015 current version (admitted in NRW 29 Aug reply to FoE)

· significant difference of the 2015 version is that it includes impacts on bio-species in the determination of "de minimis"

· Cefas didn't do this (admitted in NRW 29 Aug reply to FoE) so did not establish 'de minimis' required for dumping at sea.

JJ’s general argument is wrong - 'de minimis' does not permit dumping.  It’s a necessary criterion but not sufficient, covering only radiological effects.  

The Cefas tests found toxic metals and PCBs are significant, above Action Level-1, so international OSPAR rules say detailed assessment of the bio-toxic impacts is needed.
· Cefas did not carry out the required "detailed assessment" of impacts of the chemicals on marine organisms, contrary to NRW's excuse

· Other relevant UK legislation has to be met, including EIA Regulations and Habitat-species Regulations    

Amendment 2 of McEvoy can't get through as it's not NRW's job (or competence) to carry out an EIA; their job under the Regs. is to require an EIA before deciding on a license.

It is the Welsh Government duty to revoke the permit, in this case where the NRW breached EIA law through awarding the license.
If the Amendment had noted the High Court decision that there has been no EIA of the dumping in Welsh waters and asked the Welsh Government to reconsider this apparent breach of EIA law, it could not have ruled out-or-order once Amendment 1 was passed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion  NNDM6813 - Disposal of dredged materials from the Bristol Channel (60 mins) 

Rhun ap Iorwerth (Ynys Môn) Darren Millar (Clwyd West)

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the widespread public concerns in relation to the disposal of dredged materials from the Bristol Channel to locations off the coast of south Wales, relating to the construction of a new power station at Hinkley.

 2. Calls upon the Welsh Government to:

a) publish more detailed evidence in response to concerns regarding risks to public health and the environment, including allowing for further testing in order to provide greater transparency; and

b) instruct Natural Resources Wales to suspend the marine licence that enables the disposal activity and undertake a wide-ranging programme of engagement and consultation with local communities and stakeholders across south Wales.

The following amendments have been tabled: 

Amendment 1 - Julie James (Swansea West) 

Delete all after point 1 and replace with: 2. Notes:

a) under the terms of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (the London Convention, 1972), to which the UK is a signatory, only materials with de minimis levels of radioactivity may be considered for disposal to sea;

b) the conservative generic radiological assessment, developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, is the internationally agreed method for testing for de minimis levels of radioactivity and this method was used in the determination of the Hinkley marine licence;

c) the evidence within the National Assembly Petitions Committee report that Natural Resources Wales made its marine licence determination based on expert advice, in accordance with the International Atomic Energy Agency procedures for radiological assessments;

d) all tests and assessments concluded the sediment to be disposed of is within safe limits, poses no radiological risk to human health or the environment, and is safe and suitable to be disposed of at sea.

3. Calls on the Welsh Government to instruct Natural Resources Wales to carry out further public engagement to explain the process and evidence to reassure the public. 

· Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (the London Convention, 1972) 

· Petitions Committee Report

[If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be de-selected] 

Amendment 2 - Neil McEvoy (South Wales Central) 

In point 2, add as new sub-points: take into account the information provided by Emeritus Professor Keith Barnham regarding cooling pond accidents at Hinkley Point A in the 1960s;

 and instruct Natural Resources Wales to carry out a full environmental impact assessment on the effect on the Welsh coast, the coastal population and Welsh marine environment of the dumping of sediment from Hinkley in the Cardiff Grounds. 

· Professor Keith Barnham, 'New evidence of the need to test Hinkley Point sediments for Uranium and Plutonium' - copy placed in the Members' Library

Let Penarth Town Council voice opposition to Hinkley mud dumping

Friends of the Earth Barry&Vale, Penarth section    

Let Penarth Town Council voice local opposition !                5^th October 2018

Okay that Penarth Labour is now ready to say** the dumping should be stopped, but why play party politics – when the Tory-Plaid motion (below) at the Senedd next Wednesday already says this?

The issue is that the Town Council as a whole – across the parties – should have been allowed to voice the concerns of Penarth people. We are the closest to the dumping and arguably the most strongly affected by the contaminated mud.

It’s six months late to echo the call from the Petitions Committee for further testing of the mud.  Why not proceed from the finding from the High Court that there has been no EIA and therefore demand an EIA including the essential  consultation with the community?

Penarth people deserve a fully-informed debate and cross-party agreement to push the Welsh Government to suspend or revoke the dumping license forthwith.  

-------------  Contact our AMs – email direct or via www.writetothem.com/  ---------

….. Vaughan Gething, Jane Hutt, Andrew RT Davies, David Melding , Gareth Bennett, Neil McEvoy

Tell them to include the key reason from the High Court - no EIA – making the license unlawful.
-------------  Rally pre-debate at the Senedd, from 4pm on Wednesday 10th ---------

=============================================================

** Penarth Labour Party plus Councillors (Town + Vale) statement  5th October 2018

Penarth Labour recognise the strong public concern and strength of feeling by Penarth residents over the safety of the sediment being dredged and transported from Hinkley Nuclear power station, which is being dumped at Cardiff grounds, just off Penarth Beach in the Severn Estuary.
Echoing the motion put forward by Penarth Labour Party in September that condemned the mud transferral until further tests are carried out, we ask the Welsh Government to halt this work, to allow for full independent assessment by a recognised international body. The full assessment results should clarify and inform a clear statement, then be the subject of an engagement and consultation exercise with local communities and stakeholders. Only after this process should a decision regarding moving of the sediment be made.

Therefore we welcome the debate at the Senedd on October 10th and we urge anyone with concerns to write to your Assembly Members and encourage them to vote to stop the dredging and seek more information.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Senedd Debate in Plenary session on Wed 10 Oct.

Motion sponsored by the Conservative and Plaid groups:

that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the widespread public concerns in relation to the disposal of dredged materials from the Bristol Channel to locations off the coast of south Wales, relating to the construction of a new power station at Hinkley.

2. Calls upon the Welsh Government to:

a) publish more detailed evidence in response to concerns regarding risks to public health and the environment, including allowing for further testing in order to provide greater transparency; and

b) instruct Natural Resources Wales to suspend the marine licence that enables the disposal activity and undertake a wide-ranging programme of engagement and consultation with local communities and stakeholders across south Wales

HIGH COURT Hearing 2nd October is OFF

Discontinuance of the Action has been agreed.
The company has admitted in court documents that there was no EIA, contrary to their assertion and the law.
An injunction could have cost us £118 000 per day.
There is to be a debate in Senedd next week, 10 October, to pressurise the Welsh Government to act.
Under EIA-law, the license is unlawful and the Welsh Government has to revoke it.

EdF's company NNB-Genco promised in Court they would provide documents to show their claim that the major EIA for the Hinkley Point nuclear station also covered the dumping at the Cardiff Grounds dump site.
We analysed their documents and showed they were wrong - the EIA and the associated HRA (Habitats Regs. Assessment) both excluded the dumping operations in Welsh Waters.

Natural Resources Wales already admitted this in their letter to FoE of 29th August.  So NNB Genco have just caught up.  NRW's excuse since 29th August is that EIA is not required.  They are wrong.  Their own regulations say an EIA is always need for works within marine nature conservation sites like the Severn Estuary SAC.  So they need to back-pedal a lot further before teh 10th October debate in the Senedd.

Also, it's the Welsh Government duty to revoke the license and risk Genco's costs of £118 000 per day!

Gales stop Hinkley dumping plans

Gales intervene to stop Hinkley dredging plans today and probably tomorrow (18-19 Sept) .
The hopper boats Sloeber and Pagadder have to moor alongside the dredger as depicted.  The giant dredger picks up 5 tons from the seabed each gulp.  It's not safe in today's high winds, so all the boats stayed in Barry Dock this morning.

https://penarthnews.wordpress.com/2018/09/18/storm-helene-steps-in-to-stop-nuclear-mud-dumping-off-penarth/

The dredging works are firstly to create a berthing 'pocket' and access for ships docking at the new temporary jetty at Hinkley; secondly to clear huge areas around drilling sites for intake and outfall pipes for power station cooling water (7-metre diameter pipes).

The two licenses issued by the English Marine Management  Organisation (MMO) are

L/2012/00245   This does not licence the disposal of the dredgings but says: 3.2.1 Materials arising from the capital dredge of the berthing pocket of the jetty shall be deposited at Cardiff Grounds.

L/2013/00178  All dredgings, predicted up to 200 000m³ are to be disposed in Severn Estuary SAC under Condition 5.2.24:  Reason: to maintain the sediment budget of the area.

The second license description says only:  It is proposed that the dredged material will be disposed of at the Cardiff Grounds licensed disposal site and consent for this aspect will be requested from the Welsh Government

It also allows for "drilling arisings" which are to be disposed of in defined sites in the cleared area, to be deposited carefully by pipe, to minimise the pollution plume (total under 1200m³ ).

The tunnels for the pipes to the shore are to be bored from on-shore.  The "arisings" from the total 9.5 km tunnels will be disposed of on-site or to landfill.  The dredgings could similarly go on-site for landscaping bunds or infill.  Why not?

a) it's physically simpler and cheaper to dump in the estuaryb) they fear finding nuclear matter within the dredgings (unlike the tunnel borings in very old deposits).

They would have to test more carefully for reusing the dredgings on land (only 5 samples taken from depth in the 200 000m³ ), would have to isolate significant nuclear contaminants, and dispose of them at high cost.  Simpler to dump in our sea.

High Court injunction to stop Hinkley mud

Demonstration just before the hearing at the Cardiff High Court
The claimant Cian Ciaran next to Neil McEvoy AM right of centre

The application for an Injunction opened today MONDAY 17th SEPT at the High Court in Cardiff

Protesters are optimistic.  The judge gave an adjournment for 7 days to NNB GenCo (EdF) whose lawyer changed their defence to claim the EIA for the new Hinkley Point Nuclear Power station covers dumping in Welsh waters.  The judge gave them 7 days to show that from the 2000-page EIA covering the development in England.

Barry&Vale FoE think NNB GenCo on a loser. Natural Resources Wales has accepted that the Hinkley Point EIA does not cover dumping in the Welsh part of the Severn Estuary, where EIA is mandatory due to its Special Area of Conservation status. Moreover, an EIA for a project in Wales has to be advertised in Wales and subject to consultation by the Welsh public, which the nuclear station's EIA was not.

The claimant (Cian Ciaran) was not in a position to put up a bond for costs in the event that his application for an interim injunction failed (pending full hearing of the case).  So the judge was unable to grant the injunction immediately.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45546550   https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/live-updates-protest-held-cardiff-15162790

Judge for the case was Milwyn Jarman QC
Chair, Legal Wales Foundation / Cymru'r Gyfraith 

Unfortunately that means a further 7 days dumping of toxic mud with radioactive pollutants, including possible "hot" particles from Hinkley's nuclear reactors.  There are suggestions of a French-style chain of small boats around the dump site to halt it.

Professor Keith Barnham told a Press Conference prior to the Court hearing that the Magnox Hinkley-A reactor was run as a plutonium factory in its early years (1960s).  Spent fuel elements from the reactor were fragile and bits broke off into the cooling water pond.  When the fuel elements were transported off to Sellafield to be processed for plutonium, the broken off pieces accumulated as sludge. There has been at least one leak over several months from the ponds, indicated by high uranium in soils; the leak may well have reached the Bridgewater Bay sea.  The authorities shy away from looking for plutonium and other radioactive decay elements for fear of uncovering this past mismanagement and being faced with a costly clean-up problem.  Prof. Barnham's investigations are to be submitted as evidence to the full Court hearing.

twitter.com/bardofely/status/1041244958601216000

Hinkley mud - ignoring OSPAR rules on sea-dumping

The 2014 OSPAR Guidelines for management of dredged material at sea set the standards for sampling and assessing the Severn Estuary dumping site, and it specifies points to be included in a license. NRW has a duty to follow these guidelines, but show no evidence of doing so, writing their own criteria, taken from previous dumping practice.
OSPAR's sampling guidance

5.2       … 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. Core samples should be taken where the depth of dredging and expected vertical distribution of contaminants suggest that this is warranted.

5.3       The following table gives an indication of the number of separate sampling stations required to obtain representative results, assuming a reasonably uniform sediment distribution in the area to be dredged:

Amount dredged (m3)	Number of Stations
Up to 25 000	3
25 000 - 100 000	4 – 6
100 000 - 500 000	7 – 15
500 000 - 2 000 000	16 – 30

5.4  The original individual samples should, however, be retained until the permitting procedure has been completed, in case further analyses are necessary.

The Hinkley excavations will produce some 300,000m³ down to 4 metres depth. The only borehole samples of the deeper sediments were in 2009 and showed the radionuclides are signficantly worse deeper down. OSPAR's para. 5.2 requires sampling of the "vertical distribution of contaminants".  

NRW required only surface sampling (to a few cm, by grab sampler) which obtains recent deposits of the mobile mud swishing around Bridgwater Bay. The deeper mud from decades-old deposits when nuclear discharges were poorly controlled is assessed only by the 2009 samples. OSPAR says the 5 core samples in 2009 were insufficient; more than 7 – 15 were needed, to obtain scientifically representative results. NRW were wrong to claim "no scientific justification" for further sampling at depth as the Petitions Committee asked.  

At the Senedd debate in  Plenary session on 23 May, the Welsh Minister just repeated NRW's false claim

.No scientific basis for further testing... A robust and thorough process – can assure everyone CEFAS working to highest standards...have made their assessment fully in line within international standards...Clear evidence has been given  - no radiological risk to people or the environment.

If the second part of this is also untrue - as our 23 August blog-post shows - OSPAR's rules say

6.2       If dredged material is so poorly characterised that proper assessment cannot be made of its potential impacts on human health and the environment, it shall not be deposited at sea.

OSPAR's rules also cover Biological characterisation

6.9       Biological tests should incorporate species that are considered appropriately sensitive..
6.10    Assessment of habitats communities and populations may be conducted in parallel with chemical and physical characterisation, e.g. triad approach. It is important to ascertain whether adequate scientific information exists on the characteristics and composition of the material to be deposited and on the potential impacts on marine environment and human health.
6.13    An Action List should include upper and lower levels giving these possible actions:

a.         material which contains specified contaminants or which causes e.g. biological responses, in excess of the relevant upper levels should generally be considered unsuitable for normal sea deposit but suitable for other management options, see paragraphs 7.4 – 7.6 below;

b.           material of intermediate quality, below the upper level but exceeding the lower level, should require more detailed assessment before suitability for deposit at sea can be determined ; and

c.         material which contains contaminants below the relevant lower levels should generally be considered of little environmental concern for deposit at sea.

 In this case, testing for chemical contaminants found several toxic metals and organics exceed the lower level, making the material "intermediate quality" as in 6.13b.  NRW didn't bother with the detailed assessment covering sensitive species (6.9) that's required for any sea dumping, and doubly needed for dumping in the Severn Estuary European SAC site "Special Area of Conservation".  They simply completed a pro-forma HRA which repeats "there is no impact pathway from the proposal to the designated feature" for each species of fish and birds; this apparently based on the years of previous dumping of dredgings, with no regard to the particular toxic components in the Hinkley dredgings, largely of deep material.

OSPAR rules also cover assessing the dumping area: 

8.2       For the evaluation of a sea deposit site information should be obtained and assessed on the following, as appropriate:

a.         the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the seabed (e.g., topography, sediment   dynamics and transport, redox status, benthic organisms);

b.         the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the water column (e.g., hydrodynamics, dissolved oxygen, pelagic species);

c.         proximity to:

(i)        areas of natural beauty or significant cultural or historical importance;.

(ii)       areas of specific scientific or biological importance (e.g. Marine Protected Areas);

(iii)      recreational areas;

(iv)      subsistence, commercial and sport fishing areas;

(v)       spawning, recruitment and nursery areas;

(vi)      migration routes of marine organisms;

(vii)     shipping lanes;

(viii)    military exercise zones;

(ix)      past munitions dump sites;

(x)          engineering uses of the sea such as undersea cables, pipelines, wind farms

(xi)         areas of mineral resources (e.g. sand and gravel extraction areas); and

d.         the capacity of the site should be assessed, taking into account:

(i)        the degree to which the site is dispersive;

(ii)       the allowable reduction in water depth over the site because of mounding of material.

(iii)      the anticipated loading rates per day, week, month, or year

NRW have no study, nor did they require EdF to produce one.  This would normally have been supplied via an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment); NRW wrongly claimed that EdF had made an EIA to cover the dumping, though CEFAS told them not.  

OSPAR rules also cover permit conditions, ignored by NRW:

10.3    Permit conditions should be drafted in plain and unambiguous language and will be designed to ensure that:

a. only those materials which have been characterised or considered exempted from detailed characterisation according to paragraph 6.3, and found acceptable for sea deposit, based on the impact assessment, are deposited;

b. solid waste[1] contained within the dredged material should be separated and managed on land;

c.  the material is deposited at the selected deposit site;

d.  any necessary deposit management techniques identified during the impact analysis are carried out; and

e. any monitoring requirements are fulfilled and the results reported to the permitting or supervising authority.

10.4    A permit to deposit dredged material that is assessed to be contaminated according to national assessment criteria shall be refused if the permitting authority determines that appropriate opportunities exist to reuse, recycle or treat the material without undue risks to human health or the environment or disproportionate costs.

,Since CEFAS had assessed the mud as "contaminated" above Action Level-1, under this 10.4, NRW had to consider alternatives to sea-dumping, that could include landfill for restoration.  The company application says they considered using the material on the construction site, but dismissed using the silt as too fine (it could obviously be used for landscaping).  They dismissed dumping on-shore, as it would be washed away (!), but failed to consider it for soil improvement, land restoration or landfill (more costly).  NRW did set a requirement to 'minimise dispersion' during dumping, but failed to specify depositing via pipe to the bottom and/or  restricting dumping to times of low current (on turn of the tide) in accord with OSPAR:

11.7    Operational controls can include temporal restrictions on deposit activities, such as tidal and/or seasonal restrictions