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!