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· the 'experts' she cites (Cefas) used outdated (2003) version of the IAEA regs she refers to, not the 2015 current version (admitted in NRW 29 Aug reply to FoE)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