Formal response to the English Environment Agency over
environmental permit application from NNB Genco (HPC) Limited:
EPR/HP3228XT - Site Hinkley Point C Power Station TA5 1UD
Introduction
Twaite shad, lampreys and eels are protected species in our Severn Estuary "Special Area of Conservation". NNB Genco does not even propose "best" techniques to protect them from being sucked into the power station.
With the 4x increased intake of cooling water compared with Hinkley-B, the fish-kill is scheduled to last - even increased - for further decades, despite modern environmental regulation and mitigation techniques. If this is the best NNC Genco can offer, they should be told to go for another cooling technique.
They can also be told to make greater efforts to maker use of the waste heat, as they would have to do under the Energy Efficiency Directive if they applied for a new power station today.
Not best techniques for mitigating fish-kill
The application document says the large 5-mm mesh is acceptable to the EA due to “nuclear safety considerations” and minimising velocities in the intake system.
The EA has declined to confirm this with documentary evidence to explain a) how nuclear safety is involved and b) why they would think the rather high flow speed 0.3m/s is a minimum. This is the default value in EA guidance, but could be “varied to suit the fish assemblage, subject to a risk assessment” (SC160009/R1, Aug. 2018).
The Acoustic Fish Deterrent was an integral part of the approved package
As the ex-regulator (previous EA staff who worked on the HPC regulation, written response 278406891) says removing AFD would eliminate an essential component of best practice. A behavioural deterrent such as AFD is accepted as an essential part of mitigation of the effects of large cooling water intakes.
The removal of AFD would lead to the death of far more fish. Entrapment risk for sprats with AFD is given as 0.12 so the number killed would be increased by 8 times. Such mass killing of sentient animals has to be avoided as far as possible.
The consequences of the dead fish in Bridgewater Bay – part of the Severn Estuary SAC – would be creation of an ecology feeding on the dead matter from gulls to benthic worms. With 8x larger fish-kill, the upset to the whole ecology in this corner of the SAC is many times greater; it was not assessed in the Habitats Regs. AA and cannot be accepted.
We agree with response 278406891 that the applicant’s argument that an AFD system is not currently available for Hinkley Point C is unreasonable The AFD system in the original permit application and required by the current EA permit was always going to be an extended and expanded application of an existing technology. They were required to trial it well in advance, but do not evidence such trials.
Use Alternative deterrent systems
Since NNB Genco decided the standard acoustic system would not work for lampreys and eels (said to be ‘non hearing’ in para. 11.2.54), they need to trial systems using other methods, eg.
a) deterrents using light (potentially white strobe light** and UV frequencies)
b) bubble curtains in combination with AFD
c) electric fields or magnetic fields
If no alternative deterrent system is found to be effective for both eels and lampreys, then the Appropriate Assessment has to be revisited.
** strobes appeared to be one of the few effective means of deterring eels, an important consideration under the Eels (England and Wales) Regulations 2009.
Strobe lamp technology has continued to develop rapidly since the time of the 2010 report and a full and up-to-date account of both the technology and eel response to strobes has recently been published by EPRI (2017). Unpublished material has specifically considered elvers (SC160009/R1, Aug. 2018).
Studies of deterrent options for the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon (2015) covered sea lampreys as well as eels
http://www.pasas.org.uk/Fish%20Deterrent%20Options%20Technical%20note%201st%20June%202015%20resized%20PMJ.pdf
Lack of due regard for European Protected Species
Neither NNB Genco nor the English EA give adequate weight to "European protected species" in the Severn Estuary SAC where they are also designated special features. Regulations forbid killing any EPS individuals without a demonstration of over-riding socio-economic reasons. Killing cannot be justified if there are alternative methods of disposing of HPC's waste heat.
Best practice to minimise damage to delicate eels/elvers and sea/river lamprey EPSs would design the screen and reduce flow-speed of the intake to the optimum for them. Yet the screen mesh is over-large and the intake speed high. EA guidance suggests this is “varied to suit the fish assemblage, subject to a risk assessment” (SC160009/R1, Aug. 2018).
The Eels regulations and good practice require a 1mm mesh or less to limit damage to small elvers and lampreys; and a flow speed of 0.1m/s to mitigate against damage within the fish pile up on the screen. NNB Genco admit their large mesh is not optimised for young eels.
The EA review (SC160009/R1, Aug. 2018) says “The design of the fish-retaining buckets on existing band- and drum-screens may not be suitable for the retention of larger specimens of eel and lamprey” yet NNB Genco give no consideration to appropriate re-design for these special species.
Under SI 2017/1013 The Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, no single member of a protected species can be deliberately killed in the absence of a license. EA and NRW are reportedly writing guidance for applying these Regs to marine species, but this is still incomplete. It follows the EA cannot approve a technique that is expected to kill a proportion of the species unless this is shown necessary for socio-economic reasons.
Further assessment now required
NNB Genco have not sought approval from the NRW under their Marine European Protected Species licensing system, though NRW share joint responsibility for the SAC.
The cooling water system is not necessary for the nuclear power plant; just the most convenient for NNB Genco. As it was used for Hinkley Point B, NNB Genco just assumed they could use the same for the new plant. The EA fell in with this even though new nature conservation designations have been implemented.
The EA approved the use of cooling water abstracted from the SAC – and returned to it with dead and maimed fish – but only on the basis that the Habitats Reg.AA (‘appropriate assessment’) judged that the package of mitigation measures would sufficiently reduce the damage.to the environment and species. Dispensing with the AFD (or any substitute deterrent system) as well as using quite high flow speeds and large mesh size invalidates the previous assessment and EA approval.
No representation of Welsh Interests and Views
Though the plans affect Welsh marine waters, there has been no open consultation with Welsh people and organisations. Apparently, the EA rely on their own decision-making process, just consulting NRW, who have licensing powers delegated from the Welsh government but not powers to represent Welsh views to the English EA.
They have not advertised this licensing proposal to Welsh people. The responses on their website include few if any from Wales.
We conclude that the EA must not approve this proposal without getting Welsh authorities to facilitate consultation in Wales.
No comments:
Post a Comment