Marine Licence 12/45/ML
Thank you for your letter dated 14th August 2018, regarding the licence to dispose of marine sediment into the Cardiff Grounds disposal site. You raise various concerns which I have responded to in turn, as follows:
1. Neither EIA or HRA were carried out of dumping this ‘capital dredging’ material in the estuary. NRW officers in 2013 believed EIA+HRA had been covered by the developer’s power station EIA, but CEFAS’s report says explicitly not**.
The Cefas experts which you quote at the bottom of your letter explicitly state that an HRA would not be expected, although Cefas would defer to NRW’s opinion, and an EIA was not required for these works. However, we did undertake an HRA as part of this licence determination.
2. International guidance documents were updated in 2014 (OSPAR) and 2015 (IAEA-IMO). These in particular introduced IAEA criteria for radiologic doses on bio-species, which had hitherto been omitted. However, the NRW (and CEFAS) paid no regard to these updates in their 2017/18 reviews. The 2015 IAEA-IMO guidelines requireSTEP 6:SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTA specific assessment should provide an evaluation of the potential adverse impacts to the marine environment including effects upon human health and to marine flora and fauna….It defines (Table 1) keystone species of marine fish, crustacea and seaweed. CEFAS never considered the impact on the marine keystone species, nor did they record their failure to follow the 2015 update of the IAEA criteria, and NRW just ticked their assessment.
IAEA-TECDOC-1759 has exactly the same principles as its predecessor (IAEA-TECDOC-13759) except that it includes the concept of assessment of marine flora and fauna protection. Therefore (as for dose to man), the IAEA suggest a tiered approach to determining de minimis (using a screening method, followed by more detailed assessments if deemed to be appropriate). As the IAEA guidelines also state “Consequently, candidate materials comprising sediments containing only relatively minor amounts of artificial radionuclides may not need to be subjected to an unnecessarily detailed or complex assessment process. ”In England and Wales, the Environment Agency assess the dose rates to reference organisms and feature species for authorised discharges under RSA 93 and, since April 2010, EPR10 (Now EPR18). Environmental concentrations are predicted using appropriate dispersion models and the data used to calculate the dose rate to marine flora and fauna. Assessments have concluded that the dose rate to the worst affected organism was less than the agreed threshold and hence there was no significant radiological impact.
3. The 2014 OSPAR Guidelines for the Management of Dredged Material at Sea allow for retaining sediments that meet national assessment criteria within freshwater, estuarine, and marine systems. Sections 5.2-5.3 cover core-samples and specifies a number 7-15 sampling stations to obtain representative results for the 300 000tonnes Hinkley material. NRW wrongly refused to require further sampling than the 5 core-samples taken in 2009, saying “no scientific justification”.
The OSPAR guidelines for the management of dredged material cover physical, chemical and biological characterisation of sediment to be dredged/disposed. Technical Annex I (Analytical requirements for dredged material assessment) does not refer to radiological analysis and therefore the OSPAR guidelines were followed for the physical and chemical characterisation of the material, and IAEA guidance was followed for radiological characterisation.
The sampling for chemical contaminants undertaken in 2009 and 2013 predate the revised (2014) OSPAR guidelines. However, both the 2009 and 2014 guidelines give the same “indication of the number of separate sampling stations required to obtain representative results”. The number of sampling stations given in the guidelines are an indication/guide, and it is at the discretion of the regulator to determine what is suitable. The 2009 OSPAR guidelines, that were used to determine the 2009/2013 sampling and analysis requirements, also state in paragraph 7.3: “The number of sample stations can also be determined on the basis of the area to be dredged”.
The applications to dispose of dredged material to sea were for a total quantity of 304,885 tonnes (224,885 m3). The OSPAR guidelines suggest that 7-15 sampling stations are required for this volume of material, or, as set out above, that the number of station are determined by the dredge area; which in the case of Hinkley was relatively small and in an open environment.
In 2013, the analysis of sediment from 12 surface sampling stations was requested by the regulator. Depth samples were not requested for this analysis as six core samples were collected from the area around the intake and outfalls and eight core samples were collected from the area around the jetty in 2009 by Fugro and analysed by Cefas. The results of the core sample analysis were provided with the Marine Licence application. As the material at depth will not have changed since this time, the supplied 2009 depth sampling results were used in conjunction with the 2013 surface samples to determine the dredge materials chemical and physical suitability for disposal at sea. The combination of these core samples and the additional 2013 surface samples provide a good representation of the material to be dredged, and NRW Permitting Service (NRW PS) are content that this is in line with 2009 OSPAR guidelines. Similarly, with the 2017 sampling, twelve surface samples were collected and analysed and considered in conjunction with the 2009 depth sampling as the material at depth would not have changed. The combination of surface and depth samples were used to determine the materials suitability for disposal at sea.
As stated in paragraph 5.1 of the 2014 OSPAR guidelines, “Judgement and knowledge of local conditions will be essential when deciding what information is relevant to any particular operation”; And in paragraph 5.6 it states, “It may be possible, following assessment of the results of an initial full survey, to reduce either the number of sampling stations or the number of determinants and still provide sufficient information for permitting purposes”.
Our judgement on the number of sampling stations required for the 2017 analysis was based on the 2014 OSPAR guidelines, knowledge of the 2009 and 2013 sampling results, and the assessment that was undertaken in determining the marine licence application. The aim of the sampling and analysis is to obtain representative results of the material to be dredged/disposed and we are content that this was obtained through the combination of the 2009, 2013 and 2017 sampling and analysis data.
IAEA-TECDOC-1759 does not specify the number of samples to be taken, it would not be consistent with overall approach that is advocated i.e. the assessment process (described in the report) is based on an inherently conservative procedure and a tiered approach, to determine de minimis.
4. Further points on which the 2014 OSPAR guidelines were disregarded:• require action on contaminants relative to Action Levels. CEFAS found several toxic heavy metals exceeded Action Level 1, which “require more detailed assessment before suitability for deposit at sea can be determined” (6.13b). NRW did not require or make any such assessment.
As set out in the Cefas report on the 2017 sampling and analysis, contaminant levels measured during the chemical analysis were compared with Cefas Action Levels to determine the suitability of dredged material for disposal at sea. No contaminants were determined to be at or above Action Level 2 at any sampling station. Slight exceedances of Action Level 1 were detected for PCBs, zinc, nickel, lead and chromium at all sites. Slight exceedances of Action Level 1 were detected for cadmium and mercury at sampling station HPCD06 only.
Due to these exceedances of Action Level 1, Section 5 (Discussion) of the Cefas 2017 report goes on to investigate this i.e. it ‘provides a more detailed assessment of the suitability’. The report compares the 2017 results to previous results collected from near Hinkley and further afield within the Severn Estuary. Following this detailed assessment, the report concludes that chemical analysis of the sediment samples indicates no reason that the material should not be disposed of to sea.
• require a sea deposit site to be assessed, including proximity (8.2c(ii)) to areas of specific scientific or biological importance. NRW paid no regard to the site being within the Severn Estuary SAC and to its special fish, shad and wildlife species. Nor did they make any assessment of the seabed for its “physical, chemical and biological characteristics” (8.2a), apparently assuming that as the site had been used for disposal of maintenance dredgings pre-SAC, it could take the different dredging’s from construction works at Hinkley.
Section 8 of the 2014 OSPAR guidelines that cover ‘sea disposal site selection’ refer to the designation of a new disposal site, not the ongoing use of an existing one. As Cardiff Grounds LU110 is an existing disposal site that has been in use for many years there was no need to go through this process as part of the Hinkley Marine Licence determination.
The physical and chemical characteristics of the material to be disposed were considered as part of the Marine Licence determination and resulted in the following conditions being placed on the licence to mitigate potential impacts:
9.1. The Licence Holder must submit a proposal for a monitoring programme of the disposal site and immediate environs to Natural Resources Wales acting on behalf of the Licensing Authority for written approval at least 12 weeks before any disposal operation. The scheme will include details of pre, during and post disposal operation surveys, and any actions to be taken as a consequence of the survey findings. The purpose of the scheme will be to enable the avoidance of significant build up of material and any consequent shallowing.9.12. The Licence Holder must ensure that material is deposited as evenly as operationally possible over disposal site LU110 (excluding the area south of 51o 25.8N).
As set out in Section 6 of the OSPAR guidelines, the assessment of suitability of dredged material for disposal at sea follows a hierarchy starting with physical characterisation, then chemical and finally biological. There is only a need to move onto the next step if the dredge material does not meet the requirements of the step before. The material to be dredged/disposed from Hinkley was adequately characterised from the physical and chemical assessment that there was no need to undertake biological characterisation.
• require permit conditions (10.3) designed to ensure that “solid waste contained within the dredged material should be separated and managed on land”. Instead the NRW wrongly allows base clays to be included in the dumped material.Paragraph 2.6 of the 2014 OSPAR guidelines states “In the context of these guidelines, dredged material is deemed to be sediments or rocks with associated water, organic matter etc. removed from areas that are normally or regularly covered by water, using dredging or other excavation equipment”. Clay material is mentioned several times throughout the guidance document and is considered to fall within this definition and is acceptable for disposal to sea.
• require NRW to assess if appropriate opportunities exist to reuse, recycle or treat the material without undue risks to human health or the environment or disproportionate costs (10.4). There is no indication that NRW complied with this.The applicant is required to provide information on alternatives to disposal at sea as part of the Marine Licence application form, and NRW PS considers this as part of the Marine Licence determination. We instructed Cefas to act as a scientific advisor on this application and sought their advice on this matter. As can be seen from the advice response provided by Cefas (dated 23rd April 2013, which you have quoted from below), paragraphs 14-16 deal specifically with alternatives to sea disposal. This advice sets out that “several possibilities were considered in order to try and re-use or recycle the material” and “The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), Natural England (NE) and the Environment Agency (EA) have advocated keeping the dredged material within the Severn Estuary SAC”. The Cefas advice concludes “I am content that the applicant has investigated alternative options and that offshore disposal is a suitable option”.
We are satisfied that we followed the IAEA guidelines and the appropriate OSPAR guidance throughout the Marine Licence determination and subsequent additional sampling and analysis.
I am confident that all the requirements under current best practice and international guidelines have been met in our determination of this licence. We are satisfied that the results of the testing meet the standards required for depositing the marine sediment at the designated disposal site, and therefore do not consider it appropriate to suspend the Marine Licence.
Yours sincerely
Dr Madeleine Havard
Cadeirydd Dros Dro/Acting Chair
No comments:
Post a Comment