Hinkley Point C sediment sampling plan
Summary:
the consultation material is very poor quality, poorly prepared.
- Wrong reference documents, omitting the primary IMO guidance of 2014; quite inadequate application documents, no justification for huge amounts of dredging far beyond the planning approval; failure to justify disregard of IMO rules for minimising sea dumping; EIA needed for full environmental information; failure to have regard to sampling and analysis relative to the Severn Estuary conservation designation and special species; need to investigate presence of nano-uranium particles and their multiple toxicities, also toxicity and bioconcentration of nuclear elements.
The Documents are quite
inadequate
1. The
primary document on Sea dumping is not OSPAR’s as NRW’s website implies, but
the 1972 London Convention covered in IMO’s “Waste
Assessment Guidelines under the London Convention and Protocol: 2014 edition”. This constrains exceptions for disposal of
dredgings in the sea under three overarching considerations
·
Dredged sediment is a resource that should be
used for beneficial purposes
·
comparative risk assessment involving both
dumping and the alternatives
·
ensure, as far as practicable, that environmental
disturbance and detriment are minimized and the benefits maximized
To determine if suitable for sea
dumping, NRW and the public have to be shown how and how far the applicant has
met these three considerations. NRW are wrong to by-pass this primary stage. EDF made no study of alternative beneficial
uses, as outlined in paras 3.3, 3.4 of the document, just took the one
beneficial use of retaining sediment in the Severn Estuary and ignored the
detriments. They failed to comply with
the second and third bullet points. As
the third bullet says, allowing further dumping without minimizing environmental
disturbance and detriment would breach the London Protocol, annex 2:17.
2. IMO say the
IAEA-TECDOC-1759 incorporates and replaces IAEA-TECDOC-1375. It follows the NRW are wrong to reference TECDOC-1375. Moreover, IMO is the primary authority for
sea dumping; its 2015 GUIDELINES FOR THE
APPLICATION OF THE DE MINIMIS CONCEPT UNDER THE LONDON CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL
(Based on 2015 IAEA-TECDOC 1759) takes precedence over the IAEA 2015
document. The NRW are wrong to reference the IAEA for this consultation and not
the IMO 2015 Guidelines.
3. The “OSPAR, 2014” guidelines
are in fact 2015 guidelines, containing changes arising from Agreement 2015-06,
so should be referenced as OSPAR, 2015 (as we do).
4. A first consideration is the scale and need
for the dredging project (OSPAR 4.1).
The original plans were assessed to result in a maximum of 200,000m3 plus
25,000m3 for the
berthing pocket (CEFAS to NRW, ref.
MCU 12/45, 23 April 2013). Up to 100,000m3 of that still
remains. The present application exceeds that by 500,000m3 yet the application does not show the need
for this huge extra volume. NRW should
point out the lack of planning consent for this huge additional volume, inform
the planning authority of the need to comply with the IMO and OSPAR guidelines and
decline to process the application until EDF comply.
5. EDF’s Summary
of Dredging Campaign 2018-19 fails to meet the OSPAR requirements for
reporting under the 1992 OSPAR Convention, detailing the measurements made,
results obtained and how these data relate to the monitoring objectives. OSPAR requires extraction and dewatering
techniques that minimise dispersion of mud particles. The data showing higher
radioactivity in fish species (RIFE 2018 report) indicate that EDF activities
may have raised contaminant levels in Bridgewater Bay, signalling the need for
EDF to report on this. The dumping licence required EDF to spread their dumping
and avoid mounding of clays and gravels; EDF should have reported on that.
The ships were observed
depositing some material outside the permitted area. Records of the ship’s position when dumping
should be available to check on this.
EDF’s “Summary of Dredging
Campaign” says it was “successful”, yet they stopped abruptly when aware
they were seen dumping outside area.
6. NRW has supplied no report on EDF’s compliance
with the previous dumping license 12/45/ML, nor give the link to it senedd.assembly.wales/documents/s69282/Copy%20of%20Marine%20Licence%201245ML.pdf
. Conditions were set that material be
spread throughout the dump-site to avoid mounding of the clays and gravels, and
be confined to a specific area of the sea.
The company had to keep records, for NRW to check. Given our observations of dumping outside the
area, NRW could have spotted this in the ships records. NRW need also to report on patches of sticky
mud being found on Barry Island beach and whether it was likely to have come
from the dumping.
Requirement for EIA under the
Marine Works Environment Impact Assessment Regs
EDF accepted that EIA is needed and agreed in the 2018 High Court
proceedings that their EIA of the HPC project did not cover the marine
deposition of dredgings in the Welsh part of the Severn Estuary. As NRW has not determined any
exception under Reg. 10, it follows
that EDF agree under Reg. 5 that an EIA is required.
NRW informed FoE (Annex, 11 Feb) you regard this consultation process as
part of pre-application discussions, in order to inform your pre-app response
to the formal dredging application.
However, the EIA Regs do not provide for any pre-application stage other
than screening and scoping. Rotary
drill-coring to sample the material proposed for dredging comes under the
Marine Works EIA Regs., since these cover marine works “to be carried out in the course of a project” listed in Annex 1 (or
2) of the EIA Directive. NRW might call these ‘investigative’ or ‘preliminary’
works, but they are still marine works
and ‘regulated activity’. There is of course case-law to prevent
‘salami slicing’ of an Annex 1 or 2 project to avoid the EIA requirement in
part or whole.
The proposed sample extraction
causes disturbance to the Bridgewater Bay seabed, stirring up nuclear and
chemical-contaminated sediments. EIA
projects have to be considered in toto, the sampling, excavation and dumping
together.
Requirement to assess the application under the dump-site Licence LU110
NRW informed FoE (Annex -11 Feb) they intend to
ignore the licence LU110 and assess each “marine licence application for
disposal at the site… on its own merits”. We
challenge that NRW have the powers to ignore LU110. NRW's authority derives from the Welsh
Government in its role as the marine planning and licencing Authority subject to the Marine and Coastal
Access Act 2009.
Most of the dredgings – called
capital dredgings” by CEFAS/EDF - are construction waste and subject to waste
legislation and excluded by LU110. OSPAR
specifies (10.3b) permit conditions to ensure that solid waste contained within the dredged material should be separated
and managed on land, which supplements LU110.
There is no assessment of the remaining capacity of LU110. NRW have
failed to complete the 2011 review begun by CCW. OSPAR sets many criteria, including that the
capacity of the site be assessed, taking into account (8.2d):
(i) the degree to which
the site is dispersive;
(ii) the allowable
reduction in water depth over the site because of mounding of material.
NRW should therefore require EDF
as applicant to provide this assessment, taking into account that their capital
dredgings tend not to disperse.
Evidence
from fishing vessels is that the mud bank at LU110 has built up
significantly. The precautionary
assumption must be that the site now has capacity only for dispersive dredgings
needed to maintain shipping channels and ports, and no capacity for capital
dredgings.
Deciding an application “on its merits” requires you to consider
the full OSPAR information, which EDF
failed to supply last time. We challenge
you to therefore require EDF to submit that.
Sampling and Analysis
NRW are wrong to ask only if
the sampling plan meets IAEA criteria. The
sampling and analysis has to provide enough information to comply with the IMO 2014 Guidelines,
relevant to the selected criteria (3.2) that include
·
human health risks (e.g. resulting from
consumption of contaminated fish)
·
sediment toxicity affecting benthic production
and biodiversity
Sampling must
therefore be related to these criteria.
EDF must first a) produce information on uptake of pollutants in fish,
seaweed etc. in South Wales and their consumption (incl. indirect consumption
via use of seaweeds as fertiliser), and b) detail how they will test sediment
toxicity affecting benthic production in the Cardiff Grounds. The consumption data used by CEFAS for the
Cumbrian coastal communities is inapplicable to South Wales. Not only is the seabed ecology different
here than Bridgewater Bay, but the historical pollution from deeper sediments
near Hinkley differs from that in the wider Severn waters. Toxicity depends on
bio-availability and bio-accumulation (below), so cannot be assumed from
physicochemical characterisation of samples.
The Hinkley developers did no work on meeting the IMO dumping criteria
3.2 in their old EIA studies, so have far to go before making any application.
Ch.4 of the IMO
Guidelines covers Dredged material
characterization, collecting information about the physical, chemical and
biological attributes of the sediment to be dredged. A tiered process is outlined,
leading to detailed assessments where
information from multiple lines of evidence is collected to reach conclusions
about contaminant exposure, effects and, ultimately, the risks posed by the
disposal of dredged material into the sea.
The only exemptions from detailed
characterization (4.18) are for dredging far from historical pollution,
dredging sand, gravel and/or rock, or previously undisturbed geological
materials. None of these apply to
Hinkley.
Para.4.7 says
of the three main lines of evidence - physical,
chemical and biological – that an annotated list of the data to be
collected and analysed during the characterization process should be developed
on a project-specific basis.
The basic
physical characteristics required are the amount of material, particle size
distribution and other geotechnical attributes of the sediment (e.g. specific
gravity of solids)
Chemical
characterization should include not only the standard contaminants, but also bioavailability (being capable of being
absorbed and available to interact with the metabolic processes of an organism)
and physicochemical factors that can influence bioavailabilty (4.13.2).
Biological effect characterization (not addressed by CEFAS-EDF)
“Sediment is a chemically and physically complex matrix. This
complexity places limitations on the use of physical and chemical data alone to
estimate the bioavailability and toxicity of contaminants present in the
sediment”.
Biological tests should
incorporate species that are considered appropriately sensitive and
ecologically relevant (4.17), using sediments that are representative of the
project material to be dredged. The effects and processes of interest in a
biological characterization include
.1 acute
toxicity;
.2 chronic
toxicity such as long-term sub-lethal effects;
.3 bioaccumulation;
and
.4 tainting,
at the disposal site and in its
vicinity.
OSPAR 2015 adds (9.10) Deposit of
sediments with low levels of contamination is not devoid of environmental risk
and requires consideration of the fate and effects of dredged material and its
constituents. Substances in dredged material may undergo physical, chemical and
biochemical changes when entering the marine environment and these changes
should be considered in the light of the eventual fate and potential effects of
the material. It should also be taken into account that deposit at sea of
certain substances may disrupt the sensory capabilities of the fish and may
mask natural characteristics of sea water or tributary streams, thus confusing
migratory species which e.g. fail to find spawning grounds or food.
OSPAR 2015 acknowledges (9.11) relatively enclosed waters such as the
Severn Estuary conservation site require particular care. They cannot be simply termed “sea” as the NRW
say. It hosts listed species (including European Protected
Species) including migrating lampreys and eels, whose numbers are dropping
drastically. Obviously, information is
needed on the vulnerability to sediments and their pollutants for each of
these, as none was supplied in EDF’s 2012 application IMO 4.17).
OSPAR 2015’s Technical Annex 1,
Tier III: Biological properties and effects says:
physical and chemical properties do
not provide a direct measure of the biological impact. Moreover, they do not
adequately identify all physical disturbances and all sediment-associated
constituents present in the dredged material. As analytical methods they advise
1. Toxicity
bioassays:
2. Biomarkers:
3. Microcosm
experiments:
4. Mesocosm
experiment:
5. Other
biological properties:
Artificial Radionuclides
IMO2015 say of artificial
radionuclides and altered natural radionuclides stemming from human activities
in the Hinkley sediments that the pertinent question in such cases is whether
the decisions on exclusion, exemption, or clearance were made considering
marine environmental pathways of exposure to humans and to marine flora and
fauna. The answer is no. The main ones from the magnox plant Hinkley
Point A were permitted as discharges that disperse in the sea. Sellafield discharges into Morecambe Bay and
data in the RIFE reports show they don’t simply disperse. Some concentrate in sediments, some
bioconcentrate in species, from seaweeds to lobsters. IMO 2015
says therefore that sampling and analysis has to evaluate effects upon
human health and to marine flora and fauna.
permitting authorities should use appropriate scientific information and
a precautionary approach (as provided for in resolution LDC.44(14)).
Scientific knowledge is
incomplete. It did not predict the huge
concentration of technetium-99 in the famous Sellafield lobsters, that resulted
in pressure from Ireland and Norway to stop its discharge. CEFAS measured only
those elements that could be detected by gamma-ray spectroscopy. They now propose to add alpha spectrometry. They still miss Ruthenium-106 (beta emitter,
highly radiotoxic) and might find Neptunium-237 that’s very-high radiotoxic and
was difficult to detect in Sellafield sediments (long-lived high toxicity in
the Europarliament STOA’s Annex 30,
2001).
The BEIR report Setting Radiation and Multiple Exposure
Environmental Health Standards to Protect Those Most at Risk Makhijani,
Smith and Thorne, IEER 2006 (www.ieer.org) contains a case study of depleted uranium (DU). It pointed
out low-activity DU concentrates in organs in the body (liver, testes, brain)
and with its chemical toxicity, poses dual and possibly synergistic risks. It would have disproportionate impacts on
children and the embryo/fetus. Studies
with rats indicate that exposure to uranium may be mutagenic, cytotoxic,
tumorigenic, teratogenic, and neurotoxic. It may also be genotoxic and carcinogenic.
There is particular knowledge of DU because its use in weapons in the Gulf War
(cf. Gulf War syndrome) has affected large populations.
Microfragments suspected at
Hinkley would come from the magnox-fuel handling and discharge of the cooling
pond contaminated water (Barnham, Imperial College London 2018). Nano-fragments would be more highly
radiotoxic than DU fragments, so still worse in the human body. They should be
sought in the samples and the whole range of potential toxicities investigated. The presence of suspected nuclides including
Ruthenium-106 and Neptunium-237 should
be investigated, including potential bio-concentration in marine life.
NRW Consultees and Assessors
We object to your consulting with
CEFAS. EDF has contracted CEFAS to work
for them, drawing up the sampling proposals and analysing the samples. CEFAS gave NRW faulty advice in 2017/8, specifically
in using outdated IMO and OSPAR guidance rather than the 2014 OSPAR and 2014
+2015 IMO and guidelines, so failing to point out that the 2013 licence
determination had to be reviewed for these changed rules deriving from the 2013
Protocol. CEFAS used the outdated “de
minimis” definition, omitting the requirement for impact on flora and fauna
added in 2015. Their advice to NRW could be seen as sharp practice by a
contractor to EDF.
CEFAS showed little understanding
of marine bio-science; they assumed that dispersing sediments that are contaminated
with chemicals is the same as keeping those sediments on the sea floor. The IMO and OSPAR citations above show how
wrong there were. E.g. OSPAR’s Technical Annex 1, Tier III: Biological properties and effects.
Your “own specialist advisors”
failed to pick up CEFAS’s errors previously; they have allowed faulty reference
documents on your website, omitting the primary IMO documents. Can you show us that NRW now have advisors competent
in all necessary aspects for this application?
The Environment Agency likewise
failed to pick up CEFAS’s error in accepting EDF’s argument that there were no
viable options for use or disposal of sediments on land, something that is not
within CEFAS’s expertise. There are of
course many options, as the IMO 2014 say.
No mention is made of consulting with JNCC or with Natural England, who
are of course responsible for the marine life on the English side of the
Estuary; nor mention of the MMO who are assessing the sampling operations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annex NRW e-mail to FoE 11th February
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at
12:27, Marine Licensing <marinelicensing@cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk>
wrote to Friends
of the Earth Barry&Vale
Thank
you for your email to Mr Evans. As part of a pre-application request the Marine
Licensing team has received the proposed sample plan from EDF for further
dredging at Hinkley Point C construction site. This will help us understand whether
the material can be deemed suitable for disposal at sea. We have not received a
marine licence application from EDF. The consultation we are running is to provide members of the
public with the opportunity to express their views on the suitability of the
submitted sample plan and this will inform our pre-application response.
As
with regards to your question of the operating licence for Cardiff Grounds;
this disposal site is ‘designated’ by Welsh Government and further information
on its designation should be requested from them. The area has been used since
the mid-1980s and each marine licence application for disposal at the site is
assessed on its own merits.
Regards, Maria
Trwyddedu
Morol/ Marine Licensing
Cyfoeth
Naturiol Cymru / Natural Resources Wales
No comments:
Post a Comment