Hinkley Mud debate report and video

Neil McEvoy AM speaking in the Senedd debate, 23 May 2018

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156635774327868&id=544842867

Neil was the first AM to raise the issue in the media and sat on the Petitions Committee giving consideration to the massively supported Petition calling for the dumping license to be cancelled.

Report of the Senedd debate in Penarth Daily News here

On 6th June, NRW announced they have updated the license and cleared the final condition on monitoring.

The license but not the monitoring is at

http://www.naturalresources.wales/CardiffGroundsSedimentDisposal  (= https://t.co/f8WHxV0WlI)

Further questions may be put to marinelicensing@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk

Hinkley Mud dumping -Senedd debate 23 May

The one- hour debate at the Senedd on Wednesday showed the Welsh authorities wanted to close down the issue, despite the Petitions Committee report being interim, as questions were unanswered.

                           Anne Greagsby (Barry&Vale FoE) with Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance's poster and 

                           new banner behind, on the Senedd steps prior to the debate 

    Various Assembly members including the Vale’s Jane Hutt and Cardiff’s Gareth Bennett voiced the concerns of constituents over ‘nuclear sludge’ being dumped on Wales, arguing that further testing of deeper samples is needed for public assurance.  Jane Hutt supported Committee member Mike Hedges’ request for review by independent academics, whom people trust more than official agencies.

   Committee chair David Rowlands biased the debate by quoting the NRW statement on radioactive substances being “no greater concentration at depth”, yet did not mention the CEFAS** data that showed the contrary - up to three times the uranium and radium at a few metres depth – as agreed by CEFAS in a new letter (30 April).  He said the Committee had written to NRW in January asking for deeper samples.  The company refused saying “not radioactive” but neither Rowlands nor the Committee appeared to challenge this obviously false statement.

   David Melding (of Penarth) regretted that the company did not respond to the request for deep samples, saying he’s open for new evidence if it’s brought forward.  Cardiff AM Neil McEvoy said the data do show radioactivity is higher at depths of material which is to be excavated, such that radioactive dose could exceed the “de minimis” level of international standards for dumping at sea.  He wanted the license suspended till further testing is done.

   Simon Thomas supported a pause for more testing, while claiming he’d ”not seen any evidence that the material is radioactive”.  How strange that Plaid’s environment spokesperson does not understand that the measured gamma radiation is, actually, radioactivity!  He spoke also about dumping material in the Welsh Severn Estuary avoids landfill tax, which would deliver £27 million if landfilled in Wales (300 000tonnes @£88.95 per tonne)

   Caroline Jones said emotionally, the south Wales coast is special, we need every action to protect our ecology.  Committee member Janet Finch-Saunders was bothered that this big company  refused to undertake deep sampling.  She said the chemical contaminants are above CEFAS Action Level-1, described by them as a “small breach”.  A breach by any name!   She proposed the Welsh government use its Marine Act powers until the chemicals’ impact on the Severn marine conservation area had been assessed.

   The Minister Hannah Blythyn in reply read a prepared speech, taking nothing on board and claiming the committee had “carried out a thorough review”.   It said the CEFAS assessment was “fully in line within international standards”, showing “no radiological risk to people and the environment”.  In fact, CEFAS ignored the international requirement introduced in 2015 for assessing radiological impact on ecosystems.  They left the chemical impacts to NRW, who had done nothing.  Carwyn’s Government again not listening.

 ** CEFAS = Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, an executive agency of the Department for Environment (England).

Friends of the Earth Barry&Vale comment: 

we were encouraged by the support of so many AMs, responding to petitions totalling around 100 000.   Our evidence was taken up by the committee, but in the end the Committee chair ignored it, choosing not to report the 3-fold increased radioactivity at depth that proved the case for further deep sampling.  He also choose not to report that NRW had not carried out an assessment of the added toxic chemicals dumped in the Severn Estuary.  We think to take these breaches of European law to the Commission (pre-Brexit!).  

Hinkley radioactive mud: brief to Senedd Petitions Committee 17 April 2018

Petition P-05-785 Suspend Marine License 12/45/ML

Comments on NRW response of 27 March, from Friends of the Earth, Barry&Vale. 

We formulated a briefing earlier, on the basis of our FoI request to NRW for all documents relating to this license application held by them.  We are therefore confident that we have viewed most of the background material.  We enclose that briefing for use of the Committee and add the following re the latest NRW letter to you.

Contrary to NRW we see the Sampling of sediment as not primarily for public reassurance, as stated, but to meet licensing requirements.  Sampling at depth, as the Committee requested, is likewise needed to meet licensing requirements: Licence Condition 9.5 requires satisfying NRW that the material is suitable for deposit at the site.

1. The applicant’s refusal of deep samples is unacceptable.  

It depends on NRW’s statement “there is no scientific basis for any additional sampling” which is false.  The Committee were wrongly told earlier there is no scientific evidence of higher radioactivity in deeper sediments in the Hinkley Point area. (as on the NRW website).  The evidence is clear in the 2009 data for U238 and Radium, as in the reduced Table below: the numbers show 3 out of the 5 samples were significantly higher at depth (up to 3x for Radium - Ra). 

2. No specialist/expert assessment by Welsh authorities

   "we consulted Public Health Wales and NRW’s own internal expert in relation to the dose analysis results" 
 No report is provided (no transparency); this sentence refers only to the radiological dose, not to the chemical constituents.

3. The de minimis criteria are for disposal at sea. 

The IAEA-TECDOC-1375 defines this to include well-mixed near-coastal waters

“The disposal is assumed to take place a few kilometres off the coast so the actual shape of the coastline does not influence the dispersion significantly.”

The Severn Estuary site is not “sea” , but estuarial water with distinct circulation and ecology, which does not satisfy the IAEA criterion. 

4. Disposal in the Estuary requires information on dispersal of the radioactivity and use of a habits survey to calculate collective dose.  Cefas use a habits survey from the Cumbrian shore for sea-food consumption and beach-combers/recreation. The Severn Estuary is very different and sea-land transfer potentially much stronger.

5. the NRW letter does not cover the chemical contaminants, though they are required to assess their impacts.  Their Website says: Chemical contaminants were assessed against Cefas Action Levels[2]   UK guidelines to assess dredged material and its suitability for disposal to sea.   Several metal and organic contaminants were measured as above Action Level-1, yet no assessment has been made by NRW.

6. CEFAS say Dredged material with contaminant levels between Action Levels 1 and 2 requires further consideration and testing before a decision can be made.

The documents show no further assessment – which of course must be against the characteristics of the dump site and conducted under criteria relevant to it.  For this European “Special Area of Conservation”, criteria from biodiversity/Habitat legislation obviously come in, but none have been considered.  The end-fate of the contaminants must also enter, requiring consideration of the cited studies on deposition on the estuarial mud flats and transfer to marine life and to the land.

7. The Licence conditions 9.5, 9.11 require that the sediments are suitable for deposit and that dispersal via re-suspension should be avoided.  It’s not shown how this could be done in practice.  Discharge is planned by dropping from the barge, but the only way to ensure “deposit” of the bulk of the material is to discharge via pipe to the sea bottom at tidal extremes and minimising re-suspension requires cover with heavy material before inter-tidal currents become strong.

9.5. The Licence Holder must ensure that no material is deposited after 4th March 2016 without written confirmation from NRW, acting on behalf of the Licensing Authority, that they are satisfied the material is suitable for deposit at site LU110.

9.11. The Licence Holder must ensure that best practice is used to minimise re-suspension of sediment during these works.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data for U238 and Radium in 2009 samples taken at depth

3 out of the 5 samples were significantly higher at depth (up to 3x for Radium - Ra).  The NRW failure to require deep samples means only the 2009 data are representative of the bulk of the material to be dredged.  As there are so few data, the maximum plus a safety factor has to be adopted.  This raises CEFAS’s 5.8 μSv/yr calculated level, potentially to above the 10 μSv/yr limit.

Table B.15  Uranium-238 and Radium-226 concentrations for Vibro core samples  (also in [1] Appx B)

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restart to our Webpage

WE are re-starting posting on this Webpage, to cover the many issues from Tidal Lagoons to Air Pollution.  

The incinerator campaign is covered primarily on the Facebook page: Stop the Barry Town Incinerator - where we have just won the NRW to accept full public consultation -  meeting at Castleland Community Centre 13th Feb.

Next meeting of Barry&Vale Friends of the Earth is 

              Tuesday  7th February, at 7-30 in the Castle Hotel, Jewel Street, Barry.

Several members attended the Aberthaw Power Station demonstration on Saturday, called by 'Reclaim the Power' to close down this highly polluting plant. We need Green Energy projects which make use of our tides, winds and the sun.

We are setting up air pollution (NO2) monitoring test tubes in Barry and the eastern Vale to expose the heaviest polluted areas.

At the latest LDP session, we put a strong case against the Cosmeston Green Field costal housing development.

We also appeared at the Five Mile Lane CPO Inquiry into converting this to a 60mph road through archaeological sites, SINCs and SSSI woodland.  This disrupts local farmers taking animals and equipment between fields. They include a much needed path/cycleway to the Hawking Centre, but refused to consider an alternative low-impact path from Waycock's Cross. 

The Group were pleased to see Councillors challenging the 'steamroller' of the Planning Department at their 5th January Planning Meeting, when the Northcliffe Lodge development (Penarth) and the United Reform Church development (Windsor Rd, Barry west end) were rejected.   We hope the Councillors will continue voting to protect the environment and rejecting crammed development. 

Note that the Planners struck back** after their defeat and tried to get a tight new "protocol" against Cllrs challenging their recommendations - but the non-Labour councillors combined to vote it down.

Keith Stockdale

Barry&Vale Friends of the Earth Coordinator

** AFTER NORTHCLIFF – THE VALE COUNCIL’S PLANNING EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

https://penarthnews.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/northcliff-lodge-defeat-has-changed-vale-planners-attitude-council-is-told/

Cardiff Incinerator challenge by CATI in High Court

NEWS FROM HIGH COURT    17-18th Dec.

The barrister Alex Goodman' case explained why Cardiff Council’s repeated delay to enforce against Viridor’s unlawful building work and failing to require retrospective permission was unique in British law.  Then Cardiff Council’s lawyer took 80 minutes, making brash assertions, some obviously in error. Viridor's barrister came in on Cardiff's side, claiming nothing wrong with starting building 8 months before permission, despite the Council telling them it was unlawful. There followed detailed argument on case law (Whitley Principles) then judge Wyn Wuilliams reserved his decision till later in January.

Cardiff council attacked over city incinerator

www.walesonline.co.uk

Cardiff council must “quash” decisions that allowed work to construct an incinerator to begin because they were taken unlawfully, Cardiff High Court heard today (17 December).

In an action brought by Cardiff Against The Incinerator campaigner Pauline Ellaway, barrister Alex Goodman told Judge Wyn Williams the authority had flouted regulations and allowed waste management firm Viridor to build in Splott when it should not have done so.

Dubbing the council’s actions “procedurally inept” he claimed the authority’s reports and consultation process were flawed and that it failed to stop work when it should have.

Mr Goodman insisted CATI’s “submissions fell on deaf ears because work was allowed to proceed.”

“No robust action was being taken in respect of development that was continuning apace,” Mr Goodman said.

Construction of the £185m plant started in July 2012 before planning conditions had been met.

Developers must “obtain consent and then commence works,” Mr Goodman insisted. “It is a simple sequence,” he said.

CATI’s solicitors repeatedly sent letters requesting enforcement be taken.

“Throughout the claimant has taken considerable action to encourage the council to take action,” Mr Goodman said.

“The council has always acknowledged it was unlawful and that the development was at risk.”

Despite this Mr Goodman said the authority allowed work to go ahead.

Petitions Committee acts over Waste Incineration policy

The National Assembly Petitions Committee held its 3rd oral session on petitions against incineration on Tuesday 29th, taking evidence over video-link from Prof. Vyvyan Howard of Ulster Univ. and Fellow of Royal College of Pathologists.

After questioning Prof. Howard, the committee agreed to:

• Issue a report on the issue of incineration of waste, and request a Plenary debate.
• Write to the Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development to ask him to consider the weight of support for this petition when considering the committee's letter calling for the Cardiff Incinerator plans to be called in.
• Write to those who have given evidence to Committee on this subject to seek their views on the modeling used to inform decisions in relation to Incinerators".

You can find Professor Howard's evidence on the Petitions Committee webpages (Item 2 of 29 May: P-04-341 Waste and Incineration) and see him answering questions from the Committee on the Senedd TV archive – click on 29th May.

His central argument was that official estimates of 'risk' from incinerator pollutants are flawed, giving single numbers when there is a wide envelope of uncertainty. The government relies on epidemiology, which is a "very blunt instrument". The research has not been carried out – both the hazard characterisation and exposures are very uncertain.  Those who present "unparameterised" modelling express an "opinion dressed up in numbers".  He explained exposures may be 100 times higher than estimates by comparing the Viridor claim for Cardiff of 0.24% of PM2.5 expected to come from their incinerator with the 17-32% actually measured in a small Swedish town due to a modern incinerator (meeting Euro-standards). The hazard of average incinerator PM2.5 may be many times worse than a power station's because of the toxic chemicals in waste and produced in burning. The very smallest (nanoparticles) fraction of PM2.5 are a worry as little can be done to filter them out and the volumes of emissions are very large.
[PM2.5 means particles smaller than 2.5micrometres, or 2500 nanometres, which humans breathe into their lungs. 
Nanoparticles means particles in the 10-100 nanometre range]

Llandow Fracking Inquiry 22-23 May

Friends of the Earth were well represented, with a statement from FoE Cymru's Director, Gareth Clubb and written plus verbal statements from Barry & Vale FoE - see Fracking Inquiry page.  Coastal Oil & Gas and the Vale Council discussed it as simply a test drilling operation, with CO&G claiming they were seeking ordinary coal-measure gas with no intentions for high-pressure fracking. They convinced no-one.  FoE argued the test drilling was part of a staged application for fracking and therefore needs full environmental impact assessment.  The Council had failed to 'screen' it for EIA, despite the Minister mentioning this in his letter declining to call-in the proposal.

FoE quoted the First Minister's letter of 29 Sept. to the Vale Council:

•  A “precautionary approach should be taken” and “additional environmental considerations” should be included. It referred to Minerals Planning Policy Wales (MPPW) which specifies “an environmentally acceptable way” of operation and being “consistent with the principles of sustainable development” for unconventional gas development.

The Vale Council officers had ignored this at the Planning Committee and did not argue for any 'additional' environmental precautions at this Inquiry.

There was a lengthy exchange about a Condition to be set on noise levels if the application was permitted. The Inspector first proposed noise guidance levels used for opencast mining and quarrying. FoE said no - to use the policy for industrial areas close to homes, with non-disturbing night-time levels in accord with WHO guidance.  The Vale officers failed to support FoE's approach, even though this was used at the Sunrise wood-burner inquiry.  So the issue is left to the Inspector's decision.  Whose side are the Vale officers on?