Originally Posted by
robpage
The Cardiff nuclear mud row: The facts and the fiction
Plans to dump mud off the south Wales coast that has been dredged from near the Hinkley Point nuclear sites are the focus of fierce controversy.
Work is expected to start next month but opponents are not backing down. A protest took place on Wednesday evening outside the Senedd and a fresh call has been made for Natural Resources Wales to suspend the dredging
Those opposed to the dredging argue we cannot say for sure that the 300,000 tonnes of mud that could be deposited on the Cardiff Grounds site is safe because the full range of tests needed to establish there is no radioactive risk have not been carried out.
The site is a sub-tidal sandbank just a mile off the coast of Cardiff.
EDF Energy, the company building the two new Hinkley Point C nuclear reactors – which are expected to provide power for around six million homes – is adamant there is “no threat to human health or the environment”.
These assurances have failed to satisfy campaigners who argue there are too many unanswered questions for the work to go ahead.
Champions of the Hinkley project will see the objections as attempts by anti-nuclear activists to stall a multi-billion project. But those at the forefront of the efforts to stop dredging going ahead insist their concerns must be addressed.
The mud is coming from a stretch of the seabed along the Somerset coast that has been a centre of nuclear power generation for decades.
Hinkley Point A stopped producing electricity in 2000 after 35 years of operations; Hinkley Point B has been generating electricity since 1976.
EDF now wants to take mud and sediment so it can drill six vertical shafts for the cooling water system for the new Hinkley Point C power station.
The energy giant claims the material is “no different to the sediment already at the Cardiff Grounds” and is “not classed as radioactive under UK law”.
But campaigners do not believe detailed the tests that have been carried out are sufficiently thorough.
These were the tests that were carried out
Before a marine licence could be granted chemical and radiological tests for contamination were requireded.
The "conservative generic radiological assessment procedure" developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency was carried out by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (Cefas).
It analysed the level of overall radiation that members of the crew and the public would receive if the work went ahead.
Scans were carried out for "all potential gamma emitting radionuclides".
What the tests showed
Cefas found that the radiation doses were "well below recommended limits" and said it had "no objection to this material being dredged and dumped".
Natural Resources Wales states on its website: "Cefas concluded that the material tested did not have unacceptable levels of chemicals or radiological materials and was suitable for disposal at sea. We consulted with the Environment Agency (EA) as the lead regulator for Hinkley, and we both agreed it was a robust assessment of the radiological impacts and agreed with Cefas’s conclusion."
Why campaigners think these tests aren't sufficient
Dr Richard Bramhall of the Low Level Radiation Campaign - a former member of the UK Government's Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE) - has voiced worries about the tests.
In a letter to NRW he raised concerns that the tests did not assess whether uranium, plutonium and other alpha-emitting elements were present in minute “particulate” form.
He stated: “As larger fragments break up, any given amount of particulate matter will become more mobile, be more easily inhaled into the deep lung and the lymphatic system, and will emit more radiation.”
Tim Deere-Jones, a self-employed marine pollution consultant, who came to prominence when he spear-headed a petition campaign which netted more than 7,000 signatures and secured a debate in the Assembly, argues that years of discharges from the existing nuclear stations mean more detailed study is needed.
He said: "Those sediments had been in receipt of discharges from the Hinkley A nuclear station and the Hinkley B nuclear station... If you’ve got 300,000 tonnes of that stuff being dredged and dumped so close [to south Wales] you need to know exactly what you’ve got in it in terms of radioactivity.”
David Cameron in the existing Hinkley Point B power station (Image: Tim Ireland/PA Wire)
He fears that not all forms of radiation may have shown up in the tests carried out on the mud.
Mr Deere-Jones also has questions about where the mud will be carried when if it is dispersed by currents.
He said: "Where is that material going to end up after being slung into a dispersal site?
'Radioactive' mud to be dumped off the coast of Cardiff is safe, experts say
One of the highest profile political campaigners on the issue, South Wales Central AM Neil McEvoy, argues the NRW is "relying on shallow tests using only one type of spectrometry" and that "if anything is lurking in this mud it is going to be deep down".
Why Natural Resources Wales says its tests are sufficient
Cefas stated in its analysis that because the radiation doses were "below recommended limits" a "subsequent more detailed case specific assessment was not necessary".
NRW has told AMs it is "confident" in Cefas' "competence as a provider of expert technical advice"
In his response to Dr Bramhall's concerns, John Wheadon, permitting services manager for NRW, said: “Some people may not agree with the IAEA’s current standards. If they want to see changes to these, they need to do that through the appropriate authority – in this case, that’s the UK Government’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
“We are satisfied the evidence shows that, in this instance, the chemical and radiological results are well within acceptable limits and are confident that the proposed activity will not harm people or the environment, and the material is suitable for disposal.”
NRW insists that it was not necessary to test samples from further down in the seabed, stating that "deeper samples collected and tested in 2009 were still valid". It maintains there is "no scientific evidence of higher radioactivity in deeper sediments in the Hinkley Point area".
A new call has been made to suspend the dredging licence
South Wales Central's Mr McEvoy has just written to National Resources Wales (NRW) calling for an urgent suspension of the marine licence for the dredging.
He told us: “When potentially nuclear mud was tested in Kosovo they used three methods of gamma spectrometry, beta spectrometry and plasma mass spectrometry and yet the mud from outside Hinkley was tested using only one of these methods. Why was that good enough for Kosovo but not good enough for Wales?"
EDF is emphatic you will not be put at risk
EDF Energy did not respond to all of the points raised by Mr McEvoy but a spokeswoman said: “The mud is typical of sediment found anywhere in the Bristol Channel and no different to sediment already at the Cardiff Grounds site. Greenpeace has acknowledged that the mud is ‘not toxic’.
“Natural Resources Wales has confirmed that new, independent analysis of sediment samples taken in 2017 carried out by Cefas has again shown that the sediment is not classed as radioactive under UK law. It poses no threat to human health or the environment.”
Greenpeace rejects EDF's claim it considers the mud 'not toxic' and says it wants more tests
The group said in a statement: “We have been informed that EDF has misrepresented Greenpeace’s current position regarding the dredging and dumping of mud from the Hinkley site to the South Wales coast.
“We request in the strongest terms that EDF ceases from stating that Greenpeace accepts that the mud is not toxic as that is not our current view. We are clear that we do not know if the mud is toxic or not, and therefore we support calls for more testing to be undertaken.
“Legitimate questions are being raised by local residents and concerned citizens about the limits of the testing that has been done so far. Their calls for further testing should be respected and we support calls for further testing of the mud before it is moved. It is important that the results of this testing removes any reasonable doubt that this mud may be harmful for current or future generations.”
EDF says any radiation doses would be 'infinitesimally small'
In a briefing document , EDF rejects the suggestion that there have not been tests for "every kind of radiation".
It insists that the analysis of the samples would "detect the presence of alpha, beta and gamma emitting radionuclides," adding: "Simply put, if a radionuclide is present it will be detected by the testing equipment."
On the question of whether samples were taken from far enough down in the seabed, it state that "samples at depths up to 4.8m" were studied.
It adds that "any sediment at a depth of greater than 2m depth will have accumulated hundreds if not thousands of years ago, prior to the start of industrial activity" and as a "consequence repeated testing to greater depth is not required.”
EDF also claims the dose of natural and artificial radiation people might receive would be "infinitesimally small" and "far below the threshold requiring a more detailed assessment". It would be equivalent to "eating 20 bananas per year".
Natural Resources Wales insists there is no danger
NRW's Mr Wheadon said: “We issued this marine licence to NNB Genco in July 2014, authorising the disposal of dredged material from the Hinkley Point C development site at Cardiff Grounds disposal site.
" Every element of the application was considered thoroughly including testing of the sediment from the dredge sites by independent experts in accordance with international standards.
“The licence required NNB Genco to undertake additional sampling and monitoring. These requirements have now been fulfilled and we’ve given the company our approval to undertake the disposal activity.
“We’re confident the proposed activity will not harm people or the environment.”
Opposition to the dredging has stirred deep passio
Cian Ciarán, keyboard player with the Super Furry Animals, is among those with deep anxieties about the proposals and about the UK Government's decision to give a new lease of life to nuclear power.
He said: "Having lived in the shadow of Wylfa and Trawsfynnydd in the north of Wales in my youth and now Hinkley since moving to Cardiff in 1994, the question of nuclear power and everything it encompasses has become an unwanted part of my psyche. It's likely the same for so many others.
"This latest development is just another negative consequence of the UK government's new nuclear build program. I've grown tired of the excuses and the lack of accountability; in this instance all we ask is for adequate testing be carried out before the mud is moved, until then it should stay where it is.
"No one, regardless which side of the Bristol channel they live on, should be subjected to such irresponsible actions. To my mind this is yet another example of an contemptuous Westminster Government and Welsh Labour conspiring against it's own people."
The Welsh Government is not worried
Lesley Griffiths is Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs
The Welsh Government is not pushing for new tests.
A spokeswoman said: “The recent Petition Committee’s report showed Natural Resources Wales made their determination based on expert advice. It also confirmed all tests and assessments concluded the material 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.”
Sophie Howe, the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, said she could not overturn the decision to grant a licence.
She said: "The decision to grant a marine license, allowing for sediment arising from the construction of Hinkley Point C to be disposed off the coast of South Wales, was taken in 2014 and the marine licence was issued by Natural Resources Wales in 2014, before the Well-being of Future Generations Act came into force on April 1, 2016.'
Whether or not the campaign against dredging will win new support in the weeks leading up to work commencing may well come down to this: Do people trust the assurances of Government, the NRW and the energy company, or do they think the activists have a point?
There will be opposition within the Senedd
Llyr Gruffydd
Plaid Cymru is adamant the dredging should not go ahead.
Llyr Gruffydd, the party’s energy spokesman, said: “Plaid Cymru opposes the dumping of the waste from Hinkley Point in England in Welsh waters. We believe that it is completely unacceptable and unprincipled that waste from a nuclear construction site in England should be disposed of in Welsh waters.
“If it disperses or has an effect on the local environment it will be for the Welsh Government to make good any such impact in a protected marine area. Despite this, no payment or compensation has been offered to the Welsh taxpayer.”
The Welsh Conservatives say claims about the toxicity of the mud have been “strongly refuted” but they are prepared to look at the issue again if confronted with new evidence.
A spokesman said: “It is clear that when dealing with pollutants, the utmost care must be taken to ensure contamination does not occur. The Welsh Conservatives support the strict evaluation of any proposed projects to ensure the public’s safety, and we will re-evaluate our position if new evidence is brought to light.
“Evidence presented to the Assembly’s Environment Committee by both EDF Energy and Natural Resources Wales has strongly refuted the claims surrounding the toxicity of the mud.
“The Welsh Conservatives are committed to holding the Welsh Government to account on its record towards environmentalism.”
And the bigger battle against new nuclear power will definitely continue
Friends of the Earth say Hinkley is an ‘utter folly’.
Spokesperson Bleddyn Lake said: “People have the right to live in a healthy and safe environment. The difficulty of disposing of potentially radioactive substances, coupled with the justifiable and understandable concern of the public, highlights the utter folly of moving ahead with nuclear new build at Hinkley Point.
“Nuclear power is horribly expensive, the reactors take far too long to build and the UK still doesn’t know what to do with the long term radioactive waste that has been amassed already. Hinkley Point C is expected to cost UK billpayers £30bn over the lengthy of its 35-year contract.
The poorly informed activists are delaying the project nd will cost a small fortune
