Environment Agency raises concerns with Hinkley Point C changes

The Environment Agency has raised concerns about proposed changes to Hinkley Point C’s environmental offsetting measures.

In particular, the regulator is concerned that changes proposed by EDF could have a detrimental impact on wildlife in the area and have not been properly assessed for flooding risk.

When EDF secured planning consent for the nuclear power station in 2013, it agreed to specific measures to offset the environmental impact of the new facility.

The company is now looking to alter those measures, having revealed its plans at pre-application public consultations held earlier this year.

Under the new plans, EDF has proposed the creation of more than 800 acres of saltmarsh at Pawlett Hams, which it claims will provide habitats for fish and animals, improve water quality and reduce flood risks.

The saltmarsh would be an alternative to installing an acoustic fish deterrent, as previously agreed as part of the approved development consent order. EDF would also create new areas of seagrass and kelp and new oyster beds.

The intended purpose of the acoustic fish deterrent is to reduce the number of fish which could be drawn into the power plant’s cooling water system and killed.

EDF claims that the fish deterrent previously agreed to would “have limited effects on protected fish species in the area”.

It states that the “total amount of all fish to be harmed without the acoustic fish deterrent has been predicted by Cefas to be in the range of 18 to 46 tonnes in a year”.

EDF points out that this is “less than the annual catch of one small fishing vessel”.

It adds that the 288 speakers needed as part of the deterrent would make “make noise louder than a jumbo jet 24-hours a day for 60 years” which could potentially impact on porpoises, seals, whales, and other species.

Chris Fayers, Hinkley Point C’s head of environment, said: “Hinkley Point C is working with Natural England, Natural Resources Wales, the Environment Agency, and other conservation bodies to develop new natural habitats to compensate for the risk of any impact on protected fish species. […]

“New natural habitat is a better solution than an acoustic fish deterrent which would use 280 speakers to make noise louder than a jumbo jet 24-hours a day for 60 years.

“The system’s impact on porpoises, seals, whales, and other species is unknown. It offers a very small potential benefit to protected fish species and would also risk the safety of divers in the fast-flowing tides of the Bristol Channel.”

He added: “Despite scientific evidence that the remaining impact on fish is ‘very small’, the project supports further effective, proportionate, and practical compensation measures. Resolution of this issue matters.”

Despite EDF’s assurances, the Environment Agency said that it is “currently unable to agree with the calculated level of harm from removing the acoustic fish deterrent”.

In particular, the regulator said that the “latest tracking evidence suggests that adult shad are more likely to be impinged” than EDF’s calculations suggest.

It adds: “For salmon, we cannot agree that the mean predicted impingement is a realistic estimate of the harm due to data deficiency in sampling.”

The Environment Agency has also called for “more justification […] for the scale and proposed delivery timescales of the compensation package”, including the saltmarsh.

It adds: “The compensation package does not appear to consider the delay between the operation of Hinkley Point C and the functioning of the compensatory measures. Compensation should be in place ‘in time’ to provide fully the ecological functions that they are intended to compensate for.”

And thirdly, the Environment Agency raises concerns about “the lack of finalised Flood Risk Assessment (including flood risk modelling), Water Framework Directive and other environmental assessments required to agree the suitability of Pawlett Hams (saltmarsh), the marine habitats, and fish pass removal/easement proposals”.