Representation by Blue Marine Foundation (Blue Marine Foundation)
- Date submitted
- 2 June 2021
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The Blue Marine Foundation (BLUE) is an environmental charity based in London and has specialised in marine conservation works for the past decade. Together with other environmental NGOs BLUE currently has Rule 6 status in the Hinkley Point C inquiry (APP APP/EPR/573). That appeal was recovered by DEFRA over environmental concerns raised by the design and in particular by the direct cooling system of the plant. As EDF states, Sizewell C will be “an almost identical replica of Hinkley Point C” . BLUE thus wishes to raise urgent concerns about the project and its additional changes so that similar issues to those of Hinkley Point C do not arise in the future at Sizewell C. This letter sets out our representations in relation to the additional design changes advanced in SZC Co.’s letter to the Inspectorate dated 11 January 2021. 1. We write in relation to extensions and reductions for works on the main development sites and the fen meadow loss and mitigation plans (Changes 11 and 13); and the documents referred to in relation to these, in particular, the WFD addendum . 2. Those changes are relevant to the project’s compliance with the Water framework Directive (WFD) as set out in Appendix A of SZC Co.’s letter , and BLUE wishes to set out the following material aspects about the applicability of the WFD to the Sizewell C project. 3. The Water Framework Directive establishes two main obligations: (i) to prevent the deterioration of water bodies, and (ii) to support the achievement of environmental objectives set for those water bodies (Regulation 3(2) of the WFD Regulations), inter alia, to protect, enhance and restore those water bodies (Regulation 13(b) of the WFD Regulations). 4. On the prevention of deterioration obligation of the Water Framework Directive, the CJEU held in Case C-461/13 Bund fur Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland that this obligation: “…must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are required — unless a derogation is granted — to refuse authorisation for an individual project where it may cause a deterioration of the status of a body of surface water or where it jeopardises the attainment of good surface water status or of good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status by the date laid down by the directive.”; and “…must be interpreted as meaning that there is deterioration as soon as the status of at least one of the quality elements, within the meaning of Annex V to the directive, falls by one class, even if that fall does not result in a fall in classification of the body of surface water as a whole. However, if the quality element concerned, within the meaning of that annex, is already in the lowest class, any deterioration of that element constitutes a ‘deterioration of the status’ of a body of surface water, within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a)(i).” 5. As stated above, an addendum to the WFD assessment was submitted and is referred to in the additional changes letter of January 2011. BLUE wishes to set out ab initio that Cefas’ data relied upon by SZC Co. in carrying out its WFD assessment and the subsequent WFD addendum document is potentially flawed and that there could be, inter alia, wrong assumptions made in calculations and an underestimation of impingement rates. 6. Cefas’ methodology is under scrutiny in the Hinkley Point C inquiry, as are many aspects of the water abstraction and discharge design, it would therefore be premature for any decision relating to abstraction and its impact to be made while those same matters are effectively sub judice from a similar design. 7. Sizewell C design, in particular its cooling system plan: (i) thus largely underestimates the environmental costs of the impacts of the project, (ii) is based on potentially flawed scientific data which is the basis of the WFD assessment and its addendum submitted in relation to the proposed changes in January 2021; and thus, (iii) breaches environmental legislation, in particular the WFD. 8. Furthermore, Change 11 pertains to compensation mechanisms and the provision of additional fen meadow as mitigation. Although the IROPI and compensatory measures take into account adverse effects on the integrity of the Minsmere-Walberswick Special Protection Area (SPA) and the Ramsar site, it is our contention that proper compensation can only ensue if there is an accurate assessment of the impacts based on correct data, and that this is not the case here. 9. Sizewell will be operational for about 60 years during which the ecosystems will likely considerably be impacted by climate change. Adaptive management conditions to deal with uncertainties brought about by as climate change should thus also be taken into consideration. Such adaptive management measures were incorporated into the Swansea Tidal Lagoon Development Consent Order (See Schedule 1 Part 3 Attached) 10. Following the Hinkley Point C inquiry, more evidence, directly applicable to Sizewell C will then be available, and it is our view that it is crucial that such evidence be considered. In the long run we believe it would save time for all parties involved in this inquiry if the results of the Hinkley inquiry were known before this inquiry formally proceeds. There are, at this point, less environmentally damaging options available, including the consideration of cooling towers. We thus urge the planning inspectorate to take this into account during the examination process.