Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Geological Disposal
NDA Technical Note no. 17168744
Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)plan level methodology for use duringManaging Radioactive Waste Safely(MRWS) Stage 4
October 2012
Geological Disposal
NDA Technical Note no. 17168744
Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)plan level methodology for use duringManaging Radioactive Waste Safely(MRWS) Stage 4
October 2012
Conditions of Publication This report is made available under the NDA Transparency Policy. In line with this policy, the NDA is seeking to make information on its activities readily available, and to enable interested parties to have access to and influence on its future programmes. The report may be freely used for non-commercial purposes. However, all commercial uses, including copying and re-publication, require permission from the NDA. All copyright, database rights and other intellectual property rights reside with the NDA. Applications for permission to use the report commercially should be made to the NDA Information Manager.
Although great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information contained in this publication, the NDA can not assume any responsibility for consequences that may arise from its use by other parties.
© Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 2012. All rights reserved.
Bibliography If you would like to see other reports available from NDA, a complete listing can be viewed at our website www.nda.gov.uk, or please write to the address below.
Feedback Readers are invited to provide feedback to the NDA on the contents, clarity and presentation of this report and on the means of improving the range of NDA reports published. Feedback should be addressed to:
Dr Elizabeth Atherton Head of Stakeholder Engagement and Communications Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Radioactive Waste Management Directorate Building 587 Curie Avenue Harwell Oxford Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0RH
ii
Executive Summary Geological disposal is the UK Government’s policy for the long term management of higher-activity radioactive wastes. The principle of geological disposal involves isolating radioactive waste deep inside a suitable rock formation to ensure that no harmful quantities of radioactivity ever reach the surface environment. It is a multi-barrier approach, based on placing wastes deep underground, protected from disruption by man-made or natural events. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has been tasked by the UK Government with planning and delivering a geological disposal facility (GDF) through the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) process. The Radioactive Waste Management Directorate (RWMD) has been established within the NDA to achieve this. The process of selecting a site for geological disposal is based on the principles of voluntarism and partnership. This means that communities volunteer to participate in the process that will ultimately provide a site for a GDF. Participation up until quite late in the process, when underground operations are due to begin, is without commitment to further stages. RWMD will work in partnership with volunteer communities to identify and assess potential candidate sites in line with various EU Directives, UK legislation and international standards for constructing and operating a nuclear facility. This Technical Note outlines a methodology for undertaking a plan level Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) during MRWS Stage 4 with reference to the implementing regulations of the Habitats Directive: ‘The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010’ (as amended) [1] for England and Wales. The aim of this Technical Note is to ensure RWMD meets the requirements of ‘The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010’ as well as adhering to good practice through consultation with stakeholders and statutory bodies. The HRA assesses the likely significant effects of a plan or project on ‘Natura 2000’ (alternatively known as European Sites), which are internationally designated nature conservation sites and, if necessary, the adverse effects of that plan or project on the integrity of ‘Natura 2000’ (European Sites). Such effects can then be taken into account during plan / project development and in the decision making process. Following a decision to participate in the site selection process by one or more communities, a scoping consultation will occur for the plan level HRA at the same time as the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to ensure the full scope of environmental, social and economic assessments and interactions between them are understood. It is anticipated that this “plan level” HRA of RWMD’s geological disposal implementation plan (GDIP) will be conducted in parallel with the SEA and is likely to be based on a number of potential candidate sites identified by participating communities. More detailed “project level” HRA’s are anticipated during later stages of the site selection process - associated with detailed proposals for intrusive, surface based investigations at one or more of these sites (MRWS Stage 5) and, ultimately, with detailed proposals for constructing and operating a disposal facility at the preferred site (MRWS Stage 6). These more detailed assessments will be carried out in parallel with Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs).
iii
This methodology proposes to use the following steps for the plan level HRA: Screening: This stage will consider whether or not the proposed plan or project,
either alone or in combination with other plans or projects will have a likely significant effect on a European Site. If this is judged to be likely (taking a precautionary approach) then an Appropriate Assessment will be needed.
Appropriate Assessment (AA): If screening has concluded that an Appropriate Assessment is required, an assessment will be carried out to assess whether or not the plan or project, taking into account mitigation measures, will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European Site. If adverse effects on the integrity of the European Site cannot be avoided then an Assessment of Alternative Solutions will be needed.
Assessment of Alternative Solutions: This stage will examine alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the plan or project that do not give rise to adverse effects on the integrity of the European Site. If there are no alternative solutions then a case will have to be made that the plan or project is needed for imperative reasons of overriding public interest.
Assessment where no Alternative Solutions Exist. Following the previous steps, if there are no alternative solutions then the GDIP can only be authorised where there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Measures will be developed to compensate for the identified adverse effects on the integrity of the European Site [2]. Specific compensatory measures can only be developed when potential candidate sites are known and European Sites have been identified but would likely to involve the creation and enhancement of replacement habitat.
The plan level assessment is likely to involve a relatively high level of uncertainty. At such an early stage in the site selection process for a geological disposal facility a wide range of possible alternatives will still be under consideration (e.g. different potential candidate sites for geological disposal, alternative site investigation programmes, alternative designs for a disposal facility, alternative options for transporting waste and so on). In recognition of this, we will take a precautionary approach to our assessment of the GDIP.
It is important to emphasise that the MRWS Stage 4 process is concerned with the identification of sites with more potential to host a GDF than others but it is not an actual siting decision making or approval stage. The plan level HRA will be part of a range of assessments in helping local communities and Government to identify sites for surface based investigations but because of the volunteerism approach to MRWS, even investigated sites may never host a GDF.
During later stages of the site selection process some of the uncertainties we have to deal with now will be resolved. It is anticipated that potential effects and associated mitigation measures identified during more detailed project level assessments will carry a much higher level of confidence.
The methodology is based on guidance from the European Commission [3] and the Department of Communities and Local Government [4] and has been reviewed by the RWMD Environmental Assessment Advisory Panel to ensure good practice is being applied. A final draft will be formally consulted on with stakeholders in parallel with the scoping consultation for the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).
iv
v
List of Contents
Executive Summary iii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Managing Radioactive Waste Safety (MRWS) 1
1.2 Overarching RWMD approach to Sustainability Appraisal and Environmental Assessment 2
1.3 Habitats Directive 2
1.4 RWMD methodology for HRA during the MRWS site selection process 3
2 Habitats legislation, regulation and interpretation 5
2.1 Implementing the HRA (Article 6 Assessment) 6
2.2 Mitigation measures 10
3 RWMD HRA methodology 15
3.1 Stage 1 – Screening 15
3.2 Stage 2 – Appropriate Assessment (AA) 18
3.3 Stage 3 – Assessment of Alternative Solutions 22
3.4 Stage 4 – Assessment of where no Alternative Solutions Exist 24
4 SEA and the site selection process 26
4.1 Relationship between the site evaluation process, SEA and HRA 26
4.2 The site evaluation process 29
4.3 The relationship between SEA and site evaluation 29
4.4 The relationship between SEA, EIA and HRA 30
5 Conclusions 31
References 32
1 Introduction
1.1 Managing Radioactive Waste Safety (MRWS) Geological disposal is the UK Government’s policy for the long term management of higher-activity radioactive wastes. The principle of geological disposal involves isolating radioactive waste deep inside a suitable rock formation to ensure that no harmful quantities of radioactivity ever reach the surface environment. It is a multi-barrier approach, based on placing wastes deep underground, protected from disruption by man-made or natural events.
In June 2008, the Government published ‘Managing Radioactive Waste Safely - A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal’ (the MRWS White Paper) [5]. The MRWS White Paper outlined a six-stage site selection process through which a preferred site for a GDF would be identified and developed, illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Stages in the MRWS site selection process
1
The process of selecting a site for geological disposal is based on the principles of voluntarism and partnership. This means that communities volunteer to participate in the process that will ultimately provide a site for a GDF. Participation up until quite late in the process, when underground operations are due to begin, is without commitment to further stages.
If a community makes a decision to participate then Stage 4 of the MRWS site selection process would involve desk based studies of the candidate community areas in order to identify potential candidate sites. If the potential candidate sites are judged to be potentially suitable to host a GDF and the community or communities wish to continue to participate in the site selection process, Stage 5 would result in surface based investigation works and Stage 6 would result in underground operations. A more detailed explanation of the MRWS site selection process is provided in the MRWS White Paper [5].
1.2 Overarching RWMD approach to Sustainability Appraisal and Environmental Assessment
The MRWS White Paper [5] requires the NDA to develop a strategy for sustainability appraisal and environmental assessment for the implementation of a geological disposal facility. RWMD developed its strategy for sustainability appraisal and environmental assessment through consultation in 2009. As outlined in the strategy [6] the SEA and EIAs will be used to inform the site assessment process and will provide information for the social, economic and environmental criteria used in the site assessment methodology. The results of the assessments will also be used, alongside assessments of potential health, safety and security impacts, to inform:
Local decisions about whether to participate in the next stage of the site selection
process National decisions about which candidate communities and then site(s) should
proceed to the next stage of the site selection process Work streams aimed at obtaining regulatory permissions such as authorisation to
dispose of radioactive waste Environmental statements supporting planning permission applications.
1.3 Habitats Directive The European Directive (92/43/EEC) on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna (the Habitats Directive) [7] protects habitats and species of European nature conservation importance by establishing a network of internationally important sites designated for their ecological status. These are referred to as Natura 2000 Sites or European Sites1, and comprise Special Protection Areas (SPAs) as classified under the EC Birds Directive 1979, Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), candidate Special Areas of Conservation (cSAC), and Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) designated under the EC Habitats Directive. Potential SPAs (pSPAs) and Ramsar2 sites are included in the assessment in line with Government policy and are referred to in this document as “European Sites”.
1 All SAC, cSAC, SPA, pSPA, SCIs and Ramsar sites to which the procedures of the HRA apply, are referred to as European Sites in this HRA methodology. Details about the different kinds of protected sitescan be found at: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=4 2 Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance, designated under the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. Ramsar sites in the UK are protected as European sites.
2
The provisions of the Directive require Member States to introduce a range of measures including the protection of habitat types and species listed in the Annexes of the Habitats and Birds Directives and to undertake surveillance of habitats and species and produce a report every six years on the implementation of the Directive [8]
Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive requires an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ to be undertaken on proposed plans or projects which are not necessary for the management of the European Site but which are likely to have a significant effect on one or more European Sites either individually, or in combination with other plans or projects. In England and Wales this requirement is transposed into UK law by ‘The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010’ (as amended) (referred to herein as the Regulations) [1].
The process of fulfilling the requirements of the Habitats Directive and the Regulations is now in practice referred to as HRA, and Appropriate Assessment (AA), if required, forms a stage within the overall HRA process.
It is anticipated a strategic, “plan level” HRA would be conducted in parallel with the Strategic Environmental Assessment during Stage 4 of the MRWS site selection process. Project level assessments would be conducted in parallel with Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) during MRWS Stage 5 covering the (intrusive) surface based investigations, and MRWS Stage 6 as part of the planning application for a GDF facility.
Both SEA and EIA consider a wide range of environmental and socio-economic effects; HRA focuses specifically on biodiversity and the protection of important habitats and species.
1.4 RWMD methodology for HRA during the MRWS site selection process This methodology is concerned with the production of a “plan level” HRA of the effects of implementing the GDIP (see Box 1). As the MRWS Stage 4 process is concerned with the identification of sites (through the GDIP) with more potential to host a GDF than others within participating communities, but it is not an actual siting decision making or approval stage, the plan level HRA will be part of a range of assessments in helping to identify sites with more potential than others for further surface based investigations.
Box 1: Geological disposal implementation plan (GDIP)
The GDIP is part of the overall geological disposal programme. It focuses on the implementation phases of the programme and, in draft form, will be the subject of the HRA. It is defined as follows:
The draft plan proposes a series of co-ordinated activities to implement geological disposal of higher activity radioactive waste, based on a voluntarism/partnership approach to site selection. Implementation of the plan starts with surface based investigations at one or more candidate site(s)before moving on to subsequent underground investigation at the preferred site to confirm it’s suitability; the draft plan also includes construction, operation, closure and post closure phases of the proposed disposal facility and its associated infrastructure.
The surfaced based investigations during MRWS Stage 5 may require “project level” HRA’s themselves, but the scope of these will be limited to the activities associated with surface based investigations and their effects on European Sites, not the implementation of a GDF itself. Due to the volunteerism approach of MRWS, investigated sites may never host a GDF and therefore the detailed “project level” HRA required for the planning application decision and approval of locating a GDF at a preferred site, will not occur until the start of MRWS Stage 6.
3
The methodology outlined in this technical note proposes to use the following steps for the plan level HRA during MRWS Stage 4:
Screening: This stage will consider whether or not the proposed plan or project, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects will have a likely significant, effect on a European Site. If this is judged to be likely (taking a precautionary approach) then an Appropriate Assessment will be needed.
Appropriate Assessment (AA): If screening has concluded that an Appropriate Assessment is required, an assessment will be carried out to assess whether or not the plan or project, taking into account mitigation measures, will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European Site. If adverse effects on the integrity of the European Site cannot be avoided then an Assessment of Alternative Solutions will be needed.
Assessment of Alternative Solutions: This stage will examine alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the plan or project that do not give rise to adverse effects on the integrity of the European Site. If there are no alternative solutions then a case will have to be made that the plan or project is needed for imperative reasons of overriding public interest.
Assessment where no Alternative Solutions Exist. Following the previous steps, if there are no alternative solutions, then the GDIP can only be authorised where there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Measures will be developed to compensate for the identified adverse effects on the integrity of the European Site. [2]
This Technical Note is structured as follows:
Section 2 describes the legal context of the Habitats Directive and the implementing regulations in the UK and explains the legal requirements to conduct an assessment of the effects of plans and projects on European Sites. Section 2 also explains the main principles of the habitats regulations assessment process such as the precautionary principle, the role of the assessment in decision making and the requirement of ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’.
Section 3 describes each stage of the methodology RWMD proposes to undertake for habitats regulations assessment during Stage 4 of the MRWS site selection process.
Section 4 provides further detail on how the habitats regulations assessment methodology will be used in conjunction with the MRWS site selection process and the environmental assessment process and how each relate to one another.
Section 5 outlines the conclusions of this methodology.
4
2 Habitats legislation, regulation and interpretation In 1992 the European Union adopted Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive) [7]. The Habitats Directive applies to the UK as a Member State of the European Union. The provisions of the Habitats Directive require Member States to introduce a range of measures including the protection of habitat types and species listed in the Annexes; to undertake surveillance of habitats and species and produce a report every six years on the implementation of the Habitats Directive [8].
The European network3 provides ecological infrastructure for the protection of sites which are of exceptional importance in respect of rare, endangered or vulnerable natural habitats and species within the European Union. These sites are referred to as European Sites.
The Habitats Directive also applies to Birds identified in the consolidated version of the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) which brings together the 1979 version and all amendments into one document, addressing the conservation of all wild birds throughout the European Union including marine areas and covers their protection, management, control and exploitation. Planning Policy Statement 9 on Biodiversity and Geological Conservation [9] for England and the Technical Advice Note on Nature Conservation and Planning [10] in Wales state that potential SPA’s and wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention 1971 [11] should also be treated in the same way as European Sites.
In the UK the Habitats Directive was transposed into national law by the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) [12] and the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended) [13] known as the Habitats Regulations.
In April 2010 these regulations were superseded by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) [1] for England and Wales (the Regulations). They also applied in Scotland, but only in respect of certain reserved matters whilst some parts of the 1994 regulations, as amended continue to apply. The 1995 regulations (as amended) still apply in Northern Ireland.
In addition to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, the provisions of the Birds Directive are also implemented in the UK by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 [14], the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 2007 [15] as well as other legislation related to the uses of land and sea.
Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive require an Appropriate Assessment (AA) to be prepared for any plan or project which, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, may have a likely significant effect on a European Site [2]. The Directive specifically states:
Article 6(3): “Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans and projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained
3 Provided for in Article 3 of the Habitats Directive
5
that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.”
Article 6(4): “If in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member States shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.
Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.” [7].
An AA is taken to mean an assessment which must be appropriate to its purpose under the Habitats Directive and Regulations, neither of which specify how the assessment should be undertaken [4].
2.1 Implementing the HRA (Article 6 Assessment) It has become generally accepted that the assessment requirements of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive establish a stage-by-stage approach. The stages proposed by the UK Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) [4] and by guidance from the European Commission [3] are:
Stage 1 – Screening (not included in DCLG guidance): The process which identifies the effects upon a European Site of a plan or project, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, and considers whether these effects are likely to be significant;
Stage 2 – Appropriate Assessment: The consideration of the impact on the integrity of the European Site of the plan or project, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans, with respect to the site’s structure and function and its conservation objectives;
Stage 3 – Assessment of alternative solutions: Where the Appropriate Assessment concludes that the plan or project would give rise to an adverse effect on the integrity of the European Site. This process which examines alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the plan or project that avoid adverse effects on the integrity of the European Site;
Stage 4 – Assessment where no Alternative Solutions Exist and where adverse impacts remain: an assessment of compensatory measures where, in the light of an assessment of imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI), it is deemed that the plan or project should proceed.
The stage-by-stage process is illustrated in Figure 2 and outlines some of the steps taken to complete a HRA. The subsequent sections outline in further detail some of the principles of HRA and their implications for assessing the effects of implementing geological disposal including surface based investigations.
6
Figure 2 – Process for consideration of a plan or project affecting a European Site [3]
2.1.1 Precautionary principle EU guidance on the precautionary principle states:
‘The precautionary principle applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen by the EU’4.
4 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_en.pdf
7
However, plans and projects may still be permitted if there are no alternatives and imperative reasons of over-riding public interest can be demonstrated. In such cases, compensatory measures will be necessary to ensure the overall integrity of the site and the network [3].
In the context of the assessment of the GDIP, RWMD will use the precautionary principle when HRA is assessing potential candidate sites.
2.1.2 Approach to decision-making The diversity of habitats, species, plans and projects that exist within the European Union and the variations between national regulations require the approach to the Article 6 assessments to be robust but flexible enough to account for these variations. The HRA process requires judgements to be made on effects and these must be evidence based taking into account the precautionary principle. For these reasons, the decisions made through the application of the methodology should attempt to be as transparent and objective as possible and at the same time should reflect the value judgments inherent in any environmental assessment. Implicit in the Habitats Regulations is the application of the precautionary principle, which requires that the conservation objectives of European Sites should prevail where there is uncertainty. This means that the emphasis for assessment should be on objectively demonstrating, with supporting evidence, that:
There will be no likely significant effects on a European Site (Stage One: Screening); or
There will be no adverse effects on the integrity of a European Site (Stage Two: Appropriate Assessment); or
There are no feasible alternatives to the plan or project that is likely to have adverse effects on the integrity of a European Site (Stage Three: Assessment of Alternative Solutions); and
There are imperative reasons of overriding public interest for the plan or project (together with compensation measures to ensure that the overall coherence of the European Site network is protected) (Stage Four: Assessment where no Alternative Solutions exist) [3].
Essentially the Directive promotes a hierarchy to decision making:
Avoid – prevent significant impacts on European Sites from happening at all
Mitigate – reduce impact to the point where there are no adverse effects on the integrity of the European Sites
Compensate – where there are no alternatives and imperative reasons of overriding public interest, put in place compensatory measures5
2.1.3 In combination with other plans and projects European guidance makes clear that the phrase ‘in combination with other plans or projects’ in Article 3(3) of the Habitats Directive refers to cumulative effects caused by the plans or projects that are currently under consideration together with the effects of any existing or proposed plans or projects. When effects are assessed in combination in this way, it can be established whether or not there may be, overall, an impact which may have likely significant effects on a European Site or which may adversely affect the integrity of a
5 Formal consideration of compensatory measures would not be possible before the IROPI stage has been reached.
8
site. Furthermore, cumulative impacts could result where impacted areas interact. Important issues in carrying out cumulative assessment of effects include:
The setting of boundaries for the assessment: This may be complicated where projects and other sources of impacts which are to be assessed together are not located close together, or where species or other wildlife factors such as sources of food are dispersed, etc.
Establishing responsibilities for carrying out assessments where plans or projects are proposed by different proponents or controlled by different competent authorities
Characterising of potential effects in terms of causes, pathways and effects
Identifying what activities are likely to exacerbate the effects of the plan or project under construction. This helps identify which plans or projects needs to be considered in combination
Where two or more sources of effect act in combination to create a significant effect, taking particular care in assessing mitigation options and allocating responsibility for appropriate mitigation
Consideration of any underlying incremental effects that in conjunction could affect the integrity of a European Site over and above a changing baseline over time.
European guidance [3] suggests a step-by-step approach to cumulative assessment of effects and these steps need to be followed for the screening and appropriate assessment stages (Stages One and Two) of this methodology.
2.1.4 Competent authority In the Habitats Regulations, the competent authority6 is any body that has the power to undertake or give any consent, permission or other authorisation for a plan or project.
In reviewing previous HRA case studies, it was clear that the role of the competent authority was not fixed and relied on an appropriate appointment dependant on the particular assessment. AA will be required where a competent authority decides to undertake or authorise a plan or project which is likely to have significant effects on a European Site either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.
In the recent case of Akester7 the Court considered who could be a competent authority to undertake AA, and concluded that the ferry operator (who was an authority by virtue of being a harbour authority as well as a private company operating a ferry service) could undertake AA of its own plan or programme to introduce a larger class of ferry.
On this basis, RWMD have concluded that it would be a competent authority in relation to deciding on whether AA is required for the implementation of the geological disposal implementation plan as well as for the Assessment of Alternative Solutions stage. Other bodies may also have obligations under the Habitats Regulations, but this methodology only focuses on the responsibilities for RWMD.
In line with the RWMD strategy for environmental assessment [6] RWMD will undertake this assessment in consultation with stakeholders and will involve the consultation bodies associated with environmental assessment.
6 For a full definition see section 7 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. 7 R(on the application of Akester) v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2010] EWHC 232 (Admin).
9
2.2 Mitigation measures Mitigation is defined by the European Commission [16] as measures aimed at minimising or cancelling the negative effect of a plan or project, during or after its completion. The research for this methodology suggests that mitigation measures should be considered in accordance with a hierarchy of preferred options as illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3 - Preference to mitigation
Plan and project proponents are often encouraged to design mitigation measures into their proposals at the outset. RWMD take an iterative approach to design and assessment to minimise and mitigate any adverse environmental affects on the ‘live’ conceptual GDF design independent of the MRWS process. This occurs through ongoing research, assessment and adherence to the latest engineering and environmental good practices. Therefore as sustainability issues are identified these will be fed back to the design team to see if and how they can be mitigated by adapting the disposal facility designs.
When potential candidate sites have been identified, a version of the latest conceptual design will be created and tailored to each specific ‘site’ taking into account mitigation measures raised from the generic SEA. These designs are referred to as the adapted illustrative designs. An iterative process will then occur to take account of local sensitivities on a range of topics, including environmental issues identified during the site specific SEA. Environmental monitoring, with mitigation measures will then be incorporated into the design during this process.
Plan level HRA assessment reports will be produced based on these adapted illustrative designs incorporating the mitigation measures (in line with the ruling of Hart District Council vs. Secretary of State8) and the geological disposal implementation plan (GDIP)
RWMD must objectively and transparently consider whether the GDIP has the potential for likely significant effects (LSE). At any subsequent AA stage, RWMD will then take into account all currently identified and any site specific measures for avoidance and mitigation.
This approach is proposed on the basis that the GDIP is still open to significant variation and therefore, for a particular site, any avoidance and mitigation measures are likely to be site specific and therefore may not be known during MRWS Stage 4. During subsequent project level HRA’s during MRWS Stage 5 and 6, more detailed information regarding potential candidate sites will be known, and therefore more appropriate mitigation measures can be considered. RWMD will have to determine what type and level of mitigation is appropriate during each of these HRA’s through consultation.
2.2.1 Assessment of Alternative Solutions For the assessment of alternative solutions (relevant where any Appropriate Assessment has concluded that the plan or project will give rise to adverse effects on the integrity of the
8 Hart District Council v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Luckmore Limited and Barratt Homes Limited, [2008] EWHC 1204
10
European Site), guidance suggests that they could involve alternative locations (or routes in cases of linear developments), different scales or designs of development, or alternative processes. The zero option or do nothing alternative will also be considered in the HRA as it is in SEA [3].
Proponents of plans or projects should consider the assessment of alternative solutions at the earliest stages of development. Although procedurally it is the third phase in this methodology where they are considered, the examination of alternative solutions in the screening and AA stages is likely to save considerable time.
To fulfil the requirements of the Habitats Regulations however, RWMD will still be required to undertake the assessment of alternative solutions as a discrete exercise if the AA stage has concluded that adverse effects are likely.
These may include those alternative solutions already considered by RWMD for geological disposal (section 3.3.3) and surface based investigations. It will also include other alternative solutions that may be suggested by other stakeholders. In reporting the assessment of alternative solutions, it will be important to record all alternative solutions considered as well as their relative effects on a European Site.
2.2.2 Imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) Following the determination of whether feasible alternative solutions exist and the conclusion that there are no alternative solutions, it is necessary under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive to consider whether there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI). The majority of guidance does not deal with any methodologies for the assessment of imperative reasons of overriding public interest, as this will be largely for national authorities to determine. European guidance states [16]:
“Having regard to the structure of the provision, in the specific cases, the competent national authorities have to make their approval of the plans and projects in question subject to the condition that the balance of interests between the conservation objectives of the site affected by those initiatives and the above mentioned imperative reasons weighs in favour of the latter. This should be determined along the following considerations:
(a) The public interest must be overriding: it is therefore clear that not every kind of public interest of a social or economic nature is sufficient, in particular when seen against the particular weight of the interests protected by the Directive.
(b) In this context, it also seems reasonable to assume that the public interest can only be overriding if it is a long-term interest. Short term economic interests or other interests which would only yield short-term benefits for society would not appear to be sufficient to outweigh the long-term conservation interests protected by the Directive.”
It is reasonable to consider that the imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social and economic nature refer to situations where plans or projects envisaged prove to be indispensable:
Within the framework of actions or policies aiming to protect fundamental values for citizens’ lives (health, safety, environment)
Within the framework of fundamental policies for the Member State and society
Within the framework of carrying out activities of an economic or social nature, fulfilling specific obligations of public service.
In the case of priority habitats, plans or projects that are likely to give rise to adverse effects can only proceed if the evoked public interest concerns human health and public safety or overriding beneficial consequences for the environment, or if, before granting approval to
11
the plan or project, the European Commission expresses an opinion on the initiative concerned [3].
The following may, in certain circumstances, be considered as IROPI, so long as they are supported with evidence:
Plans or projects where there is a demonstrable public or environmental need
Plans or projects that are specifically targeted at improving public health and/or safety
Plans or projects that are specifically targeted at safeguarding human life and property [3].
It should be noted that such considerations must be ‘overriding’ in the sense that they are of superior interest to the general interest of conserving the conservation status of a site. European guidance also makes clear that plans or projects that serve only the interests of companies or individuals are not covered by the IROPI test [16]. Furthermore, an examination of these interests should only take place when it has been established that there is an absence of feasible alternative solutions [3].
2.2.3 Compensatory measures If an IROPI decision has been reached, then compensatory measures must be secured that ensure the overall coherence of the European Sites / Natura 2000 network. These measures must be above and beyond the normal measures required for the protection and management of a European Site in order to provide a level of compensation that corresponds to the negative effects to the species or habitats concerned.
European Commission guidance paper on Article 6(4) (January 2007) [17] advises that;
“In order to ensure the overall coherence of Natura 2000, the compensatory measures proposed for a project should therefore: a) address, in comparable proportions, the habitats and species negatively affected; b) provide functions comparable to those which had justified the selection criteria of the original site, particularly regarding the adequate geographical distribution. Thus, it would not be enough that the compensatory measures concern the same biogeographical region in the same Member State”.
“The distance between the original site and the place of the compensatory measures is not necessarily an obstacle as long as it does not affect the functionality of the site, its role in the geographical distribution and the reasons for its initial selection”.
Some examples of compensation measures include;
Restoration or enhancement of existing sites
Habitat creation which can be incorporated into the Natura 2000 network
Species reintroduction
Incentives for certain economic activities that sustain key ecological functions.
It is also important that the timing of any compensatory measures occurs at such a point that facilitates the continuity of the overall Natura 2000 network. A site must not be damaged before compensation is in place but under certain circumstances where this cannot be fully achieved, overcompensation would be required for these interim losses.
12
Under the “polluter pays” principle, the promoter of any project that requires compensation measures will bear the long term legal and financial cost for their implementation, protection, monitoring and maintenance which will be secured in advance of any negative impacts occurring.
It is important to recognise that compensation and mitigation are very different. The European Commission guidance paper on Article 6(4) dated January 2007 [17] identifies these as:
1. Mitigation measures – Those that aim to minimise or even cancel, the negative impacts on a site that are likely to arise as a result of the implementation of the plan or project
2. Compensatory measures – These are independent of the project (including any associated mitigation measures). They are intended of offset the negative effects of the plan or project so that the overall ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 Network is maintained.
2.2.4 Consultation scope and timing There is a statutory requirement to consult the appropriate nature conservation body during the HRA process (see section 2.2.5). Public consultation is a discretionary requirement and the Habitat Regulations note that the plan-making authority can, if it considers it appropriate, take the opinion of the general public into account. Consultation is an ongoing process. In addition to the consultation undertaken at defined stages of the plan-making process, further consultation with the statutory consultees, local participating communities, local and national government and any other relevant or interested stakeholders, will be undertaken by RWMD throughout the MRWS process. Statutory and non-statutory consultees will be made aware of RWMD’s intention to consult on its proposal for HRA and the appropriate assessment well in advance of the consultation to provide an opportunity to plan their time. At present, RWMD intends to run the consultation on the HRA screening and scoping report as a discrete process, but in parallel with the SEA scoping report at the beginning of MRWS Stage 4. At the end of Stage 4 of the MRWS process, the formal consultation of the HRA Appropriate Assessments (AA’s) will also occur in parallel with the SEA consultation.
RWMD is committed to its strategy of engagement with all stakeholders on environmental assessment throughout the MRWS process; this is especially important in the early stages. For this to be successful, it is important to understand who the relevant ‘statutory’ and ‘key’ stakeholders are and recognise that these could change throughout the programme.
2.2.5 Statutory HRA nature conservation agency It is a requirement of the Habitats Regulations that in undertaking a HRA of the GDIP, the plan making authority (in this case RWMD) consults the “appropriate nature conservation body” and has regard to any representations made by that body.
In respect of the assessment of plans and projects under the Habitats Regulations, the appropriate nature conservation bodies are defined as:
Natural England (NE) [18] – Natural England is an independent public body whose purpose is to protect and improve England’s natural environment and encourage people to enjoy and get involved in their surroundings.
Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) [19] – The Countryside Council for Wales champions the environment and landscapes of Wales and its coastal waters as sources of
13
natural and cultural riches, as a foundation for economic and social activity, and as a place for leisure and learning opportunities.
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)9 [20] – The purpose of Scottish Natural Heritage is to promote care for and improvement of the natural heritage, help people enjoy it responsibly, enable greater understanding and awareness of it, promote its sustainable use, now and for future generations.
Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland (DoE) [21] – the DOE aims to protect and improve the environment, promote well being and deliver a strong and effective local government to support a thriving economy.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) is the public body that advises the UK Government and devolved administrations on UK-wide and international nature conservation [22]. Originally established under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, JNCC was reconstituted by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 [23].
2.2.6 HRA key stakeholders Other stakeholders that provide guidance on the development and implementation of HRA and may therefore be interested parties when the RWMD begins to consult on its proposals will also be consulted. These include:
The Environment Agency10 is an Executive Non-departmental Public Body responsible to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and an Assembly Sponsored Public Body responsible to the National Assembly for Wales. The Environment Agency’s principal aims are to protect and improve the environment and to promote sustainable development by delivering the environmental priorities of central government and the Welsh Assembly Government [24].
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)11 is Scotland’s environmental regulator. SEPA’s main role is to protect and improve the environment by being an environmental regulator, helping business and industry to understand their environmental responsibilities, enabling customers to comply with legislation and good practice and to realise the many economic benefits of good environmental practice. SEPA protect communities by regulating activities that can cause harmful pollution and by monitoring the quality of Scotland's air, land and water [25].
Marine Management Organisation (MMO) [26] - The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) has been established to make a significant contribution to sustainable development in the marine area and to promote the UK government’s vision for clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas.
9 Scottish Natural Heritage are included for completeness however the Scottish government does not accept that geological disposal is the right way forward and following consultation has decided on a policy of long term near surface, near site storage. 10 The Environment Agency, whilst not a Statutory Consultee for the HRA process, has a key role in managing water resources, including ensuring the protection of European Sites through consenting and discharge regulation. The Environment Agency will therefore be included in the overall statutory consultation process. 11 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) are included for completeness however the Scottish government does not accept that geological disposal is the right way forward and following consultation has decided on a policy of long term near surface, near site storage.
14
3 RWMD HRA methodology This section outlines the proposed methodology for HRA for the GDIP.
3.1 Stage 1 – Screening Stage 1 of the HRA process will examine the likely effects of the GDIP, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, on a European Site (or sites). Screening is also common among other assessment processes such as Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) although these assessments tend to focus on the type of development being proposed, whereas HRA focused on the effects on specific areas (European Sites) using the precautionary principle. Figure 4 illustrates the steps in the HRA screening stage, which are explained in more detail in subsequent sub-sections.
Figure 4 - Stage 1 Screening [3]
The screening stage considers whether it can be objectively concluded that there will be no effects or that effects will not be significant. The stage comprises six main steps:
Provide a description of the GDIP, together with a description and characterisation of other plans or projects that in combination have the potential for having significant effects on a European Site
Characterise the European Sites by identifying their interest features and conservation objectives
Determine whether the GDIP is directly connected with or necessary to the management of a European Site
15
Identification of the potential effects on a European Site
Assessment of the significance of any effects on the European Site
Where the effects of the GDIP are not significant alone then consider which plans or projects could interact with the GDIP to create likely significant effects.
Completion of the screening stage is dependant on the competent authority gathering information from a variety of sources and consulting with relevant nature conservation authorities (see 2.2.6 above) before making a screening decision as to whether Appropriate Assessment should be undertaken. RWMD will work with stakeholders to undertake the screening.
The screening decision should be based on the precautionary principle and should take into account factors such as size, location relative to the European Site in question and any pathway by which indirect effects may occur (e.g. if the European Site is downstream from the proposals within the GDIP, within the same surface water drainage catchment).
The application of the precautionary principle and transparency in decision-making require that the conclusion of no significant effects on a European protected site shall be recorded and reported. Alternatively, where without detailed assessment at this stage, it can be assumed, either based on the size or scale of implementing geological disposal including surface based investigations, that significant effects cannot be excluded, it is sufficient to move directly to Stage 2 – Appropriate Assessment.
3.1.1 Management of the protected site For the plan or project to be connected to, or necessary for the management of a protected site, it must be related to measures that are for the management of the European Site features. It is considered by this methodology that in relation to the GDIP, the activities involved would not be directly connected to, or necessary for the management of any connected European Site.
3.1.2 Description of the plan or project As part of Stage 4 of the MRWS process if a decision to participate has covered a large area, participating communities will work with RWMD to identify ‘potential candidate sites’ from all of the ‘areas’ that have taken a decision to participate.
After these potential candidate sites have been indentified, RWMD’s engineering department will adapt the current generic illustrative designs based on a catalogue of design options, to be more reflective of the local conditions. These will still be at a ‘plan’ level and will take into account the range of uncertainty that will still be present. Once this exercise is complete however, there will be enough information to provide the indicative descriptions of placing a GDF at the potential candidate site and the associated surface based investigations. The GDIP will contain generic information on geological disposal that applies to all potential candidate sites, and will also contain site specific chapters. Table 1 provides an example of the type of information that could be included in the description.
16
Table 1 Table 1 - Indicative description of a plan or project
Size, scale, area and land take
Plan sector
Resource requirements; human and non-human
Emissions and waste including excavation materials
Transportation requirements during construction and operation.
Duration of phases e.g. construction, operation etc
Implementation period
Location relative to a European Site and key features of the site
3.1.3 Ecological characteristics of the potential candidate sites identified in the GDP
Identification of impacts on a European Site will require ecological characterisation of the potential candidate sites identified in the GDIP as a whole and where impacts are most likely to occur. Impact identification will also need to consider likely cumulative impacts arising from other relevant plans or projects. The information used to ascertain the ecological characteristics of each potential candidate site identified in the GDIP will be mainly through desk-based studies and specifically related to European Sites potentially affected by a GDF. The nature of the potential impact will dictate the levels of site surveys required but at present RWMD anticipate gaining the information needed to undertake the HRA through desk-based research. However visits would be undertaken to any sites identified.
3.1.4 Assessment of significance The final step of the screening stage following the identification of likely effects is to assign significance. Significance can be assigned through the use of indicators, for example habitat loss or potential disturbance to certain species of birds. However, in order to ensure compatibility with the SEA during Stage 4 and EIAs during Stage 5, a similar method of assigning significance could be used but will ultimately be based on the ‘source-pathway-receptor’ approach. This will be agreed in consultation with stakeholders including the environmental assessment advisory panel.
It is nevertheless recommended that the assessment of significance is completed in consultation with stakeholders and with expert opinion. On completion of the assessment of significance and where likely significant impacts cannot be excluded based on the precautionary principle, an AA will be required. The process for completing an appropriate assessment is explained in section 0.
3.1.5 Outcomes Following the screening assessment, and where it has been concluded that likely significant effects may occur, or that there is not sufficient certainty to conclude otherwise, the next stage of this methodology should be followed. However, if it can be concluded at this stage on the basis of clear evidence that likely significant effects on a European Site will not occur, it is good practice to complete the finding of no likely significant effects report which will include justifications for the decision and would be made publically available [3].
17
Stage 2 – Appropriate Assessment (AA) If AA is required, then it will be RWMD’s responsibility as the competent authority to carry out an AA [4]. As outlined earlier this will be done in consultation with stakeholders and statutory consultees. Figure 5 illustrates the overall process of the AA stage;
Figure 5 - Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment
3.1.6 Information requirements The information gathered during the screening stage together with feedback from stakeholders will be drawn upon to assist in assessing the effects of the GDIP. Below is an outline of potential information requirements to complete the AA. Information on the geological disposal implementation plan
Full characteristics which may affect the site(s) under consideration
Land take requirements, size and other specifications
Characteristics of existing, proposed or approved plans, programmes or projects which may cause interactive effects
The relationship between the proposals and the protected site(s)
The information requirements of the local authority and other stakeholders.
18
Information on the protected site(s)
The reasons for the designation, including the site’s conservation objectives
The conservation status of the site and the current baseline condition of the site
Planned or contemplated nature conservation initiatives likely to affect the status of the site in future
Key attributes of any protected species listed in the annexes of the Habitats and Birds Directives
The physical and chemical composition of the site, dynamics of the habitats, species and their ecology
Those aspects of the site that are sensitive to change and the key structural and functional relationships that create and maintain the sites integrity
Seasonal influences on the key Annex I Habitats and Annex II species including other future natural changes taking place covered by the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive.
3.1.7 Prediction of effects There are different methods available to predict the effects of implementing a GDF including surface based investigations. The various methods, outlined in further detail below will need to be compatible with the method(s) used for the MRWS Stage 4 SEA in order to ensure consistency:
Direct measurements to identify areas of habitat loss and proportionate loss of species populations, habitats and/ or communities
Flow charts, networks and systems diagrams to identify chains of effects resulting from direct, indirect, synergistic and cumulative effects, illustrating relationships and process pathways
Quantitative predictive models to provide mathematically derived predictions based on data and assumptions, models to extrapolate effects e.g. trend analysis, scenarios and analogies, dispersal of pollutants in air, soil and water
Geographical information systems to model spatial relationships through overlays to map sensitive areas or locations of habitat loss, enables variables to be displayed, combined and analysed
Information from previous similar projects and planning documents provide useful information where quantitative predictions were made initially and have been monitored throughout operation
Expert opinion from previous experience and consultations [3].
Subject to consultation and agreement with stakeholders, whichever method, or combination of methods, is selected, RWMD will aim to ensure the prediction of effects is as objective as possible using a structured and systematic framework. Effects predicted will be presented as direct and indirect, short and long-term, isolated, synergistic and/ or cumulative together with appropriate definitions for each of these terms and with an explanation as to when in the timescale of the development the effect will occur.
19
3.1.8 Conservation objectives When the process of predicting effects has been completed, it will enable the assessment of whether any of the effects will have an adverse impact on the integrity of the site as defined by its conservation objectives and status. This assessment can also include likely positive effects on the site and its objectives. The precautionary principle will again apply when assessing the effects which will be objectively demonstrated with supporting evidence to show whether there will be negative effects or not. Where effects cannot be objectively demonstrated or are not supported by evidence, the conclusion must and will be that adverse effects will arise [3].
Following the predictions on how implementing a GDF may lead to changes to the protected site from site investigations, construction, operation and closure the assessment can be completed using a checklist such as the one shown below in Table 2.
Table 2 - Site integrity check list Yes No
Cause delays in progress towards achieving the conservation objectives of the site?
Interrupt progress towards achieving the conservation objectives of the site?
Disrupt those factors that help maintain the favourable conditions of the site?
Interfere with the balance, distribution and density of key species that are the indicators of the favourable condition of the site?
Cause changes to the vital defining aspects (e.g. nutrient balance) that determine how the site functions as a habitat or ecosystem?
Change the dynamics of the relationships (for example, between soil and water or plants and animals) that define the structure and/ or function of the site?
Interfere with predicted or expected natural changes to the site (for example water dynamics or chemical composition)?
Reduce the area of key habitats?
Reduce the population of key species?
Change the balance between key species?
Reduce the diversity of the site?
Result in disturbance that could affect population size or density or the balance between key species?
Result in fragmentation?
Result in loss or reduction of key features (for example, tree cover, tidal exposure, annual flooding)?
The results of such a checklist should determine whether or not the GDIP, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, will have an adverse effect on the integrity of a European protected site. Guidance from the European Commission states that where information or evidence is lacking, then adverse effects should be assumed due to the precautionary principle [3]. The overall result and decision taken as to whether an adverse impact may occur shall be recorded and reported. Where adverse effects cannot be ruled out, the next step in the AA process is to consider mitigation measures (in additional to any that are part of the GDIP itself) to avoid, where possible, these adverse effects.
3.1.9 Mitigation measures Mitigation measures will need to be developed where an adverse effect on a European protected site is considered likely. RWMD have adopted an iterative design approach
20
aiming to design out impacts during development and this process will continue throughout the MRWS process.
RWMD as the competent authority will determine what level of mitigation is required during the AA stage having regard to representations made from the nature conservation authorities as well as input from other stakeholders. The mitigation proposed by the competent authority will always aspire to the top of the mitigation hierarchy:
Avoid
Reduce
Repair, rehabilitate or restore
Selected mitigation measures will need to be assessed against each adverse effect. This could be achieved using a variety of methods, however an indicative list is provided below;
List and explain how each measure will avoid or reduce the adverse effect on the site
Provide evidence of how they will be secured and implemented and by whom
Provide evidence of the degree of confidence in their success
Provide a timescale, relative to the programme for geological disposal, when they will be implemented
Provide evidence of how the measures will be monitored and should they fail how the failure will be rectified.
3.1.10 Outcomes Following the completion of the AA, RWMD will produce an assessment report which:
Describes the GDIP in sufficient detail for members of the public to understand its size, scale and objectives
Describes the baseline conditions of the European Site(s)
Identifies the adverse effects of the plan on the European Site(s)
Explains how those adverse effects will be avoided through mitigation; sets out a timescale and identifies the mechanisms through which the mitigation measures will be secured, implemented and monitored.
The assessment report will be available as part of the suite of assessment documents produced near the end of MRWS stage 4. These documents will be reviewed by the regulators, scrutinised by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) and used to engage with the public and stakeholders.
In undertaking the appropriate assessment and developing the draft assessment report, if RWMD believes that despite the application of mitigation measures, residual adverse effects may remain, then it will undertake an assessment of alternative solutions.
21
3.2 Stage 3 – Assessment of Alternative Solutions Before a plan or project, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, that has adverse impacts on the integrity of a protected site can proceed, it must be objectively concluded that no feasible alternative solutions exist. Guidance states that the selection and examination of alternative solutions and their relation to the conservation objectives of the site will outweigh any consideration of costs, delays or other aspects of an alternative solution [3]. Figure 6 outlines the process.
Figure 6 - Assessment of alternative solutions
3.2.1 Identifying alternative solutions The competent authority has the responsibility to determine whether alternative solutions exist. In light of the objectives of the GDIP and for each site under consideration, RWMD will identify a range of different ways of achieving the objectives followed by an assessment of the alternatives. The types of alternatives that will be considered in the SEA during MRWS Stage 4 are similar to those the competent authority will consider for HRA and will include:
Different potential candidate sites for implementing geological disposal
Alternative site investigation programmes at the different potential candidate sites
Alternative concept designs for implementing geological disposal at the different potential candidate sites
Alternative options for the transport of waste to the different potential candidate sites
Different approaches to monitoring, mitigation and enhancement
The baseline definition, i.e. what would happen if geological disposal was not implemented [27].
All alternative solutions will be described together with how they were assessed against their relative effect on a European Site.
22
3.2.2 Assessing alternative solutions The assessment of alternative solutions can be carried out using a variety of methods. A consistent approach with the MRWS Stage 4 SEA will be adopted by RWMD; however for illustrative purposes the following steps could be taken:
Formal and informal consultation with stakeholders
Further analysis of information gathered during Stages 1 and 2
Identification and characterisation of key objectives of geological disposal
Identification of all alternative means of meeting the objectives of geological disposal
Provision of information and gap analysis together with references
Assessment of alternatives against the same criteria used during Stage 2
Application of the precautionary principle throughout
3.2.3 Geological Disposal Concept Options At the current stage of the MRWS process RWMD is examining a wide range of potentially suitable disposal concepts so that a well-informed assessment of options can be carried out at appropriate decision points [27], [28]. As yet, no geological concept has been ruled out, although for the purposes of the HRA the assessment of effects will be bounded by the range of concept options considered during MRWS Stage 4 as being broadly applicable to potential candidate sites.
3.2.4 Outcomes Once the assessment of alternative solutions is complete, a record will be made of the agencies, other bodies and stakeholders that were consulted, their responses to consultation, why particular assessments have been made of alternatives (i.e. adverse, positive or neutral), and details of who carried out the assessment. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether or not it can be objectively concluded that there are no feasible alternative solutions. If alternative solutions have been identified that will either avoid any adverse effects or result in less severe adverse effects on the site, it will be necessary to assess their potential effect by recommencing the assessment at Stage 1 or 2 as appropriate. However, if it can be reasonably and objectively concluded that there are no feasible alternatives, it will be necessary to proceed to Stage 4 of this assessment methodology.
23
3.3 Stage 4 – Assessment of where no Alternative Solutions Exist The final stage of the HRA considers whether or not there are considerations that override identified adverse effects on a European Site(s). Where such considerations do exist it will be necessary to make a case for “imperative reasons of overriding public interest” (IROPI) and to identify appropriate compensatory measures. Where the affected site(s) host a priority habitat or species then such considerations must involve human health or safety, or important environmental benefits. Figure 7 outlines the process.
Figure 7 - Assessment where no alternatives solutions exist and where adverse effects remain
3.3.1 Imperative reasons of overriding public interest Strong justification will need to be provided to support IROPI. Previous assessments showing that there were no mitigation measures or alternative solutions to cancel out the adverse impacts of implementing a GDF including surface based investigations [4] are required together with either:
Reasons relating to human health, public safety or beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment
Demonstration that geological disposal is being undertaken for reasons of overriding public interest.
When proceeding with geological disposal under these circumstances compensatory measures will then need to be identified and carried out to ensure the overall coherence of the European network is protected.
3.3.2 Assessment of compensatory measures The selection of compensatory measures needs to be justified for any plan or project that will have an adverse effect on a protected site before it can be permitted to proceed. Successful compensatory measures will need to ensure the maintenance and where appropriate and possible enhancement of the overall coherence of the European network and should:
Address in comparable proportions the habitats and species negatively affected
24
Relate to the same bio-geographical region in the same member state and be in as close proximity as possible to the habitat or species that has been adversely affected
Provide functions comparable to those which justified the selection criteria of the original site
Have clearly defined implementation and management objectives to achieve the maintenance and enhancement of the European network coherence
3.3.3 Outcomes Conclusions will be reached on whether or not the compensatory measures will be successful in maintaining or enhancing the overall coherence of the European network. The findings of the assessment will be recorded.
The assessment of the compensatory measures continues through monitoring. Monitoring is particularly important to ensure that the conservation objectives of the European Site network are achieved. In combination with the SEA implementation and following on from the assessment work, proposals will be developed for monitoring plan implementation to identify any unforeseen effects and in order to undertake appropriate remedial action if needed. At this stage, such measures will only be outline. They will be captured in the Disposal System Specification and will be further developed during more detailed assessment work in MRWS Stage 5 and 6.
25
4 SEA and the site selection process
4.1 Relationship between the site assessment process, SEA and HRA This section outlines how RWMD proposes to approach the evaluation of potential candidate site(s) in Stage 4 of the MRWS site selection process [29]. The proposed approach would be subject to national and local consultation prior to being finalised. This section also outlines the relationship between the evaluation of candidate sites and the role of SEA and HRA during MRWS Stage 4.
The Government is committed to ensuring that the geological disposal programme fully assesses and accounts for environmental impacts and sustainability issues through the application of SEA, Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) [5]. Figure 8 provides an overview of the six MRWS site selection stages and when assessments (including SEA and EIA) would be undertaken.
The MRWS White Paper sets out that Government expects RWMD to undertake SA whilst meeting the requirements of the SEA Directive. In response to this, RWMD developed and consulted on a proposed framework for SA and environmental assessment for the geological disposal facility programme between August and November 2008 [30].
The responses to the consultation were analysed and were taken into account in developing the Strategy for Sustainability Appraisal and Environmental Assessment (NDA, July 2009) [6].
This Strategy states that the approach would meet the requirements of the SEA Directive [31] and transposing regulations and that the assessment would be called an SEA and would cover environmental, social and economic considerations. The ‘Environmental Report’ required by the SEA Directive would be called an ‘Environmental and Sustainability Report’.
The Strategy also states that the results of the assessment would be used, alongside assessments of likely health, safety and security impacts, to inform:
Local decisions about whether to participate in the next stage of the site selection process
National decisions about which candidate communities and then candidate site(s) should proceed to the next stage of the site selection process.
26
Figure 8 - Overview of MRWS assessments
27
The Strategy proposes that the aims of the SEA (and subsequent EIAs) would be:
To promote a sustainable outcome for the geological disposal programme
To identify the potential environmental, social and economic effects of the RWMD’s proposals for geological disposal
To provide information that will assist in developing the proposals and the design of a GDF in line with the latest catalogue of options [27], [28] to address the effects identified
To put in place measures to prevent, design out or mitigate adverse impacts, maximise positive impacts and monitor the effect of the RWMD’s plans and programmes for geological disposal
To establish the environmental, social and economic baseline in the areas being investigated to enable prediction of effects and subsequent monitoring; and
To set out the findings of the SEA process and provide this information to stakeholders to inform decision making and build public confidence.
A consistent approach and methodology would be applied to all the communities that participate in the site selection process.
The Strategy for Sustainability Appraisal and Environmental Assessment proposes that RWMD would undertake the following assessments:
During Stages 1 to 3 of the MRWS site selection process, we proposed to undertake a generic (i.e. not site specific) assessment to help identify the potential environmental and socio-economic effects of implementing geological disposal. This work has now been completed and is being used to inform the development of design concepts for geological disposal and to provide information to communities that have expressed (or are considering expressing) in interest in participating in the site selection process and in hosting a GDF [32].
An SEA of the GDIP. This assessment would be undertaken during Stage 4 of the MRWS site assessment process, would be strategic in nature because a specific site(s) may not have been identified and would be based largely on desk studies. However, the assessment would include information about the candidate communities being considered and therefore may focus on particular geographic areas. The assessment would be developed iteratively as the desk based studies progressed (drafts for stakeholder engagement, final versions for consultation) and the results would be fed into the development of RWMD’s proposals for implementing geological disposal. The assessment would be used in local and national decisions about which site(s) to investigate in Stage 5 of the site selection process.
EIAs of proposals for undertaking intrusive surface investigations and/or construction work associated with the site investigation programme at specific candidate site(s). These assessments would be undertaken during Stage 5 of the MRWS site assessment process and would support any planning applications that were needed.
An EIA of the proposed design and implementation of a GDF in each of the candidate site(s) being considered during the site assessment process. These assessments would be undertaken during Stage 5 of the MRWS site assessment process and would assess a specific disposal facility design(s) for the candidate site(s) being proposed. The assessments would be developed iteratively as the surface based investigations progress and the results would be fed into the
28
development of a GDF design(s). These assessments would be used in local and national decisions about the preferred site and GDF design.
An EIA of the preferred design and preferred site as an input to the planning application for the implementation of the GDF. This assessment would be undertaken during Stage 6 of the MRWS site assessment process and would be a revision of the assessment undertaken in Stage 5.
Each assessment stage would build on the work that preceded it. The information that is gathered for the SEA would be an important input into the EIA(s), although the EIA(s) would evaluate potential impacts in more detail than the SEA and additional information would have to be obtained to enable the assessment.
This report has proposed a methodology for undertaking plan and project level HRA’s of the GDIP during the MRWS site selection process. RWMD proposes to undertake a HRA simultaneously with SEA and EIA at the appropriate stages of the MRWS site selection process. The results of the HRA will be reported separately to the environmental and sustainability report of the SEA during MRWS Stage 4 and the Environmental Statement(s) of the EIA(s) during MRWS Stages 5 and 6.
4.2 The site assessment process The approach proposed in the MRWS White Paper to evaluate potential candidate site(s) would involve assessing them against a number of broad site selection criteria. In March 2012, following public consultation, the Government published a framework for site identification and site assessment [29]. The Framework reaffirms the national criteria for site identification and assessment presented in the MRWS White Paper and sets out a desk-based approach for implementing both these elements of the site selection process.
Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) will be used to explore the differences between potential candidate sites, the effects of uncertainty in data sets used for the assessment and the effects of differences of opinion between various stakeholders (e.g. in the way the evaluation criteria should be weighted).
The outputs from this work will inform the decision by local and national Government on which candidate sites to take forward to Stage 5 of the site selection process.
The criteria that will be taken into account in carrying out the assessments are: geological setting potential impact on people potential impact on the natural environment and landscape effect on local socio-economic conditions transport and infrastructure provision cost, timing and ease of implementation.
It is anticipated that the criteria would be amended to reflect the views of stakeholders and would need to be agreed by Government and participating communities prior to their application in the site selection process.
The information needed for the assessment of potential candidate sites and to feed into the MCDA model would come from a number of sources. For the environmental and socio-economic criteria, much of the information would come from work underpinning the SEA.
4.3 The relationship between SEA and site assessment Given the clear relationship and overlap between the proposed site evaluation criteria and likely SEA topics, development of the site selection process and the SEA would proceed in
29
a co-ordinated way. The sustainability and environmental assessment work for a GDF would be developed so that it satisfied both SEA requirements and those of the site assessment and selection process. For example, the outputs from work assessing effects on biodiversity would feed into the SEA and into the site selection process.
At the end of Stage 4 the SEA will be used to inform local and national decisions about continued participation in the MRWS site selection process and which sites to take forward for surface investigations during MRWS Stage 5.
4.4 The relationship between SEA, EIA and HRA Where projects or plans are subject to the SEA or EIA Directives, the HRA (Article 6 assessments) may form part of these assessments. However, the assessments required by Article 6 should be clearly distinguishable and identified within an environmental report / environmental statement or reported separately.
Similarly, European guidance [16] makes clear that where a plan or project may have significant effects on a European Site it is also likely that both an Article 6 assessment and an EIA, in accordance with Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC, will be necessary. However, RWMD would not be undertaking an EIA during MRWS stage 4 as it would not be required for a plan level HRA. However, they will occur in parallel with project level HRAs associated with the surface based investigation programme of MRWS stage 5 and subsequent implementation of geological disposal at a preferred site during MRWS Stage 6.
This methodology follows European guidance on Article 6 assessments and has been designed to be compatible with general SEA and EIA procedures. The Article 6 assessments can be easily integrated into a full SEA or EIA of a plan, programme or project. As well as mirroring the stage-by-stage approach used in SEA and EIA, the methodology also includes other SEA and EIA procedural requirements such as:
A description of the plan or project
A description of the baseline environment where it is relevant to the conservation objectives of the European Site (e.g. soil, water, flora and fauna, climate and the interrelationships between these factors)
The identification of effects and assessment of their significance
The recording and reporting of the findings of the assessment [3].
30
31
5 Conclusions This Technical Note has described a methodology to completing assessments compliant with the Habitats Directive and Regulations, and is based on guidance from the European Commission and the Department for Communities and Local Government. The methodology describes the actions required by RWMD, competent authorities and other stakeholders to complete HRAs that are both robust to scrutiny and allow flexibility of application.
At present the HRA methodology set out in this Technical Note represents a draft approach to assessing the effects of the GDIP. This approach will be subject to further review and consultation with stakeholders ahead of MRWS Stage 4. The methodology has been reviewed by the RWMD Environmental Assessment Advisory Panel to ensure best practice and consistency with the methodology for the SEA.
References
1 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/490)
2 Therivel, R (2004) Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action
3 European Commission (November 2011) Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites: Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC
4 Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) Planning for the Protection of European Sites: Appropriate Assessment: Guidance for Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents
5 DEFRA (June 2008) Managing Radioactive Waste Safely - A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal
6 NDA (July, 2009) Geological Disposal: A Strategy for Sustainability Appraisal and Environmental Assessment (NDA – RWMD Report NDA/RWMD/014)
7 European Parliament and Council of the European Union (May, 1992) Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (Official Journal of the European Union – OJ L 206, 22.7.1992,p.7)
8 http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1374 (accessed 01.09.11)
9 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
10 Welsh Assembly Government (1996) Technical Advice Note 5 Nature Conservation and Planning
11 http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-home/main/ramsar/1%5e7715_4000_0__ (accessed 01.09.11)
12 The Convervation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2716)
13 The Conservation (Nature Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (SI 1995/380)
14 Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, No. 171 (N.I. 2) The Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, 1985
15 The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1842)
16 European Commission (2000) Managing Natura 2000 sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC
17 Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the 'Habitats Directive' 92/43/EEC
18 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/default.aspx (accessed 08.06.10)
19 http://www.ccw.gov.uk/about-ccw.aspx (accessed 08.06.10)
20 http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-snh/ (accessed 08.06.10)
21 http://www.doeni.gov.uk/index/about_us.htm (accessed 30.06.11)
22 http://www.jncc.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=5287 (accessed 06.07.10)
23 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006
24 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/default.aspx (accessed 08.06.10)
25 http://www.sepa.org.uk/about_us.aspx (accessed 08.06.10)
26 http://marinemanagement.org.uk/about/index.htm (access 30.06.11)
27 Baldwin, T., Chapman, N., Neall, F. (2008) Geological Disposal Options for High-Level Waste and Spent Fuel (Galson Sciences Limited Final Report to NDA-RWMD)
32
33
28 Hicks, T.,Baldwin, T., Hooker, P., Chapman, N., McKinley, I., and Neall, F. (2008) Concepts
for the Geological Disposal of Intermediate-Level Radioactive Waste (Galson Sciences Limited Report to NDA-RWMD, 0736-1)
29 DECC (March 2012) Managing Radioactive Waste Safely - A Framework for the desk-based identification and assessment of potential candidate sites for geological disposal
30 NDA-RWMD (2008) Consultation on a framework for sustainability appraisal and environmental assessment for geological disposal
31 European Parliament and Council of the European Union (July, 2001) Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (Official Journal of the European Community – OJ No L197, 21.7.2001, p.30)
32 NDA (January 2010) Geological Disposal: Overview of Generic Environmental and Sustainability Assessments (NDA – RWMD Report NDA/RWMD/072, ISBN 9781840294569)
Certificate No 4002929
Certificate No 4002929
Nuclear Decommissioning AuthorityRadioactive Waste Management DirectorateBuilding 587Curie AvenueHarwell OxfordDidcotOxfordshire OX11 0RH
+44 (0)1925 802820
+44 (0)1925 802932
www.nda.gov.uk
© Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 2012
t
f
w
